Will Donald J. Trump be successful in getting the black vote? Watch Jesse Jackson endorse the Donald and much more.
Donald Trump’s surprise visit to Mexico, where he met the Mexican president and discussed the many contentious issues between our two countries, reminds me of President Reagan’s important trip to Geneva in 1985. Reagan was more than willing to sit down with the Communist leader in an effort to build a personal connection between the two men without sacrificing America’s vital interests in the Cold War.
The 1985 Geneva summit was highly advertised as a potential showdown between Reagan and Gorbachev, the supposedly reasonable new Soviet leader. When it was over, Americans realized that behind Reagan’s genial affability was a steely determination to protect our country against the threat from Soviet nuclear missiles.
Just as today’s mainstream media is bent on undermining Trump’s call to put Americans first in our dealings with Mexico, the media of the 1980s (led by ABC’s Sam Donaldson and CBS’s Dan Rather) were overwhelmingly pro-Gorbachev and anti-Reagan in their daily coverage.
Left-wing celebrities from around the world converged on Geneva to support the media narrative that a stubborn President Reagan was refusing to consider Gorbachev’s reasonable proposals for world peace. Congresswoman Bella Abzug, actress Jane Alexander and the inevitable Jesse Jackson were giving daily interviews.
I led a delegation of 25 distinguished women leaders to Geneva to support Reagan and American nuclear superiority. The media didn’t give us much coverage, but President Reagan telephoned me afterwards from the White House to thank me for our support.
Reagan had been elected on a promise to “win” the Cold War against the Communist forces arrayed against America. Before Reagan, our country’s foreign policy was controlled by men like Henry Kissinger, who thought victory was impossible and that his job, as he famously told Admiral Zumwalt, was “to negotiate the most acceptable second-best position” for the United States.
After three decades of steady deterioration of America’s place in the world, Trump is the first candidate since Reagan who is comfortable using Reagan’s vocabulary of winning. Trump has pledged to make America “win” again, instead of being cheated and outmaneuvered by our adversaries and even our so-called allies.
Trump’s visit to Mexico recalls Reagan’s trip to Geneva in other ways, too. At both meetings, there was one signature position on which the American refused to budge.
Reagan’s no-surrender pledge was his unwavering commitment to the Strategic Defense Initiative, that is, to build and deploy a system to shoot down Soviet nuclear missiles headed for our cities. With Trump, it’s his rock-solid promise to build “an impenetrable physical wall” on our southern border.
Both Reagan’s and Trump’s signature ideas were purely defensive weapons to which no country could have any legitimate complaint. Reagan’s SDI was a non-nuclear weapon whose only function was to destroy or deflect incoming nuclear missiles.
Reagan stuck to that non-negotiable position at the summit with Gorbachev the following year in Reykjavik, Iceland. As we now know, that’s when Gorby realized he could never win an open competition with the United States, so that his “acceptable second-best position” was the dissolution of the USSR over the next five years.
Likewise, Donald Trump’s wall is not a provocative, but a neighborly idea to stop the rampant illegality that harms both nations along the U.S.-Mexico border. With no legitimate objection to erecting a fence, wall or other physical barrier between our two countries, Mexico should be grateful for Trump’s leadership and even agree to help pay for it.
The value of a wall begins with stopping “murderers” and “rapists” from freely entering and re-entering our country with impunity, as Trump mentioned when he announced the start of his campaign last year, but it doesn’t stop there. Felony assault by motor vehicle is another deadly crime that seems to be rampant by illegal aliens driving recklessly without the licenses or insurance that law-abiding Americans take for granted.
The wall would also stop the plague of heroin that has exploded during the last few years of the Obama administration. Deaths from heroin overdoses surpassed deaths from car crashes last year and will hit a new record this year. Most U.S. heroin is delivered by Mexicans working for the drug cartels.
Of course, most Mexican immigrants are not murderers, rapists, drunk drivers or drug dealers. But even the good, hard-working people who come here from south of the border, both legally and illegally, have such low education and skills that they can’t survive economically without massive public subsidies to provide for the care, food, shelter, health care, education and welfare of their children.
Voters finally have the opportunity to choose a president who will make America first by securing our border and ending one-sided trade deals that favor foreign workers rather than our own. Trump’s strong stance in his meeting with the Mexican president demonstrates that Donald Trump is the “choice, not an echo.”
Former Marine Darnell Anderson posted this video of an encounter he had at the Pittsburgh International Airport with another passenger.
The conversation is not only interesting but shows a shift in how the 2016 presidential election. Anderson says its not about black and white but about America.
Anderson confronts the issue of racism.
Videos constructed from public sources that show the true Hillary Clinton. All video used under the doctrine of FAIR USE.
WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — On Friday, September 9, 2016, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump will speak at the 11th annual Values Voter Summit, an event that draws thousands of grassroots activists to the nation’s capital. The next day, Vice Presidential Candidate Mike Pence will address the Summit. This will be the first time a GOP presidential ticket has addressed the event. Both major party nominees have been invited to make their case to social conservative voters.
“As the 2016 presidential election approaches, there is a growing realization among voters that the future of our freedoms and even our identity as Americans hangs in the balance. I am certain that Donald Trump and Mike Pence will underscore not only the importance of this election, but the important role conservative Christian voters have in influencing the outcome of the November election. The fact that this is the first GOP presidential ticket to attend since the Summit’s inception in 2006, demonstrates an understanding of the importance of values voters in the general election and a desire to work with them in addressing the critical issues facing our nation,” said Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins.
Confirmed speakers also include Senators Tim Scott and James Lankford, along with Governor Matt Bevin, and U.S. Reps. John Fleming, Jim Jordan, Marsha Blackburn, and Louie Gohmert. Additionally, North Carolina Lt. Gov. Dan Forest, Dr. James Dobson, actor Jon Voight, actor Kirk Cameron, Lt. Col. (Ret.) Oliver North, Duck Dynasty’s Al Robertson, Lt. Col. (Ret.) Allen West, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Lt. General (Ret.) Jerry Boykin, Sebastian Gorka, Philip Haney, and Zuhdi Jasser are among many other speakers to address attendees.
The 11th annual Values Voter Summit will be held from September 9-11 at the Omni Shoreham Hotel inWashington, D.C. FRC Action’s Values Voter Summit is co-sponsored by AFA Action, American Values, First Liberty Institute, The D. James Kennedy Center for Christian Statesmanship, United in Purpose, 2nd Vote,Oklahoma Wesleyan University, and Family Research Council. An exhibit hall, book signings, radio row, media row, and much more will be packed into this three-day conference.
On Saturday evening, FRC will present the Vision and Leadership Award to Dr. Bill Bennett at the Faith, Family, and Freedom Gala dinner. Governor Doug Ducey, Senator Tom Cotton, and Fox News’ Kimberly Guilfoyle will be speaking in honor of Dr. Bennett at the gala dinner.
ABOUT THE VALUES VOTER SUMMIT
Values Voter Summit was created in 2006 to provide a forum to help inform and mobilize citizens across America to preserve the bedrock values of traditional marriage, religious liberty, sanctity of life and limited government that make our nation strong. It has drawn over 3,000 plus attendees from around the nation and foreign countries. Garnering national and international media attention, CNN named it “one of the conservative movement’s marquee annual events” and Sean Hannity called it “the premier conservative event now in the country.”
For a schedule and more information on this year’s Values Voter Summit, please visit: http://www.valuesvotersummit.org/
Months after the Obama administration spent $19 million to register new immigrant voters that will likely support Democrats in November, it’s dedicating an additional $10 million in a final push as the presidential election approaches. The money is distributed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the Homeland Security agency that oversees lawful immigration, to organizations that help enhance pathways to naturalization by offering immigrants free citizenship instruction, English, U.S. history and civics courses. Officially, they’re known as “citizenship integration grants.”
Since 2009 USCIS has doled out $63 million in these grants to prepare more than 156,000 resident immigrants in dozens of states for U.S. citizenship, according to the agency’s figures. Besides the free classes, Uncle Sam also offers immigrants free “naturalization legal services,” the latest USCIS grant announcement states. “Recipient organizations serve both traditional immigrant destinations and new immigrant getaway cities in 21 states,” the USCIS document reads. The latest $10 million investment will prepare approximately 25,000 residents from more than 50 countries, according to the agency. More than a dozen states—including California, New York, Florida, Washington and Ohio—with large resident immigrant populations are being targeted as well as cities with huge immigrant populations such as Miami, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco and Washington D.C.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been aggressive in promoting its citizen integration grant program this year, offering large sums to recruit new groups that can offer immigrants the services they need to become citizens. Clearly, the ultimate goal is qualifying as many immigrants as possible to vote since they tend to cast ballots for Democrats. “We intend to award about $1 million to first-time recipients in the Citizenship and Integration Grant Program for fiscal year 2016,” the agency’s grant announcement states. “If you represent one of these organizations, or know of an interested organization, we strongly encourage that organization to consider applying. Additionally, another $9 million will fund programs that provide both citizenship instruction and instruction and naturalization application services.” Some might consider this a cash giveaway.
This is part of a broader, government-wide initiative launched by the president to “strengthen federal immigrant and refugee integration infrastructure.” The mission is to facilitate life in the U.S. for immigrants and refugees by enhancing pathways to naturalization, building welcoming communities and providing “mobile immigration services in underserved communities.” To carry out this important mission Obama created a special Task Force on New Americans chaired by his Domestic Policy Director, Cecilia Muñoz, the former vice president of the powerful open borders group National Council of La Raza (NCLR). Millions of taxpayer dollars have funded the task force’s various enterprises, including multilingual media campaigns promoting immigrant rights. The goal is to “strengthen civic, economic and linguistic integration and to build strong and welcoming communities,” according to a report issued by the task force. In the end communities will be strengthened by welcoming all residents, the administration assures.
Practically every federal agency is participating in the effort by contributing resources and creating programs to help immigrants. For example the Department of Labor (DOL) is implementing “new workforce programs” for the “new Americans” and the Department of Education is promoting “funding opportunities” to assure that the immigrants “are provided the tools they need to succeed.” The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is collaborating with other agencies to release a career and credentialing toolkit on “immigrant-focused career-pathways programs.” The Department of Justice (DOJ) and USCIS are making sure the new Americans have worker rights and protections and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is launching a two-year pilot to assure that non English speakers have “meaningful access to housing programs” subsidized by American taxpayers.
I am really getting fed up with the constant drumbeat of criticism of Donald Trump’s campaign, especially the criticism coming from Black Republicans. They seem to be willing to give President Obama, Hillary Clinton and our party’s leadership a pass, but when it comes to Trump, all of a sudden, they seem to have found an untapped reservoir of righteous indignation.
Yes, Trump has given his opponents plenty of reason and opportunity to criticize him, but in some ways Trump reminds me of NBA Hall of Famer Michael Jordan.
Anyone who followed Jordan’s career knows that he was not a good teammate. He was intensely critical of many of his teammates, especially when they made mistakes. Some people thought he was arrogant and sometimes even condescending to his teammates. Let’s just say he had an extremely healthy dose of his own self-worth.
But these same teammates that talked privately and anonymously to the media about Jordan were filled with effusive praise for Jordan when it came to the number of championship rings he helped them win.
So to my Never-Trumpers, in general, and the Black ones in particular, can you really make a philosophical and substantive argument that Hillary Clinton would be a better president than Trump;, especially when it comes to the Black community?
Clinton wants to give amnesty to those in the country illegally, but no one ever talks about the devastating negative impact of this policy or the effect of current immigration policies on the Black unemployment rate for low and under-skilled Blacks. Trump is the only candidate to make this argument during this whole election cycle.
Clinton wants to continue to relegate Blacks to non-performing schools versus allowing parents to take their tax dollars to whatever school they deem best for their child, even though Clinton, Obama, and most members of the Congressional Black Caucus opted for private schools for their kids. That’s not racist? Trump is a huge supporter of school choice.
These same Blacks are the ones who continue to ignorantly promote the notion that Republicans must and should speak before Democratic groups like the National Urban League, the NAACP, or the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ).
This is extremely insulting to me as a fellow Black Republican, but it is far easier for them to complain about Trump rather than provide a group of Black Republicans for Trump to engage with. We don’t need the above liberal Democratic groups to validate our leaders or to prove that they are not racists.
Following their logic, White Republicans must speak before radical pro-homosexual groups like the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) in order to prove that Republicans are not homophobic, yet no one makes this argument.
It seems that only when it comes to the Black vote do Black Republicans demand that we pay homage to those who are part of the Democratic base in order to reach out to the Black community.
Memo to the Trump campaign and the GOP: You have to start working with Black Republicans who have significant political experience and institutional memory about the party if you want to move the Black community towards the Republican party in this and future election cycles.
If you don’t believe me or you don’t want to recognize my argument, then I simply submit to you the past two weeks of constant embarrassing media appearances by supposed Black surrogates from the Trump campaign and the Republican Party as exhibit A.
This is what happens when you want to hire people who you are “comfortable” with versus those who know what the hell they are doing.
Whenever a surrogate is getting more exposure than the principal (South Carolina preacher Mark Burns), there is a problem. Whenever a campaign has to explain away something a surrogate said or did, there is a problem. Whenever the media questions the party credentials or lack thereof of a surrogate, there is a problem.
The Republican Party needs to bring the Black Republican adults onto the scene or these media debacles will continue and we will most assuredly lose the presidential election.
No longer can the Republican Party hire Blacks simply for race insurance. This is about winning the “race” for the White House, not hiring simply because of race. In my columns, over the past four years, I have warned that we would come to this impasse.
But as opposed to embracing my message, the party was too busy attacking me and attempting to discredit me for “being too critical” of the party.
Maybe those Black Republicans who have the requisite experience and institutional memory should simply self-identify as a Black Democrat; then MAYBE the party will recognize them!
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Black Press USA.
When one looks at lists of the largest donors to global political causes in the last 15 to 20 years, one name continues to pop up again and again, especially when it comes to large contributions to progressive and Democratic organizations and political action committees: George Soros.
As the world’s 27th-wealthiest individual, Soros has a net worth of nearly $25 billion, most of it located offshore. Much of that wealth has come from currency speculation and big bets in international markets that have been affected by one of Soros’ biggest side interests — politics.
In fact, given the amount of money Soros has given to progressive and liberal groups in the last 20 years — from MoveOn to Occupy Wall Street to Black Lives Matter — it seems disingenuous of Wikipedia to refer to Soros as a “philanthropist”; “global manipulator” is a more apt title.
As one of the planet’s most affluent citizens, Soros hasn’t been shy about flexing his political muscles, as atrophied as they likely are at his age of 86.
‘Shut It Down!’: Reuters Orders Cameraman To Kill Positive Trump Footage.
A shock example of anti-Trump media censorship was caught on tape when Reuters ordered its cameraman to cut live footage of Trump receiving praise from African-American Bishop Wayne T. Jackson in Detroit.
The anti-immigrant AFD pushed the Christian Democratic Union into third place in elections in Chancellor Angela Merkel’s home state.
The right wing “Alternative Fuer Deutschland” party (AFD) thrashed the ruling Christian Democratic Union party (CDU), putting them in third place in the regional elections held in German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s home state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern on Sunday, according to exit polls.
According to projection by ARD TV, the ruling left wing SDP won 30.2%, down from 35.6% in 2011. AFD won 21.9%. CDU received 19%, the party’s worst result ever in the state, down from 23% in 2011.
The AFD is making gains by opposing Merkel’s open-door immigration policies and calling for a crackdown not only on Islamic extremism but also on public expressions of Islam. Last Thursday, a member of the Thuringian state parliament for the AFD entered parliament wearing a niqab as a protest against the face veil.
“This isn’t pretty for us,” Michael Grosse-Broemer, one of Merkel’s top parliamentary deputies in Berlin told ZDF TV. “Those who voted for the AFD were sending a message of protest.”
“This is a slap in the face for Merkel — not only in Berlin but also in her home state,” Frauke Petry, co-leader of the AFD, told the press. “The voters made a clear statement against Merkel’s disastrous immigration policies. This put her in her place.”
Fears about immigrants are rising in Germany and Merkel’s approval rating has tumbled to 45%.
Contributing to this feeling were reports that at least four women were sexually assaulted at the “Essen Original” city party on Friday night. Police have warned that the attacks may be “only the tip of the iceberg.” The Essen Original party runs from September 2-4 and hosts live music over six stages throughout the city.
Police have set up a confidential hotline for women who have been attacked to come forward. Those attacked reported being surrounded by groups of four to six men of North African appearance who danced around them and groped them.
This form of sexual assault called the “taharrush game” and has been traced to large-scale attacks that took place during the Tahrir Square protests in Egypt in 2011 and 2013.
Other groups are not waiting for the ballot box but are engaging in forms of direct action. A group affiliated with the European“Identitaire” movement occupied the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin at the end of August, one of the city’s most iconic landmarks.
The Identitaire movement calls for Europeans to defend their culture against perceived attack by those they consider invaders. The protesters who occupied the gate hung a banner from it with the “Identitaire” logo and slogan and were met with chants of “Nazis out” from spectators.
Campaigns raise fear of bigotry and anti-Semitism. Where does the truth lie with regard to Clinton and Trump’s attitudes towards Jews and Israel?
As the 2016 presidential season heats up, Jewish Democrats are elevating partisan politics over concern for Israel and distorting their party’s and Hillary Clinton’s record on the Jewish State. They dismiss Donald Trump as unqualified, and in order to dissuade Jews from voting Republican have accused him of arousing populist anti-Semitism.
Trump’s bombast and lack of experience may well be legitimate concerns, but Democrats who accuse him of anti-Semitism conveniently ignore the hatred for Jews and Israel that has become common on the left and in their own party. Those who defend BDS activism as political speech and indulge false accusations of Israeli apartheid should look in the mirror before wielding the fear of anti-Semitism as a political weapon.
Progressive Jews are oblivious to anti-Semitism when it comes from the left, and sometimes they are complicit.
During the Democratic National Convention they tolerated the presence of BDS supporters – including Cornell West and James Zogby – on the platform committee, ignored chants of “the intifada lives” by hostile crowds who burned Israeli flags just outside the convention center, and overlooked anti-Israel comments by Palestinian flag-wavers.
None of this should be surprising given their unwavering support for Barack Obama – a president who’s had longstanding relationships with anti-Semites, who has shamelessly demonized Prime Minister Netanyahu using classical tropes, and whose policies have empowered Islamists, undermined Israel and enabled Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Partisan blindness has compromised their moral authority to accuse anyone of anti-Semitism by association.
Yes, some outlying Trump supporters have posted anti-Semitic drivel on social media, and it’s despicable and inexcusable. But is it any more so than the malevolent comments found over the years on progressive websites like the Daily Kos or the anti-Israel fanaticism displayed at the DNC? Or the Jew-hatred fueling the BDS and Israel Apartheid Week movements? Or the Democrats’ embrace of a revisionist Palestinian narrative that repudiates Jewish history and denies the Temple ever stood in Jerusalem?
It seems ironic that liberals who accuse Trump of bigotry would overlook the rampant, sometimes violent anti-Semitism roiling the progressive movement. They are certainly free to attack Trump’s candidacy, but it is disingenuous to claim they are motivated by fear of anti-Semitism or concern for Israel.
Progressives who assert their Jewishness to excoriate Trump are exemplars of cognitive dissonance. They tout the Democratic Party as a friend of Israel despite the hateful ranting and flag burning at the DNC. And they claim to be guardians against all forms of prejudice while validating the Palestinian Authority, which promotes racist Jew-hatred, and activist groups like Black Lives Matter, which have proclaimed anti-Semitic views.
This year’s DNC was marred by vocal disagreement over whether to include pro-Israel planks in the platform, and by hateful commentary regarding Israel from the party’s left-wing.
This was not the first time party doctrine was hijacked by bigots, but rather was business as usual. During the 2012 campaign, hatemongers imputed anti-Semitic stereotypes to Israel without fear of sanction. Incongruously, progressives who turn every politically incorrect slight into a “teaching moment” to harangue conservatives about the evils of racism are silent when faced with anti-Jewish calumnies from the left.
In contrast, the Republican National Convention boasted the most favorable platform of any party since the founding of the modern Jewish State.
The platform stated, among other things, that “the Palestinian people must support leaders who reject terror, embrace the institutions and ethos of democracy, and respect the rule of law…Israel should not be expected to negotiate with entities pledged to her destruction.” It also stated that “…radical elements like Hamas and Hezbollah must be isolated because they do not meet the standards of peace and diplomacy of the international community,” and proclaimed support for “… Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state with secure, defensible borders…with Jerusalem as its capital…”
The Democratic platform, however, was muted in its support of Israel.
It officially opposed BDS within the Green Line, but was silent regarding boycotts of Judea and Samaria, and failed entirely to recognize Israel’s historical rights in Jerusalem. Instead of honoring a stalwart ally, it reflected the erosion of Democratic support for Israel, which according to a recent Gallup poll stands at only 48%. The same poll shows an 80% approval rating for Israel among Republicans and 70% among Americans generally. Pew Research shows similar trends, with 75% of conservative Republicans supporting Israel over Palestinians compared to only 33% of liberal Democrats.
Progressive support for policies that contravene Jewish values reflects growing cultural illiteracy and the supplanting of traditional beliefs with secular ideologies. It also shows flagging commitment to Jewish self-preservation. Ironically, progressive Jews cling to their political beliefs with the same intensity their forebears devoted to traditional observance. And with this zealotry comes the compulsion to try to persuade other Jews that the left is innately philo-semitic and progressives are good for Israel. But the false symmetry between progressivism and Jewish continuity is to historical reality what pseudoscience is to empiricism.
Regarding presidential politics, liberal Jews reflexively tend to support Democratic candidates and claim that doing so is a Jewish imperative. They did so with Obama, despite his long history of consorting with anti-Semites and Israel-bashers, and they do so now with Hillary Clinton, whose record on Israel is dubious at best.
Clinton claims many Jewish backers, but they support her because they identify as Democrats first and foremost. Though they naively claim to be guided by traditional values, the agenda they support actually threatens Jewish continuity, accommodates progressive anti-Semitism, and undermines Jewish national claims. They are free to shill for Clinton, but they cannot justify their support by claiming she has an affinity for Israel or Jewish tradition. Those who claim she does cannot explain away her record, which is very troubling indeed.
Although Hillary has a knack for saying what liberal Jewish audiences want to hear, her statements do not match her actions or the company she keeps. For four years she served as Secretary of State for a president who is openly hostile and treats Israel like a banana republic. She exacerbated the 2010 Ramat Shlomo crisis by characterizing historically Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem as “settlements” and condemning the issuance of building permits there, and she wrongfully chastised Israel for the breakdown in negotiations when the Palestinians walked away from the table.
She and Obama have ignored the PA’s anti-Semitic incitement, as well as its policies of making payments to terrorist families, naming public squares after dead terrorists, and publicly opposing the concept of permanent peace with a Jewish nation. Likewise, they ignore language in the Palestinian National Charter that delegitimizes Israel, denies Jewish national character, and claims all land between the Jordan River and Mediterranean as “Palestine.”
Israel has honored all her commitments under various peace plans, including Oslo, while the Palestinian-Arabs have complied with none. Nevertheless, Clinton has ignored Israel’s unrequited concessions, publicly claiming instead that Israel lacks “generosity” and “empathy” towards Palestinians, and morally equating the murders of Israelis with the deaths of terrorists. Such comments are disingenuous, but consistent with Obama’s revisionist endorsement of Palestinian historicity and portrayal of the PA as moderate.
Clinton has also misrepresented Obama’s supposed commitment to preventing the nuclearization of Iran. As Secretary of State, she helped lay the groundwork for a deal under which Iran is continuing its nuclear and ballistic missile programs and using billions of dollars in unfrozen funds to subsidize terrorism – much of it directed at Israel through Hezbollah and Hamas.
During her tenure, Clinton also shouldered Obama’s policy of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and its proxies in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. Her conduct in Libya enabled the overthrow of Qaddafi and the assumption of power by the very Islamists who overran the Benghazi consulate and killed four Americans.
Furthermore, as shown in some recently released emails, Clinton has declined to defend Israel against verbal assault. When Max Blumenthal (son of Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal and known opponent of Israel) wrote a blog accusing the European right of emulating Israel, he referenced the Jewish State as a country “…that privileges its ethnic majority above all others to the point that it systematically humiliates and dispossesses the swarthy racial outclass.” Rather than contest this outrageous characterization, Clinton’s comment to the elder Blumenthal was: “A very smart piece – as usual.”
Clinton has also been known on occasion for politically embracing individuals with extreme views. In 2000, for example, she kissed Suha Arafat after a speech in which Arafat accused Israel of polluting Palestinian-Arab land and water with poison gas. And the Clinton Foundation, which is being scrutinized amid claims of corruption, has reportedly taken large donations from Mideast regimes with poor human rights records. Perhaps more troubling, she has in the past voiced support for UN Resolution 16/18, a proposed law that would render criticism of Islam illegal (in contravention of the First Amendment).
Nevertheless, Clinton’s campaign misdirects by painting Trump as a bigot, aided by a supportive media that portrays every wave as a Nazi salute and pushes the false narrative of Republican anti-Semitism. The media’s job, however, is to question and report – not advocate. While reporters should investigate any claims of anti-Semitism, they should be equally vested in exposing the hyperbole in allegations disseminated by a candidate whose actions and associations implicate her own biases.
Prospective voters may have legitimate concerns about Trump, but fear for Israel and anxiety over his supposed anti-Semitism should not be among them – particularly as Hillary and the Democrats have more troubling records on both counts. Those who end up voting for Hillary should at least admit they are doing so out of party loyalty, not genuine concern for Israel.
EDITORS NOTE: This op-ed column originally appeared in Israel National News.
Has the Libertarian a Party been hijacked by the globalists and the Democrats?
Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson became visibly upset during an interview Wednesday after being asked about “illegal immigration.”
While speaking with Townhall’s Guy Benson, Johnson, a former New Mexico governor, began demanding that the term “undocumented” be used in lieu of “illegal.”
Hillary doesn’t want a fair fight. Or even an unfair fight. She wants to cripple the GOP so it can’t fight at all. It’s the ultimate rigged election…
We’re a little more than two months from the November 8th election and everyone knows that all Democrats, a good number of Republicans and conservatives, and almost the entire media have been agonizing over and militating against the fact that billionaire businessman Donald Trump is the last man standing in a contest that pits him against Crooked Hillary for the presidency of the United States.
But why are no professional political commentators—on TV, radio, or in print—explaining exactly why Mr. Trump is such a mortal threat? After all, he has proven himself to be an upright citizen, a wildly successful businessman, the bestselling author of over a dozen books, a philanthropist, the father of five respectful and loving children the eldest of whom are also impressively contributory members of society, the representative of every value Republicans and conservatives traditionally stand for—low taxes, fewer regulations, secure borders, a strong military, strict conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, et al—and significantly a person who has never been accused of being complicit in the deaths of U.S. servicemen, under the ominous investigation of the FBI, or operating an international money-laundering slush fund that compromises the national security of the United States.
Here is the answer: It’s all about the deal!
Underneath the veneer of “service” our elected politicians purport to be driven by, underneath the “ethical standards” our financial centers pretend to operate, and underneath the gauzy illusion of objectivity the media pretend they represent, the so-called culture of the D.C.-Wall St.-media complex is all about cozy arrangements that inevitably line the pockets of those engaged in the following kinds of local, regional, national and international deals, to name but a few:
- pay-to-play deals
- greasy-palm deals
- foundation slush-fund deals (sound familiar?)
- mutual back-scratching deals
- hush-hush deals
- access-to-power deals
- good-stories-in-the-media deals (sound familiar?)
- bad-stories-in-the-media-about-your-political-enemies deals (yep)
- sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll deals
- immense wealth-producing lobbyist deals
- On and on…
You get the picture. In all these “arrangements,” either people with limited power (meaning with limited money, like most politicians when they start out) always get “persuaded” (meaning bought) to do what they know is wrong, but they just can’t resist the irresistible aphrodisiacs of money and power; or people with piles of money engage in schemes that increase their wealth and power exponentially. Some deals are actually legitimate, but too many dealmakers are involved in cynical collusion or corrupt collaborations.
In the political world, with notable—but pitifully few—exceptions, there is little difference between a “strict conservative” like Paul Ryan and a far-left ideologue like Nancy Pelosi. Whether it’s a deal that’s bad for America like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the dumbed down so-called standards of Common Core, or facilitating the building of nuclear bombs by the terrorist state of Iran, both left and right somehow find ways to bathe in the same swamp.
Speaking of journalists, who exactly are these seekers of truth, intrepid investigators and earnest news readers who so often seem unable to control the impulses to blurt out their own leftwing two-cents worth (read CBS’s Norah O’Donnell, the entire staff of NBC and MSNBC, Fox’s Chris Wallace and Shepard Smith, the staff of Reuters, et al)? How can they get away with their biases with such total impunity?As “Deep Throat” advised The Washington Post journalists Bob h4Woodward and Carl Bernstein during the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, “follow the money.” It’s always about the money.
It’s because, as Ashley Lutz at Business Insider reports, only six organizations are now responsible for 90 percent of all of the “news” we read, watch and listen to. That’s right—in 1983, there were 50 media companies, today only six! They include:
- GE (Comcast, NBC, Universal Pictures, Focus Features).
- NewsCorp (Fox, Wall St. Journal, NY Post, et al).
- Disney (ABC, ESPN, Pixar, Miramax, Marvel Studios)
- Viacom (MTV, Nick Jr., BET, CMT, Paramount Pictures)
- Time Warner (CNN, HBO, TIME, Warner Bros.)
- CBS (Showtime, Smithsonian Channel, NFL.com, Jeopardy, 60 Minutes)
In other words, the Shepard Smiths and Norah O’Donnells of the media world are simply obedient servants to the tastes, political predilections, and often greed of their bosses, who all happen to be globalists engaged in the massive, multibillion-dollar deals described above. They only reflect the biases of their owners, the people who pay their salaries.
The media, however, seem to be in a downward spiral. Most national news magazines are in their death throes, as is the entire dinosaur newspaper industry, including The NY Times, which still gets mention on the nightly news, but has utterly lost the credibility and cachet it once had.
What about TV’s influence, including cable? If the ratings NBC received for its Olympics coverage is any sign, this medium is being eaten alive by the likes of Netflix and other media alternatives. Gary North writes about the statistical irrelevance of cable news, citing the fact that The Drudge Report gets about one-billion page views a month. In contrast, the approximately 115,000 households in the U.S., which account for roughly 225-million adults, give cable shows like MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show and Fox News’ The Kelly File a paltry 400,000 viewers apiece—a literal drop in the viewership ocean.
“Are we supposed to believe,” Mr. North asks, “that either Ms. Maddow or Ms. Kelly has any significant influence, or even marginal relevance, for the American body politic, or body anything else?” Their audiences offset each other, he says, but “even if they reinforced each other, we could not hear them. They would still be background noise.”
Emmett Tyrell Jr., founder and editor of The American Spectator, sums it up quite neatly: “With the trashing of Donald Trump and the “celebration of a career criminal, the mainstream media have become passé.”
But they keep trying, as we see from the insults, outbursts, lies, character assassination, and general hysteria being hurled in Trump’s direction every day. The entire establishment is running scared. NY Times reporter Jim Rutenberg was all in knots a few weeks ago when he wrote—clearly with the blessing of his editors—journalists were justified in writing openly “oppositional” articles about Trump—objectivity out, bias in. Now why do you suppose those editors approved of this journalistic malpractice?
Because the Times is in on the globalist deals—big time! As are the hedge-fund moguls, the wolves of Wall Street, the political establishment both right and left, the Big Pharma honchos, all those foreign princes and sultans and tin-pot dictators, both friends and enemies of the U.S., as well as all the donors to the Clinton Foundation slush fund, who are all slurping from the same trough.
Shamefully, of the 154 meetings Ms. Hillary had during her tenure in the State Department, 85 were with donors to the Clinton Foundation—to the tune of $156 million dollars! That is how the crooked system worked quite seamlessly until Donald Trump questioned, challenged, and damned it!
A DIRE PREDICTION FOR THE “IN” CROWD
Robert Smith explains in AmericanThinker.com that a Trump victory in November “won’t end well for the global elites” who inhabit “New York, DC, Boston, and San Francisco—or wherever else ivory towers, mahogany-paneled offices, pricey secured buildings, and gated communities are found. Trump’s election would have reverberations overseas, too, in London, Paris, Berlin…”
Smith continues: “The worldview among many of our elite is anti-nation—dare we say—anti-American, anti-law and order, anti-tradition, anti-faith (with exceptions carved out for Islam), anti-durable values and enduring truths, like marriage between a man and woman, and family, as defined by a man, woman, and children. The elite, so very cosmopolitan, have evolved past antique beliefs and ways.”
In other words, a Trump victory would utterly destroy the global monopolies these poohbahs have built up over the past several decades—all those cozy deals shot to hell!
Not if Hillary wins, says Smith. “A Hillary victory means…a doubling-down by the elite, as they act with renewed zest to secure their interests—versus the national welfare. Divide to conquer.” [my bullet points below, but Smith’s words):
But if Trump wins, the nightmare for the globalists and the ones they take orders from, particularly billionaire radical leftist George Soros, is that Donald Trump is onto all the tricks and sleights-of-hand and financial hocus-pocus involved in their massive accumulation of wealth and power, and therefore will be highly successful in dismantling them.
They are terrified because TRUMP-OWES-THEM-NOTHING- HE-CANNOT-BE-BOUGHT!
One more thing: Trump—looking 20 years younger than his 70 years and exhibiting tireless energy and passion—is on the campaign trail non-stop and not depending on the self-glorifying media to get his message across.
In stark and rather pathetic contrast is 68-year-old Hillary, who most of the time looks exhausted, her hair matted, her face haggard, her outfits wildly inappropriate—such as the wool winter coat and long black slacks she wore to a fundraiser in 100-degree heat on Martha’s Vineyard—her horrific screech-owl voice producing more cringes than applause.
While numerous websites, including liberal ones, show pictures of her being helped upstairs, losing her balance, and zoning out in the middle of sentences, and articles insist that she has Parkinson’s disease, a neurological malady, or early dementia, I don’t join that chorus. As an R.N. with clinical experience, I believe that people with cancer or Parkinson’s or Type A diabetes or any number of maladies can lead active, productive, responsible lives. But her stubborn refusal to release her medical records fuels the suspicion not only that she’s hiding something but that she is simply not up to the job.
And now, publisher and editor of AmericanThinker.com, Thomas Lifson, writes in his blog that Hillary has no scheduled events until September 26th!
“Just how frail and exhausted is Hillary Clinton?” Lifson asks. “Surely, she does not need 5 weeks of rest to prepare for her presidential debate. If she did, that would be a terrible indicator of fitness for office. If you look at [her] campaign calendar… there are 15 listed events. However, if you really look at it, what you notice is that Secretary Clinton is not actually attending 14 of these events; they are being attended by surrogates. Go check for yourself.”
ALMOST—BUT NO CIGAR
The craven cabal of the Obama regime—or cartel as Trump calls them—has almost gotten away with opening our borders to anyone who crosses them, including jihadists whose only goal is to murder Americans, but who Democrats plan to register to vote by the millions.
They’ve almost gotten away with socializing our medical and our educational systems, both of which seem to be imploding on their own, thank you.
They’ve almost gotten away with trampling on the Judeo-Christian moral foundation that has elevated our country to among the loftiest in the world; demoralizing the heroic police forces that protect us day and night, 365; undermining our once-vibrant and strong military into a laboratory of preposterous, politically-correct positions and postures; spitting consistently on our magnificent Constitution; and compromising our once-flourishing system of capitalism and free markets. This is the short list.
I say almost because the forces I’m describing are essentially incompetent, as proven by their utter failures for over five decades! They’ve tried. They’ve had the media on their side. They’ve had untold billions backing their anti-American (and did I mention anti-Semitic?) schemes.
And yet, one man comes along, throws their p.c. speech out the window, speaks truth to power, exposes their malevolent plots, and all of them squeal like stuck pigs and double down on their efforts to keep the old corrupt network in place by defeating him in November. Don’t tell me you haven’t noticed that every Trump event attracts multi-thousands of enthusiastic supporters, while Ms. Hillary has trouble attracting even 100 probably-paid-for supporters. Does the media report this dramatic disparity? Never.
THE ART OF THE STEAL
But liberals are an obdurate lot, and their goal is not to win but to steal the election. After all, who but Democrats have elevated election fraud to a virtual art form? Every time they’re losing, they magically find several bags of uncounted votes to put their candidate just barely over the top.
Remember ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), the crooked group that received $53 million in federal funds and engaged in massive voter fraud, including registering dead voters or voters with the names of various Disney cartoon characters? The group was finally outed by conservative activists Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe who used hidden cameras to expose ACORN employees advising them how to avoid taxes, et al. The U.S. Congress cut ACORN’s funding and the group eventually disbanded, but continued to operate—to this day—under new names.
Clearly, this is one organization the Trump organization should watch with eagle-eyed vigilance!
In a stunning, must-read, three-part series—here, Part 1 by Katy Grimes, here, Part 2 by Megan Barth and here, Part 3 by Katy Grimes, Grimes begins with a chilling quotation from Joseph Stalin: ”…The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.”
Grimes and Barth report the massive election fraud that took place during the California primary in June (2016).
- Thousands upon thousands of California voters showed up at their designated polling stations only to discover that their party registration had been changed, or they were dropped entirely from the rolls. And it was evident this was done from within the state’s electronic voting system.
- “A group from Princeton needed only seven minutes and simple hacking tools to install a computer program on a voting machine that took votes for one candidate and gave them to another,”
- Recent DNC delegate manipulations made it so nearly every primary and caucus magically favored Hillary Clinton, despite the millions of winning votes going to Sanders” [and the probability that he won].
- Recently, three liberal federal judges (two appointed by Pres. Clinton, one by Barack Obama) overturned voter-ID laws—in Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Texas—claiming they were racially discriminatory.
Of course, we all know what happened in the fiasco of a 2012 presidential election, largely as a result of liberals’ aversion to voter identification cards. According to writer Rev. Austin Miles:
- Voting machines, supplied by George Soros, were rigged to automatically receive an Obama vote, no matter who the voter actually voted for.
- In 59 voting districts in the Philadelphia region, Obama received 100% of the votes with not a single vote recorded for Romney. (A mathematical and statistical impossibility).
- In St. Lucie County, FL, there were 175,574 registered eligible voters but 247,713 votes were cast.
- NOTE: Obama won in every state that did not require a Photo ID and lost in every state that did require a Photo ID in order to vote.
Barth says: “If the DNC was willing and able to rig a primary election, what would prevent them from doing the same in a national election—-especially in the battleground states of Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin”?
She cites a study on Democrat fraud in multiple states, the conclusion of which was that election fraud is occurring and benefitting Hillary Clinton—especially in states that use unaccountable, electronic voting machines.
The Heritage Foundation has published a detailed list of approximately 200 cases of voter fraud from across the country.
Sit down for this one: “What’s more, two of the three companies that control the electronic voting machine market, Dominion Voting and H.I.G. Capital (i.e. hart Intercivic) are on the list of big money donors that donated to the Clinton campaign, as shown by the DNC documents leaked by Guccifer 2.0.”
These stories are nowhere to be found in the mainstream media. Either is this video of a Diebold machine spitting out incorrect votes.
Here’s another stunner. According to Dean Garrison at dcclothesline.com, not only did Reuters rig a major poll to show Hillary winning when Breitbart News was reporting a 17-point swing towards Trump and away from Hillary, but now we learn that Thomas Reuters, owner of the Reuters News Service, is among the top-tier donors ($1.5 million) to the Clinton Foundation!
Reuters is not alone. When was the last time you heard a poll result from ABC-TV that had Trump in the lead? Yet look at this report from the network itself, posted less than two weeks ago, on August 17, 2016.
This is why Donald Trump’s warnings about possible voter fraud in November are right on target.
This is why Donald Trump’s warnings about possible voter fraud in November are right on target.
So far, in spite of the virtual assault on Donald Trump by the media, nothing has worked to diminish his popularity. So desperate are the powers-that-be to maintain the corrupt status quo, and to defeat the biggest nemesis they’ve ever faced, that they’ve enlisted the top tech companies in the world—Apple, Twitter, Google and Instagram—to defeat the dreaded Donald Trump, writes Liz Crokin in Observer.com.
“Apple isn’t the only corporation doing Clinton’s bidding. Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said Clinton made a deal with Google and that the tech giant is `directly engaged’ in her campaign.” She says that Eric Schmidt—chairman of Alphabet, the parent company of Google—is also on board with the Clinton machine. Assange claims this was to ensure Clinton had the “engineering talent to win the election.”
“Twitter is another culprit,” Crokin says, by banning conservatives and Trump supporters and changing “its algorithms to promote Clinton while giving negative exposure to Trump.”
Buzzfeed, too, is in on the biased reporting, and Instagram “has also banned accounts that depict Clinton in a negative light.” Then there is Facebook, which “has a long history of shutting down pages and blocking conservative users while promoting progressive voices…”
CNN, of course is a leader of dishonest reporting. The other day, Crokin reports, “CNN set aside nearly half of its air time…to various recent controversies involving the Trump campaign—1 hour, 24 minutes, and 18 seconds over three hours.” In contrast, the program only devoted 27 seconds to news that the Obama administration secretly airlifted $400 million in cash to Iran, or that “the payment was sent on `an unmarked cargo plane.’ [CNN], therefore, devoted over 187 times more coverage to Trump than to the millions to Iran.”
WHAT TO DO
And Mr. Trump should remember what writer Daniel Greenfield spells out in exquisite detail:
“Hillary Clinton has never won an honest election. And she isn’t about to start trying to win one now. Her favorite kind of race is rigged. Deeply unpopular and deemed untrustworthy by huge numbers of voters, she plans to win by panicking Republicans into abandoning Trump to `save’ themselves. Her weapon of choice is the media.”
Greenfield continues, “Hillary doesn’t want a fair fight. Or even an unfair fight. She wants to cripple the GOP so it can’t fight at all. It’s the ultimate rigged election….
“The game has been rigged in all the familiar ways, from media bias to voter fraud, but only Republican defeatism can hand her the White House.”
Our special guest on Enemies of the State is Ann Corcoran an expert on the United Nations refugee resettlement program and fellow at the Washington, D.C. based Center for Security Policy. We discuss Donald Trump’s immigration policy statements, the impact of criminal immigration and refugee resettlement to the U.S.
Please take the time to view this special interview with Ann. Learn and then take action!
For years the Obama administration has been conducting a non-effort war effort against the Taliban, Isis and other Muslim terrorist groups in Afghanistan, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, as well as here in the United States. In fact, the president and his cronies in Congress and the U.S. State Department all have one thing in common. They have so far refused to allow the military to go hard after Muslim terrorists around the world. Specifically, they have made it almost impossible for our military to properly do the job of killing menacing enemies and break things, because of politically correct rules of engagement. Thus they prevent our mighty soldiers from imposing their will upon Islamic terrorists who are forcing themselves upon every nation that allows them to.
In addition, there is the rampant Muslim practice of raping boys and women. I cannot leave out the fact that millions of black Christians and even black Muslims are living out their horrific days in chains as forced labor and sex slaves. Why there has not been a world wide effort to squelch the Islamic threat to civilization is way beyond me and my usually immense ability understand situations as they arise. But one thing is for sure, as America has by design been drifting away from her core common sense and Christian principles, she has been saddled with a litany of stupid and in some cases detrimental decisions. Thus endangering our national sovereignty and personal unalienable rights.
The Constitution of the United States plainly states, We The People of the United States in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United states of America. Article III Section three of the Constitution says Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt Act, or a confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood or Forfeiture except during the Life of the person attained. Not only has the Obama administration both adhered to our enemies, (Iran comes to mind) but has given them both aid and comfort. Iran comes to mind again, along with illegal immigrants with Isis terrorists in their midst. During the so-called negotiations with Iran Secretary of State John (Lurch) Kerry did nothing but adhere to every single demand the Islamic enemy leaders of that nation uttered. In total, somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 billion dollars was handed over to Iran. Recently, the Imam in the White House admitted that he realized that at least some of the money given to Iran will be used to fund terrorists. This after Iran for years has been chanting death to America and Israel. Iranians have added the boastful threat of blasting the United States mainland with long range missiles.
If Obama’s money handover to an enemy like Iran that is actively working with and funding bigoted American hating Islamic terrorists isn’t treason, then we need to apologize to Benedict Arnold. Not only is President Obama guilty of treason, but Secretary of State John Kerry is guilty as well. In an appearance in Bangladesh Kerry plainly stated that the media could “do us all a service” if they didn’t cover terrorism “quite as much.” “No country is immune from terrorism, “Kerry said at a press availability in Dhaka, Bangladesh. “It’s easy to terrorize. Government and law enforcement have to be correct 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. But if you decide one day your going to be a terrorist and your willing to kill yourself, you can go out and kill some people. You can make some noise. Perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn’t cover it quite so much. People wouldn’t know what’s going on.”
If Kerry’s request wasn’t so insane, it would be hilarious. Could you imagine the outcry that would occur if the Secretary of State during the Reagan administration had requested the media not cover the atrocities the communist the communist government of Poland or Russia waged against the citizens of those nations at that time?
Unfortunately, the current administration and the elite leadership in the House and senate are void of common sense and honor. The U.S. Justice Department and State Department are similarly plagued with dishonor and I must add a severe lack in the willingness to act first and foremost on behalf of protecting We the People or American interests in general. The shameful effort to hear no evil, see no evil or not wanting evil reported is reflective of an unwise, unpatriotic and an unwillingness to defeat enemies who are acting on their threat to defeat America and wipe Israel off the map. To place the interests of our enemies above the need to defeat those enemies is the real unwise legacy of the Obama administration that must be taken into consideration, considering that fact that Mrs. Clinton wants to carry on the destructive missions of the Obama regime.
EDITORS NOTE: For real wisdom, please join Ron Edwards Fridays at 2:00 PM PST, 5:00 PM EST on AM 1180 KCKQ Reno, Nev. Or www.americamatters.us as I Blow Away the Myths and Reveal the Truth.