London’s Muslim mayor pledges to help Hillary beat Trump

“I think what we’ve shown — and I hope it’s a lesson that Hillary and others in America take on board, hope does ‘trump’ fear, forgive the pun.” How absolutely grand. The hard-Left routinely derides those who are concerned about jihad terrorism for their “fear,” as if being afraid of being murdered by Islamic jihadis were some kind of character defect. Very well. They elected Sadiq Khan, and Hillary Clinton may well be elected also by campaigning against “fear,” and we will all march unafraid into our glorious multicultural future. Including, of course, Islamic jihad terrorists.

Sadiq Khan MP at Westminster, London, Britain - 11 Oct 2012

“Sadiq Khan pledges to help Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump,” by Jon Stone, The Independent, May 12, 2016:

Sadiq Khan has offered to help Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump – pledging his successful campaign as a “template” to hers.

Mr Khan, the new Mayor of London, said he had successfully beaten the Conservatives’ “Donald Trump approach” to elections in last weeks’ vote.

“I think what we’ve shown — and I hope it’s a lesson that Hillary and others in American [sic] take on board, hope does ‘trump’ fear, forgive the pun,” he told reporters at the capital’s City Hall, according to the Politico website.

He said he was planning to travel to the US before the end of the year due to the threat of Mr Trump’s proposed policy of banning all Muslims from traveling to the US.

Mr Khan’s election has attracted interest from around the world on account of his election as the first Muslim mayor of a major western capital city.

Mr Trump, the presumptive nominee for the Republican presidential candidacy, commented on Mr Khan’s election by saying he would make an exception for him to visit the US.

But Mr Khan rejected the offer. “The idea of making an exception for me because I’m the Mayor of London demonstrates how little they understand,” he said.

Like failed Conservative mayoral candidate Zac Goldsmith, Mr Trump has been accused of running a “racist” campaign by singling out people for travel bans on account of their faith.

Mr Goldsmith was accused of using “dog whistle” tactics to repeatedly draw attention to Mr Khan’s Muslim faith – as well as attempts to link him with Islamic extremists….


Muslim “Sharia patrols” terrorize Copenhagen bars in “Sharia zone”

Australian judge to jury in jihadi’s trial: “Islam is not on trial here”

Rudy Giuliani Heading Immigration Commission under Trump Administration?

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — In an interview on Fox News on Wednesday, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump floated the idea of creating a commission to conduct a top to bottom review of current immigration policy. After eight years in which U.S. immigration policy has been dictated by a small group of ethnic advocates and powerful business interests, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) welcomes the formation of a commission that considers the interests and ideas of the primary stakeholders in U.S. immigration policy: the American people.

“The public interest has been glaringly absent from the debate about immigration reform for far too long,” notedDan Stein, president of FAIR. “Under the Obama administration the interests of the American people in immigration policy were not just ignored; they were actively and aggressively undermined. If and when a commission is assembled, FAIR suggests participants include a broad spectrum of law enforcement officials including elected sheriffs, ICE and Border Patrol personnel and the organizations that represent them, Americans displaced by foreign guest workers and groups that advocate on their behalf. Lastly, a commission must include immigration reform groups like FAIR that lend decades of expertise advocating on behalf of the American people.”

FAIR believes that the starting point for any effort designed to reform our nation’s immigration policies must be to define a public interest objective for immigration in the 21st century. “For the past 50 years we have not defined what national interests we seek to advance through immigration. It is the only public policy that lacks a clear goal, which is why every attempt to reform immigration policy has failed. Until we define what our goals are, reform efforts will continue to be divisive exercises in futility,” said Stein.

FAIR also cautions that creating a commission to come up with policy objectives and other recommendations should not delay the next administration from rolling back the countless executive actions taken by the Obama administration to circumvent statutory limits on immigration, grant quasi-legal status to illegal aliens, and hamstring immigration law enforcement. There are countless things the next administration can do immediately to restore integrity and credibility to an immigration enforcement system that has been decimated by an administration that has put its political agenda ahead of its responsibilities to the American people and the Constitution.


FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of concerned individuals who believe that our immigration laws must be reformed to better serve the needs of current and future generations.

With a support base that includes nearly 50 private foundations and over 250,000 diverse members and activists, FAIR is free of party loyalties and special interest connections.

For more than 35 years, FAIR has been leading the call for immigration reform by offering and advocating solutions that help reduce the harmful impact of uncontrolled immigration on national security, jobs, education, health care, and our environment.

RELATED ARTICLE: Donald Trump: Rudy Giuliani for ‘radical Islam’ commission –

This Is Why Republicans Continue to Lose the Black Vote

I am now beginning to question whether there is room for Blacks in this Republican Party. The recently ended Republican primary tells me the answer is “no,” but when party leaders are questioned about it, the answer is always “yes.”

Between the Republican National Committee (RNC), the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the National Republican Campaign Committee (NCCC), all the state parties, all the 527 political action committees, the Republican Governor’s Association, etc., there are about fifty Black staffers that I am aware of and probably upwards of 90 percent of those work for a member of congress, thus most Republican entities have no Black staffers, advisors, or consultants.

Republicans will counter that Blacks are an insignificant part of primary voters (about 2 percent), which is factually true, but that should not prevent the hiring of Black staffers, advisors, or consultants during this process.

Implicit in this bogus argument is that Blacks should only be hired to engage with the Black community. I totally reject this approach. As a matter of fact, if a campaign has a limited budget, they are better served by hiring a Black staffer over a White staffer.

Blacks, out of necessity, are forced to live in two worlds simultaneously. We have to be able to live and function within the Black community (where most of us live); but we must also be able to navigate the white community (where most of us work).

Most whites could not navigate the Black community effectively since most have absolutely no relationship within the community. So, by hiring a Black staffer, you get a two-fer. I find this an extremely compelling reason to hire a Black staffer.

To my utter and total dismay, every Republican presidential campaign other than one gets a failing grade on the issue of Black staffers.

You never hear the few Black Republicans who have a media platform talk about the lack of Black staffers within every level of the Republican Party. They are too caught up waiting for the proverbial pat on the head from their overseers.

You rarely, if ever, see them take a principled stand against the party when it comes to the invisible Black man.

You see them on CNN mouthing all the words they are told to speak and not bringing light to a party that is lurking in the dark.

According to the Gallop, “almost two-thirds of blacks identify as Democrats, with most of the rest identifying as independents. Only 5 percent of Blacks nationwide identify as Republicans.” This means about 29 percent of Blacks label themselves as “Independent.” In business, this 29 percent is called a “target market.”

Did we really need an autopsy report after the 2012 election to tell us what needed to be done to diversity our party? This was a cheap political stunt to give the party cover, because they didn’t really want to address the reality starring them in the face.

In typical Republican fashion, they appointed two minorities, one Black and one Hispanic, as co-chairs (the other three being Whites) of the committee. Then they had a White as the national face of the report who did most of the media interviews after the report was released.

This little fact is exhibit “A” in how Republicans just don’t get it. Why would they not have the Black and Hispanic as the face of the report to engage with the media? Duh!

Even when they try to do the right thing, they do it the wrong way.

The one person who understands these issues is the one person the Republican establishment tried to defeat, Donald J. Trump. He constantly talks about engaging with the Black community, he constantly talks about how illegal immigration has devastated the Black community, he constantly talks about how the Obama administration has been disastrous for Blacks and he has hired “real” Blacks and put them in positions of power.

Trump has substantively talked about the Black community more than the sum total of the 16 candidates he defeated. Yes, you heard me correctly.

Trump’s national spokesperson, Katrina Pierson, is all over TV speaking on behalf of the campaign. The visual of a Black female being the face of a presidential campaign is unprecedented and very powerful. Neurosurgeon and former presidential candidate, Dr. Ben Carson, is leading Trump’s vice presidential search; I can’t recall a Black ever serving in this position for any other Republican nominee.

The Republican Party has no Blacks that ever speak for the various entities listed above, so please don’t get mad when the Democrats label our party as racist; visually and optically, we are; on policy, not so much.

Democrats and Republicans are trying to brand Trump as racist, sexist, and a xenophobe. If these claims are true, I hope he continues to live up to those characterizations; because if he does, he will be sworn in as the 45th president of these United States.

If you don’t believe what I am saying, maybe you will believe one of Trump’s long-time employees, Lynne Patton. This video says it all.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Black Press USA.

London Muslim mayor: ‘Trump’s ignorant view of Islam could make both of our countries less safe’

Well, that didn’t take long. London elects a Muslim who opposes “extremism” as mayor, and almost immediately he issues a veiled threat: Trump must drop his “ignorant view of Islam,” i.e., he must change his stance regarding Muslim immigration, or else the U.S. and the U.K. will be less safe. So a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration in order to try to prevent jihad terror attacks in the U.S. will only lead to jihad terror attacks in the U.S. Khan is in effect saying “Let Muslims in — or else.” Yet letting in Muslim immigrants, in light of the fact that there is no way to distinguish jihadis from peaceful Muslims, will also lead to jihad terror attacks.

Also, what “ignorant view of Islam” has Donald Trump ever expressed? He has simply made the quite sensible and true observation that there is no way to keep jihadis out while letting Muslims in. Can Sadiq Khan dispute that? Would he even care to?

What an interesting statement, in any case: for Khan, ignorance of Islam is unsafe. One must have “knowledge” of Islam, that is, one must adhere to the politically correct Islam-Is-Peace and Muslims-Are-Victims line in order to be safe.

The implications of this are far-reaching. Presumably then to point out that Islam has doctrines mandating warfare against unbelievers and their subjugation renders one unsafe — and unsafe in what way? Why, it makes you liable to be attacked by Muslims who are enraged because you don’t believe Islam is peaceful. So for Khan, one must believe that Islam is a Religion of Peace, or risk being attacked by violent Muslims.


Sadiq Khan

“London’s New Mayor Warns Trump: Let In Muslims Or They Will Attack America,” by Blake Neff, Daily Caller, May 10, 2016 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

…“Donald Trump’s ignorant view of Islam could make both of our countries less safe – it risks alienating mainstream Muslims around the world and plays into the hands of extremists,” he said. “Donald Trump and those around him think that Western liberal values are incompatible with mainstream Islam – London has proved him wrong.”

While Khan touted the liberal values of British Muslims, some polls have found worrying indicators that their assimilation is incomplete. A poll in April, for instance, found that two-thirds of British Muslims would not tell the government if a friend or family member became involved with extremists. Half of them said homosexuality should be illegal and over 20 percent supported establishing sharia in the U.K.


As Iran repeats that US is its chief enemy, Kerry tries to drum up some business in Europe for Iran

Germany: Muslim migrant sexually assaults 6-year-old boy in changing room


Hindus ask gods to ‘help Trump save humanity from Islamic terrorism’

“The whole world is screaming against Islamic terrorism” — except, that is, virtually all the leaders of the Western world, who make it their top priority after every jihad terror attack to tell the public that the massacre had nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.

Hindus Trump

“Divine intervention? Indian Hindus ask gods to help Trump,” Associated Press, May 11, 2016:

NEW DELHI (AP) — Donald Trump may find it tough to get Republican leaders behind his campaign, but he’s got some faraway fans trying to get the gods on his side.

Around a dozen members of a right-wing Indian Hindu group lit a ritual fire and chanted mantras Wednesday asking the Hindu gods to help Trump win the U.S. presidential election….

“The whole world is screaming against Islamic terrorism, and even India is not safe from it,” said Vishnu Gupta, founder of the Hindu Sena nationalist group. “Only Donald Trump can save humanity.”


Turkey threatens to “send the refugees” if European Parliament doesn’t allow visa-free travel in Europe for Turks

Hamas-linked CAIR threatens suit as Citadel denies hijab for Muslim cadet

Civil War: America’s Enemies Hiding in Plain Sight

Russian born American writer and novelist Ayn Rand wrote, “The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other – until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country’s official ideology.”

Janie Johnson posted the above photo of Black Lives Matter (BLM) protestors on her Twitter page. Janie wrote, “On [the] bottom of the signs is the inscription: To see who printed them, go to: .”

The organization that printed these BLM posters is the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP-USA). The stated strategic approach of the RCP-USA is to:

“Fight the Power, and Transform the People, for Revolution…to take up a revolutionary viewpoint and revolutionary values and morals as they join with others to resist this system’s crimes and build up the basis for the ultimate all-out revolutionary struggle to sweep this system away and bring in a whole new way of organizing society, a whole new way of being…to become emancipators of humanity.” [Emphasis RCP-USA]

The RCP-USA signs brought to mind several banners carried by BLM protestors in Ferguson, Missouri.


Robert Spencer in his November 2014 column Islamic supremacist groups connect their jihad to Ferguson riots wrote:

In the photo above (thanks to Kay), Leftist demonstrators relate the strife in Ferguson to the “Palestinian” jihad. And Pamela Geller has a great deal of information on how Islamic jihadists and supremacists, including the Hamas-linked terror organization CAIR, have tried to co-opt the Ferguson riots as part of their own jihad. Most noteworthy is the active presence in Ferguson of “Palestinian” jihad activist Bassem Masri.

The connection between Ferguson and “Palestine” (and the global jihad in general) is clear: both the Islamic supremacists and the Ferguson rioters think that the American system is corrupt and must be brought down.

isis banner ferguson

Islamic State banner carried by Black Lives Matter protestors in Ferguson, Missouri. Photo: CNN

In a November 2014 column Ferguson: The beginning of an American Intifada I wrote:

This spiral of death and destruction scenario is used across the globe to incite riots, mayhem and violence. It is used to recruit those with real or perceived grievances against those in authority. It is being used by the Islamic State to recruit in Ferguson, Missouri.

Ferguson is the beginning of the American intifada in the black community. This same strategy is being used by terrorist organizations like HAMAS, Hezbollah, Boko Haram and al Qaeda. Grab the headlines and make your point via political violence. The problem is the narrative is routinely false, even based upon lies, but by the time the facts are presented it is too late. The damage has already been done.

Lessons learned from Ferguson:

  1. Appeasement of the protesters leads to more violence.
  2. Coalitions of outside organizations including radical homosexual, Muslim and minority groups makes for a deadly mix.
  3. The targets are the law and law enforcement. The demand is for two legal systems, one for minorities and one for whites.
  4. The creation of no-go zones where police and firefighters cannot or will not go due to the threat of violence.
  5. The manipulation of the media in the name of “equality” and “social justice” to create a scenario where a radical agenda may be furthered that denies both.
  6. The use of violence even when blacks, like President Obama, call upon their fellow blacks to be non-violent.
  7. The creation of a atmosphere where law enforcement officers will hesitate to enforce the law or ignore the law in order not to become a target.
  8. Lawlessness with an anarchist’s political objective – to destroy the status quo.

A race war is upon America because some minorities want it more than they want to be Americans.

I fear that these groups will once again come together in Cleveland to disrupt the Republican National Convention and Donald Trump’s nomination. This Red/Green/Rainbow alliance has already showed itself at Trump rallies. The Red/Green/Rainbow alliance is emboldened and becoming more violent.

These protestors want to bring a civil war to America in order to fundamentally transform the country. 

America is a land of laws and requires order. Protest if one wishes but to become violent demands police action and people, organizations and institutions to be held accountable.

We shall see what happens in Cleveland. Stay tuned.


The Conservative Lessons of ‘Captain America – Civil War’

An Economist Explains Why America Is Moving Toward Totalitarianism

RELATED VIDEO: Walter Williams on the Rise of Socialism | The Daily Signal

Why Do We Believe These Pathological Liars? by B.K. Marcus

How do you feel when someone lies to you?

It probably depends on who is doing the lying. A stranger’s fabrications may not phase you, but dishonesty from a friend or lover can end the relationship. The more you feel the liar is supposed to be “on your side,” the more his or her deceptions feel like betrayal — unless, it turns out, the lies come from a politician you support.

When I shared a link on Facebook to Rick Shenkman’s article “Why Are Trump Voters Not Bothered by His Lies?” someone immediately replied by asking, “Why are Hillary voters not bothered by her lies?” Why, in other words, focus on only one mendacious candidate when lying to voters seems like a prerequisite for running for office?

Shenkman, who is the editor of and the author ofPolitical Animals: How Our Stone-Age Brain Gets in the Way of Smart Politics, might respond with his claim that Trump “has told more lies than any other leading political figure probably ever has.” But his article is in fact about neither Trump’s astonishing number of fibs nor his supporters’ astonishing tolerance for them; it is about how widespread both such lying and such tolerance are across party lines and throughout the era of mass-media mass democracy.

Shenkman is writing for a left-leaning readership, thus his headline’s righteous indignation toward a right-wing candidate, but most of the examples he gives are of deliberately deceitful Democrats. He starts with candidate Kennedy’s campaign claim that the Soviets had more nuclear missiles than the United States:

He continued to insist that there was a missile gap to the Soviet’s advantage even after he was briefed by General Earl Wheeler that there wasn’t. After the election his secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, told the press on background that a study had found there was no missile gap, leading to blaring headlines the next morning.

JFK’s reaction? He ordered his press secretary, Pierre Salinger, to tell the media that there had been no study and that there was a gap. The truth was that JFK himself didn’t take his own rhetoric about the missile gap seriously. At cabinet meetings he cracked on numerous occasions, “Who ever believed in the missile gap” anyway?

Four years later, President Johnson “told the American people that the North Vietnamese were guilty of making repeated unprovoked attacks on [US] naval vessels in the Tonkin Gulf.” As with Kennedy, we know that Johnson was being dishonest, not mistaken. “Hell,” LBJ told an aide, “those dumb stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish.”

Shenkman barely touches on Nixon’s perfidy in Watergate and never mentions Nixon aide John Ehrlichman’s 1994 interview, admitting that the war on drugs was not about crime or health but was rather a politically motivated attack on war protestors and American blacks. “Did we know we were lying about the drugs?” said the president’s former domestic affairs advisor. “Of course we did.”

And while he may have given Ms. Clinton a pass, Shenkman does mention the millions of supporters who refused to believe the allegations against her husband “until prosecutors revealed they possessed [Monica Lewinsky’s] infamous blue dress.”

No one should be shocked by the frequency of politicians’ duplicity, but it is frustrating when a candidate is caught in an undeniable falsehood and his or her supporters never waiver.  Our political culture expects politicians to perjure and prevaricate left and right, but that doesn’t make their deceptions defensible. So where is the outrage?

“Our brains are partisan,” Shenkman writes:

While we are quick to seize on the misstatements of other candidates, we give them a pass when it’s our own. When the social scientist Drew Westen put voters in an MRI machine he discovered that their brains quickly shut off the flow of information contrary to their beliefs about their favorite candidates. The neurons actively involved in the transmission of this information literally went inactive.

It’s not just the political candidates who are lying. So are the voters. “We lie,” Shenkman points out, “about our unwillingness to put up with lies.”

If politicians keep lying and voters keep shrugging it off, isn’t that an indictment of democracy? Aren’t voters supposed to act as a check on the people in power?

In theory, an election is supposed to be more than a popularity contest. Candidates are supposed to represent an approach to policy making, which is in turn supposed to reflect both facts and a theory of cause and effect. What we have instead is a formalized tribalism, us versus them, facts be damned.

Shenkman assures the reader that the liars don’t get away with it forever, but his evidence for that conclusion is questionable. Johnson and Nixon are remembered as liars by both Democrats and Republicans, but the reckoning for Gulf of Tonkin and Watergate are outliers in the steady stream of deception flowing out of DC and the state capitals. Meanwhile, Mssrs Kennedy and Clinton will be remembered more for deceiving their wives than the voters.

Westen’s research on cognitive dissonance and party politics is troubling, but well before there was any hard data on how voters process unwanted facts, the theory of rational ignorance told us why so many facts are so unwanted: to the individual voter, the cost of acquiring the relevant knowledge far outweighs the practical benefits of knowing the truth when casting a ballot.

In contrast, the benefits of supporting a candidate accrue, not from any actual effect on the electoral outcome, but largely from the signaling that it provides the voter: this is the sort of person I am, and these are the sorts of causes I support. Symbolic affiliation isn’t dependent on the truth of any particular facts, so why should we expect inconvenient falsehoods to change anyone’s political alignment?

As I wrote in “Too Dumb for Democracy?” (Freeman, spring 2015), “getting an issue like the minimum wage terribly wrong takes no work and has the immediate payoff of feeling like you’re on the side of the angels. It also solidifies your standing within your own ideological tribe. Bothering to understand supply and demand … offers no practical reward after you pull the lever in the election booth.”

The lies we care the least to uncover are precisely those for which the cost of caring outweighs the benefits of our vigilance. That describes almost anything we may ever be asked to vote on. But when knowing the truth directly matters to the decisions we make every day — the truth about our jobs, our homes, our families and loved ones — the relative benefits of knowing the truth are far greater, and we therefore penalize the liars in our lives. Cognitive dissonance may be a barrier to accepting hard truths, but even cognitive dissonance is price sensitive.

The more decisions we cede to the political process, the less we should expect anyone to protect our interests. Even we don’t bother to do it, because the rules of the game — majority rules — render our efforts ineffectual. Worse than that: we’re not even rewarded for knowing what policies really are or aren’t in our best interest.

The truth can win out, but it’s a lot less likely in an election.

B.K. MarcusB.K. Marcus

B.K. Marcus is editor of the Freeman.

“Ryan — Endorse Trump on Thursday,” says Professor Victor Williams

BETHESDA, Md. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Speaker Paul Ryan’s Wisconsin congressional seat is now in play. Washington, D.C. law professor Victor Williams informs on the outcome if he even hedges on his January pledge to endorse Donald Trump.

In response to a direct question from the Today Show’s Matt Lauer, on January 13, asking if the Speaker would support Donald Trump as the GOP nominee, Ryan solemnly pledged:

Yes, I will. I’ll support whoever our nominee is.”

Ryan deliberately “blindsided” our party’s presumptive nominee with his recent reluctance.

Paul Davis Ryan can be easily replaced – as the Cleveland Convention ceremonial chair and as Wisconsin’sfirst district congressman,” Williams asserted.

Contrast Paul Ryan’s Reluctance with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s Immediate Endorsement.  Chris Christie is the Model of a Loyal 2016 Republican. 

“Where is Speaker Ryan’s honor?  Does a solemn, public pledge mean nothing?  And what about honoring the millions of Republican voters, in state after state, who chose Trump?

Williams contrasts Paul Ryan’s reluctance with the honorable conduct of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.  As a former competitor, Christie not only immediately endorsed Trump but then actively campaigned for him.

Now Governor Christie has stepped-up to the arduous task of serving as Team Trump’s Transition Chair. “Chris Christie is the model 2016 Republican,” Williams said.

Williams Remains Trump’s Last GOP Competitor to Resolve the New Jersey Cruz Ballot Eligibility Litigation. But Williams is Already Planning a HUGE Trump Endorsement.

Victor Williams is the law professor who launched an anti-Cruz “write-in” campaign for the nomination establishing “competitor candidate standing” to legally challenge the Canadian-born Ted Cruz’s ballot eligibility.

Williams is playing out the resulting litigation (Williams v. Cruz) in a New Jersey appellate court in attempt to bring final resolution to the “natural born Citizen” controversy, and to remind that the Vice-President nominee must also be eligible.

Thus Victor Williams  an early Trump supporter — will remain a formal, legal  candidate during the litigation’s progress.

Even as Trump’s last GOP competitor, however, Williams is actively planning how best to celebrate his own formal endorsement of the presumptive nominee.

Paul Ryan Should Remember Eric Cantor

Ryan needs a loud wake-up call before Thursday.

On May 7, Williams endorsed the Wisconsin representative’s primary opponent Paul Nehlen.

The law professor has stopped accepting donations for his own presidential campaign, as it winds down, and has instead asked his supporters to contribute to the Nehlen campaign.

William Kristol, the Weekly Standard, and the National Review Could Help Ryan Move Back to Wisconsin.  Anyway, the Busted, Irrelevant Journals Need a New Business Plan: “3 Ideologues and a Truck.”

Professor Williams’ campaign website counsels on the outcome if the Speaker fails to fully and unequivocally endorse Trump during the planned Thursday meeting.

It bears note that Donald Trump won Ryan’s hometown of Janesville.  No surprise as Donald Trump in on track to win the largest total of presidential primary votes in the history of Abraham Lincoln’s Grand Old Party.


Victor Williams is a Washington, D.C. attorney, long-time law professor, and prolific scholar and 2014 founder of

London’s New Muslim Mayor: Extremist or Opportunist?

During the election, questions arose about Sadiq Khan’s long history of association with extremists.

Majid Nawaz’s assessment of London’s new Muslim mayor, the newly elected Sadiq Khan, is that he is not an Islamist extremist. He is merely a manipulative politician willing to use guile and duplicity to achieve his electoral aims — not so different from the average politician.

Leading up to the mayoral vote, questions arose about Khan’s association with extremists, which constitutes a long list in the new mayor’s political history.


  • In 2001, Khan was the lawyer for the American radical Islamist group Nation of Islam, successfully arguing in front of the UK’s High Court to overturn the ban on its leader, Louis Farrakhan.
  • In 2003, Khan appeared at a conference with Sajeel Abu Ibrahim, a member of the banned al-Muhajiroun group that was founded by hate preacher Omar Bakri Muhammad (now prohibited from entering the UK) and led by hate preacher Anjem Choudary (whose many organizations have been said to have contributed “the single biggest gateway to terrorism in recent British history”). Sajeel also ran a terrorist training camp in Pakistan attended by 7/7 bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan.
  • In 2004, Khan testified to the House of Commons as head of the Muslim Council of Britain’s legal affairs committee. As council legal head, Khan argued in parliament that the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader Yusuf Al-Qaradawi “is not the extremist that he is painted as being.” Qaradawi (also banned in the UK for his extremist views) advocates, among other sharia principles, for wife beating and suicide bombings against Israeli citizens. After the murder of an Ahmadi Muslim in Scotland for wishing his Christian customers a peaceful Easter, the council “condemned” the incident by pointing out that Ahmadis are not Muslims.
  • Khan was the defense lawyer for Zacarias Moussaoui, a 9/11 terrorist and confessed member of Al Qaeda.
  • Khan attended events for the extremist group CAGE and wrote a forward for one of their reports. CAGE is a primary supporter of the Islamic State executioner known as “Jihadi John,” who they described as a “beautiful young man.”
  • Khan appeared on panels with Muslim community leader and cleric Suliman Gani, a supporter of the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL), no less than nine times.
  • In 2010, Khan shamelessly played the Ahmadi card, flaring up sectarian hatred in his reelection bid to the parliament when faced with stiff competition from Nasser Butt, an Ahmadi who had opposed the war in Iraq unlike Khan who had voted in favor of it.

Defending himself against charges of extremism, Khan points to his record on supporting rights for homosexual and transsexual rights. Since he was first elected to parliament in 2005, that support has been unwavering.

Khan has been an outspoken critic of anti-Semitism. Most recently, he stated he was “embarrassed and sorrowful” about the glaring anti-Semitism that has been spotlighted in his own party.

As the Muslim Public Affairs Committee in the UK (MPAC-UK) derogatorily pointed out in a comment piece on their website posted just two days before the election, “A Vote for Sadiq Khan in the London Mayor Elections is a Vote for Israel.”

Much to MPAC-UK’s chagrin and dismay, Khan is an opponent of the anti-Israel BDS movement. Although he called for sanctions against Israel in 2009, he says he has since changed his mind.

On the last day of his campaign, it was revealed that in an interview Khan gave in 2009 on Iranian television, he referred to Muslims fighting extremism as “Uncle Toms.”  (He has since apologized.)

Still, Majid Nawaz insists that Khan is no extremist. Khan was Nawaz’s lawyer when he was arrested in Egypt for working for the banned Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. Nawaz, now a prominent counter extremism campaigner, says he is forever indebted to Khan for visiting him in Egypt’s Mazra Tora prison, “while the world gave up on me.”

Ironically, it was Nawaz’s counter-extremism foundation Quilliam that were targeted by Khan in his “Uncle Tom” remarks.

Nawaz refrained from commenting on Khan and his electoral bid until after the election. In his first piece penned after the election, Nawaz paints a picture of Khan as a realist (read: opportunistic) and consummate politician.

“When push comes to shove, gaining power becomes more important for politicians from all parties, than defending principles,” writes Nawaz. “And sadly, extremists remain among the most powerful organized forces in Britain’s Muslim grassroots.”

Nawaz explains the unfortunate political climate in today’s Britain: “By 2009, extremism had grown so rife among my own British Muslim community that, in a sign of our times, a Muslim government minister for Social Cohesion [Khan] would find it politically expedient to call a group of Muslims, who were not in government, ‘Uncle Toms’ simply for criticizing extremism.”

Yet, Nawaz doesn’t give Khan a free pass, saying, “It did not need to be like this. As a column in the Wall Street Journal recently noted, ‘Other Muslim leaders took a different approach.’

“The struggles that reforming liberal and ex-Muslims face every day, the dehumanization, the delegitimization, the excommunication, the outcasting, the threats, intimidation and the violence makes this inexcusable … Why is it okay for a mayor to have shared panels with all manner of Muslim extremists, while actively distancing himself from, and smearing, counter-extremist Muslims?”

A good question it would behoove the new mayor to answer.


Meira Svirsky is the editor of


Muslim Anti-Semite Elected London Mayor Jihad Khan Defended 9/11 Terrorists

UK Student Union President Opposed Condemning ISIS

UK Arrests Five Terror Suspects

What Do Young British Muslims Think About the Caliphate?

Shock Poll: 23% of British Muslims Want Sharia Rules in UK

PODCAST: Trump Wins, what’s it mean? Londonistan’s Muslim Mayor!

Now that the Republican primary has concluded, Donald Trump promises to be the most disruptive presidential candidate in decades.  What do his positions on trade and immigration mean for the country, and why are so many “conservatives” so opposed to his candidacy?

Across the ocean, London has elected their first Muslim mayor.  Along with Merkel’s insistence that borders remain open, is there a way to reverse the Islamification of western culture?  Meanwhile, security concerns continue domestically as the FBI busts a would-be terrorist operation in Florida.  And finally, who is Ben Rhodes, and how has his “fictional” view of the world shaped the modern Middle East?

Topics of Discussion:

  • FBI busts would-be terrorists in Florida
  • Implications and Aspirations of a Trump Presidency
  • London’s First Muslim Mayor & Merkel’s Doubling Down on Open Borders
  • Who the heck is Ben Rhodes?

& more . . .


Kerry slams Trump’s wall, tells grads to prepare for ‘borderless world’

How Washington Politicians Wasted Billions Trying to ‘Invest in Our Future’

Trump’s Foreign Policy Speech: Did He Jump Into Bed With Putin?

Collaborators: Understanding Trump’s Rebellion

The Pharisees of Our Time vs. the Blue Collar Billionaire

EDITORS NOTE: You may listen to USA Transnational Report live on JJ McCartney’s Nightside Radio Studios.

Should President Trump tell Paul Ryan ‘Your Fired!’?

Representative Paul Ryan when asked if he would support the Republican nominee for President said, “I’m just not ready to do that at this point. I’m not there right now. This is the party of Lincoln, of Reagan, of Jack Kemp. [W]e hope that our nominee aspires to be Lincoln and Reaganesque and that that person advances the principles of our Party and appeals to a wide vast majority of Americans.”

There are ninety-nine other Republicans who have said they do not support the GOP nominee (see the list below).

Why is Speaker Ryan straddling the fence?

Breitbart News recently published a story claiming:

Speaker Ryan is perhaps Congress’s greatest advocate for open borders. Dating back to his time as a Capitol Hill staffer in the mid-90s, Ryan was part of the effort to derail the bipartisan immigration curbs inspired by Civil Rights leader and late-Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. In 2013, Ryan actively campaigned on behalf of Marco Rubio and Barack Obama’s amnesty and immigration expansion plan.

As House Speaker, Ryan passed an omnibus spending bill which included a massive increase in the number of low-skilled foreign workers to fill U.S. jobs. Ryan’s omnibus spending bill also funded visas for nearly 300,000 Muslim migrants for this year alone.”

Clearly Donald Trump and Paul Ryan are at odds on the issue of immigration.

World Net Daily reports on Donald Trump’s versus Hillary Clinton’s positions on a number of issues including:

  • Supreme Court appointments: Trump has publicly committed to compiling a list of potential nominees who would be well-vetted constitutional conservatives. Conservatives are certain Clinton would appoint progressive judicial activists who would ignore the Constitution.
  • Immigration: Trump has vowed to tighten the process for both legal and illegal immigration. Clinton has expressed no problem with the status quo and has publicly said she wants to raise Obama’s 10,000 Syrian refugees (almost all of whom would be Muslim, with an unknown number affiliated with ISIS) to 65,000.
  • Military: Trump has vowed to rebuild the nation’s military while Clinton has aligned with President Obama’s program of making vast reductions, as well continuing social experimentation in the military, such as directing the Pentagon to end the ban on allowing transgender personnel serve openly.

After Donald Trump’s victory in Indiana the media, Democrats and some Republicans are crying in their beer. Paul Ryan is one of those who cannot understand why the people choose Trump.

If the goal of the GOP is to take back the White House and keep a majority in both houses of Congress, the game is in their hands. The goal is to win! Trump has energized the American voters. His campaign is now an insurgency. The GOP cannot fear the insurgents, rather they must embrace them.

The insurgents are the American people.

Politicians no longer control the bully pulpit. The American people do. That is how the Republican Party has been fundamentally transformed over the past nine months. It is a new Republican Party, one with a broad base of support. One that is energized. One that is ready for change to bring back the hope of making America great again.

Trump won with his simple message – Americans first!

The GOP will be facing Hillary Clinton, a candidate that is flawed, the consummate politician and beholding to special interests. Trump is the exact opposite. He has never run for public office until now and for the highest seat in the land. He is not a politician and because he is self-funding, is beholding to none other than the American people.

Now is the time for the GOP to play its Trump card.


Priebus: Don’t Worry, Trump and Ryan Will Talk It Out

Trump Spokeswoman: Ryan Shouldn’t Be Speaker

How Washington Politicians Wasted Billions Trying to ‘Invest in Our Future’

RELATED VIDEO: House Speaker Paul Ryan has a Wisconsin primary opponent Paul Nehlen. Nehlen did an interview with Breitbart. Nehlen called Ryan “a mercenary champion of this Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership,” stating “and that’s why I’m running. … I was outside Abbott Labs just a week and a half ago … 180 employees, IT workers, Americans, have been replaced by H1-B visa holders. Here is Nehlen’s campaign ad:

EDITORS NOTE: The Hill complied a list of almost 100 Republicans who currently say they won’t back Trump as the nominee:

  • Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
  • Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich.
  • Gov. Charlie Baker, R-Mass.
  • Brian Bartlett, former Mitt Romney aide and GOP communications strategist
  • Glenn Beck, radio host
  • Michael Berry, radio host
  • Max Boot, former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.
  • Brent Bozell, conservative activist
  • Bruce Carroll, creator
  • Jay Caruso, RedState
  • Mona Charen, senior fellow at Ethics and Public Policy Center
  • Linda Chavez, columnist
  • Dean Clancy, former FreedomWorks vice president
  • Eliot Cohen, former George W. Bush official
  • Former Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn.
  • Charles C. W. Cooke, writer for National Review
  • Doug Coon, Stay Right podcast
  • Rory Cooper, GOP strategist, managing director Purple Strategies
  • Jim Cunneen, former Calif. assemblyman
  • Rep. Carlos Curbelo, R-Fla.
  • Steve Deace, radio host
  • Rep. Bob Dold, R-Ill.
  • Erick Erickson, writer
  • Mindy Finn, president, Empowered Women
  • David French, writer at National Review
  • Jon Gabriel, editor-in-chief,
  • Michael Graham, radio host
  • Jonah Goldberg, writer
  • Alan Goldsmith, former staffer, House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
  • Stephen Gutowski, writer Washington Free Beacon
  • Rep. Richard Hanna, R-N.Y.
  • Jamie Brown Hantman, former special assistant for legislative affairs for President George W. Bush
  • Stephen Hayes, senior writer at The Weekly Standard
  • Doug Heye, former RNC communications director
  • Quin Hillyer, contributing editor at National Review Online; senior editor at the American Spectator
  • Ben Howe, RedState writer
  • Former Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C.
  • Cheri Jacobus, GOP consultant and former Hill columnist
  • Robert Kagan, former Reagan official
  • Randy Kendrick, GOP mega-donor
  • Matt Kibbe, former FreedomWorks CEO
  • Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill.
  • Philip Klein, managing editor at the Washington Examiner
  • Bill Kristol, The Weekly Standard editor
  • Mark Levin, radio host
  • Justin LoFranco, former Scott Walker aide
  • Kevin Madden, former Mitt Romney aide
  • Bethany Mandel, senior contributor at The Federalist
  • Tucker Martin, communications director to former Gov. Bob McDonnell’s, R-Va.
  • Former RNC Chairman Mel Martínez
  • Liz Mair, GOP strategist
  • Lachlan Markey, writer for the Free Beacon
  • David McIntosh, Club for Growth president
  • Dan McLaughlin, editor at
  • Ken Mehlman, former RNC chairman
  • Tim Miller, Our Principles PAC
  • Joyce Mulliken, former Washington state senator
  • Ted Newton, political consultant & former Mitt Romney aide
  • James Nuzzo, former White House aide
  • Katie Packer, chairwoman of Our Principles PAC
  • Former Gov. George Pataki, R-N.Y.
  • Former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas
  • Katie Pavlich, Townhall editor and Hill columnist
  • Brittany Pounders, conservative writer
  • Rep. Reid Ribble, R- Wisc.
  • The Ricketts family, GOP mega-donors
  • Former Gov. Tom Ridge, R-Pa.
  • Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Va.
  • Mitt Romney, 2012 GOP presidential nominee
  • Paul Rosenzweig, former deputy assistant secretary, Department of Homeland Security
  • Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post conservative blogger
  • Patrick Ruffini, partner, Echelon Insights
  • Sarah Rumpf, former BreitBart contributor
  • Mark Salter, writer and former aide to John McCain
  • Rep. Mark Sanford, R-S.C.
  • Sen. Ben Sasse, R- Neb.
  • Elliott Schwartz, Our Principles PAC
  • Gabriel Schoenfeld, senior fellow, Hudson Institute
  • Tara Setmayer, CNN analyst and former GOP staffer
  • Ben Shapiro, editor-in-chief The Daily Wire
  • Evan Siegfried, GOP strategist and commentator
  • Ben Stein, actor and political commentator
  • Brendan Steinhauser, GOP consultant
  • Stuart Stevens, former Romney strategist
  • Paul Singer, GOP mega-donor
  • Erik Soderstrom, former field director for Carly Fiorina
  • Charlie Sykes, radio host
  • Brad Thor, writer
  • Michael R. Treiser, former Mitt Romney aide
  • Daniel P. Vajdich, former national security adviser to Ted Cruz
  • Connor Walsh, former digital director for former Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., founder Build Digital
  • Former Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla.
  • Peter Wehner, New York Times contributor
  • Former Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, R-N.J.
  • George Will, writer
  • Rick Wilson, Republican strategist
  • Nathan Wurtzel, Make America Awesome super-PAC
  • Bill Yarbrough, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Ohio
  • Dave Yost, Ohio auditor of state

Read more.

Clinton and Trump: Where Do They Stand on Islamism?

With Trump and Clinton the de facto nominees, it is time for voters to begin weighing the national security policies of each candidate.

Donald Trump is the all-but-declared Republican presidential nominee and Hillary Clinton on the cusp of winning the Democratic nomination. It is time for voters to begin weighing the national security consequences of each candidate’s potential administration.

You can read our full profiles of the candidates’ positions related to Islamist extremism by clicking here for Donald Trump and here for Hillary Clinton. Below is a summary of six policy areas where they differ:

Defining the Threat

Trump defines the enemy as “radical Islam.” Clinton defines it variably as “jihadism,” “radical Jihadism” “Islamists who are jihadists.”


Defeating the Ideology

Trump said in his foreign policy speech that “containing the spread of radical Islam must be a major foreign policy goal of the United States.” His policy proposals include a vague commitment to use the U.S. military more aggressively, deterring terrorists by killing their families, closing down the most radical mosques and banning Muslim immigration into the U.S. until the homeland is secure and an effective vetting process is established.

Trump is adamantly opposed to democracy-promotion and overthrowing regimes; instead, he favors alliances with authoritarian rulers who cooperate on counter-terrorism. He says, “our goal must be to defeat terrorists and promote stability, not radical change.”

He criticizes Clinton for supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt and Bashar Assad in Syria. However, a reputable senior foreign policy adviser to Trump, Dr. Walid Phares, is an expert on combating the Islamist ideology and believes in promoting human rights and civil society.

Clinton’s national security platform calls for “defeating ISIS and global terrorism and the ideologies that drive it.” Her strategy emphasizes civil society and a foreign policy that promotes freedom, women’s rights, free markets, democracy and human rights, all if which she believes are necessary in order to “empower moderates and marginalize extremists.”

Clinton says the U.S. needs an “overarching strategy” to defeat the ideology like the U.S. used to win the Cold War. Clinton wants the State Department to better “tell our story” overseas by confronting anti-American propaganda via public engagement.

Clinton’s speech on foreign policy and ISIS also includes confronting state sponsors of extremism like Qatar and Saudi Arabia and identifying “the specific neighborhoods and villages, the prisons and schools, where recruitment happens in clusters, like the neighborhood in Brussels where the Paris attacks were planned.”

ISIS, Iraq and Syria

Trump says he will appoint effective generals who will quickly crush the Islamic State.  He believes the U.S. has “no choice” but to send 20-30,000 troops to fight the Islamic State. He would also attack the families of Islamic State members, bomb oil sites held by the Islamic State and then seize them for U.S. companies to rebuild and own.

He would not support Syrian rebels against the Iran-backed Assad regime; Trump supported Russia’s military intervention in Syria to save the dictatorship. Trump believes he can be a partner with Russian President Putin. He says he would establish safe-zones in Syria to stop the flow of refugees, but neighboring Arab countries like Saudi Arabia would have to pay for it.

Clinton’s speech on ISIS emphasized her opposition to a large ground campaign by U.S. forces, but she does support President Obama’s deployment of about 5,000 troops to Iraq with a limited role. She disagreed with President Obama when she urged U.S. support for Syrian rebels at the beginning of the civil war in order to prevent Islamist extremists from gaining ground.

Clinton also supported using the U.S. Air Force to implement a no-fly zone in Syria and to create safe zones for refugees. Clinton remains committed to ending the civil war in Syria by forcing Assad to resign from power as part of a political transition.

In Iraq, she favors direct U.S. military assistance to Sunni tribes and Kurdish forces fighting ISIS and expanding the U.S. forces’ role to include embedding personnel in local Iraqi units and assisting with airstrikes.


Trump would terminate the nuclear deal with Iran immediately and pledged to “dismantle” Iran’s global terrorism network in his speech about Israel and the Middle East. He supports placing severe sanctions on Iran to pressure them into a deal that dismantles their nuclear program and ends their support for terrorism.

Clinton supports the nuclear deal with reservations. She has released a 5-point plan to respond to the deal’s negative consequences, Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and human rights abuses of the Iranian regime. She supports expanding sanctions on Iran for these actions.

Neither candidate has explicitly endorsed overthrowing the Iranian regime, but Clinton took a step in that direction  in 2010 when she said she hopes there will be “some effort inside Iran, by responsible civil and religious leaders, to take hold of the apparatus of the state.” She regrets that she and the Obama Administration did not more forcefully support the 2009 Green Revolution and promises “that won’t happen again.”

Muslim Brotherhood

Neither candidate has endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act and concerns have been raised about both candidates’ advisers.

One of Clinton’s closest aides, Huma Abedin, was the assistant-editor of an Islamist journal with her family members, some of whom have Muslim Brotherhood links. She has not directly said anything extremist and is married to a pro-Israel Jew. Critics point out that although she has a security clearance, her familial ties may influence her advice to Clinton.

In her book, Clinton seems to understand that the Brotherhood is hostile to the U.S., deceptive and closely linked to Hamas. However, she seems to accept Islamist political parties like the Brotherhood as potential democratic partners. Her State Dept. operation in Egypt gave election training to Brotherhood members and a Clinton Foundation member belonged to the Brotherhood.

One of Trump’s top campaign aides, Paul Manafort, was a lobbyist for Saudi Arabia in the 1980s and a lobbyist for a Pakistani ISI intelligence front in the U.S. that was also closely linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Trump has never said anything kind about the Muslim Brotherhood and wanted the U.S. to help keep Egyptian President Mubarak in power.


Ryan Mauro is’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.


Grading Clinton, Trump on religious freedom

Why Does the Cold War Matter Today?

VIDEO: What do the past behaviors of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton tell us?

This is an interesting analysis of Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton using documented statements. It is not, as the WeAreChange narrator notes, a true psychological analysis by an expert. Rather it reveals each candidates’ character based upon their past actions.

Many agree that Hillary is a psychopath. The evidence presented in this video is compelling.

Many can understand Donald Trump wanting to become his own man. given his life living under the shadow of his father Fred, which the narrator suggests still hangs over him.

According to the video one candidate, Hillary, has no social conscience. The other, Donald, craves the spotlight. One strives to be ever more successful the other covers up her failures.

From this analysis it makes sense that Trump picked the campaign slogan “Make America Great Again!” It is a reflection of his lifelong effort to be the best he can be in whatever he has done. Now, he has an opportunity to do something greater than himself. To help America. Being elected President gives him an opportunity to not only do something his father never attempted but to be greater by giving back something his father never can.

Watch this interesting analysis of Hillary and Trump. Then you decide who is best qualified to be President of the United States.

WeAreChange notes:

In this video Luke Rudkowski [who is not a psychologist] gives his psychological analysis of the two leading presidential front-runners Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. We go over past and current behaviors of the two and its deeper meanings to who the candidates actually are as human beings.


Trump’s Foreign Policy Speech: Did He Jump Into Bed With Putin?

Collaborators: Understanding Trump’s Rebellion

The Pharisees of Our Time vs. the Blue Collar Billionaire


wearechange logoEDITORS NOTE: Readers may support WeAreChange by subscribing to their YouTube channel HERE. To learn more visit their main website for more breaking news. WeAreChange offers citizens an opportunity to learn how to be a journalist in today’s media world by going to… and enrolling in their online college program. High school students still get this program for free, in order to activate the youth of the future.

What Difference Does It Make? The First Question We Should Ask…

When Wild Bill’s Hillary was pressed, on her conflicting story about what incited the attack on our embassy – or (not-so) ‘safe’ house – in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in the murder of four U.S. citizens, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, on the night of September 11, 2012, her response would soon become a part of the American Political Lexicon, denoting typical elitist disdain for being held personally accountable to the People. We all know what she said.

This afternoon, host Lou Dobbs, had former Speaker Newt Gingrich on to talk about Donald Trump’s possible VP picks. It appeared that Newt had been appraised of the question in advance, as he clearly articulated three qualifications he considered paramount, in order:

  1. They must be “capable of being President” in the event that that should become necessary.
  2. They must be “compatible with Donald Trump, his partner, ‘junior partner,’ but still partner.”
  3. “If they meet the first two tests, and only if they meet the first two tests,” they must “bring something to the ticket,” “help carry a state,” “help bring in an ethnic group,” or be able to “do” something to help Trump “get elected.”

There is a bit of irony here, as Newt was spot on with his first requirement; but while I fully agree with the point he was making, he, like virtually everyone else out there in the political hierarchy (including Trump himself), probably isn’t even conscious of the literal meaning of what he said: The first requirement is that the person or candidate must be constitutionally “capable,” constitutionally-qualified, to be President, precisely because that could at some point become necessary. Meanwhile, at least four of the people whose names are now being excitedly bandied about are not…but once again, what difference does it make?

While most were (are) either unaware of the fact, or have simply forgotten it, what the ever-disdainful Secretary asked in full was: “What difference at this point does it make?” In truth, her complete question is even more applicable “at this point” … but why?

It is more applicable because we are now at a point at which we have had a constitutionally-unqualified Commander in Chief for now seven-plus years; having also had fully four unqualified/ineligible GOP presidential candidates of the original field of seventeen. So given those facts – and they are facts (see Trump vs. The Political/Media Establishment for thorough and irrefutable legal proof) – “What difference at this point does it make?”

A better, or more pertinent question is this: Does the Constitution itself still matter? – or have we come to a point, in large measure due to ‘political correctness’ (fully-proscribed/prohibited speech, as well as thought) where we have disregarded the Constitution for so long that it is no longer even relevant?

Does anyone want to know the real, even obvious answer to that question?

Here it is: We have absolutely come to the point where the Constitution is a mere afterthought at best – and that by the so-called ‘Opposition Party’ – or a twisted means of justifying patently unconstitutional acts on the part of the current regime and its apologists.

I would here note two things: First, if any doubt that the Constitution has become all but irrelevant (and there is really no need to include the words “all but,” frankly), he or she need look no further than the very issue we are discussing. It would be one thing if there were honest debate on the actual intended meaning of Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 (I was going to use the phrase “natural born citizen,” but realized without the slightest hesitation that the phrase itself was/is strictly ‘off limits’), but as any informed person is fully aware, to even raise the issue is categorically verboten…which brings me to my second point: If any doubt that this prohibition is the result of now rigidly-enforced political correctness, I would simply ask: When was the last time you heard the issue raised with any of the candidates, aside from Donald Trump raising it with respect to Ted Cruz?

Which brings me to yet a third point. One might ask why anyone would raise the question of eligibility with respect to any of the seventeen GOP candidates, or with respect to Barack Obama, in the previous two elections. In the case of Bobby Jindal, the question arises from the fact that it is well known that he is of Indian descent – both of his parents were born in India. Singling him out, however, to ask the obvious question about his constitutional fealty, would immediately be branded ‘racist,’ would it not? (After all, Jindal was clearly born in the United States, was he not?)

And while the place of birth was questionable in the case of Barack Obama (and still is, given that it has never been legally proven, or even reasonably demonstrated – proffering a digital ‘document’ not only immediately gives rise to reasonable doubt, but would be completely unacceptable to any agency of any kind, as well as in any court of law on any level), it was and is an undisputed fact that Ted Cruz was not born in the United States; thus the cries of racism (Cruz is “Hispanic” given his Cuban ancestry) were not leveled at those questioning his citizenship/eligibility.

Nonetheless, Establishment Conservatives immediately rushed on stage to quell any questions over this clearly-legitimate legal/constitutional concern, by authoritatively proclaiming the whole thing ‘settled science’ (“settled law” in this case, but same idea). In addition, they hastened to make it clear that even raising such questions was itself “silly,” ‘conspiratorial,’ and would not be tolerated. In other words, these paragons of political correctness – on the so-called ‘Right’ (we once thought this was a malady which afflicted only those on the Left) – wanted to make it perfectly clear that even entertaining such questions (in speech or thought) was strictly prohibited…unless one wanted to either be “silly,” or be considered/labeled such by ‘everyone else.’

So, there you have it. According to the Political/Media Establishment, which absolutely includes the GOP and alleged “Conservatives” – as has been seen on full display over the past month or so – whether or not a candidate for President (or Vice President) of the United States meets the simple, but strict requirements set forth in the Constitution, exclusively for the nation’s highest office, that of its Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, is not only irrelevant (“silly” in the words of both Obama and Cruz, as well as other ‘constitutional authorities’), but to raise such issues will be met with cries of ‘racism,’ ‘heresy,’ et al.

And besides, What difference does it make?

trump and the media book coverEDITORS NOTE: To learn more about these critical issues, read the author’s most recent book, Trump vs. The Political/Media Establishment; The Establishment vs. The Rule of Law. The author, T. M. Ballantyne, Jr., has written a half-dozen previous books, including Oh Really, O’Reilly! (an in-depth look at the eligibility of Barack Obama) and Uncommon Sense…Apparently!

VIDEO: Will Hillary’s anti-Trump Ad Backfire?

Brit Hume Tweeted a link to a new anti-Trump Hillary Clinton campaign political ad. It gives a list of things that a President Trump and his administration will do on the first day in office and beyond.

Hume Tweeted, “And so it begins in earnest. This is just a sample of what Trump will be facing.”

Question: Does the anti-Trump ad benefit Trump?

The GOP primary has shown that the more Trump is attacked, the more votes he gets. In Indiana 64,000 negative ads were run against Trump and he won the Hoosier state in a landslide. Is Brit Hume wrong in his Tweet?

Twenty years ago, David Brooks longed for “confidence and vigor” in a president. Doesn’t this video show a president with confidence and vigor? Do voters see confidence and vigor in Hillary Clinton? That is the question on the November 8th ballot.

Some think Hillary’s ad will backfire because it depicts a strong, principled and vigorous president. Some view the ad as pro-Trump. It reinforces his policy statements at a time when voters are looking for a strong America and a different direction.

Will the voters see Hillary’s ad and think this is exactly what America needs?

You may view the full ad below:

Does this ad make the case for why people should vote for Trump?

Please leave a comment and tell us what you think.


Feminism Misunderstands What Women Really Want

Trump’s Foreign Policy Speech: Did He Jump Into Bed With Putin?

Collaborators: Understanding Trump’s Rebellion

The Pharisees of Our Time vs. the Blue Collar Billionaire

RELATED VIDEO: Young Mexican kids give the finger and yell obscenities at Trump supporters. In this video clip a group of Mexican immigrants and their children, some as young as 10, yelled obscenities at cars loaded with Trump supporters that would make the creepiest truck drivers blush. The kids yelled ‘f_ _k trump’ and called people ‘puta’, the Spanish word for whore. WARNING VIDEO GRAPHIC LANGUAGE AND GESTURES: