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 . . .

RELATED ARTICLES:

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.

RELATED ARTICLES:

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 GayPatriot.org
  • 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, Ricochet.com
  • 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 RedState.com
  • 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.

Iran

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.

ABOUT RYAN MAURO

Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’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.

RELATED ARTICLES:

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.

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

SOURCES:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/…
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/1…
http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/02/21…
http://www.theweek.co.uk/60339/eleven…
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2…
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-c…
http://www.snopes.com/wordpress/wp-co…
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/02/25/…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mY7m…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn6yk…
http://hillaryclintonquotes.tumblr.com/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/h…
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/…
http://bud-meyers.blogspot.com.br/201…
http://www.newsmax.com/TheWire/donald…
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/20…

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 http://wearechange.org/change-media-u… 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.

RELATED ARTICLES:

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:

‘National’ Doesn’t Mean ‘Federal’

Donald Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America Great Again” has been portrayed by some as a form of national socialism. Democrats, Republicans, political pundits and conservatives alike have criticized Trump on his nationalistic rhetoric. But is this justified?

Mexican-Flag-Trump-protests

Young boy holding a “Make America Mexico Again” sign at an anti-Trump protest.

In a 1993 article in Foreign Affairs magazine titled “The Clash of Civilizations?” Samuel P. Huntington wrote:

World politics is entering a new phase, and intellectuals have not hesitated to proliferate visions of what it will be-the end of history, the return of traditional rivalries between nation states, and the decline of the nation state from the conflicting pulls of tribalism and globalism, among others. Each of these visions catches aspects of the emerging reality. Yet they all miss a crucial, indeed a central, aspect of what global politics is likely to be in the coming years.

It is my hypothesis that the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.

Conflict between civilizations will be the latest phase in the evolution of conflict in the modern world.

[Emphasis mine]

I believe that those Americans who have voted to make Donald Trump the Republican nominee for President of the United States understand this idea of a “clash of civilizations.”

Trump’s focus on national sovereignty (i.e. protecting the U.S. borders, limiting immigration, bringing jobs back from overseas and America’s global  partners, such as NATO, paying their fair share for defense) is a reflection of his understanding that the world has changed. Trump understands that those who gave him the nomination yearn for a revitalized and restored American culture.

After all the United States of America is the only Constitutional Republican form of government in the world.

In 1997 David Brooks wrote a column in The Weekly Standard titled “A Return to National Greatness: A Manifesto for a Lost Creed.” Brooks wrote:

The fact is, if liberals choke on the “greatness” part of national greatness, conservatives choke on the “national” part. Most conservatives have come to confuse ‘national’ with ‘federal.’ When they hear of a national effort, they think “big government program.” Conservatives have taken two sensible ideas and ballooned them to the point of elephantiasis. The first is anti-statism.

They took a truth — that government often causes suffering when it interferes in the free market — and stretched it into a blanket hostility to government. Instead of arguing that government should be limited but energetic, slender but strong, they have often argued that government is itself evil.”

[Emphasis mine]

Some “conservatives” confuse Trump’s nationalism with growth of the federal government’s power. I propose they are wrong. Trump’s nationalism is focused outward, not inward. His nationalism is couched in terms of respect from other nation states to further U.S. national security interests. His focus is on a coherent foreign policy, which puts America’s, and its allies, interests first.

Donald Trump made a major foreign policy speech at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D.C. to a gathering of The National Interest Magazine, and its parent institution, The Center for the National Interest. Trump set his vision, purpose, direction and strategy for an “America First” foreign polity:

  1. America is going to be strong again.
  2. We’re getting out of the nation-building business and instead focusing on creating stability in the world.
  3. I will not hesitate to deploy military force when there is no alternative. But if America fights, it must only fight to win.
  4. The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense, and if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves.
  5. Our goal is peace and prosperity, not war and destruction.
  6. In the Middle East our goals must be, and I mean must be, to defeat [Islamic] terrorists and promote regional stability, not radical change.
  7. Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon, cannot be allowed. Remember that, cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
  8. Finally, we must develop a foreign policy based on American interests.

Trump’s “America First” foreign policy aligns with the current threat of a clash of civilizations but creates a federal government that is limited but energetic, slender and strong.

Trump is leading an insurgency to make America great again. Trump is the leader because he follows the lead of the insurgents – the American people.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Only five countries out of 28 spent the NATO-required 2% of GDP on defense last year

What a 19th Century Political Thinker Can Teach Us About ‘True’ Conservatism

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Zassle.com.

The Surprising Modern Origins of Trump’s Ideology by Jeffrey Tucker

Twenty years ago, David Brooks longed for “confidence and vigor” in a president.

Donald Trump says government should make the nation great. Where did he get this language? He didn’t make it up on the spot. There is a deeper modern history here.

National Greatness Conservatism” was first advanced by the Weekly Standard in 1997. At the time, this revision of traditional conservative thinking set of a huge controversy on the right side of the political spectrum.

Here is what David Brooks wrote, as the voice of the neoconservatives who are now screaming that Trump is not what they had in mind:

“It almost doesn’t matter what great task government sets for itself, as long as it does some tangible thing with energy and effectiveness. The first task of government is to convey a spirit of confidence and vigor that can then spill across the life of the nation. Stagnant government drains national morale. A government that fails to offer any vision merely feeds public cynicism and disenchantment.

But energetic government is good for its own sake. It raises the sights of the individual. It strengthens common bonds. It boosts national pride. It continues the great national project. It allows each generation to join the work of their parents. The quest for national greatness defines the word ‘American’ and makes it new for every generation.”

Why They Wanted Greatness

Consider the context of these paragraphs. A few years earlier, the US-Soviet Cold War had come to an end. The political center of the previous forty years was no more. There was a great deal of public pressure to end the imperial adventures, to reallocate the federal budget away from endless foreign adventures, to normalize and even depoliticize the country. The “war on terror” existed but at nowhere near the level it became after 9/11.

The political milieu was not that different from what followed both world wars. Public opinion was turning against politicians of all sorts. Wartime expenditures and controls lacked justification. Big government was in search of purpose.

Bill Clinton was president at the time, and his political agenda amounted to not much at all. His health-care plans went bust, so he turned to welfare reform, enacting a policy that actually curbed national commitments to a grand social vision. The liberals of his party seemed out of ideas, while the conservatives were increasingly focussed on cutting or even gutting government as their central rhetorical principle.

The Weekly Standard was founded to be the official organ of neoconservative opinion. It distinguished itself by its less-hostile attitude toward the state than one might find in mainstream conservative publications. The neoconservatives needed a vision to impart as a way of bolstering centralized control. Brooks put himself forward as their house philosopher. His manifesto was advanced as a rhetorical template for a new national mission: to make America great again.

The bulk of Brooks’s essay consisted of throwing around ideas for what government could do. It could make more Mount Rushmores. It could dig more canals. It could make more highways. It could democratize more countries. The specifics didn’t matter that much, said Brooks, so much as the ethos. Government is the thing that unites us, so we dare not risk dismantling it for fear of a loss of meaning in our lives.

To be sure, Brooks’s “greatness” had different priorities than Trump’s current version. Brooks emphasized democracy and nation building through an imperial foreign policy. Today Trump pushes nativism, national identity, and protectionism. But they fundamentally agree about what makes up a “nation” and what makes it “great.”

The Liberal Alternative to Greatness

Both views are hostile to the old liberal view of what society is and should be. Neither conceive of the nation as a network of harmonious, voluntary associations. In this way of thinking, plain-old freedom — characterized by disparate millions working out their lives in creative peace and cooperation with each other — is boring, directionless, and uninspiring. They see society, not as an interplay of individual wills, but as a collective project guided by a central mission carried out by powerful, charismatic leaders.

In other words, both conceive of the American nation, not as a civilization, but as a herd, shepherded by the government. Both the neoconservatives and the Trumpists long to make America the herd great again. And by “great,” they mean big, imposing, fearsome, and awe-inspiring. In F.A. Hayek’s terminology (drawn from Michael Oakeshott) the nation must be a telos not merely a nomos.

One side stresses the teleocratic offense, the other the teleocratic defense. The neoconservatives believe that the public can find meaning in grand government initiatives such as military stampedes around the world: something awe-inspiring enough to drive people to back a fully-funded and sufficiently powerful leviathan.

The Trumpists have a different view: national meaning is imparted through trade barriers, immigration controls, and top-down, business-like management. A collective identity rooted in blood and soil, not a country on global mission, is the thing that will make us great.

Neither understand that real prosperity and true security are achieved, not by the brute might of human herds, but by the dynamic power of voluntary cooperation among free people. To be free is the only mission. What people do with that freedom is up to them, not a national leadership. It is not greatness but simple goodness that defines the free society.

What’s more, government doesn’t raise our sights, strengthen our bonds, or boost our pride. It limits, divides, and diminishes us. Government is bureaucrats and politicians. They take our stuff, tell us what to do, and make us less free.

Brooks once longed for “a spirit of confidence and vigor” in the executive. Trump is all that and more. So what does Brooks say today? He finds Trump to be “epically unprepared to be president. He has no realistic policies, no advisers, no capacity to learn… Trump is perhaps the most dishonest person to run for high office in our lifetimes.”

Here’s the thing. You build power and power takes its own course. You long for national greatness and you have to live with the results.

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

A RETURN TO NATIONAL GREATNESS: A Manifesto for a Lost Creed

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

Jeffrey A. TuckerJeffrey A. Tucker

Jeffrey Tucker is Director of Digital Development at FEE and CLO of the startup Liberty.me. Author of five books, and many thousands of articles, he speaks at FEE summer seminars and other events. His latest book is Bit by Bit: How P2P Is Freeing the World.  Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook. Email.

EDITORS NOTE: Mr. Tucker seems to have missed a key paragraph in David Brooks 1997 article. Brooks wrote, “The fact is, if liberals choke on the “greatness” part of national greatness, conservatives choke on the “national” part. Most conservatives have come to confuse ‘national’ with ‘federal.’ When they hear of a national effort, they think “big government program.” Conservatives have taken two sensible ideas and ballooned them to the point of elephantiasis. The first is anti-statism. They took a truth — that government often causes suffering when it interferes in the free market — and stretched it into a blanket hostility to government. Instead of arguing that government should be limited but energetic, slender but strong, they have often argued that government is itself evil.” [Emphasis mine]

The GOP must play its Trump Card

After Donald Trump’s victory in Indiana the media, Democrats and some Republicans are crying in their beer.

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

Trump Indiana victory speech:

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.

This has been described as the “election  of the century.” In reality it is a “battle royal between the individualist and the collectivist.”

Ayn Rand wrote a short nineteen page paper asking: What is the basic issue facing the world today? Rand, in her paper makes the case that, “The basic issue in the world today is between two principles: Individualism and Collectivism.” Rand defines these two principles as follows:

  • Individualism – Each man exists by his own right and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
  • Collectivism – Each man exists only by the permission of the group and for the sake of the group.

It appears the ideal of collectivism is alive and well. Collectivism is what drives the followers of Marx, Mao and Mohammed. The new Collectivists are now in power. Obama has fundamentally transformed the Democratic Party. But this malaise can and must be reversed.

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.”

Donald Trump is contesting the absurdities that Americans have had to deal with for over one-hundred years. Trump is not politically correct, and the people love him for it. Trump hates the absurd. The greatest absurdity being that government is smarter than the individual.

That is the battle, that is the war, that is the conflict.

This war must be won at all cost. To do otherwise is to doom our children and grandchildren to a life of slavery under a tyrannical government.

Message to GOP: Cruz — Never Again!

The Cruz campaign working in concert with D.C. Republican Party insiders, has been trying to hijack the 2016 GOP nomination… not from Trump, but from the millions of Americans who have voted for Trump. It isn’t Trump who is disenfranchised by the Cruz delegate wrangling, but rather more than ten million voters who cast a ballot to make Trump the GOP frontrunner.

With all the facts out in the public about Ted’s Canadian citizenship from birth in December 1970 through May 14, 2014, literally everyone knows that Ted Cruz is not constitutionally eligible for the Oval office… even though many pretend not to know, simply because they do not care.

Yet, despite loss after loss in the GOP primaries, Ted continues to pretend that he has a pathway to the nomination, naming a VP running mate less than 24 hours after a five state total bludgeoning last week, as if bringing aboard the 2016 primary one-percenter Carly Fiorina, will somehow turn things around and guarantee Ted the nomination that Trump has already won.

Meanwhile, numerous legal challenges concerning Ted’s ineligible status continue to be rejected by courts that will never rule Ted “ineligible” because they would have to rule Obama “ineligible” at the same time. Oh, it’s true, neither is eligible for the Oval Office… but as long as Obama occupies that office, no court in the USA is going to rule against Ted and Ted knows it.

So, I receive a daily flow of read email and for over a month now, the number one subject is –

“How do we get Ted out of the race and hold him legally accountable for his massive fraud?”

Because we have a usurper in the White House right now, no court in the country is going to disqualify anyone and remove them from the ballot on the basis of not being a natural born Citizen of the USA. So, those who continue to ask the courts this question, are going to continue getting the same result that this issue has received for 7 ½ years now.

Until someone asks the right questions, they will never get the right answers…

Texan’s hold the silver bullet that will end Ted Cruz’s entire political career…

cruz certificateThis is documented proof (hard admissible evidence) that Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz was born a legal citizen of Canada on December 22, 1970.

Unless Ted also has a United States birth record from 1970, the result of a CRBA (Consular Report of Birth Abroad), he has no proof (admissible evidence) to support his claim that he was a “dual citizen” of both Canada and the United States on December 22, 1970. Despite endless requests by numerous sources, no such proof has been offered by Ted Cruz or his campaign.

This document is proof (admissible evidence) that Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz remained a legal citizen of Canada from his date of birth until May 14, 2014.

cruz certificate 2These two authenticated official documents (admissible evidence) are the only citizenship papers offered by Ted Cruz or his campaign as proof of legal citizenship. Both of these documents are from Canada, and are admissible evidence proving that Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz was as his wife state in Indiana yesterday, an “immigrant to the USA” who was born Canadian and remained Canadian for 43 years, until deciding to seek the U.S. Presidency.

Now, a very important date lies in between December 22, 1970 and May 14, 2014….. and that date is January 3, 2013… the day Ted Cruz was sworn into the U.S. Senate as a (secret) legal citizen of Canada.

Texans hold the cards…

Article I of the US Constitution has the following requirements for a seat in the U.S. Senate…

“No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.”

In order to appear on the Texas ballot for U.S. Senate in 2012, Cruz had to file an application with both the Texas Republican Party and Texas Secretary of State (the chief elections officer in the state) swearing under oath that he meets these requirements. If his statements on that application were false, if he did not meet those requirements, then he committed “fraud” all the way back in 2012.

Ted was at least thirty years of age and he was an inhabitant of Texas… but was he a legal citizen of the United States, as he claimed on his application to appear on the ballot?

Contrary to Cruz campaign talking points memos, the United States does not recognize any “undocumented” inhabitant residing in the United States as a “legal citizen” of the United States. In short, if you are not a “documented citizen,” you are not a legal citizen at all.

It is a documented FACT that Ted Cruz was a documented citizen of Canada from birth until May 14, 2014, which means he was a documented citizen of Canada in 2012 and 2013 when he ran for and became a U.S. Senator for Texas. However, to date, no documentation of legal U.S. citizenship has been provided for Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz… He remains “undocumented” as of today, and is therefore, NOT a “legal citizen of the United States” as of today.

It is also a documented FACT that Ted never disclosed his legal Canadian citizenship to Texas Election Officials or Texas voters in 2012. It is a FACT that Ted Cruz has been able to offer NO U.S. documentation of any type of legal U.S. citizenship to date. Which means, we know a few more critical facts…

  1. The Republican Party of Texas failed to properly vet Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz in 2012. If they had, they would have learned that Ted was in fact a legal citizen of Canada at that time and not eligible for either chamber of the U.S. Congress.
  2. The Texas Secretary of State (the states chief elections officer) also failed to properly vet Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz in 2012, or they would have denied his application to run for U.S. Senate on arrival.
  3. The result of these failures was the defrauding of millions of Texas voters and campaign donors, which has since led to the defrauding of millions of American voters and donors in the Cruz bid for the Oval Office.

The Silver Bullet

The question is not what is a natural born Citizen, or is Ted a natural born Citizen eligible for the Oval office…. The question is, how did a legal citizen of Canada become a U.S. Senator from Texas in 2012-2013?

Texas voters are in the unique position (legal standing) to ask the right authorities in Texas this very simple and obvious question… The Texas GOP and Texas Secretary of State are the right authorities to ask…

How did a legal citizen of Canada become a U.S. Senator from Texas?

Eight months after Ted Cruz was sworn into office in the U.S. Senate, the Dallas Morning News reported the fact that Cruz was born Canadian and still remained a legal citizen of Canada. The legal beagle rush to create a viable back-story and common law argument to protect Cruz from his act of fraud was underway. But none of those arguments could overcome the reality that all of Ted’s authenticated citizenship documents say Canada, and none of them say United States.

The only legal U.S. citizens are “documented” U.S. citizens… Natural Born, Native Born and Naturalized are the only types of legal U.S. citizens, all of which possess authentic U.S. documentation as proof of legal citizenship. Ted has none of the three…

When Texas voters decide to deal with this fraud, they need go no further than asking the right question of the right Texas authorities. Ted’s documentation (admissible evidence) proves beyond any doubt that Ted was always a legal citizen of Canada from his birth until May 14, 2014…. Unless Ted can come up with any authenticated documentation of United States citizenship, he is undocumented in the United States, which means, illegal and guilty of massive fraud on a level comparable to Obama’s fraud.

End of story!

Helpful Wives: Ted Is An ‘Immigrant’ and Kenya Is Barack’s ‘Home Country’

I had planned to do a piece on why I (and countless other staunch Conservatives) support Donald Trump, but then I heard Heidi Cruz talk about her husband, saying, “Ted is an immigrant. He is Hispanic.” and I had to weigh in.  Hearing her tout this immediately brought to mind Michelle Obama’s betrayal of her own husband’s apparent birth place when she proudly offered, while speaking to the LGBT Delegate, The World as it Should Be, “Barack has led by example. When we took our trip to Africa, and visited his ‘home country’ in Kenya, we took a public HIV test.”

The latter, of course, was confirmed by Obama’s publicist, Dystel & Goderich, in official brochures in both 2003 and 2007, which noted that “He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, and was raised in Indonesia, Hawaii and Chicago.”

This was only further corroboration of the fact that virtually the entire African continent claimed the then-new U.S. President as its own native son…but I digress!

Referring once more to Heidi Cruz’s offering, spokeswoman Catherine Frazier later explained: “As she has in numerous speeches over and over, Heidi was referring to Ted as being the son of an immigrant.”  Fair enough. “Jane, Joan, whatever!” – for those who remember the 1995 Bud Light commercial (well worth watching again!).

Some years back I heard Ayn Rand Institute President, Yaron Brook, speak at the Tea Party Annual Conference, held in Phoenix, AZ.  He said something that should resonate with ever Constitutional Conservative, when he pointed out that, “Before Congress ever considers taking up any law, the members should ask themselves one question: Do we, under the Constitution, have the authority to consider this?”

While that is a paraphrase from memory, the rationale for asking such a question is undeniable. With respect to a Presidential Candidate, I’d suggest that we ask a similar question, before asking anything else:  Is he or she eligible, under the Constitution, to hold this high office?  I suggest that the rationale for asking this question is also undeniable.

The Left (and now, apparently, many on the Right) prove the overriding significance of the stiffer requirements for becoming Commander in Chief, by referring to Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5, as the “stupidest,” or “worst” provision in the Constitution,” etc., etc.

In his 1995 article, found in the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, Professor Robert Post, Dean of the Yale Law School (not Harvard, but close) transparently reveals the following: “Without doubt Joseph Story correctly identified the purpose of this prohibition as cutting ‘off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office.’ ” (That is taken from Joseph Story’s celebrated, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, page 541.)

So, while Dean/Professor Post seeks to dismiss this as the “Constitution’s Worst Provision,” he helpfully, at least, points out its precise and, frankly, self-evident purpose; something only mentioned by the clause’s current detractors (mostly on the “Right” these days) in a derogatory fashion, as does the good professor here.  In other words, these constitutional “scholars” never mention the clause’s obvious and critical purpose – to prevent a person with potentially-divided (“foreign”) loyalties from becoming “the Command in chief of the american army” (in the words of John Jay) – except to deride it.

As a particularly relevant aside, I will note that the current occupant of the Oval Office – who has, for the most part succeeded in “fundamentally transforming” the once-greatest nation on earth, mocking and destroying its spiritual foundations, wrecking its economy, trampling on its Constitution/laws, and decimating its military – would have been the very poster child for the type of man the framers were seeking to preclude from ever becoming our Commander in Chief…in spite of his great “love” for America. As a further aside, if Mitt (short for Mittens?) Romney had ever had the courage to lash out at Michelle’s Barack in that manner, he may well have been the nation’s 45th President, rather than the man he has recently excoriated…a little too much, but also too late!

So let’s end this by answering the question:  Is Heidi’s Ted eligible to hold the highest office in the land?  While it seems that a preponderance of courageous “Conservatives” have taken up the pen to pronounce Mr. Cruz’s eligibility “settled science,” we can dismiss this assertion by answering a single question:  If the higher constitutional bar of “natural born citizen,” set exclusively for the President and Commander in Chief [Senators and Congressmen need only be “citizens”], can be met by one born of not two, but only one U.S. citizen parent, in a foreign land, outside of our national boundaries, then what could possibly be the lower citizenship bar included in the Constitution?

Well, that is simple. The only possible lower bar would be for one to be born outside of the United States to no U.S. citizen parent.  That, of course, can be done, via the process of naturalization…but there were yet no “naturalized” citizens at the time of the writing or the adoption of the Constitution, and yet the Constitution itself recognizes two other distinct types of citizens in its language (including that of Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5): normal, if you will, “citizens,” and “natural born citizens.”

Clearly one born abroad of only a single U.S. citizen parent would not qualify as the clearly more exclusive class of “natural-born citizens.” So that is essentially all a reasonable person needs to know about the “settled science” of this critical issue…and if the constitutional eligibility of the Commander in Chief of the United States military is not an important issue, or matter of grave concern, I can’t honestly imagine what would be!

RELATED VIDEO: Michelle Obama states that her husband Barack’s home country is Kenya – full statement:

trump and the media book coverEDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Western Journalism. The featured image is of Heidi Cruz and Michelle Obama.

To learn more about this critical issue, please read the author’s most recent book, Trump vs. The Political/Media Establishment: The Establishment vs. The Rule of Law.  Author T. M. Ballantyne Jr. has written a half-dozen previous books, including Oh Really, O’Reilly! and Uncommon Sense…Apparently! – also available on Amazon.

A Trump Executive Speaks: ‘The Trump Family That I Know’ [Video]

Lynne4A black woman who is an executive with the Eric Trump Foundation posted a YouTube video titled, “The Trump Family That I Know.” Here name is Lynne M. Patton.

Ms. Patton [pictured right] is the Director of The Eric Trump Foundation and an Assistant to Eric Trump, Ivanka Trump and Donald Trump Jr.

Her responsibilities include acquiring ETF’s celebrity entertainment, high-end donations and overseeing the planning all major fundraising events for The Eric Trump Foundation.  Lynne Patton also identifies and develops viable partnerships/research projects with St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital and played a critical role in ETF’s decision to donate $20 million dollars specifically for the construction of The Eric Trump Foundation Surgery & ICU Center.  Lynne oversees all social media responsibilities for The Eric Trump Foundation and assists the Trump family with respect to the same.  Lynne played a primary role in helping to cast the 2012 & 2014 seasons of The Celebrity Apprentice, as produced by Mark Burnett Productions, NBC and Trump Productions.  Prior to joining The Trump Organization in 2009…

Read more about Lynne M. Patton.

Trump has an 83 percent chance of winning Indiana

trump indianaThe Indiana Primary is today, and it’s in many ways the beginning of the end — one way or the other — of the #NeverTrump campaign.

A clean win for Cruz in the state is a win for the anti-Trump forces within the GOP, and a win for Donald J. Trump is a massive setback and potential death knell for the forces opposing the real estate magnate.

According to FiveThirtyEight polls-plus forecast based on nine polls, Trump has an 83 percent chance of winning the statewide vote.

Click here to veiw the odds and polls for presidential primaries and caucuses, updated daily.

EDITORS NOTE: FiveThirtyEight forecasts don’t produce a single expected vote share for each candidate, but rather generate a range of possible outcomes, shown here. The range will be wider or narrower under certain circumstances: For instance, it narrows as the election gets closer. The FiveThirtyEight estimate of each candidate’s chance of winning the state is based on these ranges.

PODCAST: Trump’s Foreign Policy Speech, DOJ ‘Newspeak’ and EU’s ISIS Problem

Donald Trump on Tuesday swept five states and is running away with the nomination.  With approximately 1,000 delegates, he is positioned to reach the 1,237 mark before the convention in Cleveland.  Meanwhile, his closest competitor Ted Cruz picked his VP candidates in Carly Fiorina.

In Europe, Italian authorities arrested four would-be terrorists affiliated with ISIS, and Brussels began distributing iodine tablets (to counteract the effects of a potential dirty bomb).

Finally, with the official transition of the term “convicted criminal” to “justice-involved individual,” the politically correct DOJ ushers in a new era in American Newspeak.

Topics of Discussion:

  • Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy address
  • The State of the Republican Primary
  • Europe’s Terror Continues in Italy and Belgium
  • The DOJ’s Newspeak Lexicon
  • Potential Implications of a Trump Nomination and Presidency

& more . . .

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

The two faces of Ken Sukhia, candidate for Congressional permanence

sukhiaIt is an old, old story.

A politician or wannabe politician announces he is a staunch supporter of term limits in general, as he knows the lion’s share of voters are. But he will quibble about some detail that allows him to be a opponent of any specific term limit proposal.

Thus, the politician can nod to his pro-term limits constituents and simultaneously wink at the anti-term limits lobbyists.

The latest exhibit in this dusty pantheon is former federal prosecutor Ken Sukhia who is running in the Republican primary for Florida’s 2nd Congressional district.

Here is Sukhia, captured on YouTube, dissembling before a would-be constituent.

Kudos to the voter who asked him the question about term limits. Let’s keep popping the question to candidates at public meetings — and posting the results. We need to hold these candidates accountable.