Clinton Foundation employed now-imprisoned senior Muslim Brotherhood official

The Obama administration while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State (and afterward) was extremely solicitous of the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt. This suggests an even closer connection. The Muslim Brotherhood influence in the Obama administration was very strong, and courtesy [of] Huma Abedin, it will continue into the new Clinton administration. That will ensure a foreign policy that enables and aids the advance of jihad and Sharia as much as Obama has done, or more.

“Clinton Foundation Employed a Now-Imprisoned Senior Muslim Brotherhood Official,” by Patrick Poole, PJ Media, October 20, 2016:

Gehad El-Haddad, the now-imprisoned former spokesman for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s so-called “Freedom and Justice Party,” was effectively the “Baghdad Bob” of the Arab Spring.

Educated in the UK and the son of a top Muslim Brotherhood leader, Gehad served as the special advisor on foreign policy to deposed Muslim Brotherhood president Mohamed Morsi.

Gehad incited violence, justified the torture of protesters, recycled fake news stories, and staged fake scenes of confrontation during the 2013 Rabaa protests.

He was arrested in September 2013 after the fall of Morsi and the bloody confrontations during the breakup of the Muslim Brotherhood’s protest camps in Rabaa Square and around Cairo.

During his ascendancy in 2011 and 2012, at which time he served on the Muslim Brotherhood’s “Nahda” (Renaissance) Project to revive the caliphate and reinstitute Islamic law and also served as Morsi’s campaign spokesman, he was being paid by the Clinton Foundation.

Gehad had been employed for five years as the Cairo director of the Clinton Foundation until August 2012, according to his own LinkedIn page:


This shows that the Clinton Foundation subsidized one of the senior Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood officials in his rapid rise to power.

His LinkedIn shows he was employed by the Clinton Foundation from August 2007 through August 2012, during which time he served in several positions within the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party:

www-linkedin-com_2016-09-20_11-49-08From the early days of the Arab Spring beginning in May 2011, when he was serving as the Muslim Brotherhood’s party foreign affairs advisor, he was being paid by the Clinton Foundation.

He was still on the Clinton’s payroll when he became spokesman for Mohamed Morsi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate for president of Egypt, and throughout the entirety of his campaign.

He held multiple senior roles with the Muslim Brotherhood while continuing to be in the employ of the Clinton Foundation.


It didn’t take long for Gehad to become a brazen apologist for the worst abuses of the Morsi regime.

When Morsi declared himself above the law and the courts in a November 22, 2012 declaration, Gehad was quick to justify the power grab to reporters and analysts:

And when police immediately began to protest Morsi’s power grab, Gehad threatened a purge of the police for not falling into line:

Morsi’s power grab launched a series of protests in December 2012. The Muslim Brotherhood unleashed its shock troop cadres on protesters, including setting up torture chambers for anti-Morsi protesters — all with Gehad’s vocal approval:

And as the Ministry of Interior and the police continued to resist Morsi’s violence against protesters, Gehad continued to threaten retaliation:

Continuing into 2013, Morsi’s regime continued to lose legitimacy in the face of growing protests culminating in the June 30 “Tamarod” protests, where tens of millions of Egyptians took to the streets against Morsi.

In the run-up to June 30, Gehad announced the regime’s moves to counter the protesters:

He also was caught recycling pictures from previous protests to slander the June 30th protests as trying to reinstall the former president, Hosni Mubarak:


In response to what may be the largest political protests in recorded human history, the June 30 protests and the intransigence of Morsi on heeding calls for new elections, the Egyptian army stepped in and deposed Morsi on July 3, 2013.

After Morsi’s removal and as the Muslim Brotherhood seized several critical areas of Cairo in response to grind the city to a halt, Gehad continued to roll out the fake propaganda.

In one case in July 2013, he posted on Facebook a picture that he represented as a mother who was a Morsi supporter whom he claimed had been killed by Egyptian police. But in fact the picture was from Syria in December 2012:


Reporters covering the Muslim Brotherhood’s protests complained that Gehad did nothing as they were beaten by Muslim Brotherhood cadres at the protests:


As the protests began to escalate, so did Gehad’s false propaganda….

Read the rest here.


UK press regulator permits criticism of Islam, Muslim journo says it’s “open season on minorities”

Hamas-linked CAIR’s Lamis Deek cheers for Jerusalem jihad murderer

More Clinton Leaked Emails Detail Devotion to Executive Gun Control

More emails from Hillary Clinton campaign staffers were made public by WikiLeaks this week, granting insight into the campaign’s deceptive attacks on your rights and the extent to which Clinton is in league with the country’s most powerful anti-gun forces. Further, the emails provide more information about Clinton’s insistence on pursuing gun control by executive order. purports to be “a community of readers and writers offering unique perspectives on ideas large and small.” However, there’s nothing unique about the perspective of a January 12 item purportedly authored by a gun control advocate who was the victim of domestic violence. In fact, according to leaked emails, the piece was authored by Clinton campaign consultants and planted on by campaign staff.

On January 8, Clinton campaign chair John Podesta forwarded an email titled, “Draft medium post on guns.” The author of the original email is not clear from the WikiLeaks archive. The email states, in part:        

Hey everyone –

Ron Klain wrote a riff for HRC and sent it to Teddy on guns. We thought it could make a strong Medium post from someone who could really speak to this issue (not HRC and not someone on our campaign).

Here’s the draft, which I edited and can personalize depending on who we want to use as an author. A survivor of gun violence? An advocate or family member?

If we can find someone, and if folks want, we could get this posted today to Medium in someone’s name (not us). Here it is, let me know your thoughts!

The email goes on to provide a draft of the commentary.

Ronald Klain is a prominent Democratic operative who served as the chief of staff to both Vice President Al Gore and Vice President Joe Biden. Most recently, Klain has consulted on the Clinton campaign.

From the email, it appears Klain developed an anti-gun commentary intended to be used by Clinton herself. However, the campaign seemed to have thought the item would carry more weight if it appeared under the name of someone outside the campaign who had a history with the issue.

The plan outlined in this email was carried out, as on January 12 a piece titled “I’m With Hillary” was posted to with Clai Lasher listed as its author. Lasher was shot by her stepfather in 1970 and is a survivor engagement lead at Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety. Just as the email suggested, portions of the piece were personalized for Lasher. The majority of Klain’s commentary was not altered.

This incident should prompt the public to question just how much of the pro-Clinton content appearing in the media has been directly orchestrated by the Clinton campaign itself.

Recently released emails also give more insight into the unsavory nature of the Clinton campaign’s attacks on Democratic rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The emails show that Clinton’s anti-Sanders messaging was tailored to the racial background of the target audience. In a February 7 email exchange between Democratic consultant Mandy Grunwald and Clinton campaign staff, potential attacks on Sanders were discussed. Specifically, the emails contemplated using the gun issue to attack Sanders’ support among African Americans. In one email, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook wrote, “We may need to use guns tactically in the AA community–just like we’ll have tactical skirmishes on crime bill, etc.”

During the Democratic primaries, Sanders called on Clinton to produce the transcripts of her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs. Clinton refused, but WikiLeaks obtained the transcripts and has made them available to the public. While much of the speeches address financial and foreign policy, during a June 4, 2013 question and answer session with Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, Clinton used the forum to take a swipe at NRA.

Despite NRA being a nonpartisan organization that routinely supports candidates across the political spectrum, Clinton blamed NRA, in part, for what she perceived is an increase in partisanship that stymied her preferred agenda. In doing so, Clinton gave a ham-handed retelling of an instance where NRA pursued the best interests of our members by supporting the opponent of a Tennessee lawmaker that had obstructed the passage of important Right-to-Carry legislation. Clinton characterized NRA’s vigorous defense of the rights of the state’s gun owners as unreasonable.

With respect to selecting a running mate, the emails have a tale to tell here as well.  In Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Clinton chose a running-mate with a 20 year record of unwavering support for severe gun control. However, a March 17 email written by Podesta shows that several of the other candidates for the position were equally hostile to the Second Amendment.

Among those listed was former Attorney General Eric Holder, who called the Obama administration’s inability to convince Congress to enact new gun control measure, “my single failure.” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who led an anti-gun filibuster on the Senate floor in June, was also considered.

Most disturbing, Podesta’s list included the gun control movement’s primary financier, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Worse, other emails suggest that Bloomberg could still hold a position in a potential Clinton administration. In a June 3, 2015 email, Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden asked Bloomberg adviser Howard Wolfson, “Is there something Mike Bloomberg would want to do in his life in an Admin?” Wolfson responded, “Secty of state.” Tanden then forwarded the email to Podesta, with the line, “Something to know for down the road.” The influence a potential Secretary of State Bloomberg could exert over U.S. policy pertaining to international efforts to restrict the private ownership of firearms is an obvious concern to law-abiding gun owners.

The new emails also further reveal Clinton’s resolve to illegitimately use executive authority to attack gun rights. Over the course of the 2016 presidential campaign, Clinton has shared her intent to flout federal law and the U.S. Constitution by unilaterally restricting the private transfer of firearms. More specifically, on October 5, 2015, Clinton formally proposed to restrict the private transfer of firearms at gun shows by executive action. As this journal noted last week, under current federal law the president cannot use their executive authority to curtail private transfers at gun shows, or anywhere else; as evidenced by the actions of the Obama administration.

Shortly after Clinton formally announced her proposal, the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent authored a story titled, “Obama administration has doubts that key Hillary gun proposal can work,” that severely undercut Clinton’s plan. In it, Sargent cites “current and former senior administration officials,” who noted that the Obama administration had already explored Clinton’s private transfer proposal multiple times and determined that it was unworkable in practice and subject to legal challenge.

It seems that the Obama administration’s acknowledgement of federal law, and Sargent’s reporting, didn’t sit well with the Clinton campaign. On October 7, 2015, Tanden emailed Sargent’s article to Ann O’Leary, a senior policy advisor for the Clinton campaign, along with the sentence, “What is the White House doing?” O’Leary responded, “Being really annoying,” adding, “We should all check in with our folks there about it – health care (Robert Pear article); guns; and it is going to get worse…”

While the Clinton campaign might find the Obama administration’s public recognition of the limits of their own power to restrict firearms “annoying,” many Americans are sure to find Clinton’s plans to usurp the Congress’ legislative power downright obnoxious.

As more of the Clinton staff emails are made public, vigilant gun owners are provided with a greater understanding of the wide-ranging and sophisticated attack on their rights. It is vital that all gun owners are made to understand the scale of threat we face and the deception our opponents are willing to employ to achieve their goals.

The Lessons of Donald J. Trump

With the 2016 presidential “debates” now behind us, it becomes more and more apparent that it’s time for Republicans to reevaluate their process for selecting presidential candidates.  While the recent Trump snafu… in which he is caught on tape suggesting that if you’re rich and famous you can get away with grabbing unsuspecting women by their genitals… may not turn off his most ardent supporters and defenders, it will most certainly hamper his ability to attract the women, the independents, and the undecided voters he’ll need on November 8.  However, we should not be surprised to learn that a man who has enjoyed great power and wealth might also exhibit a tendency to ignore the rules of decorum that he would expect others to live by.

Donald Trump has shown himself to be an egomaniac of the first order… a crude, vulgar and inarticulate man with few of the social skills necessary for success in the political arena.  In his primary debates with sixteen other Republicans he looked and acted like a grownup schoolyard bully.  And while he’s touched a number of “hot button” issues that greatly concern most Americans… Islamic terrorism, international trade, illegal immigration, and the exportation of jobs… he’s wasted weeks and months on the campaign trail fighting unnecessary and unwinnable battles.

That being said, how could such a boorish individual, running for his first attempt at public office, win the Republican nomination for president of the United States, even though, by comparison, he is far preferable to his Democratic opponent?  The answer to that question lies in the relative merits of the primary system versus the caucus/convention system in which party loyalists and activists select the party’s presidential nominees.

The 1964 Goldwater campaign was a grassroots campaign organized at the local level across the country.  It was a campaign specifically designed to generate the long-sought confrontation between the most articulate proponents of conservatism and liberalism… a confrontation that would never occur if the eastern liberal establishment had been allowed to nominate yet another moderate Republican.  In 1968, the party nominated former vice president Richard Nixon, who had spent the previous eight years traveling the country, raising money for state and local candidates and endearing himself to the Republican rank-and-file.  And although he was not as beloved by conservatives as was Barry Goldwater, his level of support at the grassroots level was sufficient to nominate him in 1968 without serious opposition.

In the years between 1968 and 1980, yet another conservative grassroots movement was taking root in support of Governor Ronald Reagan, of California.  However, the success of the Reagan movement once again energized opposition among establishment Republicans.  And while Reagan enjoyed broad support in precinct caucuses and in county and state GOP conventions all across the country, establishment Republicans made a last ditch effort to regain party control by forcing him to accept a moderate Republican, George H.W. Bush, as his running mate.

Bush was nominated and elected in 1988 but, as conservatives had predicted, he was destined to be a one-term president.  When asked in 1992 whether or not she had been disappointed in Bush’s performance during his first term, former U.N. Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick said, “Disappointed?  No.  In order for one to be disappointed, one must have had some expectation in the first place.”  With his defeat, the Clinton political dynasty was launched.

In 1996, establishment Republicans nominated Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) who had little or no chance of defeating Bill Clinton.  In 2000, establishment Republicans nominated and elected yet another moderate, George W. Bush who, while campaigning in South Carolina, demonstrated his ignorance of conservative ideology by describing himself as a “compassionate” conservative… apparently unaware that conservatism has always been the soul of true compassion.  In 2008, establishment Republicans nominated a moderate, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), and in 2012 they nominated yet another moderate, Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA).

What each of the post-1984 nominees had in common is that none were the product of a broad-based conservative grassroots movements; all were products of primary elections in which the winning candidate was determined, not on the basis of fidelity to basic conservative principles, but largely on the basis of who could spend the most on slick 30-second TV commercials.

Nowhere has Trump’s ignorance of the political process been more evident than in his response to Sen. Ted Cruz’s success in winning all 34 of Colorado’s convention delegate votes.  Upon learning that Cruz had captured all of Colorado’s delegate slots, Trump is quoted as saying, “I’ve gotten millions of more votes than Cruz, and I’ve gotten hundreds of delegates more… and then you have a Colorado where they just get all these delegates, and it’s not a system.  There was no voting.  I didn’t go out there to make a speech or anything.”  He went on to say, “But the system is rigged.  It’s crooked.”   He later tweeted, “How is it possible that the people of Colorado never got to vote in the Republican primary?”

The people of Colorado would be surprised and angered to learn that Trump considers the system they’ve devised to elect national convention delegates to be “rigged” or “crooked.”

What Trump apparently fails to understand is that, while he was having his way with politicians around the globe, buying with cash whatever governmental decisions he couldn’t win by simple persuasion, millions of other Americans were doing whatever they could to further the interests of their country, their community, and their party.  Many concerned citizens were serving their party as precinct chairmen, as county chairmen, and as state committeemen.  Millions of others spent their evenings stuffing envelopes, manning telephones, putting up yard signs, and distributing campaign literature door-to-door.  Others spent much of their spare time recruiting good people to run for public office, participating in precinct meetings and caucuses, or serving as delegates to county, state, and national conventions… all at their own expense.

Under the caucus/convention presidential nominating system, those who are the “spear-carriers” of the nominating process are the party activists who, because of their intimate relationship with party affairs, are most capable of identifying and nominating the candidates who best represent

the party platform and who have the best chance of success on Election Day.

Conversely, while it is still the party activists who are called upon to do all the hard work of political fundraising, organizing, and campaigning, the primary election system puts the final selection of presidential candidates in the hands of voters, many of whom pay little or no attention to public affairs on a day-to-day basis, and who think they’ve done their “civic duty” merely by going to the polls on Election Day.  In most cases, their voting booth decisions are based on published polling data… the “herd” instinct… or on impressions gained from viewing innumerable 30-second TV sound bytes over many months of the campaign season.

There is no better example of the quality of candidates produced by the primary system than Donald Trump.  In the final weeks of the campaign, with the country teetering on the brink of political and economic disaster, we find our last best hope for survival and renewal… beset by numerous charges of sexual improprieties and warring against the top leaders of his own party… putting his own ego and his own self-image above the best interests of the party and the country.

After eight years of Barack Obama’s bogus presidency, we find every economic indicator and every foreign policy initiative headed in the wrong direction.  As such, almost any Republican candidate could have “waltzed” into the White House, especially when opposed by Hillary Rodham Clinton who, along with Barack Obama, is one of the most corrupt public figures in U.S. history.  But the blame for Trump’s poor showing in the polls is not entirely his.  He may be the most inept and inarticulate presidential candidate in party history, but his candidacy is the product of: a) the primary system, and b) the failure of the Republican Party to demand that Republican elected officials adhere to state and national party platforms.

Those of us who’ve been party activists for many years have learned the true value of the caucus/convention system in which the planks of party platforms are generated at the precinct level, from where they eventually find their way into staunchly conservative state and national party platforms… platforms which are, in turn, almost totally ignored by Republican elected officials after they’ve been elected and sworn into office.

It was just sixteen years between the Goldwater nomination in 1964 and the Reagan nomination in 1980, and it is now thirty-six years since the party nominated its last true conservative.  Had the Republican Party been unswervingly faithful to its underlying principles in the post-WWII era, the United States of America would be a totally different place today, and Donald Trump would appear to be a moderate-liberal by comparison.  It is the Republican Party’s long-term failure to honor its own principles that has created a political environment in which voters would reject qualified and experienced candidates in favor of an untried and unproven outsider.  That is the lesson of the Trump candidacy.

Donald Trump is now our last, best hope.  And if he will continue to deliver the excellent stump speech he gave in Delaware, Ohio, on Thursday, October 20, and in Fletcher, North Carolina, the following day, he can still be elected on November 8.  Unfortunately, if his totally inappropriate remarks at the annual Al Smith dinner in New York on Thursday evening are any indicator, he could just as easily waste the remaining campaign days “tilting at windmills” and fighting unnecessary and unwinnable battles.

If he is elected he will be our next president and the republic will be set on the road to renewal.  If she is elected she may be our last president and only God knows what terrible fate awaits us.

RELATED ARTICLE:  A Frightening Preview of Hillary’s America

VIDEO: Hillary Clinton: America’s Most Dangerous ‘Enemy Within’

From Florida, I flew out to Reno to entertain at the 2016 Nevada Women’s Expo. In between my shows, I made pit-stops in my hotel room. Folks, I could hardly believe what I was seeing. Every news TV channel I turned to was beating the crap out of Trump trying to brand him an abuser of women. Leaked Hillary emails have revealed that the mainstream media gets its marching orders from the Clinton campaign

Thus, the media fix is in; portray Trump in a red hoodie with a pitchfork; portray wicked-crooked Hillary as angelic, wearing a pure white flowing gown. Never have I seen such a shock-and-awe orchestrated media campaign to demonize a candidate.

On the issue of “abuse of women”, if we had a fair and balanced mainstream media rather than operatives of the Clinton campaign, Hillary’s advisers would have begged her, “Pleeeeease Ma’am, don’t go there!!!” Hillary and Bill’s records of abusing women is horrific (assault, rape, Hillary humiliating a 12 year old girl to get her rapist off and more). And yet, the Clintons arrogantly know they can get away with attempting to brand Trump an abuser of women while they belong in the Infamous Abusers of Women Hall of Shame.

Folks, it is beyond repulsive and stomach turning watching our Leftist enemies deceptively promoting this evil woman as an angel of light.

During the extremely rough flight into Reno for the Women’s Expo (my wife Mary’s nails pressed firmly into my thigh), I watched a DVD of Trevor Loudon’s extremely scary, compelling and yet hopeful new movie, “Enemies Within.”

Trevor’s movie brings home the reality that Communism and Sharia Law could become the law of the land in America. I realize that sounds “far-out”, as we said in the 70s. However, Trevor gives documented evidence to prove his point.

Enemies Within” zooms in on the best-kept secret of modern politics. Almost no one is aware of the fact that fewer than 20,000 U.S. Communists, socialists and extreme “progressives” are able to influence the politicians and even write the laws that control the lives of over 300 million Americans.”

“Enemies Within” features shocking testimony from an awarded Homeland Security agent who was humiliated and punished by our government for doing his job, collecting data on Islamic terrorists operating in the United States. The agent’s data was removed from the system. The agent was investigated, deemed more of a threat to national security than the terrorists.

Trevor’s movie names numerous U.S. Congressmen who are colluding with foreign and domestic enemies.

As said in the Twilight Zone movie, “Wanna see something really scary?” Hillary Clinton could not pass an FBI security check because of her overt ties to organizations with known associations with terrorism. That should scare your socks off folks.

Trevor exposes a long list of high ranking democrats who are in bed with Communist Party USA working to elect as many far left democrats as possible. The movie documents Obama’s communist roots. I remember pundits in both parties having a cow over Victoria Jackson’s song, “There’s A Communist Living in the White House.” 

Watching the movie, I was moved by comments from U.S. Navy Admiral, retired, James “Ace” Lyons. “Never in my lifetime did I believe I would witness this great country of ours being withdrawn from our world leadership role; and taken down by our own administration.”

Obama with Hillary’s blessing has decimated our military; the smallest army prior to WWII; smallest navy prior to WWI. The Chinese are building 60 ships a year. We are building 9-10 ships per year. We have 1700 nuclear weapons in the overall nuclear balance verses the Russians’ 4500. Our tactical nuclear weapons are obsolete. Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons are new.

“Enemies Within” caught Hillary on video vowing to go further than Obama’s implementation of illegal immigration. To gain a permanent progressive majority democrats need more voters. They need illegals. Our enemies within lie is there are 11 million illegals. The truth is there are 20 to 50 million. If the dems can legalize 10, 20, 30 million illegals and give them voting rights, the majority will vote democrat. It would mean game-over for our two party system, the end of America as founded.

Bottom line, we cannot allow our enemies within to succeed in putting Hillary Clinton in the White House. The Democrat party platform touts communism hidden under a shroud of more palatable names. Can America become, in essence, a communist nation under Sharia Law? Yes. Yes. Yes, we can!

The good news is Trevor’s movie, “Enemies Within” offers solutions. Folks, find out how you can stop our enemies evil takeover. Please visit

RELATED ARTICLE: Clinton Campaign Chairman Had Multiple Dinners With Top DOJ Official During Clinton Email Investigation

Hillary Clinton Tops 2015-16 Islamist Money List

Philadelphia – October 20, 2016 – The Middle East Forum’s “Islamist Money in Politics” (IMIP) project is releasing the top-ten recipients of 2015-16 campaign contributions from individuals who subscribe to the same Islamic supremacism as Khomeini, Bin Laden, and ISIS.

Hillary Clinton tops the list, raking in $41,165 from prominent Islamists. This includes $19,249 from senior officials of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates on November 15, 2014.

For example, Mrs. Clinton has accepted $3,900 from former CAIR vice-chairman Ahmad Al-Akhras, who has defended numerous Islamists in Ohio indicted – and later convicted – on terrorism charges.

Among other current presidential candidates, Jill Stein has accepted $250. Donald Trump and Gary Johnson have not received any Islamist money.

Other top recent recipients of money from the enemy include Rep. Keith Ellison($17,370) and  Rep. Andre Carson ($13,225). The top-ten list includes nine Democrats, one independent (Sen. Bernie Sanders accepted $9,285), and no Republicans.

None of the above recipients has responded to IMIP’s efforts to inform and warn them about the Islamist ties of these donors.

For full details of all Islamist contributions in a sortable database, click here.

Islamist Money in Politics holds politicians accountable for accepting funds from sources linked to the enemy. It shines a light on Islamist influence in U.S. politics by making public the campaign contributions of 1,356 leading figures in America’s most important Islamist groups. To date, IMIP has documented 2,974 Islamist contributions worth $1.43 million.

Launched in 2014, the non-partisan project continually updates contribution data to educate politicians themselves and the public.

middle-east-forum-logoABOUT THE MIDDLE EAST FORUM

The Middle East Forum promotes American interests through intellectual, activist, and philanthropic efforts.



Wallace’s Rigged Question about a Rigged Election

It was déjà vu all over again when Fox News debate moderator Chris Wallace asked Trump the question that has dominated the news media ever since, drawing new attacks on Trump from political establishment stooges everywhere.

Back in the spring, during the primaries, Trump was asked if he would sign a pledge to support whomever the eventual GOP nominee might be, pledging not to challenge that nominee and in the end, support that nominee. Trump, along with every other GOP primary candidate agreed to take that pledge, only in the end, to watch other GOP candidates refuse to keep that pledge and support Trump once he was the GOP nominee.

Trump was forced to make that pledge in the blind and then watch some of his opponents who forced that pledge on Trump, break that pledge themselves. It’s déjà vu all over again as Wallace sought a blind commitment from Trump to accept the outcome of a rigged election for the alleged sake of national unity, peace and tranquility.

Trump didn’t fall for the same trick twice. This time, he answered Wallace by saying he would look at the situation at the time and leave everyone in suspense on the matter, a very conservative approach to a blind loaded question aimed more at Trump’s supporters than Trump himself. The real question was, would Trump supporters accept the outcome of a rigged election?

Wallace had posed a loaded question and much to the disdain of the pro-Clinton propaganda media, Trump was smart enough to stay out of the corner this time.

Finally grasping the level of anger in millions of American voters who are fed up with establishment politicians, their complicit news media, phony polling data and a growing mountain of evidence proving that the election is indeed “rigged” in favor of Hillary Clinton, the media is in a mad search for any way available to quell the rising tide of angry voters before the pot boils over on November 8th.

Hard evidence of “election rigging” is so overwhelming at this point that the only way to deny it is to flat out lie about it.

Hillary Clinton insulted Trump’s answer to Wallace’s rigged question, saying “This is how democracy works!”

But it’s not how it worked in 2000 when Democrat Presidential candidate Al Gore refused to accept his loss and wanted those “hanging chads” counted again and again and again until the election would have swung in his favor, once there were enough hanging chads on the floor.

It’s not how it worked when Hillary Clinton claimed that George W. Bush was “selected, not elected” in 2002, or when John Kerry stated that the 2004 election, which he lost handily to Bush, was “rigged.”

Asking Trump if he would accept the results of a “rigged election” before the election is even held reminds me of the time Nancy Pelosi told Americans that they would have to pass ObamaCare to see what was in it… Both were insanely foolish, but not on Trumps part.

A day later in Delaware Ohio and under fire from the Clinton-media, Trump announces he will accept the outcome if he wins. Exactly… the fight isn’t over until it’s over and this fight is FAR from over.

Last on this matter, why didn’t Chris Wallace ask Hillary Clinton if she would accept defeat by Trump?

Could it be because everyone including Chris Wallace knows exactly how “rigged” this election is?

Massive election rigging certainly is no secret… Besides, Wallace’s question wasn’t aimed at Donald Trump, but rather is millions of angry voters who will NOT accept a Clinton victory no matter what Donald does. They were trying to get Trump to help them quell the violence in the likely event that Hillary and her media steal this election.

Mr. Fair and Balanced certainly wasn’t Fair or Balanced with this question.

Chris Wallace should never have asked that question… It was inappropriate unless he asked it of Hillary Clinton, a career criminal and the most unpopular Democrat candidate in DNC history. That would have been appropriate!

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may click here to urge Donald Trump and the Republican National Committee to immediately sue to compel states to remove non-citizens, dead people and multi-state registrations from the voter rolls!

#RiggedSystem: Debate proves media part of banana republic vote

Elections are about power: who has it, who doesn’t.

Until this year, we were told that the candidate with the most money would win. Why? Because money buys negative ads to influence an uninformed electorate.

Who keeps the electorate uninformed? The national media.

When I started to work as a reporter in the early 1980s, I thought my job was to inform my readers. Somehow over the past twenty years, the job description has changed. Now it’s all about “the narrative.”

“The narrative” is the daily spin the national media decides to put on the news. It determines what they will cover, how they will cover it — and what topics they will exile to Tinfoilia, that distant fringe world where Yahoo is not a search engine and America actually stands for something worth fighting and dying for.

Last night, the phony journalists were all waiting. You could see and hear them on Twitter and on the blogs. When will Trump say it? And they were disappointed. At least early on.

For the first twenty-five minutes, Trump and Hillary stayed on topic, and fought each other on policy grounds over their picks for the Supreme Court, and the life or death decisions those justices will make for generations of future Americans.

Most surprising part of this debate so far: how substantive it has been. But it’s early…

They sparred on taxes. Hillary promised flat-out she will “tax the rich,” which in Hillary-speak means anyone earning more than minimum wage. Trump said he will lower individual tax rates, lower corporate taxes, and grow the economy.

The media heads were drooping. Boring! Because they don’t want this election to be about policy, where the tired left-wing dogmas Hillary is spouting have been tried and failed repeatedly for generations.

They were just waiting for Trump to say it. They would know what “it” is when they heard it.

A few mins in, @realDonaldTrump seems more measured than in first 2 debates. lets see if it lasts.

Hillary looked down repeatedly. A script? She seemed to have attack lines her staff had prepared. When Trump wouldn’t take the bait, she tried another. The media held its breath. Will he bite this time? Will he go off the rails?

Because that is the narrative. It’s all about Trump’s character, his “unfitness” for office. That is the narrative Hillary and her campaign gurus in the media have decided to push, because they don’t have anything better.

Finally, Chris Wallace — who ought to be shot for keeping the candidates on substantive topics — asks Trump if he will accept the result of the election. And Trump won’t say the words.

Now the phony journalists wake up. There it is, like the response in catechism class (okay, none of them has gone to catechism class). And he won’t say it. He won’t say that he will accept the results of a phony, rigged election.

Suddenly, they have their “gotcha” moment.

Never-Trumper Ben Shapiro was tweeting, and he caught it immediately:

Trump’s answer on “rigging” will the the takeaway moment. He absolutely blew it.

At exactly 10:17 PM eastern time – fifteen minutes before the end of the debate –  CBS News, Reuters, USA Today, CNN and the BBC issued their writ for tomorrow’s headlines: “When asked if he will accept the results of the election, Donald Trump says ‘I will look at it at the time.’”

And then something horrifying happened.

No, it wasn’t Hillary’s phony horror that somehow Donald Trump would set off a remake of Bush v. Gore in an evenly divided Supreme Court come November. Nor was it visions of street fighting and riots.

Donald Trump started calling them out. He told the truth about our rigged elections.

“First of all, the media is so dishonest and so corrupt, and the pile-on is so amazing,” he said. “It’s so dishonest. And they’ve poisoned the mind of the voters.”

And then he used the live cameras, and in front of tens of millions of Americans, he delivered the news — the real news that the media has refused to cover during the campaign.

He told America about our rotten election system, the millions of dead voters who have been put back on the voter rolls. Why? So the Democrats can get the tombstone vote.

He told Americans about the “millions of people that are registered to vote that shouldn’t be registered to vote.” Oh yes, Virginia. That means you.

Voter fraud cases are finally being investigated in dozens of states, and the phony media continues to pretend, “there is no such thing as voter fraud.”

Trump even mentioned the James O’Keefe Project Veritas videos that captured on camera Democrat party operatives boasting about their dirty tricks campaigns, including massive coordinated voter fraud schemes.

Donald Trump wants this election to be about truth. The media would like it to be about illusions. (Even Alan Schulkin, the Democrat commissioner of the New York City Board of Elections, has admitted that Democrat operatives “bus people around to vote” and supports a photo ID requirement to prevent rampant voter fraud).

The ease with which ineligible voters can cast ballots in America, robbing legitimate voters of their voice, make elections in many Third World countries look good. And that’s a disgrace.

Here’s the real headline the phony journalists don’t want you to read: Americans are waking up the horror show. And the media is aghast. Because if Donald Trump wins in November, they will stand along with Hillary and Emperor Obama, exposed, cold and naked before the truth.

And that is truly horrifying to them.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Hill.

Why Abortion is Not a Woman’s Choice

Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court truncated the democratic process of dealing with abortion from state to state in 1972, the issue has been defended as being a “woman’s choice.”

Apologies for bluntness, but this is an immoral position.

There is really only one question in this debate: Is that which is within a woman’s womb a person, or is it a blob of protoplasm that might one day be a person?

Secondarily, if it is the latter, at what point does the transformation take place? From these answers will flow rational and moral clarity on the question of abortion.

In 1972, you could at least rely on scientific ignorance to claim the fetus was equivalent to a tumor. Although even then, the medical profession knew because of what came out of a late term abortion or miscarriage. That’s probably why so few doctors ever have performed abortions. It was not particularly rational, considering women feeling the punch of an elbow or kick of a heel — person parts. But the general public could squint its eyes real hard and blur to the idea that it was not a baby until birth.

Technology clarifier

But now, with the advance of technology, we can see clearly the baby in the womb. We can measure brain waves, heart beats and most heart-rending, we can watch the baby’s response to threat and pain. Planned Parenthood harvested human organs from “aborted fetuses” and then sold them. Human organs. That’s a pretty compelling case for that being a person in the womb.

The world understands that carrying a baby to term and giving birth and then having a child to raise is an enormous undertaking. That’s why it is supposed to be done in families, in which a mother and a father are committed to each other for life. It is meant to be a shared undertaking and a thing of beauty — not something to be destroyed when inconvenient or accidental.

The magnitude of the task notwithstanding, however, the science is overwhelming now on the morality of ending a pregnancy.

Considering what we know today about the fetus in the womb, it is morally indefensible to any longer consider that fetus anything other than a person. The obviousness of this point — made by Planned Parenthood, no less, selling human body parts — is a primary reason why every attempt at debate on the issue is deflected. It is a woman’s choice. It is between a woman and her doctor. It is about women’s health. It is reproductive health care and so on. Staying on the point of this being the purposeful death of a baby is a losing position, so it must be shifted from that.

Now, it is no longer simply squinting to make abortion acceptable, it is eyes tightly closed while repeating “woman’s choice” and “women’s health” arguments. In this one area, defenders of a “woman’s choice” are arguing that it is okay to kill a baby. There is no way around it. It is obfuscation at the highest level, for the lowest purpose.

Is early on OK?

Now perhaps you can see this when the baby in the womb is developed, but not so clearly at the earliest moments of conception. After all, even science does not suggest brain waves or heart beats in the first days.

Those two measurements of whether a person has died or is a live still show up at three weeks for the heart pumping blood and six weeks for brain waves to be measured. The problem immediately encountered here is exactly when should we say, with life-and-death certainty, that the non-human fetus becomes a human. Any point along the line is going to be arbitrary, meaning that we will be assigning death sentences based on an arbitrary line. That does not really hold moral water, either.

Remember, pro-choice activists and leaders support a woman’s right to kill her baby up until it exits the birth canal. That is the position of Hillary Clinton, the Democrat Party and some in the Republican Party. Sometimes they chant woman’s choice, sometimes they make the viability argument. It is not a human with rights until it is viable outside the woman, by which they mean the umbilical cord has been cut and it can survive on its own. But this also holds no intellectual water as the baby is still totally dependent on the mother’s, someone else’s, care for many years.

In the end, the “woman’s choice” defense of aborting unborn babies is morally and intellectually indefensible.


Pro-choice says a woman has a right to kill this if she so chooses, through several subterfuge arguments. Let your own eyes decide if that is moral or immoral.


Does Raising the Minimum Wage Help the Low-Wage Earner?
Was Jesus a Socialist?
4 Reasons the Government Cannot Run the Economy
Black Lives DO Matter! Therefore Promote Faith, Family
BONUS: Questions for a Moderator from a Different Worldview

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on

No, Trump Should Not Accept the Results of a Possibly Stolen Election

Crooks on the left, cowards on the right. Where do we go to find integrity?

One of the most talked about parts of last night’s final presidential debate was Donald Trump’s statement that he’d let us know on election night if he’d accept the balloting results. An NBC commentator expressed her bubble-headed opinion that the statement lost him the election. Worse still, “conservative” commentator John Podhoretz wrote that Trump’s comment was “a shocking and cravenly irresponsible thing to say, the sort of thing that threatens to rend our national fabric, and for that alone, Trump has earned his place in the history of American ignominy.” But Podhoretz’ criticism is what’s shocking and cravenly irresponsible — and reflective of profound ignorance.

Are some of us living in an alternate-reality universe? We just saw NYC’s Democrat election commissioner, Alan Schulkin, caught on video admitting “there’s a lot of vote fraud,” as he talked about how people are “bussed” around to vote illegally. This was followed by a Project Veritas sting video showing a Democrat operative slug named Scott Foval giving advice on how to commit the fraud, saying that it has been going on for 50 years and that it “doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this m****rf****r.” There was also the WikiLeaks released email showing that Clinton allies, also Democrats, presumably, believe that Obama forces committed vote fraud in 2008. Then there’s another WikiLeaks email in which Clinton campaign manager John Podesta wrote that “if you show up on Election Day with a drivers [sic] license with a picture [and 12 states and D.C. allow illegals  to get licenses], attest that you are a citizen, you have a right to vote in Federal elections.” Add to this the 2012 Pew study showing that approximately “24 million — one of every eight — voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate. More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters. [And] [a]pproximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state,” and what does it add up to?

That the John Podhoretzes of the world are, through their cowardice and sins of omission, hurting our republic.

Reality # 1: There is vote fraud.

Reality # 2: Since there’s vote fraud, it’s possible an election — especially a close one — could be stolen.

Yet the three-little-monkey coward-cons think that, somehow, it’s noble and healthy to view a possibly stolen election and say “Nothing to see here; move along.” Maybe if we pretend hard enough, everything will be okay.

I have no idea how Trump’s statement will play out, given that he didn’t explain the matter well and we have coward-cons doing the jobs (real) Americans wouldn’t do, but I suspect the average person doesn’t share Podhoretz’ concern over violation of a twisted view of propriety. But here’s the answer I would have given debate moderator Chris Wallace when he stated, to Trump, that we have a “tradition” in this country of a peaceful transfer of power:

Yes, sir, and we have another American tradition: it’s called the “rule of law.” And when you suspect an election has been stolen, and allow it to go unanswered, you become complicit in the undermining of our rule of law. Moreover, vote fraud that swings an election thwarts the people’s will. You may not care about that. Hillary Clinton certainly doesn’t care about that. But if I have reasonable suspicion that the Nov. 8 contest has been stolen, I will stand against the thwarting of the rule of law and the people’s will — even if I’m the only person in America to do it.

In addition, what is Wallace talking about? Trump isn’t proposing that tanks roll into Washington, D.C., and forcibly extract usurpers of power. He’s talking about what has happened before — most recently when Democrat Al Gore contested the 2000 election — and what Hillary Clinton wouldn’t hesitate to do if she thought it would benefit her. And did the punditry say that Gore rent America’s fabric and earned his place in the history of American ignominy?

I cannot tell you how disgusting I find the coward-cons’ cravenness. It is, sadly, a common failing of man to prefer to rationalize, or stick one’s head in the sand, than to face up to tough challenges and hard truths. This is the mentality causing coward-cons to tell Sheriff Joe Arpaio not to look into Obama’s birth certificate and judges to refuse to hand down anti-establishment rulings for fear of opening “that can of worms.” But tolerating criminality gets you more criminality. This is, mind you, a hallmark of Third World nations. Corruption is rife, tolerated, and many pretend it isn’t going on. You want to descend fully into Third Worldism? Listen to the coward-cons.

What the coward-cons miss, in their infinite lack of wisdom, is that unanswered corruption means our national fabric is already being rent.  And their prescription is to allow corruption to fester, to grow, to become status quo? It’s as with cancer: attacking it early involves some pain, perhaps enduring nauseating treatments or an operation to excise a malignant tumor. But ignoring it, refusing to face reality, means a metastasis that will consume the whole body and lead, ultimately, to death. Tolerate a bit of visible rending now — or risk having nothing left to rend later.

The coward-cons are the people who get elected to office…and then get nothing done; they’re the weak sisters who never saw a culture-war battle they couldn’t lose. If you suspect your vote has been negated by electoral fraud, would you want those charged with ensuring the system’s integrity to look the other way? Or would you want the matter sifted to the very bottom?

If the coward-cons would choose the former, then they’ve earned their place in the history of American ignominy.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to

ISIS Leader ‘Vote Hillary’ — Those who vote for Donald Trump are ‘infidels’ and ‘goat f—-ers’

World News Daily Report published the following:


Amadh Abu Makmud Al-alwani

Top ISIS leader now believed to be the number two behind the terrorist organization, Amadh Abu Makmud Al-alwani, put up a video this week following the second presidential debate asking American Muslim voters to support Hillary Clinton.

The controversial video that was taken down by YouTube only hours after it was uploaded showed top ISIS leader Amadh Abu Makmud Al-alwani threatening those who would decide to vote for Donald Trump and calling them “infidels” and “goat f—-ers”.

“ All Muslims who will show support for the dog-faced Trump are guilty of masiya (mortal sin) ”

– ISIS No.2 leader, Amadh Abu Makmud Al-alwani

He also claimed that even if Hillary was a woman and a “two face devil”, had the “charm of a pig” and was “treacherous as the snake”, that the Democratic presidential hopeful was at least in league with the “allied countries of the Islamic state” such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Supporting the “dog-faced” Trump

Al-alwani also warned all Muslims not to take his warnings lightly and that supporters of Trump would be severely punished on earth and in Jannah (afterlife).

“Trump is a dog, he is the scum of the earth. He boasts that he will take our oil and join Russia, Syria and the Shia Iranians against us in our holy fight” he added, visibly angry.

Read more.

DOCUMENTARY FILM: Hillary Clinton Body Count — Serial Killer for President!

This is the definitive documentary on the Hillary and Bill Clinton killing spree that has been ongoing since they burst onto the scene in Arkansas. A trail of dead and mysterious deaths surround the Clinton’s and I document 114 and more deaths in this film that they are directly connected to. Hill and Bill are Illuminati puppets, that are killing off anyone who might expose the 4th branches operations.

Bill and Hillary are some of the most proficient serial killers of all time and need to be put into prison immediately.

Please enjoy the film!


What Really Happened Article:…

Bill Clinton Leaving Ron Brown’s Funeral:…

VIDEO: Full Final Presidential Debate with Louder with Crowder Commentary

You are watching the Louder with Crowder Live streaming of the FINAL presidential debate. Enjoy the commentary and play along with the drinking game if you dare.

EDITORS NOTE: Watch more Louder with Crowder videos at Follow Steve on Twitter:, like him on Facebook:… and follow him on Vine:

Former Bernie Sanders Super PAC Director Unhappy with Lack of Support from Bernie Sanders Team

WASHINGTON, DC /PRNewswire/ – New World Order Politics interviews the founder and former chief director Cary Lee Peterson, an American lobbyist about his past works as the treasurer and chief director for Ready for Bernie Sanders 2016 (renamed Americans Socially United due to FEC regulations for presidential candidates) speaks out on the aftermath of his patriotic pursuit to exploit a very seasoned, yet very unpopular senator from New England.

Cary Peterson (36) comments, “Two years ago I was a regional director for National Independent American Party and I believed in Sanders’ policy and politics. I went to the mattresses with the executive board over the issue. He seemed like a great candidate for this year’s election. As a citizen of the U.S. we’re entitled to finding the best prospects for the job. You can’t sit and complain about who’s in office if you did nothing to help the best candidates come forward. That’s our given right as citizens.”

Despite his history as a philanthropist and a United Nations supporters for climate change, Peterson was first headlined in the mainstream media by an alleged smear article from an indie news blogger who claimed the ‘Sanders PAC conned James Bond‘ following the leak of a donation made by actor Daniel Craig. Peterson’s response to the less-than-positive media exposure while featured on Al Jazeera political talk show was that the journalist’s story was “half brilliance and half bullsh*t“, stating that some of the content in the article from Beckel about the PAC was relevant but much of the content about Peterson’s personal life was an outright lie.

American’s Socially United was active from June 2015 through March 2015. They amassed nearly three million members and followers among a social media compilation that provoked millennial voters to gain awareness for Senator Bernie Sanders’ presidential candidacy. The organization reported to United States Federal Election Commission that data was stolen and compromised in March 2016, preventing necessary reports to be filed and that they are working with FEC to get up to date as soon as possible.

The statement from the organization filed at FEC by Peterson this month stated that the dispute letter from legal counsel at Bernie 2016, Inc. was addressed and resolved in June 2016, which was nearly four month prior to the alleged media attack from Public Integrity against the PAC about not being pursuant to FEC regulations or the cease and desist letter from Bernie 2016.

New World Order Politics is a webcast that focuses on global political issues that raise the unquestionable and ignored topics that many believe to be conspiracies or cover-ups generated by the evolution for new world order and those trying to stop it.

Despite the GOP’s Epic Failure to Reach Black Voters, I’m Still Voting for Donald Trump in November

What the hell is going on with Blacks in this Republican Party? My phone has been ringing off the hook since last week with people from across the country asking me to explain the unexplainable.

Memo to my readers: I DON’T WORK FOR THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. But, it seems everyone wants to call me to get an understanding or insight into the inner workings of some of the strategies coming out of this party from the party’s “so-called” Black operatives.

First, in order to be an operative, by definition, you must know how to operate. These Blacks have little to no significant campaign experience and have absolutely no understanding of messaging and communications.

Last week, I was with a Black nationally syndicated radio talk show host who is extremely liberal. He asked why the party has not brought on people like me to help with their efforts with the Black community, as opposed to suing people like me? I told him to call the party and ask them that same question.

But then he said something very interesting.

“They don’t want people like you [referring to me] who know what they are doing,” he said. “They want people who they can control.”

I thought that was extremely insightful.

Part of a true operative’s background is a thing called experience. Only through experience can one know what to do, as well as what not to do. By this party constantly bringing on people with no relevant experience, they are setting their Black surrogates up for failure.

I guess this explains why I have been receiving phone calls from all over the country, especially from North Carolina, Ohio, and Florida. It seems like these Black staffers have received orders from the party to go into the Black community and ask Blacks to vote Republican, but not for Trump.

Yep, you heard me correctly!

Memo to Black Republicans: the Black community doesn’t make a distinction between Trump and the Republican Party; they are one in the same. You can’t have steak without meat, you can’t have basketball without the ball, you can’t watch TV without a TV.

How in the world do you go into the Black community and tell them that you are not supporting Trump’s campaign for the presidency on the Republican ticket and then turn around and ask them to vote Republican down ballot?

What these Black Republicans are doing is akin to asking a person to buy a Big Mac hamburger from McDonald’s without the beef. I know, I know, that doesn’t make sense and it’s impossible; well then, you get my point, thus I rest my case.

I unapologetically support Trump, because of the balance of the Supreme Court, my belief that amnesty for illegals will further exacerbate the Black unemployment rate, and our party’s establishment needs to be totally shaken up! We need totally new leadership from top to bottom on every level of the party.

To me, all the other issues swirling around Trump is mere background noise.

Here’s another memo to Black Republicans: If you are not supporting Trump, then why are you taking money from an organization, the Republican National Committee, whose sole purpose is to get Donald Trump elected as president?

Are you that desperate for money that you are willing to sell your political soul for thirty pieces of silver?

If you are not supporting Trump, then have some principle and resign immediately.

One of the fundamental tenets of marketing as it applies to getting consumers to switch brands, i.e., from Democrat to Republican, is “messenger credibility.”

How can you go into the Black community with credibility and ask for them to vote for Republicans down ballot, but don’t support the person at the top of the ticket? Would you support your local NAACP branch and try to distance yourself from the group’s national officers? I don’t think so.

These staffers should be embarrassed to ask Black folks to buy a product that they themselves don’t even believe in. Do they really think that Blacks are that stupid?

If I have to choose between making money and keeping my integrity, I will always choose keeping my integrity. I can always make more money, but I can’t get more integrity.

To be honest with you, the party should fire all those involved in this diabolical scheme. This should not be allowed to stand. How can the party justify paying someone who is in opposition to its very raison d’etre?

Not one of these Black staffers has publically endorsed Donald Trump; nor can you find in any public statements or in their media appearances indicating their support for Trump. When they have been challenged about this by the media, they quickly deflect to the point that they work for the party, not the Trump campaign. Again, you can’t have one without the other. The party and Trump are joined at the hip at this point.

This is why these Blacks have absolutely no credibility when they go into the Black community. If they don’t even believe in the product they are selling, so how can they convince others to believe in it?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in BlackPressUSA.

Where is Elliot Richardson? Loyalty over Integrity and the Future of Our Nation!

History is repeating itself, but no one is watching.  The executive branch of government is tipping balance of power, and nothing is said.  The United States is in Constitutional crisis, but nobody cares.  The future of our Nation hangs in the balance, but we are surrounded by media yes-men and cowards.  We need men and women of integrity to step up and defend rule of law, regardless of the political risk, or we will fail as a nation.

Where is Elliot Richardson when we need him most?

On August 9th, 1974, President Richard M. Nixon resigned from office over the Watergate political scandal.  For the benefit of younger generations, here is the background (or just google it):

The White House staff attempted, and almost succeeded in protecting Republican political operatives.  On June 17, 1972, just months prior to the 1972 general election, 5 men broke into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) HQ at the Watergate Hotel.  After a long investigation under two special prosecutors, evidence indicated that Nixon used the Department of Justice (DOJ), FBI, the CIA and the IRS to investigate and intimidate political opponents.  Facts also showed the administration attempted to cover-up the bungled burglary.

Although there was no evidence Nixon knew about the burglary in advance, taped discussions indicated an effort to undermine Congress and manage the media, and the fall-out.  After extensive media scrutiny, and televised Congressional hearings, a number of key Republicans’ committed to Constitutional “balance of power” over political party loyalties turned against the President.  Nixon abdicated his office in disgrace rather than be impeached.

One key decision brought this Constitutional crisis to its historic outcome.  Elliot Richardson, the Attorney General (AG), a Republican, long-time friend, legal counsel, and advisor to Nixon, chose personal integrity and loyalty to the Constitution over loyalty to the party and President.  When Congressional testimony uncovered the tape-recording system in the White House, Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox subpoenaed the tapes.  Nixon refused to turn them over, claiming executive privilege.

On October 20th, 1973, the President ordered Richardson, the head of the DOJ, to fire Cox and halt the subpoena.  Richardson had promised Congress he would not interfere with the investigation.  Under great pressure from the White House, and his political party, Richardson refused.  That very night he resigned his position as the senior law enforcement officer of the United States, and kept his oath to uphold the Constitution for the good of the nation.

Cox was fired, but the media and public out-cry from the “Saturday Night Massacre” forced a new special prosecutor to be appointed.  Had Richardson not acted with integrity and respect for the Constitution, the tapes, the scandal, the corruption may have been successfully covered-up.  As Nixon said later, Watergate would have been “a blip” on an otherwise successful term of office.

Since Watergate, politicians have feared using the Justice Department to politically protect the President, dreading a repeat of Watergate.  Even Bill Clinton, impeached for lying under oath to Congress, did not use the Department of Justice to shield himself – he just ignored it.  That is, until now.

Fast forward 50 years.  The Obama Administration disregard for the separate but equal legislative branch, and DOJ willingness to prosecute or protect politically motivated actions are staggering.  Here are just a few examples:

AG Holder ignored subpoenas for documents in the investigation of the death of a U.S. border agent over questionable U.S. government gun sales TO CRIMINAL GANGS.  The administration’s IRS political appointees targeted opponents of the President’s Democratic Party to stop or delay organizing legitimate political groups.  The Secret Service smeared the chairman of its own Congressional Oversight Committee in an effort to embarrass him.

The President and his staff misled the American public over the first murder of a US Ambassador in 50 years.  Congressional investigators uncovered personal statements proving that then Secretary of State Clinton lied about the reasons for the terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, just weeks before the 2012 election.  Investigators uncovered a data system in the Secretary of State’s private home, outside of government security controls.  Congress subpoenaed the server and its documents to further the investigation.  In televised Congressional hearings, presidential candidate Clinton claimed she destroyed no official work related emails.  Clinton claimed she sent no classified information from that server.

An FBI investigation concluded Clinton’s staff deleted at least 10,000 work related emails, and many more are unknown.  The FBI concluded that the she, and her staff had sent and received classified information on the server, some too highly sensitive to provide redacted versions.  As Secretary of State, she was the responsible classification authority, whether they were marked classified or not is irrelevant.  The FBI concluded that staffers destroyed the server and information after the subpoena was issued.  The FBI facilitated the destruction of evidence for devices of key staff members in exchange for their “cooperation.”   The FBI did not recommend any further action against Clinton.

However, the DOJ and FBI diligently investigated and prosecuted former CIA director GEN David Petreaus for mishandling classified – a realization uncovered while the FBI investigated a personal affair with his biographer.  The difference between Petreaus and Clinton, one wonders?  Petreaus admitted to his mistakes; Clinton takes no responsibility for her actions – it’s harder to prosecute a liar.  Coincidentally, Petreaus would have been a formidable candidate against Clinton this election.

The Director of the FBI, the DOJ, and the President himself not only failed to hold Secretary Clinton accountable, they have propped up her campaign for the Presidency.  Obama has claimed executive privilege and refused to respond to questions on the IRS, Benghazi, or classified emails.  Sound familiar?

These issues are not about a 1972 political break-in.  They are about the deaths of loyal Americans, and the executive branch tipping the balance of power in its favor.  The executive branch has the responsibility to enforce the laws.  To many citizens, the DOJ’s actions in these cases appear selective, blatantly political and highly questionable.  Do you want the next President to continue to ignore Congress, and use law-enforcement as a political tool?  If the DOJ enforces laws selectively, how long will our institutions last?  What will become of our justice system?  These issues are about the abuse of power, they are not about Democratic or Republican policies.

Not since Watergate has the White House been so entangled in political deception and disrespect for the elected representatives of our people.    Where is the Washington Post?  Where are the investigative journalists?  Where are the intellectuals that understand the risks to a nation where the elite are above the law?  Which political leader will choose integrity and loyalty to the Constitution over loyalty to their party and their candidate?  Who will have the courage to resign over abuse of power?

Where is Elliot Richardson?