Fifteen Hillary Factoids

A “factoid” is a brief or trivial item of news or information.

The following are some interesting factoids about Hillary Rodham and Hillary Clinton that some readers may not know. We thank the Random Facts website for compiling a list of fifty factoids from which these fifteen were taken:

  1. As a young adult, Hillary was an active Republican and even campaigned for Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater in 1964. The Vietnam War, the Civil Rights movement in America, Wellesley influences, and her view that the Richard Nixon campaign against Nelson Rockefeller included “veiled racism” prompted Hillary to leave the Republican party.
  2. When asked what attracted Hillary to Bill, she replied, “He wasn’t afraid of me.”
  3. Though Hillary had appeared on Vogue in 1998, she apparently backed out at the last minute for a 2007 shoot, claiming she didn’t want to look too “feminine.“
  4. Some scholars speculate that President Obama has given voice to the rising possibility of women with his more feminine, inclusive approach to problem-solving. They suggest that Hillary, on the other hand, is still trying to emulate a male model which requires combat and demonizing enemies.
  5. In one of Hillary’s first trials before a jury, she represented a canning company that had been sued by someone who claimed they found the rear end of a rat in a can. Though she won the case, she became the butt of her husband’s jokes for years over what he called her “rat’s ass” case.
  6. Hillary’s friendship as First Lady with former mentor Jean Houston ended after Bob Woodward revealed in a 1996 book that Houston helped Clinton hold imaginary conversations with her hero Eleanor Roosevelt. One of the conversations was taped and her critics called it “Wackygate.”
  7. After Bill’s mother spoke disparagingly of Hillary’s looks, he told his mother, “I have to have somebody to talk to. Don’t you understand that?” His extramarital activities, however, nearly ruptured his marriage several times.
  8. As a senior at Wellesley, Hillary wrote her thesis on Chicago’s radical community organizer Saul Alinsky under the direction of Professor Schechter. Her thesis was supposedly suppressed years later while she was at the White House.
  9. When she was a teenager, Hillary organized a baby-sitting group to look after the children of migrant Mexican workers in rural Illinois.
  10. Hillary has been dogged by rumors that she was a lesbian based on her assertive manner, lack of interest in her appearance during adolescence, and her entourage of women staffers who called themselves “HERC and the girls” (playing on her initials, HRC).
  11. In the early 1990s, when Bill Clinton was making $35,000 as governor of Arkansas, Hillary was making $100,000 a year from her law firm salary and corporate board fees. A portion of her salary was from Lafarge, a U.S. cement maker which was later fined for pollution violations at its Alabama plant.
  12. Hillary Clinton was the only First Lady to be subpoenaed, for her involvement with the Whitewater controversy in 1996, and to repeatedly be deposed as part of ongoing criminal and civil investigations, including Travelgate and Filegate. Bill and Hillary were the only First Couple to be fingerprinted by the FBI.
  13. When Hillary kissed Yasser Arafat’s wife, Suha, during a visit to the West Bank on November 11, 1999, the photo made front-page news and Hillary spent considerable time explaining the kiss was a social grace required of a first lady.
  14. When Hillary Clinton encouraged White House chef Pierre Chambrin to resign in 1994, he was given $37,026 in exchange for his agreement not to discuss the Clintons or the circumstances of his dismissal. This severance bonus was unprecedented and was questioned by Congress.
  15. When Hillary first heard that Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, she attributed it to a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” The phrase has since been used many times in popular culture. Rush Limbaugh, for example, refers to himself as Mr. Big of his fan base, “The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.” A number of entrepreneurs sell VRWC (Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy) merchandise.

VIDEO: The Story of Hillary Rodham and the First Degree Rape of a 12-year old girl

Forty-one years ago in the town of Springdale, Arkansas, a horrific crime was committed against a 12-year-old girl. But it was the injustice that followed that has defined her life.

This is the true story Hillary Rodham (Clinton) hoped you would never hear.


An early look at how Clinton deals with crisis by Glenn Thrush

The Hillary Tapes: Clinton tells of defense of child rapist in newly unearthed recordings

Hillary Goes to Bat for Sexual Predators

50 Interesting Facts about Hillary Clinton – Random Facts

Of Course Trump Can Win

In this week’s politics chat, we check in on some surprising/crazy/totally normal general election polls. The transcript below has been lightly edited.

micah (Micah Cohen, politics editor): Let’s talk general election polls. We’re a little over five months from Election Day, and polls show a close race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Today’s question: What should a sophisticated political observer make of these polls? To set us up, Harry, give us a rundown of the latest polling, national and state. Where do things stand?

harry (Harry Enten, senior political writer): National polls show Clinton with a slight advantage. Doing an average of all the polls since Trump vanquished Ted Cruz and John Kasich a little over a month ago finds Clinton ahead by about 2 percentage points. State-level polling is a bit odder: We’ve seen surveys showing Clinton close in Arizona (which has gone Democratic in just one presidential election since 1952) and Trump close in New Jersey (which hasn’t gone Republican since 1988). Most of the polls in the traditional swing states are close. Clinton holds a slight lead, roughly 3 percentage points, in Ohio. Same thing in Florida. Clinton leads by about 5 percentage points in Pennsylvania. (That’s all according to the HuffPost Pollster aggregates.)

micah: That state polling is weird. What gives?

harry: For one thing, it shows that we can’t be sure how the map will look. That is, the swing states in 2016 may not be the same as they were in 2012. We have a completely new pair of candidates (i.e., there’s no incumbent president running for re-election). Also, a lot of these states have only one or two polls, so we don’t have a lot of data.

natesilver (Nate Silver, editor in chief): I’m not ready to accept yet that we’ll have a whole new map this time around. There will probably be some differences, yes. But my prior is that we’ll still have mostly the same swing states as last time, and I haven’t seen persuasive enough evidence yet to convince me otherwise. Here’s why: These polls are showing huge, enormous numbers of undecided voters. In that Monmouth poll of New Jersey, for instance, it’s Clinton 38 percent and Trump 34 percent, leaving 28 percent undecided, voting third party or saying they’ll sit out the general election. The Monmouth poll is a bit of an extreme case, but there are plenty of polls that are like, Clinton 43 percent, Trump 41 percent, undecided/other 16 percent, which is still a huge number.

micah: Is that unusual?

natesilver: It’s unusual, yes. By comparison, in 2012, we were seeing numbers more like Obama 47 percent, Romney 45 percent at a comparable point in the campaign.

But my point is that with all these undecided voters, it makes the state-by-state numbers a little flatter right now, if that makes sense.

I’d guess that if you looked at the makeup of the undecided voters in New Jersey, they’d look like they’ll probably wind up being Clinton supporters. And if you look at them in Arizona or Utah or one of the states where Trump has looked surprisingly vulnerable, they’d look like they’ll eventually be Trump supporters.

harry: That’s what Monmouth University’s Patrick Murray pointed out in his news release. And keep in mind, a poll can be accurate at this time even if it doesn’t end up being predictive.

micah: But is the fact that those voters are undecided now meaningful? (Even if they look like Trump voters in Arizona and Clinton voters in New Jersey.)

harry: More undecided voters now gives credence to the idea that this year may be good for third-party candidates (see Johnson, Gary). I made this argument two weeks ago.

natesilver: Sure, and one thing the pollsters are going to have to decide soon is whether to include Johnson in their surveys.

harry: I’m of the belief that pollsters should at least offer Johnson as an option to some respondents. Otherwise pollsters are putting their thumb on the scale, in my opinion. Johnson has more electoral experience than Trump does. Why isn’t he serious?

natesilver: I agree. Some pollsters don’t like to include third-party candidates because, for a variety of reasons, polls sometimes overstate their numbers. But it’s not a pollster’s job, in my view, to take that choice away from the voter when they’ll have it on the ballot. They can always ask the question both ways, too — with Johnson and without.

harry: This poll by Monmouth did exactly that.

micah: Isn’t the unusually high number of undecided voters, in addition to being a good sign for Johnson, also a sign that the map could change more than usual?

harry: If more undecideds is good for a third party, then that third-party candidate may pull different support from different candidates in different places. Perhaps Johnson pulls more Republicans in Arizona, which gives Clinton a chance there. Perhaps Johnson pulls more upscale liberals in the southeast Philadelphia suburbs in Pennsylvania, who might otherwise vote for Clinton. That could potentially change the map. We don’t know.

natesilver: I’d say it’s a sign that there’s a lot of uncertainty in the outcome. In general, the more undecideds you have, the larger the error in the polling.

harry: That’s at least part of the reason that primaries have larger polling errors than general elections. There are often many more undecided voters.

natesilver: I still think, though, that we’re not really at the starting line yet. One candidate has wrapped up the nomination, and the other one hasn’t.

harry: Yes, we’ve seen some attempts to try to estimate what the Trump vs. Clinton race will look like once Bernie Sanders concedes the Democratic primary. Most of those give Clinton extra support as at least some Sanders supporters move to her.

natesilver: I guess I’m getting sort of annoyed with almost all the discussion of general election polls I’m reading. Granted, it doesn’t take much to annoy me, especially on the Tuesday after a three-day weekend.

micah: Wait, what’s annoying?

natesilver: On the one hand, you have people (mostly Democratic-leaning commentators) trying to nitpick individual polls. That’s generally an unhealthy exercise, and it usually involves a lot of cherry-picking. And the trend is clear that Trump has gained significantly on Clinton.

On the other hand, you have people treating the recent polls as though they’re the new normal, the baseline case for the general election, when we don’t really know that yet. It’s not certain by any means — but I’d say it’sprobable that Clinton will gain ground when/if Sanders concedes. The third-party stuff is another thing that’s still in the process of working itself out.

On the third hand, I’ve seen a lot of pieces lately framed around the notion of “why Trump could win.” And a lot of those pieces are smart and well-argued when you get past the headline. But the premise slightly annoys me because I don’t see a lot of people saying Trump can’t win. So they’re sort of arguing against a straw man. I mean, of course Trump could win. There are only two major-party candidates, both of them are really unpopular, the “fundamentals” point toward a close election, the polls have tightened, random news events could intervene, and Trump is a candidate who has defied a lot of precedent. Of course he could win. But what are the odds?

micah: I don’t know … I was surprised by how quickly and easily Trump consolidated the GOP vote, and I think that fact is feeding a lot of the “wow, he could win this” sentiment.

natesilver: Sure, which is why it’s appropriate to say that his odds have gone up, as they have at betting markets.

micah: What’s been the swing in betting markets?

natesilver: Trump has closed from being a 3:1 underdog to a 2:1 underdog, roughly speaking.

harry: Right.

micah: That’s a pretty big change. Well, not that big, I guess.

natesilver: If I say his chances have increased from 25 percent to 33 percent, that doesn’t sound so big.

micah: Yeah.

harry: And don’t be shocked if Trump’s odds fall again once Clinton clinches the nomination and her polling goes up.

RELATED ARTICLE: GOP Voters Are Rallying Behind Trump As If He Were Any Other Candidate

Muslim chases, tackles Trump supporter, brags about it on Twitter

According to Gateway Pundit, the attacker appears to be a Somali Muslim from Minnesota named Seyfudin Mohamud. Gateway has that, plus more photos and video, here.

Whether you love Trump or hate him, this is a destructive new feature of American politics. Trump enjoys huge popular support (whether or not it is enough to win him the Presidency), and in response the Left has grown even more thuggish and authoritarian than it already was. Their attack against Trump and those who support him has two prongs: the media claim that his appeal reveals a broad strain of “racism” and “bigotry” among ordinary Americans, and the physical menacing of those who, despite this opprobrium heaped upon their heads, continue to support him.

Those who hate Trump, whatever their own perspectives may be, and who love a free society should be disturbed by this violence. If it continues, those who dissent from the Leftist mainstream line will not only be demonized and marginalized as spreading “hate” — that has been going on for years — but will be aware that by their dissent they are putting themselves in very real physical danger. We’re sliding toward a Leftist autocracy in which “right-wing” dissenters are defamed and brutalized. This is the biggest story of this Presidential campaign year, but the mainstream media is not only not reporting on it, it is aiding and abetting it.


Germany: Refugee background checks “unaffordable”

Sweden took in 162,000 refugees in 2015 — 494 got jobs

RELATED VIDEO: Latino for Trump confronts anti-Trump protester

Here are the still images of anti-Trump Muslim “Houdini” chasing and tacking a Trump supporter leaving the rally in San Jose, California.

ss2 ss3 ss4 ss5 ss6

Do Facebook and Twitter want foes of jihad dead?

Over at PJ Media, I discuss a new example of the double standard Twitter and Facebook employ regarding those whose views they dislike:

Obaid Karki

Obaid Karki, @stsheetrock on Twitter.

The antipathy of Twitter and Facebook to conservatives is well-established. The social media giants’ hatred presumably therefore also applies to opponents of jihad terror, who are universally classified as “right-wing,” however absurd the label.

But do Twitter and Facebook draw the line at death threats against them?

The question arises because of one Obaid Karki, @stsheetrock on Twitter, who describes himself thusly:

I Ain’t Anglosexual Liberal Hippie, Neither Wolf nor Dog, I am a coyote. A Paulite Picassoic Provocateur Constitutionalist Libertarian.

Any doubt that he is quite spectacularly insane will be removed by a perusal of one or both of his incoherent and gleefully obscene websites. Karki is engaging in some bizarre parody of a deranged imam, or perhaps he is trying to make some other kind of inscrutable humor. One of his websites is titled “Obaid Karki St.Sheetrock’s Painfulpolitics Offensive Comedy Hepcat.” The offensive comedy is there, in spades.His other site is called “Suicide Bombers Magazine”, and bears this heading: “Dislaimer: we swear on Elvis’s pickled penis that ‘non-sapient beings’ I mean animals harmed during IED kahbooom.”


But just because Karki is insane or possibly joking doesn’t mean that he can’t be dangerous — especially if he is also making specific calls for people to be murdered.

Last Saturday, he posted this:

Robert Spencer mustn’t [be] featured but lynched from his scrotum along with Zionists scumbags, Pamela Geller, Pat Condell, Daniel Pipes, Debbie Schlussel and JIHADWATCH Jackass duo Baron Bodissey & Geert Wilders for inspiring Anders Behring Breivik to [kill] innocent students in 2011.

Actually, neither Bodissey or Wilders run Jihad Watch — I do — and I didn’t inspire Breivik to do anything, but there is no arguing with a crazy person. But what is interesting about Karki’s post, aside from his loony language, is that he posted this call for me and others to be lynched on Twitter, which has a clearly stated policy against death threats.

Per “The Twitter Rules”:

Violent threats (direct or indirect): You may not make threats of violence or promote violence, including threatening or promoting terrorism.

I therefore duly reported Karki’s threat, but as of this writing, it has not been taken down (in fact, Karki has since posted it again, and has posted variants of it several times).

Maybe Twitter is just slow to deal with the large number of complaints it receives? To buy that argument, you have to buy that they have a two-year backlog.

On May 12, 2014, Karki also posted this:

Robert Spencer must be arrested and lynched along the Zionists Dumbasses Daniel Pipes, Geert Wilders and JIHADWATCH …

You can see from this 2014 Twitter exchange linked above that several people claimed they reported Karki for this threat, as did I.

Not only does Karki still have his Twitter account — while many conservatives have lost their accounts for far less — but the 2014 threat remains there.

Hold on — I misspoke above.

I meant to say you would have to buy that Twitter has a three-year backlog of death threats to police.

Here, read a Karki tweet from September 18, 2013:

Robert Spencer must be shot head not only for comparing Alnoor 24:35 to Corinthians 11:14-15 satanically but for …

So now you have an example of how Twitter responded to death threats against a political opponent.

How about Facebook?

Not only is Karki on Twitter, but he also has a Facebook page containing the same lurid and paranoid content — including the threats. He did claim he was temporarily barred this Sunday:

I am axed outta Facebook for 7 days …

… but, I just read that on his Facebook page. What exactly this axing entailed remains unclear.

At least the social media titans are consistent. The site Epoch Times reported last March:

[W]hile Twitter says it is making strong efforts to shut down terrorist accounts, activists say that not only is the microblogging company not taking down the accounts that matter, but it has even been shutting down accounts of users trying to report terrorists.

The age of Obama has featured a rapid decline in appreciation for the freedom of speech. College students and — in many, many cases — their professors routinely avow that “hate speech is not free speech.” They cannot grasp that if they get their wish allows whatever the government subjectively deems “hate speech” to be criminalized, and the foremost protection against tyranny will have been removed.

At that moment, free society literally ends….


CFR’s Max Abrahms claims Syrian jihad groups growing because they’re moderate

London, Ontario police cars marked in Arabic above Canadian flag

Question: Is Donald Trump Taking a Wrecking Ball to the Democratic Party?

I have written that Donald Trump is leading an insurgency.

If you Google the words “Trump” and “insurgency” you will get over 650,000 links to articles and commentary. I recently said to a friend that Donald Trump has gone from being a candidate for the Republican Party nomination for President to the leader of a movement. That movement has now turned into an insurgency within the Republican Party and led to anarchy within the Democratic Party.

First here are definitions of words I use:

Insurgency is a “rebellion against an existing government by a group not recognized as a belligerent.” Insurgency is synonymous with dissent, insurrection, mutiny, revolt, uprising, defiance and disobedience.

Anarchy is a “state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.” Anarchy is synonymous with lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder, chaos, mayhem, tumult and turmoil.

Populist is a “member or adherent of a political party seeking to represent the interests of ordinary people.”

Is it Trump who created an insurgency or is Trump following the lead of a growing populist insurgency that was already taking place?

I have written that Trump leads his followers by following their lead. The movement began during the Presidency of Bill Clinton and continues today. It is a struggle between the individualist and the collectivist.

In an article titled Trump Changes Democratic Party Too Dick Morris writes:

Trump’s candidacy and its challenge to the economic and social establishments of America highlights how close Hillary Clinton is to both. She is the candidate of the status quo in a country seething with a craving for political change.

Trump is the sole provider of change in this election. Clinton may trot out her little bitty programs of incremental change, creeping forward from the Obama agenda, but it doesn’t come close to the full-scale assault on income inequality, crony capitalism, free trade giveaways, rampant illegal immigration and political correctness gone berserk that the populists of both parties want.

But Trump is doing more than driving populist Democrats into Republican arms. He is separating the establishment left of the Democratic Party from its populist base. His candidacy separates the blue-collar social populists from their partisan moorings even as his economic populism appeals to the Sanders left.

A new Democratic Party is emerging from the wreckage.

The recent attack against Trump supporters at a rally in San Jose, California shows how far toward becoming a party of anarchists the Democrats have become. This form of public violence against those attending a political event is anti-thematic to American populist values and beliefs in both political parties.

The clearest example of how out of touch Democratic leaders are with their populist base may be found in the response of the Mayor of San Jose to the violence at the rally. San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, a Democrat supporting Hillary Clinton, told the Associated Press that “[A]t some point Donald Trump needs to take responsibility for the irresponsible behavior of his campaign,” blaming the Republican’s presence for inciting the violence.

This is blaming the victim of rape for the sexual assault, the gun for the shooting or those attacked for the actions of the mob. 

What San Jose reinforces is the Trump Insurgents versus the hard leftist Democrat Anarchists on the streets. Continued violence can drive moderate populist Democrats to the Republican party.

trump supporters young

Trump supporters. Photo: Facebook.

Donald Trump has tapped into the “Individualism Movement.” Trump’s life is the embodiment of the individualist. Trump has been rich, then poor and then rich again. He has done this not with government handouts, but rather despite the government.

Members of the Individualism Movement go by many names: Silent Majority, TEA Party Patriots, Constitutionalists, Blue Dog Democrats, Anti-Establishment Republicans, the working class and Blue Dog Democrats. They embody the insurgency.

Is Trump the new populist or the old individualist?

Here are just some of the reasons Trump is different from Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders:

  1. Not a career politician.
  2. Not politically correct.
  3. Isn’t influenced by money or big donors.
  4. When he sees something he says something.
  5. Turns his negatives into positives.
  6. Attacks against him consistently backfire.
  7. Fearless and is therefore feared.
  8. Has broad populist appeal due to his forthright comments.

Each of these are indicators of individualism on steroids.

Donald Trump is saying what people have wanted to say but have been afraid to do so. When Trump speaks he is not speaking to the media or the elite, he is speaking to John and Jane six-pack. He is speaking to each an every American.

It appears that Donald Trump is fundamentally transforming both the Democratic and Republican parties.

QUESTION: Is Donald Trump Taking a Wrecking Ball to the Democratic Party?


Student Activists are Really Radical Today

Students at Yale wants to “De-Colonize” English Dept Curriculum

Black Lives Matter’s LGBTQ Agenda

No Surprise That Gun Prohibitionists Endorse Clinton

BELLEVUE, Wash. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Today’s endorsement of Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton by two major gun prohibition lobbying groups should come as no surprise, considering her highly-publicized attacks on the Second Amendment, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said in response.

As reported by the New York Times, Everytown for Gun Safety President John Feinblatt declared in a prepared statement, “Gun Sense Voters have a champion in Hillary Clinton. Our litmus test is simple: does a candidate side with the public or with the gun lobby? Hillary Clinton passes that test with flying colors.”

“It’s no surprise that the gun prohibition lobby has a litmus test based on erosion of the Second Amendment, and it is less of a surprise that Hillary Clinton passed it with flying colors,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “If there were any remaining doubts among American voters about Clinton’s intentions if she wins in November, these endorsements make it clear that she is determined to rip the right to keep and bear arms from the American fabric.”

Early last fall, Clinton was caught on audio at a private fund raiser declaring that “The Supreme Court was wrong on the Second Amendment.” Gottlieb said today’s endorsements by Everytown and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America – two organizations supported by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg – amount to “damning proof” that a Clinton presidency would pose a direct threat to the individual right to keep and bear arms.

“Today’s Washington Examiner noted that Clinton has promised to push gun control on her very first day in office,” Gottlieb noted. “That’s not a sign of leadership. It’s a symptom of fanaticism against a fundamental individual civil right.

“Throughout her public career,” he observed, “Hillary Clinton has never been a friend of gun owners, and today’s double endorsement merely confirms that she is their avowed enemy.”


With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.


NRA Response to Gun Control Lobby’s Endorsement of Hillary Clinton

Hard-line Hillary Bashes Heller Again! Calls Supreme Court’s Decision “Terrible”

“Journalists” Renew Attack Upon “Assault Weapons”

What “Strong Case” for Gun Registration?

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of the National Rifle Association.

U.S. Muslim group equates Jewish Halacha/Catholic Canon Law with Islamic Sharia Law

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. based Muslim organization founded in 1994, has published its 2016 Questions for Local City Council, Mayoral, State Legislative & Gubernatorial Candidates Running For Office and a Candidate for Public Office Religious Pluralism Pledge.

In a press release CAIR states:

CAIR seeks to empower the American Muslim community with its questionnaires toolkit by providing sample questions for local city council, mayoral, state legislative, gubernatorial, and congressional candidates running for office.

Candidate responses to CAIR’s election questionnaires will assist American Muslims in evaluating each candidate’s leadership criteria and their ability to unite and engage the community on policies and programs that meet Muslim needs. The questions and the issues included in the questionnaires emphasize the American Muslim community’s concerns, as well as those of its civil rights, immigrant rights and worker rights allies. [Emphasis added]

Discover the Networks reports that, “Despite its attempt to portray itself as a champion of Muslim civil rights, CAIR espouses radical views and has publicly endorsed radical militant Islamic groups around the world. According to many terrorism experts, CAIR is on the wrong side of the war on terrorism.”

The candidate questionnaire and candidate pledge are counter intuitive to those who understand Islamic (shariah) law.

David Yerushalmi in a 2008 column titled Shariah vs. Jewish Law wrote:

I have written extensively on the question of the practice or advocacy of Shariah by Shariah authorities as a violation of the primary federal sedition statute (i.e., 18 U.S.C. § 2385) on the grounds that throughout the long 1200-year history of the development of Shariah, and across all five major schools of Shariah jurisprudence, five salient facts are embedded in a deep consensus among all authoritative Shariah authorities:

[1] The telos or purpose of Shariah is submission. Shariah seeks to establish that Allah is the divine lawgiver and that no other law may properly exist but Allah’s law.

[2] Shariah seeks to achieve this goal through persuasion and other non-violent means.  But when necessary and under certain prescribed circumstances the use of force and even full-scale war to achieve the dominance of Shariah worldwide is not only permissible, but obligatory. The use of force or war is termed Jihad.

[3] The goal of Shariah is to achieve submission to Allah’s law by converting or conquering the entire world and the methodology to achieve this end (by persuasion, by force and subjugation, or by murder) is extant doctrine and valid law by virtue of a universal consensus among the authoritative Shariah scholars throughout Islamic history.

[4] The doctrine of Jihad is foundational because it is based upon explicit verses in the Qur’an and the most authentic of canonical Sunna and it is considered a cornerstone of justice: until the infidels and polytheists are converted, subjugated, or murdered, their mischief and domination will continue to harm the Muslim nation. And,

[5] Jihad is conducted primarily through kinetic warfare but it includes other modalities such as propaganda and psychological warfare.

Dr. Bill Warner, using a real life example, shows how non-Muslims react to the demands of the Sharia, in particular, what non-Muslims need to understand about how necessity can abrogate obligation in this video:

The candidate questionnaire asks:

3. Do you agree the U.S. Constitution and state laws are not threatened by citizens privately following their own religious laws, such as Jewish Halacha, Islamic Sharia or Catholic Canon Law, as long as such religious laws comply with U.S. code?

The question equates Jewish and Catholic beliefs with that of Islamic (shariah) law. But are they equal?

Once signed do these two documents require candidates for public office to submit to Islamic law?

Is signing the pledge and answering yes to all the questions in the CAIR candidate questionnaire promoting sedition?

It would appear so.


The Face of Evil: Surveying the ISIS Killing Fields in Northern Iraq

1 Year After Steinle Death, San Francisco Unveils Immigration Policy Keeping ‘Sanctuary’ Protections

Georgia: Muslim woman in burqa attacks family with American flag

RELATED VIDEO: CAIR tells Muslims to Defy Customs Agents

Hey Clinton, Sanders Supporters: ‘It’s Not Racist To Put Americans’ Jobs First’

LOS ANGELES, California /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) launched a radio ad today in Los Angeles reminding Californians that putting Americans’ jobs first isn’t racist. The commercial features civil rights leader and former Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Executive Director Frank Morris and is running on multiple radio stations in Los Angeles, including the top urban contemporary station.  The ads are scheduled to run for the next week.

“Many of my Democratic brothers and sisters have unknowingly become pawns of Wall Street and the US Chamber of Commerce open border propaganda machine,” commented Frank Morris, civil rights leader and member of Californians for Population Stabilization.  “They’re labeling slower immigration policies racist when less immigration would mean more jobs and better wages for minorities in California.” Morris continued, “People need to realize that Wall Street wants more immigration so there are more of us competing against each other for jobs.  That keeps wages low and corporate profits high.”

As the California primary has approached, protests have proliferated throughout the state with much of demonstrator’s ire directed at Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and his inflammatory comments many have labeled racist.  Demonstrators have also conflated Trump’s rhetoric with his proposed policy of reducing mass immigration, calling slower immigration policies racist.

Morris commented, “Donald Trump is dead wrong to make sweeping generalizations about specific groups and should be admonished if not repudiated for doing so.  But people need to recognize that the policy of reducing mass immigration has merit.  It’s not racist to put the job interests of American workers first. That’s just common sense.  It would be nice if Hillary and Bernie stepped up and called for less low skilled foreign workers, not more.”

Both Clinton and Sanders support amnesty for eleven million illegal aliens.  Both support President Obama’s executive actions for millions here illegally, giving them legal authorization to compete for American jobs.   And both Clinton and Sanders have promised to double down on President Obama’s executive actions if elected.

“Traditionally, our Democratic leaders have stood up for working class Americans but in this case, Clinton and Sanders policies would hurt African Americans and Hispanic Americans,” commented Morris.

As of April 2016, more than one million Californians were still unemployed with hundreds of thousands more under-employed or having given up looking for work.  And while the state’s overall unemployment rate has been improving, African Americans and Hispanic Americans aren’t faring as well as whites.   In 4Q 2015, the unemployment rate for African Americans was 10.9%, Hispanic Americans 7.2% and whites 4.4%.  Californiacontinues to have one of the highest African American unemployment rates in the country.

“How can our leaders call for more immigration, more foreign workers when millions of Americans still can’t find jobs?” asked Morris.

To learn more, visit

RELATED VIDEO: Was an Endless Flow of Immigrant Workers who Take Jobs and Suppress Wages Dr. King’s Dream?

Making History is Sometimes About Timing

Former British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill once stated, “To every man there comes in his lifetime that special moment when he is figuratively tapped on the shoulder and offered a chance to do a very special thing, unique to him and fitted to his talents. What a tragedy if that moment finds him unprepared or unqualified for the work which would be his finest hour.”

In each of our lives, we all get one or two of these Churchillian “taps on the shoulder;” in many ways, how we respond to these taps, will determine our lot in life.

Let me give you two examples from a couple of friends of mine.

Anthony “Spud” Webb played 13 years in the National Basketball Association (NBA), though only standing five foot seven inches tall (which was and still is unheard of in professional basketball). Spud is most known for being the shortest person in the history of the NBA to win the slam dunk contest (1986). He defeated his then Atlanta Hawks teammate, Dominique Wilkins who stood at six feet eight inches tall.

Spud was told his whole life that he was too short to play basketball, though he could dunk the ball when he was only five foot three inches.

Despite averaging 26 points a game on his varsity high school team, Spud received little interest from college and university basketball programs. He ended up playing for a junior college, Midland College in Midland, Texas. He was named a National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA) All-American.

He was then offered a scholarship to play for legendary North Carolina State University basketball coach, Jim Valvano.

After college, Spud was told by most NBA scouts that he should play in Europe because of his size. He ended up being drafted in the fourth round of the 1985 draft that began his illustrious NBA career.

Ray “Mick” Mickens played eleven seasons as a cornerback in the National Football League (NFL), though standing only five foot eight inches tall and weighing a mere 180 lbs.

Mick was a standout corner for Texas A&M University, as well as a sprinter for the track team. Considered one of the top corners in the country, he was named an All-American and All-Southwest Conference player in both his junior and senior years.

Mick was drafted by the New York Jets in the third-round of the 1996 NFL Draft and went on to play over a decade in the NFL against all odds.

By all the professional metrics then and today, Spud or Mick should have never played professional sports. They didn’t fit neatly into the boxes that the establishment had set up to determine who could play on the professional level. Neither was of the right height or weight; but how do you measure a person’s heart or determination?

In a similar manner, based on all political metrics set up by the establishment, Donald Trump should not be the Republican nominee for president. He had never run for any office before, was never active in the Republican Party, and was not a part of the “good old boys” network.

But how do you measure a person’s ability to connect with the public at large? How do you measure a person’s ability to connect with the people in a language that they understand? How do you explain the ability of a billionaire to connect with the working class?

On paper, Spud and Mick should never have played pro sports, let alone, play for over a decade, each at the highest level.

In a similar vein, on paper, there is no way anyone could have predicted Trump’s ascendancy to become the Republican standard bearer for president; it defies all conventional wisdom.

Spud, Mick, and Trump all changed the “conventional wisdom” approach to basketball, football, and politics. Sports are one of the most egalitarian institutions in the world: either you can play or you can’t; either you can help a team win or you can’t.

Politics is less egalitarian than sports and is more subjective. Politics is more answering the question: “Can I trust you and can I believe you are going to do the things you promised?” Politics is about answering the question: “Are you going to make my life better and provide a brighter future for my children?”

Spud and Mick would have a much more difficult time breaking into professional sports today. I would go so far as to say that they would not make a pro team today simply because the leagues are so data driven, despite a person’s level of accomplishment. Basketball players at various positions should be of a certain height and weight; football players should be at a certain height, weight and speed based on their positions played.

If a player doesn’t fit neatly into these metrics, in many instances, a coach or scout won’t even look at a player. This explains why and how the political establishment overlooked the Trump candidacy. The Democrats made the same mistake with Bernie Sanders.

Spud and Mick have proven that they were prepared for that tap on the shoulder; thus far, I would say Trump has proven he was ready also.

Often times, making history is as much about timing as it is skills. Could it be that Trump was born for such a time as this?

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in BlackPressUSA.

Radical anti-Trump Illegal Immigrant Voter Activation Committee Formed

Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced the launch of a new voter activation committee ‘Building Bridges, Not Walls‘. Its purposes is “to combat the anti-immigrant policies that will no doubt be included in the national Republican Party platform and be exploited by GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump.”

“Building Bridges, Not Walls is about Californians rising to the occasion and fighting for candidates and policies that will move America forward,” Villaraigosa said. “Californians want to step up and respond in every way possible to protect our families, friends and neighbors from the threat of Donald Trump’s scapegoating anti-immigrant politics. I am proud that the people of California are so generous in their giving to campaigns and causes, but we have more to offer than just our pocket books. We have the power of passionate people who will engage on a person-to-person level to mobilize and turnout people to vote.”

Antonio Villaraigosa

Antonio Villaraigosa

According to Discover The Networks:

At a 1996 Latino and Immigrant Rights rally in Washington, DC, Villaraigosa shared the stage with Augustine Cebeda, “Minister of Information” for the radical Latino group The Brown Berets of Aztlan. Cebeda was known for having stated, in the past: “Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out [of the U.S. Southwest]! We [Mexicans] are the future…. You old white people, it is your duty to die.”

An advocate of racial preferences and welfare benefits for illegal aliens, Villaraigosa said in 1997:

“Part of today’s reality has been propositions like 187 [to deny welfare benefits to California’s illegal aliens], propositions like 209 [to abolish racial preferences in California’s public sector], the welfare reform bill [of 1996], which targeted legal immigrants and targeted us as a community…. Today in California in the legislature, we’re engaged in a great debate, where not only were we talking about denying education to the children of undocumented workers, but now we’re talking about whether or not we should provide prenatal care to undocumented mothers. It’s not enough to elect Latino leadership. If they’re supporting legislation that denies the undocumented driver’s licenses, they don’t belong in office, friends…. If they can’t stand up and say, ‘You know what? I’m not ever going to support a policy that denies prenatal care to the children of undocumented mothers,’ they don’t belong here.”

[ … ]

Villaraigosa’s first act as L.A. mayor was to require all government employees under his jurisdiction to sign an ethics pledge. Meanwhile, rumors of Villaraigosa’s own marital infidelity had been circulating for years. In July 2007 he finally admitted to an affair with Mirthala Salinas, a television reporter for the Spanish-language network Telemundo. The affair constituted not only an ethical problem in the mayor’s personal life, but also a political conflict of interest in light of the fact that Salinas’ employer, NBC Universal, was campaigning for the authorization of a $3 billion development plan for which it needed Villaraigosa’s approval.

During a series of mass immigration rallies in the spring of 2007, Villaraigosa sided with the protesters who were demanding expanded rights and privileges for illegal aliens. At a May 1 rally in Los Angeles, unruly demonstrators hurled makeshift projectiles — including rocks, sticks, frozen water bottles, and bottles filled with urine — at police officers, who eventually were ordered to end the rally and to arrest anyone engaging in violence. In the process of trying to quell the mayhem, the police officers at the scene suffered more injuries than did the protesters. But three days later, Villaraigosa addressed another crowd of pro-immigration activists at MacArthur Park in Los Angeles, telling them, in Spanish, that he condemned the manner in which the L.A.P.D. had dealt with the May 1 situation, and he accused the officers of having broken up the rally without cause.

In 2008 Villaraigosa served as a co-chairman of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign.

The campaign will begin by targeting voters in Arizona, Florida, Nevada and Colorado, but will direct its efforts towards “wherever it is needed to stop Trump.”

Villaraigosa stated, “Building Bridges, Not Walls is about standing up and saying, ‘Enough!’ We will help mobilize the passion we see in Californians who say ‘No!’ to Trump and direct it – through calls, texts and emails – towards swing states where it matters most.”

It appears that Democrats have drawn a line in the sand on immigration. Their position for the November 2016 presidential election is open borders, or else.

RELATED ARTICLE: San Jose protesters attack Trump supporters with punches, eggs

Is Donald Trump right when he calls reporters ‘liars’ and ‘lowlifes’?

Thomas Burr, the National Press Club (NPC) president, doesn’t thinks so. Burr attacked Trump’s recent comments that “the press should be ashamed of themselves” for investigating Trump’s fundraising for veterans. Trump called an ABC News reporter a “sleaze.” “You know my opinion of the media,” Trump said, “it’s very low.”


Thomas Burr

Burr, who worked for The Salt Lake Tribune before being elected as NPC president, stated:

Donald Trump misunderstands—or, more likely, simply opposes–the role a free press plays in a democratic society. Reporters are supposed to hold public figures accountable. Any American political candidate who attacks the press for doing its job is campaigning in the wrong country. In the United States, under our Constitution, a free press is a check on politicians of all parties.

If we are to demand that other countries respect the tradition of a free press we must also practice that here at home.

QUESTION: If the press holds public figures accountable, who holds the press accountable?

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Trump has previously called for making it easier for public figures to sue news organizations for libel, a change that according to Burr, “would practically suffocate a free press and potentially disable some news companies.” The legal definition of libel is:

A published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation; a written defamation.

Trump has never called for Congress to pass a law abridging the freedom of speech or the press. However, other nations have passed blasphemy laws, which have the effect of abridging freedom of speech and the press. Perhaps Mr. Burr should demand that other countries “respect the tradition of a free press”? The below infographic by PEW Research shows 47 countries with a blasphemy law:

countries with blasphemy law

Do blasphemy laws abridge freedom of speech and the press?

Of course they do. Perhaps Mr. Burr and the National Press Club should be fighting against existing and future blasphemy laws? Perhaps Mr. Burr should welcome punishment for those in the media and reporters who publish false statements that damage a person’s reputation and amount to legal written defamation?

Perhaps the press needs to regain the confidence of the people. Rebecca Riffkin from Gallop reported in 2015:

Americans’ confidence in the media has slowly eroded from a high of 55% in 1998 and 1999. Since 2007, the majority of Americans have had little or no trust in the mass media. Trust has typically dipped in election years, including 2004, 2008, 2012 and last year. However, 2015 is not a major election year.

This decline follows the same trajectory as Americans’ confidence in many institutions and their declining trust in the federal government’s ability to handle domestic and international problems over the same time period.

Perhaps Mr. Trump is echoing the American voters distrust of the media during the 2016 election cycle? Perhaps Mr. Trump is saying what the American people have been thinking for a long, long time?

Free speech and a free press is all about telling the truth. Many Americans believe they are living in a time of universal deceit, where telling the truth has become a revolutionary act.

Perhaps Mr. Trump is leading a revolution, or perhaps an insurgency?

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Donald Trump is courtesy of NBC News.

Abraham Lincoln fought against ‘political correctness’

The first president elected by the Republican Party fought political correctness during his time.

Professor  in the column Lincoln’s Teaching – and Our Politics writes:

Lincoln famously complained that there was nowhere that people could talk about slavery – they couldn’t talk about it in the churches because “it didn’t belong there.” It was too political, too divisive. And they couldn’t talk about it in politics because it was too explosive. It was a moral and religious question, too unsettling for our politics. It was the gravest issue before us. It was the issue that truly went to the core of the kind of regime we meant to establish and the kind of people we had sought to be. And yet we couldn’t talk about it readily in public.

[Emphasis added]

From the time of Lincoln let’s fast forward to today and Donald J. Trump, the GOP nominee for president of the United States. Professor Arkes wrote:

We bring back here one of the most enduring lessons Lincoln taught, with a problem that persistently haunts our politics: One of the prime tasks of the political man is to teach, through his own, artful example how ordinary people can talk about the issues that truly run to the root. But that presupposes the prior, truly first task. The political man or woman will need to get clear in the first place on the questions that really were central; the questions, as Lincoln said, from which everything else radiated. [Emphasis added]

Trump has been criticized for his lack of “civility.” But is civility a code word for political correctness? Is Trump talking about “issues that truly run to the root”?

Democrats, Republicans and world leaders alike call for Mr. Trump to tone down his rhetoric. The Democrats have called Mr. Trumps comments racist, bigoted and hateful. Some blame the violence seen at Trump rallies on his words. Daily the media bombards us with polls showing the unpopularity of Mr. Trump. However, let is not forget that President Lincoln was also unpopular in his time.

Professor Arkes noted, “That is why, as he [Lincoln] said, that proposition, ‘all men are created equal’ really was the ‘father of all moral principle’ in us. As Lincoln showed, the case in principle for slavery could not be confined to blacks. A government that could accept the slavery of black people could easily begin disfranchising certain classes of whites as well. And with a simple shift of labels, a whole other class of ‘human persons’ can be removed altogether from the circle of ‘rights-bearing beings’.”

“But if a politician uses the N-word, if Donald Trump says a derisive word about women – none of these things has been beneath the notice, and the lingering attention, of the media,” writes Professor Arkes.

Therefore are not topics such as immigration, abortion, women, homosexuality, religion and Islam worthy of public discourse?

In the column Why Morality is the Only Thing We Should Legislate Selwyn Duke writes:

“You can’t legislate morality!” is a common battle cry today.

It’s thought to be a quintessentially American idea, even though the Founding Fathers never expressed such a sentiment. Nor did the early Americans who would unabashedly enforce a biblically based code of morality in their localities, both via social pressure and governmental laws, with transgressors sometimes spending time in stocks — or worse. No, our common battle cry is a modern idea, and one of modernism. It also betrays a fundamental, and dangerous, misunderstanding of law’s nature.

In reality, the only thing we should legislate is morality. The only other option is legislating whims or immorality.

American voters will decide on November 8th if saying things that are unpopular is needed and necessary or if being political correct is the new normal.

As George Orwell noted, “In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

Perhaps it is time to stop deceiving ourselves?

The Twisting Noose

When I think about the slow and inexorable––but, of course, inevitable––political demise of Hillary Clinton, I am reminded of T.S. Eliot’s poem, “The Hollow Men,” which ends with this haunting refrain:

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.

Hillary’s whimper, it seems clear, will come with an impotently furious last gasp, as the noose that Barack Obama has placed around her neck tightens and tightens and tightens until all we hear is her spasmodic cough, a few hoarse protestations, and a final pitiful bleat––and not the ear-splitting assault of “that voice,” which I  described in a previous article.

How could this happen to the woman who former Democrat House Ways and Means Committee Chairman and convicted felon Dan Rostenkowski called “the smartest woman in the world”?

hillary alinsky paper

Photo illustration by Clay Frost  /

No doubt it started at Wellesley College where Hillary, born to a family of Republicans and an avid supporter herself of the1964 arch-conservative presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, as well as the president of the Wellesley College chapter of College Republicans, was irresistibly attracted to the writings of radical leftist Saul Alinsky, of Rules for Radicals fame, who she wrote her thesis about and also kept in close touch with for years after she graduated.

At her graduation in 1969, Republican Senator Edward Brooke delivered a stirring and enthusiastically received commencement address. Hillary––whose graduation speech followed––exhibited a shocking display of rudeness when she slammed the first black senator to be elected to the U.S. Senate. It would not be the last time she displayed a remarkable aptitude for alienating an audience.

At Yale Law School, she hooked her wagon to the star of fellow student Bill Clinton, and when the roguish good ole boy became governor of Arkansas, Hillary served 12 years as the state’s First Lady, racking up an impressive list of scandals of her very own. The short list includes:

  • A $100,000 windfall from cattle futures after a $1,000 investment (all the money she had in her account at the time).
  • The Castle Grande real estate scam.
  • Her role as attorney for the Rose law firm in what would become the putatively criminal Whitewater affair that would follow her to the White House.
  • The serial philandering of her husband in which she was either a willing collaborator or, as Donald Trump has said, an “enabler.”


vince foster death book coverWithin months of taking up residence in the White House as First Lady of the United States, Hillary put her scandal expertise to work. In May 1993, she was accused of having a central hand in firing several long-time employees of the White House Travel Office in order to give the pricey travel business to her Hollywood pals. A couple of months later, in July 1993, White House Deputy Counsel Vince Foster was said to have committed suicide, although the case for his murder has been made persuasively by, among others, founder Christopher Ruddy, in his 1993 book, “The Strange Death of Vincent Foster: An Investigation.”

But the case didn’t end there. In 1996, Hillary was accused by the Senate Special Whitewater Committee of ordering the removal of potentially damaging files related to Whitewater from Foster’s office on the night of his death. Hillary denied everything, once again proving her adeptness in dodging accountability. But even today, Cliff Kincaid, in a must-read article, writes that Something Stinks: The “Fishy” Vince Foster Case.  “Trump, if elected president, could order a new investigation,” Kincaid says. “Such a probe might show media complicity in the cover-up…”

During those years, Hillary vacillated between corruption and incompetence. When her devoted husband put her in charge of healthcare reform, she blew $13 million but couldn’t even get a Democrat Congress to pass the hated bill, in spite of the usual threats and intimidation.

She chose Janet Reno as Attorney General, which her devoted husband called “my worst mistake.”

Her other choices–of Lani Guinier to head the Civil Rights Commission, Webb Hubbell for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, William Kennedy for the Treasury Department, Craig Livingstone to be Director of White House security––all resulted in failure, ignominy, or scandalous controversy.

And her vengeful pursuit of the women––including but not limited to Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and Elizabeth Ward Gracen––who accused her devoted husband of rape or sexual harassment has now been documented by Candace E. Jackson in her book, Their Lives – The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine. That pursuit was so wildly successful that it resulted in her devoted husband losing his license for “lying under oath” to a grand jury and his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.

Not to forget the Clinton campaign-finance scandal of the late 1990s in which millions of dollars of illegal Chinese campaign cash found its way into Democrat Party and Clinton legal defense fund coffers, and, worse, American missile- guidance technology was given to Beijing. This outrage cannot be blamed solely on the Hillary’s devoted husband because he told us himself that with Hillary we were “getting two for the price of one.”

Oh…and this little factoid: After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.

In addition, Hillary’s co-presidency brought about the fall of more elected and appointed members, as well as “friends” who met untimely deaths, were indicted, pleaded the fifth, fled the country, and were imprisoned, than in any administration in American history.


Besotted by the power she experienced as consort to the big kahuna Bill Clinton, Hillary decided to carpetbag her way to a senate seat in New York, with plans to spend as few years as possible as a junior senator before claiming what she believed was her rightful place in history as the first female president of the United States of America.

Granted, she had to overcome a number of unfortunate personality traits. It had been decades since she was labeled “Sister Frigidaire” in her high school newspaper, but her image of being cold, robotic and inaccessible never seemed to go away. As writer Tim Cavanaugh said, “Plainly put…she still lacks a key quality that a politician can’t achieve through hard work: likeability.”

Her senatorial campaign involved spinning the yarn that she was a long-time NY Yankees fan, assuring upstate conservative voters that she “cared” about their jobs, informing the large liberal base of NY City Jewish voters that she was part Jewish (endearing, coming from the wife of the first black president), and convincing the Chasidic New Square community in Rockland County (that had formerly voted overwhelmingly for arch-conservative Sen. Alfonse D’Amato) to vote 99 to 1 for her.

Never mind that two months after her election in 2000, she pardoned four residents of New Square who had been convicted of defrauding the federal government, an act not quite as egregious as her husband’s attempt to win her New York’s Hispanic vote by pardoning 16 members of the FALN terrorist group who had planted over 130 bombs in the U.S., killed six people, and injured 70.

But New York’s bleeding-heart liberals voted for the woman wronged by her predatory husband and his paramour Monica Lewinsky, and Hillary won the election, promptly relocated to the Empire State, and moved into an upscale house financed by the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee. That would be the current governor of Virginia, one Terry McAuliffe, who just the other day was targeted by a federal investigation looking at donations to his gubernatorial campaign made by a man called Wang, a man he said he was “not even sure” he had met. According to Chuck Ross of The Daily Caller:

Hillary Clinton met Chinese billionaire Wang Wenliang, whose involvement with Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe is at the center of an FBI investigation, during a Sept. 30, 2013 fundraiser at her Chappaqua, N.Y. home, according to an explosive new report from Time. Less than a month after that fundraiser, in which Clinton and Wang reportedly shook hands, the businessman made a $500,000 donation to the Clinton Foundation. He would end up giving a total of $2 million to the Clinton charity, which is a major source of controversy for the Democratic presidential front-runner.



After an undistinguished first term in the senate, Hillary ran again for the senate in 2006, and won. Two years later, she embarked on a run for the U.S. presidency, a race she lost to Barack Obama.

Two particular incidents stand out in that race. The first is when Bill Clinton, speaking to the late Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy about Obama, remarked: “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.” He followed that remark by telling Kennedy that “the only reason you are endorsing him is because he’s black. Let’s just be clear.”

The second revealing remark took place during the final debate of the New Hampshire campaign. Richard Cohen’s description of that exchange is excruciating:

After [Hillary] Clinton had good-naturedly responded to a question about what is sometimes called her “personality deficit”––”Well, that hurts my feelings”––she went on to concede that Obama is “very likeable.” Obama responded with a curt “You’re likeable enough, Hillary.”

Right there and then, the hatred between the Clintons and the Obamas was etched in stone. But they still needed each other: Obama for the vast resources, connections and money sources the Clintons had access to, and the Clintons for the still-alive ambitions they harbored to someday reclaim the White House, no doubt to satisfy their seemingly insatiable lust for power.

Ann Coulter has recently described that mutual hatred in a must read every word article. Here, in a mere tidbit, is Coulter’s premise:

Barack Obama “hates Hillary Clinton and always has…Valerie Jarrett also hates Hillary…Obama adores his vice president, Joe Biden…He knows that Hillary can’t beat Trump… Who more perfectly encapsulates white privilege than Hillary Clinton? Obama resented her campaign and resented Bill Clinton’s not-so-coded racism. …if Hillary were elected, she’d undo everything he’s done…what if Obama could contrive to give the nomination to a guy he likes?”

Coulter suggests that FBI Director James Comey might recommend that Hillary be indicted, that Obama denounces Comey’s report, that Jarrett gets on the phone to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and says: “Disregard everything [Obama] is saying about Comey, if you get my meaning, Loretta…”, and then Lynch indicts Hillary, with Obama pretending that his hands are tied.

As for Hillary, Coulter says that when the Clintons retreat to Chappaqua…they’ll find that “the going rate for a guy whose wife is about to be president is much higher than for an aging rapist whose wife is facing criminal charges.”


hillary fees middle eastI believe that going back to the 1940s, the White House has had total––or near total––control over the media and the so-called news of the day. This is why every major network and most if not all cable shows echo the exact same “news” to their viewers, often with identical language

For the most part, the media lean left, which is particularly ironic given that the moguls who control the news are mega-millionaires and often billionaire businessmen and women who live and die by capitalism. But as we’ve seen with Barack Obama’s IRS (and the FEC, FCC, et al), the federal government has awesome punitive powers, so clearly it’s quite easy to extort money from the rich.

But I digress. Have you noticed that after almost four decades of getting away with the most egregious abuses of power, a number of incidents have seemed to happen all at once to bring Hillary down? Consider the “coincidental” events of just the past few weeks:

  • Leaks to the media that James Comey is about to suggest she be indicted. Twist of the noose.
  • Front page headlines that her closest and most trusted aides, Sheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, will be deposed by Comey & Co. Twist of the noose.
  • Increasing talk that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who my friend calls “the snarling head” of the Clinton-controlled Democratic National Committee, will soon be booted. Twist.
  • Atypically aggressive questions by the Clinton bought-and-paid-for media, members of which always treated the couple with kid gloves and the softest of softball questions. Twist of the noose.
  • A resurgence of interest in and information about the Benghazi murders of four Americans under Hillary’s none-too-watchful watch. Twist of the noose.
  • The release of a blistering report by the State Department’s Inspector General that, according to Dick Morris and Eileen McGann in “,” reveals that Hillary’s emails [contain] evidence that the private email server that carried America’s top secret information to and from the Secretary of State was installed, maintained, and partially operated by a civilian aide to Bill Clinton who lacked any security clearance and did not even work for the government.” Double twist of the noose.
  • News, reported this week by bestselling author and journalist Jerome Corsi, that “The Obama administration continues to suppress at least 12 versions of a 451-page draft indictment charging Hillary Clinton with criminal misconduct in the Whitewater case,” and which also includes such charges as “criminal cover-up; destroying legal files regarding the fraudulent transaction, lying under oath to federal investigators, including the FDIC and Congress; removing incriminating records from Vince Foster’s office after his death; and destroying other records, including Rose Law Firm records that would provide incriminating evidence against Clinton and [Webb] Hubbell in the Whitewater scandal. Ooooh…triple twist!
  • A damning article by Scott Powell, managing partner of Remington Rand LLC, who writes an article, the title of which says it all: “James Comey: Enforcing the Law Requires Indicting Hillary.” Addressing the e-mail scandal, Powell spells out the many violations Hillary committed, including: “the use of an unsecure private email server for conducting State Department business [with] reckless disregard of the security interests of the United States and [the violation of] some ten federal statutes. Several are national security-related felonies, just three of which include: 1) disclosure of classified information (22 of which documents were Top Secret); 2) unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents; and 3) destruction of evidence (erasure of the hard drive and deletion of some 30,000 emails by Secretary Clinton), after a government investigation had commenced (Benghazi hearings began October 10, 2012).”
  • Powell continues: “Hillary Clinton has been an integral part of the Clinton Foundation, which is unprecedented in size and global scope as an influence peddling political slush fund. According to the foundation’s own recent tax returns, just 10% of expenditures go to charitable grants, with the bulk of the expenditure balance spent on salaries and benefits, lavish life-style travel and conference organizing. The record shows that the Clinton Foundation took large contributions from several business magnates who soon thereafter received clearance for controversial international business deals. Saudi Arabia contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation before Hillary became secretary of state. A few years later the Hillary Clinton State Department formally cleared the largest single sale of military aircraft to the Saudis.”

January 17, 2016 NEW YORK POST

According to Peter Schweizer, author of Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” the shocking pardon Bill Clinton granted to international fugitive Marc Rich on January 20, 2001 (Clinton’s last day in office) was “perhaps the most condemned official act of Clinton’s political career.”

“But while the pardon was a political mistake,” Schweizer writes, “it certainly was not a financial one. In the years following the scandal, the flow of funds from those connected to Marc Rich or the pardon scandal have continued to the Clintons. Rich died in 2013. But his business partners, lawyers, advisors and friends have showered millions of dollars on the Clintons in the decade and a half following the scandal.”


Sounds like all this is being orchestrated directly from the White House, doesn’t it? Now that Barack Obama, his capo Valerie Jarrett, his in-house liar Ben Rhodes, his spokes-toady Josh Earnest, and Muslim Brotherhood operatives with whom he has seeded every department of our government, have all realized that Hillary is on her last legs and that Trump will crush her as he did 16 formidable primary opponents, the urgent goal is to bring her down––and to replace her with the quasi-demented VP Joe Biden and the fake Cherokee Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

All in the fervent hope that these lily-white, American-born politicians will carry on his legacy, the top two priorities of which appear to be that men who “feel” like women and women who “feel” like men can use bathrooms that comport with their feelings and not their anatomies, and that the genocidal mullahs in Iran be given enough time, money, and duplicitous spin to launch nuclear weapons against Israel, the U.S., and the other western nations they so revile.

To confirm the suspicion that Central Command for Hillary’s downfall is the Oval Office, here is recently-resigned Speaker of the House John Boehner in full speculation mode early in May: “Don’t be shocked … if two weeks before the convention, here comes Joe Biden parachuting in and Barack Obama fanning the flames to make it all happen.”

It looks like Barack Obama bet on the wrong horse. He followed the usual high-stakes game plan––keep your friends close but your enemies closer––by making Hillary Sec. of State, knowing of her overweening ambitions for the presidency and counting on her to win and continue his legacy of government control over the stupid masses through socialized medicine and education, the fetish of diversity and multiculturalism, the hoax of climate change, abolition of the 2nd Amendment, and especially the metastasis of Islam and Sharia Law throughout the West.

But in spite of the rigged super-delegate system by which Hillary would ascend to a nomination while losing the vast majority of the primary and caucus contests to Sen. Bernie Sanders, it looks like her expiration date is fast approaching. As Ann Coulter suggested, it may just be Loretta Lynch who delivers the last twist.

Fitting, Trump Clinches GOP Nomination on Memorial Day Weekend

The Associated Press reported on Thursday [May 26, 2016] that Donald J. Trump has exceeded the 1,237 delegates necessary to win the Republican Party’s nomination for President of the United States on the first ballot at the party’s convention next month.

Mr. Trump had 1,229 delegates after winning the state of Washington on Tuesday, but since then has received commitments from enough unbound delegates to put him over the top. Trump is expected to expand his now insurmountable lead next month, when the last five states to vote—South Dakota, New Mexico, New Jersey, Montana, and California—hold their primaries.

Fox News reports, “Trump’s achievement marks the completion of a primary campaign that has upended the political landscape and defied multiple predictions of failure from political commentators. It now sets the stage for a bitter fall campaign against likely Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.” The NRA endorsed Mr. Trump last week.

Meanwhile, though Clinton is still favored to win the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, the Washington Post reports that Hillary Clinton’s email problems just got worse, following the release of a State Department Inspector General’s report, which described Clinton’s manner of handling her emails as “not an appropriate method.” Clinton refused to speak to the Inspector General’s investigators.

Asked about the news during a press conference in North Dakota, Trump said the report shows that Clinton suffers from “bad judgment,” an assessment that would be equally appropriate if the report had assessed Clinton’s position on gun control.