Tax Expert: 5 Reasons Donald Trump Tax Returns Should Not Be Released [Video]

WALLINGFORD, Conn. /PRNewswire/ — Tax expert Anthony E. Parent, Esq. has just released an article that focuses on a topic that is on many peoples’ minds right now: Donald Trump tax returns. Titled “5 Reasons Why Donald Trump is Right To Not Release His Returns,” Parent takes an in-depth look at this issue and why he feels Trump is correct in not wanting to release this personal information.

Anthony and Claudine discuss the complete BS of releasing tax returns for public scrutiny:

Read the new article in its entirety: 

Being a tax attorney is the biggest unexpected thrill in my life. I decided to specialize in tax so many years ago for pragmatic reasons, but it has turned into my passion. The passion comes for various reasons: I have the best clients in the world. And tax law is the most complicated thing in the history of the world, thus there is always abundant fodder for argument. There were many times when we thought we lost a position, but then we found something that saved the day.

In the past 10 years we’ve helped thousands of clients, and learned that very sophisticated, very smart people are fairly ignorant about how the tax code really works. For good reason; there is no training on the tax code for the average taxpayer. As for myself, a tax professional, it seems like every day even I learn something new — and this after practicing law for nearly 15 years! There’s always more to learn…isn’t that amazing?

Here’s one thing you can learn: a tax return doesn’t mean all that much. It’s just a bunch of numbers that somebody plugs in. Looking at someone’s tax return isn’t going to provide you with any special clairvoyance into their life.

You know who else agrees with me? The IRS. When the IRS examines your tax return, they don’t just look at your tax return and magically know if you’ve mis-filed (intentionally or innocently). An IRS examiner has to investigate to find out where you got your numbers from.

It has become customary for presidential candidates to release their tax return information for public scrutiny. Here’s a webpage with a whole collection. As if it is somehow the public’s right…andas if a tax return will tell you something important. Here we could disagree, but you would be wrong. So here are five reasons why a presidential candidate should not release their tax returns:

1. The tax returns you see are not necessary what is filed.

Take a look at the returns released by presidential candidates. You find a lot of them are unsigned, and even if they were signed, how do you know they were actually filed with the IRS? The answer is you don’t know. If someone was trying to create a false image of their affairs, do you see how easy it would be? The point of looking at someones’ tax return is to see if they are up to no good. If they are up to no good, it would be ridiculously easy for them to hide it! It would be like asking a presidential candidate to score their own lie detector test.

2. Even if they were filed, did you see if they amended returns?

Let’s suppose that you actually saw the real returns that were filed as-is. Do you know if a tax amendment was made later that day? You really have no clue what was filed or changed. You justthink you know, and that’s perhaps even more dangerous.

3. Do you know what any of this means?

Let’s suppose you are a tax expert; smarter than any other CPA, enrolled agent or tax attorney. That you are the best in the business at discovering fraud.

In reviewing the returns you still wouldn’t know anything important. You have no idea where the numbers put on that tax return came from. For instance, “consulting” is a rather vague term (also a very popular term used on many presidential and candidate returns). Then there’s the “speaking fees” income that the Clinton’s claimed. But were those fees really for speaking, or were they for something else? Of course, the person paying the bill would not claim it is a bribe, because bribes are not tax deductible. But speaking fees are. So you can have accurate numbers, but parties can have a self-interest to work in collusion to obfuscate the true nature of a payment.

4.What about partnership returns ? Corporate returns?

Let’s say that I was going to do something shady, but I didn’t want to run the risk of a tax evasion indictment. I would set up a shell company to run the books through; something without my name or social security number tied to it. Hence it wouldn’t be on my tax return.

For their tax returns, partnerships file IRS Form 1065, corporations files a Form 1120 or 1120-S. If someone has foreign entities, like a foreign trust, foreign partnership or foreign corporation those could require Forms 3520-A/3520, Form 8865 and Form 5471, respectively.

Yet in all of the tax returns released by presidential candidates, (at least the ones we reviewed) wouldn’t you know it…you will find no partnerships, trusts, or corporation returns of any kind. Huh.

5. The Security Risks

Your Federal Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) is something that is used for Identity verification. Why would you ever want that to be public? It is dangerous to share that information.

Also, the IRS has warned about many phishing scams involving tax professionals. It’s just not a good idea to let people know who prepares your returns. You are opening yourself, and others, to scammers who may use this information to help them pose as the IRS.

“Look at me…I’m an every man! I pay my taxes! Just. Like. You.”

Seriously, what is the point of releasing tax returns? To prove that you are just a regular guy or girl? Well, you are running for president of the most powerful nation of all time. You aren’t an every man. So just stop it.

If we are looking at tax returns as indication of fraud that should disqualify someone from office, we are only exposing our own ignorance of what a tax return does.

The best lies contain truth. Aren’t we smart enough to know this by now? So anyone could release things that are true, yet easily hide the things that are not so helpful to an image of moral uprightedness. A partial release of tax information can assist a fraudster to appear to be on the up-and-up while leaving out what is actually important.

Let’s stop this stupid practice. Keep your returns private.

As Parent clarifies in the article, he not only feels that Trump should not release his returns—he believes this applies to all presidential candidates. As he noted, as a tax attorney, he has learned that a tax return does not mean as much as many people have been led to believe.

In addition, Parent noted, many of the tax returns that have been released by past presidential candidates are not necessarily what was actually filed with the IRS. Many of them are unsigned, but even the ones that were signed might be fabricated documents.

“If someone was trying to create a false image of their affairs, do you see how easy it would be?” Parent asks in the new article.

“The point of looking at someone’s tax return is to see if they are up to no good. If they are up to no good, it would be ridiculously easy for them to hide it. It would be like asking a presidential candidate to score their own lie detector test.”

Another reason Trump should not feel compelled to release his tax returns, Parent wrote, is that most people will not learn anything important about the candidate, including what numbers like “consulting” and “speaking fees” truly mean.

ABOUT IRSMEDIC:

IRSMedic is the law office of Parent & Parent LLP, a tax firm helping the entrepreneur and worldwide investor keep their tax and tax risks to a minimum. For more information, please visit https://www.irsmedic.com.

To learn more about IRSMedic and the services that the tax firm provides its clients, please watch this short video on YouTube:

Who Hath the Greater Sin?

Count me among the less than a million voters who already cast an early ballot and among those disgusted with this election cycle.

When comparing the two major candidates – that is, their records, their faults, and their failings – Donald Trump is clearly head and shoulders above Hillary Clinton.

Like us all, Mr. Trump is a sinner, said some things out of turn that were inappropriate, and he could have said and handled some controversies better. What if we were all judged by this extremely unfair double standard? Self-righteous men and fathers, like Mr. Trump, I am sure you said some regrettable things about women that you wish you had not. Mr. Trump is not to be excused; but he apologized, and as with anyone else, we accept his apology and move forward.

Moreover, one has to carefully analyze what he is apologizing for: a hot mic response he made over 11 years ago as a private citizen. Clearly, the NBC (No one But Clinton) network and its affiliates (MSNBC) had to know of this tape and its existence for some time now.

Why was it released last week? Why was it not released over the past year during the Republican primary?

A reasonable person may conclude that NBC, as well as The New York Times, does opposition research for Hillary Clinton, not Republican presidential primary candidates.

Yes, his comments to Billy Bush were and are unacceptable; but it was just talk and there exists no credible incidents that he actually did these things.

What about recent accusers?

Interesting, they come forward now- not when the supposed incidents happened (coincidentally under NBC’s watch as they produced and broadcasted the Apprentice for 12 years and the Miss America and Miss Universe pageants), not during the Republican presidential primaries, not two months ago, but now.

The timing is obvious as it is dubious and odious.

If Mr. Trump really assaulted these women, such incidents would be difficult to cover up per the media cycle. If these women are telling the truth, did NBC and its affiliates cover it up at the time they occurred to avoid liability and thus enable and empower Mr. Trump to abuse women?

Why did these women not come forward at the time of the supposed incidents and sue Mr. Trump, NBC, and any and all related affiliates?

All that is substantiated concerning Mr. Trump is words and unfounded accusations meant to tilt the election Hillary’s way- akin to Debbie Wasserman Schultz tilting the Democratic nomination to Hillary per DNC leaked emails.

However, Bill Clinton, per the Starr Report and his subsequent impeachment, actually abused his position and office by debasing and defiling a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, with slices of pizza and cigars in the White House.

He lied to the American people and a grand jury about it and only came clean when  Monica’s blue dress stained with his DNA came to light; thus giving credence to previous accusers who accused him of sexual assault and rape- the very accusers and true victims that Hillary vilified and demonized as part of “a vast right-wing conspiracy.”

Getting out of the gutter, and looking at actual policy, it is true that Mr. Trump has no political experience as he is not a professional politician whereas Mrs. Clinton has roughly 13 years of political experience as a U.S. senator and Secretary of State besides her years as First Lady of Arkansas and the United States.

As First lady of the United States, she was tasked with health care reform, which ended very badly, and had Travelgate, Filegate, and Furnituregate to her name.

As U.S. Senator from New York, she only had three laws passed that she authored: establishing a National Historic Site in New York, renaming a post office, and renaming a New York highway after Tim Russert.

As Secretary of State, she has the current failed state of Libya to her name, Benghazi, and the catastrophe in Syria in addition to her email scandal per her illegal server and mishandling classified information.

Mr. Trump has a successful record as a businessman; Mrs. Clinton called TPP “the gold standard,” and supported NAFTA and other detrimental trade deals in addition to being a good friend and darling of the banking industry. Her running mate, Tim Kaine, is closely tied to Virginia-based Capital One; furthermore, he oversaw Project Exile which irreparably harmed the African-American community while he was mayor of Richmond, VA (1998-2001).

Furthermore, per a leaked email, while addressing a group of Brazilian bankers, Clinton stressed she was with them on Open Borders, but that this was a private position given the American electorate’s disdain for bad trade deals thus necessitating public and private positions.

When she was pressed on this, she made an analogy to President Lincoln’s handling of the Thirteenth Amendment; Mrs. Clinton was not discussing civics or the American electoral process with these foreign bankers, but trade.

Given this episode, it is not surprising that the Clinton campaign ignored Bernie Sanders’ calls to release the transcripts of her private speeches to banking executives for they would be just as damning as these. It is a shame that Sen. Sanders does not publicly renew his request for the Clinton campaign to release these transcripts per this revelation.

If Mr. Trump is a failed, unethical businessman as the Clinton campaign and their media allies suggest, why were these alleged improprieties revealed over the past ten months as opposed to years ago when they allegedly took place?

Mr. Trump has been criticized for taking advantage of the tax code over 20 years ago for writing off over $900 million in business losses. Doing so may not be good optics, but it was legal and done to protect shareholders. Additionally, he and his business holdings paid other federal (FICA, MICA) taxes as well as local and state income, property, and sales taxes.

Fair minded people may assume that the media is strategically releasing these allegations to deflect from Clinton’s unethical, and some may say criminal, behavior per her email scandal, leaked emails, and the questionable dealings of the Clinton Foundation during her tenure as Secretary of State.

Can it be that NBC and its cable affiliates are assisting in the election of Hillary Clinton given their owners’ (Comcast and General Electric) significant financial services and Wall Street ties?

A sizable portion of the electorate such as myself recognize these and other biased tactics and abhor them. The WikiLeaks emails already confirm what we have known all along. Most people find it shocking that Gen. David Petraeus paid a higher price for his lesser role in mishandling classified information than Mrs. Clinton, and how Mrs. Clinton seems to be immune from responsibility for her various acts.

Though he does not support Donald Trump, Robert Satiacum, Jr., who supported Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary and is on the Democratic slate of presidential electors in the state of Washington, said he may not vote for Hillary Clinton if she wins Washington in the November election.

His rationale: “How can I say and do and be who I am and then cast a vote for somebody that’s the same as Trump?” He described her as “a clown,” “a rat,” and “a criminal.”

Mr. Satiacum’s sentiments are shared by many as he is not alone, especially among dissatisfied Democrats who supported Bernie Sanders and independents.

As Dr. Swier says, “We report, you decide.” Do not listen to the media, check out the candidates and their records on your own accord from reliable and valid sources, and employ common sense reasoning to judge them not by what is said about them but by their actions and what they actually did and failed to do.

Media Bias Makes Him Stronger

Teflon Donald has come out swinging against all those who are the enemies of America. The list includes the media, Hillary supporters, the Democratic Party and those Republicans, like Paul Ryan, who are weak kneed.

Kenneth Timmerman in his “Memo to all weak-kneed Republicans: Get a grip” writes:

Any Republican with an ounce of political savvy should understand that Hillary’s playbook is all about impugning Donald Trump’s character. That is all she’s got. Because if she ran on the issues — her secret endorsement of open borders, for example – she would go down in flames.

It’s time our party got a collective grip on itself.

[ … ]

Have you forgotten why the Tea Party exploded onto the political scene in 2010, and why Donald Trump succeeded in roundly defeating 16 highly-qualified and highly-skilled Republican opponents in the primary?

A movement has sprung up in this country, and the political elites are terrified that it will succeed in pushing the eject button on their cozy Party of Big Government that has ruled, raped, and destroyed this country for too long.

The Selous Foundation’s Cliff Kincaid in his column “Media Bias Makes Him Stronger” noted:

When the media went with the recording of Donald J. Trump’s dirty talk about women, the result was predictable. Some terrified Republicans abandoned ship. But the ship was not sinking. Trump used the personal attacks as fuel for a counter-offensive that had the media—and Hillary—reeling.

[ … ]

The Republicans who abandoned Trump were victims, in a sense, as well. They had gotten scared in the face of a carefully orchestrated attack using a major liberal media organ, the Washington Post. They figured that the only way out, in order to stay on the side of the media, was to dump Trump. But Trump’s aggressive performance in the debate means that the “self-righteous” Republicans who abandoned him are going to suffer even more. Trump supporters turned on Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan after he disinvited Trump from a Wisconsin GOP event. Rep. Joe Heck, a Republican running for an open Senate seat in Nevada, was booed at a rally when he announced he would no longer back Trump’s campaign.

Ryan may survive in his race, since he has a safe Republican seat, but other Republicans who turned their backs on Trump because of the 11-year-old videotape could experience the Trump Train leaving them behind on the way to victory in November.

Kincaid concludes:

Going forward, Trump will have to add to his list of adversaries the cowardly Republicans who would rather please the media than expose corruption in the political process. The evidence indicates that he is prepared to run over them as well.

Win or lose, Trump will emerge as the leader of a new Republican Party that no longer brown-noses the liberal media elites.

This struggle is to restore America. Make America Great Again is not just a slogan. It is an insurgency against those who would define the future against us rather than for us, the American people.

Cast your vote accordingly.

ABOUT CLIFF KINCAID

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism. He is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis.

RELATED ARTICLE: CNN’s Stelter Blames Firebombing of NC Republican Office on Trump’s ‘Over Heated’ Rhetoric

Trump to Hillary: Give back the $25 to $35 million you’ve taken from Saudi Arabia

“So Hillary thinks they are funding ISIS, but still takes their money. And you know their views on gays. And you know their views on women.”

If any other candidate in any other context had taken many millions of dollars from an entity that the candidate admitted was also funding a terrorist organization, would that candidate still be in the race?

A huge and largely ignored issue in this campaign is the extent to which the United States government and both the Democrat and Republican parties are beholden to the Saudis, and the influence that Saudi money has had over American domestic and foreign policy, particularly regarding the jihad threat.

Is it wise to have a government that is so financially beholden to a government that is chiefly financially responsible for the spread of the jihad ideology around the world? When one thinks about the way that the U.S. response to the jihad threat has been weak and wrongheaded since 9/11, the Saudi money starts to make it all make sense: the denial of the motivating ideology behind jihad terror, the targeting of foes of the Saudi regime rather than the actual perpetrators of the 9/11 jihad attacks — it all falls into place. And now we’re looking at four more years (at least) of Saudi hegemony.

“Donald Trump: Hillary Clinton Should Return the Money She Got from Saudi Arabia,” by Katie McHugh, Breitbart, October 14, 2016 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

Donald Trump challenged Hillary Clinton to return the tens of millions of dollars she has accepted from Saudi Arabian donors, and called again for a special prosecutor to look into her alleged crimes as Secretary of State.

The hacked emails released by Wikileaks “make more clear than ever just how much is at stake come November 8. Such an important day. Such an important day,” Trump said Friday night in Charlotte, North Carolina. “Get out and vote, everybody. Get out and vote!”

“In an email sent to John Podesta, on August 17, 2014, Hillary wrote that the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia are ‘providing clandestine and financial and logistical support to ISIL.’ Yet, in that same year, Bill and Hillary accepted a check from Saudi Arabia,” Trump said as the audience booed.

“So Hillary thinks they are funding ISIS, but still takes their money. And you know their views on gays. And you know their views on women.”

“I think she should give back the $25 to $35 million she’s taken from Saudi Arabia,” he said. “And she should give it back fast.”

Audience members began to chant, “Lock her up!”

In an email sent over her homebrew, unsecured server to then-Obama White House counselor John Podesta, who now chairs her campaign, Hillary flat-out stated Saudia [sic] Arabia was funding ISIS in Syria.

“[W]e need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region,” Clinton wrote on August 18, 2014.

Saudia Arabia has donated as much as $50 million to the Clinton Foundation while it continues its sharia-compliant policy of executing homosexuals and sending them to prison.

“This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Clinton corruption,” Trump continued. “Hillary bleached and deleted 33,000 of her emails after receiving—after, remember the word, after—after receiving a Congressional subpoena, and had 13 phones disappear.”

“LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!” the crowd roared….

RELATED INFOGRAPHIC:

donors-to-clinton-foundation

RELATED ARTICLES:

State Dept: “We continue to urge Pakistan to take actions to combat all terrorist groups operating on its soil”

Uruguay: Muslim who stabbed Jewish man to death while screaming “Allahu akbar” avoids jail, declared insane

Florida: Muslim threatens massacres at schools, beaches, military bases

“He claimed 10 people would carry out the attacks after a ‘couple of us’ had ‘declared to join ISIS’. The writer stated that 5-10 attacks could not be stopped (stating law enforcement ‘cannot be everywhere at once’), and that the attackers planned on ‘not giving up’ and ‘dying.’”

Why he mailed this to the sheriff is unclear: suicide by jihad threat? Something like that could be a possibility. But the idea of law enforcement being overwhelmed by so many jihad attacks and plots that it collapses — that’s precisely the Islamic State’s strategy, as I explain in my book The Complete Infidel’s Guide to ISIS.

regis-walker

Regis L. Walker

“Escambia Man Threatens ISIS Attacks On Schools, Beaches, Bases,” NorthEscambia.com, October 15, 2016 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

An Escambia County man is facing federal charges after allegedly sending a handwritten note to Sheriff David Morgan threatening to attack schools, beaches and more simultaneously.

Regis L. Walker, 30, was charged with mailing threatening communications. The criminal complaint was announced by Christopher P. Canova, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida.

According to the criminal complaint affidavit, Walker mailed a threatening letter on notebook paper to Sheriff Morgan at the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office. He allegedly claimed that several people who had joined ISIS would simultaneously attack military bases, beaches, and schools at a nonspecific time and could not be stopped by law enforcement.

He claimed 10 people would carry out the attacks after a “couple of us” had “declared to join ISIS”. The writer stated that 5-10 attacks could not be stopped (stating law enforcement “cannot be everywhere at once”), and that the attackers planned on “not giving up” and “dying.”

Walker appeared to sign the note as “ISIS ALLAH.”…

RELATED ARTICLES:

Hillary Clinton’s long record of enabling the global jihad

Milwaukee: Two converts to Islam charged with trying to provide support to the Islamic State

Chapter and Verse: Hillary Clinton’s Record of Enabling Terrorists

The facts at hand presumably speak for themselves, but a trifle more vulgarly, I suspect, than facts even usually do.

“The Clinton Record,” by John Perazzo, FrontPage, October 14, 2016:

150706-hillary-atomic2Never in American history has anyone as unfit and undeserving as Hillary Clinton run for U.S. President. While she stands on the threshold of being elected to the White House, she quite literally belongs in a prison cell. This article lays out the case against her, chapter and verse….

The Clinton Foundation Scandals

In an effort to prevent foreign governments, organizations, and individuals from influencing the policy decisions of American national leaders, campaign-finance laws prohibit U.S. political figures from accepting money from foreign sources. But as the Washington Post noted in February 2015, the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation “has given donors a way to potentially gain favor with the Clintons outside the traditional political [donation] limits.”9

As of February 2015, foreign sources accounted for about one-third of all donors who had given the Clinton Foundation more than $1 million, and over half of those who had contributed more than $5 million.10 Foreign donors that gave money to the Foundation included: Hezbollah supporter Issam Fares, who once served as deputy prime minister of Lebanon;11 the Dubai Foundation, which also gave money to the families of Palestinian terrorists killed in action;12 the royal family of the United Arab Emirates; a Dubai-based company that promotes Sharia Law;13 a privately-held Chinese construction and trade conglomerate headed by a delegate of the Chinese parliament;14 and the governments of Saudi Arabia, Brunei, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar.15

Even during Clinton’s tenure (2009-13) as secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation received millions of dollars in donations from seven foreign governments.

Bill Clinton earned a total of $48 million from foreign sources for his appearance and speaking fees during his wife’s term as secretary.16

In August 2016, the Associated Press reported that 85 of Hillary Clinton’s 154 scheduled meetings and phone calls with non-governmental personnel during her time at the State Department were with donors who gave $156 million to the Clinton Foundation. The AP report also revealed that the Clinton Foundation had received $170 million in donations from at least 16 foreign governments whose representatives met personally with Mrs. Clinton.17

In May 2015, the International Business Times reported that the Clinton State Department had approved billions of dollars in arms deals with governments that donated to the Clinton Foundation, including governments that were infamous for their appalling human-rights records.18

But the Clinton Foundation certainly does many wonderful things for needy people around the world, doesn’t it? Well, according to a review of IRS documents by The Federalist, between 2009-12 the Clinton Foundation raised over $500 million in total. A mere 15% of that went towards programmatic grants. The other $425 million went to travel expenses, employee salaries and benefits, and “other expenses.”19 In 2013, the Clinton Foundation allocated only 6% of its revenues to direct charitable aid.20

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the millions of women around the world who have never benefited from the charitable services that the Clinton Foundation purports to provide, because the Foundation only spends a tiny percentage of its funds on actual charity.

Clinton’s Support for the Iran Nuclear Deal

Vowing that Mrs. Clinton will “preven[t] Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” the Clinton presidential campaign website assures Americans that “Hillary will vigorously enforce the nuclear agreement with Iran.” Is this a good thing? Consider that the agreement’s key provisions were as follows:

  • Iran was permitted to keep more than 5,000 centrifuges.
  • Iran received $150 billion in sanctions relief.
  • Russia and China were permitted to supply Iran with weapons.
  • Iran was given the discretion to block international inspectors from its military installations, and was promised that it would receive 14 days’ notice for any request to visit a given site.
  • Only inspectors from countries that had diplomatic relations with Iran would be given access to Iranian nuclear sites; thus there would be no American inspectors.
  • An embargo on the sale of weapons to Iran would be officially lifted in 5 years.
  • Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program would remain intact.
  • The U.S. pledged that it would provide technical assistance to help Iran develop its nuclear program and protect its nuclear facilities, supposedly for peaceful domestic purposes.
  • Sanctions would be lifted on critical parts of Iran’s military.
  • Iran was not required to release American prisoners whom it was holding on trumped-up charges.21

As a result of this nuclear deal that Mrs. Clinton so enthusiastically supports, Iran is guaranteed of having a near-zero breakout time to a nuclear bomb approximately a decade down the road.

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the scores of millions of women in the U.S., Israel, and elsewhere, whose very lives have been placed in irreversible peril as a result of this deal….

The Benghazi Debacle, and Clinton’s Role in Arming Jihadists in Libya and SyriaThroughout 2012, violent jihadist activity became increasingly commonplace in the city of Benghazi and elsewhere throughout Libya and North Africa. American personnel at the U.S. mission in Benghazi repeatedly asked the Clinton State Department for increased security provisions during 2012, but all of these requests were either denied or ignored.25

On the night of September 11, 2012, a large group of heavily armed Islamic terrorists attacked the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi with great violence.26 In the process, they killed the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans.

For weeks thereafter, Mrs. Clinton and the rest of the Obama administration continued to characterize what had occurred on September 11 in Benghazi not as a carefully orchestrated act of terrorism, but as a spontaneous uprising that evolved unexpectedly from what had begun as a low-level protest against an obscure YouTube video.

For the administration, it was vital to continue putting forth this false narrative because, with the presidential election only a few weeks away, nothing could be permitted to puncture the Obama-Clinton talking points: “Al Qaeda is on the run” and “Osama bin Laden is dead.”27

In reality, however, within mere hours after the September 11 attack, U.S. intelligence agencies had already gained more than enough evidence to conclude unequivocally that it was a planned terrorist incident, and that the YouTube video had nothing whatsoever to do with it.28

On January 23, 2013 — fully 134 days after the September 11 attack in Benghazi — Mrs. Clinton went before Congress to testify as to what she knew about the incident. At one point in the hearing, Senator Rand Paul asked her whether the United States had ever been involved in procuring weapons in Libya and transferring them to other countries including Syria. Clinton replied, “I do not know. I have no information on that.”29

But a March 25, 2013 New York Times story subsequently indicated that the Obama administration had in fact been sending arms from Libya, through intermediary nations and ultimately to Syria, since early 2012. And another Times article described Mrs. Clinton as one of the driving forces who had called for arming the Syrian rebels (who were fighting Syrian President Assad) in precisely that manner.30 In other words, Clinton had lied in her congressional testimony to Rand Paul.

It should be noted that the Syrian rebels whom Clinton and Obama were aiding consisted of Islamic jihadists, many of whom were affiliated with Al Qaeda. In July 2016, Julian Assange of Wikileaks revealed that a batch of hacked DNC emails contained information proving that Clinton, contrary to what she had said in her congressional testimony in 2013, knew as early as 2011 that the U.S. was sending arms from Libya to jihadists in Syria.31

And in October 2016, a Fox News report indicated that Obama and Clinton had also arranged for the provision of weapons to radical jihadists in Libya.32

In September 2014, former Deputy Secretary of State Raymond Maxwell reported that in late 2012 he had witnessed — in the basement of the State Department’s headquarters — a Sunday meeting in which Cheryl Mills (Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff) and Jake Sullivan (Clinton’s deputy chief of staff) were overseeing and directing staffers who were busy purging documents that might implicate Clinton or her top people in the Benghazi attacks.33

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including: (a) the Libyan and Syrian women whose lives were destroyed by the jihadists whom Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supported, and (b) the wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters of the four Americans who were slaughtered by jihadists in Benghazi.

The Radical Islamist Affiliations of Clinton’s Closest Aide

Hillary Clinton’s closest aide for many years has been Huma Abedin, whose late father, Syed Abedin, was affiliated with the Muslim Students Association (MSA). The MSA grew out of the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, which Islam expert Robert Spencer has described as “the parent organization of Hamas and al Qaeda.”34

Huma’s mother, Saleha Mahmood Abedin, is a prominent member of the Muslim Sisterhood — the Muslim Brotherhood’s division for women. She is also a board member of the International Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief, a pro-Hamas entity that is part of the “Union of Good,” which the U.S. government has formally designated as an international terrorist organization. Saleha once wrote an article blaming America for having provoked the Islamic “anger and hostility” that led to the 9/11 attacks.35

From 1996-2008, Huma Abedin was employed by the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (IMMA), a Saudi-based Islamic think tank founded by Abdullah Omar Naseef, a major Muslim Brotherhood figure who once served as secretary-general of the Muslim World League, a vehicle by which the Muslim Brotherhood promotes the ideology of Islamic supremacism. Naseef also had ties to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, with whom he communicated.36 Abedin was the assistant editor of IMMA’s in-house publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA). At least the first seven of those years overlapped with Abdullah Omar Naseef’s active presence in the IMMA.37

It is vital to note that the IMMA’s “Muslim Minority Affairs” agenda was, and remains to this day, a calculated foreign policy of the Saudi Ministry of Religious Affairs. It is designed, as former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy explains, “to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West.”38

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she respects women, including the hundreds of millions of women in Muslim nations who are oppressed by the very same Sharia Law that is promoted by the organization to which Huma Abedin devoted 12 years of her life.

The Deadly Consequences of Clinton’s Absurd Fictions About Islam & Terrorism

In 2011 the Obama administration, in which Mrs. Clinton was obviously a major player, decided to purge, from the training materials and curricula of all federal intelligence and criminal investigators, every single item suggesting that “jihad” or “Islam” were in any way related to terrorism.39 Instead, the new objective would be “countering violent extremism,” improving “cultural competency training across the United States Government,” and promoting “cultural awareness.”40 All told, the FBI removed more than 1,000 presentations and curriculum items that were deemed “offensive” or “Islamophobic.”41

The FBI’s decision to change its training materials and interrogation methods went on to have deadly serious, real-world consequences. A particularly noteworthy case involved jihadist Omar Mateen, who in June 2016 entered a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida and murdered 49 people while wounding 53 others. The FBI had investigated Mateen extensively for 10 months in 2013 because he had family connections to Al Qaeda, he was a member of a Shi’a terrorist organization, and he had issued terroristic threats on a number of occasions. But eventually, the FBI canceled that investigation because, in accordance with the tenets of its revised training materials, it concluded that Mateen posed no threat to anyone; that his biggest problem was the psychic pain he was suffering as a result of “being marginalized because of his Muslim faith.” As a result of this absurd line of reasoning, 49 innocent people from Orlando are now lying in their graves.42

Hillary Clinton agrees completely with the notion that it is both counterproductive and morally unjustified to suggest any connection between Islam and terrorism — the same delusional, preposterous mentality that enabled the Orlando mass murder to take place.

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women and homosexuals, including the 49 people who were slaughtered in the Orlando nightclub.

Clinton’s Role in the Rise of ISIS and the Stratospheric Growth of Worldwide Terrorism

ISIS, which evolved out of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), grew into the most powerful, well-funded horde of bloodthirsty barbarians in world history, right under Mrs. Clinton’s nose, and precisely during her watch as secretary of state. While ISIS launched its campaign of mass rapes, beheadings, slaughters, and tortures of unimaginable brutality — and gained control over enormous portions of Iraq and Syria — Clinton and President Obama did absolutely nothing to thwart it.43

Moreover, the rise of ISIS coincided with the expansion of terrorism to unprecedented levels all over the world. According to the Global Terrorism Index, fatalities caused by terrorism increased from 3,361 in 2000, to 11,133 in 2012, to 18,111 in 2013, to 32,658 in 2014. More than half of the 2014 killings were carried out by ISIS and Boko Haram, the latter of which has pledged allegiance to ISIS.44 In other words, worldwide terrorism has spiraled out of control under Obama, Clinton, and Clinton’s successor, John Kerry.

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women everywhere, including the many thousands who are killed by terrorists across the globe each year.

Clinton’s Role in Squandering America’s Victory in the Iraq War

ISIS’s meteoric ascent to power occurred as a direct result of President Obama’s decision to rapidly withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq — against the advice of experienced military leaders — in 2011. Retired Army General John M. Keane, the last American commander in Iraq, had recommended that 23,000 U.S. troops be left in place to secure the U.S. war victory. But Obama, wanting to be remembered most of all as the president who ended wars rather than fought them, left no forces behind. Beaming with pride, he frequently took credit for bringing American military involvement in Iraq to a formal close.45

Of course, when ISIS later grew into a genocidal monster, Obama tried to claim that his withdrawal from Iraq had been forced upon him by a December 2008 deal in which President Bush and Iraqi president Maliki signed a “status-of-forces” agreement stipulating that all U.S. troops must leave Iraq by December 2011.46

But status-of-forces agreements are often amended and renegotiated, based on evolving security concerns. Obama left no U.S. forces in Iraq for one very simple and obvious reason: he didn’t want to. As Obama himself stated during a 2012 debate with Republican challenger Mitt Romney: “What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops [a far cry from the 23,000 recommended by General Keane] in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East.”47

It is vital to remember, moreover, that Iraqi president Maliki would have been quite willing to accept a new status-of-forces agreement in 2011, had it stipulated that the U.S. would leave behind a contingent of troops large enough to effectively secure the peace. But when Obama and Clinton proposed to leave a mere 2,000 to 3,000 troops in Iraq, Maliki had no choice but to refuse. As National Review explains: “[T]he problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war. Having a very small American force wasn’t worth the domestic political price Maliki would have to pay for supporting their presence.”48

When Obama was deciding to pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq, Hillary Clinton was in 100% agreement with him. As Fox News reports: “Clinton was a leading and outspoken supporter of the Obama administration’s decision to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq…. Clinton touted the United States’ commitment to Iraq in 2011 and said the Obama administration has ‘a plan in place’ to ensure Iraq’s security.”49

Instead, Iraq turned into a beehive of jihadism, terrorism, and mass murder.

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women everywhere, including the millions whose lives were destroyed when a stable Iraq descended once again into anarchy and terror.

Clinton’s Horrible Judgment Regarding Another Terrorist Enemy

As a member of the U.S. Senate, Mrs. Clinton opposed President Bush’s January 2007 decision to deploy an additional 21,500 troops in a military “surge” designed to turn the tide of the Iraq War — which had devolved into a bloody quagmire — back in America’s favor:

  • In December 2006, when Bush was still contemplating the surge, Clinton said: “Everyone knows there is no military solution to the difficulties we face in Iraq.”50
  • In January 2007, Clinton complained that the surge was “taking troops away from Afghanistan, where I think we need to be putting more troops, and sending them to Iraq on a mission that I think has a very limited, if any, chance for success.”51
  • In August 2007, Clinton said: “The surge was designed to give the Iraqi government time to take steps to ensure a political solution to the situation. It has failed to do so…. It is abundantly clear that there is no military solution to the sectarian fighting in Iraq. We need to stop refereeing the war, and start getting out now.”52
  • When General David Petraeus issued a September 2007 report on the remarkably successful results that the surge was yielding, Clinton obstinately told Petraeus that his assertions required “a willing suspension of disbelief.”53

Contrary to Clinton’s erroneous predictions and dispiriting rhetoric, the troop surge proved to be a monumentally important strategy that finally enabled the U.S. to crush the Iraqi insurgency. Prior to the surge, it had not been uncommon for 3,000 or more Iraqi civilians and security-force members to die at the hands of terrorist violence during any given month. By May 2008, the monthly mortality figure stood at 19, and it fluctuated between 7 and 25 deaths per month over the ensuing 14 months.54

In his 2014 memoir, Robert Gates — who had served as Secretary of Defense under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama — wrote that Hillary Clinton’s opposition to the troop surge had been based on how she thought her own political fortunes would be affected by taking that position. For example, Gates described a “remarkable” exchange that he had witnessed, where Clinton, speaking retrospectively, “told the president that her opposition to the [2007] surge in Iraq had been political because she was facing him in the Iowa primary” and could not afford to be perceived as pro-war.55

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women everywhere, including the millions to whom she tried to deny the protection of American forces in the troop surge….

Clinton’s Reprehensible Treatment of IsraelIn 2010, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren said that during the first two years of the Obama-Clinton administration, “Israel’s ties with the United States” had reached “their worst crisis since 1975 … a crisis of historic proportions.”60

Some may recall how Mrs. Clinton betrayed Israel in the aftermath of an infamous 2010 incident where terrorist members of a Turkish organization known as the IHH — which has ties to Hamas, Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood — participated in a six-ship flotilla of pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel activists who sailed to Gaza for the purpose of breaking Israel’s naval “blockade” there. (That “blockade” was, in reality, a policy whereby Israel insisted on examining all imports passing through Gaza, so as to prevent the ruling Hamas government, which has sworn its permanent allegiance to the destruction of Israel and the genocide of Jews, from importing weaponry from abroad). The flotilla’s lead ship was owned and operated by IHH. When its crew refused to comply with repeated Israeli demands that it submit to an inspection of its cargo, Israeli commandos boarded the vessel and were violently attacked by IHH terrorists. In the melee that ensued, nine IHH members were killed, and seven Israeli soldiers were wounded. Thereafter, Clinton, by her own telling, “spent … literally years trying to get the Israelis to finally apologize to the Turks on the flotilla.”61

In the summer of 2014, Israel engaged in a massive military operation designed to weaken the destructive capacity of Hamas terrorists who were launching more than 100 potentially deadly missiles per day from Gaza, deep into Israel. Before long, Israel discovered that Hamas, in recent years, had constructed a massive network of at least 60 underground missile storage-and-transport tunnels throughout Gaza. A number of those tunnels extended, underground, into Israeli territory — for the purpose of facilitating terror attacks, murders, and kidnappings against unsuspecting Israeli citizens. According to a Wall Street Journal report, Hamas had spent between $1 million and $10 million to build each of those tunnels, using as many as 350 truckloads of cement and other supplies per tunnel.62

Then, in a bombshell revelation in August 2014, Dennis Ross, who had served as Secretary of State Clinton’s senior Mideast policy adviser, revealed that Clinton had personally assigned him the task of pressuring Israel to ease up on its military blockade of Gaza. “I argued with Israeli leaders and security officials, telling them they needed to allow more construction materials, including cement, into Gaza so that housing, schools and basic infrastructure could be built,” said Ross. “They countered that Hamas would misuse it, and they were right.” As one analysis aptly puts it, “Ross’s admission shows that it was [Clinton] who sent her personal envoy to push for a policy that ultimately enabled Hamas to build the terror tunnels.”63

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the millions of Israeli Jews whose lives were placed in peril by Hamas’s underground tunnels and illegally imported weaponry.

Clinton Turns Libya into a Terrorist Hell Hole

During her tenure as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton pushed hard for the U.S. to take military action designed to drive Muammar Gaddafi from power in Libya.64 According to former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who served under President Obama, Clinton played a major role in convincing Obama to lead a protracted NATO bombing campaign against Gaddafi in 2011 — a campaign that lent support to opposition rebels consisting of ISIS, Ansar al-Sharia, and other local militant groups. In other words, Clinton and Obama — in their quest to unseat Gaddafi — were aiding murderous jihadists in Libya.

What is remarkable about this, is the fact that Gaddafi at that time no longer posed any threat to American national security. Indeed, just prior to the Al Qaeda-led uprising that Clinton and Obama supported, Libya was providing the U.S. with important intelligence data. Moreover, it was a prospering, secular Islamic nation that had a national budget surplus of 8.7% and was producing 1.8 million barrels of oil per day.

By the time the Obama-Clinton bombing campaign was finished, Libya’s economy had shrunk by 42% and was operating at an annual deficit of 17.1%; oil production was down by at least 80%.65

According to Foreign Policy In Focus, the Obama-Clinton strategy “plunged” Libya “into chaotic unrest” and “turned [it] into a cauldron of anarchy.”66 Today Libya is a nation teeming with jihadists, and ISIS is becoming increasingly powerful there.67

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the millions in Libya who are now drowning in a tsunami of terrorism.

Clinton’s Plan to Import 65,000 Syrian Refugees into the U.S. As Quickly As Possible

“We have to stem the flow of jihadists from Europe and America to and from Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan,” says the Clinton presidential campaign website.68 While this sounds like a grand idea, it begs a very obvious question: Why has Hillary Clinton explicitly called for bringing at least 65,000 refugees from Syria into the United States as quickly as possible,69 even though:

  • ISIS has vowed to deploy terrorist operatives to infiltrate the flow of Syrian refugees heading to Western nations?70
  • more than 1,500 terror-linked refugees, asylees and migrants entered the U.S. in 2014 alone?71
  • more than 30,000 illegal immigrants from “countries of terrorist concern” entered the United States through America’s Southwestern border with Mexico in 2015?72
  • Michael Steinbach, deputy assistant director of the FBI’s counter-terrorism unit, has made it clear that it is virtually impossible to screen out terrorists who could be posing as refugees and coming to America?73
  • FBI Director James Comey has said that the federal government does not have the ability to conduct reliable background checks on the Syrian refugees, and has warned that “there will be a terrorist diaspora [from Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East] sometime in the next two to five years like we’ve never seen before”?74
  • Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has admitted that the U.S. will not “know a whole lot” about the refugees it accepts?75
  • CIA director John Brennan has said that ISIS “is probably exploring a variety of means for infiltrating operatives into the West, including in refugee flows …”?76

As a direct result of the policy that Mrs. Clinton herself has spelled out, scores of thousands of people from the very seat of ISIS’s power will soon be streaming into the United States at a record pace.

But hey, who cares? At least Mrs. Clinton never engaged in crude, private trash talk that was recorded on tape. And all of her disparaging, condescending, hate-soaked, fiction-laced denunciations of her political rivals are delivered in measured, solemn, well-rehearsed tones. And she deeply respects women, including the countless American women whose lives may be imperiled by an influx of Syrian terrorists posing as refugees.

Taking a long-range view of American migration and refugee policy, Mrs. Clinton understands that eventually, when these Syrian refugees and their relatives, and then their descendants, become registered voters, they will vote heavily Democrat, as the vast majority of immigrants from the Middle East have always done.77

And if some Americans have to get murdered along the way by terrorist infiltrators, so be it. To Mrs. Clinton, that is simply one of the costs of doing (political) business….

UK troops face criminal inquiry over detention of Iraqis accused of murdering British soldiers
Florida: Convert to Islam threatens Islamic State jihad massacres at schools, beaches, bases

Muslim known to FBI arrested for bomb threat against LaGuardia airport

His bomb threat turned out to be false, but it still served to “strike terror in the enemies of Allah” (Qur’an 8:60).

But not to worry, Monroe Police Detective David Lee is on the case: “He does have some issues.” Of course: it’s just another manifestation of the global outbreak of mental illness.

abdurrahman-qadan

Abdurrahman Issam Qadan

“Police: Man claiming to be ISIS supporter makes false bomb threat in Monroe,” by James Nani, Times Herald-Record, October 12, 2016:

VILLAGE OF MONROE – An Oregon man who claimed early Wednesday morning that he was on his way to leave explosives at LaGuardia Airport has been charged with falsely reporting an incident and making terroristic threats.

Abdurrahman Issam Qadan, 26, of Tigard, Ore., was stopped by a Village of Monroe police officer at about 1 a.m. along Route 17M near the entrance of ShopRite, police say. The officer was on patrol and thought the man was acting suspicious, police said.

Qadan told the officer that he had affiliations with ISIS, an acronym for the Islamic State terrorist group. According to police, Qadan said that he had gotten into a fight with his girlfriend while she was driving them to LaGuardia Airport in Queens. Qadan got out of the vehicle with his belongings, which included a duffle bag.

Police say the officer asked where the duffle bag was, and Qadan said he placed it behind the Mobil gas station on Route 17M next to an oil tank. He also said the bag had explosives in it.

Qadan told the officer that he planned to place the bag with explosives at the airport but when he got out of the car he decided to dispose of it behind the gas station instead, police said.

Qadan warned police not to go near the bag because the explosives could explode, police said. The officer also found a laptop and cell phone near the bag, which was leaning against an oil tank.

A state police bomb unit was called to the scene and a perimeter was set up around the gas station. Parts of Route 17M and Route 208 were shut down.

A search by the bomb squad of the items found no explosives. Qadan, later interviewed by investigators with the FBI Joint Terrorist Task Force at the Monroe Police headquarters, admitted he lied about the explosives, according to police.

Monroe Police Det. David Lee said he couldn’t say whether Qadan suffered from any mental issues, but said something did seem off about him.

“He does have some issues,” Lee said….

Lee said Qadan has been on the FBI’s radar in the past.

“They were interested in him before the incident,” Lee said. “He wasn’t a direct target, but there had been other people he had been associated with.”….

RELATED ARTICLES:

UNESCO passes resolution declaring Temple Mount Muslim, not Jewish

Robert Spencer in PJ Media: St. Louis Muslims Put Up Misleading ‘HEY ISIS, YOU SUCK’ Billboard

The World Obama and Supplicant Republicans Have Made

In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama famously disparaged middle America at a San Francisco fundraiser, calling them bitter people who “cling” to their guns and religion.  Obama’s opponent, John McCain, did not defend these Americans. Instead, his campaign reined in the feisty Sarah Palin. In debates with the cocky community organizer McCain muttered about “bipartisanship.”

After the election, the gun-and-religion bitter clingers organized into tea parties in an attempt to stem the Obama transformation of federalized health care, education, and the auto industry. They further sought to stop “stimulus” funds for cronies’ failed solar power plants, sidewalks that went nowhere, and education “standards” that further stupefied kids. In response, many were harassed by the IRS when applying for nonprofit status. Republicans in Congress called hearings, endured lies—and did nothing. Then, when patriotic opponents to these lawless actions responded with outrage, they were smeared by the Left and the obedient Right as redneck “extremists” and “racists.” Republicans distanced themselves.

In a 2012 presidential debate, the meek and patrician Mitt Romney seemed to think it beneath him to defend Americans killed in Benghazi. This March, however, Romney dutifully reemerged to lecture Americans about the “con man,” Donald Trump.

Many Republicans joined Leftists in calling Trump supporters “Trumpsters,” “Trumpistas,” or “Trumpkins,” and accusing them of racism, xenophobia, and stupidity. Some embrace Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” label.

In March, when a number of Trump-supporting Americans were prevented by mobs from attending a rally in Chicago, “constitutionalist” Ted Cruz blamed Trump’s “rhetoric.” So did Marco Rubio, the Gang of Eight member, elected to the Senate on the promise to the tea party that he would stem immigration.

I went to a Trump rally in Rochester, New York, in April, to see for myself. I saw optimism, patriotism, and a concern for Americans hurt by trade deals, illegal immigration, and lawlessness. A local talk show caller choked up the next morning in describing Trump’s recognition of Rochester.

Donald Trump is no polished pol. But my admiration for Cruz’s mellifluous rhetoric ended on March 10 and my admiration for Trump rose as he embraced relatives of people killed by illegal aliens and terrorists in Benghazi.

While establishment Republicans broke public promises to support the people’s choice in the primary, Trump followed advice and held back politely during the first debate with the smug Hillary Clinton. Their advice turned out to be about as pathetic as it was for their litany of failed candidates.

Two days before the second debate, an eleven-year-old recording of Trump’s crude sexual braggadocio emerged.

Trump has been criticized for never apologizing but in this case he did immediately and publicly. He also was prepared for the debate. After apologizing, he pushed past “moderators”—unlike Romney. He hit back point by point, attacking Hillary again for her smears.

He brought forward real people, women victimized by Bill Clinton’s sexual assaults and then re-victimized by Hillary’s vindictiveness. In addition, he brought out a woman who had been raped at age 12 by a man Hillary gleefully defended. The tape of her laughing about getting him a light sentence has been circulating on the Internet. I know of no other Republican who has spoken out about this.

In the wake of that performance, Trump ought to have awakened to a shower of praise from conservative pundits and Republicans. But instead, he was treated to an ongoing onslaught of nonsense about the tape and an announcement from the feckless Paul Ryan that he would no longer campaign with him.

It now appears Romney and Ryan, our 2012 candidates, were involved in the releasing of the tape and timed it to ensure that it would hit with maximum impact and dislodge the news about more leaked Hillary emails that reveal her dishonesty in the primaries and her subordinates’ antipathy toward Catholics. While Trump attacked the Catholic-bashing from Hillary, the Catholic Ryan said nothing.

Obama brags about ruling with his pen and his phone. Ineffectual Republicans have overridden only one presidential veto, the 9/11 bill, about which they are now having second thoughts! They swiftly acceded on Obama’s onerous Every Student Succeeds Act, ignoring pleas to make the 1,061-page bill available for public reading. The IRS, FBI, Justice Department, Immigration, and Department of Education now enforce presidential diktats. Scapegoats are thrown into prison to cover up State Department malfeasance.

The attacks continue:  Trump lawn signs are stolen and property is damaged; pro-Trump messages are condemned as hate speech on campuses; mobs assault Trump supporters in public, while police ignore them.

Welcome to the world that Obama and quisling Republicans have created.

PODCAST: Trump Unshackled

The line of the week goes to Donald J. Trump, who declared “the shackles are off!” He was talking about the shackles imposed on him by the politically correct GOP and the Hillary campaigning media.

Yes, despite WikiLeaks releasing thousands of emails proving that Hillary Clinton is indeed a crook, indeed a liar, indeed two-faced, and indeed guilty regarding Benghazi, somehow the media tells us that Trump is one who’s in trouble. And the sad thing is, the brainwashed, intellectually deficient among us believe it.

We’ll also discuss the latest with Wells Fargo and other big banks, who lately are teetering amongst media reports of fraud and averse market conditions. Finally, we remember the attack on the USS Cole, just nine months before 9-11-2001.

Join us Saturday for these topics and more…

Topics of Discussion:

  • Shackles are Off!
  • WikiLeaks Highlight Reel – Don’t Blame Russia!
  • Global Banking Crisis deepens
  • Qatar’s $1 million birthday gift to Bill Clinton
  • National and International Headlines…

and more . . .

RELATED ARTICLE: Warning – The Shackles are Off!

Podesta email leaks from Clinton campaign prove Democrats go low

Hillary Clinton has no public events on her schedule from here to election day, a strategy being characterized as “do no harm.”

She and her advisors apparently think she can coast to victory and let her surrogates do all the heavy lifting. And it’s true: Clinton has a lot of help, not only from the Obamas but from the national media and the establishment elites.

But with the daily dump from Wikileaks of the Podesta emails now in its seventh installment— and with much more promised to come — the sheer sordidness and cynicism of the corrupt Clinton machine is becoming harder to ignore.

We now know, for example, that the Clinton campaign coordinated with the New York Times earlier this year on a strategy to paint Donald Trump as “dangerous and bigoted.”

We also know thanks to the Podesta emails that the Clinton campaign regularly was tipped off by sources at the Justice Department into the FBI investigation into her private email server. (Brian Fallon, who forwarded this particular heads up to the campaign, was a DOJ spokesman before joining the Clinton campaign).

The emails show that the Clinton campaign set up at least two false-flag groups masquerading as Catholic organizations, with the sole purpose of undermining the Church — or as the campaign called it, provoking a “Catholic Spring” revolt against Church doctrines on same sex marriage and abortion.

The emails show that during her 2008 primary campaign against Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton’s advisors devised a push poll to “test” claims that Obama was a Muslim, something she has tried to blame Trump for somehow inventing.

They show her staff colluding to obstruct justice after work-related emails from Sid Blumenthal relating to the Benghazi attacks were destroyed after receiving a subpoena from the Benghazi Select committee for those same emails. They also show her staff conspiring to destroy all emails from President Obama — who has claimed he didn’t even know Clinton’s private email address!

Why in the world would Clinton want to discuss such things, or face actual questions about them at a campaign event? And these are just some of the most recent revelations from her presidential campaign server.

There’s also the correspondence showing her knowledge that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding ISIS and other terrorist groups, and they contributed millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation in the years prior.

Does it get more corrupt than that?

I believe the polls are already showing that Hillary’s ghost strategy could very well backfire.

The first Rasmussen national poll taken after last Sunday’s debate shows Trump now leads by two points, whereas the same poll had him down by seven coming into the debate.

On Twitter, #WomenWhoVoteTrump was the top trending hashtag for most of Friday, with hundreds of photos and personal accounts of women fed up with the smear campaign against Donald Trump.

This is America. And believe it or not, voters still want to know who the candidates are. They want to see them and hear them — and gosh, they want to know their vision for the future of this country, too.

When you throw a bucket of slime, as Clinton and her surrogates have been doing, you’d better clean your shoes before going home so not to leave tracks all over the house.

RELATED ARTICLE: Leaked Podesta Emails Show Coordinated Voter Fraud Likely In Colorado

VIDEO: Hillary Clinton is an ‘Ameriphobe’

It is now abundantly clear that Progressivism is the only real mental illness to speak of, and it’s time Conservatives respond in kind. So when Democrats banish American flags from their Presidential convention, or when they condemn our police, how should Conservatives react? The answer is: fix the Liberal with a steady gaze, point a quivering finger, and declare loudly “you are an Ameriphobe!”

RELATED ARTICLE: HILLARY CLINTON PROMOTES AMERIPHOBIA – Here’s what Ameriphobes believe

EDITORS NOTE: This video was originally published by InfoWars.com.

The ‘Globalist Elite’ Threat to America by Jim McKinney

Make no mistake, this election may make or break America.  We, the American people, face a crisis of national unity, national security, and national survival from an elitist, mythical dream of “globalism.”

Americans are more divided than any time since the war and race riots of the 1960’s. We are fighting among ourselves.  Over 800,000 police serve our communities – but they fear for their lives.  Our own President and Department of Justice accept false accusations against our police. They inspire protest, division, and hatred of those who protect us.  We are losing trust in the FBI, our Justice system, and the Supreme Court to act constitutionally.  We are losing faith in our elected leaders.

Our national security is at grave risk.  Russians threaten us with nuclear weapons.  Iran mocks our armed forces and laughs at billions of dollars in US payoffs for nuclear negotiations.  China spends untold amounts to buy arms and global influence, greatly improving her militarily while threating America and her allies.  200 rich, elitist, communist power brokers, ruling 1.6 billion people in China, will soon rival the US in “global” influence, economic strength and military power.

In 2008, ISIS didn’t exist.  Al Qaeda in Iraq, the fore-runner of ISIS, was on its heels.  In 4 years the ISIS “JV team” became a global terror threat.  Today, ISIS has between 80 and 120 thousand well trained, resourced, experienced, devoted and blood thirsty fighters in multiple countries.  ISIS is growing, not shrinking.  It’s spreading in North Africa, Central Asia, and Western Europe.  The Caliphate is an idea; it’s not a place.  ISIS and its many surrogates hate America.  They will not go way with a bombing campaign.

Our leadership has no effective strategy, it has no commitment, and it has no idea what to do to solve the dilemma it created in the frantic 2011 pre-election withdrawal from Iraq.   The President, with the media’s help, is desperately trying to keep the American people distracted from foreign policy disasters through this election.  Meanwhile, he and his designated successor continually speak of a fictional, peaceful, integrated “global” economic world with open borders and a bright future. 

What does this integrated “global” world do for America? US Tech giants like Google, Microsoft, Apple, and US manufacturers like Ford, GM, GE get cheap labor and open trade borders – not to better this nation, but to better their profits.  They manipulate governments with histories of bad economic managers – not equal and fair trade partners.  And they pay-off corrupt officials to get their way.

America, like the rest of the developed world, is paying the bills with a Federal Reserve credit card.  But our incomes are down.  Our national debt has increased well over 80% in 8 years.  Our growth is staggeringly low, and we have gone from a manufacturing nation to a lower wage service economy in a single generation.  We have increased the numbers of poor in this nation 3 fold in 8 years.  We can’t borrow our way out of debt.  It just doesn’t work.  This is what globalization has done for America.

While we face terrible threats from abroad, our own President encourages internal strife, divisions, and forces tolerance – Forced tolerance is the worst form of intolerance.  His global trade policies and spending increases invite bankruptcy.  He promotes a mythical vision of an integrated world, and a false narrative of his designated heir that contradicts any measure of reality.  Who could do more harm?

Our unity, our security and our survival are at risk.  Make no mistake; to the “global elite” the independence of the American voter is an impediment to their vision of open borders, unrestricted global trade, and massive profits.  Freedom of speech is a problem.  Freedom of religion is a problem.  Freedom of thought is a problem.  “We, the People” are a problem for them.

The “globalist elite” strategy is obvious.  Divide us.  Undermine our security.  Distract us.  Keep us from the polls. Cut faith in the candidate who supports America first, and accuse supporters of intolerance.  They will use our honor, our integrity and our fear against us.  And the “globalist elite,” with immeasurable financial resources, the support of media moguls, naive idealists, and pseudo intellectuals, will win – if we, the American people, allow it.

For our unity, our security and the very survival of the United States of America, we cannot allow them to win.  We, our citizens, must control our future – as intended in the founding of this great Nation – not corporate giants, foreign dictators, international trade bodies or global elitists.  Speak out, get people in the street, out of the pews, in the neighborhood, and on the job – tell your friends to vote to make America united again, vote to make America safe again, and vote to make America great again!  And vote to hold ALL candidates, right and left, accountable to the Constitution of the United States of America.  And fear not, with faith in God, America and the American people will always prevail – he will fight with us!

 

RELATED ARTICLE: Bozell: NBC ‘Guilty of Journalistic Corruption of the Highest Order’

WIKILEAKS: Clinton’s Emails Reveal True Gun Control Intentions

No matter the outcome of the 2016 U.S. Senate and House races, Hillary Clinton, if victorious, intends to attack your gun rights. Recently leaked emails of Clinton campaign staffers published by WikiLeaks show that the candidate plans to bypass Congress to enact gun control by executive order. Moreover, undercover video of U.S. Senate candidate Russ Feingold, released this week by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, further exposed Clinton’s intent to impose new gun restrictions by executive fiat.

Starting on October 7, WikiLeaks began releasing batches of emails purportedly hacked from Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. The Clinton campaign emails have caused a great deal of controversy as they exposed the campaign’s collusion with a fawning press, its efforts to defeat Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and campaign staffers’ disparaging remarks about Latinos and Catholics. Among the several thousand emails released by WikiLeaks were several dispatches that pertained to the campaign’s approach to gun control.

Of particular note is an October 4, 2015 email written by Clinton campaign press secretary Brian Fallon, which detailed the campaign’s intent to share with reporters the types of gun control proposals a President Clinton would support. The email stated:

Circling back around on guns as a follow up to the Friday morning discussion: the Today show has indicated they definitely plan to ask bout guns, and so to have the discussion be more of a news event than her previous times discussing guns, we are going to background reporters tonight on a few of the specific proposals she would support as President – universal background checks of course, but also closing the gun show loophole by executive order and imposing manufacturer liability.

Less than a week after WikiLeaks released this email, activist James O’Keefe released an undercover video filmed in August that bolsters the disturbing content of Fallon’s email. The video shows a disguised O’Keefe and a fellow activist attending a fundraiser for U.S. Senate candidate Russ Feingold of Wisconsin being held in Palo Alto, Calif. O’Keefe’s partner approaches Feingold and asks the candidate, in regards to guns, “If there’s still Republican control in Congress, and if Hillary is elected, is there anything she can do?” Feingold answers, “Well, there might be executive order.”

The video also includes footage of one of the hosts of the fundraiser, Integrated Archive Systems CEO Amy Rao, expressing how she thinks Clinton would pursue control. In regards to guns, Rao told O’Keefe, “Hillary wants to shut it down,” adding, “If we can get guns away from everyone in this country, she’ll close loopholes, she’ll get rid of assault weapons, she will get rid of being able to buy, you know, unlimited bullets…” Rao also hosted a fundraiser for Clinton last August.

That Clinton is intent on pursuing gun control by executive order shows not only her contempt for gun owners, but also the rule of law. The president does not have the legitimate authority to unilaterally restrict private firearm transfers at gun shows; and this fact is supported by the behavior of the Obama administration.

In their eagerness to burden gun owners, the Obama administration has already stretched existing federal law to, and in some cases far beyond, its limits. In late 2015, White House Deputy Press Secretary Eric Shultz told reporters that Obama “has asked his team to scrub existing legal authorities to see if there’s any additional action we can take administratively,” adding, “The president has made clear he’s not satisfied with where we are, and expects that work to be completed soon.” Given these statements and the Obama administration’s antipathy towards firearms, it is difficult to imagine that if an executive order of the type Clinton contemplates were permissible the Obama administration would not have pursued it. Perhaps Obama, unlike Clinton, acknowledges the Constitution imposes at least some limits on the power of the executive.

As is custom, the Washington Post rushed to defend Clinton from the gun control leaks. However, rather than deny Clinton’s illegitimate plans to restrict gun rights, the Post sought to brush it off as old news. Indeed, NRA has previously highlighted Clinton’s plans to unilaterally impose new gun controls. However, as is so often the case, the Post fails to grasp the concerns of gun owners and the fact that any further information regarding the contours of Clinton’s anti-gun efforts, and statements from a candidate for U.S. Senate on this matter, are of significant interest to those seeking to protect their fundamental rights.

Aside from the matter of executive gun controls, the Clinton campaign emails published by WikiLeaks include a number of other items of interest to gun rights supporters. Several emails detail the Clinton campaign’s orchestrated attacks on Sanders’ gun control record. An email titled “Sanders Hits,” contains a “Guns” “hit” to be “deployed” against Sanders. Other emails chronicle the campaign’s development of a Clinton anti-gun op-ed for the New York Daily News, including a debate over how hard to “hit Sanders.”

A leaked email that has received significant attention makes clear that Clinton believes “you need both a public and a private position” on a given policy. Other emails appear to show this strategy at work on gun control, as her aides expressed concern about the candidate publicly supporting New York’s ill-named SAFE Act.

On November 19, 2015, Clinton was presented with an award and spoke at a Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence gala in Manhattan. The event was also attended by N.Y. Governor Andrew Cuomo. In the run-up to the event, Clinton campaign research director Tony Carrk and policy advisor Corey Ciorciari discussed the extent to which Clinton should endorse the SAFE Act. Ciorciari emailed Carrk, “Don’t see a need to fully embrace the SAFE Act. There are some controversial items in there.” Carrk concurred, responding, “I agree. SAFE is not a safe bet.”

Throughout her career Clinton has supported gun controls that exceed the SAFE Act’s onerous restrictions. Illustrating Clinton’s dual nature, while at the Brady event Clinton was careful to navigate around the controversial SAFE Act, but less than two months earlier Clinton contended that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to bear arms when she told the attendees of a private Manhattan fundraiser, “the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment…” In District of Columbia v. Heller the court ruled that the federal government could not restrict an individual from keeping an operable handgun in their home for self-defense.

The recent email and undercover video revelations serve as just the latest entries in a voluminous and wide-ranging dossier of evidence showing that Clinton intends to demolish our fundamental rights. However they are important, as Clinton and her camp’s repeated acknowledgments that they intend to usurp Congress’ sole authority to legislate in order to attack our rights reveals the full character of the danger gun owners face.

Widers ‘Kafkaesque show trial’ to proceed over ‘fewer Moroccans’ statement

SkyNews reported that Geert Wilders will stand trial on criminal charges of violating the Dutch hate speech laws,”Geert Wilders hate speech charges upheld in court.” His counsel had filed a motion with the Hague court to dismiss the charges.

The case against Wilders arose  from petitions filed with the Hague prosecutors by Dutch Muslims and leftist allies that his 2014 local campaign remarks of ‘fewer  Moroccans” constituted prosecutable violations of hate speech laws in the Netherlands. Wilders’ counsel has also questioned possible bias in the three judge tribunal. Wilders had been acquitted of similar charges in a trial in the Amsterdam District Court in 2011.

The trial comes at a time where Wilders’ Freedom Party (PVV) has risen near the top of Dutch political polls close behind the ruling coalition of  PM Mark Rutte’s VVD party  in the Hague Parliament. Wilders’ counsel has also questioned the validity of the submitted petitioners that the Hague prosecutors have based their charges.

Sky News reported:

A court has upheld hate speech charges against Dutch far-right MP Geert Wilders over comments he made about Moroccans.

The leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV) sparked outrage when he asked supporters at a rally in 2014 whether they wanted “fewer or more Moroccans in your city and in the Netherlands?”

After the crowd shouted back “fewer” Mr Wilders said: “We’re going to organise that”.

The MP appealed to have the charges thrown out, but his objections were dismissed by The Hague District Court.

The comments triggered more than 6,400 complaints and criticism from within Mr Wilders’ party.

Five organisations and 56 people have registered as victims of the remarks, judges said.

Mr Wilders’ lawyers slammed the trial as a “political case” ahead of parliamentary elections in March.

They argued that the MP had merely “put forward his party’s political programme” and claimed the case could have “far reaching political consequences for democracy”.

At an earlier hearing, Geert-Jan Knoops, defending Mr Wilders, told judges that freedom of expression is “the last freedom Mr Wilders has left”.

But the court said that although politicians are entitled to freedom of expression they should “avoid public statements that feed intolerance.Judge Hendrik Steenhuis said: “Where the border lies between the two will be debated in this trial.”

He added that prosecuting Mr Wilders will “not affect his political freedoms or that of this Freedom Party”.

After the hearing, Mr Wilders claimed he was being prosecuted “for voicing the opinion of millions”.

He added: “The Netherlands is like Turkey. Displeasing political opinions are being silenced in court.”

The MP was previously cleared of five counts of inciting hatred in 2011, after he compared Islam to Nazism.

The comments caused Mr Wilders to be denied entry to the UK in February 2009 on public security grounds.

He attempted to visit anyway and was deported back to the Netherlands.

Mr Wilders later travelled to London after an immigration tribunal overturned the ban imposed by former Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.

The MP’s trial at The Hague District Court will start on 31 October.

Note our tweet regarding this latest development in the second trial of Geert Wilders for alleged hate speech:

Churches asked to Show Video Comparing Party Platforms

WASHINGTON, D.C. /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Before Election Day, Family Research Council Action (FRC Action), announced that it plans to finish distributing nearly 4 million voter guides targeting supporters, churches, activist groups, and state/local organizations.

The voter guide outlines how the candidates stand on pivotal issues like Supreme Court nominations, religious liberty, Obamacare, marriage, abortion, taxes, education, the military, and free speech. A short video comparing the two party platforms is being distributed to thousands of churches to show during services prior to Election Day.

“These issues weigh on the minds and hearts of voters,” said Family Research Council Action President Tony Perkins. “It is crucial that voters get the facts before they vote.”

“With the next president selecting up to four Supreme Court justices, this is not a time to seek sanctuary on the sidelines. If we, as Christians, do not take our responsibility to be salt and light and exercise our right to cast an informed vote, we could see a further erosion of our fundamental freedoms,” added Perkins.

“The greatest distinguisher in this election cycle is where the candidates stand on their party’s platform. The GOP has the most conservative platform in recent history while the Democrats have the most liberal. While party platforms are often viewed as political platitudes that have little bearing on how the parties will govern, the reality is the platforms really matter. One study found that Democratic politicians voted about three quarters of the time with their platform while GOP politicians voted nearly 90 percent with theirs,” noted Perkins.

“The platforms are like a rudder on a boat, they guide and provide principles for elected leaders. While the media largely ignores the party platforms after the political conventions, they should play a major role in every voters’ decision-making for 2016,” concluded Perkins.

Click here download a copy of FRC Action’s Voter Guide

Watch a video comparing the 2016 Republican and Democratic Party platforms:

*Candidate positions were compiled from recorded votes and public information sources.