Posts

Joint Statement by Trump Israel Advisory Committee

The Times of Israel reports that U.S. voters in Israel polled as the U.S. election nears now favor Trump over Clinton by 49 to 44 per cent of those responding.

One reason may be this Joint Statement from Jason Dov Greenblatt and David Friedman co-chairs of the Israel Advisory Committee. It presents a solid program of support for Israel in contrast to what we have posted on Obama’s lame duck strategy of seeking the UN Security to sanction Israel for building towns in Judea and Samaria and other initiatives to eviscerate Israel’s eternal capital of Jerusalem.

Note what the Greenblatt Friedman Statement offers in the way of constructive commitments to support America’s only democratic ally in the troubled Middle East. Then ask yourself what Hillary Clinton has put out in the way of something as substantive as this sealing the US commitment for the Jewish nation.

Note what the statement contains:

· The unbreakable bond between the United States and Israel is based upon shared values of democracy, freedom of speech, respect for minorities, cherishing life, and the opportunity for all citizens to pursue their dreams.

· Israel is the state of the Jewish people, who have lived in that land for 3,500 years. The State of Israel was founded with courage and determination by great men and women against enormous odds and is an inspiration to people everywhere who value freedom and human dignity.

· Israel is a staunch ally of the U.S. and a key partner in the global war against Islamic jihadism. Military cooperation and coordination between Israel and the U.S. must continue to grow.

· The American people value our close friendship and alliance with Israel — culturally, religiously, and politically. While other nations have required U.S. troops to defend them, Israelis have always defended their own country by themselves and only ask for military equipment assistance and diplomatic support to do so. The U.S. does not need to nation-build in Israel or send troops to defend Israel.

· The Memorandum of Understanding signed by the American and Israeli Governments is a good first step, but there is much more to be done. A Trump Administration will ensure that Israel receives maximum military, strategic and tactical cooperation from the United States, and the MOU will not limit the support that we give. Further, Congress will not be limited to give support greater than that provided by the MOU if it chooses to do so. Israel and the United States benefit tremendously from what each country brings to the table — the relationship is a two way street.

· The U.S. should veto any United Nations votes that unfairly single out Israel and will work in international institutions and forums, including in our relations with the European Union, to oppose efforts to delegitimize Israel, impose discriminatory double standards against Israel, or to impose special labeling requirements on Israeli products or boycotts on Israeli goods.

· The U.S. should cut off funds for the UN Human Rights Council, a body dominated by countries presently run by dictatorships that seems solely devoted to slandering the Jewish State. UNESCO’s attempt to disconnect the State of Israel from Jerusalem is a one-sided attempt to ignore Israel’s 3,000-year bond to its capital city, and is further evidence of the enormous anti-Israel bias of the United Nations.

· The U.S. should view the effort to boycott, divest from, and sanction (BDS) Israel as inherently anti-Semitic and take strong measures, both diplomatic and legislative, to thwart actions that are intended to limit commercial relations with Israel, or persons or entities doing business in Israeli areas, in a discriminatory manner. The BDS movement is just another attempt by the Palestinians to avoid having to commit to a peaceful co-existence with Israel. The false notion that Israel is an occupier should be rejected.

· The Trump administration will ask the Justice Department to investigate coordinated attempts on college campuses to intimidate students who support Israel.

· A two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians appears impossible as long as the Palestinians are unwilling to renounce violence against Israel or recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. Additionally, the Palestinians are divided between PA rule in the West Bank and Hamas rule in Gaza so there is not a united Palestinian people who could control a second state. Hamas is a US-designated terrorist organization that actively seeks Israel’s destruction. We will seek to assist the Israelis and the Palestinians in reaching a comprehensive and lasting peace, to be freely and fairly negotiated between those living in the region.

· The Palestinian leadership, including the PA, has undermined any chance for peace with Israel by raising generations of Palestinian children on an educational program of hatred of Israel and Jews. The larger Palestinian society is regularly taught such hatred on Palestinian television, in the Palestinian press, in entertainment media, and in political and religious communications. The two major Palestinian political parties — Hamas and Fatah — regularly promote anti-Semitism and jihad.

· The U.S. cannot support the creation of a new state where terrorism is financially incentivized, terrorists are celebrated by political parties and government institutions, and the corrupt diversion of foreign aid is rampant. The U.S. should not support the creation of a state that forbids the presence of Christian or Jewish citizens, or that discriminates against people on the basis of religion.

· The U.S. should support direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians without preconditions, and will oppose all Palestinian, European and other efforts to bypass direct negotiations between parties in favor of an imposed settlement. Any solutions imposed on Israel by outside parties including by the United Nations Security Council, should be opposed. We support Israel’s right and obligation to defend itself against terror attacks upon its people and against alternative forms of warfare being waged upon it legally, economically, culturally, and otherwise.

· Israel’s maintenance of defensible borders that preserve peace and promote stability in the region is a necessity. Pressure should not be put on Israel to withdraw to borders that make attacks and conflict more likely.

· The U.S. will recognize Jerusalem as the eternal and indivisible capital of the Jewish state and Mr. Trump’s Administration will move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.

· Despite the Iran Nuclear deal in 2015, the U.S. State Department recently designated Iran, yet again, as the leading state sponsor of terrorism — putting the Middle East particularly, but the whole world at risk by financing, arming, and training terrorist groups operating around the world including Hamas, Hezbollah, and forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The U.S. must counteract Iran’s ongoing violations of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action regarding Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons and their noncompliance with past and present sanctions, as well as the agreements they signed, and implement tough, new sanctions when needed to protect the world and Iran’s neighbors from its continuing nuclear and non-nuclear threats.

CARTOON VIDEO: Hillary’s ‘Crime Isn’t Criminal’ Children’s Book

Jimmy Kimmel sure likes to lampoon but only for one side, well we think fair play is called for in this election. We whipped up a little Children’s Book of our own for everyone’s favorite political gangster, ole Machine Gun Clinton.

HAT TIP: Semi Respectable – Cartoons

Tell Me Who You Are and I Will Tell You What Is At Stake For You

“The more people chant about their freedom and how free they are, the more loudly I hear their chains rattling” – GEORGE ORWELL

ARE YOU A MAN?

If you are a man, your entire being, the appreciation of it, and the idea of your importance are at stake. Hillary takes any opportunity she can to eviscerate and emasculate men. I mean, we shouldn’t blame her, look who she married. Nonetheless, under a Hillary administration, affirmative action will be set up to target men. She will, without a doubt, come after you with a vengeance. Do not be surprised if men began to abandon their country in response to the persecution that she will unleash upon you for nothing else other than your gender. A globalist president would seek out to emasculate the country as a way to bring us down a notch, or two, or three in order to put us on an even playing field rather than the rest of the world, so why not begin with the men at home?

With Hillary, we will live in a nation that will have gone from “no means no” to even “yes means no” and every man guilty of having consensual sex with a woman will also potentially be guilty of rape as well for no other reason than that he is a man and men are rapists in Hillary’s America. Think I am being dramatic? Don’t risk it. This election has come down to self-defense and preservation of your rights and treatment as a man; do not let go of that just because society has been programmed to make you feel bad about it. Fight for yourselves. Take this country back. As a man, to cast a vote for her would be to vote to wage a war against yourself.

ARE YOU A WOMAN?

If you are a woman, you are a pawn to Hillary in her game of lies and deceit. She is using you. She is using you because you’re the easier target against her opponent. Although she wants you to think that you need her, she would be nothing without her ability to manipulate your support. She knows that Obama was the race president and she wants, very desperately, to be the gender president. Compare race relations and what is happening to the African-American population under Barack “The Race President Obama. Look at the beginning of Obama’s time in office to now, do you want to see the same thing happen to you as a woman just because Hillary wants to use you as a platform?

She wants to go down in history and a feminist trailblazer at any cost; even if that means women have to pay the price without even realizing it. She wants you to think that abortion is liberation, that the “wage gap” is strictly due to sexism, and that you’re a walking victim no matter where you go or what you do—which immediately puts you at a disadvantage at all times. How can you say you are empowering someone if you are always making that person the victim? Think about it.

ARE YOU AFRICAN-AMERICAN?

If you are an African-American, let me ask you, what do you have to lose? I mean that in the most respectful way possible but really, what has the current administration done or has Hillary promised to help heal the race relations in this country? Hillary Clinton has expressed her profound admiration for Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Sanger was a leader in the eugenics movement in which she promoted the reduction of sexual reproduction and the sterilization of those individuals that she believed had “undesirable traits”. She fervently, yet discreetly, worked to place most of her clinics in primarily African-American neighborhoods. She undoubtedly believed in white supremacy and once wrote, “It is said that the aboriginal Australian, the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development, has so little sexual control that police authority alone prevents him from obtaining sexual satisfaction on the streets.” It is important to know the origins of the people and the things we are supporting before we do so. Planned Parenthood was born out of the idea of white supremacy; do you want to support the candidate who admires the woman responsible for that?

I know that the media has instilled the idea that a white male president couldn’t possibly unify the country, but look what one of color has done in just eight years. People are worried that Donald Trump is going to take us back to a 1960’s America but, racially, we are already there, or at least on our way there, aren’t we? Agitating this race war is getting African-American people killed in the streets on what seems to be a daily basis.

Donald Trump has not only promised to work to heal the unruly situation between cops and the African-American community, but all crime against blacks—including black on black crime, which is the number one killer of black people in the united states. If black lives matter then they have to matter all across the board, not just the black lives taken by different races, but the black lives taken. Period. We can all agree that race relations in this country need to be healed, but protests and violence are not the ways to do it.

You are being crippled by the welfare state, making it possible for fathers to be taken out of your homes, for providers to be essentially useless and replaced by the government so that you’re forced to depend upon them rather than yourselves—the opposite of empowerment. FDR once said, about welfare, “The lessons of history, confirmed by evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence on relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.  To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.  It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy.  It is a violation of the traditions of America.” Donald Trump wants to take you off the narcotic that is welfare and has said repeatedly that he will work tirelessly to bring jobs to the inner cities as well as give you and your children the option to go to the best schools in the area you live.

Vote to heal this country, vote for unity.

ARE YOU A LEGAL IMMIGRANT?

I may be preaching to the choir here because you know what it means to abide by the laws and to work for what you get, but voting for Hillary means voting for open borders. Voting to open the borders and flooding the country with immigrants just invalidates the work and dedication that it took you to become a proud citizen of this country. It also makes it extremely difficult for you and your fellow immigrants to assimilate into the America you have a right live in.

ARE YOU A HOMOSEXUAL, BISEXUAL, OR TRANSGENDER?

Let’s face it; the LGBT community has been told, for much too long, that they had to vote democrat for in order to vote for equality. Things are different for you in this election. You are now in a post-Marriage Equality era, which means you no longer need to feel pressed to vote for all of the other damaging policies that fall under the umbrella of the liberal “equality” train. There are so many more important issues facing you today and there is a lot at stake for you in what may come next. You fought so hard for you rights but you can’t have rights if you don’t have a life. Hillary wants to bring in 550% more unvetted Muslim refugees into this country. Many of who are practicing a 9th century form of Islam that believes homosexuality is a sin. However, this is different than the Christian belief that homosexuality is a sin. What you have to remember with the Islamic faith is that it is not only a set of beliefs and teaching, it is a legal system as well. What does that mean? It means that, under their legal system of Sharia Law, it goes from a sin to a crime.

Now, let me preface what I am about to say by saying, I do not think all Muslims engage in the type of Islamic practice I am about to describe. There is such a thing as a moderate Muslim, one who follows a civilized form of their faith. However, there are many Muslims who don’t follow a civilized form, but a radical one. This is why Donald Trump has called for extreme vetting of refugees in order to keep us safe as well as protect law abiding Muslims in this country. With that being said, as a homosexual, bisexual, or transgender you need to understand that those who believe in the most extreme teachings of their Islamic faith believe that you should be thrown from rooftops, stoned, or even have “a wall toppled upon you as an evil-doer” according to the teachings of Abu Bakr.

Remember, just because the LGBT community has primarily voted democrat doesn’t mean that you can’t be the change in this election. Do not be shackled by the past. Embrace the candidate whose first priority is national security in order to preserve your safety to preserve your rights—your future depends on it.

ARE YOU A POLICE OFFICER?

Just for fun, I decided to Google “Cops for Clinton” and “Cops for Trump” and not surprisingly, I found nothing for the former and plenty for the latter. Maybe I am, again, preaching to the choir but humor me for a moment. Voting for Hillary will continue the disarmament of you and your fellow brothers and sisters in blue. If you value your lives and your jobs, do not give the most powerful position this country has to offer to a woman who has repeatedly vilified you for nothing more than doing your job. Recently, in Chicago, a female officer responded to a call for a car crash when she was savagely and ferociously beaten by a man under the influence of drugs, yet refused to use her weapon for fear of public backlash. This is a direct result of the war that the Obama administration has waged against police officers in America—the same war Hillary Clinton has begun to fight and will continue to fight if she wins on November 8th. Vote to protect yourself and your brothers and sisters.

ARE YOU IN THE MILITARY?

If you are in the military, most likely you, more than anyone else, do not wish to go into World War III. You probably understand, better than anyone else, that over the last eight years, our military has been depleted and weakened. Putting the Benghazi situation aside, it is as simple as voting for war or voting for peace.

Hillary Clinton’s gross inaction as Secretary of State should be enough to disqualify her for the presidency altogether but since there can be no way you haven’t already thought of that, think of this: Do you want war? Or do you want peace? It’s as simple as that. Donald Trump, on Monday, said he would meet with Vladimir Putin as soon as November if he were to be elected. This shows leadership that would be unfathomable to the Clinton campaign. She relentlessly insults Putin and is salivating at the thought of sending you and your comrades off to war. We are not ready for a nuclear war with Russia, nor do we want that. You get to decide who will command you and who will fight for you rather than who will only ask you to fight for her. What will you choose?

ARE YOU A STUDENT?

Are you a college student working hard to educate yourself and acquire an education that will better your future? What if I told you that soon, there would be students who don’t have to work for what you are working to give yourself? What if I told you that the free tuition that Hillary Clinton is promising would nullify the degree you’re working towards? How would that make you feel?

Everything you have worked for or are working toward will be much nearly useless if it’s handed out like candy under another Clinton administration. Vote to preserve the work you’ve put in and the pride that comes with knowing that you created that opportunity for yourself out of hard work and dedication.

ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN?

Christian values are traditional values. Although Donald Trump has had a rocky past as far as marriage goes, the man he is now represents traditional values. He will fight for religious liberty rather than persecution of the values we’ve held tight to since the birth of the nation. Hillary Clinton has proven herself to be a lying, murderous thief who has no respect for the sanctity of life. She ridicules Trump for denying that global warming is a problem, citing that he must not understand science. How could a woman who denies that there is life inside the womb, according to science, claim superiority in the subject?

If you vote for nothing else but this one issue, you still have at least done your job as a Christian to fight for the unborn and the right, that every human shares, to life.

ARE YOU A LAW ABIDING CITIZEN?

If you are a law aiding citizen, you not only value the law but you respect it as well. If you elect the criminal that is Hillary Clinton, you are sending a message. You are sending a message that not only are you okay with her previous crimes but that no matter what she does as president, you condone. If she commits criminal acts as the commander-in-cheif, you will have no ground to stand on in opposing her. You’ll have known who she is and, even worse, you’ll have put the power in her hands to commit these crimes. She has been a criminal her entire life. Lying, cheating, stealing, and murder have been instrumental in getting her where she is today. Just this week, we found out that officials under her in the State Department attempted to bribe FBI agents to unlawfully change documents AFTER they had been subpoenaed and accumulated as evidence in a criminal investigation.

In the legal system, legal precedent is a legal case or incident that establishes a rule. That rule is later taken in other cases to determine the case at hand with similar issues or actions. If we let Hillary Clinton’s past crimes go unpunished, it will set the precedence of the Clinton administration if she is elected.

Hillary Clinton, herself, has been repeating the words, “America is great, because America is good.” Well folks, Hillary Clinton is not good. She doesn’t do good, she doesn’t represent goodness, nor have her actions shown any interest in the common good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.

Vote for goodness. Vote for greatness. Vote for America.

When do-gooders don’t do good!

Two stories I want to bring to your attention were posted over the last couple of days that call in to question whether the resettlement industry (both the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement and its NGO contractors) is even taking proper care of the migrants they are responsible for.

So the next time you hear the pleas of government-funded bleeding heart humanitarians saying that we need to bring more poor souls to America, remember these reports and know that some refugees are very sorry they came!

[Congress could tweek the Refugee Admissions Program if it had the will! see below!]

The first story is at World Net Daily about how the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement has LOST some of the so-called unaccompanied alien children they claim are refugees—one little boy in particular—but reportedly thousands.

After telling the story of ‘Missing child W,’ reporter Leo Hohmann reports on comments from Jessica Vaughan, an immigration expert at the Center for Immigration Studies:

Sadly, the case of missing child “W” is not unique, says an expert in federal immigration policy.

blufton-house-where-walter-was-placed

10-year old Walter was supposedly placed in this South Carolina home, but no one there knows anything about him.

‘Asking as few questions as possible’

The problem has become endemic under the Obama administration’s slack procedures for dealing with unaccompanied minors from Central America, said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington. And local communities often end up getting stuck with the problem – and the cost.

“From the beginning, instead of putting the welfare of the kids first, the priority of the Obama administration has been to turn over the kids to anyone who would claim them, asking as few questions as possible, and deliberately oblivious as to whether the child was being placed in a safe environment,” Vaughan told WND.

For the sake of political expediency, she said the government wants a rapid turnover, and is willing to sacrifice all checks and safeguards to ensure the safety of the kids.

“The contractors [this includes the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service—both receive millions of tax dollars to care for the children.—ed] who were awarded public funds to handle the kids admit that they have lost track of most of them, and a U.S. Senate investigation has found that some were turned straight over to indentured labor camps or to abusive adults,” said Vaughan, who in February testified before a House subcommittee on the problem of child migrants being swept up into human trafficking networks.

“The Obama administration wants the public to believe that we are saving these kids, but in reality their policies are enriching human smugglers and traffickers and resettlement contractors, while putting too many of the kids in more danger,” she said.

Continue reading here.

Then there is this story by Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart which chronicles some of the horror stories from refugees placed in the care of nine major federal resettlement contractors—stories, some of which, we have reported on these pages over the years.

Leahy begins:

mana

Refugee Mulugeta Zemu Mana wishes he never came to America!

When Eritrean refugee Mulugeta Zemu Mana was recently arraigned in a courtroom in Twin Falls, Idaho, on charges of aggravated battery, he told the presiding judge, “The only guilt I have is the day I decided to come to this country.”

Mana’s lack of gratitude and anti-Americanism is a painful revelation of the social turmoil and economic pain among the 70,000 refugees, half of whom are Muslim, who arrive in the U.S. every year.

But it is also the predictable outcome of the lucrative, federal taxpayer financed refugee resettlement industry which is now headed by former Clinton and Obama administration appointees. The industry rejects America’s traditional policy of assimilating refugees into the country, and instead treats refugees more as revenue-generating opportunities that boost their income and political power.

There is much more here.

Where is Congress?

One fix that Congress could quickly make is to set up a repatriation fund so that unhappy ‘refugees’ (and other immigrants too) could tap into it for a plane ticket home.

And, I don’t want to hear any squawking about the cost—it would be much cheaper than incarcerating them or keeping them on welfare!

The true humanitarian do-gooders should have no objections! Right?

LOL! There is one other side benefit:  such a plan would help sort out the resettlement contractors by helping to identify which are doing the best job of taking care of the refugees they have acquired in their federal contracts.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Northhampton, Massachusetts will become new resettlement site

The refugee contractors want more refugees and more MONEY for FY2017 (Part I)

Norway building border fence with Russia, too many refugees coming through arctic

Reception and Placement Abstracts: get them and use them!

First African refugees arrive in Montana; Helena advocates say they will wait until after November for theirs

Is there no resistance to new refugee office in Ithaca, NY?

Huma Abedin’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood are no joke

The Clinton campaign is attempting once again to sweep important questions under the rug about top aide Huma Abedin, her family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and to Saudi Arabia, and her role in the ballooning Clinton email scandal.

The New York Post ran a detailed investigative piece over the weekend about Ms. Abedin’s work at the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs from 1995 through 2008, a Sharia law journal whose editor in chief was Abedin’s own mother.
This is not some accidental association. Ms. Abedin was, for many years, listed as an associate editor of the London-based publication and wrote for the journal while working as an intern in the Clinton White House in the mid-1990s.

Her mother, Saleha Abedin, sits on the Presidency Staff Council of the International Islamic Council for Da’wa and Relief, a group that is chaired by the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

Perhaps recognizing how offensive such ties will be to voters concerned over future terrorist attacks on this country by radical Muslims professing allegiance to Sharia law, the Clinton campaign on Monday tried to downplay Ms. Abedin’s involvement in the Journal and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Clinton surrogate group Media Matters claimed predictably there was “no evidence” that Ms. Abedin or her family had ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and that Trump campaign staffers who spoke of these ties were conspiracy theorists.

To debunk the evidence, Media Matters pointed to a Snopes.com “fact-check” piece that cited as its sole source… Senator John McCain. This is the same John McCain who met Libyan militia leader Abdelkarim Belhaj, a known al Qaeda associate, and saluted him as “my hero” during a 2011 visit to Benghazi.

Senator McCain and others roundly criticized Rep. Michele Bachmann in 2012 when she and four members of the House Permanent Select Committee Intelligence and the House Judiciary Committee cited Ms. Abedin in letters sent to the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, warning about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of the United States government.

In response to those critiques, Rep. Bachmann laid out the evidence in a 16-page memo, which has never been refuted by Senator McCain or the elite media.

The evidence, in my opinion, is overwhelming: Huma Abedin is nothing short of a Muslim Brotherhood princess, born into an illustrious family of Brotherhood leaders.

Her father, Syed Zaynul Abedin, was a professor in Saudi Arabia who founded the Institute for Muslim Minority Affairs, an institution established by the Government of Saudi Arabia with the support of the Muslim World League.

The Muslim World League was “perhaps the most significant Muslim Brotherhood organization in the world,” according to former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy. Its then-General Secretary, Umar Nasif, founded the Rabita Trust, “which is formally designated as a foreign terrorist organization under American law due to its support of al Qaeda,” he wrote.

That is not guilt by association but what federal prosecutors would call a “nexus” of like-minded people who shared the same goals.

A Saudi government document inspired by Ms. Abedin’s father explains the concept of “Muslim Minority Affairs,” the title of the Journal Mr. Abedin founded, and its goal to “establish a global Sharia in our modern times.”

Simply put, Huma Abedin worked for thirteen years as part of an enterprise whose explicit goal was to conquer the West in the name of Islam. No wonder the Clinton campaign wants to sweep this issue under the rug.

Mrs. Clinton has sometimes referred to Huma Abedin as her “second daughter.” Whether it was because of their close relationship or for some other reason, Mrs. Clinton has done much to further the Muslim Brotherhood agenda while Secretary of State, and can be counted on doing more as president.

As Secretary of State, she relentlessly pushed the overthrow of Libyan leader Mohammar Qaddafi, a dire enemy of the Brotherhood, even when President Obama and his Secretary of Defense were reluctant to go to war.

Along with Obama, she pushed for the overthrow of Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak and his replacement by Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohammad Morsi.

She pushed for direct U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war, including the arming of Syrian rebels allied with al Qaeda.

As I reveal in my new book, she worked side by side with the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the umbrella group where 57 majority Muslim states pushed their agenda of imposing Sharia law on the non-Muslim world, to use hate crime laws in the United States to criminalize speech critical of Islam, in accordance with United Nations Resolution 16/18.

Their first victim in the United States was a Coptic Christian named Nakoula Bassiley Nakoula, the maker of the YouTube video Hillary and Obama blamed for Benghazi.

New Abedin emails released to Judicial Watch this week show that Huma Abedin served as liaison between Clinton Foundation donors, including foreign governments, and the State Department.

When foreign donors had difficult in getting appointments with Mrs. Clinton through normal State Department channels, Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band would email Huma Abedin, and poof! the doors would open as if by magic.

Donald Trump has criticized this as “pay for play.” But it also raises questions as to whether Huma Abedin and Mrs. Clinton were in fact serving as unregistered agents for foreign powers who sought to impose their anti-freedom agenda on the United States.

The United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization in 2014. But by then, the damage had been done.

Do Americans want eight years of a President Clinton, who will do even more to empower the Muslim Brotherhood and impose its agenda on America?

DeceptionEDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Hill. The featured image is of Huma Abedin is by Greg Nash.

Mr. Timmerman is a Donald Trump supporter. He was the 2012 Republican Congressional nominee for MD-8 and is the author of Deception: The Making of the YouTube Video Hillary & Obama Blamed for Benghazi, published by Post Hill Press.

Hillary’s General and the ’email sex scandal’ that led to his resignation

Birds of the feather flock together and so is the case of Hillary Clinton and former Marine General John Allen. They are birds of a feather.

We previously reported that John Allen, a former Commander in Afghanistan, was heckled by Democrats during his speech at the DNC Convention in Philadelphia. Democrats began yelling ‘No more war! No more war!” as Allen, with other military veterans, were on stage to speak and endorse Hillary Clinton for president.

What many do not know is that Allen has a shady past involving an email scandal involving phone sex with a 37-year old socialite from Tampa, Florida.

Brietbart’s  Warner Todd Huston in his column Flashback: General John Allen’s ‘Phone Sex Email’ Scandal reported:

Back in November 2012, news broke that General Allen, then serving as the American commander in Afghanistan, was embroiled in controversy for having sent “inappropriate communications” with a close friend of the David Petraeus family. When first reported, the contents of these emails were so racy they were deemed little different than “phone sex.”

The emails amounted to several hundred messages spanning two and a half years of time, starting in 2010, right around the same time period as the sex scandal that took down General Petraeus was roiling.

An investigation was launched that year into the ribald emails between Allen and Petraeus family friend Jill Kelley, a 37-year-old socialite. Ultimately, Obama’s Pentagon decided that Allen’s emails didn’t rise to conduct unbecoming an officer, but they were so flirtatious that the damage was done. The investigation was such an embarrassment that Allen resigned his commission and bowed out of the hunt to be named the supreme allied commander in Europe early in 2013.

Emails showed the pair calling each other “sweetheart,” some playfully saying “you rock” to each other, and others discussing “doggy style.” All were discovered among the hundreds of messages which were reportedly exploited by Petraeus biographer Paul Broadwell, according to the investigation.

The Conservative Tribune noted in a column titled General Attacks Trump, Then Bombshell Truth on His Real Identity Explodes:

As Erik Prince at Breitbart pointed out, Gen. Allen is far from a dispassionate retired general, merely weighing in on an unspeakable crisis (one might even call it a coup) that might foment itself in the military should Trump be elected.

Allen was, at one point, the White House coordinator for anti-Islamic State group efforts. Along with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Susan Rice, and the whole sick crew, he was responsible for the policy of treating the Islamic State as the “JV team” — a bunch of angry, stupid teens who had somehow found Kalashnikovs and were taking their angst out on the world.

He’s the one who helped construct a policy where a group with ultramodern weaponry and a Bronze Age ideology were considered to be no threat whatsoever.

That’s not all. He was also responsible for the funding and arming of so-called “moderate” Islamic rebels in Syria. Lo and behold, these were the rebel groups who often decided that their allegiance — as well as their funds and weaponry — belonged to the Islamic State group. Others merely surrendered their weapons.

Would a president Clinton put Allen in a key national security position should she be elected? If so then we could see the same behaviors in a Clinton White House, and we are not talking about Bill’s sexual exploits. John Allen would be deja vu all over again.

VIDEO: We Expose the real Khizr Khan as Trump meets with 6 Gold Star Families

We interviewed Dr. Andy Bostom who details the shariah-compliant views of Democratic National Convention speaker, Gold Star Father, Khizr Khan. At the same time Donald Trump met with six Gold Star families in Jacksonville, Florida on Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016 (see the Military Times story below).

, from the Military Times reports:

… Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump met Wednesday with the families of troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan to hear their concerns about the campaign and broader national security issues.

The private conference, which attendees said lasted about 30 minutes before a rally in Florida, included top Trump defense adviser retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and was organized by Karen Vaughn, the mother of a fallen Navy SEAL and a featured speaker at last month’s Republican convention. Ten parents, siblings and spouses of fallen service members were included.

“It was really a chance to tell our stories, but also talk about problems with the rules of engagem ent [for troops in war zones] and the failed policies of the current administration,” Vaughn said. “I walked out feeling like I understood where his heart is, regardless of the comments that he made that may seem insensitive to some.”

[ … ]

Vaughn said she and other families in the Florida meeting sympathize with Khan, but also feel the ensuing media coverage has overshadowed more important issues for their community.

She accused those supporting Trump’s rival, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, of exaggerating those comments in an effort to cover her own national security shortfalls. Vaughn also lamented what she see as insensitivity toward the families of several Americans killed in the 2012 terrorist attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, Libya. Clinton was secretary of State at that time, and she has come under intense scrutiny for what her critics say was gross miscalculation and inaction as the attack occurred.

Read more.

It appears that not all Gold Star families are interested in scoring political points. Rather they are interested in insuring no other Blue Star families become Gold Star families.

RELATED ARTICLE: The Khan story reminds me of the food stamp fraud stories that so intrigued me

Democratic convention more about Fantasyland than America

If you had just arrived from Mars to observe the Republican and Democratic conventions, one after the other, you undoubtedly would conclude that they were talking about two different countries.

One America recognizes real threats from foreign jihadi fighters who seek to eradicate our existence and to replace our freedoms with Islamic sharia law. It believes that economic revival — through tax reform, trade reform, and enforcing our borders and immigration laws – holds the key to future prosperity.

The other America believes we face no real foreign threats, the economy is doing great, and that our biggest challenge comes from crop failures, rising seas, and monster storms caused by — you guessed it, climate change.

It wasn’t by chance that the Democrats made no mention of ISIS on the first day of the convention and scarcely mentioned it on the next two days.

Terrorism and Islamist ideology that seek to replace our democratic republic with a “superior” law written by Allah are a distraction from the real mission of Democrats in Philadelphia. As former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley put it: “to hell with Trump’s American nightmare.”

In his first year in office, President Obama directed the Central Intelligence Agency to divert significant assets from the war against real threats from terrorists and enemy nations to the hypothetic dangers of “climate change.”

The Defense Department was ordered to follow suit, and under Obama’s direction, launched massive building programs at American naval bases to shelter them from rising seas.

President Obama squandered billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in pursuit of an ideological agenda.

This past May, the CIA quietly shuttered its climate change initiative, since it was unable to find data to sustain the Left’s faith in its new religion that man-made climate change would destroy the earth, or significant portions of it.

Cyclical changes in our climate have always occurred and have had dramatic impacts in the past, long before the carbon emissions the Left blames for today’s droughts and tsunamis.

Hollywood actress Signourey Weaver, hair on fire, introduced a “scare-me” video by James Cameron and claimed that farmers in Kansas were losing their crops today because of climate change.

I understand that Ms. Weaver is too young to have lived through the Dust Bowl — so am I. But I would hope she isn’t too dumb to have read about it and to have understood that these things have happened before, and will happen again.

Government’s role, in such circumstances, is to extend a helping hand of solidarity to individuals who lose their livelihoods to disasters they had no way of foreseeing. Its role is not to preemptively cripple the nation with fantasy-driven regulations and shut down entire sectors of the economy.

Incapable of a sustained conversation about national security, we’re left with Sen. Harry Reid suggesting that the Director of National Intelligence should “fake” national security briefings to Donald Trump. Why? Because Trump suggested that perhaps the Russians might be able to find the 33,000 emails Hillary Clinton admitted she deleted from the private server even President Obama warned her not to use.

In Senator Reid’s mind, entrusting Mrs. Clinton with our national security secrets is just fine, even though FBI Director James Comey acknowledged she had been “extremely careless” by transmitting highly-classified intelligence information on her personal email server. Let’s not forget that the FBI still hasn’t found more than 2,000 classified emails Mrs. Clinton deleted.

Bill Clinton thought he had found a “trump” card that would earn his wife a place in the pantheon of national security heroes.

“She launched a team — and this is really important today — she launched a team to fight back against terrorists — online — and built a new global counterterrorism effort,” he said.

Think about that for a moment. In the words of her own husband, Mrs. Clinton’s main achievement in the war against the terrorists attacking us was to hire a few social media analysts whose advice she didn’t consult and in fact ignored when they informed her the Benghazi attacks had nothing to do with a YouTube video insulting Mohammad.

I’ve got news for the Clintons: our intelligence community has been focusing on social media for years. The biggest growth industry among the Beltway bandits is foreign language experts who can mine Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites for evidence of jihadi connections.

That’s great, but it isn’t enough.

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta went overboard in his support for Mrs. Clinton, claiming that, if elected, she would take office as someone who “has the trust of our troops who know she will always have their back.”

Four men died in Benghazi because Mrs. Clinton didn’t have their backs. Instead of rushing to the rescue, she spent hours in meetings trying to keep Panetta from sending reinforcements to their rescue.

But that’s the other America. The America of facts.

The differences of our two Americas are many. One America lionizes the mothers of young black men killed by the police – often after they had committed assaults of one sort or another. The other celebrates as heroes police officers gunned down by snipers seeking vengeance.

One America believes that women, illegal immigrants, invalids, minorities, and people with kaleidoscope glasses constitute grievance classes who deserve special treatment. The other believes that all Americans deserve equal treatment under the law and equal opportunity under our system.

As a life-long investigative reporter, I remain committed to the facts. But I recognize that the contest in November will be determined not by facts, but by faith, and by how many believers on each side come to the polls. That is the new reality of the two Americas of 2016.

Actually, Hillary is the Third Woman Nominated to be President of the United States

Democrats and the media are pushing the narrative that Hillary Clinton has broken the “glass ceiling” by being the first woman nominated to become president of the United States. That narrative is false. Hillary Clinton is actually the third woman to be nominated for president.

The first woman to be nominated to be president was Victoria Woodhull, who ran for the office in 1872. Woodhull was nominated by the Equal Rights party. The second woman was Belva Ann Lockwood who was nominated and ran for president under the banner of the same Equal Rights Party as Woodhull. Lockwood racked up 4,149 votes in six states.

Carol Felsenthal in Politico Magazine wrote:

woodhull_wiki

Equal Rights Party Presidential Candidate Victoria Claflin Woodhull, later Victoria Woodhull Martin, who was an American leader of the woman’s suffrage movement.

Few know, though, the name of the woman who put the first crack in that highest, hardest glass ceiling. That honor belongs to a beautiful, colorful and convention-defying woman named Victoria Woodhull, who ran for the office in 1872, 136 years before Clinton made her first run in 2008. Woodhull, who died nearly twenty years before Clinton was even born, hazarded a path on which no woman before her had ever dared to tread. Even more amazing is that she did it almost 50 years before the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920 gave women the right to vote. On Election Day, November 5, 1872, Victoria Woodhull couldn’t even vote for herself.

Although it must be noted that she could not have voted for herself in any case, given the fact that she was incarcerated on Election Day, and for a month or so after, in New York City’s Ludlow Street Jail on obscenity charges…

Woodhull ran under the banner of the Equal Rights Party—formerly the People’s Party—which supported equal rights for women and women’s suffrage. The party nominated her in May 1872 in New York City to run uphill against incumbent Republican Ulysses S. Grant and Democrat Horace Greeley and selected as her running mate Frederick Douglass, former escaped slave-turned-abolitionist writer and speaker. On paper, it was an impressive pick, but not really: Douglass never appeared at the party’s nominating convention, never agreed to run with Woodhull, never participated in the campaign and actually gave stump speeches for Grant.

220px-Belva_Ann_Lockwood_-_Brady-Handy

Equal Rights Party Presidential candidate Belva Ann Bennett Lockwood, who was an American attorney, politician, educator, and author.

[ … ]

There’s no record of how many popular votes she received; though we do know that 12 years later [1884], another woman [Belva Ann Lockwood] running for president under the banner of the same Equal Rights Party racked up 4,149 votes in six states.

Read more.

The Democratic Party has a way of twisting the truth and the media has failed to do its due diligence and research. The DNC narrative is Hillary has “broken the glass ceiling” when in fact it was already broken by two other women. There was no glass ceiling to break. Not in 2008 and not in 2016.

Both women lost. Perhaps Hillary will be the third strike for the Democrats who tout themselves as the party of equal rights?

Are American voters witnessing deja vu all over again?

Three Names that will go down in infamy: Crist, Rubio and Cruz

There are now three infamous “Republican” names that will be remembered for decades to come. Each harmed not only their Party but also betrayed the American people. The names are:

  1. Former Florida Governor Charlie Crist, who when he lost his GOP Primary bid for the U.S. Senate ran as an independent, then changed party affiliation and is now running for the U.S. House of Representatives in Florida’s District 13 (prophetic).
  2. Senator Marco Rubio, who won the GOP Primary for the U.S. Senate promising that the word “amnesty” was not in his lexicon. Once elected Rubio became the face of the GOP effort for “immigration reform”. Rubio lied and Floridians carry the $5 billion burden to medicate, educate and incarcerate illegal aliens. Rubio is running to keep his seat in the U.S. Senate after a failed campaign to become the GOP nominee for president.
  3. Senator Ted Cruz, who began his run for the GOP nomination for president as an outsider and then became the consummate insider. Cruz failed to endorse the GOP nominee on July 20, 2016. This failure led to his being booed at the GOP Convention (watch the video below).

VIDEO: Wednesday, July 20 2016: During his speech at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ted Cruz refused to endorse Donald Trump and was booed by the RNC crowd – then Donald Trump shows up before Cruz is finished speaking and the crowd goes wild!

After Cruz’s remarks Ann Coulter Tweeted:

Last night, Cruz showed that he’s earned a leading role in the nation’s political future. And that nation is Canada.

An op-ed titled “That Moment When Ted Cruz Doused Himself With Gasoline and Lit the Match On Stage” notes:

It’s called self immolation.  July 20th 2016 will go down in Cruz family history as that moment when Ted Cruz detonated his career suicide belt and created the #NeverCruz movement.

Forget the non endorsement, that’s not the issue.  Senator Cruz had a remarkable opportunity, he blew it.  Cruz accepted an invitation to speak to the GOP convention then insulted the audience.  Cruz couldn’t rise above his own brutal ego and petty selfishness.  The arrogance simply went too far, he humiliated himself in front of millions.

It happened just like we predicted it would.  Donald Trump gave Senator Ted Cruz the rope, and Ted hung himself -diminished himself- on national TV.

Don’t be too angry…  The backlash Cruz is going to get from his prideful and arrogant display will be written in the annals of political history and shared with political science classes for generations.

Read more.

Ted Cruz now joins a rogues gallery of those who cannot abide losing and will do anything to win, even if it means harming their party and the people who trusted them and put them into positions of power.

I recall a Tweet that pointed out TrusTED was the past tense of the word trust. I guess that Tweet was prophetic. Can you say betrayal, traitor, establishment republican?

These three names will live in infamy.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Cruz gets booed after he declines to endorse Trump

Video: Laura Ingraham Challenges “Boys With Bruised Egos” To Follow RNC Pledge, Endorse Trump

Tucker Carlson: No Chance Cruz Will Ever Get Elected President, Voters Will Not Forget This

Cleveland Police: Protester Lights Himself On Fire While Trying To Burn American Flag

76% of Republicans and 38% of Democrats want to ‘Admit Fewer Refugees’

I was surprised to see that this large number—38%—of Democrats think our refugee admissions are too high!

Obama and Clinton 3

Readers you have to wade through a lot of column inches before you get to what I consider the meat of this story by AP.  It sure looks like Americans generally are not in agreement with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on admitting tens of thousands of refugees from mostly Muslim countries, especially Syrians.

Associated Press at WHIO (12 paragraphs into the story).  Emphasis below is mine:

Americans are slightly more likely to oppose than favor a temporary ban on Muslims who are not U.S. citizens from entering the United States, by a 52 percent to 45 percent margin that has been strikingly consistent in AP-GfK polls conducted this year.

Sixty-nine percent of Republicans say they favor the temporary ban on Muslim immigration, while 68 percent of Democrats are opposed. Half of whites and just a third of non-whites say they favor the ban. Seventy-six percent of Trump supporters are in favor.

On a trip to Scotland last month, Trump shifted his rhetoric, saying he would instead “want terrorists out” of the U.S., and to do so, he would limit people’s entry from “specific terrorist countries and we know who those terrorist countries are.”

The poll indicates that rhetorical shift could win support. Among those asked more broadly about a temporary ban on immigrants from areas of the world where there is a history of terrorism against the U.S. or its allies, 63 percent are in favor and 34 percent opposed. Ninety-four percent of Trump supporters say they favor this proposal, as do 45 percent of Clinton supporters.

“That’s a necessity for creating stability,” said Ryan Williams, 40, a health care provider from Jacksonville, North Carolina.

Most Americans — 53 percent — think the United States is currently letting in too many refugees from Syria, engulfed in civil war since 2011 and the Islamic State militant group’s de facto center. President Barack Obama has pledged to admit some 10,000 Syrian refugees this year.

Remember Hillary is on record saying she wants to admit 65,000 Syrians immediately (only 11 percent of Americans agree with her!):

Another 33 percent think the current level is about right, while just 11 percent want to let in more. About 4 in 10 think there’s a very or somewhat high risk of refugees committing acts of religious or political violence in the United States, 34 percent think the risk moderate, and 24 percent consider it very or somewhat low.

Seventy-six percent of Republicans think the U.S. should allow fewer refugees. Among Democrats, 43 percent think the current level is about right, 38 percent think the U.S. should allow fewer, and 18 percent want to allow more.

This tells me that Trump has to continue to pound the issue of refugees!  (And, that the propagandists at The Hive have their work cut out for them).

BTW, if every American could see what I’ve seen over the last two days on my road trip, these numbers would be even higher!

One more thing…I’ve heard several times lately that some Americans think that the U.S. refugee program is a temporary one for the refugees, that they only come here until things calm down in their home countries.  That is NOT the case! Refugees who come to the U.S. come here permanently and ultimately become citizens.

RELATED ARTICLES:

After Nice, France Grapples With How to Combat Terrorism

The Attempted Coup Reveals Turkey’s Instability. That’s Bad News for the U.S.

These Are the Tools We Need to Win the Long War Against Islamist Terrorism

UPDATED VIDEO: ‘Hillary’s version of ‘1984’

TheRebel.media has once again discovered a timely version of that classic Apple “1984” commercial!

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may visit TheRebel.media for more fearless daily news, commentary and activism at: http://www.TheRebel.media. Please like them on Facebook at: http://www.Facebook.com/JoinTheRebel and on Twitter here: http://www.Twitter.com/TheRebelTV

VIDEO: Steven Miller Exposes Hillary’s Corruption in a way that even Trump Won’t Touch!

Stephen Miller delivers one of the best speeches on the consequences of the November 8th, 2016 election. Miller lays out the burning issues and how different Donald J. Trump is from Hillary R. Clinton.

Forget Bills’ sex scandals, they will pale in comparison to the expected utter hell Trump is about to unleash on both Hillary and Bill. The evidence is so overwhelming and well documented that there is almost no way the FBI won’t finally indict Hillary. You can tell from Trumps last few speeches that he is talking directly to FBI Director James Comey.

Trump knows Director Comey wants to indict, as does his agents. Trump is basically telling him that he NEEDS to obey the laws that he swore to uphold!

This election is going to be a real bloodbath!

Hillary’s ‘smart power’ foreign policy makes her unfit for command

Today’s headlines are about the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence report on Benghazi. Benghazi is the expected outcome of Hillary Clinton’s “smart power” policy while she was Secretary of State. This policy is part of her platform as the Democratic Party nominee for president.

According to Chester A. Crocker, smart power,

Involves the strategic use of diplomacy, persuasion, capacity building, and the projection of power and influence in ways that are cost-effective and have political and social legitimacy.

It was smart power that Hillary used to depose Muammar Gaddafi, the former Prime Minister of Libya. David Brooks in a June 2011 New York Times op-ed “Smart Power Setback” wrote:

When she became secretary of state, Hillary Clinton sketched out a very attractive foreign policy vision that would use “the full range of tools at our disposal: diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal and cultural.” But it could be that cultural and economic development works on a different timetable than traditional foreign policy.

Perhaps we don’t know enough, can’t plan enough, can’t implement effectively enough to coordinate nation building with national security objectives.

The peace and security timetable is measured in years or decades. Development progress, if it comes at all, is measured in generations.

In February 2016 a New York Times article by Jo Becker and Scott Shane titled “Hillary Clinton, ‘Smart Power’ and a Dictator’s Fall” noted:

President Obama was deeply wary of another military venture in a Muslim country [Libya]. Most of his senior advisers were telling him to stay out. Still, he dispatched Mrs. Clinton to sound out Mr. Jibril, a leader of the Libyan opposition. Their late night meeting on March 14, 2011, would be the first chance for a top American official to get a sense of whom, exactly, the United States was being asked to support.

In her suite at the Westin, she and Mr. Jibril, a political scientist with a doctorate from the University of Pittsburgh, spoke at length about the fast­moving military situation in Libya. But Mrs. Clinton was clearly also thinking about Iraq, and its hard lessons for American intervention.

Did the opposition’s Transitional National Council really represent the whole of a deeply divided country, or just one region? What if Colonel Qaddafi quit, fled or was killed — did they have a plan for what came next?

“She was asking every question you could imagine,” Mr. Jibril recalled.

Mrs. Clinton was won over. Opposition leaders “said all the right things about supporting democracy and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions, providing some hope that we might be able to pull this off,” said Philip H. Gordon, one of her assistant secretaries. “They gave us what we wanted to hear. And you do want to believe.”

Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel Qaddafi’s forces. In fact, Mr. Obama’s defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a “51­49” decision, it was Mrs. Clinton’s support that put the ambivalent president over the line. 

The consequences would be more far ­reaching than anyone imagined, leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton’s questions have come to pass.

[Emphasis added]

Ironically is was American diplomat John Christopher “Chris” Stevens who Clinton sent to Libya to implement the “5149” decision. Gaddafi was toppled and executed by those same “opposition leaders” who convinced Secretary Clinton they were on our side. Clinton implemented smart power.

Fast forward to September 11, 2012. Hillary’s smart power caused her and the State Department to rely on local militia to protect now Ambassador Chris Stevens at the compound in Benghazi. Stevens knew the risks and expressed them in his diary on that fateful day.

Stevens’s final entry in his diary, dated Sept. 11, reads: “Never ending security threats…”

Security threats ignored because of Hillary’s smart power policies. Four died on that day, the cause Hillary Clinton and smart power.

RELATED REPORT: Proposed Additional Views of Representatives Jim Jordan and Mike Pompeo

No Retreat from Hillary’s Village: Clinton’s dream of sending federal agents into American homes

A campaign ad that Hillary Clinton used against Barack Obama in 2008 featured images of sleeping children, with a voice asking who would answer the phone ringing in the White House at 3 a.m., “someone who already knows the world leaders . . . the military,” someone “tested and ready to lead”—or (by implication) a first-term U.S. Senator/community organizer?

Hillary Clinton is running for president again, and of course is ignoring her failure as secretary of state to answer the late-night phone call coming from Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Instead, she is advertising how she wants to send federal emissaries into the homes of parents with newborn infants to teach them how to handle 3 a.m. feedings and baby talk. It’s an extension of her agenda as first lady in the Arkansas governor’s mansion and in the White House.  Her political career, after graduating and having written a thesis on friend Saul Alinsky, was launched with the Children’s Defense Fund under the direction of Marian Wright Edelman, agitator for increased welfare “for the children,” including federally funded childcare workers.

As president, Hillary Clinton would implement the Edelman/Alinsky domestic vision she put forward, in more palatable terms, in her 1996 book, It Takes a Village to Raise a Child. Of course, it takes someone like Clinton to see the federal government as a “village.”

In that book Clinton wrote, “government is not something outside us—something irrelevant or even alien to us—but is us.  To acknowledge this is to acknowledge that government has a responsibility not only to provide essential services but to bring individuals and communities together.”  This is the backwards notion of the community organizer.

Recently, in a May 21, 2016, Washington Post op-ed, Clinton revealed her totalizing domestic plans by reiterating her commitment to paid family leave legislation and to the “big idea” of “increasing federal investments and incentivizing states so that no family ever has to pay more than 10 percent of its income for child care.”

She also proposed doubling the investment in programs that she helped develop as first lady: Early Head Start and the Early Head Start-Child Care Partnership program. Parroting bureaucrats, Clinton claimed, “These programs bring an evidenced-based curriculum to child care and make sure kids get the best possible start in life. . . . .”

She, however, ignores the studies, including one by the agency administering the program, that show that when Head Start does have a positive impact, it is slight and disappears by third grade.

Even so, Clinton wants to expand federal daycare, and also to send government agents into homes, following her efforts as first lady of Arkansas when she introduced the “Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters,” or “HIPPY.” Her campaign website boasts of a more recent feat, “As a leader at the Clinton Foundation,” when she “started a national public awareness campaign called ‘Too Small to Fail’ or ‘Pequeños y Valiosos’ aimed at closing the ‘word gap.’”

The Clinton Foundation, a purported charity (in reality a campaign slush fund with contributions helping friends’ business pursuits), is using the latest “gap” as the basis for the programs she hopes to enact as  president. The campaign site explains: “This gap refers to the 30 million fewer words heard by lower-income children by the time they are 4 years old, which leads to disparities in language development and school readiness.”  Low-income students already receive free breakfasts and lunches, even in the summer.  Under the recently passed Every Student Succeeds Act they can look forward to attending “community schools,” where they will receive homework help, family dinners, and health and dental services.

Under Clinton’s plan, the federal government would provide childcare subsidies to families, raise the wages of childcare workers, and provide “home visiting services”—the latter to teach parents to talk to their children.  In It Takes a Village,Clinton celebrated England’s tradition of providing home visits through its national health service.  (She also bragged about her work on Goals 2000, the precursor to Common Core.)

Initiatives, like the one to end the “word gap” may sound head-scratching-ly bizarre to people who have been around babies, and made idiots of themselves by cooing and lapsing into inane talk.

But the studies that show that many low-income (i.e., single and government-dependent) parents do not speak to their young children are borne out by observation.

It is an uncomfortable subject for many leftists.  Anyone who has taken public transportation in cities like Atlanta, where it is mostly used by those who cannot afford cars, knows this–including one of my leftist friends. In traffic-choked Atlanta it made sense for her to commute to her job downtown via the rail line, a straight shot from her apartment.  She would save on time, car wear-and-tear, gas, and parking—not to mention “The Environment.”

But she stopped, explaining in an agonized voice that she couldn’t bear to watch how young mothers treated their children, with slaps and pulls, screaming abuses at them, at the train station.

Of course, no one would dare reprimand such parents.

So my friend retreated.  Leftist parents retreat by sending their children to private schools, while arguing for more funding for public schools.

The reaction is to retreat, to one’s car, and to vote for and advocate more government social programs so that “experts” can deal with such parents.  Leftists refuse to acknowledge that government programs that incentivize family breakdown and interfere with natural communities are the problem.

Conservatives, frustrated by the inability of political representatives to cut back on detrimental government programs and despairing at the takeover of education by radicals, retreat to far-flung suburbs, where they undertake the dual tasks of parenting and teaching.  No one can or should blame them.  In fact, they are to be commended.  When I taught college I could count on homeschooled students to be better educated and more motivated than students from public schools.

But with the retreat of such parents, public schools suffer.  It’s a vicious cycle, but the progressive’s solution (or opportunity) is to use the deterioration as an entrée to more government meddling.

Now, especially in Obama’s final year, we are witnessing the Washington overlords hounding the middle-class citizens into their retreats.  They are forcing “individuals and communities together” under Obama’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing regulation of 2015.  The suburbs are being forced to build housing for the poor, who will bring their dysfunction to everything from the playground to the shopping mall.  As the feds impose their diktats on public spaces and private businesses, the homeschooling family will find fewer and fewer places where they are comfortable.  Under Obama’s Department of Education, they have found themselves forced to adhere to crazy Common Core standards if they want to pass GED tests, college entrance exams, and AP exams.  They find that many colleges now use Common Core test scores for placement in classes.  This overreach inspired many conservatives into activism and made Common Core part of the presidential campaign.

But as the presidential election approaches, many of the same conservatives are retreating–from the voting booth.  Morally repulsed by the profligate past, rhetoric, and impure ideology of presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump, they vow to back a third-party candidate, write in a name, or just stay home and pray. They are impervious to arguments that their retreat makes a Hillary Clinton (Obama.2) presidency likely.

Surprisingly, the anti-Trump super PAC, Our Principles, as part of their attacks on Trump’s sexism, has been using statements about fatherhood that he made on the Howard Stern show in 2005.  Like the leftists, these Republicans take umbrage at Trump’s comments about husbands who relent to pressures and “act like the wife.”

Trump expressed traditional sentiments and said he believed in supplying “funds,” but not changing diapers or pushing a stroller through Central Park.  In contrast, I am reminded of one of many absurd helpful hints about fatherhood coming from the Obama administration.  Early on, a Father’s Day campaign that encouraged fathers’ involvement showed a picture of a burly father with his young daughter.  They were both painting their fingernails.

Voters should be asking themselves if they want the Big-Nanny-in-Chief sending government agents into homes.  Or do they want to become breadwinners again?