Posts

VIDEO: Top 50 Facts about Hillary Clinton’s Record

Please click here to read the 35-page in-depth summary of the top 50 facts about Hillary Clinton’s record that were detailed by Mr. Trump in the ‘Stakes of the Election‘ address delivered June 22nd, 2016 at Trump SoHo in Manhattan, New York.

On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 GOP nominee Donald Trump gave a speech at Trump SoHo in New York City. The speech addressed a number of issues facing America. He laid out his positions to address these issues, both domestic policy and in foreign policy.

Here is Mr. Trump’s full ‘Stakes of the Election‘ speech:

RELATED VIDEO: Nigel Farage MEP, Leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), Co-President of the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD) Group in the European Parliament, “I think Hillary Clinton is a crook”:

RELATED ARTICLE: GOP Senate Debates Gun Control Instead of Real Measures to Fight Terrorism

RELATED INFO-GRAPHIC:

Hillary Clinton Middle East donors

Hillary’s Saudi Solution: They’re funding 20% of Clinton’s presidential campaign

The U.S. imam Warith Deen Mohammed said in 1999:

“In Saudi Arabia it’s the Wahabi school of thought…and they say, ‘We’re gonna give you our money, then we want you to…prefer our school of thought.’ That’s in there whether they say it or not. So there is a problem receiving gifts that seem to have no attachment, no strings attached.”

“Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” —Hillary Clinton

“The Clinton Foundation…disclosed in 2008 that it had accepted up to US $25 million from the Saudi Kingdom in the same year. Other foreign governments who have donated money to the Clintons include…Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Oman…”

Hillary Clinton is bought and paid for.

Hillary Clinton Middle East donors

Clinton Saudis

“Saudis Fund 20% of Clinton Presidential Campaign: Top Prince,” teleSUR, June 13, 2016:

…Saudi Arabia has paid more than 20 percent of the cost of Hillary Clinton’s campaign for presidential elections, Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was quoted as saying Sunday in a news report by the Jordanian Petra News Agency.

According to the Middle East Eye news website, the report was later deleted from the agency’s website. However, a snapshot of the original Arabic version was later republished by the Washington-based Institute for Gulf Affairs.

“Saudi Arabia has always sponsored both Republican and Democratic Parties of America and… the kingdom also provides with full enthusiasm 20 percent of the cost of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in the U.S. presidential elections despite the fact that some influential forces within the country don’t have a positive look toward supporting the candidate because she is a woman,” the agency’s report quoted Prince Mohammed as saying….

The Clinton Foundation, which is chaired by both Hillary and her husband Bill Clinton, disclosed in 2008 that it had accepted up to US$25 million from the Saudi Kingdom in the same year.

Other foreign governments who have donated money to the Clintons include Norway, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Oman, Italy and Jamaica, which together donated around US$20 million….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Islam’s Violence is Rooted in Instability

Jihad Attack in Orlando

Iranian Cleric: ‘Improperly’ Dressed Iranian Women Cause Climate Change

Canadian Imam on Orlando massacre: “This system (democracy) does not represent us”

Arkansas: FBI hunts for Muslim couple arrested for terror threats — fled upon release, had weapons & ammo

Facebook bans gay magazine critical of Islam

No Surprise That Gun Prohibitionists Endorse Clinton

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABOUT THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

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

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

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

“Journalists” Renew Attack Upon “Assault Weapons”

What “Strong Case” for Gun Registration?

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

The Twisting Noose

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

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

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

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

hillary alinsky paper

Photo illustration by Clay Frost  /  MSNBC.com

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

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

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

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

THE SCANDAL QUEEN MOVES UP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STILL LUSTING FOR POWER

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mmmmmm.

LIMITLESS AMBITION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOLLOW THE MONEY

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

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

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

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

January 17, 2016 NEW YORK POST

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

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

THE NOOSE FACTOR

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

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

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

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

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

New Board Game ‘Socialism’ parodies Monopoly, satirizes Hillary Clinton

PHILADELPHIA, PA /PRNewswire/ — What would America look like under Socialism? Startup Company, Diogenes Games says they don’t know, but developed a satirical version of Monopoly to find out. They call it SOCIALISM: The Game.

The small startup is proud to announce the commencement of a Kickstarter campaign to promote their parody tabletop game “SOCIALISM”.

A hilarious sendup of the classic board game Monopoly, SOCIALISM: The Game has a radically different goal than the original – the object of the game is to achieve total fairness and equality through the renting and selling of property under a modern, progressive, and populist public policy. The game is over when everyone has $300or less, and uses caricatures of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders to replace the game’s original mascot, Rich Uncle Pennybags.

“We discovered that our game was a fun way to hypothesize what might happen if trends in public policy, trends that have recently entered mainstream political debate, were extrapolated to their logical conclusions in the capitalistic world of Hasbro’s real estate trading game Monopoly,” said John Elliott, CEO and founder of Diogenes Games.

Elliott says the results “aren’t pretty,” but thinks that they just might change the way people think about campaigns, elections, and politics in general. One of the ways the game accomplishes this is through an “enlightened” rulebook that contains sarcastic-yet-realistic changes:

  • There’s no more “banker” – all dealings are with the Federal Directorate of Redistributive Services
  • You don’t “go to jail,” you “go to rehab”
  • You don’t have title cards, you are granted a public “concession” to manage a property
  • No more hotels; public “housing towers” are the highest and best use
  • Chance and Community Chest? Nope. “Fat Chance” and “Communism Chest”

The “Fat Chance” and “Communism Chest” cards also reflect the satirical nature of the game, with gems like “Advance to income tax” and “Bernout! Power grid fails on a cloudy windless day. Flick the lights off, pay the player on your right $100 for a black market generator.”

After months of development, design, and play testing, the game is currently in production and is expected to ship in June, if not sooner.

SOCIALISM: The Game on Kickstarter: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/333308942/socialism-the-game

SOCIALISM: The Game Website: https://www.SocialismGame.com

EDITORS NOTE: This game is political satire, or is it?

VIDEO: Do Trump’s Comments Help Recruit Terrorists?

Does fighting terrorists create more terrorists? National security has taken center stage in the debate between Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump for president of the United States.

Emerson_Steve

Steve Emerson

The Investigative Project on Terrorism’s Steve Emerson analyses the position of Hillary Clinton that Donald Trump has become the poster child for recruiting Islamic terrorists, a recurring campaign theme.

Recently Hillary Clinton stated, “When you run for president of the United States, the entire world is listening and watching. So when you say you’re going to bar all Muslims, you’re sending evidence to the Muslim world, and you’re also sending a message to terrorists. … Donald Trump is essentially being used as a recruiter for more people to join the cause of terrorism.”

Trump responded, “The fact that Hillary thinks the temporary Muslim ban, which she calls the ‘Muslim ban’, promotes terrorism, proves Bernie Sanders was correct when he said she is not qualified to be President.”

Here Emerson discusses this “do we or don’t we fight terrorism” debate on Fox News:

[TRANSCRIPT]

[Video played of Hillary Clinton in CNN interview]:

Hillary Clinton: When you say we’re going to bar all Muslims, you are sending a message to the Muslim world. And you’re also sending a message to the terrorists, because we now do have evidence, we have seen how Donald Trump is being used to essentially be a recruiter for more people to join the cause of terrorism.

Morris: Hillary Clinton says there is evidence Donald Trump helps recruit terrorists, but is there really? Let’s ask terrorism expert Steve Emerson. Steve nice to see you this morning.

Emerson: Good morning.

Morris: You know former Secretary of State you choose your words carefully. She says we have evidence that this is the case. What do you say?

Emerson: Well let’s look at the evidence. It’s hard to find actual statistics, but we looked at the frequency of arrests post-Trump’s comments and pre-Trump comments–that would be a variable whether they’re recruiting more, [as well as] the level of attacks post-Trump versus pre-Trump’s comments. OK? Let’s look at arrests in the United States pre-Trump’s comments versus post-Trump’s comments. Last year in the United States there were 71 ISIS arrests. So far this year there have been about 13. That’s at a rate about only 20 percent of the rate of last year. Of those 13 this year, only eight were hatched, that is the plot started, after Trump’s comments. In those plots none mentioned in the wiretaps or in the admissions submitted to court, none mentioned Donald Trump at all.

Morris: None.

Emerson: None at all.

Morris: So where is she getting this information from?

Emerson: Well I think there was one recording made by one wannabe ISIS member who exploited her comments –

Morris: Right.

Emerson: – and said, ‘I’m motivated by Donald Trump,’ but no attack, no post-attack recording and claim of credit has ever cited Donald Trump nationally or internationally. And the stats prove that in terms of frequency of attacks and level of recruitment. They’ve actually gone down following Trump. And you know what’s interesting is that the assumption underlying her comments is [that] somehow Muslims around the world are just going to be motivated to carry out fire-breathing attacks just on the basis of offensive rhetoric. Well let’s take Americans – are we going to—we Americans–going to suddenly turn into terrorists because of the vast amount of anti-American rhetoric in the Muslim world?

Morris: Right.

Emerson: You know it’s very patronizing.

Morris: Donald Trump was on Fox & Friends on Friday. Here’s what he had to say about this evidence. Watch.

[Video played of Donald Trump on phone in Fox and Friends interview]:

Donald Trump: We’re not going to find the people by just continuing to be so nice and so soft. And I have many Muslim friends and they agree. They have a tremendous problem with the radical Islamic terrorism, tremendous problem. And what she said is so dumb.

Morris: What do you say to that?

Emerson: Look, Mrs. Clinton doesn’t mention the term ‘Islamic terrorism.’ And that’s the same problem of and modus operandi of this Administration – they won’t mention the term. If you don’t mention the term, you don’t recognize [the problem] and if you don’t want to use the term [Islamic terrorism], you’re playing into the hands of Islamic terrorists. Number two, the bottom line actually that motivates Islamic terrorists is the belief that the U.S. is engaged in a war against Islam. And that’s a line that’s propagated by Islamist groups, quote, ‘civil rights’ groups, like CAIR Council on American Islamic Relations] and others, that the White House has invited repeatedly into the corridors of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the State Department under Hillary Clinton. So they’ve legitimized that very message [of the conspiratorial notion that there is a war against Islam].

Morris: She’s being slammed for these comments that there’s, quote, ‘evidence,’ and Donald Trump earlier this week was slammed for suggesting right away that it was terrorism responsible for the EgyptAir crash. What evidence did he have? Did he jump the gun on that? Should he have held off?

Emerson: [Laughs.] The media has been going bonkers on the suspicion [that its terrorism] — and they’ve quoted U.S. officials, they quoted FBI officials, they quoted transportation officials, they quoted French officials, Egyptian officials have gone on record as saying they believe it’s terrorism.

Morris: Right.

Emerson: So look, there’s no evidentiary 100 percent guarantee proof that it was terrorism, but it’s leading people to believe… suspicions are leading in that direction. Let’s go back to Hillary Clinton’s comments [about Trump’s comments being a recruiting tool for ISIS]. Look, ISIS could give a hoot about what Americans or others say about them. They don’t pay attention to that. They carry out… they march to their own drummer.

Morris: Right. Steve Emerson, terrorism expert, we appreciate you joining us this morning.

Emerson: You bet.

Morris: Thanks, Steve.

[END TRANSCRIPT]

Clinton hits Trump on Muslim ban, Trump responds, ‘Ask Hillary who blew up the plane last night’

Says Clinton: “When you run for president of the United States, the entire world is listening and watching. So when you say you’re going to bar all Muslims, you’re sending evidence to the Muslim world, and you’re also sending a message to terrorists. … Donald Trump is essentially being used as a recruiter for more people to join the cause of terrorism.”

It’s common sense to people like Hillary Clinton: only a tiny minority of extremists, not all Muslims, are the source of the problem, so to say that all Muslims should be banned from entering the country, even temporarily, is to tar all Muslims with responsibility for the sins of a few, thereby angering Muslims and making more of them turn to jihad terror groups than would have done so otherwise. She doesn’t explain how they could authentically have been counted as moderates, much less as allies, if a candidate’s proposal could drive them to turn to jihad terror; nor does she offer any way to distinguish jihadis among the vast majority of peaceful Muslims. She would rather subject Americans to greater risk of jihad terror attacks than take tough steps to prevent those attacks.

USA-ELECTION/TRUMP

“Trump fires back at Clinton over Muslim ban: ‘Ask Hillary who blew up the plane last night,’” by Caitlin Yilek, The Hill, May 19, 2016:

Donald Trump is firing back at Hillary Clinton for saying his proposal to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the U.S. promotes terrorism.

“The fact that Hillary thinks the temporary Muslim ban, which she calls the ‘Muslim ban’, promotes terrorism, proves Bernie Sanders was correct when he said she is not qualified to be President,” the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s campaign said in a statement on Thursday.

Clinton was critical of Trump’s call to ban Muslims from entering the country in an interview with CNN.

“When you run for president of the United States, the entire world is listening and watching,” she told CNN’s Chris Cuomo. “So when you say you’re going to bar all Muslims, you’re sending evidence to the Muslim world, and you’re also sending a message to terrorists. … Donald Trump is essentially being used as a recruiter for more people to join the cause of terrorism.”

Trump seized on the moment to fire off an attack that Sanders used against the Democratic front-runner in early April, saying she is unqualified to be president and linked the critique to the disappearance of a jet headed from Paris to Cairo.

“And by the way, ask Hillary who blew up the plane last night — another terrible, but preventable tragedy. She has bad judgement and is unfit to serve as President at this delicate and difficult time in our country’s history,” the statement said….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump: Clinton ‘ill-equipped’ for presidency, calls her criticism of Muslim ban ‘dumb’

India: Doctor repeatedly advised patients that practicing Islam would cure them

Uganda: Muslim murders Christian pastor for saying Christ conquered the Islamic jinn

Socialist Lies: From Stalin to the Clintons, Obamas, and Sanders

social lies book cover simona pimpkoIn my new book I explain that the Soviets are alive and well and to survive the young people have to know our enemy and the rest of the world should know it too. The young people are our future and the vast majority of them are not aware that our foremost enemy is constantly attacking us. Moreover, the absence of truth has allowed political crooks and intellectually dishonest educators to deceive and seduce our youth.

We live in a world driven by a hideous ideology: if you do not know this you are blind, deaf, and defenseless and need to open your eyes to what is happening.

chronicles the last seven years of catastrophic world events during the Obama administration and points out its secret collaboration with socialism worldwide and Russia in particular. Socialist Lies is a quick read that’s hard to put down, showing the aggressive role Russia plays in its war against Western civilization and how the Democratic Party is destroying its free enterprise legacy and adopting socialism. Meanwhile, the Republican establishment is being shaken to its core by member anger at its inaction on critical issues.

This nonfiction work chronicles the last seven years of catastrophic world events during the Obama administration and points out its secret collaboration with socialism worldwide and Russia in particular. Socialist Lies is a quick read that’s hard to put down, showing the aggressive role Russia plays in its war against Western civilization and how the Democratic Party is destroying its free enterprise legacy and adopting socialism.

Meanwhile, the Republican establishment is being shaken to its core by member anger at its inaction on critical issues.

I set the stage with the prologue, a firsthand narrative from her unique childhood under socialism in Russia. I then demonstrate how Marxist theory, which opened a Pandora’s Box in the nineteenth century, marched across the globe to the twentieth century. I call Marxism a combination of fraud with a Utopian concept, which has been used by adventurers, charlatans, and criminals to acquire power. The leader who exemplified all these characteristics was Joseph Stalin.

A dogmatic Marxist, brought up within the Islamic culture, Stalin invented the marriage of communism and Islam—the reason we have been dragged into war today; it is the ideology I called Soviet Fascism.

Stalin laid out the agenda for a One World Government under the Kremlin auspices—the agenda of WWIII against Western civilization.

To purchase Socialist Lies: From Stalin to the Clintons, Obamas and Sanders click here.

London’s Muslim mayor pledges to help Hillary beat Trump

“I think what we’ve shown — and I hope it’s a lesson that Hillary and others in America take on board, hope does ‘trump’ fear, forgive the pun.” How absolutely grand. The hard-Left routinely derides those who are concerned about jihad terrorism for their “fear,” as if being afraid of being murdered by Islamic jihadis were some kind of character defect. Very well. They elected Sadiq Khan, and Hillary Clinton may well be elected also by campaigning against “fear,” and we will all march unafraid into our glorious multicultural future. Including, of course, Islamic jihad terrorists.

Sadiq Khan MP at Westminster, London, Britain - 11 Oct 2012

“Sadiq Khan pledges to help Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump,” by Jon Stone, The Independent, May 12, 2016:

Sadiq Khan has offered to help Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump – pledging his successful campaign as a “template” to hers.

Mr Khan, the new Mayor of London, said he had successfully beaten the Conservatives’ “Donald Trump approach” to elections in last weeks’ vote.

“I think what we’ve shown — and I hope it’s a lesson that Hillary and others in American [sic] take on board, hope does ‘trump’ fear, forgive the pun,” he told reporters at the capital’s City Hall, according to the Politico website.

He said he was planning to travel to the US before the end of the year due to the threat of Mr Trump’s proposed policy of banning all Muslims from traveling to the US.

Mr Khan’s election has attracted interest from around the world on account of his election as the first Muslim mayor of a major western capital city.

Mr Trump, the presumptive nominee for the Republican presidential candidacy, commented on Mr Khan’s election by saying he would make an exception for him to visit the US.

But Mr Khan rejected the offer. “The idea of making an exception for me because I’m the Mayor of London demonstrates how little they understand,” he said.

Like failed Conservative mayoral candidate Zac Goldsmith, Mr Trump has been accused of running a “racist” campaign by singling out people for travel bans on account of their faith.

Mr Goldsmith was accused of using “dog whistle” tactics to repeatedly draw attention to Mr Khan’s Muslim faith – as well as attempts to link him with Islamic extremists….

RELATED ARTICLES:

Muslim “Sharia patrols” terrorize Copenhagen bars in “Sharia zone”

Australian judge to jury in jihadi’s trial: “Islam is not on trial here”

Why Do We Believe These Pathological Liars? by B.K. Marcus

How do you feel when someone lies to you?

It probably depends on who is doing the lying. A stranger’s fabrications may not phase you, but dishonesty from a friend or lover can end the relationship. The more you feel the liar is supposed to be “on your side,” the more his or her deceptions feel like betrayal — unless, it turns out, the lies come from a politician you support.

When I shared a link on Facebook to Rick Shenkman’s article “Why Are Trump Voters Not Bothered by His Lies?” someone immediately replied by asking, “Why are Hillary voters not bothered by her lies?” Why, in other words, focus on only one mendacious candidate when lying to voters seems like a prerequisite for running for office?

Shenkman, who is the editor of HistoryNewsNetwork.org and the author ofPolitical Animals: How Our Stone-Age Brain Gets in the Way of Smart Politics, might respond with his claim that Trump “has told more lies than any other leading political figure probably ever has.” But his article is in fact about neither Trump’s astonishing number of fibs nor his supporters’ astonishing tolerance for them; it is about how widespread both such lying and such tolerance are across party lines and throughout the era of mass-media mass democracy.

Shenkman is writing for a left-leaning readership, thus his headline’s righteous indignation toward a right-wing candidate, but most of the examples he gives are of deliberately deceitful Democrats. He starts with candidate Kennedy’s campaign claim that the Soviets had more nuclear missiles than the United States:

He continued to insist that there was a missile gap to the Soviet’s advantage even after he was briefed by General Earl Wheeler that there wasn’t. After the election his secretary of defense, Robert McNamara, told the press on background that a study had found there was no missile gap, leading to blaring headlines the next morning.

JFK’s reaction? He ordered his press secretary, Pierre Salinger, to tell the media that there had been no study and that there was a gap. The truth was that JFK himself didn’t take his own rhetoric about the missile gap seriously. At cabinet meetings he cracked on numerous occasions, “Who ever believed in the missile gap” anyway?

Four years later, President Johnson “told the American people that the North Vietnamese were guilty of making repeated unprovoked attacks on [US] naval vessels in the Tonkin Gulf.” As with Kennedy, we know that Johnson was being dishonest, not mistaken. “Hell,” LBJ told an aide, “those dumb stupid sailors were just shooting at flying fish.”

Shenkman barely touches on Nixon’s perfidy in Watergate and never mentions Nixon aide John Ehrlichman’s 1994 interview, admitting that the war on drugs was not about crime or health but was rather a politically motivated attack on war protestors and American blacks. “Did we know we were lying about the drugs?” said the president’s former domestic affairs advisor. “Of course we did.”

And while he may have given Ms. Clinton a pass, Shenkman does mention the millions of supporters who refused to believe the allegations against her husband “until prosecutors revealed they possessed [Monica Lewinsky’s] infamous blue dress.”

No one should be shocked by the frequency of politicians’ duplicity, but it is frustrating when a candidate is caught in an undeniable falsehood and his or her supporters never waiver.  Our political culture expects politicians to perjure and prevaricate left and right, but that doesn’t make their deceptions defensible. So where is the outrage?

“Our brains are partisan,” Shenkman writes:

While we are quick to seize on the misstatements of other candidates, we give them a pass when it’s our own. When the social scientist Drew Westen put voters in an MRI machine he discovered that their brains quickly shut off the flow of information contrary to their beliefs about their favorite candidates. The neurons actively involved in the transmission of this information literally went inactive.

It’s not just the political candidates who are lying. So are the voters. “We lie,” Shenkman points out, “about our unwillingness to put up with lies.”

If politicians keep lying and voters keep shrugging it off, isn’t that an indictment of democracy? Aren’t voters supposed to act as a check on the people in power?

In theory, an election is supposed to be more than a popularity contest. Candidates are supposed to represent an approach to policy making, which is in turn supposed to reflect both facts and a theory of cause and effect. What we have instead is a formalized tribalism, us versus them, facts be damned.

Shenkman assures the reader that the liars don’t get away with it forever, but his evidence for that conclusion is questionable. Johnson and Nixon are remembered as liars by both Democrats and Republicans, but the reckoning for Gulf of Tonkin and Watergate are outliers in the steady stream of deception flowing out of DC and the state capitals. Meanwhile, Mssrs Kennedy and Clinton will be remembered more for deceiving their wives than the voters.

Westen’s research on cognitive dissonance and party politics is troubling, but well before there was any hard data on how voters process unwanted facts, the theory of rational ignorance told us why so many facts are so unwanted: to the individual voter, the cost of acquiring the relevant knowledge far outweighs the practical benefits of knowing the truth when casting a ballot.

In contrast, the benefits of supporting a candidate accrue, not from any actual effect on the electoral outcome, but largely from the signaling that it provides the voter: this is the sort of person I am, and these are the sorts of causes I support. Symbolic affiliation isn’t dependent on the truth of any particular facts, so why should we expect inconvenient falsehoods to change anyone’s political alignment?

As I wrote in “Too Dumb for Democracy?” (Freeman, spring 2015), “getting an issue like the minimum wage terribly wrong takes no work and has the immediate payoff of feeling like you’re on the side of the angels. It also solidifies your standing within your own ideological tribe. Bothering to understand supply and demand … offers no practical reward after you pull the lever in the election booth.”

The lies we care the least to uncover are precisely those for which the cost of caring outweighs the benefits of our vigilance. That describes almost anything we may ever be asked to vote on. But when knowing the truth directly matters to the decisions we make every day — the truth about our jobs, our homes, our families and loved ones — the relative benefits of knowing the truth are far greater, and we therefore penalize the liars in our lives. Cognitive dissonance may be a barrier to accepting hard truths, but even cognitive dissonance is price sensitive.

The more decisions we cede to the political process, the less we should expect anyone to protect our interests. Even we don’t bother to do it, because the rules of the game — majority rules — render our efforts ineffectual. Worse than that: we’re not even rewarded for knowing what policies really are or aren’t in our best interest.

The truth can win out, but it’s a lot less likely in an election.

B.K. MarcusB.K. Marcus

B.K. Marcus is editor of the Freeman.

Epic Failure: Hillary’s ‘Smart Diplomacy/Smart Power’ Foreign Policy

Hillary Clinton implemented a “smart power” approach to foreign policy and international diplomacy as Secretary of State to harness, as she called it, “American engagement, other than unilateralism and the so-called boots on the ground.”  She defined “smart power” as a combination of strategies and tools – including diplomatic, economic, political, legal, cultural and military coalitions as a last resort – in unique combination as defined for each situation. Clinton’s “smart power” approach modernized American diplomacy for the 21st century, rebuilt America’s standing in the world, better engaged technology and led to tangible, lasting results. – Correct The Record

But is America’s standing in the world better?

Hillary Clinton during her Senate confirmation hearing to become President Obama’s Secretary of State made these statements:

  1. “I use the phrase smart power “because I thought we had to have another way of talking about American engagement, other than unilateralism and the so-called boots on the ground.”
  2. “For me, smart power meant choosing the right combination of tools – diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural – for each situation.”
  3. The objectives of using a smart-power approach and rebuilding America’s standing meshed perfectly.”

obama-and-clinton1The epic failure of Obama’s smart diplomacy/smart power foreign policy implemented by Hillary Clinton is due to the existing Countering Violent Extremism doctrine. As Robert Spencer notes:

“Obama’s CVE policies were developed in 2011 specifically at the demand of U.S. Muslim groups. Now, the very same Islamic groups that demanded CVE are some of its loudest opponents. They claim that the administration is promoting ‘Islamophobia’ through their programs.” They want no resistance to jihad terror at all — which should be revealing to the authorities who give them access and influence. But it isn’t.

“Having intentionally purged the DOD’s training of any ability to define the enemy, America’s top warriors admit they have lost any ability to identify, and then defeat, the enemy.”

Read more.

In this video Bill Little takes a look at how smart diplomacy/smart power has fared during the Obama administration. Of course Hillary was the person who “reset” America’s foreign policy. Listen to Little’s analysis:

RELATED ARTICLES:

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

Federal Court Allows Discovery to Begin in Clinton Email Case

U.S.-Funded Study: Mass Immigration from Mexico Ended, Border Enforcement Has Backfired

More Hillary Emails That Were Hidden From State Department Probe Uncovered

Clinton and Trump: Where to they stand on Islamism?

EDITORS NOTE: The adjusted featured image is courtesy of Correct The Record.

VIDEO: FBI Challenge!

A challenge to FBI Director Comey: Arrest Hillary Clinton, with or without the cooperation of the Obama administration!

PODCAST: The Panama Papers and the Crisis in the Middle East

This week, world elites were rocked by the release of the Panama Papers, demonstrating that world leaders, their friends and family, and the super wealthy routinely use offshore companies for tax avoidance.

panamapapersMeanwhile, reports out of the Middle East indicate a growing concern of Iran’s activity. From Yemen to Iraq to Gaza, Iran continues to fund and arm terrorist insurgencies that are reshaping the region. Not only Israel, but the Gulf states and their Sunni allies are preparing for potential confrontation. Barack Hussein Obama’s “nuclear deal” has only emboldened Iranian ambitions, and caused tradition U.S. allies to lose faith in the United States dedication to peace and stability in the M.E.

Topics of Discussion:

  • The Panama Papers
  • Report: U.S. considering withdrawal from Sinai
  • Paul Ryan’s Delegation to Middle East – In prep for Republican nomination?
  • Saudi-led Coalition Prepares for Head-on Collision with Iran

& more…

EDITORS NOTE: Readers may listen to USA Transnational Report live on JJ McCartney’s Nightside Radio Studios and on Red State Talk Radio. You may subscribe to USA Transnational Report podcast on iTunes here, subscribe to their podcast with Podbean, here. All previously recorded shows are available here, at the links above, or through Spreaker.

‘Feelin’ the Bern’ Hillary Blames Vermont for New York Crime

Hillary Clinton apparently wants to make sure that no matter how her current campaign fares, she will at least retain her title as the least trusted person in American politics. In campaign-panic mode on Monday, having lost the last five state caucuses to Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Clinton made another statement to be added to her ever-lengthening list of lies and misrepresentations.

The New York Post reports that Clinton falsely attacked Sanders by implication, telling a group of Democrats, “It’s going to be coming out in the very near future that many of the catastrophes that have taken human lives in the state of New York have been the product of guns coming over the border from Vermont.”  The implication, of course, is that Vermont’s lack of restrictive gun laws – as in New York – is to blame for New York’s crime woes.

Clinton must really be “feelin’ the Bern,” because her statement is preposterous, for at least three reasons.  First, ATF firearm tracing data show that crime guns don’t come from Vermont. In 2014, the most recent year for which data are available, only 0.7 percent of guns recovered by police in New York had first been sold at retail in Vermont.

Second, the average time between a firearm’s original retail sale, and its recovery by police in New York, is 15 years. For all Clinton knows, the exceedingly small number of guns from Vermont made their way to New York legally. A person may have moved from Vermont to New York and subsequently sold a firearm to a firearm dealer in the state, for example.

Third, Clinton’s attack upon Sanders isn’t even rational. Vermont’s gun control laws are established by its state legislature and governor. Sanders, a U.S. senator, serves in Congress. And Clinton and Sanders are running for president of the United States. It shows how desperate Clinton is, when she thinks she can beat Sanders on the basis of issues that have no relationship to the presidency.

Vermont’s governor, who has a role in determining his state’s laws, is reportedly a Clinton supporter. But maybe less so now, after what Clinton said. Speaking as diplomatically as possible, Gov. Peter Shumlin said, “things are sometimes said by all the candidates that sometimes aren’t entirely accurate. . . . I think you’d have a hard time convincing Vermonters that New York’s crime problems are coming from Vermont.”

A McClatchy-Marist poll released on Wednesday, the day after Sanders trounced Clinton in Wisconsin (by 57-43 percent) finds that 25 percent of Sanders’ supporters wouldn’t vote for Clinton in November, while only 69 percent would do so. The poll also finds that Sanders edges Clinton among Democrats nationally.

Clinton certainly cannot expect to improve those numbers by hurling unfair and dishonest accusations against Sanders and the state from which he hails. To the contrary, if she persists in the dishonest style that have become her trademark, she only adds to the numerous reasons voters already have to keep her out of the White House.

The Trumpian Motto: ‘Never Give Up, Never Surrender!’

The “Trump insurgency” has breathed new life into the Republican Party. It has created Trumpians, Trumpites, and Trump4 Facebook pages for every state in the union.

Because of Donald Trump, Republicans are turning out in record numbers in the presidential primaries. Many see a new Republican Party emerging like a phoenix from the ashes of the heated primary season. It is now down to two candidates in both parties. Bernie versus Hillary. Donald versus Ted.

There’s no separation between the Democratic presidential candidates. In contrast, there is a world of difference between the last men standing for the GOP nomination. If you don’t think so just read Twitter and Facebook posts by Cruzers and Trumpians.

The  GOP primary reminds me of a phrase used in the 1999 film Galaxy Quest, a parody of Star Trek, which has a cult like following and has spawned numerous conventions. In the film Tim Allen, who plays Jason Nesmith/Commander Peter Quincy Taggart, states “Never give up, never surrender” (in the below video clip). Nesmith/Taggart faces a deadly alien enemy, insurmountable odds of survival and impending doom if he is not successful.

This feeling of impending doom is what is driving the 2016 presidential primary. While there is some fear, even anger, in the electorate, there is a growing realization that over the past eight years America has been fundamentally changed. Changed in a way that ordinary Americans cannot relate to. An America that is far too politically correct, a U.S. Congress that has lost the trust of its citizens and a president who ignores the founding documents of the nation for political gain.

This has created what some may call a “cult.” But its not Donald Trump who created this cult. Rather it is Donald Trump who speaks truth to power and the people love him for it.

Senator Ted Cruz began as the anti-establishment candidate. That was the motto of “Cruzers.” As the race for the GOP nomination advanced the rhetoric became more divisive and vitriolic. The Trumpians began to do battle with the Cruzers. Perhaps words were used that should not have been used by both sides. But that is the nature of politics.

As Steve Chabot noted, “Politics is a contact sport.”

After the New York and California primaries we will know who will be the major combatants D versus R for the presidency. It is important for Republicans to understand that no matter who wins the GOP primary, they must support the nominee. If they do not then they will face a deadly enemy, insurmountable odds of survival and impending doom for another four years.

On November 8th Republicans must activate the Omega 13, a weapon that takes America back to its future, making it great again. Never give up, never surrender!