Well, I have returned from visiting relatives still residing in the Dem-Marxist dominated Washington State (where I grew up on the East side of the Cascades). I managed to squeak in one post during my six-day vacation.
In my return I have decided to share about my slow movement away from the ideology of Neoconservatism.
After the Reagan years and the rise of Muslims desiring to America for its Christian and Individual Liberty Constitutionalism which contradicts the Islamic Supremacism in revered Islamic writings of the Quran, Sira and Hadith; the Neoconservative concept of using American power abroad to promote American National Security at home made a lot of sense to me. Even if that meant spanking authoritarian dictatorships and ramming American Liberty down their throats believing a sane people would embrace Liberty over the restrictions of religious authoritarianism (i.e., Political ISLAM). After over 20-years of the War on Terror (whether the WOKE-Left likes it or not – actually a war on the belief systems of Political Islam) and seeing the revelation that people who practice Islam are so brainwashed by their Muslim tenets, they wouldn’t recognize the Freedom that American Liberty brings if it bit their arses.
I have come to the conclusion – grudgingly – as far as a foreign policy concept, the ideology of Neoconservatism was and is an utter failure.
I operate two blogs. Most readers gravitate to my SlantRight 2.0 blog which I have posted in various incarnations (hence “2.0”) for nearly 2-decades (give or take a few years without checking). I created the NeoConservative Christian Right about 2013. I created that Blog because the Blogger Platform which hosts my SlantRight blog has seen fit to occasionally censor posts (even before Woke-ism became a thing. Probably because the Left was and is denying the wickedness of Antisemitism, Anti-Christian and Anti-Liberty that is inherent in Islam).
I has been a long time coming, but since NeoConservative principles are proving more harmful than beneficial, I can’t really have a blog with “NeoConservative” in its name can I?
So that is the gist of a name change at one Blog. SlantRight will keep plugging along. Both blogs will still have a Christian Worldview. Unless something changes again, the predominant theme will probably be Conservative-Patriotism. With an occasional Counterjihad thought or two.
In the Bush II Presidential years the AEI had a Neoconservative reputation in its policy advocacy. In this day and age Neocons are pretty much castigated by the American Left and American Right.
On a personal level I have been an admirer of Neoconservatism’s American Exceptionalism and a Foreign Policy based on military strength. Traditional Conservatives (sometimes called Paleocons) view this kind of aggressive Foreign Policy as a Big Government budget destroyer. There are those the American Left would label as the racist Right who castigate Neocons as ex-Communist Jews that can’t be trusted.
There is a large amount of truth to the “ex-Communist” association since a large number of early Neocon proponents were indeed Communists or at least Marxist sympathizers, BUT these rebels against Communism woke up to the ideological failures. Socialism (and yes this includes National Socialism aka Nazism) and varieties of Marxism have led to much of history’s oppressive regimes and the genocide of huge groups of human beings.
However, to label a “Communist” a “Jew” is a bit of an oxymoron. Communists are anti-religion atheists by nature and a good Jew practices the religious faith of Judaism. It is true there are people of a Jewish heritage that have repudiated the religious tenets of Judaism and embraced Marxist-Communist ideology. If one embraces Communism one rejects religion. That would make a Jew who became a Communist an ex-Jew. Incidentally, a person of Christian heritage, Islamic heritage, Buddhist heritage or any religious heritage who embraces Communism have rejected their religious heritage and have become an ex-whatever heritage.
Condemning all Jews because a few rejected their religious heritage should logically lead to the same condemnation of other people rejecting their religious heritage. I doubt Jew-haters follow that logic since one rarely hears the label that all Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. are evil because a few accept atheistic One World Government Communism. Hence the hypocrisy of hating Jews because of Communism is just plain racism. (Muslims hate Jews because their revered writings tell them to hate Jews [Percentages]. That’s a whole different kind of racism. One sees that kind of racism among idiot Christians who believe all Jews are responsible for killing Jesus when it was a secret night tribunal of Jewish leaders fearing a rebellion would displace status among their Roman overlords. Human fear and jealousy got Jesus Crucified. God’s love Resurrected the Son of God which offers Saving Redemption to ALL who Believe in the Risen Savior – to the Jew first then to the non-Jew.)
The American Left deride the Neocons’ American Exceptionalism as nationalistic anti-globalist rejectors of Socialism/Marxism.
Have Neocons made mistakes? DEFINITELY! The principle of nation-building based on American Republic Representative-Democracy only works in cultures amenable to the Western heritage. This unfortunate discovery became evident in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those cultures have been brainwashed into Islamic thought for too long for the populace to understand let alone accept Western Representative Democracy.
When Neocons have a warning about Russia in relation to American National Interests and National Security the benefit of the USA is what is in mind.
[Institute for the Study of War (ISW) and Critical Threats Project(CTP) at the American Enterprise Institute]
June 2019
Russia poses a significant threat to the United States and its allies for which the West is not ready. The West must act urgently to meet this threat without exaggerating it. Russia today does not have the military strength of the Soviet Union. It is a poor state with an economy roughly the size of Canada’s, a population less than half that of the U.S., and demographic trends indicating that it will lose strength over time. It is not a conventional military near-peer nor will it become so. Its unconventional warfare and information operations pose daunting but not insuperable challenges. The U.S. and its allies must develop a coherent global approach to meeting and transcending the Russian challenge.
[Download the full report here and the Executive Summary here.]
The Russian Threat
President Vladimir Putin has invaded two of his neighbors, Georgia and Ukraine, partly to stop them from aligning with NATO and the West. He has also illegally annexed territory from both those states. He has established a military base in the eastern Mediterranean that he uses to interfere with, shape, and restrict the operations of the U.S. and the anti-ISIS coalition. He has given cover to Bashar al Assad’s use of chemical weapons, and Russian agents have used military-grade chemical weapons in assassination attempts in Great Britain. Russia has threatened to use nuclear weapons, even in regional and local conflicts. And Moscow has interfered in elections and domestic political discourse in the U.S. and Europe.
The Russian threat’s effectiveness results mainly from the West’s weaknesses. NATO’s European members are not meeting their full commitments to the alliance to maintain the fighting power needed to deter and defeat the emerging challenge from Moscow. Increasing political polarization and the erosion of trust by Western peoples in their governments creates vulnerabilities that the Kremlin has adroitly exploited.
Moscow’s success in manipulating Western perceptions of and reactions to its activities has fueled the development of an approach to warfare that the West finds difficult to understand, let alone counter. Shaping the information space is the primary effort to which Russian military operations, even conventional military operations, are frequently subordinated in this way of war. Russia obfuscates its activities and confuses the discussion so that many people throw up their hands and say simply, “Who knows if the Russians really did that? Who knows if it was legal?”—thus paralyzing the West’s responses.
Putin’s Program
Putin is not simply an opportunistic predator. Putin and the major institutions of the Russian Federation have a program as coherent as that of any Western leader. Putin enunciates his objectives in major speeches, and his ministers generate detailed formal expositions of Russia’s military and diplomatic aims and its efforts and the methods and resources it uses to pursue them. These statements cohere with the actions of Russian officials and military units on the ground. The common perception that he is opportunistic arises from the way that the Kremlin sets conditions to achieve these objectives in advance. Putin closely monitors the domestic and international situation and decides to execute plans when and if conditions require and favor the Kremlin. The aims of Russian policy can be distilled into the following:
Domestic Objectives
Putin is an autocrat who seeks to retain control of his state and the succession. He seeks to keep his power circle content, maintain his own popularity, suppress domestic political opposition in the name of blocking a “color revolution” he falsely accuses the West of preparing, and expand the Russian economy.
Putin has not fixed the economy, which remains corrupt, inefficient, and dependent on petrochemical and mineral exports. He has focused instead on ending the international sanctions regime to obtain the cash, expertise, and technology he needs. Information operations and hybrid warfare undertakings in Europe are heavily aimed at this objective.
External Objectives
Putin’s foreign policy aims are clear: end American dominance and the “unipolar” world order, restore “multipolarity,” and reestablish Russia as a global power and broker. He identifies NATO as an adversary and a threat and seeks to negate it. He aims to break Western unity, establish Russian suzerainty over the former Soviet States, and regain a global footprint.
Putin works to break Western unity by invalidating the collective defense provision of the North Atlantic Treaty (Article 5), weakening the European Union, and destroying the faith of Western societies in their governments.
He is reestablishing a global military footprint similar in extent the Soviet Union’s, but with different aims. He is neither advancing an ideology, nor establishing bases from which to project conventional military power on a large scale. He aims rather to constrain and shape America’s actions using small numbers of troops and agents along with advanced anti-air and anti-shipping systems.
Recommendations
A sound U.S. grand strategic approach to Russia:
Aims to achieve core American national security objectives positively rather than to react defensively to Russian actions;
Holistically addresses all U.S. interests globally as they relate to Russia rather than considering them theater-by-theater;
Does not trade core American national security interests in one theater for those in another, or sacrifice one vital interest for another;
Achieves American objectives by means short of war if at all possible;
Deters nuclear war, the use of any nuclear weapons, and other Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD);
Accepts the risk of conventional conflict with Russia while seeking to avoid it and to control escalation, while also ensuring that American forces will prevail at any escalation level;
Contests Russian information operations and hybrid warfare undertakings; and
Extends American protection and deterrence to U.S. allies in NATO and outside of NATO.
Such an approach involves four principal lines of effort.
Constrain Putin’s Resources. Russia uses hybrid warfare approaches because of its relative poverty and inability to field large and modern military systems that could challenge the U.S. and NATO symmetrically. Lifting or reducing the current sanctions regime or otherwise facilitating Russia’s access to wealth and technology could give Putin the resources he needs to mount a much more significant conventional threat—an aim he had been pursuing in the early 2000s when high oil prices and no sanctions made it seem possible.
Disrupt Hybrid Operations. Identifying, exposing, and disrupting hybrid operations is a feasible, if difficult, undertaking. New structures in the U.S. military, State Department, and possibly National Security Council Staff are likely needed to:
Coordinate efforts to identify and understand hybrid operations in preparation and underway;
Develop recommendations for action against hybrid operations that the U.S. government has identified but are not yet publicly known;
Respond to the unexpected third-party exposure of hybrid operations whether the U.S. government knew about the operations or not;
Identify in advance the specific campaign and strategic objectives that should be pursued when the U.S. government deliberately exposes a particular hybrid operation or when third parties expose hybrid operations of a certain type in a certain area;
Shape the U.S. government response, particularly in the information space, to drive the blowback effects of the exposure of a particular hybrid operation toward achieving those identified objectives; and
Learn lessons from past and current counter-hybrid operations undertakings, improve techniques, and prepare for future evolutions of Russian approaches in coordination with allies and partners.
The U.S. should also develop a counter-information operations approach that uses only truth against Russian narratives aimed at sowing discord within the West and at undermining the legitimacy of Western governments.
Delegitimize Putin as a Mediator and Convener. Recognition as one of the poles of a multipolar world order is vital to Putin. It is part of the greatness he promises the Russian people in return for taking their liberty. Getting a “seat at the table” of Western-led endeavors is insufficient for him because he seeks to transform the international system fundamentally. He finds the very language of being offered a seat at the West’s table patronizing.
He has gained much more legitimacy as an international partner in Syria and Ukraine than his behavior warrants. He benefits from the continuous desire of Western leaders to believe that Moscow will help them out of their own problems if only it is approached in the right way.
The U.S. and its allies must instead recognize that Putin is a self-declared adversary who seeks to weaken, divide, and harm them—never to strengthen or help them. He has made clear in word and deed that his interests are antithetical to the West’s. The West should therefore stop treating him as a potential partner, but instead require him to demonstrate that he can and will act to advance rather than damage the West’s interests before engaging with him at high levels.
The West must not trade interests in one region for Putin’s help in another, even if there is reason to believe that he would actually be helpful. Those working on American policy in Syria and the Levant must recognize that the U.S. cannot afford to subordinate its global Russia policy to pursue limited interests, however important, within the Middle East. Recognizing Putin as a mediator or convener in Syria—to constrain Iran’s activities in the south of that country, for example—is too high a price tag to pay for undermining a coherent global approach to the Russian threat. Granting him credibility in that role there enhances his credibility in his self-proclaimed role as a mediator rather than belligerent in Ukraine. The tradeoff of interests is unacceptable.
Nor should the U.S. engage with Putin about Ukraine until he has committed publicly in word and deed to what should be the minimum non-negotiable Western demand—the recognition of the full sovereignty of all the former Soviet states, specifically including Ukraine, in their borders as of the dates of their admission as independent countries to the United Nations, and the formal renunciation (including the repealing of relevant Russian legislation) of any right to interfere in the internal affairs of those states.
Defend NATO. The increased Russian threat requires increased efforts to defend NATO against both conventional and hybrid threats. All NATO members must meet their commitments to defense spending targets—and should be prepared to go beyond those commitments to field the forces necessary to defend themselves and other alliance members. The Russian base in Syria poses a threat to Western operations in the Middle East that are essential to protecting our own citizens and security against terrorist threats and Iran. Neither the U.S. nor NATO is postured to protect the Mediterranean or fight for access to the Middle East through the eastern Mediterranean. NATO must now prepare to field and deploy additional forces to ensure that it can win that fight.
The West should also remove as much ambiguity as possible from the NATO commitment to defend member states threatened by hybrid warfare. The 2018 Brussels Declaration affirming the alliance’s intention to defend member states attacked by hybrid warfare was a good start. The U.S. and other NATO states with stronger militaries should go further by declaring that they will come to the aid of a member state attacked by conventional or hybrid means regardless of whether Article 5 is formally activated, creating a pre-emptive coalition of the willing to deter Russian aggression.
Bilateral Negotiations. Recognizing that Russia is a self-defined adversary and threat does not preclude direct negotiations. The U.S. negotiated several arms control treaties with the Soviet Union and has negotiated with other self-defined enemies as well. It should retain open channels of communication and a willingness to work together with Russia on bilateral areas in which real and verifiable agreement is possible, even while refusing to grant legitimacy to Russian intervention in conflicts beyond its borders. Such areas could include strategic nuclear weapons, cyber operations, interference in elections, the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty, and other matters related to direct Russo-American tensions and concerns. There is little likelihood of any negotiation yielding fruit at this point, but there is no need to refuse to talk with Russia on these and similar issues in hopes of laying the groundwork for more successful discussions in the future.
Act for America emailed an excerpt of an article from The Federalist with the email subject line “The Muslim Brotherhood is Rattled”. The Federalist article by Ben Weingarten highlights that John Bolton’s appointment as National Security Advisor has rattled the transnational Islamic terrorist organization the Muslim Brotherhood (aka Ikhwan to many Arab speaking people) because Bolton has had the correct assessment that the terrorist network indeed should be on the State Department’s designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO).
Here is the Act for America email intro:
The left has made it their mission to smear anyone who opposes violent jihad, and cast them as “Islamophobic.” Recently, former ambassador John Bolton has been the target of such attacks because of his appointment as National Security Advisor (NSA) to the President. This is not only an attempt to discredit John Bolton, it is an attempt to protect the Muslim Brotherhood from finally being designated a terrorist organization.
As patriotic American’s we must stand up and not only support the appointment of Ambassador John Bolton, but also tell Congress it is time, once and for all, to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Click here to tell your local Members of Congress enough is enough.
John Bolton’s Appointment Rattles The Muslim Brotherhood Echo Chamber
The Trump administration ought not to concede one inch to those who wish to sideline the personnel and stifle the policies that would make its counterjihadist agenda a reality.
The attacks on former ambassador John Bolton following his appointment as National Security Advisor (NSA) have inadvertently served as some of his strongest endorsements.
First there were the hysterical cries of “neocon warmonger!” This would come as news to the NSA-designate, who was never a “liberal mugged by reality” but a self-identified “Goldwater conservative” from the start; explicitly rejects the belief in democracy-buildingas imperative to achieving America’s national interest under democratic peace theory; and suggests, exaggerating for effect, that following the removal of Saddam Hussein, as soon as practicable he would have told the Iraqis, “You’re on your own. Here’s a copy of the Federalist papers. Good luck.”
Although the “neocon warmonger” moniker is inapt, to say the least, maybe it is not such a bad thing if our enemies buy this line. In fact, this may be part of President Trump’s strategic rationale as a dealmaker for elevating a “peace-through-strength” realist portrayed as a cantankerous cowboy to the top of the National Security Council.
Then followed another narrative: Bolton is not only a real-life Dr. Strangelove, but worse. He is actually an adroit bureaucrat—“crazy and dangerous.” Then-senator Joe Biden, a man prone to malapropism, actually put it best when, in Bolton’s retelling, Biden said of him in 2005: “My problem with you, over the years, has been, you’re too competent. I mean, I would rather you be stupid and not very effective.”
But the truly revelatory attacks concern Bolton’s positions on Islamic supremacism, which reflect an understanding that jihadists pose a mortal threat that must be countered using every element of national power. You know these attacks are meaningful partly because they have been made under cover of a smear campaign.
Opposing Jihadis Isn’t the Same as Opposing Islam
Bolton has been cast as an “Islamophobe” for the thought crime of being a counterjihadist who supports other counterjihadists. The charge of “Islamophobe” is a baseless, intellectually dishonest, and lazy slur. Although it does not deserve to be dignified with a response, it goes without saying that there is nothing to indicate Bolton harbors an irrational fear of Islam, and everything to indicate he holds the very rational belief that we must defeat Islamic supremacists who wish to subject us to their tyrannical rule or destroy us.
“Islamophobe” is being lobbed at Bolton to try and discredit him and ultimately scuttle policies he supports intended to strike at the heart of Islamic supremacism. The “tell” is that the articles raising such accusations frequently cast counterjihadist policy positions themselves as de facto evidence of Islamophobic bigotry.
As the representativepar excellence of the position that America should exit the Iran deal, it should come as no surprise that the Iran deal echo chamber in exile has sprung into action in savaging the ambassador with the most outlandish of insinuations. For the Islamophobia campaign, the lesser-recognized and perhaps more insidious Muslim Brotherhood echo chamber has been activated. Bolton is on record as supporting its designation as a terrorist organization, and Brotherhood apologists and true believers cannot abide this.
Either We Work With Terrorists or We Don’t
Recall that the national security and foreign policy establishment has long held that as a “political Islamist” group, the Muslim Brotherhood ought to be treated as a legitimate diplomatic partner. The theory is that we have to choose between violent and seemingly peaceful Islamic supremacists, ignoring the fact that their differences are tactical and strategic, not ideological. They are all still Islamic supremacists.
Most infamously, the Obama administration supported the ascension of Mohamed Morsi, leader of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, to president during the Arab spring, with predictably horrific consequences in particular for the nation’s Christians that persist even in the era of the much-maligned counterjihadist Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.
Such disastrously naïve policy pushes ignore that the Muslim Brotherhood is the tip of the Sunni jihadist spear. It’s the ideological fountainhead from which violent jihadist groups from Hamas to al-Qaeda and ISIS spring. The “political” element of the Muslim Brotherhood is, if anything, more pernicious precisely because its adherents do not goose-step, guns in hand, in the public square.
The Ikhwan [Muslim Brothers] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and sabotaging its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.
On account of the Brotherhood’s nature and activities, it has been designated as a terrorist organization from Egypt to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. A bill first introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz in 2015, calling for the U.S. secretary of state to submit a report to Congress on designating the Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization in America, lays out several other reasons the group merits this, including:
The [group’s] explicit calls for violent jihad, with the end goal of imposing Islamic law over all the world of the group’s founder and spiritual leader Hassan al-Banna, and the consistently violent Islamic supremacist content of the Brotherhood’s core membership texts
The terrorist efforts of numerous jihadist groups explicitly tied to the Muslim Brotherhood, and the efforts of individual Muslim Brotherhood members designated as terrorists by the U.S. government themselves
The litany of terrorist financing cases involving the Muslim Brotherhood, including the…Holy Land Foundation case [the largest terror financing case in U.S. history] …
Do What We Like or Get Smeared as a Bigot
On the campaign trail and in its early days the Trump administration indicated an interest in designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. But within months it shelved these plans. What happened? The Muslim Brotherhood echo chamber deployed.
In the midst of this flurry of articles, it leaked to the media that the CIA and State Department both produced memos against Muslim Brotherhood terrorist designation.
Bolton recognized at the time that these events were not random. During a July 2017 interview he noted:
There’s been an amazing campaign. It’s always amazing to me how these stories and op-eds and lines of chatter appear simultaneously, all very well-coordinated…The argument being the Muslim Brotherhood is a complicated organization, not every part of it is devoted to the support of terrorism. Some of them do humanitarian work and so on; a declaration that the entire Brotherhood is a foreign terrorist organization would actually buttress the cause of the jihadis; so, therefore, don’t do anything.
Bolton’s riposte?
Let’s take the notion inherent in that argument as having some validity, that there are pieces of the Muslim Brotherhood that don’t qualify under the statutory definition we have of a foreign terrorist organization…My response to that is, ‘Okay, we need some careful drafting based on the evidence we have now that excludes some affiliates, some components of the Muslim Brotherhood from the designation.’ I’m prepared to live with that, of course, until we get more complete information.
This position is what really draws the ire of the Brotherhood echo chamber. CAIR, the unindicted co-conspirator in the previously mentioned largest terror financing case in U.S. history, published a press release condemning the appointment of “Islamophobe John Bolton” as NSA, citing corroborating articles from such non-biased sources as Think Progress, The Nation, Islamophobia.com, Vox, and Huffington Post.
Bolton’s endorsement of designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization illustrates a keen understanding of the size, scope, and nature of the Islamic supremacist threat that the national security and foreign policy establishment lacks. It is a proxy for a worldview that if followed to its logical conclusion would turn our largely futile efforts to beat back jihadists over the last 17 years on their head. This view takes Islamic supremacists at their word in their desire to impose upon us the Sharia-based, totalitarian theopolitical ideology to which they adhere. Hence the pushback.
Applying this worldview would lead to decisions antithetical to the progressive Wilsonian internationalists and political Islamists on myriad issues in the Middle East, including:
Treatment of Israel versus the Arabs
The Iran deal
Iran policy more broadly, including appropriate measures against its proxies in Syria and Lebanon
Qatar’s bellicosity
Turkey’s behavior under Islamic supremacist Erdogan
The Trump administration ought not to concede one inch to those who self-evidently wish to sideline the personnel and stifle the policies that would make its counterjihadist agenda a reality. This specious and slanderous smear campaign reflects all the better on the appointment of Bolton as NSA.
Ben Weingarten is a senior contributor at The Federalist and senior fellow at the London Center for Policy Research. He is the founder and CEO of ChangeUp Media, a media consulting and production company dedicated to advancing conservative principles. You can find his work at benweingarten.com, and follow him on Twitter @bhweingarten.
I wonder why you believe Trump not involved as he made money firing of the tomahawk missiles as he owns shares raytheon stock.He also ought to know the sad story media maintained for fifteen and a half years absurd defies known laws of physics and the deep state that actually always in complete control our country since the jfk coup calling themselves neocons did this with aid or phony ally Israel, ie mossad.Have you never read neocons very own web page PNAC.I never got far your comment until hear an answer to this question do you believe Arabs with boxcutters pulled this crime off? (unedited, which goes against my nature)
Donald Trump making money from Raytheon made Tomahawk missiles:
Then Snopes shows numerous FEC Documents disclosing finances concluding with this obvious analysis:
“Line 23 of that July 2015 form also disclosed that that portion of Donald Trump’s portfolio had a value of between $1,001 and $15,000 and brought him $201 or less in income”
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) rates the Trump profiting from Tomahawk missile launch as Unverified. MBFC is suspicious of medias bias which indicates their fact checkers have a mistrust of the Mainstream Media (MSM). Yet MBFC cites Snopes as its source. MBFC chose Unverified rather than Doubtful because there is no record to show if Donald Trump currently owns Raytheon stock. But remember, Snopes is MBFC’s source; hence, if Trump made money, he added less than $200 to his billion-dollar fortune.
“… Bill Palmer states “Donald Trump owned stock in Raytheon up through at least the start of the presidential election cycle. There is no record that he subsequently sold that stock.” This claim is factually accurate because there isn’t a record that he sold it, however there also isn’t any record that he didn’t sell it. Without this information we rate this Unverified until more information is available.”
The “Deep State” argument is something I agree with. My sense though is the American Deep State has factions that disagree with each much like or greater than the factions operating within the scope of the U.S. constitutional government. That is an opinion I can’t really back up right now but is something I sense intuitively.
I have a huge difficulty in calling Israel a “phony ally” or talking of Israel most notable Intelligence agency Mossad as evil. That simply smacks of the incoherent belief that Jews are out to control the world. That is downright Antisemitic false thinking!
Even though many Americans were sympathetic to the creation of a sovereign state called Israel after the Nazis murdered 6,000,000 Jews, the American government offer little support other than full diplomatic recognition. This excerpt shows the reason the USA became so supportive of Israel:
Whilst the help of the United States helped the establishment of Israel in 1947, this did not mean resounding support for the Jews’ military activities throughout the 60s and 70’s. Even within the American government itself, there was worry that the creation of the Israeli State would jeopardize their trade relations with the Middle East.
So much so was the United States’ desire to maintain diplomacy with the Arabs that in the middle of the 50’s they managed to dissuade the British-Franco-Israeli alliance from military intervention in Egypt by nationalising the Suez Canal, which had been controlled up until then by the English and French. Furthermore, despite the fact that during Kennedy’s government the first important trade of weapons to Israel was authorised, the relations between both nations rose to a commercial plane, thanks to the arms race.
It was not until the end of the 1967 six-day war, that the Americans started to value Israel’s military power and to see in it, a strategic ally. Thus during this conflict, caused amongst other things by Israel’s proclamation that is was going to divert the Jordan River in order to build an aqueduct, the Jews had impressively defeated the Arab coalition’s troops, allowing them to expand their territory to the Golan Heights, the West Bank (including Eastern Jerusalem), the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula.
… Adrienne Weller summarises the mindset which Americans had towards their ally on the Middle East border.
“Alexander Haig, U.S. Secretary of State for the Reagan government, is one of the many officials who has recognised Israel’s value to the U.S. as a military power”, according to Haig himself: “It is the largest American aircraft in the world’, one which cannot be destroyed, and which carries not one U.S. soldier.” (When did the United States ally with Israel? By The Prisma; The Prisma; 2/17/13 22:29)
Here is some info on Israel’s early military help:
Jewish Attempts to Buy Arms and Czech Approval
The major Arab armies who invaded the newly born Jewish state were British led, equipped, trained and supplied. The Syrian army was French-equipped and had taken orders from the Vichy government in resisting the British led invasion of the country assisted by Australian troops, Free French units and Palestinian-Jewish volunteer forces in 1941. In their War of Independence, the Israelis depended on smuggled weapons from the West and Soviet and Czech weapons.
The leaders of the Yishuv (Jewish community in Palestine), already in the summer of 1947, intended to purchase arms and sent Dr. Moshe Sneh (the Chief of the European Branch of the Jewish Agency, a leading member of the centrist General Zionist Party who later moved far leftward and became head of the Israeli Communist Party) to Prague in order to improve Jewish defenses. He was surprised by the sympathy towards Zionism and by the interest in arms export on the side of the Czech Government. Sneh met with the Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Clementis, who succeeded the non-Communist and definitely pro-Zionist Jan Masaryk. Sneh and Clementis discussed the possibility of Czech arms provisions for the Jewish state and the Czechs gave their approval,
In January, 1948 Jewish representatives were sent by Ben-Gurion to meet with General Ludvik Svoboda, the Minister of National Defense, and sign the first contract for Czech military aid. Four transport routes were used to Palestine all via Communist countries; a) the Northern route: via Poland and the Baltic Sea, b) the Southern route: via Hungary, Yugoslavia and the Adriatic Sea, c) via Hungary, Romania and the Black Sea, d) by air, via Yugoslavia to Palestine.
…
Czech assistance to Israel’s military strength comprised a) small arms, b) 84 airplanes –– the outdated Czech built Avia S.199s, Spitfires and Messerschmidts that played a major role in the demoralization of enemy troops; c) military training and technical maintenance. On January 7, 1949, the Israeli air-force, consisting of several Spitfires and Czech built Messerschmidt Bf-109 fighters (transferred secretly from Czech bases to Israel), shot down five British-piloted Spitfires flying for the Egyptian air-force over the Sinai desert causing a major diplomatic embarrassment for the British government. (Who did what for Israel in 1948? America did nothing; By Norman Berdichevsky; Sullivan.County.com; 8/4/10)
Next – French-Israel alliance:
The French-Israeli relationship began in the mid-1950s, when Israel became a major customer for the French arms industry. But the bond was not merely commercial: at the time France was trying to quash a rebellion in Algeria, and it shared with Israel a strategic interest in combating radical Arab nationalism. In 1956, France and Israel even fought together against Egypt in the Suez crisis.
Advertisement
The tacit alliance, championed by Israel’s deputy defense minister, Shimon Peres, deepened during the late ’50s and early ’60s through military cooperation and cultural exchanges. French technical assistance helped Israel get nuclear weapons, and France supplied the advanced military aircraft that became the backbone of the Israeli Air Force.
The relationship only grew warmer when Charles de Gaulle, the World War II hero, took over as French president in 1959. He recognized the historic justice of a Jewish “national home,” which he saw “as some compensation for suffering endured through long ages,” and he heaped praise on David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s founding prime minister, as one of the “greatest leaders in the West.”
The bilateral bonds ran outside the government, too, with strongly pro-Israel public opinion, both among French Jews and non-Jews. But with the end of the Algerian war in 1962, de Gaulle began mending France’s ties to the Arab world and the relationship came under strain. For a while, France tried to balance its relationships: Israeli officials were heartily welcomed in Paris, and de Gaulle continued to speak of Israel as “the ally and friend” of France.
This double game, however, ended when the Six-Day War in 1967 forced France to pick a side. In a shock to its Israeli allies, it chose the Arab states: despite aggressive moves by Egypt, France imposed a temporary arms embargo on the region — which mostly hurt Israel — and warned senior Israeli officials to avoid hostilities. (When Israel and France Broke Up; By GARY J. BASS; NYT; 3/31/10)
After Israel’s impressive victory in the Six-Day War in 1967, THEN the USA began to view Israel as a valued military ally that would complement American National Interests and National Security. If anything, Israel has been used by the American government, not the other way around.
Now, unless a blatant diplomatic error by Israel, the American government have a little difficulty in pulling away from Israel because a majority of American voters are quite enamored by the little David-Israel withstanding the gigantic Goliath-Jew-hating-Arab World. In this representative Republic members of Congress (Senate & House) are answerable to an Israel-loving American constituency.
Religious Jews have no desire past the ancient Kingdom of David. More Left Wing Israeli Jews simply want defensible borders from Jew-hating Muslims determined to exterminate them because of the idiotic Islamic Supremacist concept – once imperialistically conquered for Islam then it is always Islamic.
I understand the Left’s hatred of Neocons. For the most part Neocons are former Leftists that have become disgusted with the failures of Marxist/Socialist ideals that have led more tyranny than a pipedream utopia. Thus, I am certain the Left views a Neocon as a traitor.
I have a bit of a problem understanding any Conservative hatred of Neocons unless on is an old-fashioned pre-WWII isolationist Paleocon. A Paleocon can be quite intractable in a different kind of pipedream utopia that will never be realized as long as America is a military superpower with other nations desiring our protection from tyrannical military powers.
The biggest lesson Neocons have learned is that the nation-building paradigm fails when the culture has been brainwashed into a socio-political system that is antithetical to Western values and particularly antithetical to the way of life Americans have lived with based on the U.S. Constitution.
Prior to the emergence of Neoconservatism, nation-building proved quite successful with cultures that had a heritage with Western culture (Nazi Germany) or a culture that was more than willing to adapt to enough Western principles to be a viable Western style sovereign nation (Japan).
Nation-building will never work toward Western expectations among a people brainwashed for centuries with Islamic principles of governance as if that is a good society.
Unless a Neocon is full of intractable hubris, they have learned that lesson. Even so, the classic Neocon will still promote less government domestically and bigger government militarily as well as in Foreign Policy.
Below are some Neconservative basics that any American Patriot not a Paleocon or Leftist would find very acceptable. The basics are excerpted from Wikipedia and a pdf from the now defunct Neocon think tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a neoconservative[1][2][3]think tank based in Washington, D.C. that focused on United Statesforeign policy. It was established as a non-profit educational organization in 1997, and founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan.[4][5] PNAC’s stated goal was “to promote American global leadership.”[6] The organization stated that “American leadership is good both for America and for the world,” and sought to build support for “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.”[7]
…
The Project for the New American Century ceased to function in 2006;[19] it was replaced by a new think-tank named the Foreign Policy Initiative, co-founded by Kristol and Kagan in 2009.
PNAC’s first public act was to release a “Statement of Principles” on June 3, 1997. The statement had 25 signers, including project members and outside supporters (see Signatories to Statement of Principles). It described the United States as the “world’s pre-eminent power,” and said that the nation faced a challenge to “shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests.” In order to achieve this goal, the statement’s signers called for significant increases in defense spending, and for the promotion of “political and economic freedom abroad.” It said the United States should strengthen ties with its democratic allies, “challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values,” and preserve and extend “an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.” Calling for a “Reaganite” policy of “military strength and moral clarity,” it concluded that PNAC’s principles were necessary “if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.”[5]
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America’s role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital — both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements — built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation’s ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration’s success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities. Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power.
But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
We need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
We need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
We need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
We need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
25 SIGNATORIES
Edward I hope a response to my stand has actual documented facts more than anecdotal conjecture. As I said in the post “Disagreement on Conspiracy Theory Pt 1”:
“There are many Conspiracy Theories I concur with, yet many are simply beyond the believability scale especially when I know some facts that contradict a Conspiracy Theory accepted by way too many people.”
I cannot concur with the Conspiracies that you support as credible or factual.
Have you ever been around people who you know you agree with much of what they believe? AND THEN you discover there are one or more issues you disagree with those same people. Indeed, there might be one thing you have an extreme disagreement with.
Disagreement is something I have learned to live with in various Social Media locations in which I have joined either due to fascination or perceived agreement.
Just so you can peg me, allow me to sum up where I stand. I am a Christian Conservative. There are many elements of Neoconservatism that I concur (America first National Interests, Strong Military, not backing down to threats to the American way of life (which does mean meddling in the domestic issues of foreign nations if those nations are determined to mess with America) and Biblical Moral concepts as highlighted through the lens of the New Testament (which means I am a very strong Social Conservative).
Keeping that stand in mind this translates into Big Government is evil domestically yet essential for National Security in foreign relations, I am huge with the rule of law to be viewed via the Original Intent of the U.S. Constitution. I also have a huge distrust of all transformative ideals of the American and global Left (which tends to desire Big Government statism, top-down collectivist despotism, anti-Christian Secular Humanism, a diluted moral society and a basic anti-Capitalist/anti-Free Market economic system. In other words, the Left agenda is representative of EVERYTHING that will degrade and ultimately destroy American Liberty and the Pursuit of individual Happiness.
Also, you should be aware I am a huge supporter of Israel being a Jewish State as well as perceiving the theopolitical doctrines of Islam as antithetical to everything American and Christian. This also pegs me as a Christian Zionist and a Counterjihadist. Both concepts are viewed by the Left as either anti-Palestine or an Islamophobic racist.
If understanding the only Palestine that ever came close to existing was in ancient history an insult to Jews and in modern history a designation for the Jewish return to a national homeland that have been expelled from over and over. Understandably, the Jewish desire for the return of their homeland might be different than my Christian desire for the Jews to have their homeland returned. My Christian perspective is that the return of Israel is a sign of the return of Jesus Christ (who face it, will come to the Jews first and then the rest of the Christians who believe). Whatever the differentia is between Jewish and Christian goals for the existence of Israel, the end goal is the same.
There is one point that too many Christians fail to understand about the Jews. Both religious and secular Jews have a huge reason to mistrust Christians. As non-Jewish Christians began to dominate the faith, some theological rocket scientists … err, I mean Christian intelligentsia, began to teach that ALL Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus Christ. Thus, irrelevant of the Christian leg or denomination (e.g. but not limited to – Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant), the moniker of Christ-killers was brainwashed into the minds of Christian adherents. Sadly, some Christian still use the Antisemitic moniker today. I’ll go into the reasons why this moniker is idiotic to perpetuate later.
Due to the Christ-killer moniker levelled against Jews, European Christians spent a huge part of their history persecuting Jews that included forced migrations, brutal violence, theft and murder. AND this is the reason present day Jews have a huge distrust of Christian motives. Again sadly, what is left of Middle Eastern Christians have this Christ-killer Jew-hatred still ingrained into their psyche. That is one sad explanation Middle Eastern Christians might display the same hatred of Jews that Jew-hating Muslims are disposed to act out as well.
I am a Counterjihadist not just because of Islamic terrorism so prevalent in this day and age, but also because the Quran, Hadith and Sunnah of Islam has Jew-hatred and Christian-hatred actually ingrained in these revered writings. My perspective makes Islam an Antichrist religion. Yup, that bugs me.
NOW, if you have come to this post because of Social Media, I am fairly certain there are aspects of where I stand you either agree with or disagree with AND if you are a Leftist you probably disagree with my entire stand.
As an American I believe everyone has the Right to disagree without fear of retribution on my part. I mean if I have rattled your cage to a vivid angry emotion, your Liberty enables you to choose not to read my thoughts or dispositions. In contrast my Liberty means I am free not to read another’s disposition. The idiom I like for this Liberty is: “Agree to disagree”.
Now here’s the rub of Social Media disagreement for me. I like reading and boning up on Conspiracy Theories. Also, I belong to some Social Media that espouses my Counterjihad thoughts but are a bit too far to the Right for my comfort zone. The unfortunate difficulty I run into from those Social Media Communities is a blatant Antisemitism that blames all Jews for all the ails of the world. I got to tell you, that chaps my hide.
The link to the G+ comment at this site is HERE. The comment there duly chastised me for flirting with Conspiracy Theories informing me they don’t do that community. So now I have to remember to avoid conspiracies at that G+ location. The second comment by Shawn Jones got me into “chaps my hide” mode.
In full disclosure, I did perform a spell check on Shawn and my posts at the G+ community. So if you do go to the G+ site for varication you will notice slight variations in both our posts. Indeed, I have a feeling that Shawn might respond with a bit of his/her own chap-hide moment. The reason: Shawn is a person that obviously blames the Jews for all the ills of planet earth.
what if I told you Jews are behind the term conspiracy theory cause they got tired of people exposing them.
I suppose with a crusader avatar you would attack me? The Christ-killing Jews always hide behind Crusader avatars on Youtube and news outlets.
Actually Shawn, the Jews are probably the longest victims of idiotic Conspiracy Theories. If that is the sense you are thinking then you’d be correct. ALSO, the reality is Jews are not big fans of the Crusader image. The ***Crusaders slaughtered Jews in Jerusalem more than they did Muslims because of the idiotic conspiracy accusation of “Christ-Killers”.
A majority of the Sanhedrin Pharisees and Sadducees set up a crowd crying “Crucify Him” while barring the Jewish believers in Christ’s Messiahship before Pilate. Pilate ordered the scourging and Crucifixion. Romans forced Christ in humiliation down the Via Dolorosa, it was Romans that drove spikes through Christ’s hands and feet and it was a Roman that drove a spear through the side of Jesus to make sure He was dead.
Sounds to me if you want to blame an ancient people in modern times, you might want to look at Italians and not Jews.
But hey, Jesus said on the Cross before He died, “Father, forgive them, they know what they do”. Whoever to blame for Christ’s death is irrelevant. Jesus forgave, meaning the Father forgave. Then Jesus arose bodily from the tomb for ALL who believe to receive forgiveness of sins. Blame is idiotic.
+++
***While Writing This I sense the need to justify the Crusader icon I use to any Jewish readers that happen by.
As mentioned above, I am aware of the reason that Jews are offended by a Crusader icon. I have adopted the imagery of a Crusader Knight because it drives Muslims crazy that believe their theopolitical religion is perfect, peaceful and just. As I have already mentioned, the Islamic revered writings not only insult/condemn Jews but also condemn the central beliefs of the Christian faith. Islam condemns:
That Jesus is the Son of God.
That Jesus was Crucified.
That Jesus arose bodily from the tomb.
That Jesus is both fully human and fully God (essential for Salvation).
And these Antichrist issues are just ones I can think of off the top of my head.
I am aware that religious Jews also have a problem Jesus as the Son of God and the bodily Resurrection of Jesus from death to life. Unlike Muslims, Jews will not threaten to hunt me down and lop off my head for my Christian faith. As a Christian I believe religious Jews will accept Jesus as Messiah when the see the Second Coming of this son of David. Again the Second Coming of Jesus probably is not tickling heart of joy for religious Jews before His return. But I look at it this way.
Every single Apostles of Jesus (The Twelve) were Jewish. Even the traitor Judas Iscariot. The Apostle Thomas was the last to believe in Jesus’ Resurrection from death to life. WHY?
Thomas wanted to see the Resurrected Jesus complete with the scars left by the Crucifixion.
24 Now Thomas, called the Twin, one of the twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said to him, “We have seen the Lord.”
So he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”
26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” 27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”
28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas,[a] because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Take note that Jesus was not pleased with Thomas’ disbelief, but simply said bless are who believe without seeing. If one is a Christian, he believes without seeing. At Christ’s Second Coming, it is my belief the Doubting Thomas Jews will believe when they see Him. Jews simply missed out on the blessing because of unbelief. No blessing doesn’t mean a curse. It merely means you missed when you could have had it earlier.
This batch of emails focuses on Crooked Hillary. There is some email information on Donald Trump through the eyes of Left Wing detractors. Newbill examines a post from a Bernie Sanders supporter that calls Crooked Hillary an evil Neocon. I disagree with the appellation Neocon on Hillary Clinton. I explain my disagreement on the Neocon accusation and that Neoconservatism is not evil down below.
Trump needs to Identify this Person and use his Extreme ECO-Marxism to Label Hillary with an ANTI-Economic Growth vision
10/14/2016 11:18 AM
Trump can say this shows we are Out of Balance with how Obama and NOW Hillary want to Implement policies that will enable the People’s access to their Rights and Liberties!!!! There is No Way we can Have a Robust Economy that serves the people when these people want to OPPRESS access to our Resources with Extreme ECO-Marxism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We Must EXPOSE this Hillary Clinton Campaign Manager as the ECO-Marxist. [This ECO-Marxist represents] the People doing the Dirty work behind our Government’s Closed Doors that’s KILLING OUR LIBERTY!!!!!!!!!!
… It was 2014, and McCarthy, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was about to make her case for blocking the controversial Pebble gold mine planned for Alaska’s Bristol Bay watershed, home to one of the world’s most prolific salmon fisheries. …
But McCarthy also knew there would be a new player in the room. Longtime Democratic operative John Podesta, Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff, had just returned to the White House as counselor to Barack Obama. And Podesta had a reputation for bold conservation policy.
…
And 10 minutes into the conversation, Podesta broke in. He said that he and the president endorsed McCarthy’s plan, and then laid out exactly how the announcement would roll out. McCarthy left the room, dumbfounded and elated.
…
“Nobody in the 21st century in U.S. government has had the influence that he has had on public lands and climate change,” says Douglas Brinkley, a Rice University professor of history.
…
Podesta’s political philosophy was shaped by his time at Knox College, a small liberal arts school in Galesburg, Illinois, where he joined Vietnam War protests and civil rights demonstrations. His first major political experience involved working on the doomed 1972 presidential campaign of liberal Democrat George McGovern.
…
Podesta also understands how public lands can be leveraged to benefit his boss and political party. Toward the end of the Clinton administration, he supported Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck’s proposal to permanently protect the remaining roadless areas on national forests from logging, mining, drilling and other development. …
… But as the point man for the many scandals that plagued the Clinton White House, he got a reputation for having an evil twin known as “Skippy,” who could be harsh and unusually direct. …
… in2001, Podesta and some colleagues decided to create a progressive think tank that would be tough enough to compete with those on the political right. They called it the Center for American Progress, and it grew into a revolving-door powerhouse that harnessed the intellectual and political capital of the academic, NGO, philanthropic and government communities, often shuttling people in and out of key positions in all these realms. … and today, it boasts a staff of 314 policy wonks, professors and writers.
“Democrats and progressives did not have an institution dedicated to thinking up policies and finding a way to move them into the public sphere,” … “We called it a think-and-do tank. …”
Liberal pundits and mainstream journalists have occasionally questioned Podesta about his think tank’s financial and policy ties to its energy, defense and pharmaceutical company funders. … Hansjörg Wyss, a billionaire businessman who, for two decades, has financed efforts to conserve public lands. Podesta’s financial White House disclosure showed he collected $87,000 in 2013, for consulting for the HJW Foundation, a Wyss philanthropy. The conservative Daily Caller website accused Podesta of violating White House ethics rules for taking funds from Wyss and then pushing Obama’s proposal to expand the area off-limits to oil and gas drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge …
Together, HJW and Wyss Foundation donated more than $5 million to the Center for American Progress between 2011 and 2013 … The article is pro-Podesta & pro-Eco-Marxist – I chose the info that demonstrates that (John Podesta: Legacy maker; By Elizabeth Shogren; High Country News; 3/25/15)
The FBI and Justice Department have launched an investigation into whether the Podesta Group, the lobbying and public relations firm co-founded by Hillary Clinton presidential campaign chairman John Podesta, has any connections to alleged corruption that occurred in the administration of former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych.
…
The Podesta Group, run by John Podest’s [sic] brother Tony Podesta, was retained by the Russia-controlled firm UraniumOne in 2012, 2014, and 2015, to lobby Hillary Clinton’s State Department. The lobbying firm was paid a total of $180,000 according to public records.
…
As it was first detailed in the New York Times bestselling book Clinton Cash, Uranium One — which hired the Podesta Group — is the firm that funneled millions to the Clinton Foundation as the Russian government gained ownership of the company.
…
According to the New York Times, Russian President Vladimir Putin had a “goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock,” the Times report said.
According to the Daily Caller, Uranium One “paid the Podesta Group $40,000 to lobby the State Department, the Senate, the National Park Service, and the National Security Council for ‘international mining projects,’ according to a July 20, 2012 filing.”
Distancing itself from the work it did for an organization with ties to Yanukovych’s pro-Russian regime, the Podesta group said it hired lawyers to … READ ENTIRETY (FBI, DOJ launch Probe into Firm of Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta; By JEROME HUDSON; Breitbart; 8/20/16)
+++
These are the Weasels that have created Groper-gate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
10/14/2016 11:18 AM
The Enemy’s with-in!!!!!
Trump needs to go after these “So Called Biographers” with the “Hey Wayne Barrett, Gwenda Blair, Michael D’Antonio, Harry Hurt and Timothy O’Brien where’s your same Criticism of the Clintons, Bill on the Women Abuse side and Hillary on the Breaking All the Laws of the USA Side”???????????
This Guy and all these so-called Biographers of Trump need medication for their Bias-ism disease!!!!!!
Drawing upon extensive and exclusive interviews with Trump and many of his family members, including all his adult children, D’Antonio presents the full story of a truly American icon, from his beginnings as a businessman to his stormy romantic life and his pursuit of power in its many forms. For all those who wonder — Just who is Donald Trump? – Never Enough supplies the answer. He is a promoter, builder, performer and politician who pursues success with a drive that borders on obsession and yet, has given him, almost everything he ever wanted.
Read More… (Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success; Book synopsis of author Michael D’Antonio; MichaelDantonio.net)
I watched this Guy this Morning on The MS Media paint the most disgusting image of Trump as a guy with a Pattern towards abusing Women!!!!! I would elevate this “Screen Writer” Michael D Antonio “up to the Level of” PORNO Propagandist!!!!!!
Back in early March, Politico Magazine brought together five Donald Trump biographers for a conversation over lunch at Trump Tower. At the time, the country was just beginning to grapple with the reality that the presidential nominee from one of the two major American political parties stood a good chance of being a real estate mogul and entertainer. Wayne Barrett, Gwenda Blair, Michael D’Antonio, Harry Hurt and Timothy O’Brien knew him better than anybody, had studied him more than anybody, had written an aggregate 2,195 pages in books.
So much has happened over the past seven months: the crackpot conspiracy theories, the rageful late-night Twitter tirades, the surges and slides in the polls, an onslaught of investigative reporting that painted him as a racist, sexist, selfish, uncharitable, lying predator. So we thought it was time, especially in the wake of “grab them by the pussy,” for an emergency reconvening of the Trumpologists. [Blog Editor: “Trumpologists” in this case means Leftist MSM hit squad.]
He is, the biographers said, “profoundly narcissistic,” “willing to go to lengths we’ve never seen before in order to satisfy his ego”—and “a very dangerous man for the next three or four weeks.” And after that? “This time, it’s going to be a straight‑out loss on the biggest stage he’s ever been on,” one biographer predicted. And yet: “As long as he’s remembered, maybe it won’t matter to him.”
These People, Like the Bill and Hillary Clinton & Co., are a Disease on FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
+++
Hillary’s Shadow Government
10/18/2016 9:37 AM
Dear John, you need to Please talk about Hillary’s Shadow Government that the FBI refers to in this Investigation report and say this is why Washington does not work for the American People and Shields Hillary and themselves from the rule of LAW!
Here is a summary of the corruption exposed by Wikileaks about Hillary Clinton.
John Podesta is Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign Chairman. Podesta previously served as Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton and Counselor to President Barack Obama.
On October 7th, 2016, WikiLeaks publish thousands of emails belonging to Podesta’s private email archives. More emails were released in the days that followed. Below is a compilation of some of the most revealing and damaging emails discovered:
POLICY / POSITION
Transcripts from Hillary Clinton’s lucrative closed-door paid speeches delivered to elite financial firms and other special interests groups (which she has refused and failed to disclose to the public after much demand) have finally surfaced:
Clinton staff conspiring to stage ‘leaking’ of favorable excerpts from wall street speech, in efforts to calm down the public while leaving out more damaging parts:
Leaked private speech transcript shows Clinton’s warm ties to Wall Street’s most powerful figures: Clinton: “There is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives” The pressure on officials to sell or divest assets in order to serve, she added, had become “very onerous and unnecessary”:
Leaked private speech to Goldman Sachs, Clinton: Wall street was only accountable for the financial crisis for political reasons. The blame placed on the United States banking system for the crisis “could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened”:
Leaked private speech to Goldman Sachs, Clinton: “I mean, right now, there are so many places in our country where the banks are not doing what they need to do because they’re scared of regulations, they’re scared of the other shoe dropping, they’re just plain scared, so credit is not flowing the way it needs to to restart economic growth.”
Clinton’s advisors agree to take foreign lobbyists money: Clinton’s National Finance Director, Dennis Cheng: “how do we explain to people that we’ll take money from a corporate lobbyist but not them; that the Foundation takes $ from foreign govts but we now won’t”. Campaign manager Robby Mook responds: “I’m ok just taking the money and dealing with any attacks. Are you guys ok with that?”, “Take the money!!” – … READ THE REST (Breaking News – Wikileaks Release Exposes Hillary Clinton Corruption; By Robert Z; The Common Sense Conservative; 10/17/16)
++++
Huma Abedin Admits to a $12 Million Dollar Pay-For-Play
10/20/2016 11:59 AM
Hillary’s top assistant Huma Abedin admits to a $12 million dollar pay-for-play from Morocco!
We have always known that Hillary Clinton was for sale during her time at the State Department.
Many politicans [sic] try to do this, but Hillary’s corruption is so massive that it’s historic.
Now, just hours after the debate, WikiLeaks provided the smoking gun we’ve been waiting for. Hillary’s top assistant Huma Abedin admits to a $12 million dollary pay-for-play from Morocco!
This leaked email from the 13th batch of John Podesta’s hacked emails shows direct confirmation that a meeting was set up with Hillary Clinton, and it was paid for with that massive cash payoff:
And Hillary Clinton confirmed that the WikiLeaks emails are authentic last night during the debate:
…
Hillary Clinton can blame the Russians and foreign agents all she wants. The emails are real, and so is the criminal corruption. Hillary Clinton used the Secretary of State’s office to become obscenely wealthy, and she put America’s national security at risk repeatedly.
Hillary couldn’t apply for a job in the federal government because … READ ENTIRETY (Day After Debate, WikiLeaks Strikes Hillary With The Most Shocking Leak of 2016! By Kosar; Political Insider; 10/20/16)
++++
Russia has already Bribed Hillary!!!!!
10/20/2016 11:01 PM
What Romney says WAS BEFORE WE HAS THE RESULTS FROM FBI Comey … and if Hillary Clinton has already COMPROMISED U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY. The First response by the FBI would be to act in the best Interest of the USA and the Market and divert from this conversation!!!!
Mitt Romney made the argument around which everyone else danced yesterday after the New York Times exposed the UraniumOne deal and its principals’ big cash avalanche to the Clinton Foundation. The State Department’s approval of the deal under Hillary Clinton wasn’t just “undue influence,” and not “a poor choice of timing,” either. “It looks like bribery,” Romney told Hugh Hewitt last night:
… READ THE REST(Romney: “Every Appearance That Hillary Clinton Was Bribed” On Uranium Deal; ED MORRISSEY; Hot Air; 4/24/16 10:01 am)
Hillary Clinton has already been Bribed, we just did not realize it until the Lawless FBI ran its course letting Hillary off so she could skate into the Oval Office and Pardon her and her cohorts!!!!!
Brian Fallon recently accused WikiLeaks of working on behalf of the Russian government to help Donald Trump. Fallon’s Twitter barrage was full of accusations against the whistleblowing organization, including an ironic plea for WikiLeaks to disclose Trump’s tax returns. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton and her campaign have engaged in Cold War-era propaganda, primarily to deflect from numerous cyber-attacks. There’s also the tiny issue of 20% of U.S. uranium sold to the Russian government from a company run by Clinton Foundation donors.
Thus far, WikiLeaks, DC Leaks, Guccifer 2.0, and apparently “Russian hackers” have managed to hack into computer networks associated with the Democratic Party. Rather than assess why these various cyber-attacks have taken place, Brian Fallon, Robby Mook, and others in the Clinton campaign have leveled baseless accusations against WikiLeaks and Russia. U.S. intelligence officials might believe Russia is involved with the leaks, but have yet to disclose any evidence … READ THE REST (Dear Clinton Campaign and Brian Fallon, Stop Accusing WikiLeaks of Working for Russia; By H. A. Goodman; Huffington Post; 10/11/16 05:27 am ET)
Look at the Credits in this video, it is HUGE!!!!!
For months, I have been arguing that Hillary Clinton should be impeached. It is all well and good to prosecute a former government official for any crimes she has committed. Indeed, the Constitution expressly provides for criminal prosecution in addition to impeachment. Nevertheless, for the Framers — and, if we had common sense, for us — the imperative was to deprive a corrupt person of any further opportunity to abuse government power. Whether the official should also be convicted and sent to prison was not unimportant but, in the greater scheme of things, decidedly secondary.
Interestingly, the main pushback I received upon positing this argument was not that Mrs. Clinton is undeserving of impeachment. That, of course, is a measure of the seriousness of her high crimes and misdemeanors: the e-mail scandal; the reckless mishandling of classified information that has surely exposed our national-defense secrets to hostile powers; the mass destruction of thousands of government records after Congress asked for them; the obstruction of government investigations; the serial lies to Congress and the public; the shocking failure to provide security for Americans stationed in Benghazi and the failure to attempt to rescue them during a terrorist siege; the lies to the American people and to the families of murdered American officials about the cause of the attack; the trumping up of a prosecution against the video producer scapegoated for the Benghazi attack; the Clinton Foundation corruption involving the sale of influence for donations, the favors done for shady benefactors at the expense of national security, and the use of the State Department as an arm of the Clinton pay-to-play enterprise.
… How could she be removed from an office she does not hold based on offenses not committed while wielding presidential power?
These questions and the non-incumbency theory behind them fundamentally misconstrue the constitutional remedy of impeachment, which is not limited to removal from power but includes disqualification from future office. Moreover, their premise is wrong: The proceeding against Clinton would not be a presidential impeachment; it would be an impeachment based on her abuses of power as secretary of state, which would have the constitutional effect of disqualifying her for the presidency.
… Article I endows the House of Representatives with the “sole Power of Impeachment” — i.e., the power to file articles of impeachment. It further empowers the Senate with “the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” Significantly, in prescribing the standard for conviction in the Senate, Article I, Section 3 states that “no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present” (emphasis added).
Note carefully: The Constitution does not say the impeached person must be a current officeholder. As we shall see, that makes perfect sense: The point of impeachment is to deny power to any person — not necessarily an incumbent official — whose high crimes and misdemeanors have demonstrated unfitness for a high public trust.
The constitutional standard for impeachment also elucidates that incumbency is not necessary. The standard, prescribed by Article II, Section 4, is the commission of “Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Obviously, one need not be in office to commit treason or bribery; but if one has at any time committed these heinous offenses, one is unsuitable for public office. The same is true, by definition, of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a term of … READ ENTIRETY (Impeach Clinton to Bar Her from Holding Federal Office. It’s Constitutional; By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY; National Review; 9/6/16 4:00 AM)
+++
Hillary Clinton: Oliver Stone & U.S. Foreign Policy ‘Elite’
10/21/2016 9:02 AM
Oliver Stone has penned a powerful and emotional takedown of Hillary Clinton
Oliver Stone has penned a powerful and emotional takedown of Hillary Clinton, focusing on her insane neocon foreign policy chops in a piece published in the Huffington Post titled, Why I’m for Bernie Sanders.
What follows are just a few paragraphs, I suggest reading the entire thing:
We’re going to war — either hybrid in nature to break the Russian state back to its 1990s subordination, or a hot war (which will destroy our country). Our citizens should know this, but they don’t because our media is dumbed down in its “Pravda”-like support for our “respectable,” highly aggressive government. We are being led, as C. Wright Mills said in the 1950s, by a government full of “crackpot realists: in the name of realism they’ve constructed a paranoid reality all their own.” Our media has credited Hillary Clinton with wonderful foreign policy experience, unlike Trump, without really noting the results of her power-mongering. She’s comparable to Bill Clinton’s choice of Cold War crackpot Madeleine Albright as one of the worst Secretary of States we’ve had since … Condi Rice? Albright boasted, “If we have to use force it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future.”
Hillary’s record includes supporting the barbaric “contras” against the Nicaraguan people in the 1980s, supporting the NATO bombing of the former Yugoslavia, supporting the ongoing Bush-Iraq War, the ongoing Afghan mess, and as Secretary of State the destruction of the secular state of Libya, the military coup in Honduras, and the… You can read the rest of this Leftist rant if you choose (“We’re Going to War” – Oliver Stone Opines on the Dangerous Extremism of Neocon Hillary Clinton; By Michael Krieger; Liberty BlitzKrieg; 3/31/16 12:01 pm)
***[Blog Editor: I disagree with Mr. Krieger that Crooked Hillary is a Neocon. Part of that disagreement is because I believe the venom and vitriol against Neoconservatism is based on erroneous perceptions from both sides of the political aisle. Did Neocons make some bad decisions after 911? It turns they did. However, at the time the concept of throwing despotic leadership to give people a more democratic representative choice was a valid objective. The reason is history has shown people are given a voting representative choice their government tends toward more individual freedom. Examples are post-WWII Germany and Japan. Both those nations developed into solid allies of America according to the needs of U.S. National Interests. The thing Neocons didn’t count on is Islamic culture which is totally contrary to Western Liberty, especially in the USA. Islam by nature is intolerant and despotic of any individual choice that might run counter to Islamic tenets. Muslims for the most part concur with their faith of intolerance. This Muslim intolerance will factor into a mutual National Interest benefiting the USA or a Muslim nation. The Neocon failure was finding this out the hard way. The Neoconservative key is a foreign policy that validates U.S. National Interests, keeps America strong and keeps America Exceptional. NONE OF WHICH is of interest to Crooked Hillary (falsely accused of Neoconservatism) or to uber-Leftist Bernie Sanders who author Michael Krieger has endorsed]***
U.S. Foreign Policy ‘Elite’ Eagerly Await an Expansion of Overseas Wars Under Hillary Clinton
I thought Sifu was a Leftist the way he came after Trump, but it appears I am mistaken. I went to his G+ page and it looks to me that Sifu is a bona fide Conservative. I can only guess he is a NeverTrumper. That is absolutely Sifu’s right, but I think NeverTrumpers will insure a Crooked Hillary election even if they vote for neither Hillary or Trump. Crooked Hillary will take America further down the tubes with a large amount of certainty. I’m willing to give Trump a shot to follow through or modify his campaign promises to make America great again.
If the NeverTrumpers turn out to be correct or Crooked Hillary is indeed elected, then I will abandon the GOP completely as in never voting for a Republican because of ineffectiveness. If bad scenarios evolve it will be time to replace the Republican Party with politicians actually accountable to Conservative voters rather than some elitist Establishment with an elitist agenda out of touch with constituents.
Since I was unaware of Sifu’s political persuasion I am not going to search for where I may have called him (or her) a Leftist. NeverTrumper Conservatives are still Conservatives. It is my humble opinion an elected Crooked Hillary will corrupt America absolutely. A corrupt America is not a good America. On a personal level a Trump gamble is better than a crooked and corrupt Hillary Clinton.
Sifu, if you are reading this, I have been researching and writing this piece for the better part of the day. I am too lazy to fix any of my accusations of you being a Leftist. I apologize ahead of time.
Sifu quotes me in italics text then offers his thoughts criticizing Donald Trump. I answer Sifu in bold text primarily defending Trump but also tossing in some Crooked Hillary barbs.
Look at everything he says he wants to do. Everything. It is by federal programs. He will have to create departments with staffs and budgets. He wants to continue Obamacare. He wants to raise the minimum wage. He wants to try to run the economy like it is one of his businesses. If you don’t see it, that is you choosing not to.
I want Trump to run the Executive Branch like his business. Efficient spending rather than wasteful spending. If a project isn’t working, rather than making excuses or blaming someone else then scrap and start over – much like a high dollar bankruptcy restructuring for success. Frankly unlike most of my fellow Conservatives I don’t have a problem Big Government. My problem with government is private citizen intrusion and wasteful spending. Obamacare is a debacle of good intentions ruined by lies and deception and worse – INEFFICIENCY. I have no problem with healthcare reform, but a socialist system will be too costly and inefficient much like Veteran’s Healthcare has led to deaths.
Obama’s military reduction, idiotic rules of engagement and a strategy to lose rather than win has made America less secure. AND I like the idea of our allies contributing a fairer share of defense money or making a deal that makes our protection worthy of our cost.
Donald does want a higher minimum wage but not as high as the Dems AND he favors an Amendment 10 (10th Amendment Explained) action rather than Federal action on a minimum wage.
No, I’d rather have the states go out and do what they have to do. And the states compete with each other, not only other countries, but they compete with each other, Chuck. So I like the idea of let the states decide. But I think people should get more. I think they’re out there. They’re working. It is a very low number. You know, with what’s happened to the economy, with what’s happened to the cost. I mean, it’s just– I don’t know how you live on $7.25 an hour. But I would say let the states decide.
I understand the fiscal difficulties with rounding up illegal aliens and deporting them en masse; however, preventing more illegal aliens should be preeminent then work on getting rid of criminal illegal aliens then amnesty for working illegal aliens so that they can pay taxes and responsible for the rule of law like American citizens.
All these policies may have some government growth BUT they also enable government streamlining as well as economic growth which means job creation which means more tax revenue without raising personal taxes. That works for me as opposed to Hillary’s Leftist Transformative Obama-utopianism that destroys social and personal Liberty fabric of American culture.
Trump is not Hitler!
I never suggested he was. I pointed specifically to the fact that nationalism is not a binary good or bad, yet that is one of the only differences between him and Obama. This is not necessarily a good thing.
Hmm Sifu … You said, “Maybe he will be rabidly nationalist. How are those necessarily good? Putin isn’t weak. Doesn’t make him good. Hitler was nationalist. Didn’t make him good.”
Binary or not, the imagery alludes to the picture that Trump’s nationalism is comparable to Hitler’s Socialist Nationalism (Nazi: Comes the German “Nationalsozialist”, in English “National Socialist which is derived from “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”). It sounds like a Trump=Hitler image to me. I understand that “binary” in this case refers to the potential of good and bad, but there is a large disparity between Trump’s Nationalism and Hitler’s racial supremacist socialistic Nationalism. Trump’s Nationalism makes America exceptional and Hitler’s Left Wing Nationalism was imperialistic and genocidal.
Is Trump fascist? Well, remember, fascism doesn’t have to include genocide as Hitler did.
But fascism is despotic, supremacist and worse elitist statism as opposed to American Constitutional Originalism that limits the power of National Government.
fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
So, if we made a checklist
1. Nationalist
2. What the leader says, goes
3. Not allowed to criticize the administration
4. Harsh social regimentation
5. Harsh economic regulation
6. Strong central government This description is more relevant to the current makeup of the Obama/Crooked Hillary domination of America rather than a limited government.
We know Trump is a nationalist, so CHECK
BUT not a Socialist/Fascist National, so NOT CHECK!
He is constantly saying he will impose his ideas, regardless of anyone else’s opinion, so the second point is CHECK
Again, NOT CHECK! If a person given a job fails, they are fired. That has nothing to do with imposing Trump’s will on WE THE PEOPLE such as Obama has done and the Obama third term via Crooked Hillary.
Counter Current News – really? Sounds more like a Leftist rag concerned about litigation from a deep pockets billionaire when spin something into a lie.
From the link:
It almost sounds like satire, but during a speech in Texas on Friday morning, the Republican candidate and frontrunner, Donald Trump said he wants to sue news outlets if they negative stories about him.
He acknowledged that currently the First Amendment of the Constitution protects a free press, and thus shields journalists from suits like this.
But Trump said on Friday that he would limit the press using litigation that would be permitted due to “opening up” libel laws and allowing them to include things like criticism and critiques that he doesn’t like.
Time.com is a part of the Left Stream Media meaning it also provides slanted anti-Trump and pro-Crooked Hillary news bytes was a bit more even handed than Counter Current News:
Donald Trump won raucous cheers from his Fort Worth, Texas, crowd on Friday when he promised supporters that he would make it easier for them to sue journalists with whom they disagreed.
…
“One of the things I’m going to do if I win—and I hope we do, and we’re certainly leading—I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,” Trump said of a litigation wave against major news organizations. “So when The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected,” Trump said. (Donald Trump Promises to Make America Litigious Again; By Philip Elliott; Time.com; 2/26/16)
How is this an attack on the First Amendment? Trump is working within the law threatening litigation for a lack of honesty in reporting. It would not be a questionable Executive Order such as has President Barack Hussein Obama has done frequently in his bully politics.
Just look at how he intends to shape society. He isn’t planning to free us to shape ourselves. He wants to do it himself with government authority.
Again Sifu you are confusing Trump’s government streamlining and waste-fighting with the Big Government despotism of Democrats under Obama. Which again, Crooked Hillary vows to continue:
Hmm… The above link is largely the Dem talking points cherry picking Trump’s words and twisting them to offend Conservative Less-Government proponents. The whole article is such but here is an excerpt that mirrors Sifu’s above sentiments on the economy:
Usually presidents run on a platform of reforming government, cutting government, improving government, controlling government, etc.. After all, government — not the whole country — is their bailiwick.
But not Trump. He posits himself as the head of the whole country, running America the same ways he runs his businesses. He would stamp his name brand on the nation, as he does with everything else he owns, thereby imparting it with his own purported greatness. Probably the last president who was so open about his belief that he runs the nation was FDR himself. (Trump’s Economic Plan: Higher Taxes, Higher Inflation, and Higher Minimum Wage; ByJeffrey Tucker; Foundation for Economic Education; 5/9/16)
Now what gives weight to this evaluation by FEE is that the organization is guided by the Conservative/Libertarian thought of Austrian Economics. So the perspective definitely not Leftist, ergo kudos to Sifu for finding the Trump criticism. Nevertheless, I have said Trump is no Conservative in the traditional sense but rather an apolitical realist on making profitable deals that have little to do with ideology.
I wonder what FEE profiles about Hillary Clinton?
…
After years of toiling in the halls of power, the presidency finally seems hers for the taking. Yet, the closer Hillary comes to assuming the presidential chair, the closer Americans examine her public pose only to recoil.
…
In a word, many Americans find her “mendacious,” and the revelations regarding the appearance of the Clinton State Department’s “pay-to-play” scheme – delivering special access and favors to Clinton Foundation donors – is only the latest episode in a long series of scandals besmirching her trustworthiness.
The revelations – and there are more to come and they will never end – is shocking and not shocking. If you think government is good, clean, and constantly striving for the public good, seeing all this up close must be startling. Most thinking people long ago let go of their naïveté about government and therefore find nothing particularly surprising about any of this.
…
Where power may begin as simply a means to achieve one’s dreams, winning and wielding power ultimately becomes the dream itself. Compromise after compromise of principles is made for the sake of power. Sacrifice after sacrifice of others is offered for the sake of power. Lie after lie is told for the sake of keeping the truth of power-hungry dreams alive. One’s ideals become hollow pretense, mere words, and the curse of power takes hold, i.e. for every good deed done, two or three “necessary” evils must be committed.
Such appears to be the tragic tale of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The Radical Turned Establishment Figure
In 1969, Hillary Clinton wrote her senior thesis, titled “There Is Only the Fight,” on the work of that now infamous radical, Saul Alinsky. … At the beginning of his own book, Rules for Radicals, Alinsky quotes himself:
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.
That said, Hillary diverges with her role model Alinsky in her thesis on one crucial point. Rather than rebelling against the establishment to win her own kingdom, she would become the establishment. …
…
At this point, Hillary Clinton is, indeed, the establishment. …
…
Power Corrupts
Do Hillary Clinton’s “noble” ends justify her choice of means, her ambitions for state power?
In my opinion, the answer is a firm “no,” but I do not say this as something unique to Hillary Clinton. She comes from a long line of murderers and thieves dressed up in high ideals – the type of person Isabel Paterson once called the “humanitarian with the guillotine,” – those who, as Paterson wrote, cause great harm as “the result of their deliberate actions, long persevered in, which they hold to be motivated by high ideals toward virtuous ends.” In step, Hillary is quick to downplay her mistakes and the “collateral damage” left in her wake in the name of her “virtuous ends.”
…
Faith in state power and the corruption that follows may not be unique to Hillary Clinton – before writing Clinton Cash, author Peter Schweizer wrote another excellent book, Extortion, outlining how our dear public servants systematically use their political power to manipulate those they supposedly serve – but Hillary’s career in politics certainly provides a crash course in how such a faith corrupts.
Whether it be her supportof NSA mass surveillance programs, her penchant to centrally plan the American economy through a morass of crony capitalists enabling job-killing policies, or the Clinton Foundation’s global pay-for-play scheme, Hillary has in many ways become the very establishment she used to dream of replacing. She makes the ‘69 establishment President Richard Nixon look like a domesticated pussy cat, as she escalates America’s imperial wars, facilitates arms deals for Clinton Foundation donors, and continually lies to the American public about her own record.
Break with Alinksy [sic]
When did Clinton … READ ENTIRETY (Hillary Clinton: A Portrait of Power and Corruption; By Joey Clark; Foundation for Economic Education; 8/26/16)
Sifu, there is the reality of the matter according to FEE. The Austrian Economic organization does not Trump’s economic plan because the Trump numbers do not conform to the Austrian model, BUT Mrs. Clinton is soooo Crooked that our government would slide further into a quagmire of corruption and despotism to elicit Leftist utopian ideology by hook or crook.
I’ll go with FEE’s description of Crooked Hillary and give Donald Trump at least a chance!
Everything he says/promises, he intends to do through government power. He intends to grow government and its authority.
Trump worked within the law.
Legal! = right
A thing can be legal and still not right. Look to his usage of eminent domain.
Hmm… Trump has been criticized for using eminent domain to bulldoze widow Vera Coking’s house for a Casino parking lot, right? Well, not actually factual:
A Ted Cruz TV ad says Donald Trump “colluded with Atlantic City insiders to bulldoze the home of an elderly widow” for a casino parking lot. Trump called that claim “false.” We wouldn’t go that far. He wanted to bulldoze the home but lost an eminent domain case. However, the ad leaves the false impression that the widow lost her home, and she didn’t.
After a long court battle, a New Jersey Superior Court judge ruled in favor of Vera Coking of Atlantic City and said that she could keep her home. Trump eventually decided not to fight the ruling.
…
Two months later, the CRDA officially dropped the case, deciding not to appeal the judge’s ruling because the Trump organization said it was no longer interested in the properties.
The Leftist Website Think Progress give Donald Trump kudos for his eminent domain in a GOP Primary debate:
Donald Trump made the case for eminent domain at Saturday night’s ABC debate, arguing for the government’s right to seize property for infrastructure projects in exchange for appropriate compensation.
“Eminent domain is an absolute necessity for a country— for our country. …
Trump is right. Eminent domain paved the way for major infrastructure projects now taken for granted in the U.S. Water supplies, highways, subways, and other sprawling public projects required the government’s power to buy private land. … (Trump Makes Surprisingly Reasonable Defense Of Government Power; ByAviva Shen;Think Progress; 2/6/16)
I realize the American Left will not agree but it is my opinion a President would utilize government eminent domain for infrastructure and pipelines – job producing projects that Obama failed to institute and undoubtedly so would Crooked Hillary fail.
By the way Trump lost his imminent [sic] domain case and complied
So losing means his unethical attempt never happened? His character is less blemished because he was stopped by an external source? No, he is still THAT slimeball.
Hmm… Did Trump’s big business agenda kill anyone – ever? Crooked Hillary’s Foreign Policy agenda did kill people – Benghazi! Compare Trump’s “slimeball” accusation to nearly an entire adult life of Crooked Hillary scandals (right along with Slick Willie):
Benghazi: Committing Perjury or Lying Under Oath
Hillary has repeatedly committed perjury or lied under oath throughout her career. One of the most telling examples was during her Benghazi testimony when she claimed a video had inspired a protest that ended up killing Ambassador Stevens and 3 other Americans. This was subsequently shown to be a lie. Hillary famously declared, “What difference does it make?” when the questioning got too tough, in regards to the causes of the American deaths and personnel she was supposedly in charge of protecting. She stated she had submitted all documents, but 20 months later, FOIA requests uncovered 41 new documents. Yet another lie.
Faking Uncontrollable Fits of Coughing
Check out this compilation of clips where Hillary pretends she can’t stop coughingin order to avoid answering tough questions or testify on an issue at all. On the Benghazi issue, Clinton testified 4 months late to Congress.
Email Gate: Illegally Mixing Government and Personal Emails
In the latest scandal over emails, dubbed Email Gate by some, Clinton set up a homebrew server to hold official Government property in terms of classified information. She also used her official Government work email to conduct private and personal business.
Email Gate: Endangering National Security and State Secrets
Another aspect of Email Gate was the reckless endangering of Governmental secrets Clinton engaged in. Although many readers of The Freedom Articles will be all too aware of the way Government abuses the concept of national security, the fact remains that there is some need for it. Numerous officials have stated there is no doubt –zero ambiguity– that her emails endangered national security, due to the fact many were classified SAP (Special Access Program). However, she may have been doing this deliberately (see point 6).
Email Gate: Obstruction of Justice, Destruction of Evidence
Email Gate has many aspects to it. A further aspect is Hillary’s deliberate withholding (and deleting) of around 30,000 emails. Her excuse was that these were the personal, private ones, yet Congress had asked to see them all. Given what we know of Hillary as a cover up agent extraordinaire, what are the chances that she wasn’t deleting them to destroy information? It remains to be seen what will come of the deletion, since the FBI is reported to have the server and flash drives (with all the emails) in its possession.
Selling State Secrets to Foreign Countries
Mike Rivero (WhatReallyHappened.com) puts forth impressive evidence that Hillary has deliberately sold US Government State secrets to foreign countries. She and Bill did this with China during Bill’s presidency. Hillary may also have intentionally set up her homebrew server with weak security that could easily be hacked, so that the hackers could get the information and Hillary could claim the problem was “weak or flawed security” rather than a deliberately set up situation to leak data.
Bill the Rapist, Hillary the Coverup Agent
As I covered in the article Billary Clinton: Rapist and Coverup Team Par Excellence, Hillary has been covering up for Bill’s violent sexual escapades and rape for decades, threatening his female victims into silence, sometimes with death threats. Some of them have been outright killed.
Failed Stint as Secretary of State 2009-2013
A State Department spokesperson could not point to a single tangible achievement by Clinton. Hillary wasted $80 million on an Afghan US consulate. She lost $6 billion due to improper filing of contracts. She refused to classify Boko Haram as a terrorist group, leading to the kidnapping of 300 school girls. She called off internal investigations into her State Department involving the endemic engagement of prostitutes by her security, drug use by State Department contractors and the US Ambassador to Belgium soliciting male child prostitutes.
A Giant Whopper: Pretending to be Under Fire in Bosnia
Hillary claimed she was under attack by snipers when she landed in Tuzla, Bosnia, 1996, but subsequent CBS footage showed her walking calmly along the tarmac there and even stopping to greet a young girl. Liar, liar, pants on fire.
Flip-Flopping: NAFTA
Thisvideo (also embedded above) shows how Hillary has flip-flopped on the issue of NAFTA, saying to some people that she favored it (“NAFTA has proven its worth”) while saying to others she opposed it (“I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning”). Anything to get elected!
More Lies: Gun or No Gun?
In the same video, Hillary claimed her grandfather taught her to shoot, yet later on, claimed she grew up in a house without any guns. Which is it?
More Lies: Bringing Peace to Northern Ireland?
Hillary claimed she brought Protestants and Catholics together in a Town Hall meeting for the first time. However, as this video states, “negotiators from the parties that helped broker the Good Friday agreement in 1998 told the Daily Telegraph that her role was peripheral and that she played no part in the grueling political talks over the years.”
Flip-Flopping: Marriage Equality
Hillary has variously claimed that she opposes gay marriage and supports gay marriage at different times. It’s all about opportunism and pandering to a political base.
Hillary during Watergate Investigations: An “Unethical, Dishonest Lawyer”
Bill Clinton was asked to serve on the special staff to handle the Nixon impeachment inquiry. He declined and suggested they hire his girlfriend Hillary Rodham instead. As Mike Rivero writes:
When Bill Clinton became Governor of Arkansas, he awarded a fat contract to a Little Rock company called Health Management Associates (HMA). The company was paid $3 million a year for “medical services” for the state’s prison system. The game was to pay prisoners for their blood ($7 per pint) then resell it at massive profits on the international plasma market ($50 a pint). HMA’s entry into the blood market coincided with the rise of AIDS in America, but HMA did not screen the prisoners’ blood, even after the FDA issued special alerts about the higher incidents of AIDS and hepatitis in prison populations. In Canada alone, more than 7,000 people died from contaminated blood transfusions, many of them hemophiliacs. More than 4,000 of them died of AIDS. In 1986, public outrage forced the cancellation of HMA’s contract.
Whitewater Scandal
The Whitewater Scandal involved Bill using the power of office of Governor of Arkansas to build public roads to the Clintons’ private land. The Clintons and McDougals made money with real estate contracts for Whitewater property that included harsh clauses. This resulted in elderly buyers defaulting on land payments and repossessions. The habit of using State power to personally enrich themselvesis a very common theme running through the Clintons’ careers.
Hillary was the first woman ever subpoenaed by a Grand Jury in relation to Whitewater. Pervasive conflicts of interest were discovered between Rose Law Firm (Hillary) and Madison Guaranty (McDougal). Billing records disappeared (presumed stolen) from Vince Foster’s office the night he died. They reappeared in the Clinton residence following their acquittal, covered with Hillary’s fingerprints. Susan McDougal refused to testify against the Clintons, so went to prison, but was pardoned by President Bill. 15 Clinton friends were found guilty of 40 federal crimes. This cost US taxpayers around $145 million.
Hillary invested $1000 and turned it into $100,000 through insider trading. She entered and exited the market at the exact right time. According to economists at Auburn and Nth Florida University, 1995, who concluded in their study in the Journal of Economics and Statistics, the probability of Hillary’s trade being genuine and not an insider trade was 1 in 250,000,000! The broker involved was given a 3 year suspension.
The trade was connected to Tyson Foods, the largest employer in Arkansas and a big Clinton donor.
Eliminating Drug Testing at the White House
In an effort, no doubt, to avoid embarrassment over Bill’s cocaine-snorting habits, the Clintons eliminated random drug testing at the White House through the appointment Patsy Thomasson.
File Gate: The Clintons’ Enemy List
The Clinton Administration improperly requested and received FBI background reports on 900 Republican officials in 1996. These FBI files contained sensitive information on average American citizens. It turned into a “Compilations of Enemies” list. Hillary was the source of the requests. The NYT called Hillary a “congenital liar”. Congressman Bob Barr commented:
“Clearly what the Clinton Administration is trying to do is an orchestrated systematic effort to thwart justice, to thwart the rule of law, to thwart legitimate investigations by the Congress, whether it is impeachment proceedings or regular oversight … to derail investigations (and) derail prosecutions.”
China Gate: The China Connection
Bill Clinton and Al Gore took money from rich Chinese donors who ran prostitution rings. Again in 1996, agents of the Chinese Government and military funneled money into the Clinton re-election campaign, Clinton Legal Defense Fund and Democratic National Committee, in violation of US law.
Prison Population Explosion under Bill
The total prison population increased by 673,000 people under Clinton’s tenure or by 235,000 more than it did under President Ronald Reagan, according to a study by the Justice Policy Institute.
… READ 23 MORE (44 Reasons to NOT Elect Hillary Clinton;Makia Freeman– Editor; The Freedom Articles [Conspiracy Theory site, but I’m smoke/fire kind of guy]; 2/4/16)
A Crooked Hillary/Slick Willie list dwarfs any scandal linked to Trump primarily because the Clinton scandals demonstrate a Teflon get-out-of-jail elitism. Trump hasn’t even been close to felonious jail and potential treasonous activities.
He also donating money to Republicans. The donations demonstrate advancing his business goals and profiting his investors. That’s not politics,
Having no principles and going as the wind blows to maximize your personal desires? That is the ESSENCE of “political”.
Sifu there is a vast difference office politics in business and politics in government or at least government in America. Office politics is accountable to the Board of Directors, Shareholders and/or the Boss. Politics in government in America are accountable to the voters Constitutionally known as WE THE PEOPLE. The Dems have lost the concept of voter accountability. Unfortunately, I believe, the Establishment Republicans have lost that concept as well. Politics is the art of power agenda to achieve an agenda that can be good or nefarious. I am uncertain if Trump has use Office Politics to break any laws. He certainly has been challenged on a civil level and he has done his share of civil challenges as well. The Clinton clan can easily be called a crime family due to the prosecutions they slinked out of and the prosecutions that never went forward. THAT THE ESSENCE OF CORRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT!
Your blog is attempting to make me sign up for a new g+ account to comment, so my comments will have to remain here.
Sifu I apologize for your G+ issue. That is truly odd there is a Google demand to sign up for a new account apart from the one you already have.
On September 11 commenter Jeremy Auldaney asked a couple of question that had little to do with the post entitled “Donald Trump 10 PT Immigration Speech from Phoenix” at my NCCR Blog (I posted the same title at two other blogs). The questions had to do with the full name of the NCCR Blog and my use of the symbolism of a Templar Crusading Knight.
NCCR is the acronym for the NeoConservative Christian Right. Since Neocons are definitely on everyone’s vilification list these days I thought I’d state my reasoning in short fashion. I could have embellished a bit more but the short answer is good for now. Perhaps a long answer will be forth coming when the political correct crowd is willing to address the depravity of Muhammad’s Islam which is the same Islam that the blind West chooses to define as “Radical” Islam as if a “Moderate” Islam follows a different prophet today.
I provide the same short answer in the use of Templar Crusader symbolism as well. Again further embellishment would be beneficial; however, both expansive answers probably would take up the time of a small book or at least several long blog posts. For now, yawl will have to live with the short answers.
One thing I feel compelled to address though pertaining to Templar symbolism is to my Jewish readers. Some of you who may not know your Crusader history well may not realize that when the first Crusaders conquered Jerusalem, they slaughtered not only Muslim resisters but also Jewish inhabitants which had become quite substantial by medieval times. Some chroniclers of the period say the blood flowed on the streets that was ankle deep. This included Jews who had congregated in their Synagogues hoping for refuge from the Crusader conquerors. There was no Christian mercy for the Jews in Jerusalem. Jews that know their history are a bit peeved at my use of Templar symbolism because them it is just another atrocity of Christian Antisemitism that was so very present in medieval days (and unfortunately flowing through history even to this present day to one degree or another).
I indeed do feel shame for that Crusader Antisemitism; nevertheless, it was the Crusader mentality that began a longtime need reversal Muslim aggression in which the last vestige a Muslim empire was destroyed at the end of WWI and the dividing up of old Ottoman Turk holdings in the Middle East into independent Arab Muslim nations and the beginning to the return of Jews to their ancient homeland – ISRAEL. It is the Crusader mentality needed today to thwart the expansion of Islamic terrorism.
From this point I will poise the two questions Jeremy Auldaney poised followed by my answers on the NCCR Blog.
I am puzzled by your name of NeoConservative. It is the NeoConservatives among the Republicans that are supporting the Liberal Conspiracy to set up a world government under Marxism.
Jeremy you are misinformed probably by Jew-haters and/or Leftists. Neocons are largely former Marxists or ex-Dems that woke up to the dangers of a Leftist agenda to the Rights and Privileges guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Prior to the al Qaeda attack on 911 Neocons favored bringing democratic principles to intolerant Muslim nations ruled by oppression. The concept was sound, but the application to a Muslim society proved unworkable. Most Neocons recognize that reality. But Leftist propaganda has taken the failure of Neocon democratization to blame the former Lefties for war embroilments rather than recognize that Neocons had a plan better than sitting on their butts waiting for more terrorism on American soil. Obama Leftists went around the world apologizing for American ideals and blaming Neocons for American failures largely due to the American Left intransience on submission to Multiculturalism as the save-all for global peace. MULTICULTURALISM has proven to be a worse failure than Neocon democratization because inaction has made Islamic terrorism worse under Obama. At least Neocons subdued radicals rather allow than allow radicals to call the shots on a death agenda.
Now it is incumbent for Neocons and Conservatives to develop a better strategy for a subduing Islamic terrorism. That better strategy probably includes an agenda that politically correct Multiculturalists would find abhorrent because the rules of engagement would be much more brutal than GW Bush and Obama have utilized to date.
Also I notice you use a picture of a Knights Templar. This is the secret society that is behind the Liberal Conspiracy Including the Masons and Jesuits.
Actually my usage of Templar symbolism has little to do with the cultic aspects of Templar evolution leading to their final demise in subterfuge and betrayal AND more to do with the original call of the Crusades when Europeans became fed up with Muslim raids and military expeditions carving up Christian lands.
Persecution of Christian Pilgrims butchered or enslave on their way to medieval Jerusalem was the excuse (real or perceived) of a confrontation a long time in coming. After all the Middle East was a majority Christian land LONG BEFORE Muslim invaders conquered and oppressed the Christians to convert to Islam over a 2 or 3 centuries time until Islam became the dominant religion. Oppression was the conversion tactic not a free-will choice.
TODAY the world needs a Templar Crusader rules of engagement minus the Antisemitic hate to overcome Muslim oppression even if so-called innocent civilians are harmed by the rules of engagement. The Allies were not concerned about civilian casualties in a win at all costs war against Nazis and Imperial Japanese and neither should we be in this current threat to Western Society.
I have never claimed Donald Trump was a perfect candidate for President. Indeed, I was a Cruzer right up until he suspended his campaign after he did the math. From a Conservative perspective Ted Cruz was nearly the perfect candidate:
Unrepentant Conservative in principles: Less government, NO income tax, dissolve the IRS, Pro-Life, Devout Christian, Pro-Israel, Strong Military, Stop illegal immigration, Tough on Islamic terrorism and anti-establishment and more.
Trump is probably not a devout Christian BUT he is not a hater of those who are devout Christians as most Leftist Dems – including Obama and Hillary – in fact do everything to diminish America’s Christian ethos.
My son is a Never-Trump Christian Conservative who is very displeased with all Conservatives who have begun supporting Trump for POTUS. Needless to say he is very unhappy with me.
I do like some of the things Trump has said even if it sounds a bit incredulous. At least he has abandoned political correctness to stick with “Make America Great”: a strong military, build a southern border wall, stop Muslim immigration and Muslim refugees until they are thoroughly vetted as NOT being anti-American-culture and subversive Caliphate globalists. These Trump points alone are a slap in the face of Obama’s degenerative agenda to transform America. THE SAME POLICY Hillary would continue to the detriment of the USA!
My son pointed me to a Never-Trump article entitled, “Dear Christian Leaders, You’re Playing a Very Dangerous Game” by one of my son’s favorite Conservative pundits in Steve Deace. Essentially Deace is concerned that Christian leaders would even think of placing their support behind a man of poor character such Donald Trump.
After expressing his concerns Deace turns to Scripture in Exodus 18 and makes this quote as his premise for Never-Trump:
Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.
Steve fails to give Bible and verse in this quote but points to the NIV portion of the entire chapter 18 of Exodus in a link. The irony is there is a bit of difference from the version Deace quotes and that which he links to.
Now here is the full context of the quote from the NIV that Steve Deace linked to:
13 The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening. 14 When his father-in-law [i.e. Jethro the KeniteMidianitePriest] saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, “What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?”
15 Moses answered him, “Because the people come to me to seek God’s will. 16 Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God’s decrees and instructions.”
17 Moses’ father-in-law replied, “What you are doing is not good. 18 You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone. 19 Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. You must be the people’s representative before God and bring their disputes to him. 20 Teach them his decrees and instructions, and show them the way they are to live and how they are to behave. 21 But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 22 Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. 23 If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied.”
24 Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said. 25 He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens.26 They served as judges for the people at all times. The difficult cases they brought to Moses, but the simple ones they decided themselves. (Bold Text Editor’s Emphasis – Exodus 18: 13-26 NIV)
I am guessing Deace’s biggest problem with Trump is the potentiality of not being God-fearing, not trustworthy and a recipient of dishonest gain. Deace cites these examples that demonstrate Trump as a man lacking the godly principles set out in Exodus 18:
Now that we’ve addressed the biblical case, what about the moral one?
Steve Deace provided a link for each judged accusation. Let’s look at those links and see if there is any silver lining that still makes Trump a “capable man” in the language of the NIV Bible:
Scam Artist: Deace goes to the National Review which is no Conservative friend of Trump (and neither was I a friend when the NR began attacking him) – “Yes, Trump University Was a Massive Scam”
First thing first, Trump University was never a university. When the “school” was established in 2005, the New York State Education Department warned that it was in violation of state law for operating without a NYSED license. Trump ignored the warnings. (The institution is now called, ahem, “Trump Entrepreneur Initiative.”) Cue lawsuits.
Trump University is currently the defendant in three lawsuits — two class-action lawsuits filed in California, and one filed in New York …
…
How could that have happened? The New York suit offers a suggestion:
The free seminars were the first step in a bait and switch to induce prospective students to enroll in increasingly expensive seminars starting with the three-day $1495 seminar and ultimately one of respondents’ advanced seminars such as the “Gold Elite” program costing $35,000.
At the “free” 90-minute introductory seminars to which Trump University advertisements and solicitations invited prospective students, Trump University instructors engaged in a methodical, systematic series of misrepresentations designed to convince students to sign up for the Trump University three-day seminar at a cost of $1495.
…
To do that, instructors touted Trump’s own promises: that students would be “mentored” by “handpicked” real-estate experts, who would use Trump’s own real-estate strategies. …
[Blog Editor: after this point there are a series of Youtube videos used to drive home the point of Trump scam artist. Of the videos three are blocked from showing telling the reader they are now marked as “private”. Could it be there might be some legal problems against the videos?]
…
Meanwhile, Trump — who maintains that Trump University was “a terrific school that did a fantastic job” — has tried to bully his opponents out of the suit. Lawyers for Tarla Makaeff have requested a protective order from the court “to protect her from further retaliation.” According to court documents, Trump has threatened to sue Makaeff personally, as well as her attorneys. He’s already brought a $100 million counterclaim against the New York attorney general’s office.
Yup, there is really nothing to defend the Trump U scam. If Trump was promoting a school on Trump principles in business, he could argue that those who failed to make good business decisions with those principles have themselves to blame. But apparently the salesmen for recruiting students, used some kind of “playbook” with principles of hooking a buyer with illegitimate promises combining a business education. No one can make a promise insuring success, rather only a promise to provide the tools to make sound choices that may or may not lead to success. I have to give Deace a plus on this one. However, Americans have to decide if a man that has managed to become a billionaire then go bankrupt, then become a billionaire again is not capable of making different decisions to overcome previous bad decisions.
After nearly eight years of Leftist Dem hubris that a socialized America with humanistic ideology has made America great, I have to give Trump a shot at looking at a different path. Crooked Hillary will simply continue the downward spiral of cultural and economic collapse of America with a transformist concept differing from the Founding Fathers’ vision. Ergo the civil suit does not change my mind.
Consider Nebuchadnezzar. The ten northern Hebrew tribes under the King of Israel was given up to conquest by Assyria because of the Northern Kingdom’s spiral into immorality and rejection of the God who delivered them from bondage in Egypt. That left the two tribes that formed the Southern Kingdom of Judah. Roughly one hundred years later Judah’s leaders were leading that nation to the point of no return in the sight of God. When the leadership of Judah rejected the insights of God given by the Prophets of God, Judah also lost their right to have a governing nation. God sent an unbelieving polytheist conqueror named Nebuchadnezzar who emptied Judah of its leadership families, educated families and Priestly families and sent them to Babylon. Perhaps Trump is America’s Nebuchadnezzar giving Americans a wake-up call to abandon humanistic ungodly ideology and return to God’s morality of purpose:
4 And command them to say to their masters, “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel—thus you shall say to your masters: 5 ‘I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are on the ground, by My great power and by My outstretched arm, and have given it to whom it seemed proper to Me. 6 And now I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant; and the beasts of the field I have also given him to serve him. (Jeremiah 27: 4-6 NKJV)
Gossip: Deace here is referencing the Trump camp pushing Ted Cruz had some extramarital affairs: “5 Things You Need To Know About #CruzSexScandal” –
… They’re firmly convinced that the National Enquirer’s anonymously sourced story alleging that Cruz has had extramarital affairs with at least five women must be true. …
…
Trump’s People Have Been Pushing The Story.Trump has a long, friendly history with the CEO of the National Enquirer, as Gabe Sherman of New York Magazine pointed out back in October:
…
Katrina Pierson, One Of The National Enquirer’s Women, Has Denied The Story.Pierson, … She would have every interest in confirming the story, given that it would put an end to Cruz’s presidential hopes and, indeed, his entire career. Yet here’s what she’s tweeted this morning about the Enquirerstory:
What’s worse? People who actually believe the trash in tabloids, or the ones who know it’s false &spread it anyway? #stupidity on all levels
Amanda Carpenter, Another Of The National Enquirer’s Women, Has Denied The Story.…
The Cruz Super PAC That Donated Money To The Carly Fiorina Campaign Almost Certainly Didn’t Do It To Shut Up Sarah Isgur Flores. …
Cruz Has Denied The Story, And Blamed The Trump Campaign For The Smear. …
…
UPDATE: Trump has now responded in his own typically bombastic manner:
I believe Ted because well, he’s Ted. Ben Shapiro posts the Trump denial as if we shouldn’t believe him because well, he’s the Donald. Ben you have to prove Trump ordered the story just like Trump and the NationalEnquirer would have had to prove that Ted Cruz was an adulterer. There is and was no proof from anyone’s camp. It all falls on the National Enquirer.
But you have to ask yourself if Trump or someone in his campaign did push an untrue story, why would he do so? Because Trump believed the Cruz campaign posted some photos of Trump’s wife Melania with a nude model, shot in bad taste with the epithet that went something like, “This could be your First Lady.”
Trump typically lost his New York temper. Who do you think he was going to blame? Of course Ted denied he had anything to do with disparaging Melania Trump. So Trump posted an unflattering photo of Ted’s wife Heidi Cruz beside Melania. Then Ted went ballistic. Then somewhere in there, Trump says he’ll spill the beans on Heidi which never came to light as far as I know. The point is Trump isn’t the only gossip. Yet the Never-Trump people never talk about the other gossipers in politics. Let’s be consistent. Slanderer: This is more Trump vs. Cruz tit-for-tat. I assure you if Donald was attacked he would not attack back: “Trump accuses Cruz’s father of helping JFK’s assassin” –
Donald Trump on Tuesday alleged that Ted Cruz’s father was with John F. Kennedy’s assassin shortly before he murdered the president, parroting a National Enquirer story claiming that Rafael Cruz was pictured with Lee Harvey Oswald handing out pro-Fidel Castro pamphlets in New Orleans in 1963.
Even if that was true and it is not, what does or did that have to do with today’s Ted Cruz? So why did Trump pop-off with another tabloid-sourced accusation that is easier to disprove than to prove? Here’s the New York reasoning of Donald Trump:
After Ted Cruz’s father Rafael pleaded with believing Christians to support his son, Trump slammed him, saying that it was a disgrace for Cruz to say that the election of Trump could contribute to the destruction of America. Rafael Cruz had stated from the pulpit:
I implore, I exhort every member of the body of Christ to vote according to the word of God and vote for the candidate that stands on the word of God and on the Constitution of the United States of America. And I am convinced that man is my son, Ted Cruz. The alternative could be the destruction of America.
Stung, Trump pouted:
I think it’s a disgrace that he’s allowed to do it. I think it’s a disgrace that he’s allowed to say it … You look at so many of the ministers that are backing me, and they’re backing me more so than they’re backing Cruz, and I’m winning the evangelical vote. It’s disgraceful that his father can go out and do that. And just — and so many people are angry about it. And the evangelicals are angry about it, the way he does that. But I think it’s horrible. I think it’s absolutely horrible that a man can go and do that, what he’s saying there. (Trump Says Cruz’s Father Shouldn’t Be ‘Allowed’ To Say Mean Things About Him; By HANK BERRIEN; The Daily Wire; 5/3/16)
Trump took Pastor Rafael’s plea to vote for his son Ted amidst an Evangelical crowd as a slight interpreting “The alternative could be the destruction of America” as an unnamed slight to himself rather perhaps to Hillary. I wasn’t there so I don’t know the context of Pastor Rafael’s speech. If it was a Trump slight, I do understand the Trump response. The response goes, “You hit me I hit back harder.” The response valid or invalid is what has attracted voters to Trump. It’s kind of like the disagreements people have in a living discussion. It’s plain speaking. People like plain spoken.
Trump as a Misogynist: Here Deace uses People Magazine, alluding that Trump is a misogynist because defending his wife by attacking the wife of the candidate he believed slighted Melania, makes Trump a misogynist. Then the People post provides a lesson in a happy marriage message. Since People believes all the tit-for-tat is all Trump’s doing and nothing to do with Ted defending his wife Heidi, then Trump needs this good marriage advice. Apparently Deace feels since Trump must need marriage advice he must be a misogynist: “Doubling Down, Donald Trump Tweets a My-Wife’s-Prettier-Than Yours Meme Featuring Heidi Cruz – and Ted Fires Back”.
I think Steve Deace should have found a better to prove Trump misogynism. The only thing Deace could find was either Trump defending his wife or counter-attacking a lady (e.g. Fiorina or Hillary) for attacking him. Ergo misogynist disproved in this case.
Trump as an adulterer: Deace offers no proof or even an accusation from another woman or a cuckcolded husband, but turns to an innocuous quote from Trump’s book The Art of the Deal. Deace uses The rightscoop as his adulterer source: “Here’s when Trump BRAGGED in his book about his MULTIPLE AFFAIRS with wealthy married women!” –
I have a huge problem with adultery even those who may brag in jest to inflate their manhood. Nevertheless, it is apparent Trump parted ways with previous marriages on good terms and his marriage with Melania appears solid at the very least evidenced by Trump’s rash defenses of her honor. I find it unfortunate that Steve Deace is stooping to Dem Party standards to smear Donald Trump.
Is Trump a Deceiver: In high stakes business I have no doubts that Donald Trump used his share of smoke and mirrors in making deals. Again no one thinks Trump is a devout Christian. He is a secular minded fellow that DOES NOT discount Christianity as the American Left has gone to great measures to do to transform America into a Socialist-Humanistic culture. If you actually listen carefully to the CNN video at the top of this post, the newscasters are doing the misdirection and smoke and mirror deception. They correctly state that Trump opted out of the last GOP debate in favor of a Veterans fundraiser. The CNN deception is on how they reported on the disbursement of Six Million Dollars Trump claims he raised. When listening carefully, only ONE charity claims they did not receive any money. ALL the rest claimed they received money and ONLY one of those charities disclosed the amount. And makes Trump a deceiver, how? “Trump campaign admits it did not raise $6 million for veterans” –
Donald Trump says he raised six million dollars for veterans including a million dollars of his own money. CNN’s Drew Griffin has been tracking down the donations.
…
The list showed that the majority of the money that had been donated at that time came from Trump’s foundation or the foundations of two of his friends, businessman Carl Icahn and pharmaceutical billionaire Stewart J. Rahr.
The campaign did not identify any contributors Friday who pledged funds without following through in actual donations.
Charities that have benefited from the fundraiser include Fisher House Foundation, Green Beret Foundation and Disabled American Veterans, while others, such as Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said they did not want to receive any of the contributions. (Trump campaign admits it did not raise $6 million for veterans; By Curt Devine; CNN; 5/20/16 Updated 6:55 PM ET)
Where in the world in this article or video does ANYONE in the Trump campaign ADMIT that “$6 million” was NOT raised for veterans? The only Trump campaign admission ranged from uncertain to the exact amount to a guess of about $4.5 million. Talk about deception! This why I often say the acronym for CNN stands for the Communist News Network.
Is Trump a liar? Steve Deace goes to The Daily Wire which claims to provide 101 absolute lies Donald Trump. I’m not going to go through all 101 accusations. Frankly that would take too much of my time to see if Trump told a flagrant lie, made a mistake, said something taken out of context or told the absolute truth. I have to wonder if The Daily Wire is going to go through all the lies Hillary (and Bill) told to the American public and measure her verbiage as outright lie, mistaken, taken out of context or (chuckle) told the absolute truth?
The article Deace goes to is “Lyin’ Donald: 101 Of Trump’s Greatest Lies”. If the next 100 accusations are as flimsy as the first listed accusation, one has to wonder on the integrity of The Daily Wire –
March 30: Trump claims MSNBC edited their released version of his interview with Chris Matthews in which Trump stumbled on abortion: “You really ought to hear the whole thing. I mean, this is a long convoluted question. This was a long discussion, and they just cut it out. And, frankly, it was extremely — it was really convoluted.” Nope; that was a lie. (Lyin’ Donald: 101 Of Trump’s Greatest Lies; By HANK BERRIEN; The Daily Wire; 4/11/16)
Hmm… The accused lie is that MSNBC edited the Chris Matthews-Donald Trump conversation to make Trump look bad. However, the real problem Trump has is being made to look bad for saying quite haphazardly that women that seek an abortion should be punished. Huh… Maybe Deace would have had a better chance with the misogynistic accusation if he went to the abortion issue in this conversation. The Dems and the Pro-Choice (i.e. women can have a doctor kill their unborn baby as a birth control method) think such Trump thoughts are misogynistic.
So I’m going to share the MSNBC transcript the begins with abortion rather than the entire transcript:
MATTHEWS: OK, look, I’m monopolizing here.
Let’s go, young lady?
TRUMP: Hello.
QUESTION: Hello. I am (inaudible) and have a question on, what is your stance on women’s rights and their rights to choose in their own reproductive health?
TRUMP: OK, well look, I mean, as you know, I’m pro-life. Right, I think you know that, and I — with exceptions, with the three exceptions. But pretty much, that’s my stance. Is that OK? You understand?
MATTHEWS: What should the law be on abortion?
TRUMP: Well, I have been pro-life.
MATTHEWS: I know, what should the law — I know your principle, that’s a good value. But what should be the law?
TRUMP: Well, you know, they’ve set the law and frankly the judges — I mean, you’re going to have a very big election coming up for that reason, because you have judges where it’s a real tipping point.
MATTHEWS: I know.
TRUMP: And with the loss the Scalia, who was a very strong conservative…
MATTHEWS: I understand.
TRUMP: … this presidential election is going to be very important, because when you say, “what’s the law, nobody knows what’s the law going to be. It depends on who gets elected, because somebody is going to appoint conservative judges and somebody is going to appoint liberal judges, depending on who wins.
MATTHEWS: I know. I never understood the pro-life position.
TRUMP: Well, a lot of people do understand.
MATTHEWS: I never understood it. Because I understand the principle, it’s human life as people see it.
TRUMP: Which it is.
MATTHEWS: But what crime is it?
TRUMP: Well, it’s human life.
MATTHEWS: No, should the woman be punished for having an abortion?
TRUMP: Look…
MATTHEWS: This is not something you can dodge.
TRUMP: It’s a — no, no…
MATTHEWS: If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law. Should abortion be punished?
TRUMP: Well, people in certain parts of the Republican Party and Conservative Republicans would say, “yes, they should be punished.”
MATTHEWS: How about you?
TRUMP: I would say that it’s a very serious problem. And it’s a problem that we have to decide on. It’s very hard.
MATTHEWS: But you’re for banning it?
TRUMP: I’m going to say — well, wait. Are you going to say, put them in jail? Are you — is that the (inaudible) you’re talking about?
MATTHEWS: Well, no, I’m asking you because you say you want to ban it. What does that mean?
TRUMP: I would — I am against — I am pro-life, yes.
MATTHEWS: What is ban — how do you ban abortion? How do you actually do it?
TRUMP: Well, you know, you will go back to a position like they had where people will perhaps go to illegal places.
MATTHEWS: Yes?
TRUMP: But you have to ban it.
MATTHEWS: You banning, they go to somebody who flunked out of medical school.
TRUMP: Are you Catholic?
MATTHEWS: Yes, I think…
TRUMP: And how do you feel about the Catholic Church’s position?
MATTHEWS: Well, I accept the teaching authority of my Church on moral issues.
TRUMP: I know, but do you know their position on abortion?
MATTHEWS: Yes, I do.
TRUMP: And do you concur with the position?
MATTHEWS: I concur with their moral position but legally, I get to the question — here’s my problem with it…
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: No, no, but let me ask you, but what do you say about your Church?
MATTHEWS: It’s not funny.
TRUMP: Yes, it’s really not funny.
What do you say about your church? They’re very, very strong.
MATTHEWS: They’re allowed to — but the churches make their moral judgments, but you running for president of the United States will be chief executive of the United States. Do you believe…
TRUMP: No, but…
MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?
TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.
MATTHEWS: For the woman?
TRUMP: Yes, there has to be some form.
MATTHEWS: Ten cents? Ten years? What?
TRUMP: Let me just tell you — I don’t know. That I don’t know. That I don’t know.
MATTHEWS: Why not?
TRUMP: I don’t know.
MATTHEWS: You take positions on everything else.
TRUMP: Because I don’t want to — I frankly, I do take positions on everything else. It’s a very complicated position.
MATTHEWS: But you say, one, that you’re pro-life meaning that you want to ban it.
TRUMP: But wait a minute, wait a minute. But the Catholic Church is pro-life.
MATTHEWS: I’m not talking about my religion.
TRUMP: No, no, I am talking about your religion. Your religion — I mean, you say that you’re a very good Catholic. Your religion is your life. Let me ask you this…
MATTHEWS: I didn’t say very good. I said I’m Catholic.
(LAUGHTER)
And secondly, I’m asking — you’re running for President.
TRUMP: No, no…
MATTHEWS: I’m not.
TRUMP: Chris — Chris.
MATTHEWS: I’m asking you, what should a woman face if she chooses to have an abortion?
TRUMP: I’m not going to do that.
MATTHEWS: Why not?
TRUMP: I’m not going to play that game.
MATTHEWS: Game?
TRUMP: You have…
MATTHEWS: You said you’re pro-life.
TRUMP: I am pro-life.
MATTHEWS: That means banning abortion.
TRUMP: And so is the Catholic Church pro-life.
MATTHEWS: But they don’t control the — this isn’t Spain, the Church doesn’t control the government.
TRUMP: What is the punishment under the Catholic Church? What is the…
MATTHEWS: Let me give something from the New Testament, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Don’t ask me about my religion.
TRUMP: No, no…
MATTHEWS: I’m asking you. You want to be president of the United States.
TRUMP: You told me that…
MATTHEWS: You tell me what the law should be.
TRUMP: I have — I have not determined…
MATTHEWS: Just tell me what the law should be. You say you’re pro-life.
TRUMP: I am pro-life.
MATTHEWS: What does that mean?
TRUMP: With exceptions. I am pro-life.
I have not determined what the punishment would be.
MATTHEWS: Why not?
TRUMP: Because I haven’t determined it.
MATTHEWS: When you decide to be pro-life, you should have thought of it. Because…
TRUMP: No, you could ask anybody who is pro-life…
MATTHEWS: OK, here’s the problem — here’s my problem with this, if you don’t have a punishment for abortion — I don’t believe in it, of course — people are going to find a way to have an abortion.
TRUMP: You don’t believe in what?
MATTHEWS: I don’t believe in punishing anybody for having an abortion.
TRUMP: OK, fine. OK, (inaudible).
MATTHEWS: Of course not. I think it’s a woman’s choice.
TRUMP: So you’re against the teachings of your Church?
MATTHEWS: I have a view — a moral view — but I believe we live in a free country, and I don’t want to live in a country so fascistic that it could stop a person from making that decision.
TRUMP: But then you are…
MATTHEWS: That would be so invasive.
TRUMP: I know but I’ve heard you speaking…
MATTHEWS: So determined of a society that I wouldn’t able — one we are familiar with. And Donald Trump, you wouldn’t be familiar with.
TRUMP: But I’ve heard you speaking so highly about your religion and your Church.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
TRUMP: Your Church is very, very strongly as you know, pro-life.
MATTHEWS: I know.
TRUMP: What do you say to your Church?
MATTHEWS: I say, I accept your moral authority. In the United States, the people make the decision, the courts rule on what’s in the Constitution, and we live by that. That’s why I say.
TRUMP: Yes, but you don’t live by it because you don’t accept it. You can’t accept it. You can’t accept it. You can’t accept it.
MATTHEWS: Can we go back to matters of the law and running for president because matters of law, what I’m talking about, and this is the difficult situation you’ve placed yourself in.
By saying you’re pro-life, you mean you want to ban abortion. How do you ban abortion without some kind of sanction? Then you get in that very tricky question of a sanction, a fine on human life which you call murder?
TRUMP: It will have to be determined.
MATTHEWS: A fine, imprisonment for a young woman who finds herself pregnant?
TRUMP: It will have to be determined.
MATTHEWS: What about the guy that gets her pregnant? Is he responsible under the law for these abortions? Or is he not responsible for an abortion?
TRUMP: Well, it hasn’t — it hasn’t — different feelings, different people. I would say no.
MATTHEWS: Well, they’re usually involved. Anyway, much more from the audience here at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay. We’ll be right back.
On a personal level I wouldn’t punish a woman for participating with baby-murder with done as a form of birth control. I might not have a problem with accessory to murder. Trump’s complaint is this townhall meeting was skewed to defame Trump as a misogynist and mentioned very little Chris Matthews double-talk hypocrisy on being a good Catholic agreeing with Church doctrine against abortion but being pro-abortion legally for those deluded women who want birth control by murder.
And so merely by showing that the first accusation in The Daily Wire was actually disingenuous manipulation and time constraints I’m not going to wade through the 100 other skewed accusations of Trump lying. AGAIN Steve Deace should examine the Hillary lies and make a voter decision based on how wicked she is rather than how much Trump doesn’t measure up to Conservative snuff or Christian ethics.
As part of the progressive-left influence that Kupelian says is so adversely affecting the nation, Americans are being intimidated, bullied and seduced into accepting a whole slew of false “narratives” as though they represented reality, said Kupelian.
A “narrative,” he said, is just “a nice name for a … mass delusion.”
…
… I’m saying we have a culture and a presidency in which basically we’re taught there is no God, there is no right and wrong and the biblical morals that this country did pretty well with for several centuries are oppressive and racist and we need to get rid of them!” …
…
How can a person cope with living in a world of false narratives and dreamlike illusions? Kupelian argues the solution is simple:
“We need to wake up. We just need to wake up.”
He continued: “People tell me, ‘You know, this is a nightmare we’re living in under Obama.’ … It’s true, but there’s only one step away from a nightmare to being awake again. You just have to wake up. You have to put aside these sleepy delusions” that make us feel so comfortable in our dream world, he said. (LEFT PROMOTING MASS DELUSION, SAYS JOURNALIST; By Joseph Farah; WND; 11/11/15)
That is an excerpt from WND’s editorial/promotion of author David Kupelian’s new book about how the Obama/Leftist American transformation agenda is destroying America from within by eradicating everything that has made the USA an exceptional nation in a world of oppressive agendas.
I haven’t read Kupelian’s book yet but I’m going to get a copy.
From alleged widespread racism to “Islamophobia” to “gender reassignment,” the way the American left currently portrays many of today’s top issues is not only wrong, says bestselling author David Kupelian, it is an attempt to forcibly replace reality with a series of coveted delusions – commonly called “narratives.”
Kupelian, whose latest book is “The Snapping of the American Mind,” made his comments during a fast-paced drive-time interview with popular San Francisco KSFO radio talker Brian Sussman.
“The statistics are simply mind-melting,” said Kupelian, referring to the astronomical levels of addiction, depression and family breakdown in today’s America, which he ties in his book to the left’s ongoing “fundamental transformation of America.” “One hundred and thirty million people are dependent on legal or illegal mind-altering substances. We’re not talking 130,000. This sounds like all the adults, almost – it’s like [we’re] a nation of addicts!”
As part of the progressive-left influence that Kupelian says is so adversely affecting the nation, Americans are being intimidated, bullied and seduced into accepting a whole slew of false “narratives” as though they represented reality, said Kupelian.
A “narrative,” he said, is just “a nice name for a … mass delusion.”
Kupelian rattled off a few examples of present-day false media narratives:
“Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, was a victim of racist police – even though it’s proven that he was a predator,” Kupelian added. “He was a punk on drugs who had just knocked off a convenience store and he tried to kill a cop, to grab his gun!” But “it doesn’t matter” to the left, said Kupelian. “You still hear about Ferguson and Michael Brown” as though the mythical “gentle giant” was a victim of trigger-happy, racist cops.
“Where is this all coming from?” Kupelian asked rhetorically.
“We don’t live in a vacuum. … I’m saying we have a culture and a presidency in which basically we’re taught there is no God, there is no right and wrong and the biblical morals that this country did pretty well with for several centuries are oppressive and racist and we need to get rid of them!” He added, “There’s a side of us that feels like this is liberation, but there’s a price to pay. We’re paying the price now.”
Indeed, American politics has become so unhinged, he said, it is hard for normal Americans to even process what is happening.
“Hillary Clinton should be in prison, he noted, adding, “We have this socialist who, God bless Donald Trump, he referred to Bernie Sanders as a ‘communist maniac.'”
He then told Sussman: “I defy your listeners to go to the CPUSA website, Communist Party USA [cpusa.org] … Tell me the difference between the communist – forget socialism, the Communist Party USA – and the Democrat Party. Everything [on the CPUSA site] is ‘war on women,’ ‘racism,’ all the same stuff” over which today’s Democrat Party obsesses, he said.
The result of this political and moral insanity, Kupelian believes, is a kind of massive psychological strain imposed on Americans who find it difficult to live on a diet of lies.
In “The Snapping of the American Mind,” said Kupelian, “I’m connecting the dots between that big picture” of the Obama-left’s “fundamental transformation” of America “and the individual picture of the wretchedness and brokenness and pathology of the 130 million Americans that are dependent on [toxic] substances,” said Kupelian, who contends that leftist deception and intimidation “is actually driving good, unsuspecting Americans over the edge to depression, anger, mental illness, addiction, family breakdown – all the pathology and the wretchedness we see on the individual level which we don’t really attach to politics so much.”
As a talk show host, Sussman said he must often guard his listeners from everything that’s happening.
“If I just gave them the news of the day, people would be crashing their cars,” he joked. “Their minds are about to snap. ‘I can’t take this anymore.’ And I think you’re nailing it with this book.”
But it can be hard to break away from an all-encompassing media culture. Misspeaking for a moment, Kupelian said, “Bruce Jenner is still a woman,” when he meant to say Jenner is still a man.
Realizing his mistake, he laughed, “Oh no, they’ve gotten to me!”
Sussman chortled, “It’s gotten to you as well, your mind has snapped, David!”
Jokes aside, Kupelian’s message is deadly serious. And for those who actually want to help troubled people, he has simple advice – stick to reality. He affirmed the biological impossibility of “sex change” – or to use today’s euphemism, “gender reassignment” – citing the finding of the former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital that changing genders is “biologically impossible.”
“This is a controversial thing to say, especially in San Francisco,” Kupelian advised. “You cannot transition from one sex to the other. An adult male has about 37 trillion cells. Every one of them is permanently branded with Y [male] chromosomes.”
Kupelian said going along with transgenderism and other absurdities amounts to encouraging mental illness. As he put it, if a pathologically skinny anorexic woman thinks she is fat – a common syndrome among anorexics – “we don’t need to pretend she is fat.”
How can a person cope with living in a world of false narratives and dreamlike illusions? Kupelian argues the solution is simple:
“We need to wake up. We just need to wake up.”
He continued: “People tell me, ‘You know, this is a nightmare we’re living in under Obama.’ … It’s true, but there’s only one step away from a nightmare to being awake again. You just have to wake up. You have to put aside these sleepy delusions” that make us feel so comfortable in our dream world, he said.
In the end, Sussman told his listeners, “I want to promote this book heavily. David, great book, and it’s flying off the shelves as I would expect.”
For 18 years, WND has been the world’s best-kept secret in Christian content and marketing. But the word is getting out.
There’s a reason WND.com has the largest reach of any Christian website on planet Earth.
There’s a reason WND’s weekly and monthly subscription magazines are growing—online and off—when other national news magazines are struggling.
There’s a reason WND Films have dominated the sales charts among faith releases since 2012.
There’s a reason the WND Superstore is among the largest online retailers in the world.
Are you in the business of reaching Christians, particularly in North America?
Are you a Christian book publisher or film producer?
Are you a Christian broadcaster?
Are you part of a Christian business that needs more attention and more customers?
If the answer to any of those questions is YES, you need to understand the opportunities WND offers you and your business.
WND is not your competitor. We’re your partner.
WND can best be explained by its mission statement:
WND is an independent news company dedicated to uncompromising journalism, seeking truth and justice and revitalizing the role of the free press as a guardian of liberty. We remain faithful to the traditional and central role of a free press in a free society — as a light exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power. We also seek to stimulate a free-and-open debate about the great moral and political ideas facing the world and to promote freedom and self-government by encouraging personal virtue and good character.
The Conservative-Patriot Christian Right 
