Monday, September 26, 2016

To dream

The impossible dream

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Hillary ORDERED Emails to Be Stripped

Whoa. Turns out it is true!



Combetta was the employee who deleted all of Hillary Clinton's emails.

According users on Reddit, Combetta asked for assistance in July 2014 from Reddit users on how to purge emails and how to strip VIP's email address from "a bunch of archived emails."

EDIT: Holy shit they actually deleted all their comments from a 2 year old reddit post, I think we hit gold on this one. link of the deleted reddit post

Sunday, September 18, 2016

We're all Les Deplorables now, Irredeemable really!

We're all Les Deplorables now, Irredeemable really!

"Welcome to all of you deplorables"

Make America Great Again!

Thursday, September 15, 2016

Deplorables Health magazine


Monday, September 12, 2016

Harvard PhD Explains How Google Search Bias Could "Shift 3 Million Votes" In Upcoming Election

Harvard PhD Explains How Google Search Bias Could "Shift 3 Million Votes" In Upcoming Election

Wednesday, September 07, 2016

That look of love...

Find a love that looks at you the way the press looks at Hillary.

Monday, August 29, 2016

Trump By A Landslide?

Memo to Clinton supporters: if you want to persuade the American public the nation is going in the right direction, you'll have to actually change the direction rather than just promise more of the same.

Trump By A Landslide?

Monday, August 22, 2016

Hillary tries to toss black guy under the bus

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell has had enough. Since the Hillary Clinton email scandal first surfaced, she and her team of apologists have been bringing up Gen. Colin Powell ….

"Clinton did nothing different than what Colin Powell did," was the constant refrain from Hillary's defenders. Of course, that argument has been completely destroyed by the facts. …

Last Friday, … Hillary raised the stake on her scapegoating of Powell by claiming that Powell gave her the idea to use a private server int he first place.

"Her people have been trying to pin it on me," … "The truth is, she was using [the private email server] for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did," Powell added.
Why does the former diplomat believe this to be the case?
"Why do you think?"

Bus go both ways, Kemosabe

"Regretful" Trump Reaches Out To Latino Leaders: "No, I Am Not Flip-Flopping" [feedly]

What have you got to lose?

During the reign of the first black president, white youth unemployment has plunged from 19.0% to just 14.1%; while black youth unemployment has barely budged at 31.2% (from 32.8%) - more than double that of whites.

As Trump said:

"Look at how much African American communities have suffered under Democratic control," Trump said to his supporters.

"To those hurting, I say, 'What do you have to lose by trying something new like Trump?' You're living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?"

And now he is shifting his attention to Latino voters this week... (as The LA Times reports)

He insisted at rallies in Wisconsin and Michigan that he would  do a better job than Hillary Clinton, his Democratic rival, at creating jobs and improving schools for black families.

On Saturday, he focused on Latino voters.

In a round table discussion with his campaign's Hispanic advisory council at Trump Tower in New York, the real estate mogul talked about creating jobs and his plans to limit immigration, according to attendees.

 Colorado State Rep. Clarice Navarro, a member of the council who attended the meeting, said Trump heard the group's concerns.

"It's about jobs, jobs, jobs, and he really listened," said  Navarro, a Republican. "I've always felt he does care about the Latino community and now it's on us to get him elected."

During the meeting Trump also suggested he is interested in figuring out a "humane and efficient" manner to deal with immigrants in the country illegally, according to BuzzFeed.

"Regretful" Trump Reaches Out To Latino Leaders: "No, I Am Not Flip-Flopping"

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Reporter: I’m leaving Milwaukee because white people are being threatened and attacked

0bama's America.

Thanks 0bama... For dividing us !

Monday morning an independent reporter named Tim Pool announced he would no longer cover events in Milwaukee after witnessing white reporters being harassed and seeing a white man shot in the neck. Pool posted a video explaining his decision on You Tube.

"Upon arriving here one of the first things we hear is the crowd getting angry and saying 'what are these white people doing here?'" Pool said. Pool says he took it as a sign locals were angry but didn't assume that meant it was unsafe for him to continue to cover events.

"Things started to get really tense later in the night when people started screaming 'fuck white people,' 'white people suck'," Pool said. He continued," A reporter was grabbed by some locals and threatened and told to leave."

Pool's concern peaked when he saw a white man who had been shot in the neck and was then extracted from the crowd by police.

He concludes, "I know that people on both sides of the political spectrum kind of have a different definition of what racism is but when you hear a group directing their anger and hate towards white people and seeing several white people being attacked and then finally an 18-year-old white kid is shot in the neck that's when I'm like 'okay, I shouldn't be here.'"

Buzzfeed published a story Tuesday recounting Pool's decision to leave the city and also backing up his description of the danger to reporters, especially white reporters:

On Sunday evening, as several large crowds gathered for vigils, the environment turned from peaceful to hostile. "Fuck off," some people shouted at BuzzFeed News. "What the fuck's that white guy doing here?" another said.

Protesters also threatened a number of journalists, particularly white reporters. Near a police line, angry men promised to "beat your white ass" and warned to "get the fuck out of here."

One of Buzzfeed's correspondents was even involved in a car chase with a group of men in a Suburban:

Later in the evening, a group of men in a large SUV followed a BuzzFeed News correspondent to a hotel north of downtown Milwaukee. At a red light, three men jumped out of their Chevrolet Suburban and began rushing toward the car. After a brief car chase through a neighborhood he arrived safely back at his hotel where an armed guard was stationed and the SUV drove off.

The riots in Milwaukee began Saturday after 23-year-old Sylville Smith was shot and killed by a police officer. Police say the officer who shot Smith is black and was wearing a body camera at the time. Video of the shooting has not been released yet but police say it clearly shows Smith was carrying a gun in his hand.

Reporter: I'm leaving Milwaukee because white people are being threatened and attacked

Thursday, August 04, 2016

A fair person who will not hesitate to act is one of Donald Trump's greatest assets

As a political outsider and successful businessman, Donald J. Trump is the best choice for president amongst all the leading contenders. His energy and optimism for our future as well as his platform and policy measures not only will convince more voters to tally their vote for his candidacy, but will guide our nation back to a fuller recovery and greater prosperity for everyone without the need for false hope. He has personality and gravitas, and uses it in effective ways to attack his competitors in ways that sometimes has even them apologizing. Many in the press are appalled and enthralled by his personality at the same time, almost like a love-hate relationship. He uses this popularity to effectively garner more support without the need to spend a lot on his own for advertising, the media provides much air time in interviews far beyond the others.

In order to predict the future, sometimes it is necessary to look to the past, to learn effective lessons. When we look at all the recent examples of popular presidents, we see of course President Obama, who's sheer personality and magnetism, and message of hope and change propelled him to the presidency. He has steered a steady course of government programs like the ACA which provides health care for 8 million individuals in 2014 (*1)., Under Obama's administration the economy has avoided deep recessions, although some critics say the economic growth is anemic(*2). More importantly, many of the of his economic growth figures are artificial because his administration relies on the Federal Reserve (Quantitative Easing or QE) to print money which in turn it uses to buy stocks and bonds, which artificially pushes up the prices of Stocks even though many companies have not shown fundamentals that would usually be the gauge for stock increases(*3).  

All of these actions by the government to artificially keep interest rates low and inflate stocks adds to the bottom line of the rich and big corporations at the expense of the middle class and small business (*4). The numbers released by his Bureau of Labor Statistics on unemployment are accurate but misleading, because it does not show the number of people out of the labor force at a record 94 million Americans and the labor force participation rate stayed stuck at 62.6 percent, a 38-year low(*5). And a significant increase, 21.3 percent of the U.S. population participates in government assistance programs each month under Obama(*6). 

These economic factors are exactly the kind of thing that were tackled quite differently under another President from the past: President Reagan. His economic policy was different in that he spurred economic growth in a dynamic economy by reducing the rate of taxation, simplifying the tax code(*7). As a result, income tax revenue to the government grew by 58% under his two terms(*8), and continued to spur growth well beyond his presidency. Although Reagan helped the economy, he was stymied by congress and the bureaucracy in actually limiting the size and rapid growth of government (*9).

What happened afterward? Congress came back years later, re-complicated the tax code by making it complex again to the point that the average American can't even do their own tax return(*10)(*11). Burdens on small business increased to this day such that small business can't compete or find it too costly because of over-regulation(*12). Today there exists a culture many term Crony-Capitalism, where big corporations are in bed with the government(*13) and this form of soft tyranny in the form of high taxes and regulations that proliferates and benefits a small few at the top of the income spectrum(*14). 

The poor have been helped with government handouts, yet what they really need is a hand up, not a hand out(*15). The free market is where they should look so that they have more opportunities to provide for themselves. This is the American way of those who founded this nation, this is the way we need to fully recover into the future.  Many jobs were lost and never return because of the loss of many small businesses(*16). It is only the hand of government preventing a bigger recovery.(*7)

Donald Trump has tapped into two aspects of history in his quest for office.  First, just like President Obama, he is appealing to many across America for a kind of hope and change, yet not in terms of what government can do for you, but rather for what we all can do for ourselves, after the burdensome hand of government is taken from the the picture. In his own words: "Any system that penalizes success and accomplishment is wrong. Any system that discourages work, discourages productivity, discourages economic progress, is wrong. If, on the other hand, you reduce tax rates and allow people to spend or save more of what they earn, they'll be more industrious; they'll have more incentive to work hard, and money they earn will add fuel to the great economic machine that energizes our national progress. The result: more prosperity for all—and more revenue for government."(*17)

Much like Reagan before, Trump is promising to reduce regulation and taxation and bring back jobs(*18). He's promised to bring back jobs from other countries, and in some cases will employ tough negotiating tactics to convince other countries to do better trade deals and prevent big American corporations from moving manufacturing abroad(*19). How do we know he is good at this: He's done in in the free market. By reading a largely instructive book he has written years ago called "The Art of the Deal"(*20) we can glean a large degree of the tactics he will leverage this time to benefit the American people. He's done it and now promises to do so as the president and on our behalf. 

Trumps is propelled to the top of the polls because many see him as a political outsider. Many are fed up with both parties in our two party system.(*21) The so-called "Inside the Beltway" politicians (meaning Washington D.C.) seem to many in the heartland as spending so long in Washington that they have lost touch with the average American(*22). They see these ruling class establishment politicians as more concerned with promoting their own careers and agendas than with helping their constituents.(*23) Many are in Washington for years and decades. Without term limits, they use the power of incumbency to easily get re-elected. It seems to have come to a boiling point where now the outsider seems to have the best chance, especially with fly-over country which often supports the Republican party, but now seems to be looking for outsiders like Trump and Ben Carson. 

However Donald Trump has the edge over Mr. Carson. He's good at making deals(*20). He claims, and many believe that this will help are economy,(*18) and the economy is first and foremost, for without that we won't be able to afford anything else. An advisor to President Clinton in his campaign once said: "It's the economy stupid."(*24) That rang true with the voters, and will do so again in the upcoming presidential year. The idea that we must and will concentrate of finding the best ways to promote the economy seems to be the theme that will carry any campaign in the current economic climate. What no politician inside the beltway will tell you is that actually getting government out of the way that will create the greatest growth. This is the theme that political outsider Donald Trump is running on.(*25)

Trump first propelled himself in popularity by discussing a subject that has been taboo to others in Washington: Illegal immigration. As Trump puts it, he is all for 'legal' immigration, but as we do have laws set in stone in this country, we should abide by them and prevent people from entering this country without a proper green card and permission to do so. As a consequence to this, much violent crime has accompanies the advent of these undocumented illegal immigrants, and the current administration and congress refuses to follow the law and deport those who are not here legally. This may seem a cruel position, to send people packing, but following the law blindly is a foundation with which this country was founded. Mr. Trump has also stated that he is willing to allow the best and the brightest and the most willing to do honest work the opportunity to return 'legally' to the U.S.A., but it must be done legally. (*26)

This platform is only his. He brought it up, and it has broad appeal. Some are turned off on the idea, but a plurality of Americans support this stance. A plurality of Americans support enforcing the laws of immigration that are on the books: "A 58 percent majority says the United States needs to enforce the current laws, while 34 percent think the country's immigration laws need to be completely overhauled."(*27).  Other countries, Mexico included, have much stricter immigration laws. If you enter Mexico illegally, they will enforce their laws without hesitation(*28). Being an adult means facing difficult issues. This is difficult because it seems cruel, but in reality being returned the country of origin is not at all cruel, and one has the right to apply for entry with a legal green-card.  The benefit of his stance is that we will effectively deal with much violent crime that has entered our country because of illegal immigration.

Having a broad appeal, and being a fair person who will not hesitate to act are Donald Trump's greatest assets. He's not a waffler, he doesn't stick his finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing before he decides to act. He acts and will based on the greatest benefit to those he represents, whether in business, or on behalf of the American public. He will make a great president.


(17). Donald J. Trump, "Time to Get Tough: Making America #1 Again" 2011

(19). From many of his campaign appearances.

(24). Bill Clinton adviser James Carville --'s-economy-stupid-2

Note: This is the quote for citation 7, it IS a simplification of the tax code. Not only that, but it shows that after Reagan the tax code became higher and more complex again::

Some of the laws major achievements were:

  • The reduction of the top marginal individual income tax rate from 50 percent to 28 percent
  • A reduction of the corporate income tax rate from 46 percent to 34 percent
  • Reducing the total number of income brackets from 14 to 2

While Reagan achieved a significant victory with his reforms, they did not far outlive his presidency. Starting with President H.W. Bush, the top marginal tax rate was raised from 28 percent to 31 percent. President Clinton took it a step further raising the top rate to 39.6 percent. After a brief stint at 35 percent under President George W. Bush, President Obama returned the rate to 39.6 percent.

Campaign spot this fall

From Daily Wire:

Hillary Clinton called for raising taxes on the "middle class" while campaigning on Monday in Omaha, NE. Joined by left-wing Democrat billionaire Warren Buffett, she received applause from those in attendance.

 "Well, we're not going there, my friends. I'm telling you, right now – we're going to right fairer rules for the middle class and we are going to raise taxes on the middle class!"

Wednesday, August 03, 2016

Find the cat

Find the cat...

Tuesday, August 02, 2016

Is Trump The Peace Candidate?

Is Trump The Peace Candidate?


Submitted by Patrick Buchanan via,

With Democrats howling that Vladimir Putin hacked into and leaked those 19,000 DNC emails to help Trump, the Donald had a brainstorm: Maybe the Russians can retrieve Hillary Clinton's lost emails.

Not funny, and close to "treasonous," came the shocked cry.

Trump then told the New York Times that a Russian incursion into Estonia need not trigger a U.S. military response.

Even more shocking. By suggesting the U.S. might not honor its NATO commitment, under Article 5, to fight Russia for Estonia, our foreign-policy elites declaimed, Trump has undermined the security architecture that has kept the peace for 65 years.

More interesting, however, was the reaction of Middle America. Or, to be more exact, the nonreaction. Americans seem neither shocked nor horrified. What does this suggest?

Behind the war guarantees America has issued to scores of nations in Europe, the Mideast and Asia since 1949, the bedrock of public support that existed during the Cold War has crumbled.

We got a hint of this in 2013. Barack Obama, claiming his "red line" against any use of poison gas in Syria had been crossed, found he had no public backing for air and missile strikes on the Assad regime.

The country rose up as one and told him to forget it. He did.

We have been at war since 2001. And as one looks on the ruins of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and adds up the thousands dead and wounded and trillions sunk and lost, can anyone say our War Party has served us well?

On bringing Estonia into NATO, no Cold War president would have dreamed of issuing so insane a war guarantee.

Eisenhower refused to intervene to save the Hungarian rebels. JFK refused to halt the building of the Berlin Wall. LBJ did nothing to impede the Warsaw Pact's crushing of the Prague Spring. Reagan never considered moving militarily to halt the smashing of Solidarity.

Were all these presidents cringing isolationists?

Rather, they were realists who recognized that, though we prayed the captive nations would one day be free, we were not going to risk a world war, or a nuclear war, to achieve it. Period.

In 1991, President Bush told Ukrainians that any declaration of independence from Moscow would be an act of "suicidal nationalism."

Today, Beltway hawks want to bring Ukraine into NATO. This would mean that America would go to war with Russia, if necessary, to preserve an independence Bush I regarded as "suicidal."

Have we lost our minds?

The first NATO supreme commander, Gen. Eisenhower, said that if U.S. troops were still in Europe in 10 years, NATO would be a failure. In 1961, he urged JFK to start pulling U.S. troops out, lest Europeans become military dependencies of the United States.

Was Ike not right? Even Barack Obama today riffs about the "free riders" on America's defense.

Is it really so outrageous for Trump to ask how long the U.S. is to be responsible for defending rich Europeans who refuse to conscript the soldiers or pay the cost of their own defense, when Eisenhower was asking that same question 55 years ago?

In 1997, geostrategist George Kennan warned that moving NATO into Eastern Europe "would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold War era." He predicted a fierce nationalistic Russian response.

Was Kennan not right? NATO and Russia are today building up forces in the eastern Baltic where no vital U.S. interests exist, and where we have never fought before – for that very reason.

There is no evidence Russia intends to march into Estonia, and no reason for her to do so. But if she did, how would NATO expel Russian troops without air and missile strikes that would devastate that tiny country?

And if we killed Russians inside Russia, are we confident Moscow would not resort to tactical atomic weapons to prevail? After all, Russia cannot back up any further. We are right in her face.

On this issue Trump seems to be speaking for the silent majority and certainly raising issues that need to be debated.

How long are we to be committed to go to war to defend the tiny Baltic republics against a Russia that could overrun them in 72 hours?

When, if ever, does our obligation end? If it is eternal, is not a clash with a revanchist and anti-American Russia inevitable?

Are U.S. war guarantees in the Baltic republics even credible?

If the Cold War generations of Americans were unwilling to go to war with a nuclear-armed Soviet Union over Hungary and Czechoslovakia, are the millennials ready to fight a war with Russia over Estonia?

Needed now is diplomacy.

The trade-off: Russia ensures the independence of the Baltic republics that she let go. And NATO gets out of Russia's face.

Should Russia dishonor its commitment, economic sanctions are the answer, not another European war.

Sunday, July 31, 2016

1 BIG REASON to never buy another Apple product

Apple's CEO Tim Cook Hosts $50,000-per-Ticket Hillary Fundraiser


Despite Hillary Clinton's convention outreach to Sen. Bernie Sanders's supporters over campaign finance reform — "Your cause is our cause," she said — Apple CEO Tim Cook is hosting a fundraiser for Clinton at up to $50,000 a ticket.

Sanders's man-of-the-people campaign raised $228,556,686 from over 7 million individual donors, contributing an average of just $27. Small individual contributors that gave less than $200 accounted for about 60 percent of Sanders's donations.

Hillary Clinton told Sanders supporters that as a woman of the people, "Our country needs your ideas, energy and passion." But according to the non-partisan OpenSecrets blog, Clinton hasn't been wasting much time focusing on $27 contributors.

Of the $264,374,319 Hillary raised directly from small individual donors during the primary season, only $50,842,138, or 19 percent, came from small individual donors under $200. Clinton, unlike Sanders, also benefited from fatcat political action committees (PACs) that raised another $110,211,121 to show her love. Adding the two funding bases together, less than 14 percent of Hillary's donors gave small bucks.

Silicon Valley earned the nickname "Valley of the Democrats" from the TechCrunch blog, because over 83 percent of presidential campaign contributions went to Democrats during the 2008 and 2012 campaigns.

Silicon Valley continues to be the "Valley of the Democrats" in the 2016 presidential campaigns, with over 99 percent of Silicon Valley's $8.6 million in contributions going to Democrats. But Hillary Clinton's average Silicon Valley contribution was $1,276, compared to just $178 for Sanders.

The size of Hillary Clinton's average Silicon Valley donation is about to spike much higher on August 24, when Cook hosts a fundraiser for the first woman in American history to lead a presidential ticket of a major party.

Cook is officially raising money for the Hillary Victory Fund PAC, according to an invitation obtained by BuzzFeed News. The HVF PAC is a joint fundraising committee that will contribute Clinton campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and 38 state parties. The HVF PAC is keeping the event location secret until payments are received.

In keeping with Clinton's focus on big-hitter contributors, Cook's fundraiser lists three different contribution levels: $50,000, $10,000, and $2,700.

The secrecy surrounding Cook's efforts on behalf of the Hillary Victory Fund PAC event may be tied to the WikiLeaks July 22 release of 19,252 Democratic National Committee emails and the July 27 release of 29 DNC audio recordings that appear to raise questions about whether the Clinton presidential campaign potentially "laundered" money through the Clinton Victory Fund PAC, according to lawyers representing a class action of Sanders contributors against the DNC and its former chair, Debbie Wasserman Shultz.

Apple, Inc. and the Clinton campaign declined comment to BuzzFeed.

Recently, Cook held a fundraiser for Speaker of the House Paul Ryan — an act for which he was slammed by prominent Democrats, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential Race,

Saturday, July 30, 2016

I'm With Her


Friday, July 29, 2016

Hillary to raise taxes on Middle class.

Hillary Clinton has made clear she intends to dramatically raise taxes on the American people if elected. She has proposed an income tax increase, a business tax increase, a death tax increase, a capital gains tax increase, a tax on stock trading, an "Exit Tax" and more (see below). Her planned net tax increase on the American people is at least $1 trillion over ten years, based on her campaign's own figures.

It's no wonder that when asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos if her pledge was a "rock-solid" promise, she slipped and said the pledge was merely a "goal." In other words, she's going to raise taxes on middle income Americans.

Hillary's formally proposed $1 trillion net tax increase consists of the following:

Income Tax Increase – $350 Billion: Clinton has proposed a $350 billion income tax hike in the form of a 28 percent cap on itemized deductions.

Business Tax Increase -- $275 Billion: Clinton has called for a tax hike of at least $275 billion through undefined business tax reform, as described in a Clinton campaign document.

"Fairness" Tax Increase -- $400 Billion: According to her published plan, Clinton has called for a tax increase of "between $400 and $500 billion" by "restoring basic fairness to our tax code." These proposals include a "fair share surcharge," the taxing of carried interest capital gains as ordinary income, and a hike in the Death Tax.

But there are even more Clinton tax hike proposals not included in the tally above. Her campaign has failed to release specific details for many of her proposals. The true Clinton net tax hike figure is likely much higher than $1 trillion.

For instance:

Capital Gains Tax Increase -- Clinton has proposed an increase in the capital gains tax to counter the "tyranny of today's earnings report." Her plan calls for a byzantine capital gains tax regime with six rates. Her campaign has not put a dollar amount on this tax increase.

Tax on Stock Trading -- Clinton has proposed a new tax on stock trading. Costs associated with this new tax will be borne by millions of American families that hold 401(k)s, IRAs and other savings accounts. The tax increase would only further burden markets by discouraging trading and investment. Again, no dollar figure for this tax hike has been released by the Clinton campaign.

"Exit Tax" – Rather than reduce the extremely high, uncompetitive corporate tax rate, Clinton has proposed a series of measures aimed at inversions including an "exit tax" on income earned overseas. The term "exit tax" is used by the campaign itself. Her campaign document describing this proposal says it will raise $80 billion in tax revenue, but claims some of the $80 billion will be plowed into tax relief. How much? The campaign doesn't say.

This proposal completely fails to address the underlying causes behind inversions: The U.S. 39% corporate tax rate (35% federal rate plus an average state rate of 4%) and our "worldwide" system of taxation, which imposes tax on all American earnings worldwide. The average corporate rate in the developed world is 25%. Thirty-one of thirty-four developed countries have cut their corporate tax rate since 2000. The U.S. has not. Hillary's plan moves in the wrong direction.

ATR is tracking Clinton's full tax record at its dedicated website,


Thursday, July 28, 2016

Pass The Baton

"I told them that by every economic measure the country is doing better..."

Facts, over the last 7 1/2 years:

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Mexico WANTS to build a wall

It turns out that Donald Trump's proposed border wall is not such a bad idea after all. Though Mexico's current and former Presidents have both lambasted Trump for implying that a wall would curb immigration, it turns out that Mexicans like the idea.

There is one small caveat, however. Mexicans don't want to build the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, but rather, they want to stem the tide of immigration into their own country  by building the wall on their southern border with central America:

One of the largest newspapers along Mexico's border with Texas is calling for a border wall with Central America, similar to the one being promoted by Republican Presidential Candidate Donald J. Trump.

The editorial board of El Mañana, one of the largest newspapers in the border state of Tamaulipas,  penned a piece called "Yes to the Border Wall … but in Mexico's South." The piece praises the idea of border wall, not on the border with Mexico, but on the border with Central America. 

"Along the Mexican border peace and quiet came to an end, Central Americans played a large influence," El Mañana's piece claimed.

The Mexican border newspaper provides a controversial view on the Border Wall; which is one of the main topics in Trump's campaign. 

"Mexico's southeast has two borders; one with Guatemala and one with Belize, that do not provide any benefit, but on the contrary only problems are brought by these crossing points that are being used for the new invasion. The one use by Central American's looking for a way into the United States. " El Mañana's editorial board wrote.

One of the issues mentioned in the editorial piece points not only to the hordes of Guatemalans, Salvadorans and Hondurans that flock to Reynosa in an effort to get to the U.S., but also to the large number of Central Americans that are left in Mexico after deportation.

Full report at Breitbart

Eastern European countries are expanding their border fence networks to keep middle east refugees from crossing into their countries, a strategy that has cut illegal immigration by over 90% in those nations.

President Obama made the one in front of the White House even higher and more elaborate.

Prisons tend to build them, too.

The Mexicans want one.

And now even the Democratic National Committee has decided that fences work to keep out the riff-raff. They've built an 8 foot high, 4 mile long fence around their convention.

It seems like these days everyone wants to build a wall.

But according to former DHS chief Janet Napolitano, walls don't work to keep people out and are ineffective immigration policy, so we're not sure what all the fuss is about.

Sunday, July 24, 2016

Sped-up video of the March for Bernie Sanders protest in Philadelphia

Sped-up video of the March for Bernie Sanders protest in Philadelphia -- it was pretty massive, not gonna lie

Downtown Philly

Weather forcast shows it'll be 100° in Philly for the convention this week.
It's gonna be like hell!

Plus it'll be hot.

Saturday, July 23, 2016

Trump craigslist ad for hot assistant

WikiLeaks Emails: DNC Approved Fake Trump Ads For 'Hot Women' Comfortable With 'Gropes Under The Meeting Table'

22 Jul 2016

The WikiLeaks cache of 19,000 emails from the Democratic National Committee has only been online for a couple of hours, and already it's revealing some of the party's dirty tricks.
In an email dated May 18, 2016, Christina Freundlich, Deputy Communications Director at the DNC proposed that the Democrats impersonate the Trump Organization on Craigslist, placing a fake ad for "hot women" aimed at making the Republican candidate look as sexist as possible.

The email, which can be read below, contains the full text of the fake ad. It includes requirements for employees to "not gain weight on the job," to "evaluate other women's hotness," and be comfortable with a range of illegal workplace sexual harassment including allowing the boss to "grope you under the meeting table."

The fake ad closes by calling on interested applicants to send their cover letters to ""

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 7:09 AM -0700, "Freundlich, Christina"  <<<>> wrote:                                                                       Mark and Luis – digital created a fake craigslist jobs post for women who want to apply to jobs one of Trump's organizations. This will be a microsite and we still need to send it to Perkins. Since we will be pitching this, need your approval please. Thanks

Multiple Positions (NYC area)

Seeking staff members for multiple positions in a large, New York-based corporation known for its real estate investments, fake universities, steaks, and wine. The boss has very strict standards for female employees, ranging from the women who take lunch orders (must be hot) to the women who oversee multi-million dollar construction projects (must maintain hotness demonstrated at time of hiring).

Title: Honey Bunch (that's what the boss will call you)

Job requirements:

No gaining weight on the job (we'll take some "before" pictures when you start to use later as evidence)
Must be open to public humiliation and open-press workouts if you do gain weight on the job
A willingness to evaluate other women's hotness for the boss' satisfaction is a plus
Should be proficient in lying about age if the boss thinks you're too old Working mothers not preferred (the boss finds pumping breast milk disgusting, and worries they're too focused on their children).
About us:

We're proud to maintain a "fun" and "friendly work environment, where the boss is always available to meet with his employees. Like it or not, he may greet you with a kiss on the lips or grope you under the meeting table.
Interested applicants should send resume, cover letter, and headshot to
After sending a reminder to her superiors, Freundlich's ideas was eventually approved by DNC Communications Director Luis Miranda. His response is copied below.

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 4:29 PM -0700, "Miranda, Luis" <<>> wrote: As long as all the offensive shit is verbatim I'm fine with it.

"Yes it is" responded Freundlich.

This is just one of the 19,000-plus Democratic National Committee email files released by WikiLeaks earlier today. The full archive of emails can be browsed at WikiLeaks' site.

Thursday, July 21, 2016

Well said...

"For too long, our country has ignored its problems, punting them down the road for future generations to deal with." - @DonaldJTrumpJr

"For the first time, parents no longer think their kids will be as well off as we. We've lost the confidence in our leaders"- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"I know that when someone tells my father that something is impossible, that's what triggers him into action."- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"For my father, impossible is just the starting point."- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"His unrelenting determination is why he's going to become our next president"- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"His unrelenting determination is why I know that when my father says he can fix the country he means it."- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"He's promoted people based on their character, their street smarts and their work ethic, not simply paper or credentials."- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"His true gift as a leader is that he sees the potential in people that they don't even see in themselves..."- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"Potential that other executives would overlook because their resumes don't include the names of fancy colleges and degrees" @DonaldJTrumpJr

"We didn't learn from MBAs, we learned from people who had doctorates in common sense."- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"The other party don't tell you that it was their policies that caused the problem / their policies have no accountability"- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"It was Bernie Sanders himself who warned that a large tide of new workers keeps wages low and poverty high."- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"The other party gave us public schools that far too often fail our students, especially those who have no options."- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"Our schools used to be an elevator to the middle class, now they're stalled on the ground floor."- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"...That's called competition. It's called the free market. And it's what the other party fears."- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"They fear it because they're more concerned about protecting jobs of tenured teachers than serving the students in need."- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"The other party gave us a regulatory state on steroids. Dodd-Frank is consumer protection for billionaires."- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"If Hillary Clinton were elected, she'd be the first president who couldn't pass a basic background check"- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"We're going to unleash the creative spirit and energy of all Americans."- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"We're going to put Americans first, all Americans, not a special class of crony elites at the top of the heap."- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"A president who knows we can't simply delete our problems, but that we have to tackle them head on."- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"A president who won't allow PC culture to put the safety and well-being of our children and our loved ones at stake."- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"A president who will secure and defend the borders of the United States."- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"A president who will appoint judges who believe that freedom requires a limited government."- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"A president who won't use the highest office in the land as a path to personal enrichment."- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"A president who's actually created real jobs, who has actually signed the front of a paycheck, [not the back]"- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"A president who speaks his mind, who doesn't have to run a focus group or use data analytics to form a simple opinion."- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"A president who says what needs to be said and not just what you want to hear."- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"A president who will unleash the greatness in our nation and in all of us."- @DonaldJTrumpJr

"And when we elect him, we'll have done all that. We'll have made America great again, greater than ever before."- @DonaldJTrumpJr

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

REPORT: As President, Donald Trump Could Purge U.S. Government Of Obama Appointees


Reuters published an exclusive report today which suggests that if Trump is elected president, he would take legal steps to purge the federal government of Obama appointees.

A point the media surely misses, is that this idea would be heartily embraced by people who support Trump. In fact, it's one of the keys to Trump's success in this election.

From the report:

Exclusive: Trump could seek new law to purge government of Obama appointees

If he wins the presidency, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump would seek to purge the federal government of officials appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama and could ask Congress to pass legislation making it easier to fire public workers, Trump ally, Chris Christie, said on Tuesday.

Christie, who is governor of New Jersey and leads Trump's White House transition team, said the campaign was drawing up a list of federal government employees to fire if Trump defeats Democratic rival Hillary Clinton in the Nov. 8 presidential election.

"As you know from his other career, Donald likes to fire people," Christie told a closed-door meeting with dozens of donors at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, according to an audio recording obtained by Reuters and two participants in the meeting.

Christie was referring to Trump's starring role in the long-running television show "The Apprentice," where his catch-phrase was "You're fired!"

The Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

Trump's transition advisers fear that Obama may convert these appointees to civil servants, who have more job security than officials who have been politically appointed. This would allow officials to keep their jobs in a new, possibly Republican, administration, Christie said.

"It's called burrowing," Christie said. "You take them from the political appointee side into the civil service side, in order to try to set up … roadblocks for your successor, kind of like when all the Clinton people took all the Ws off the keyboard when George Bush was coming into the White House."

Read the rest here.

A related topic that the Reuters report doesn't mention, is that since so many of Obama's actions as president have been based on executive orders, the next president could virtually erase much of Obama's legacy.

If and when that happens, the outcry from the left will be a thing to behold.


The post REPORT: As President, Donald Trump Could Purge U.S. Government Of Obama Appointees appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Christie Prosecutes Hillary: Lock Her Up!

CHRIS CHRISTIE: Tonight, as a former federal prosecutor, I welcome the opportunity to hold her accountable for her performance and her character.

We must present those facts to you, a jury of her peers, both in this hall and in living rooms around our nation.

Since the Justice Department refuses to allow you to render a verdict, let's present the case now, on the facts, against Hillary Clinton. She was America's chief diplomat. Look around at the violence and danger in our world today every region of the world has been infected with her flawed judgment.

But let me be specific so you can render your verdict. In North Africa, she was the chief engineer of our disastrous overthrow of Qaddafi in Libya.

Libya today after Hillary Clinton's grand strategy? Libya's economy in ruins, death and violence in the streets and ISIS now dominating the country.

Hillary Clinton, as a failure for ruining Libya and creating a nest for terrorist activity by ISIS guilty or not guilty? In Nigeria, Hillary Clinton amazingly fought for two years to keep an Al-Qaeda affiliate off the terrorist watch list.

What happened because of this reckless action by the candidate who is the self proclaimed champion of women around the world? These terrorists abducted hundreds of innocent young girls two years ago.

These schoolgirls are still missing today.

What was the solution from the Obama/Clinton team? A hashtag campaign! Hillary Clinton, as an apologist for an Al-Qaeda affiliate in Nigeria resulting in the capture of innocent young women guilty or not guilty? She fights for the wrong people.

She doesn't fight for us. She doesn't get the real threats America faces. In China, Hillary Clinton praised the Chinese government for buying our debt to finance President Obama's bloated stimulus plan.

So desperate for Chinese cash, she promised to oppose the Buy American provision in the stimulus bill in exchange for the cash to finance his huge expansion of government spending.

Hillary Clinton, putting big government spending financed by the Chinese ahead of jobs for middle class Americans guilty or not guilty? In Syria, she called President Assad a "reformer" and a "different kind of leader".

With 400,000 now dead...think about that.



Thousand. Dead.

At the hands of the man Hillary defended.

We must ask this question: Hillary Clinton, as an awful judge of the character of a dictator-butcher in the Middle East guilty or not guilty? In Iran, she led the negotiations that brought about the worst nuclear deal in history.

Let me be clear: America and the world are measurably less safe and less respected because of the Iran deal Hillary helped cut.

Period. After she launched those negotiations, she became the biggest cheerleader for it at the end.

A deal that will lead to a nuclear Iran, an Israel that will be less safe and secure and much more dangerous Middle East.

Hillary Clinton, as an inept negotiator of the worst nuclear arms deal in American history guilty or not guilty? In Russia, she went to the Kremlin on her very first visit and gave them the symbolic reset button.

The button should have read, "delete" she is very good at that because she deleted in four years what it took 40 years to build. The next year, she said our goal was to strengthen Russia.

Strengthen an adversary led by a dictator who dreams of reassembling the old Soviet empire? What a dangerous lack of judgment.

Once again, as a flawed evaluator of dictators and failed strategist who has permitted Russia back in as a major player in the Middle East is Hillary Clinton guilty or not guilty? In Cuba, Hillary Clinton supported concessions to the Castro brothers and got almost nothing in return for ending the embargo.

She supported a deal that didn't even require this murderous regime to return a cop killer, JoAnne Chesimard, to face justice.

Chesimard murdered a New Jersey State Trooper in cold blood, fled to Cuba and lives there to this very day.

How do you live with your own conscience when you reward a domestic terrorist with continued safety and betray the family of fallen police officer waiting for decades for justice for his murder? Hillary Clinton as coddler of the brutal Castro brothers and betrayer of the family of fallen Trooper Werner Foerster guilty or not guilty?

Finally, here at home, in one of her first decisions as Secretary of State, she set up a private e-mail server in her basement in violation of our national security.

Lets face it: Hillary Clinton cared more about protecting her own secrets than she did about protecting America's secrets.

Then she lied about it over and over again.

She said there was no marked classified information on her server.

The FBI Director said that was untrue.

She said that she did not email any classified information. The FBI Director said that was untrue.

She said all work related emails were sent back to the State Department.

The FBI Director said that was untrue.

As to Hillary Clinton, putting herself ahead of America guilty or not guilty? Hillary Clinton, lying to the American people about her selfish, awful judgment guilty or not guilty? Time after time the facts, and just the facts, lead you to the same verdict both around the world and at home.

In Libya and Nigeria guilty.

In China and Syria guilty.

In Iran and Russia and Cuba guilty.

And here at home on risking America's secrets to keep her own and lying to cover it all up. Guilty. Her focus group tested persona, with no genuineness to be found, is a sham meant to obscure all the facts and leave you able to vote for her. We cannot promote someone to Commander-in-Chief who has made the world a more violent and dangerous place with every bad judgment she has made.

We cannot make the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States someone who has risked America's secrets and lied about this to Congress and the American people.

We didn't disqualify Hillary Clinton to be President of the United States the facts of her life and career disqualifies her. We in this hall agree with all of this.

But I want to talk to all of you at home, in your living rooms. You are the ones who will decide this election. We have an alternative.

We have a man who is unafraid.

We have a man who wants to lead us.

We have a man who understands the frustrations and the aspirations of our fellow citizens.

We have a man who judges people based on their performance regardless of your gender, race, ethnic or religious background. We do not need to settle for less.

We cannot reward incompetence and deceit. We need to demand more than what Hillary Clinton offers for America.

We know exactly what four years of Hillary Clinton will bring: all the failures of the Obama years, but with less charm and more lies. It is our obligation to stop Hillary Clinton now and never let her within 10 miles of the White House again.

It is time to come together and make sure that Donald Trump is our next President.

I am proud to be part of this team.

Now let's go win this thing.

Christie Prosecutes Hillary: Lock Her Up!

Words, just words

Words, just words.

Amazing to see the actual plagiarism!

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

"We're Not As Divided As We Seem"

Thursday, July 14, 2016

‘Silicon Valley’ Writer Sounds Off on Tech Ageism

In 2007, a fresh-faced Mark Zuckerberg famously ruffled feathers among some older colleagues when he suggested that tech companies should not hire people over 30. "Young people are just smarter," the Facebook chief executive, then 22, told a crowd at Stanford University.

Nearly a decade after the public gaffe, some say little has changed in terms of how older workers are perceived in the tech industry. Despite making recent attempts to diversify their workforces through aggressive initiatives to attract more women and minorities, Silicon Valley firms still wear their disproportionately young ranks like a badge of honor, proudly flaunting a youth-focused culture in which 28 is seen as middle age and 35 over the hill.

While workers over 40 are protected by federal civil rights laws in the United States, the plight of older employees so rarely enters into conversations about workplace discrimination in tech that one would be forgiven for not realizing it's an issue at all.

In fact, ageism is very prevalent. Just ask Dan Lyons, a technology journalist and writer for HBO's "Silicon Valley." As notably chronicled in his recent best-selling book "Disrupted: My Misadventure in the Start-Up Bubble," Lyons lost his longtime position at Newsweek magazine when he was in his 50s and decided to switch gears by taking a marketing fellowship at the software company HubSpot. In his book, published earlier this year, Lyons describes the startup's culture as a frat-like circus filled with Nerf gunfights and hookup dens.

To complement the book, Lyons also wrote a LinkedIn post in which he called out tech industry executives for their defiantly ageist rhetoric, including his old boss at HubSpot, who he said once called gray hair and experience "overrated." The LinkedIn post went viral, and Lyons said it was at that moment that he realized how widespread the problem really is.

"I got this outpouring of emails from people," Lyons told Dice Insights. "I don't mean to toot my own horn—I don't think it's that the article was so good. It's just that there are a s–tload of people out there who experienced this. It was upsetting really."

We spoke with Lyons last week about what it might take for the tech industry to become more welcoming, but don't expect a happy ending: The characteristically cynical author said Silicon Valley still has a long way to go.

Dice: With such an emphasis on youth, people forget that older workers are a protected class. Why do you think there's not more awareness about this issue in the tech industry?

Dan Lyons: I don't think there's any real protection, though. That's the thing. At HubSpot it was like, "We can do whatever we want. We can fire you at will." HubSpot didn't even have an HR department for the first six or seven years it was in business. They didn't really care about that stuff. And let's face it, everybody knows you can't really bring an age-discrimination lawsuit. You'll never win—I don't think.

Dice: It's a hard thing to prove. It's one thing to have a law, but it's another thing to prove that's why you were fired.

Dan Lyons: I recognize that there's a law, but I don't think tech companies feel it at all. Google just got hit with an age discrimination lawsuit. I don't know if it'll go anywhere.

Dice: Is there any remedy to this? Are you hopeful that discussions about this will change the culture?

Dan Lyons: I'm really not. I wish I could say I was. If these guys came to believe that it was in their own self-interest to hire more older workers—if they thought they would make more money with older workers—they would. But I think they've just decided they can make more money with young kids. I wish I felt otherwise, but I don't see any sign of it changing.

Dice: That's pretty grim.

Dan Lyons: I just did a story for Boston magazine about this topic, and I talked to some tech companies trying to manage what they call a multi-generational workforce. I mean, maybe there's a glimmer of hope there. There are definitely bigger companies out there—if you have 50,000 employees, you need people of all ages. But overall in tech, with the venture-funded companies, it's the venture capitalists driving this. And they're driving it based on their own desire to get the biggest return in the shortest time possible.

Dice: Makes sense. If you're investing in a company, you want the best return.

Dan Lyons: And as cheaply as possible. I think it starts with those guys—the investors, what they want and what they push for. I think they've all decided that the optimal return is young kids: Burn them out, get rid of them, replace them.

Dice: There also seems to be a perception that older people are out of touch when it comes to technology, that they don't adapt as quickly. Is that a misconception?

Dan Lyons: I think that there's probably some truth to that. Like all of these things, there's some grain of truth in it. But I think the way it's described, people talk about "digital natives" like they're a different species, like they have some gene. I get that young kids are more comfortable with social media, they're earlier adopters. But I don't think that means a social media manager at a company has to be a young person. Where it gets weird is on the issue of engineers. Can an older engineer who already knows a bunch of languages learn Python? I don't think there's any other field where people say at age 40 you just can't understand this technology anymore.

Dice: If you're in the workforce, you evolve with it. That's how it works.

Dan Lyons: I guess I'm of two minds about it. On the one hand, I kind of feel like I'm better at what I do now than I was when I was 35, but I also get that I'm probably not as "opted-in." I haven't used Snapchat. I don't give a s–t about it.

House Flag

Emphatic Trump supporter wraps entire house in American flag - CBS News -

Tuesday, July 05, 2016

FBI Recommends "No Charges" Against Hillary Clinton

Clearly the law is only there for the 'little people'...

And I'll bet FBI director Comey wants to keep his job once the Hildabeast is president...

"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Every American Male Nightmare POTUS Scenario

Can you say 'Temperament' kiddies?

Secret Service Agent Said 'Good Morning' To Hillary, Check Out Her Nasty Response

During his interview on Monday's Sean Hannity Show, Gary Byrne told a story that "always bothered him the most" about his time with the Clintons--a polite gesture from a fellow secret service agent that was met with an incredibly nasty response from Hillary.

"We had a uniformed division officer who had been on the job a short period of time, nice guy, top of the line type person," Byrne recalled. The officer, a retired Marine who had received a Purple Heart for wounds he had received in Somalia, crossing paths with the first lady while on-duty.

"He was walking down the west colonnade and he said 'Good morning first lady.' And she looked at him and said 'go f*** yourself.'" Needless to say, the officer was stunned by Hillary's response.

Word quickly spread, and it quickly became clear that it wasn't the first time Hillary had cursed off a Secret Service agent. The incident worked its way up the chain of command.

"It's not that it hadn't happened before, it's just that the way it happened to this guy, when it got up the chain of command and the senior agents found out who this guy was, they felt bad about it," Byrne added.

A lot has been made about the "temperament" of Donald Trump. Does this sound like the temperament of a person you would want anywhere near The White House?

read more

Friday, June 17, 2016

Hillary's Huge Libya Disaster | The National Interest

Hillary's Huge Libya Disaster

America has given up in Clinton's wake.
Charles R. Kubic
June 15, 2016

Prior to the February 17, 2011, "Day of Rage," Libya had a national budget surplus of 8.7 percent of GDP in 2010, with oil production at 1.8 million barrels per day, on track to reach its goal of 3 million barrels per day. Currently, oil production has decreased by over 80 percent. Following the revolution, the Libyan economy contracted by an estimated 41.8 percent, with a national deficit of 17.1 percent GDP in 2011.

Before the revolution, Libya was a secure, prospering, secular Islamic country and a critical ally providing intelligence on terrorist activity post–September 11, 2001. Qaddafi was no longer a threat to the United States. Yet Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly advocated and succeeded in convincing the administration to support the Libyan rebels with a no-fly zone, intended to prevent a possible humanitarian disaster that turned quickly into all-out war.

Within weeks of the revolution there were two valid cease-fire opportunities, one presented to the Department of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), and a second opportunity presented to U.S. Africa Command for direct military commander negotiations to effect Gaddafi's abdication, in which I was personally involved. Both opportunities were rejected and shut down by Secretary Clinton. Internal communications that went public last year revealed that on March 18, 2011, a colonel in JCS wrote, ". . . Due to the UNSCR, Libyan forces sped up ops to get to Benghazi, and will soon cease fire. As expected. Our contact will arrange a face-to-face meeting with Saif, or a skype/video-telecon to open communications if time does not permit. It will have to be with a high level USG official for him to agree. If there will be an ultimatum before any ops, the USG must be in communication with the right leaders and hopefully listen for any answer. A peaceful solution is still possible that keeps Saif on our side without any bloodshed in Benghazi." However, on March 14, 2011 Secretary Clinton had already met with rebel leaders in Paris, including Mahmoud Jibril, number two in the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood, and had committed to support their revolution.

Despite valid ceasefire opportunities to prevent "bloodshed in Benghazi" at the onset of hostilities, Secretary Clinton intervened and quickly pushed her foreign policy in support of a revolution led by the Muslim Brotherhood and known terrorists in the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. One of the Libyan Rebel Brigade commanders, Ahmed Abu Khattala, would later be involved in the terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Articulating her indifference to the chaos brought by war, Secretary Clinton stated on May 18, 2013, to the House Oversight Committee and the American public, "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?"

Secretary Clinton's war actually did make a difference. It led to a very real and very tragic humanitarian disaster. Her bad judgment and failed policy resulted in the arming of terrorists, months of war and tens of thousands of causalities, the murder of the American ambassador and the deaths of three other brave Americans, continued civil war and the collapse of the Libyan economy, and a failed nation-state contributing to a tragic European migrant crisis. Clearly the Libyan disaster tops Secretary Clinton's legacy of failure.

The revolution ended October 23, 2011, and Libya held its first democratic election on July 7, 2012. A second election was held on June 25, 2014. Despite efforts made by peaceful Libyan officials to establish a strong secular nation, radical Islamic elements rejected the election results and used military force to subvert the will of the Libyan people. As a direct consequence of the chaos caused by Secretary Clinton's failed policy, there are now four entities competing for control of Libya: (1) the twice-elected democratic secular parliamentary government forced into exile in Tobruk by Islamist attacks, (2) the unelected radical Islamist-controlled government in Tripoli, (3) the savage ISIS terrorists who control the city of Sirte and (4) the UN-imposed Government of National Accord (GNA) recently placed ashore in abandoned buildings in Tripoli. The UN is attempting, with U.S. and European support, to impose a unity government (the GNA) that will include elements of sharia law in a new constitution. This approach was rejected twice by the Libyan people, who wanted a more secular government that is not founded in sharia.

1 2 next › last »

©2016 The National Interest. All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

0bama’s tantrum a striking display of failed leadership

0bama's tantrum a striking display of failed leadership
By Michael Goodwin June 15, 2016

If it is true that the best defense is a good offense, President 0bama should be celebrating in the end zone now. Obviously furious over criticism that his anti-terror policies are weak and that the Orlando slaughter proves it, he went on a televised tirade to let America know he's mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.

He laid waste to a field of straw men, cable-TV pundits and the always-evil "partisan rhetoric," by which he means anyone who disagrees with him. It was a striking display of personal anger and pent-up grievances — and a total failure of leadership during a national crisis.

It also, inadvertently, captured why Donald Trump was able to brawl his way to the GOP nomination. All his nice Republican rivals couldn't stir voters because they never knew how to rattle 0bama the way Trump is doing. The president didn't mention Trump yesterday, but the whole speech was nothing but a desperate and incoherent reaction to Trumpism.

As such, it was a huge moment in the general-election campaign, even though it comes before the nominees are formally crowned. For one thing, it showed that 0bama's plan to campaign against Trump as if he is running for his own third term won't be a cakewalk for the president or his legacy.

For another, the 0bama-Trump war means Hillary Clinton could be overshadowed in what was supposed to be her campaign for vindication. Throw in her husband and the stage is going to get crowded with alpha males competing for attention.

0bama's demeanor and tone were far from presidential — tantrums rarely are. Nor was he effective in rallying the nation to his cause. No surprise there. His cause is himself, always and only, and his greatly diminished historic presidency looks especially insignificant next to the bloodshed in Orlando. The iconic redeemer who promised hope and change never seemed so small and hopeless.

America saw Barack 0bama at low tide yesterday, revealed as brimming with fury and bankrupt of ideas and even sympathy for the dead. The man who had an answer for everything and a solution to nothing is now also out of excuses.

Jimmy Carter's infamous "malaise" speech in 1979 was inspirational by comparison. Carter focused on a "crisis of confidence in the future" while Obama scolded the country for losing confidence in him. Carter tried to lift up America, Obama came to put it down.

He meant his attacks to be especially vicious, but the spectacle was more sad than provocative. The president needs a rest from the job as much as we need a new president.

Forty-nine innocent people were gunned down in a gay nightclub by an Islamic terrorist, another 53 lie wounded, yet 0bama feels only his own pain. Public confidence in his effort to combat terrorism on his own peculiar terms while soft-pedaling the links to Islam were among the casualties in the Pulse nightclub. The world knows he's a failure and he can't stand the embarrassment.

So he lashed out at Trump, who dares not only to point out the obvious, but to rip away the veil of euphemism as he lunges for the jugular. Think Low Energy Jeb, Lyin' Ted, Little Marco and Crooked Hillary. They're all nasty and personal, yet ruthlessly accurate.

Now it's 0bama's turn in the crucible. Cosseted by his media water carriers and surrounded by sycophants, he isn't accustomed to dealing with a heavyweight street fighter.

Oh, would he love to run against Mitt Romney again. That way, he would never have to take a real punch.

The ostensible reason for 0bama's speech was an update on Orlando and to assert success against the Islamic State. The real reason was to lecture America about how right he is about everything on terrorism, from how to fight it to how to talk about it, and how Trump is worse than wrong.

At one point, 0bama denounced politicians who tweet and go on cable TV. My first reaction was to wonder whether he meant Trump or Clinton, or both. Of course, when 0bama does those things, it's cool.

Most telling, and least surprising, was that his defense of why he doesn't say "radical Islam" revealed there's no there there. The idea that linking terrorism to Islam smears the entire religion is preposterous, as is his claim that it "does the terrorists' work for them."

We are long past the point where 0bama's saying so makes it so, or even worth discussing. His fundamental problem is that he has nothing to show for his approach. If he had been right over the last eight years, we should be seeing big-time gains by now.

Instead, Islamic terrorism is growing around the world and the body count is mounting at home. More and more police officers are being pushed into counterterrorism duties as the nation's fear meter surges. It is noteworthy, too, that the most successful attacks since 9/11, in San Bernardino and now in Orlando, happened in cities that were not viewed as prime targets. That means no place is safe.

Meanwhile, the moderate American Muslims 0bama is always defending are almost all silent in the face of unspeakable horrors committed in the name of their religion.

The president has no substantive response to any of that, and not much desire to find one. His passion is reserved for criticism of Americans who don't see things his way, as though he can fool them one more time.

Trump: Maybe 0bama sympathizes with the terrorists
At the height of his anger, he warned that even talking about terrorism with a focus on Islam "makes Muslim Americans feel their government is betraying them."

In that case, they are joining a very large club, with two out of three Americans saying the country is on the wrong track. Millions of the disenchanted are turning to Trump because they concluded that not only had their government betrayed them, but that both political parties were in cahoots to keep them down.

Of course, because most of them are working-class people who play by the rules and don't demand special favors or government handouts, they're not important in Washington.

So they found an outsider they believe will speak for them and fight for them. That's why every punch Trump threw at the GOP establishment during the primaries, and every punch he throws at Clinton and Obama now, brings him more support and more loyalty.

It's also why Trump is going to keep swinging all the way to November. It's not elegant or pretty — in fact, it's often coarse and vulgar. But it's clearly getting under the president's very thin skin, and that's why it won't stop.

0bama had better get used to it. Finally, he may have met his match.