Posted tagged ‘Donald Trump’

America’s First Major Socialist Party Debuts in Philadelphia

July 30, 2016

America’s First Major Socialist Party Debuts in Philadelphia, PJ MediaRoger L Simon, July 29, 2016

(How different would Hillary be from the late lamented el Thugo down in Venezuela? He and his family got rich and his daughter remains the richest person there. El Thugo  was rotten to the core and his anointed successor, Maduro is, if that is possible, even worse. Should she become Obama’s successor, Hillary has much to look forward to. — DM)

soc party

Under cover of a sudden profusion of American flags (borrowed from city hall) and staged chants of “USA” ringing out on the final day, a new party was born in Philadelphia.

Gone are The Democrats.  Welcome, The Socialists.  

Okay, the Democratic Socialists, in deference to Bernie Sanders, whose party it is no matter who was giving the acceptance speech on Thursday. He held the whip hand and will continue to do so to keep his followers on the reservation.

And, yes, there have been more than a few socialist parties in America before – Eugene V. Debs, Norman Thomas, etc. – but never has one of our two major political parties been taken over to such an extent, not even during the days of George McGovern or Jimmy Carter.

I wouldn’t go quite so far as Dan Greenfield, who wrote the following in a compelling column inFrontPage:

Sinclair Lewis famously said, “When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross”. More accurately, when Communism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. That’s what the Democratic National Convention was.

So far, as I see it, it’s still socialism.  Hillary Clinton (even under the spell of Bernie ) is closer to François Hollande or some other Eurocrat than she is to Chairman Mao.  But the situation is bad enough and likely to get worse, if she is elected.

Those who think that she will be the second coming of centrist Bill should have their heads examined – or at least watch the reruns of her speech.  Bill was asleep during it.  Call it self-preservation of mind or body, he couldn’t take it either way.  He knew what was coming and it wasn’t going to be a reprise of his most famous line – “The days of big government are over.”  Quite the contrary.  The days of big government are coming as never before.  So he shut his eyes, and not just from whatever health issue he may be harboring.

They should also reread Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, written during the rise of the National Socialist Party, for a clear analysis of why socialism inevitably turns totalitarian.

Which leads me to this:  Many of you think you have the luxury of debating whether Donald Trump is sufficiently conservative or is really a Republican or will carry out all the things he says he will (more of this in a moment).

Sorry, you don’t.  It’s five minutes to midnight for Western Civilization.  Europe, in case you haven’t noticed, is on the brink of going Islamic.  Twenty-five percent of French teenagers already are. Mohammed has been the most popular baby name in the UK for some time. (Thank God, they passed Brexit.) And Ms. Merkel, despite the constant carnage in her country, is doubling down on Middle Eastern immigration.

Hillary Clinton intends to do the same thing here – in the name of human rights, naturally, when, needless to say, it’s about votes.  Economically, if she passes even a third of her proposals, our country will be so far in debt we may never find a way out, ratifying all of Hayek’s predictions as we all become slaves to a desperate state.

Pessimistic, sure.  But we can stop it.  This is a surprisingly winnable election if we pull together.

So for reassurance, let me tell one story from the Republican Convention. It was, as anyone watching television knows, a mostly uninformative event, as virtually all conventions are.  But I did go to a luncheon panel on the economy held by Freedom Works.  Larry Kudlow was the moderator.  I forget everyone on it, but it was a distinguished panel of conservative economists including Stephen Moore and a man named Harold Hamm I had never heard of.  My bad.  It turns out Hamm had more to do with the immediate revival, such as it is, of the US economy than anybody – he is the king of fracking, the developer of the Bakken formation and someone with a net worth at least double Trump’s and closer to George Soros’.

All of the panelist had worked closely, some one-on-one, with Trump on his tax plan, This plan is quite in the mainstream of conservative economic policy with lower, simplified rates across the board, particularly for businesses, which Trump puts at 15%.  (It currently starts at 39%.) Republicans have been calling for this reduction for years to bring our corporations home and generate jobs.

Anyway, midway into the panel, Kudlow asked a question on everybody’s mind – and probably yours too.  Larry wanted to know if the panelists thought Trump would go through with it, if Donald was, to put it bluntly, for real.

The panelists were all emphatic in saying Trump would.  They also gave him high marks for listening, of all things.

Now I know you can rationalize this a lot of ways.  Rich and powerful as these men were, they clearly wanted to be advisers to a man who could be the most powerful in the world.  So factor that in.  And factor in that I have been supporting Trump for a while.  But then ask yourself if you would rather have Hillary…. and socialism.

And I’m not even going to get into the Supreme Court.

Right Angle: Quien es Mas Malo?

July 29, 2016

Right Angle: Quien es Mas Malo? Bill Whittle Channel via YouTube, July 29, 2016

(Habla Espanol? No? No problema. — DM)

 

#DemExit begins as Hillary Clinton coronation draws to close

July 29, 2016

#DemExit begins as Hillary Clinton coronation draws to close, Washington Times

Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders cheer at a rally in Philadelphia on Thursday during the final day of the Democratic National Convention. (Associated Press)

Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders cheer at a rally in Philadelphia on Thursday during the final day of the Democratic National Convention. (Associated Press)

A Pew Research Center survey this month found that 85 percent of Mr. Sanders’ supporters intend to vote for Mrs. Clinton, with 9 percent switching to Mr. Trump and 6 percent unsure whom they will back in November.

But Sanders supporters were skeptical of the polling and estimated that the number of defections among their ranks may be closer to 50 percent.

******************************

PHILADELPHIA — Hours after Hillary Clinton gave her speech Thursday accepting the Democratic presidential nomination and capping the national convention, thousands in the rank and file planned to quit the party in a #DemExit protest.

That is not the show of party unity Democratic officials hoped for coming out of the four-day convention, where they went to great lengths to quiet disgruntled supporters of Sen. Bernard Sanders and present an image of solidarity for the race against Republican nominee Donald Trump.

“It’s a dog-and-pony show,” Seamus Berkeley, a Sanders delegate from New Mexico, said of the convention. “They’re shutting opposition down and making it look like everyone is falling in line.”

From concerns over her environmental policy to the extent of her commitment to taxpayer-funded health care to her murky stance on the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade deal, Mrs. Clinton has not overcome the doubts of a number of Sanders delegates and supporters at the convention.

“I think she has work to do, and I think the party has some work to do to convince us that not only are they going to live up to that platform the party passed, but that they’ll work with us,” said Donna Smith, executive director of Progressive Democrats of America.

Rose Watson, 61, one of 200 Sanders volunteers credentialed for the convention, said they all were shut out after the first day.

The first day was when Mr. Sanders addressed the convention and party officials handed out signs for the audience to wave that said, “Stronger together.”

“If we’re so strong together, then why not let us back in the room?” said Ms. Watson, who plans to switch her registration from Democrat to independent.

Sanders backers were also stymied in their attempts to derail the nomination of vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine, angered by party officials’ clampdown on signs of protest within the convention hall and enraged by leaked emails in recent days showing that party officials conspired against Mr. Sanders’ campaign.

Ms. Watson said she would join a large contingent of Mr. Sanders’ delegates and supporters at the convention in what they have dubbed #DemExit — a Twitter campaign that has been masterfully promoted by Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein.

Ms. Stein aggressively wooed Sanders supporters during the convention, and many pro-Sanders demonstrators outside the convention and delegates inside the Wells Fargo Arena said they will vote for Ms. Stein in November.

Still, the Democratic faithful insist that Mrs. Clinton is on stronger footing after the convention and are optimistic that the party will coalesce behind her.

“There’s a lot of work to do,” said North Carolina delegate Marc Friedland.

He anticipated that the Clinton campaign would make a concerted effort to reach out to Mr. Sanders’ supporters. But he also said that the importance of party unity was often overemphasized in the media.

“We don’t want to leave anyone on the sidelines, but we’re not going to let them drag us backward,” he said.

Democratic strategist Brad Bannon said top-notch speeches from President Obama and other prominent Democratic leaders brought the party together at the convention. He predicted that Mrs. Clinton would get a bounce after Philadelphia.

“The difference between this convention and the Republican convention is that we have had really heavyweight speakers,” he said. “I noticed here that the mood got better every day, and its largely because of the speakers.”

Democratic consultant Craig Varoga agreed.

“Monday was Bernie Sanders’ night and everyone appropriately credited him for his great organizing, his victories and the fact that he generated millions of new voters,” he said. “The rest of the week has gone a long way to uniting everyone in the party in defeating Trump this November.”

Mr. Trump also experienced dissent within the party at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, especially from rival Sen. Ted Cruz, who refused to endorse him during a prime-time speech.

However, the rift among Republicans did not result in massive party defections.

The Clinton campaign mostly succeeded in putting on a show of unity. The outbursts from Sanders supporters were kept to a minimum after the first day. Mr. Sanders helped clear the way Tuesday to Mrs. Clinton’s uncontested nomination. Mr. Obama, Vice President Joseph R. Biden and vice presidential nominee Sen. Tim Kaine gave rousing speeches Wednesday. And Mrs. Clinton’s speech Thursday launched her into the general election race.

Democrats also got encouraging news in recent polls.

A Pew Research Center survey this month found that 85 percent of Mr. Sanders’ supporters intend to vote for Mrs. Clinton, with 9 percent switching to Mr. Trump and 6 percent unsure whom they will back in November.

But Sanders supporters were skeptical of the polling and estimated that the number of defections among their ranks may be closer to 50 percent.

“They need to be convinced, and Hillary has her work cut out for her to earn their votes,” said Chuck Pennacchio, a Sanders delegate to the convention from Pennsylvania.

MUST SEE! Clinton Praises Dictators but the Media Only Attacks Trump

July 29, 2016

MUST SEE! Clinton Praises Dictators but the Media Only Attacks Trump, Constitution.comJoe Scudder, July 29, 2016

While she criticizes Trump for it, Hillary Clinton praises dictators and even works with them.

As far as I can tell, only Russia Today has pointed out that Hillary Clinton praises dictators. They probably have an agenda but who doesn’t. Instead of worrying about the messenger, decide if the information is true.

Even if someone wants to believe Hillary’s accusations against Donald Trump are true, the difference would be that Clinton praises dictators who support Sunni terrorists. Trump praises leaders who fight terrorism.

That represents a clear choice, so expect the media to do all they can to obscure it.

Trump Castigated for Acknowledging Immigration Threats

July 29, 2016

Trump Castigated for Acknowledging Immigration Threats, Front Page MagazineMichael Cutler, July 29, 2016

boxcar

There have been no shortage of participants of the Democratic Convention who have dismissed the concerns articulated by Donald Trump in his acceptance speech and elsewhere, as painting a fearful and dark image about America today.

When Donald Trump  provided the transcript of his acceptance speech to the media, it was heavily footnoted to verify the claims he made, as the Washington Times reported, “Donald Trump promises ‘the truth, and nothing else,’ releases speech transcript with 282 footnotes.”

The concerns voiced by Mr. Trump were based on reality, a reality that Mr. Obama and Hillary Clinton, among others, would rather the American people not know.

On a personal note, fifteen years ago I was diagnosed as having aggressive form of prostate cancer.  That diagnosis was dark and frankly, disconcerting.  However, because of that diagnosis, I immediately sought an effective treatment.  I was fortunate because my cancer was successfully treated.

Had I not immediately sought effective treatment I would not be here today.

Donald Trump has accurately diagnosed America’s serious and indeed, potentially fatal ailments beginning with the Damoclean Sword of terrorism that hovering over our heads.  Our safety and wellbeing is also threatened by crime, record levels of drug addiction, poverty, unemployment, a faltering economy, suppressed wages and a shrinking middle class that are not fantasies but are the realities America and Americans face each day.

These concerns certainly paint a dark image, but it is an entirely accurate image and after more than seven years, the current administration bears the responsibility for the situation we are in.

However just as my cancer was treatable, America’s ills are treatable, if and only if our next president and other elected politicians are willing to acknowledge the threats and challenges and then swiftly devise and implement effective strategies to effectively mitigate them.

Donald Trump has properly identified the nexus between failures of the immigration system and the problems we face.  This is not to say that immigrants are the problem but that failures of the immigration system have resulted in the entry of aliens criminals, terrorists and huge numbers of foreign workers who displace American workers.

Furthermore there is a world of difference between immigrants and illegal aliens.

Contrary to the claims of Trump’s critics that he has offered no solutions, he advocated securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws that make no distinction about race, religion or ethnicity.  They were enacted to protect national security and the lives and livelihoods of Americans.

Trump has called for ending the admission of Syrian refugees and, in fact, any alien who cannot be vetted.  This is sensible given the threats posed by ISIS and other terror organizations.  This is consistent with our laws and precedents.  Indeed, after our embassy was seized in Tehran, President Carter barred the entry of Iranians.

These are practical solutions and do not involve bigotry but commonsense.

The Obama administration implemented the DACA (Deferred Action- Childhood Arrival) program that has provided  hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens with lawful status and employment authorization.  Mr. Obama claimed to have done this because “Congress had failed to act.”

In reality, Congress did act.  It voted against the DREAM Act.  Hence, acted against what Obama wanted.  The DREAM Act would have created a dangerous program that would simply encourage still more illegal immigration, flood the labor pool with still more foreign workers under the auspices of the “DREAM Act” and, while Obama and advocates for the DREAM Act claimed that this was about children, the age cutoff for aliens who would participate in this ill-conceived program was 31.  (They simply had to claim that they entered the United States as teenagers.)

The Labor Department has falsely claimed that our unemployment rate stands at approximately 5% while utterly ignoring the tens of millions of working age Americans who have left the workforce.

Mr. Obama has complained about violence in the inner cities and connects the violence to high poverty rates while ignoring that as his second term as president draws to a close, our borders have never been more porous and that he has provided lawful immigration status to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens enabling them to compete with desperate American workers.  He ignores the great increase of the number of Americans now on food stamps or that the middle class is shrinking.

Obama’s failures to secure our borders have facilitated the smuggling of record quantities of heroin into the United States.  There is a clear nexus between violent crime, gangs and drug addiction and drug trafficking.

Obama has released record numbers of what he deemed “non-violent” federal drug offenders from prison and more than 100,000 criminal aliens from custody.  Generally federally prosecuted drug offenses involve large quantities of drugs and almost invariably when individuals engage in large-scale drug crimes they are armed- often heavily armed.

The drug trade is a violent trade where extreme violence is routinely used to make certain that none of those who work for the drug gangs steal drugs or money or cooperate with law enforcement.  Extreme violence is also a tactic of the drug gangs to control turf.

It must also be noted that many of the key players in drug gangs are aliens who were sent to the United States by the leaders of Drug Trafficking Organizations (DTO’s) who employ them to maintain iron-fisted control over their operations in the United States.  Leaders of DTO’s have generally known the people they send to the United States for many years and also know where their family members live back in their home countries.  If an employee of a DTO betrays his/her employer, their family members will pay the price with their lives.

Although Obama and his supporters frequently claim that his administration has deported more illegal aliens than any previous administration, their statistics are bogus.  They claim that aliens who are denied entry at ports of entry or aliens simply turned around at the border by the Border Patrol were deported (removed).  This is the equivalent of claiming that a police officer who writes a parking ticket has made an arrest.

On July 24, 2016 Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine, participated in a joint interview by Scott Pelley, correspondent for CBS News’ program, 60 Minutes.  That interview has been posted under the title, “The Democratic Ticket: Clinton and Kaine.”

During that interview, when asked about her goals Clinton said, in part,

“I want an economy that creates more jobs. And that’s a lot of jobs. I want an economy that gets back to raising incomes for everybody. Most Americans haven’t had a raise. I want an economy that’s going to help lift millions of people out of poverty. Because, given the great recession, we have fallen back in the wrong direction.”

During his acceptance speech as Vice-Presidential candidate at the DNC Tim Kaine often spoke in Spanish and repeatedly invoked the three word phrase, “Si se puede” which means “Yes, we can.”  This phrase is associated with the activist movement to provide unknown millions of illegal aliens with a pathway to citizenship and is the precise opposite of Trump’s position.

Both Clinton and Kaine have promised to legalize a population of tens of millions of illegal aliens, giving them an equal standing in the already overflowing labor pool of unemployed Americans.  On July 25, 2016 The Washington Times reported, “Tim Kaine promises bill to legalize illegal immigrants in ‘first 100 days’.”

Inasmuch as labor is a commodity, flooding the labor pool with millions of authorized workers will drive down wages and displace still more American and lawful immigrant workers.

It is absolutely impossible to provide lawful status to millions of illegal aliens and then magically put unemployed Americans to work and increase the wages of the workers.  Additionally, each month the United States admits a greater number of authorized foreign workers than the number of new jobs that is created.

It has been said that you don’t bring sand to the beach.

When you find a hole in the bottom of the boat, it would be insane to believe that drilling more holes in the bottom of that boat would enable the water to escape.  The rational and obvious approach would be to seal that hole.

America does not have a shortage of workers, it has a shortage of jobs.  Flooding America with still more foreign workers is the equivalent of drilling more holes in the bottom of that boat.

Additionally, there would be no way to conduct interviews interviews or field investigations of these millions of illegal aliens whose true identities or dates of entry could not be determined and who entered the United States surreptitiously, evading the inspections process that is supposed to prevent the entry of aliens whose presence would undermine national security, public safety, public health and the lives and livelihoods of Americans.

This violates commonsense and the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and would do irreparably undermine national security and public safety as would Hillary Clinton’s stated plans to greatly increase the number of Syrian Refugees who are admitted into the United States when the Director of the FBI and other high-ranking Obama administration officials have unequivocally testified before Congress that these refugees cannot be vetted.

Although never discussed, it is vital to note that if millions of illegal aliens were granted lawful status they would immediately be legally eligible to bring all of their spouses and minor children to the United States.  This would flood our nation’s schools with millions of additional children, most of whom cannot read, write or speak English.  Several years ago the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a report that noted that it costs 20% to 40% more to teach a child who lacks English language proficiency.  Imagine the impact this would have on American children- especially those who attend schools that are already struggling to provide their students with a good education.

As the title of one of my recent articles noted, “‘It’s the Immigration Problem, Stupid’ – Secure borders are synonymous with safety and that’s what Americans want in 2016.”

Giuliani Wants To Start Electronically Tagging Muslims

July 29, 2016

Giuliani Wants To Start Electronically Tagging Muslims

by Adrienne Mahsa Varkiani

Jul 28, 2016 10:01 am

Source: Giuliani Wants To Start Electronically Tagging Muslims | ThinkProgress

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Monday, July 18, 2016.

Former New York City Mayor and current Donald Trump supporter Rudy Giuliani said on Wednesday that he thinks it’s an “excellent idea” to monitor Muslims on the federal watch list through electronic monitoring tags.

“I would think that’s an excellent idea,” Giuliani told reporters at a press conference, according to NJ Advance Media. “If you’re on the terror watch list, I should you know you’re on the terror watch list. You’re on there for a reason.”

Giuliani said he would suggest that Trump use the same measure of electronically monitoring people as in France. Both the attackers involved in the killing of a priest in Normandy on Tuesday were already known to French security services and on watch lists, and one was being monitored through an electronic tag.

The terrorism watch list and no-fly list are notorious for ethnic and religious profiling, and many innocent people end up on the list — but Giuliani’s comments come as no surprise given his own penchant for surveillance of the Muslim community, another ineffective practice, during his time as New York’s mayor.

“I put undercover agents in mosques for the first time in January 1994,” said Giuliani, following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing which left six dead and hundreds wounded. “I did it because the 1993 bombing was planned in a mosque in Union City, New Jersey, and a second plan was uncovered to bomb our subways, which was foiled. And I kept those police officers in those mosques until I left as mayor.”

Surveillance of the Muslim community in New York grew exponentially after the 9/11 attacks, and according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), involved the mapping of Muslim communities, heavy photo and video surveillance, police informants, and entire databases with personal information about innocent Muslims. The ACLU has deemed the surveillance “unconstitutional” and said it contributes to an “atmosphere of fear and mistrust” — but perhaps equally important, such methods are wholly ineffective. According to a 2012 report from the Associated Press, in six years of spying on Muslims, listening to their conversations, and cataloging mosques, the NYPD didn’t get a single lead or begin even one terrorism investigation.

The watch lists Giuliani wants to monitor Muslims through also don’t work. As ThinkProgress has previously reported:

Before September 11, 2001, the no-fly list, which names people who are banned from boarding flights in or out of the U.S., contained 16 people. A leak revealed that that number had grown to 47,000 as of 2013. Most of those names were added after President Obama took office. The broader terrorist watch list maintained by the Terrorist Screening Center has an even more expansive scope; the estimated number of people on the list has ranged from 700,000 to more than 1.5 million, figures which include Americans and foreigners.

The watch lists are so huge, and riddled with errors, in large part due to the low bar for evidence. The government’s March 2013 Watchlisting Guidance, for example, notes that “irrefutable evidence or concrete facts are not necessary” to put someone on a watch list.

Trump has previously called for registering all Muslims in a “database,” racial profiling of Muslims, and banning all Muslims from the United States — a ban which his adviser once said would include Muslim Americans as well. He has also suggested that Muslims know about attacks before they happen and do nothing to stop them and said that Obama, who he has repeatedly called a Muslim, is allowing Muslims to commit attacks like the one in Orlando last month.

Who Is Putin’s Real Ally?

July 28, 2016

Who Is Putin’s Real Ally? PJ MediaRoger L Simon, July 27, 2016

put hill

There’s money in them thar reset buttons!

********************

Oh, the vapors, the vapors!  Donald Trump has done it again. He has a gone a bridge too far for the 150th time, but on this occasion taken us all the way across the Bering Straits to the very edge of the Gulag Archipelago. He has urged Vladimir Putin to reveal the contents of Hillary Clinton’s gazillion missing emails the FBI somehow couldn’t find.

Traitor!  Traitor!  yell the well-intentioned, like former SecDef Leon Panetta. This selfish yellow-haired plutocrat must be disqualified from the presidency!

Never mind that Putin would need no encouragement whatsoever from any outsider to hack the wide-open server of the former secretary of state, nor would the intelligence services of at least a dozen other first-world countries (they all do it—we were listening to Merkel’s cell phone ourselves, it will be recalled), not to mention the who-knows-how-many non-state actors and twelve-year-old high-tech whippersnappers with the skill to do this.

Never mind that Trump was undoubtedly far less interested in making friends with Putin than in calling attention to the obvious relationship between Hillary’s home-brew server and the similarly wide-open server of the DNC that Mrs. Clinton claimed to know nothing about. Her media lackeys on 60 Minutes made sure no one paid attention (hello, Scott Pelley!).

Meanwhile, discussion is curiously mute on a far more substantive alliance with Putin by, yes, the Clintons themselves that could actually change the balance of power in the world in a way far more dangerous than Trump mouthing off about Vladimir.  It probably already has.

But don’t believe me. I’m biased. Believe that center of the “great right-wing conspiracy,” The New York Times, which ran the article “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal” on April 23, 2015.

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Wait a minute.  According to the sainted Times, one-fifth of U.S. uranium production now belongs to the Russians thanks to Ma and Pa Clinton?! If you wanted to talk treason, wouldn’t that be the textbook definition?  Do the folks at the Democratic National Convention know about this?

If I had to, I would guess at best three-to-five percent do and they’re certainly not telling the others. Neither are the media, so hell-bent are they on defeating Donald Trump.  I mean he’s uncouth and makes fun of people. That’s worse than a few measly atom bombs, isn’t it?…  Okay, perhaps more than a few…. Well, isn’t it?

Nasty business, huh? You could put it another way: There’s money in them thar reset buttons!

Yes, we live in an era of true evil when disinformation and distraction is king.

Nevertheless, some of the truth is out there. Two movies have opened and are doing quite well—Clinton Cash and Dinesh D’Souza’s Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party.  I have seen Dinesh’s movie and can recommend it.  I plan on seeing Clinton Cash soon.  See them both and try to bring your liberal and independent friends.  They’re the ones who should be there.  Just bring some ibuprofen for them.

Krauthammer: Trump’s Russia reference set a trap for Clinton

July 28, 2016

Krauthammer: Trump’s Russia reference set a trap for Clinton, Fox News via YouTube, July 27, 2016

Warren: If Trump Would Just Disappear, ‘I’d Be The Happiest Girl On The Face Of This Earth’

July 28, 2016

Warren: If Trump Would Just Disappear, ‘I’d Be The Happiest Girl On The Face Of This Earth’

by Pam Key

27 Jul 2016

Source: Warren: If Trump Would Just Disappear, ‘I’d Be The Happiest Girl On The Face Of This Earth’ – Breitbart

I have bin in this kind of political climate before , with the same rhetoric.
It ended up by murdering our for sure new president.

She is doing the same , she is creating a climate that it will be normal to kill Trump.

This is very dangerous rhetoric .

Wednesday on MSNBC at the Democratic National convention in Philadelphia, PA, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) said if Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump “would just disappear” and “take down his Twitter account, drop out of the race,” she would “be the happiest girl on the face of this earth.”

Reacting to Trump’s comments about Russia hacking Hillary Clinton she said, “Donald Trump would be a danger to the United States. This man should never be allowed to come within miles of the White House, and that’s got to be our job.”

Trump and NATO

July 27, 2016

Trump and NATO, Front Page MagazineBruce Thornton, July 27, 2016

trump nato

The Never Trump crowd has found another example of The Donald’s disqualifying ignorance: comments he made about NATO. He has said that our contributions to NATO are “unfair,” that they are “costing us a fortune,” that we are “getting ripped off,” and that they are “getting a free ride.” By the way, Obama in his Atlantic interview also called the Europeans “free riders,” but I don’t recall a lot of sneering at the president for his “alarming” and “dangerous” remarks, as one critic put it.

Trump also implied that he would put the European NATO members’ feet to the fire about meeting the 2006 requirement that they spend 2% of GDP on their militaries, and suggested he would negotiate a new contribution schedule. Few NATO members have met that requirement, which is a violation of Article 3 that requires member states to “maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.” According to NATO’s own report, only five countries are estimated to meet the 2% requirement in 2016. France, Germany, Italy, and Spain­­––the first, third, fourth, and fifth largest economies in the EU––are not among them. The richest, Germany, is expected to remain at 1.19%. In contrast, the US will spend 3.9%. As Lord Robertson, NATO Secretary General from 1999-2004, put it, European nations are “military pygmies.”

Critics of Trump are technically correct to say that he exaggerates when he claims that the US pays the “lion’s share” of NATO funding. In fact, the US pays under a fifth (22%). But the complaints about European NATO members, which predate Trump by decades, take into account more salient deficiencies. “Common funding,” of which the US covers a fifth, is “used to finance NATO’s principal budgets: the civil budget (NATO HQ running costs), the military budget (costs of the integrated Command Structure) and the NATO Security Investment Programme (military capabilities),” according to NATO. In other words, mostly institutional bureaucratic infrastructure.

“Indirect spending” covers what each nation voluntarily contributes to an operation. NATO acknowledges the greater share the US spends on indirect spending: “there is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refuelling; ballistic missile defence; and airborne electronic warfare.” We could also mention transport aircraft, cruise missiles, and other matériel that the European countries simply don’t have much of. For example, in the 2011 NATO bombing of Libya, there were 246 cruise missiles launched. The US fired 228 of them. At $1.5 million apiece, that adds up to $342 million taxpayer dollars spent to destabilize a country and get four of our citizens killed.

This discrepancy in indirect spending and military capability was already obvious in the 1990’s when NATO intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo to stop a vicious war. During the 1999 crisis in Kosovo, the Europeans had to make “heroic efforts” just to deploy 2% of their two million troops, according to the British foreign secretary. Historian William Shawcross writes of the bombing campaign, “The United States flew the overwhelming majority of the missions, and dropped almost all the precision-guided U.S.-made munitions, and most of the targets were generated by U.S. intelligence.”

So Trump’s complaints, as blustering and exaggerated as they may be, are legitimate. Operations conducted by NATO are overwhelmingly American funded and directed, and NATO is a diplomatic fig-leaf for American power.

No more convincing are the reasons critics give for supporting NATO. The alliance has not prevented “major state conflict since World War II,” as a writer at NRO claims. Given that some 40 million people have died in conflicts since WWII, I’m not sure what “peace” we’re talking about. During the Cold War, the peace between the US and the Soviet Union was kept by nuclear “mutually assured destruction” and millions of American troops, not NATO. Nor was Europe in any condition to fight among themselves. The Europeans were, and still are in many ways, burned out after 30 years of warring, and had neither the will, the morale, nor the belief in anything worth dying for to engage in another war. With their security underwritten by the US, they could spend their money on lavish social welfare programs and la dolce vita. Thinking NATO kept the peace is as preposterous as claiming the EU did.

Then there’s Article 5, the pledge that NATO members will fight for any member state that’s been attacked. Much is made of the only time Article 5 has been invoked, after the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Yet all that solidarity and allied good will didn’t stop France and Germany from trying to undermine the US when it tried to get the UN to sanction the war in 2003 on Saddam Hussein, who had violated 16 UN resolutions and the formal terms ending the 1991 Iraq War. Despite the consensus of American and European intelligence agencies that Hussein had WMD stockpiles, France and Germany took the lead in lobbying the Security Council to oppose the authorization to use force against Iraq.  Germany’s ambassador to the UN Council pressured members like Mexico and Chile to vote against the US. Worse yet, France and Germany, along with Belgium, formally objected to a proposal for NATO to send defensive equipment to Turkey, which wanted assurances that it would be supported by its fellow NATO members if attacked for supporting the war against Hussein.

This behavior of NATO allies did not reflect principle, but national interests and politics. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was running for re-election, and found reflexive German anti-Americanism and pacifism a convenient distraction from his terrible economic record. France had grubbier reasons in addition to its own ressentiment towards the US––renewing the arm sales to Iraq and oil development contracts it had enjoyed for years before the war, and could resume once the sanctions on Hussein were lifted, something France was actively pursuing. As Shawcross summarized, “The long friendship with Saddam, commercial considerations, the response to le défi Américain, and concern over the reactions of France’s Muslims––all these played a part in [President Jacques] Chirac’s calculations in the summer of 2002.”

The importance put on Article 5 forgets that, as George Washington said, “It is a maxim founded on the universal experience of mankind, that no nation can be trusted farther than it is bound by its interests.” NATO members have made and in the future will make decisions based on each nation’s estimation of its interests. So there’s no guarantee that invoking Article 5 would lead to meaningful NATO member support. And given the weakness of their militaries, just how much actual rather than rhetorical support could the Europeans provide in the event of an attack? How many battle carrier groups does NATO possess? The Europeans can’t even afford cruise missiles.

Finally, the arguments for NATO are predicated on an either-or fallacy. If we don’t have the NATO alliance and the benefits it supposedly brings for collective security, then we’ll have nothing. But of course, if NATO disappeared tomorrow, the US would quickly sign bilateral and multilateral defense agreements with individual countries or groups of countries, including some current NATO members. The argument that without NATO our security would be endangered is as fallacious as the argument of the Remain faction in England that leaving the EU would put the UK in danger. A country as rich and powerful as the US will find no dearth of countries eager to bandwagon with it.

Trump’s critics continue to search for dubious reasons to justify sitting out the election or even voting for Hillary. There may be many reasons not to vote for Trump, but criticizing NATO isn’t one of them.