Increased violence against women

because of Trump's

misogyny and


The situation is getting desperate and everyone is looking away. The murder, rape and domestic violence rates of the American female community have soared since Donald Trump began his repugnant campaign of building walls, kicking balls and every unspeakable evil. How could his popularity with women be inching up and Hillary's falling when their safety and security in our streets, homes and workplaces, due to Trump, is steadily eroding-as recent studies and news stories show? Have the women of America gone nuts? Don't they know that Trump is now Commander-in-Chief of the GOP's Nuclear War on Women? Apparently not. Apparently there's been a media black out on the rising number of women dying from Trump inspired hatred and violence. For whatever reason (sexist or not) the media's coverage of growing violence across the land (since Trump started running) focuses on Blacks, Moslems and Latinos only. And as Trump is at war with China and Japan (over the trade deficit) Asian Americans will soon be under attack-with Toyotas and Hondas smashed and trashed a is the 80s. But how do we explain the media's silence about women as the topmost of Trump's battered and terrorized victims?



Where is Hillary and her army of feminist warriors on this issue? Why aren't they castigating the press for this blackout? Are they afraid to piss them off and lose support? I guess I'm just a lone voice in the wilderness. But do hear me out about the catastrophic impact of Trumpism on women as it could save the life of a dear one. For since Trump announced his candidacy not only is anti-women violence rising but so is female unemployment, poverty and suicides. When Trump's powerful voice speaks ill of a woman many feel so devalued and demeaned that some have killed themselves to escape the shame. Amazing is Trump's power over them. Moreover, the two million women who slipped into poverty from the start of Obama's presidency has jumped another mill in the last ten months since the start of Trump's victorious run.  Don't be fooled. There's no coincidence here. The Trump Effect is real and dangerously growing. More than any other minority Trump is lethal to the ladies-a lady killer physically. Indeed, as a sign of things to come Trump's mother nearly died when she gave birth to him as he punched his way out of her womb a year after WW II.



And what if, God forbid, the unthinkable happens and Trump beats the indispensable Hillary (the last best hope for womankind) and becomes President? It will internationalize the Trump Effect spilling across our open borders putting billions of women in peril. Why reverse the little gains made in women's rights in third world states? Why make the suffering of women Islamically worse in Moslem lands where they're treated like dirt? If Hillary loses to Trump male chauvinism and patriarchy will return to the West with a vengeance, and aggravate it where it's still the rule hurting the chance of reform. 




Stop Trump's Nuclear War on Women and make American history, vote Hillary Clinton for Femident. She will end the disastrous Trump Effect and reset American women like she fixed US/Russian relations by winning over Putin. And after 16 years of two faithful boring presidents there will be the excitement of turning the White House into an Open Fly Zone again-if you know what I mean.


Ain't she sweet!







‘They Didn’t Raise Their Son Right’: George Zimmerman Goes After Trayvon Martin’s Parents · Mediaite · Disqus

As I've said  HERE, HERE and  HERE  it was Karmic Justice, the moral law of cause and effect, that brought George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin together on the night of February 26, 2012 getting the latter killed as he was trying to beat a frantic Z to death with his furious racist, homophobic fists. The underlying cause of the conflict was not Z doing his job as a community watchman and reporting to police the very suspicious T (who was't walking straight home that fateful night like Z haters want you to believe); nor was it Z following T at a safe distance for police (expected of a watchman) then looking for him when he bolted and disappeared (but didn't run home where he was to watch the NBA all star game). No. The underlying cause was a good, innocent black kid gone bad corrupted by a collapsing black culture into utter cruelty, barbarism, savagery and sin that glorifies murder and violence. Unfortunately T, who was so charming and sweet at age 12, came to emulate and idealize the worst kind of black filth and trash: lawless anti-social gangstas and gang bangers-young and older black men who disrespect and hate authority (family, school, church, police and government) believing that they're laws unto themselves. These lawless anarchists and criminals believe that anything they want to do is right and good; and that no one has the right to stand in their way and put limits and restraints on them; and those who do are the enemy; hence, Trayvon's twitter account name:
Trayvon's transformation from a good little kid into a violent aggressor that got him killed like thousands of morally corrupt black kids each year-in the epidemic of violent black teen deaths sweeping over our inner cities.
"NO_LIMIT_NIGGA" means that T was defiantly opposed to any outside force or authority directing his life and limiting his desires, passions and appetites. Such kids are full of anger and rage and could fly off the handle into murderous violence just by looking at them badly. But Z was doing worse that fatal day; beyond merely looking at T he was following him and being intrusively offensive in the extreme; and add to that that Z might be a gay predator out to rape him (as friend Rachel Jeantel told Piers Morgan) and that made him deserving of the severest punishment: crippling injuries or death for his terrible disrespect.
 And this mad obsession with Z-the "creepy ass [homo] cracka [rapist] who was "stalking" him-is what most likely got Trayvon  killed that night-and yes, his upbringing in a broken single parent home certainly contributed to his moral ruination, as Z says. Bottom line, if Trayvon was a good, decent, law-abiding, authority respecting, normal kid he wouldn't have been in Sanford that night suspended from school and karmically fated to die-suspiciously walking about just as the gun carrying, off duty Z drove by. Indeed, a well behaved Trayvon would be alive today and we wouldn't know his name and that of George Zimmerman (which would have been the case if Z had been black). As Trayvon was a ticking time bomb with a combustible heart one wonders whose life providence may have saved because of his early death.

But Z is back in the news making headlines again; and this time it's for the sale of the life saving gun he used to kill Trayvon-which the Justice Department returned to him after a failed 33 month investigation to find racial bigotry and hate in what Z truly and rightly believed was a deadly but necessary deed.
Reuters reported Friday the good news that Z hit the jackpot and sold his life saving gun for $250,000. This sale was well beyond the gun's market value making it one of the greatest sale for a single gun in history. And the anti-Zimmerman haters are fuming with some imagining that the buyer is a white supremacist, confederate flag waving nazi who'd like to shove black people into ovens or put them in chains again. Z says that part of the sale proceeds will go to helping policemen who fall victim to Black Lives Matter inspired violence; and stopping Hillary Clinton from bringing her war on guns to the White House-if Z had no gun he'd likely be dead or crippled for life.
If God came down from Heaven and made a deal with the Martins telling them that he would return Trayvon to them if they give up the millions that they made from his death, but that he'd return just as he left with all his flaws and sins (i.e. the same bad, troubled kid) what do you think they would do?  Keep their wealth and tell God to bug off? Or would they gladly sacrifice their riches and welcome back Trayvon flaws and all?
I also love it that Z used the spotlight to criticize his arch enemies Tracy Martin and Sabrina Fulton (Trayvon's divorced parents) who head the deranged, racist "Justice for Trayvon" lynch mob that demonized Z lying that he killed their son in cold blood and was the racist killer of the century. In an interview Z said that Trayvon would be alive today if  his folks did a better job raising him-and he is right. But there are way too many black parents like the Martins who are responsible for the tidal wave of death and destruction that's engulfing young black men-as they're killed by the thousands every year shot to death mostly by blacks. Z killing Trayvon was emblematic of that.
  If George Zimmerman had Trayvon's skin color his death would have been an  unimportant ten second news story on the local news with no murder charges brought against him and no trial. And there would not have been a national "Justice For Trayvon" movement making his parents rich; nor would there be 
Black Lives Matter which rose from Zimmerman's acquittal claiming that it was racist and devalued black lives.
Below are two debates from a dozen or so I recently had on  with George Zimmerman haters. The first debate is wide-ranging and covers many aspects of the case and ends with a new approach to the 911 call where Zimmerman is heard screaming for his life. The second debate (the briefer of the two) disputes the widely held leftist view that Z is a text book sociopath and violence prone psycho-a dangerous man and ticking time bomb who should be behind bars.


it was Trayvon Martin's violent, homophobic, gangsta masculinity that likely got him killed. 

For the story click


According to Rachel, Trayvon also told Zimmerman to get off of him, so Zimmerman grabbed him. What do you have to say about that?



Rachel Jeantel on balance wasn't credible. She lied and repeatedly contradicted herself which is why the jury ignored her (muddled) testimony and the prosecution lost the case. Besides, eye-witness John Good saw Trayvon pinning Z to the ground and beating him as Z was fighting for his life and crying for help. Z had six injuries and T his gunshot wound (shot from under him as experts testified). Z's injuries were consistent with the defense's position that T was the violent aggressor in the conflict maliciously intending harm to Z.
 Except that Rachel Jeantel WAS a credible witness when she said that Trayvon called Zimmerman a "creepy asscracker."
It's called.... the prosecution sent all of their witnesses out to the stand with no preparation....
There was no proof whatsoever that Trayvon had been shot from the bottom. Don't even try to bring up Vincent Di Maio's testimony when Di Maio admitted he ran no experiments.
" Z's injuries were consistent with the defense's position" And that's why the defense tried multiple times to change Zimmerman's story at the trial..
And the experiments that showed Trayvon was shot from a different angle and that Z's six wounds were self-inflicted were......?
Wasn't it Jeantel who told defense attorney West that Trayvon made it home that night to his father's house, and it was there that the conflict took place? When it was 90-100 yards up the walk path in front of eyewitness John Good's house?
The bottom of the following map of Twin Lakes shows how utterly absurd and incredulous the prosecution's star witness was and why she failed so badly.
Anthony ApolloSpeaks  
"And the experiments that showed Trayvon was shot from a different angle and that Z's six wounds were self-inflicted were?" Did the prosecution even try, since they DIDN'T EVEN PREPARE, AND THEY NEGLECTED AND EVEN INSULTED THEIR OWN WITNESSES?
"Wasn't it Jeantel who told West that Trayvon made it home that night to his father's house" She said that Trayvon was "by his daddy's house" which doesn't literally mean that he was right there at the door. Surely, Chad Joseph never said he was back at the house, and Trayvon didn't leave his snacks there and bring a weapon back with him.


The "prosecution not preparing their own witnesses" is the excuse used by Z haters for the lack of any evidence proving malicious intent. Like the Sanford PD neither the local prosecutor nor the FBI nor the State prosecutor had any evidence proving malice to confute Z's claim that he acted legally and morally in self-defense. The trial was driven by politics not evidence-it was a political trial which Governor Scott was forced into by a race obsessed liberal media and political elite convinced that Z was a racist killer getting away with the murder of an innocent unarmed black kid. 
And when the trial was over and the DOJ continued the FBI's investigation into civil rights violations, after a 33 months and finding zilch they returned to Z the gun he used to legally and morally kill T.
Really, Anthony, what do you know that everyone else missed?
"And the DOJ, after a 33 month long investigation, returned Z's gun because Holder and Lynn could find no evidence that it was used in a crime." Because civil rights violations are a much higher bar, so what?
"Like the Sanford PD, the local prosecutor and FBI the State Prosecutor didn't have a single piece of evidence to confute Z's claim that he acted in self-defense. "
Oh, yeah, the police sure did a decent investigation. They found that Trayvon and Zimmerman had arms and a neck like Plastic Man, when Zimmerman shot Trayvon on the grass lawn ten feet away from the concrete sidewalk... OH WAIT
They sure found it strange when Zimmerman adamantly refused to see a doctor for his scratches...OH WAIT.
They actually waited for the autopsy results to come out on Trayvon after a few hours.... OH WAIT.
They actually gave Zimmerman a polygraph, and asked him several specific questions about the scuffle and shooting...they so didn't just give him a "voice stress analysis" and only as two very vague questions... OH WAIT..
They drug tested Zimmerman... OH WAIT
They didn't coach Zimmerman when Zimmerman said that the screams "doesn't even sound like me" ....OH WAIT..
They had Zimmerman lie down on the floor to demonstrate how he was able to bend his arm and aim the gun with one hand while lying on his back, without the recoil breaking his arm on the ground...OH WAIT
They asked Zimmerman about what happened to the bushes that he said Trayvon tackled him from... OH WAIT...
What else did they NOT miss? *SARCASM*
LOL!!! How many wounds did Z have? Where were they located and how did he get them? Were they self-inflicted? Did they miraculously materialize from the thin air like a stigmata? Was John Good lying or hallucinating when he saw the stronger, superior, athletic Trayvon in a commanding position on top of the much weaker Z beating away at him with Z crying for help? John Good saw no gun in Z's hands. Trayvon never cried that Z had a gun as he was whacking him. Luckily Z managed to get to his weapon and stop the assault before it turned really deadly.
The Sanford PD investigation was superseded by the FBI investigation and a parallel Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation. When neither could find evidence incriminating Z the Justice Dept stepped in and the FBI opened a parallel civil rights investigation. They turned up nothing.
Then came the indictment by Angela Corey's office with her lead investigator Dale Gilbreath questioned by O'Mara during the April 12th bond hearing. Though the affidavit said that "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued," Gilbreath contradicting that admitted to O'Mara that his office had no evidence of who confronted who or threw the first punch. In other words, the charge of second degree murder was bogus from the start and eventually collapsed in court for lack of evidence as it should have.
Most any armed person in Z's place would have used his/her gun to equalize the difference in animal power and strength between themselves and a superior and pitiless assailant. The evidence was overwhelming that Z acted in self-defense and escaped severe injuries or possible death and that it was T who had malicious intent and was the CRIMINAL in the conflict.  And six jurors hearing testimonies and reviewing the evidence for 19 days agreed finding Z's killing of Trayvon morally and legally justified.
The Feds did not look for evidence to try Zimmerman for the case. They looked for civil rights violations which are a higher bar than manslaughter.
"Gilbreath contradicting that admitted to O'Mara that his office had no evidence who confronted who or threw the first punch. "
Mark O'Mara also mentioned the "who threw the first punch" at the trial, to raise reasonable doubt in order to help get Zimmerman off.
Who threw the first punch, and there weren't many punches thrown because neither Zimmerman and *MORE IMPORTANTLY, NOR TRAYVON* had bruises, swelling, cuts, breaks, or other injuries to their knuckles, wrists, nor hands (they wrestled around) *DOESN'T MATTER* even though there was the testimony that Trayvon told Zimmerman to get off of him (and even Juror B37 admitted that she believed Zimmerman was the initial aggressor.
*WHAT MATTERS* is the law of self defense, which says you must be in *reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily injury or death*
Claiming that you had to shoot someone to keep your head, bald like ZImmerman's was or not, from being grabbed in a vice grip hands and repeatedly smashed dozens of times onto a concrete sidewalk...
does *NOT* meet the requirements for self-defense. Period
The defense is *NOT* going to tell the jury that, because they're trying to get their defendant off. And Zimmerman's defense lawyers were *DEFINITELY NOT* going to mention the evidence that Zimmerman was *NOT* having his head bashed on concrete when he shot Martin, because he shot Martin on the grass lawn a significant distance away from the concrete, to the jury.
It's up to the prosecution to mention the evidence that Zimmerman did not have his head bashed on the concrete when he shot Trayvon and the law of self-defense.
The biggest reasons for why Zimmerman was found "not guilty" was because the prosecution mentioned NEITHER to the jury...
Z's trial was about "Self-Defense vs Second Degree Murder." And six juriors came down on the side of self-defense acquitting Z of murder. Each of those jurors putting themselves vicariously in Z's place would have acted no differently.They concluded from the evidence that Z's life was in danger as he was pinned down by a young man of superior energy and strength pounding away at him as eyewitness John Good said-who, btw saw the altercation move to the concrete sidewalk. As Z (the weak, slow, fat, unathletic martial arts failure) felt his life was threatened by the stronger man on top of him he cried out for help repeatedly (as John Good said). Those were authentic cries of desperation by a man frightened for his life. Who under such terrtible duress carrying a gun wouldn't have  used it in self-defense?
Though Juror B37 thought that Z might have been the initial aggressor (she could not know for sure) she nevertheless gathered from the evidence that Z's life was in peril during the fight, and agreed with the other five jurors that shooting T was justified.
There is nothing the prosecution could have done differently that would have changed the outcome in their favor. The evidence was so overwhelmingly compelling, conclusive and clear that Z felt imperiled (fearing for his life) throughout the ordeal; and that Z shot T without malice strictly in self-defense.
BTW in March 2012 the DOJ started its own criminal investigation of Z. After Z's acquittal it started the 33 month civil rights investigation.
"There is nothing the prosecution could have done differently that would have caused a different outcome. The evidence was overwhelming, conclusive and clear that Z felt imperiled (fearing for his life) throughout the ordeal; and that there was no malicious intent in shooting T, that it was strictly in self-defense." 
That Zimmerman shot Trayvon on the lawn yards away from the concrete sidewalk. That Trayvon had no injuries to his hands, knuckles or wrists. That Zimmerman himself plus the voice analysis plus the autopsy concluded that it was NOT Zimmerman screaming on the tape. Some evidence supporting Zimmerman.
The voice analysts you refer to (whoever they are) were wrong . Eye witness John Good heard no cries from T. An FBI voice-recognition scientist testifying at the pre-trial hearing said that "he didn't believe it was possible to identify who was screaming in the background of a 911 call." He said "because the screaming voice was affected by distress or emotion, there was no way to compare it to reasonable, natural speech and come up with correct answers." But John Good heard the 18 seconds of screams and it was coming exclusively from Z-battling to free himself from T. PERIOD!
"he voice analysts were wrong ." *ROLFMAO*
at 21:35 You can hear Zimmerman HIMSELF "screaming" *ROLFMAO*
LOL!!! Now you've really stepped in it. The voice analysis expert that I quoted, Hirotaka Nakasone, was an expert witness for the prosecution in the Z trial. During his testimony he said, and I quote, that the 18 seconds of screams on the tape (eye and ear witnessed by John Good) were made by someone "under extreme duress and in a life threatening situation." When Z gave his weak reenactment he was not in the same highly stressful psychological state pumped up with adrenaline and fearing for his life. An extreme, heart pounding, situation like that could put any voice through a radical transformation. In fact, Z's screams were so remote from his normal speaking voice that (as you say) he couldn't recognize that they were his.
With John Good physically present at the scene witnessing a violent T on top of Z and hearing up close his frantic screams for help; and Nakasone asserting that the screams were coming from someone in a life threatening situation, with good reason Z was acquitted of murder. For the jury was rightly persuaded that Z's psychological state was one of stark raving terror; and while in that state he managed to get his gun and end what was terrifying him: T's vicious life threatening assault. No way given Good's and Nakasone's accounts (and add to this Vincent DiMaios expertise on gunshot wounds) that the prosecution could have elicited a guilty verdict out of the jury. Hell, no jury in the world would have convicted Z with witnesses like these. NONE!
"An extreme, heart pounding, situation like that could put any voice through a radical transformation. In fact, Z's screams were so remote from his normal speaking voice he couldn't recognize that they were his." ..... Because they weren't his, genius.
Here's a question for you. Did Zimmerman appear to be shaken up whatsoever after the "harrowing life threatening encounter?" 
Of Jonathan Manalo "He testified that Zimmerman did not appear in shock shortly after the shooting and was very calm." 
Does that sound like someone who had just been screaming for their life a second earlier, despite the fact that 1) no one would scream when they have a gun and are trying to use it 2) the screams ended immediately at the exact instant the shot was fired 3)since Zimmerman had no significant injuries and Trayvon had in injuries to his hands AND Zimmerman shot Trayvon on the grass lawn yards away from the concrete, Trayvon was doing nothing to Zimmerman (while the ex-bouncer, MMA trained and multiple weight classes heavier Zimmerman likely had scrawny ass Trayvon in a restraining hold when he shot him)? 4) The voice analysis proved it WASN'T ZImmerman 5) Zimmerman HIMSELF said IT WASN"T ZIMMERMAN SCREAMING 6) Trayvon's autopsy showed he had pneumothorax which means that if anyone would stop at the EXACT INSTANT IT WOULD BE TRAYVON 7) Zimmerman claimed that he didn't even know he had shot him?
First off I was playing with you when I seemed to buy your lie about Zimmerman not recognizing his voice on the 911 call-as you know he said no such thing. It was Tracy Martin who told Officer Chris Serano (overheard by Officer Singleton) that it wasn't his son screaming; on the stand he contradicted them claiming he said that he wasn't sure at the time that the screams were T's but after hearing the tape 20 times was certain they were his. Of course, the defense produced a string of witnesses identifying the screaming voice as Z's.


Secondly, there are certain personality types that can quickly return to a state of near calm after a traumatic experience. Once it's over it's as if it never happened and you can't tell they were in distress. It's been noted how consistently calm and emotionless Zimmerman was throughout the trial. When the verdict was read he smiled a bit, but it didn't seem to phase him. Z is a cold fish who on rare occasions has angry outbursts. But for the most part he's "MR COOL" as friends and relations say.



Nationally renowned forensic expert Vincent DaMaio reviewing all the evidence and drawing on decades of gunshot experience said that T's gunshot wound was consistent with Z's testimony; that he shot Z while being straddled by him. John Good saw T straddling Z and hitting him while Z was crying for help. Good testified that he yelled "what's going on" and told Trayvon to "stop it."


Prosecution witness neighbor Jennifer Laura testified that she and her husband heard Good from her house yell " What's going on." This confirms that Good was there an eye and ear witness to an overpowering athletic (former football player) Trayvon beating on Z who feared for his life and screamed .


That Z was a weight lifter and skilled in Mixed Martial Arts is a blatant lie. That Z might have had the very athletic T in a head lock or restraint hold when he shot him" is laughable.  Z's MMA instructor Adam Pollock (owner of the kickboxing gym where Z worked out) testified that the "grossly obese," "unathletic" Z had flunked his martial arts classes and had no aptitude for fighting. On a scale of 1 to 10 Pollock gave Z a next to zero "1" for athletic ability. Pollock also testified that


"He [Z] was an overweight, large man when he came to us, a very pleasant, very nice man, but physically soft and predominantly fat, not a lot of muscle, not a lot of strength." He also testified that Z came to the gym to lose weight and get in shape [not develop fighting skills]."



What other lies are you going to uselessly dish up about Z? Bring it on so I can knock them down one by one!


Anthony  ApolloSpeaks 


Okay, little buddy, I understand that the shooting happened 4 years ago, Zimmerman's trial was almost three years ago and he was found "not guilty," as was Casey and OJ before him, and double jeopardy laws say that none of them can be retried.


Stop trying to legitimize Zimmerman's acquittal. The facts were that it had far, *FAR* less to do with "there was no evidence against Zimmerman," or "Zimmerman was really innocent," and far, *FAR* more to do with the incompetence of the prosecutors who only took the case for political reasons (the initial prosecutor and the eventual prosecutor, the late Norm Wolfinger and Angela Corey, were both conservative Republicans, by the way


, then overcharged and underprosecuted Zimmerman.

As Lisa Bloom, who's one of the, and probably only legal experts to have actually interviewed the witnesses and jurors after the trial (hell, she spent more time talking to the prosecution's witnesses than the PROSECUTION DID! The prosecution didn't even prepare their own God damned witnesses) mentioned that the prosecution had Zimmerman's interviews with the detective for over a year and didn't once take notice of the fact that Zimmerman had his gun not in his front waistband, but his back hip. Of course the detectives not only didn't notice it either but also never once told Zimmerman to lay down and reenact it, you people like you will maintain that the detectives and the prosecution did such a great job.



The boring, empty, leftist refrain that "the prosecution didn't prepare their witnesses" is the excuse of racially obsessed Zimmerman haters who can't accept the reality of Trayvon Martin's and what a bad little out of control morally corrupt kid he was-corrupted by a decaying black culture of gangsta rappers and gang bangers into lawlessness, drug abuse, anarchy and deadly violence with a body count of young black men piled to the sky; a type of badly corrupted kid who'd fly into a rage if you looked at him the wrong way. Hell, Z was doing "worse" that fatal day: he (a possible gay predator) was following T an offense deserving T's fists punching and punishing Z's body and face.


LOL!!! How should the prosecution have prepared John Good who saw the conflict move on to the concrete sidewalk with Z screaming more frantically for his life? Was Good a lying racist? Was he hallucinating? You avoid Good for good reason: he's a reality check on your idiotic theory that Z acted with hatred and malice; a theory which is totally laughable within the context of Z's history as a responsible and conscientious community watchman-which is why Twin Lakes made him the coordinator with police for creating the watch program. It's only fools and idiots who believe that Z was so reckless and insane that after calling police who were on their way to apprehend and question the suspicious T that he was willing to sacrifice his life and liberty, and everything good he was working for, by killing a worthless nothing of a kid.


Do yourself a favor friend and get an education on the Trayvon Martins and Michael Browns of the world and see the award-winning HBO crime show "The Wire." It's about the sickening reality of black inner city life and the Martins and Browns who are killed every deadly day. The Wire is so painfully authentic and real that it's taught in college sociology classes. And that's all I have to say to you.



What's BEYOND boring is you wingnuts and your fantasies that have NO basis in reality. It was said DURING THE DAMN TRIAL that it was OBVIOUS the prosecution didn't spend ANY time with their witnesses before the trial other words... THEY DID NOT PREPARE THEIR OWN WITNESSES.


"ad little out of control morally corrupt kid he was-corrupted by a decaying black culture of gang bangers into lawlessness" NOW your showing your racism even more explicitly, wingnut. No proof whatsoever that Martin had anything to do with "gang bangers" because he certainly would have been armed and wouldn't have hesitated to shoot Zimmerman the second Zimmerman grabbed him. Smoking some pot, taking sophomoric pictures flipping the bird, and having some mischief at school while trying to straighten up for his mechanics classes are things that MANY PEOPLE HAVE DONE AS TEENAGERS. So I guess, according to you, We're ALL "corrupted gang bangers." You cons are full of crap.


Yet, you not only don't find ANYTHING wrong with Zimmerman's LONG history of assaulting and threatening people, you also don't find anything wrong with the fact that HIS OWN FAMILY accused him of sexual molestation (guess it's because YOU'VE done the same thing yourself, huh? Yeah, admit it, you wingnut deviant)


As for John Good, I have no idea why they prosecution chose to have him as a witness when he admitted to not seeing all what he claimed to have seen. Again that's your idea of the prosecutors being the best around, which is as big of a joke as you are.


"Do yourself a favor friend and get an education on the Trayvon Martins and Michael Browns " Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin are two totally different cases. Brown's case was in broad daylight with multiple witnesses and DNA evidence along with an officer who kept his same story.


Martin's was at night with no witnesses who saw the whole thing, and a REAL THUG NAME ZIMMERMAN who CHANGED HIS STORY THEN REFUSED TO SPEAK who had a LONG HISTORY of assaulting and threatening people, INCLUDING A POLICE OFFICER...


And that's all I have to say about you, little wingnut.








ApolloSpeaks  Anthony 




Trayvon screaming: Help! Help! He's got a gun! Help! Help! He wants to kill me! Help! Somebody, help! AHHHHHHHHH! Bang. Silence.


Stupid little Trayvon forgot to mention Z's gun in his 18 + seconds of screams. What was he smoking? Must have been memory impairing weed. LOL!!!!  




 Because Anthony had no answer or theory to explain why Trayvon Martin failed to mention the gun that was causing him to scream for his life (or why it took 18* seconds for Z to shoot him) his reply was very nasty, too unsavory to post here.  


*One expert says that the screaming which started before the 911 call was for approximately 40 seconds with the recording capturing 18 seconds of it. So if it was T that was screaming fearing he'd be shot then it took Z 40 seconds to shoot him which is absurd-unless T was struggling with Z for the gun. But eyewitness John Good saw no gun or struggle for it.








Note to reader:


Franklin claims to be a retired police officer.


The Zimmerman family raised a sociopath and a murderer. But you don't hear the Martin family complaining about how George was raised.  

Define the term "sociopath" then let's see if Zimmerman fits it.



Personality disorder resulting in antisocial behavior, i.e. Killing somebody because you are losing a fistfight, you started, getting violent fights with family members and others, and demonstrating a complete lack of empathy which is the subject of the original article. He is as close to the definition of s sociopath as you can find.  

LOL!!! Is being the captain of a community watch program-concerned about the safety and security of your neighbors from criminals and predators-an example of antisocial behavior? Is defending the rights of a homeless black man from a beating he took from the son of a policeman an example of anti-social behavior? Is participating in the mentoring program for poor black kids-making them part of your household at your expense-an example of anti-social behavior? What is anti-social or sociopathic about these things?

George Zimmerman Racism Charges False, He Helped Blacks

Franklin  ApolloSpeaks   

First if you recall he failed his psychological exam to become a police officer, and just what is the standard it takes to be a member even Captain of the community watch besides oh yeah, nothing! Other the willingness to do the job and oh by the way, he was told by dispatch to leave Trayvon Martin alone. But of course, he didn't. If you think sociopaths run around all day frothing at the mouth, then you are sadly misinformed. It is precisely the reason local law enforcement officers said he would have problems and he has. Multiple claims of violence against two girl friends. An arrest for assault on a peace officer. Arrests in other matters related to anger, the inability to hold a steady job...this moron is a textbook case.

Because Z had years of experience as a community watchman before moving to Twin Lakes, and was working on an associates degree in criminal justice, he was chosen by the Twin Lakes association to coordinate with Sanford PD the creation of the watch program-I believe it was his idea. The training he received from police allowed for watchmen to trail suspects at a safe distance so they could pinpoint their location when police arrived. Z had done this dozens of times in the past (calling in suspects trailing them) without incident. The dispatcher who told Z that he didn't need him to follow T wasn't a cop. He said at the trial what he said to Z was only a "suggestion not an order" which he lacked the authority to give.

Trial turns to Zimmerman's neighborhood-watch role-USA Today

ApolloSpeaks    The Franklin 

Z's record as a watchman and good neighbor were exemplary as neighbors testified. No one testified that Z was a sociopath or violent man. Neighbors (black and white) spoke highly of him. Rare outbursts of anger, passion or violence does not make one a sociopath or a violent man. A violent person is habitually violent. That wasn't the peaceful, cool-headed George Zimmerman.

Z's run in with the law and arrests were brought up by prosecutors at his bond hearing. The judge dismissed them as "run of the mill." This included pushing an undercover cop in a bar.

At the time of the incident Z was steadily employed as an insurance underwriter for All State (?) making at least $40k a year. On balance Z is a good, decent, authority respecting, law-abiding man trying to do the right thing as relatives, friends and neighbors testified. Calling him a textbook sociopath is a laughable, unwarranted smear born from blind hate not facts.

Ah so you confirmed my point. It was HIS idea to be community liaison. In short he got the job because he was the one who wanted to do it. (Good lord even Barney Fife got hired). As for the judge saying this not unusual behavior, in an arraignment court, it probably isn't. But at trial and outside in the real world, it's highly unusual. I noticed you ignored the point about him failing his psyche test (whatcha want to bet he failed more then one? I used to be a cop and you usually test with multiple agencies.). Finally as to him disregarding the dispatchers instructions, you ignore the fact that suggestion or not, the suggestion was correct. Had he followed that suggestion, we would not be here now and it tells you a great deal about his decision making and I will bet why he failed his psychs. He has repeatedly demonstrated his lack of empathy by posting pictures of Trayvon Martins dead body and succeeded in getting himself banned from Twitter. He could have kept his job and returned to his job, but instead he tried to go on a victory tour. Also he lied about getting a job as a security guard. If this is normal to you trust me, it's not normal to the rest of us including the investigating officers at Martins murder who testified that they thought Zimmerman lied. If you recall Zimmerman claimed that Martin was peeping in Windows and no such evidence was found on the dew soaked ground by the windows 
Supposing Zimmerman was the most miserable low life bastard ever to walk this earth. It makes absolutely no difference to the fact that he was the victim of a vicious eye witnessed criminal attack where he was provably in extreme duress genuinely fearing for his life. Even the lowest form of human pond scum has the inalienable right of self-defense which the weak, slow, flabby, unathletic Z (he earned a grade of "1" for MMA) was exercising when he stopped with lethal force the physically stronger, fleet footed, athletic Trayvon from possibly killing him. If only Trayvon had kept running when he easily lost the tortoise that was following him and went home (there was nothing stopping him but himself) he'd be alive today, right?
Excuse me but the that is pathetic. Martin wasn't doing anything wrong. All he knew was that some nutcase was following him. He had every right to defend himself and be where he was. It was Zimmerman playing Barney Fife that caused the problem. The neighborhood watch is supposed to observe and report. Not to confront anybody. He was told to stay away. He consciously disregarded the instructions and was legitimately Martin perceived him as a threat and responded. But for Zimmerman's behavior none of this would have happened .

And excuse me, but Martin was in the wrong place at the wrong time doing exactly the wrong things to make him look suspicious: not walking home, but wandering around aimlessly for 40 minutes in the rain moving between buildings-some of which might have been burglarized as Twin Lakes had been recently plagued by a string of break ins. Hell when Z phoned police about T it was 7:09 PM 45 minutes after he left 7-11.

Any watchman would have found T suspicious and did everything that Z did: trail him at a distance to observe and report for police, then go look for him when he bolted and disappeared (he could have easily stayed that way if he chose to) thinking he was headed toward the back exit of Twin Lakes. BTW, There's zero evidence that Z wanted to confront T. Indeed, he could have done so at the get go when he first spotted him at 7:09. But instead of leaving his car for a confrontation he waits till T walks away then follows him at a safe distance according to the rules. And when T bolted and disappeared how could Z confront him when he didn't know where he was?

The police dispatcher at the trial said he had zero authority to tell Z what to do; and when he said "we don't need you following T" he testified that it was only a suggestion.

Up until T's sneak attack of Z (the only thing that makes sense as six jurors believed from the evidence) he was doing what any watchman would have done. And when T attacked Z overpowering him knocking him to the ground then beating him Z, genuinely fearing for his life (proved by the extreme duress of his screams) took out his gun to equalize things and shot T to stop him.

Why did T stop running and decide to confront Z? Rachel Jeantel told Piers Morgan that she and T thought that Z the "creepy ass cracka" might be a homosexual predator out to rape him. T's extreme gangsta mentality and machismo couldn't tolerate that. As gangstas and gang bangers stereotype gays as unmanly feminine sissies T thought that kicking Z's butt would be a cinch.


Again you are incorrect. Martin had every right to o be where he was. Constitutional rights work two ways not one. And now the defense changes fr OK k he was peeping into windows to "he was wandering aimlessly". We which I might remind you was Martin's right to do, noting that he fact that he was on the phone at the time. That the suggestion was a suggestion is irrelevant. The advice was correct and Zimmerman should have followed it. Again it goes to the absolutely atrocious decision making skills of this sociopath that shows why he was rejected for police work more than once and why he's at fault here. The bottom line is this. Martin didn't have to be anywhere except where he wanted to be. Martin didnt have to flee because he wasn't doing anything wrong. In the recitations of the facts, you have listed inconsistnt motivations one of which waa likely a clumsy lie by Zimmerman to cover his bad behavior. I.e. Martin was looking into windows and now he was just wandering. It shows completely why Zimmerman couldn't even get a job as a rent a cop which by the way he also lied about.

And Z had every right to suspect T might be up to no good and report him to police; and had every right to follow him and then look for him when he bolted. And what is absolutely indisputably clear from Z's 911 call is his overarching concern for the safety and security of Twin Lakes as he mentioned to the dispatcher the recent break ins by young black men as being the motive for his call-this is at variance with your laughable, irrational, unfactual, hate driven characterization of Z as a "sociopath."

The first violation of rights was T's criminally attacking Z and quickly overpowering him as eyewitness John Good saw and heard with his own eyes and ears (after the scuffle began). Z using his gun was the last resort when his cries for help (recorded on tape and heard by many) went unanswered.

Z's "lies" are nothing compared to the Martins stirring up a national lynch mob of crazed bloodthirsty leftists based on the complete fabrication that Z was a sociopathic racist killer who hunted down Trayvon and killed him in cold blood. If the Martins had one iota of integrity they would have refrained from rushing to judgment and said "we will not judge Z until the trial and all the facts are known." That is the American way of justice. Not stirring up an angry lynch mob on lies.

And as it turned out no one (the Sanford PD, FBI, DOJ and local and state prosecutors) could discover a single racist bone in Z's "sociopathic" body. After 33 months without finding a hint of racism Obama's DOJ returned the life saving gun that Z used in self-defense against Trayvon. And after the millions made by the Martins on their son's death (stirring up all that racial hatred on a lie) Z is right to sell the gun and stick it to his lying, sick, divisive, race obsessed, moronic leftist enemies.







< p style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 15px; font-family: inherit; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; margin: 0px; line-height: 21px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center;"> 


If I were Donald Trump I'd be jumping all over the opportunity to stir up one hell of a controversy and the rage of the crazy race deranged left by buying the gun that saved George Zimmerman's life from Trayvon Martin for a million bucks. In fact, from what Zimmerman has horribly suffered since he escaped being killed or severely crippled by "Saint Trayvon," one of several brutal holy martyrs of the fascist Black Lives Matter mob, he deserves far more; and I wish I had it to give him.
The good news is as of yesterday morning the life saving gun (whose single fatal justified shot four years ago was heard across the nation and world) has returned to the auction block at United Gun Group for sale after the listing was suspended due to sabotage. An army of anti-Zimmerman trolls with fake bids from phony accounts stormed the site and skyrocketed the price to $65 million. How I wish that it was real as the anti-Zimmerman hate industry over the years probably earned ten times that sum.
 Indeed, exploiting the death of Trayvon and using the race card against Z (demonizing him as a racist killer of an innocent unarmed black teen) the liberal news and opinion media (TV mags, newspapers and on line blogs) rushing to judgment soon after the shooting made tens and millions boosting ratings, subscriptions and hits. Also cashing in big time were the NAACP, race pimps and hustlers like Jessie Jackson and Reverend Al (who got multiple invites to the White House), and the New Black Panthers which put a $10k bounty (see) on Z's bashed in head (surely boosting its racist membership by thousands). 
Not letting the controversy go to waste the great "post-racial" liar and divider-in-chief got into the act pandering to the anti-Zimmerman mob during 2012 race by posthumously adopting Trayvon as the son that could have been. And let's not forget Sabrina and Tracy Martin, Trayvon's divorced, grieving parents, weeping all the way to the bank profiting hugely from his death by winning a $1 million wrongful death suit against the homeowners association where their boy (not wrongfully) was killed (see). And not content with the million they made the Martins trademarked Trayvon's name to earn cash on Trayvon merchandise: CDs, DVDs, t-shirts and bumper stickers (see).
Calling for action: Supporters have made a plethora of different t-shirts, all with the same essential message
 Indeed, from the media to the President to Trayvon's mom and dad one and all enriched themselves immensely by vilifying Z as the racist killer of the century-until Darren Wilson took his place and the cycle of leftist insanity started all over again....but this time more violently.
Trayvon's parents cashing in on his death.
But the racially mixed partly black Z who was deprived of a normal life, lost his wife and took a huge financial hit* (because of the crime that his skin was too white)
 is excoriated as a cruel, heartless sociopath deserving of death for selling his gun on the internet. And the irony is it was returned to him after the Justice Dept. concluded a 33 month investigation that predictably couldn't find a hint of racism in the evil Z.  It's mind-boggling.
*At the time of the Martin shooting Z was as an insurance underwriter  (making between $35,000 to $77,000 a year), while working  on an associate degree in criminal justice in Seminole State College. That would make his loses to date substantial.
If I were Donald Trump I'd buy Z's gun for a big enough sum to give him the financial security he deserves and needs; and I'd carry it on me throughout the campaign proudly showing it off at rallies to remind Americans what the Left is about and that they tried to destroy an innocent man who was doing his job protecting his community from a potential predator. Black lives only matter when non-blacks kill blacks. When that happens it's "Kill Cops Burn Down Shops" like they did in Ferguson, Baltimore, New York and elsewhere.
Over the weekend as I was debating Zimmerman's innocence with lefties on disqus I'd get comment after comment faulting Z with the familiar refrain that in following Trayvon he was disobeying police who ordered him to stand down, as he was told on the so-called 911 tape. But the voice he heard was that of a dispatcher not a cop who had no authority to order him to do squat.
But as I researched this I learned something important that I never knew and that will be new to most of you. Sure if Z had stayed in his car and not followed T that night there would have been no shooting; and T would possibly be alive today-but only if some other potential victim like Z hadn't killed him in self-defense as T had a violent heart and was on a bad path. But what I learned is that Z exiting his vehicle and trailing T at a safe distance (he had no desire to confront him) was perfectly acceptable to the Sanford police and was encouraged by them-to assist them in keeping track of suspects until they arrived.  You can read about it HERE.


George Zimmerman is making news again and the mad, crazed, race obsessed ("Kill Cops Burn Down Shops") Zimmy-hating lynch mob Left is going ballistic. This time it's over the gun that the luckily armed neighborhood watchman used to save his life when Trayvon Martin (thinking Z might be a gay predator out to rape him) viciously tried to ground and pound him into utter unconsciousness and death.
Last week Z put the gun (a 9-millimeter Kel-Tec PF-9 pistol) on the auction block for sale to the highest bidder, and leftist heads exploded across the net with moral outrage. Calling Z an unconscionable sociopath cynically exploiting TM's death for personal profit and gain the Left conveniently forget that Obama did practically the same thing in 2012-when during the election he ignorantly said (pandering for the anti-Zimmerman vote) that if he had a son he would look like Trayvon. (Does anyone think Obama would let his eldest daughter date such a thug?)
But that's not the worst or best of it. Pouring gas on the new outrage he's sparked, Z said that a portion of the proceeds would go to "fighting violence by the Black Lives Matter movement against police officers, combating the anti-gun rhetoric of Hillary Clinton and ending the career of state attorney Angela Corey," who led Zimmerman's politicized prosecution (which should never have been).
Yes it's true that  Z is exploiting Martin's death for money. But who can justly blame him? Z can't get a job or live a normal life and go out in the public as he's too big a target for leftist black violence. Truth is if Z were black he'd be unknown to us and be living like he did prior to killing Martin. The media not Z is to blame for his seemingly desperate financial state. From the start because Z wasn't black the media chose to demonize him and sensationalize Martin's death as a racist killing of an unarmed angelic black kid shot in cold blood, as if it were a KKK execution.
But amazingly and ironically Z loved black people. His mother's granddad was a Peruvian black man; he dated a black girl in high school and took her to the prom; he went into business with a black friend, and compassionately took two underprivileged black girls into his home and mentored them at his expense-as the program had run out of funds. Furthermore, Z rallied to the cause of a black homeless man who was beaten with impunity by the son of a Sanford policeman. At his own expense Z printed and handed out fliers trying to raise public awareness about the crime. He even went to the local NAACP to enlist its help, but to no avail-they sympathized with the victim but lacked the funds to help him (see and see). What kind of mentally ill sociopath is this? It wasn't this responsible but flawed captain of the Twin Lakes community watchmen who was the sociopath; it was Trayvon Martin who came within inches of murdering him.
And that brings me to a fascinating topic-the big story that's going unreported mentioned in the title: the failure of Obama's Justice Department to nail the so-called "racist" Z with a hate crime. It was recently in late April or earlier this month that Z took possession of his life saving gun that equalized the difference between TM's superior strength and his weakness (Z's martial arts guru said he couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag). For over two and a half years the DOJ kept the gun as a crucial piece of evidence in their investigation of Z for possibly violating TM's civil rights. Indeed, five days after Z was acquitted of second degree murder and manslaughter the DOJ ordered Sanford police to turn over every last bit of the 250 pieces of evidence that were used in the trial-the most important being Z's life saving gun (see).
And after a 33 month investigation that turned up squat the DOJ returned Z's gun, thus tacitly admitting that Z's gun wasn't used in a hate crime against Martin. In other words, the DOJ joined Sanford police and the Florida State prosecutor in failing to find a scintilla of evidence nailing Z to any crime. And yet the compassionate, empathetic, social justice Left still wants to see Z burn in hell flat broke and ruined for killing Trayvon Martin in self-defense. Black lives only matter when non-blacks kill blacks.   



Idiot president bowing to Japanese emperor beacuse he couldn't humiliate America by apologizing for nuking Japan in Hiroshima.

Let there be no illusions why Obama is planning to visit Hiroshima during his up coming trip to Japan in two weeks: it's to tacitly and symbolically with unspoken words do what he wanted to do during his first trip to Japan in 2009: humiliate America by apologizing for winning the war with the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki-as if that were an evil, immoral and criminal way to win, and there was a better and less destructive alternative at the time.
In a secret September 3, 2009 cable (revealed in a WikiLeaks dump) and sent to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it reported that Japan's Vice Foreign Minister Mitoji Yabunaka told U.S. Ambassador John Roos that "the idea of President Obama visiting Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II was a nonstarter [unacceptable] (see)." And because the Japanese government was sternly opposed to it (no Japanese government since the end of WWII ever demanded an apology for the bombings as most Japanese blame themselves for it) Obama did what he saw was the next best thing to humiliate us, and publicly bowed to the Japanese emperor (a mere figurehead with no political power) like he did to the Saudi King earlier that year. Now it appears he wants to take this bow a step further and visit Hiroshima itself: Harry Truman is rolling in his grave.
What right-minded President knowing what he knows today would have refrained from giving the same order Truman gave to decimate Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The aim of war is victory over the enemy; and that means crushing his will to defeat you. But Japan's will and determination to continue the war (which it started at Pearl Harbor) wasn't broken and crushed until Nagasaki. And thank God for that. For we had run out of nukes and didn't have a third and fourth for Kyoto and Osaka or some other Japanese cities. For the Japanese had four million men under arms and a militia force of a million or more citizens ready to defend Japan to the death from invasion (see).
An unbowed General MacArthur with defeated Japanese emperor.
After the conventional fire bombing of Tokyo where tens and thousands died the Japanese Emperor and his military chiefs held firm willing to endure more Tokyos hoping for an eventual invasion where they'd be victorious in repelling the enemy with a massive suicidal army if he dared such a thing. After the nuking of Hiroshima they were still unbowed and committed to war believing that an invasion was coming. But Nagasaki changed all that: it broke the emperor's will and brought him to his senses fearing the nuclear devastation of his country with nothing left but radioactive ashes and dust. And the weak, appeasing leftist nutjob in the White House wants to apologize for this? Apologizing for winning the war and saving millions of lives (including 300,000 POWs) from a land invasion? If Obama were President in 1945 the war would have dragged on for years at a staggering cost in lives and treasure.
Again I say, as I did the other day, with good reason Obama's the most despised Commander-in-Chief by our military and Defense Department in US history. With good reason a mere 15% of our service men and women respect him while 55% utterly loath him. With good reason not one, not two, but three secretaries of defense quit on him finding his incompetence, weakness, ignorance and stupidity intolerable (see and see).
Too bad President Truman didn't listen to General MacArthur and nuked the Norks to end the Korean War. If he had done that the Korean Peninsula would be united today into a one, prosperous, peaceful democratic state; and hundreds and millions of North Koreans wouldn't have perished from socialist poverty and starvation; and millions of children wouldn't now be suffering from malnutrition and stunted growth. If only Truman had listened to MacArthur and didn't go wobbly on the use of nukes-it was Eisenhower who ended the war by threatening to use them.



This regressive blundering jackass has gone from stupidly and needlessly pulling our troops from Iraq to pledging that they'd never return under his watch to returning them only in a "non-combat advisory capacity" to them engaging in combat with ISIS-which he denies. This is just one piece of an overall pattern of incompetency and lies not seen before in a US president. 

No President in American history has commanded so little respect and been more despised by the US military and Defense Department  than Barack Hussein Obama: the weak, pathetic, apologizing appeaser who disgraces the White House with his dithering indecisiveness, serial lies and gutless leadership from behind. So loathed is Obama by our service men and women that only a mere, abysmally low 15% think well of him; while a disgusted, demoralized 55% are wretchedly sick to their stomachs at the mention of his name (see). And who can blame them? Just look at Obama's dismal record on the world stage and the harm that he's done to our soldiers, this country, the Middle East and the world and tell if you don't want to puke. 

In 2009 Obama stupidly trying to reset relations with Russia, which were damaged by the Russo-Georgian War, butt kissed committed neo-imperialist Vladimir Putin and rewarded him for Georgia by canceling a missile defense system for Poland and Eastern Europe. And how did Putin repay Obama and show his thanks? By giving traitor Edward Snowden refuge in Russia, invading the Ukraine, annexing Crimea and then militarily intervening in Syria to defend Bashir Assad (the greatest mass murderer of the 21st century) from US backed rebels who are now being crushed. 
... counter terrorism head: FBI never called Ft.Hood 'Workplace Violence
Offending the common sense of our soldiers and troops Obama called the jihadist massacre at Ft. Hood an act of "workplace violence" as if the Moslem killer of 13 soldiers (and an unborn child) differed little from a disgruntled employee working in the private sector seeking revenge on workers and management. And compounding this politically correct lunacy Obama called terrorist acts in general "man caused disasters" as if in essence they were no different from deadly auto accidents, train wrecks and the like.  
Bergdahl prisoner swap
But even more outrageous was Obama lauding the traitorous deserter Bowe Bergdahl as a hero who served his country with "honor and distinction" (who caused the death of soldiers trying to find him) and was swapped for five Taliban commanders hell-bent on returning to the battlefield to kill more Americans. 
Moreover, as Robert Gates tells us (see), Obama surged our troops in Afghanistan and sent them into battle without believing in or supporting the mission-while giving them restrictive Rules of Engagement that favoring the enemy over our troops has tragically killed dozens of them.
Worse still he pulled our troops from Iraq (handing the country over to Iran) when he had the overwhelming leverage (as Leon Panetta says) of $60 billion in Iraq Reconstruction Funds to keep them there on US terms. And now we're back fighting in Iraq for a third time in 25 years (see).
Wanting to look tough Obama threatened to punish Syria's Bashir Assad if he dared cross the red line of chemical weapon attacks against his people; upon crossing the line Obama did nothing except sign a worthless disarmament treaty with Assad to dismantle his chemical weapons. Not only has Assad refused to honor this deal but showing his contempt for Obama and daring him to act he has since, it appears, used chemical weapons again (see and see).
After this fiasco Obama then blindly trusting the radical, terrorist, "death to America" mullahs (who have killed hundreds of US troops in Iraq and continue to do so in Afghanistan with their support of the Taliban) he rewards them with billions for signing a provably worthless nuke deal which they are violating at every turn while humiliating the US when they can (see).  
Obama deserted Egyptian President and ally Hosni Mubarak favoring the radical anti-Western Moslem Brotherhood to replace him. And   laughably he said that the war to depose Kaddafi in Libya (an ally like Mubarak) was a "kinetic military action" not a real war- because it was illegal and violated the War Powers Act (see).  And now Libya is a failed state overrun by ISIS, al Qaida and other extremists plotting to bring death and destruction to America and Europe.
In 2012 Obama declared victory in the Global War On Terror and that al Qaida was completely decimated when (as he knew from military intelligence) they were metastasizing and growing in power and influence across the world.
Obama dismissed ISIS as a rag tag army of jay vee jihadists when they were defeating US trained Iraqi troops and expanding their caliphate deep inside Iraq. 
As reported by Fox News Obama insanely turned the US military into a personal laboratory for politically correct social experiments..... going so far as having ROTC cadets wear high-heeled women's shoes for sensitivity training (see).
Obama regards the alarmist, doomsday, pseudo-science of catastrophic, man-made global warming as a greater threat to our national security than global terrorism or nuclear proliferation-and he forces the military to give it the same absurd priority (see).
Obama has drastically downsized the US military to pre-World War II levels (see) and has been deliberately diminishing US power while claiming America is stronger than ever in its history-when we're no longer respected, feared or trusted around the world like we used to be, ought to be and need to be. 
As Obama dismantles the Pax America and the world grows more unstable, strife-torn and dangerous (with the Middle East on the verge of a sectarian cataclysm) Obama claims that he's been a superb foreign policy and military president-and points to our improved image in the world as proof. You can't get anymore delusional than this.
  • Ash Carter

    Ash Carter





    33128 B

  • Charles Keating’s Death Part of Iraq Tragedy: Losing Victory Bush ...
     600 x 600 - 

    Charles Keating’s Death Part of Iraq Tragedy: Losing Victory Bush ...





    66402 B

 And the great blundering amateur goes on and on leading this nation deeper and deeper into peril. What we've seen from this president is fecklessness and reckless incompetence on a level and scale unmatched in US history that has so disgusted the Defense Department that three of its secretaries quit on him-and the fourth refuses to join him in advancing the lie that we're not at war in Iraq again. Indeed, when Aston Carter contradicting his worthless boss that the death of Navy Seal Charles Keating was a combat death from a fire fight with ISIS he was defiantly raising his middle finger to him (like his frustrated predecessors sometimes did) and dared him to fire him for insubordination. Carter has too much self-respect to make himself look foolish for an ass clown president who's leading America into economic, military and geopolitical decline and the world into chaos and war. And Hillary Clinton, an architect of Obama's foreign policy, praises him as a great commander-in-chief, and pledges to continue his dangerous policies of peace through weakness, appeasement and retreat. 






Let me answer my question with a question: Will the New York born Donald Trump be to HIllary Clinton in November what the New York born Bernie Sanders was to Hillary in the historic Indiana primary?  Indeed, Bernie Sanders who is the populist Donald Trump of the left-running an analogous mad- as-hell campaign reflecting the anger and fear of millions of discontent Americans worried about the direction of the country and what they're suffering economically-went into the Indiana primary as the certain to lose underdog. Every poll showed Sanders losing Indiana to Hillary by as much as 13%. But Sanders surprisingly defeated Hillary by just under five points-an amazing upset victory that rattled Clinton who had hoped that a big defeat would finally bring Sanders to his senses and he'd quit the race like Cruz and Kasich were to do. But Sanders won stiffening his resolve to continue his Occupy Wall Street crusade against the "greedy capitalist Wall Street banksters" and their "rigged criminal bloodsucking economy" to the bitter socialist end. That means low energy, visibly tiring, lying Hillary having to battle both Sanders and Trump right up until the Democratic convention in late July. Given her poor stamina and intestinal strength she could be totally exhausted by then worn down by the constant attacks of both men. 
But the big question is this: is Indiana what providence has in store for Hillary on November 8th? Does populist Bernie's surprising Indiana victory foreshadow an unlikely Trump victory with the billionaire triumphing over everything?  Will Trump who is the near absolute underdog right now losing to Hillary in most every poll (Rasmussen the exception) come from behind surmounting his negatives to beat her with Indiana as the providential sign?
Trump amassed an impressive 588,000 votes in Indiana outdoing Sanders by 253,000 and Hillary by 284,000 votes. In fact, Trump had 51,000 voted less than Sander's and Hillary combined. Is Indiana a sign of things to come for Trump? To put it another way, if Trump were Bernie Sanders running against Hillary in the Democratic race would he be the front runner right now? I believe that he would. Add Trump's charisma and forceful personality to Bernie Sanders and Hillary would be trailing him, as Sanders is now.
Aside from Hillary lacking the energy and strength to keep pace with the tireless, indefatigable, unpredictable, non-ideological Trump-who'll run to her left when necessary (appealing to Hillary hating anti-globalist Sanders supporters) as easily as he'll run to her right (to satisfy conservatives)-she has to be worrying, as her husband is, about the state of the fragile, weakening U.S. economy. She has to be worrying that the worst recovery since the Great Depression could devolve into another Great Recession. With good reason Bill Clinton is very nervous about the collapsing world order, and Europe's worsening economic and refugee woes, "dragging" our economy into another crisis before Election Day. Indeed, the last three-quarters ominously saw GDP growth decline with the last quarter dropping to just under a full point to a mere, sickly, pathetic .5%. That is troubling.
Quarter-to-Quarter Growth in Real GDP
Declining US productivity and a global economic slowdown points to a coming recession for our mismanaged high debt, stagnant wage, inflationary economy. 
Complicating things for the Clintons is the rise in the cost of living (aka "invisible inflation" see) aggravating the crisis of the disappearing middle class with more working Americans unable to make ends meet and running out of credit sinking into poverty. Indeed, the cost of food, gasoline, clothing, car insurance, healthcare costs, cable TV, cell phone and internet service and more are rising while wages remain stagnant and the economy produces millions of lousy, low paying and part-time jobs. It is a fact that Americans are making less and having to spend more-and the drive to increase the minimum wage means raising the cost of labor and consequently the cost of living even more. An idiotic idea as Trump understands.
Even if there's no official recession before November if the present economic downturn continues anger, fear and discontent will swell with millions more Americans calling for a radical change of direction. Hillary vowing to stay the course and continue Obama's failed policies and legacy will badly hurt her credibility with independent voters wanting change. Her only defense will be to blame the economy on Republican obstructionism and pre-Obama (Bush's) policies trying to frighten voters that Trump spells a return to the past.  But Trump the anti-elite Washington outsider who has relentlessly attacked the Bush presidency and GOP on everything from the economy to foreign policy will blame both Democrats and Republicans for the mess. This will give him credibility with the Indies as a post-partisan candidate independent of both parties who'll be focused as President on serving the interests of the people. While Hillary blaming Republicans for the mess (when her husband was the fountainhead of the 2008 housing crash) will look  petty, divisive and partisan-too Democratic to be president of all the people.
Hillary warns voters that Trump is a "loose cannon" who fires indiscriminately in all directions not caring who he hits. But he is more like a nuclear bomb who could make the Clinton campaign look like Hiroshima before election day, and Hillary like the walking dead sapped of all her energy and strength. That would be terrific.


The new face of the GOP

On the 16th day of June 2015 (16 days from the publication of Ann Coulter's book on illegal immigration and 16 days before an illegal killed Kate Steinle) Donald Trump (16 months to election day 2016) announced his run for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, making illegal immigration the focus of his campaign.
Trump was half way there. For on April 26th (the 316th day of Trump's campaign and the 16th week of 2016, see and   see). Donald Trump swept five northeastern primary states virtually making him the GOP's presumptive presidential nominee (which he boldly declared he was on the following day* with most Republican voters subsequently agreeing with him, see). Indeed, as Trump is striving to be the 45th President his landslide victory on April 26th fell on the 45th week of his candidacy-an auspicious sign.
*April 27 was 196 days to election day. 196 is a variant of 16: 1+9+6 = 16 (see).
But it wasn't until last night's victory in Indiana that Trump actually and effectively secured the nomination as GOP Chairman Reinice Priebus conceded that he was indeed the presumptive nominee. As the number 16 from the start has been propitious for Trump it was nowhere to seen last night except in two small places: Indiana, the 19th state to join the Union did so in the 16th year of the 19th century*; and with a population of 6.6 million people Indiana ranks 16th in population (see).
*December 11, 1816.
Moreover, on his way to seizing the GOP nomination Trump defeated 16 party candidates with Ted Cruz, the last obstacle to victory, conceding defeat yesterday and suspending his campaign. When Cruz, age 45, called it quits it was the 16,570th day of his earthly existence (see). An amazing coincidence for the night Trump triumphed and won 57 delegates .



A new Gallup survey showed a sharp rise in the percentage of Americans convinced that humans are the main driver of global warming.

The catastrophic, "deindustrialize or die,"  fascistic, warmunist left was jubilant recently when it learned from a new Gallup poll that its extremist belief that human activity is the main driver in global warming (AGW) is at a 15 year high. The poll shows that in 2001 61% of the public believed in AGW; that in 2010 it fell to its lowest point of 51%; and that now it's at all time high at 61% and expected to grow. And while belief in AGW is the highest it's been in some time the contrary view of skeptics (called "denialists" by warmunists), that global warming has little or nothing to do with human activity, has fallen from its 2001 low of 33% to 31%. 
The warminists seem to be winning over the public while anti-AGW skeptics are losing. And the warmunist left is jubilant. They believe that Barack Obama's leadership on climate change has been effective and is paying off. That his "the science is settled" sci-fi fanaticism and lies have been good for the movement; and that this is all the more reason to keep skeptic Donald Trump from the White House and elect either pro-AGW Hillary or Bernie to continue Obama's radical green, clean, anti-fossil fuel legacy.
But appearances are deceiving. The real important question is the level of concern. How many of the 61% think that AGW is a crisis that is personally impacting their lives for the worse? And that the world is headed for "thermageddon": a hellish hot-house planet of man caused rising temperatures that will be so intense as to be uninhabitable in the future wiping out mankind and every living thing.
 For example how many of the 61% are driving gas guzzling, fossil fuel burning cars verses plug-ins like the Chevy Volt to save the environment and Earth? Not many according to stats. There are 255 million vehicles in this country and only 400,000 are plugins (600,000 short of the 1 million in sales Obama predicted by the end of his presidency). In fact, due to the drop in oil and gas prices sale of plug-ins has been plummeting as more Americans are buying traditional carbon spewing cars, and filling up at the pump while putting more "earth heating" greenhouse gases into the CO2 polluted air (see).
And how many of the 61% own homes installed with clean, green solar energy panels? Solar energy has been around for decades, is plagued by scandal (see), and to date only 0.6% of the nation's total energy comes from the Sun (see). While the solar industry is growing (prices are dropping) it's not exactly galloping ahead leading America into a green energy future as you'd think given the Gallup poll and Obama's crony capitalist subsidizing of solar companies; and besides, how many homeowners with solar panels have plugin cars in their garages? Not many as we saw above. This shows that most solar panel owners are interested in saving money on electric bills not saving planet Earth.
No. Things are not as rosy as they seem for the go green or die fascist left who now want to criminalize skeptics because their movement in reality is in serious decline-due to 18 years of virtually flat global temperatures despite accelerated human CO2 emissions; and the catastrophic failure of apocalyptic predictions about famines, coastal flooding, snowless winters, iceless arctics, extreme weather events like hurricanes and tornadoes in ever greater frequency, acidification of seas killing fish and coral reefs, etc. As none of these things have materialized most of that 61% don't feel alarmed that there's a growing climate crisis threatening their lives or that of their children and posterity; most don't see or feel an urgent need to radically rearrange our economy and replace the burning of fossil fuels (still the cheapest, most efficient and wealth creating form of energy) with more costly and less efficient renewables.
pew report climate change
Indeed, while 61% say that climate change is mainly man made or anthropogenic, which it certainly is not, the issue of global warming has a very low priority with the public and is not a problem which they will bring to the voting booth this November. For according to Pew Research of the 23 most vitally important national issues global warming is almost at the bottom in 22nd place just ahead of global trade. In other words, very few Americans are worried to death like the Obama administration, Al Gore and De Caprio that global warming is a top national security priority and poses an existential threat to the country and mankind. That is outright crackpot over the top left-wing alarmism that worries only mad men and fools who see themselves as great world citizens, servers and saviors in a global messianic  cause to save mankind, which isn't in peril of destroying itself.
In the long history of man industrial, fossil fuel burning capitalism has been his greatest economic blessing lifting billions out of poverty in 200 years, and lifting millions more in third world countries as I write. The crackpot, bankrupt, warmunist left (it has run out of doomsday scare tactics) offers nothing better and is in decline unable to end man's wealth creating love affair with  "dirty" combustible energy.


Charles Koch said the political network he helps lead is "seeking to right injustices that are holding our country back." (Bo Rader/The Wichita Eagle via AP, File)
Has free market conservative billionaire Charles Koch lost his mind? Has he forgotten or does he even know that it was Bill Clinton's ill fated affordable housing program that set in motion the train of events that caused the recession of late 2007 (because of a growing housing crisis), and which progressively worsened until the market crash of September 2008 when the economy nearly collapsed into a depression? Does Koch know that Hillary fully supported her husband's reckless housing policies and defends them to this day? Does he really think that if Donald Trump, Cruz or Kasich were president in the 1990s that they would have embarked on such a destructive course? NO WAY! Let's take a walk down memory lane and see just what Clinton did:
 Bubba the great bubble blower who wanted to be known by history as the Homeownership President.
When Bill Clinton took office in 1992 the home ownership market had been stagnant for years stuck at a rate of 62.5%. Clinton found it intolerable that so many Americans would give up on the dream of owning a home, and he decided to do something about it. In 1995 after working on a plan with cabinet members, advisors and wall Street financial firms Clinton went public with his audacious plan: the National Homeownership Strategy (NHS). The gist of his plan was this: the administration would move heaven and earth to revive the US housing market with the goal of boosting homeownership to a national record of "67.5%" by 2000 (see and see) .
Outlining NHS at a White House speech Clinton said that central to his plan was making home buying easier for low and moderate income families who lacked the income, savings and credit to qualify for traditional mortgages (whose likelihood of default was high). Clinton's plan was to break with traditional mortgage lending and lower credit barriers and standards to accommodate the millions of uncreditworthy (risky) borrowers who couldn't afford homes. Thus was born Clinton's totally reckless and insane subprime loan revolution where the US government, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac (see and see) and the financial community (aka "Wall Street") would collude in putting millions of uncreditworthy families into expensive homes they couldn't normally afford by drastically deregulating the mortgage business: lowering credit, down payment and interest requirements (i.e. making loans "affordable").
The program was a smashing success that boosted an already prospering economy (from the hi-tech revolution) and won Clinton reelection despite his scandals. In fact, so successful was the program that when Clinton left office the homeownership rate was at an astonishing 68% (exceeding his goal of 67.5%) with approximately 8 million new homeowners added to the economy. In short, Clinton was the first president to use subprime lending as a tool ("creative financing" he called it) to gigantically and artificially increase homeownership in this country; and by doing so he created the greatest housing and credit bubble in US history.
Indeed, at the time of the crash Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Bank of America, Chase, Goldman, Lehmans, etc. owned a staggering 27 million subprime mortgages valued at $6.2 trillion-with Fannie and Freddie backing/owning $5 trillion and "Wall Street" owning the rest    (see and see). This proves as many have said that it was mostly the US gov't (Fannie, Freddie etc.) that crashed the Main Street economy (nearly plunging it into a depression) with "Wall Street banksters" playing a junior or subordinate role. But the fountainhead of the crisis was indisputably Bill Clinton and his crash, affordable (crony capitalist) housing program-which eliminated sound government regulatory and financing barriers to homeownership, and initiated the "Mortgages For Everyone Era" that we've yet to recover from.
When Bernie Sanders accuses the corrupt crooked Clintons of being too cozily in bed with Wall Street banksters and blames Bill Clinton's repeal of Glass-Steagall for the housing crash he's only scratching the surface. 
Truth is if Trump, Cruz or Kasich were president in the 90s instead of Bill Clinton the housing/credit crash would not have happened, Barack Obama would not be president and this nation and the world would be far better off. But don't take my word for it. Read Gretchen Morgenson's book on the subject and see for yourself what a disaster his presidency was and why Koch is dead wrong.


Today on this very sad 46th anniversary of Earth Day as the doomsday clock on climate change ticks away irrevocably Science Guy and climate prophet Bill Nye speaks about what could have been if America and the world had heeded men like him.  This is what he said:
'If only you had listened to science guys like me and deindustrialized the world when I warned, you wouldn't be headed toward catastropheThere would be no snowless northern winters and iceless Arctic summers; glaciers, icebergs and polar bears wouldn't now be extinct; gondolas instead of taxis wouldn't be picking up fares on flooded New York streets; mass migration from coastal areas caused by rising seas, typhoons and storms wouldn't be plaguing the world; billions of dead fish wouldn't horrifically be floating on the seas from acidification poisoning; deserts wouldn't be growing in the heart of Western Europe with Moslem migrants living there in Bedouin tents; they'd be no droughts and famine  causing cannibalization in China and India because of mass starvation; and Taiwan, New Zealand, the Fiji Islands and Japan wouldn't have vanished from the map swimming with the fishes and Luca Brasi .
 If only you had listened to science guys like me soaring temperatures wouldn't be baking the earth like a vast Nazi oven dooming mankind to irreversible, apocalyptic, green house extinction. If only you had listened and achieved zero carbon emissions instead of doubling down on using fossil fuels this planet wouldn't be turning into a lifeless, burning, deadly hell like desolate, uninhabitable volcanic Venus. If only you had listened.'
When young 14-year-old Bill (science fiction guy) Nye rode his white "green friendly" bike to the first Earth Day event at Washington's National Mall he heard many hysterical left-wing speakers making doomsday predictions such as these, and learned absolutely nothing from their folly:

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.” 
• Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” 
• George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.” 
• Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
• Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….” 
• Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.” 
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”
• Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
• Sen. Gaylord Nelson

and this classic:

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
• Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

 The above is but a fraction of the catastrophic nonsense young mush brained, impressionable nerdie Nye heard that history making day (Vladimir Lenin's 100th birthday). And despite the absolute failure of all these predictions Nye wants to criminalize skepticism and throw all deniers in jail as menaces to humanity (something Lenin would do). Like all leftist loons what Nye desperately needs is a padded cell and never be allowed near the minds of children again.



 DISGRACEFUL: Pope Francis could have chosen Syrian Christian refugees to take into the Vatican, but he only chose Muslim-Bare Naked Islam  


All very touching, all very moving and all very useless for saving Christians and defeating Jihad. If I were a Jihadist I'd be delighted by the Pope's gesture as it could mean more jihadists infiltrating Europe.
suddenly undergo a moral transformation and be any less inclined to hate, persecute and kill Christians because the Pope showed Moslem refugees fleeing Syria kindness over Christians giving them refuge in the Vatican and then washing their feet? Jihadists expect extraordinary kindness and kowtowing from Christians believing that Moslems deserve it-not because of their humanity but due to the superiority of their faith, understanding of God and triumphant destiny. Christian charity toward Moslems is a waste. As long as a Christians remains Christian they're hateful sinners deserving of cruelty, subjugation and death (Koran 9:29); for in defiance of God Christians practice a corrupt and obsolete form of monotheism condemned by the Koran as "cursed" (9:30), and by providence to eventual extinction. Jihadists see themselves as agents of God's wrath carrying out His divine will in His universal holy war against Christians and unbelievers.
"Believe in me or die! Believe in me or die! And if it pleases me to let you live I'll crush you with oppression!" was Mohammed's message to Christians and Jews as he raised his blood stained sword to heaven. This is the gospel Jihadists live by.
If Bill Clinton siding with Moslem militants against Christians in the Kosovo War (and his bombing of Yugoslavia and killing hundreds of Christian Serbs) miserably failed to placate bin Laden and prevent 9/11 what does the Pope think he'll achieve by this feeble, butt kissing gesture at the Vatican? The Pope is Christian and leader of Christians practicing a corrupt faith and that is an unforgivable sin in Islam. If al Qaida or ISIS had an infallible terrorist plan for destroying the Vatican only the Pope's conversion to Islam would stop them. Jihadists are cruel, implacable, inhuman fanatics hell-bent on conquest and death (who only respect power and strength) and have to be killed. Victory in this war means crushing the will of Jihadists to defeat us. There is no other way to stop them.


"Broadcast And Cable News Fail To Inform Viewers About Major Obamacare Success Story. That in the first quarter of 2016 that uninsured rate among adults 18 years and older is at a historic low of 11%."
 Wow! Why all the media silence when history is being made? Compared to where we were six years ago this is one truly amazing statistic. Just look at the numbers and give Barack Obama the credit he deserves. When on March 23, 2010 Obama-defying the stupid, misinformed will of the American people (CNN had six out of ten voters opposing the Affordable Care Act, see)-signed Obamacare into law approximately 37 million low-income adult Americans (16%) lacked health insurance; but last week, as Media Matters euphorically reported, that has since dwindled down to 11% or 24 million. That is an impressive gain of 13 million Americans that were previously uninsured.
So where's the predicted disaster and train wreck? With statistics like these how can right-wing critics of Obamacare (Trump, Cruz, Limbaugh, Hannity, Fox News and the Republican Party) say that's it's a failure and continue calling for its repeal? Indeed, these 13 million represent an astounding 35% increase in the number of low-income Americans now receiving insurance. How is that a disaster?
For God's sake, instead of wanting to kill Obamacare all Americans should be celebrating it as a great success and moral victory for human rights in this country. For our social justice driven progressive president has won for millions the "basic, fundamental human right to health insurance" as more Americans than ever in US history now have access to affordable quality healthcare.
In other words, Obamacare is on its way to achieving its ultimate goal of national, universal, coast to coast health insurance. Indeed, leaving no citizen behind (down to the smelliest bum) Obamacare is on its way to insuring everyone. Just think of it: in just six short years with 13 million Americans joining the ranks of the insured it will take another nine years (growing at a rate of 2.6 million per year) to cover the remaining 24 million. In other words, if Obamacare stays the course and isn't repealed (like Republicans want to do) then by 2025 America will have achieved Barack Obama's progressive dream of a "More Perfect Healthcare Union" with all 320 million Americans living in healthcare security and heaven.
But unfortunately the vast majority of Americans are moaning not rejoicing at Obama's achievemnet. Six years later and 13 million more insured and the public opposes Obamacare by a huge, whopping 12.6% landslide (see). And this opposition is going to grow exponentially in the years ahead. Why? Because nothing is free. Because the rest of America (middle and upper income folks) are paying for these millions to get insured. Indeed, a majority of them are in revolt because, as Chelsea Clinton recently said, it's proving to be an economic and financially "crushing" burden for them (see). Millions of hard working middle class Americans are paying through the nose in rising premiums, deductibles, hidden taxes and fees where huge savings and affordability were promised; and the crushing burden on these folks is going to grow as Obamacare strives to insure the remaining 24 million in its quest for universal coverage. That means a worsening of the crisis of the disappearing middle class as insurance costs drive more working families into poverty.
As I wrote here and here, Obamacare is progressive, impoverishing, unjustified class warfare by health insurance means; it's a transfer of wealth from have to have-nots led by a radical left-wing community organizer who's central domestic purpose as president (as it was in Chicago) is to benefit the poor at everyone else's expense no matter the cost (especially to the struggling middle class).
After six disastrous years the slow motion train wreck of Obamacare rolls on hurting the many to help the few (doing way more harm to America than good)-making it more politically unsustainable with each passing day as the burden to the middle class crushingly grows and more fall into poverty and distress. Where's the social justice in this? You can't find it with a microscope.


Donald Trump

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump at a campaign rally in Florida  asks his supporters to pledge that they vote for him in what appeared to be a Nazi like salute.

Is politically tumultuous America of 2016 like democratic Weimar Germany of the early 1930s with a new racist authoritarian Adolf Hitler in the person of billionaire Donald Trump attempting to use the democratic process to seize power, kill freedom and set up an oppressive totalitarian dictatorship? There are many very frightened people from across the political spectrum who seem to think so. From Glen Beck on the right to leftist comedian Louis CK Trump is the new power mad ultra nationalist Adolf Hitler aspiring to become the American Furher-in-Chief to restore our nation's greatness and glory like Hitler vowed to restore Germany's.  
Even Serena Kutchinsky, the stepsister of Nazi Jewish victim Ann Frank (herself an Auschwitz survivor) jumped into the anti-Trump campaign. In an essay written to mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Kutchinsky accused Trump of "acting like another Hitler" because he wants a temporary ban on Moslem immigrants, and wants to build a wall to keep out illegals.
And of course Trump didn't help his cause when at one campaign rally he had members of the audience pledge their support by holding up their right hands in a loyalty oath. Trump haters seized on this as proof that Trump had an authoritarian personality like Hitler that demanded a blind, unquestioning, religious obedience to him as if he were a god.
But this is absurd. Trump is a populist reflecting the rage against the Washington establishment and political elites who are destroying America's wealth, jobs and greatness and rigging the system in their favor. How anyone can see in Trump the American reincarnation of the mass murdering, tyrannical, militant Adolf Hitler is beyond me.
 On the contrary, if this were Nazi Germany Trump would have run afoul of the regime and been a victim of persecution. Indeed, by now the Gestapo would have arrested Trump, stripped him of his vast wealth and sent to Auschwitz, Treblinka or some other death camp in a crowded boxcar with family members. Why? For committing racial crimes against he Nazi state and German Master Race. What crimes? Of being a "Jew lover:" of allowing his daughter Ivanka to marry Orthodox Jewish businessman Jared Kushner, convert to Judaism and raise their kids in the Jewish faith. For that unforgivable "crime" Trump would have earned a death sentence from Hitler, or life in a slave labor camp. Indeed, from the Nazi viewpoint the Star of David not the Swastika best suits Donald Trump. So much for him being the new Adolf Hitler.
 Ivanka Trump and husband Jared Kushner


In his interview with Fox New's Chris Wallace Barack Obama was asked what was the happiest day of his presidency, and what was his greatest achievement. To the first question Obama answered that it was Congress passing the Affordable Care Act (ACA). But unfortunately for Obama however it was not the happiest day for the vast majority Americans. On the day he signed ACA into law six out of ten Americans (according to a CNN poll) opposed it (see). And now six years latter (according to the RCP average) it's hugely unpopular by double digits (see) because the skyrocketing costs of premiums and deductibles (see) are putting financial strains on an eroding middle class that is struggling with a low growth bad jobs economy of declining wages and work hours-among other problems.
Now to the question (the more interesting of the two) of what was his greatest achievement Obama proudly answered, "Saving the US economy from a second Great Depression." But this wasn't the first time Obama made this lofty claim; that was six years ago on February 16, 2010 when Obama celebrating the first anniversary of his massive $850 billion fiscal stimulus (that he promised would trigger a robust Reagan like recovery) said that it "prevented another Great Depression and kept millions of people working (see)." And later that year Obama addressing the UN alluded to his policies preventing the global economy from crashing into a depression. For as the US economy goes so goes the world. As the global depression of the 1930s began with the US Obama believing that his stimulus prevented a second Great Depression domestically also saved the world economy from that fate (see).
But is this true? Did the stimulus prevent the US economy from collapsing into a severe depression (with the world economy to follow) to rival the economic crisis of the 1930s when unemployment hit a historic high of 25% and there were bread lines across America feeding starving people?
The facts are these: over the last eight years the US economy was on the brink of a real depression only once. That was in September 2008 when in the midst of a nine month old recession the housing and credit markets crashed. This was due to the US government (going back to the Clinton administration) creating the largest and most dangerous housing and credit bubble in US history using sub prime mortgages (27 million issued) to massively and artificially boost the rate of home ownership. When the market tanked in 2008 the US government either guaranteed or purchased 76% of these risky loans from banks and mortgage firms (see). It wasn't Wall Street that sank Main Street (as Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton want us to believe); the US government was the principal villain which is why no one has been prosecuted and jailed (see and see) .

To save the US financial system from collapse and the economy from depression George Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program or TARP, a $700 billion package to rescue our banks and lending institutions. And it worked (at least in the short term).


And this is where Obama's grandiose claim to have saved the US and world economy is exposed for self-serving lie that it is. When Obama took office in January 2009 he inherited a financial system that had been stabilized by TARP averting a likely depression. But he inherited more than that. By December 2008 (see the Bureau of Economic Analysis graph below) the US economy began a V-shaped GDP recovery. This marked the beginning of the end of the Great Recession when the economy stopped contracting, bottomed out and started to grow and become productive again.
Moreover, at precisely the same time (December 2008) the US manufacturing sector also made a V-shaped recovery and started to become profitable again after many months of steep decline.
Now though the GDP and manufacturing recoveries began before Obama took office the economy nevertheless (as a lagging indicator) was still losing massive numbers of jobs. But this started to change in March-April 2009 (see graph below) when the V-shaped jobs recovery began just before the end of the Great Recession in June. This is when job loss bottomed out and the growing economy started creating more jobs than it was losing. 
Now with the financial system stabilized by TARP and the V-shaped GDP, manufacturing and jobs recovery underway, and the 18 month long Great Recession over in June 2009, Obama's claim that his stimulus (which became law in February 09) prevented the loss of millions of jobs and saved the economy from a "second Great Depression" is total, self-serving, make believe poppycock. It's Obama desperately clinging to the fiction that his presidency has served some grand positive world saving messianic purpose in the scheme of things. Indeed,  by the time Obama entered the White House the worst was clearly over, the likelihood of a depression (domestic and globally) was past and the economy was on the rebound (weak though it was and remains) having nothing to do with the change in leadership or his stimulus. Indeed, if McCain had been president or Bush had a third term these three V-shaped recoveries would have happened all the same and the Great Recession would have been over by June 2009.
Now while Obama wrongly takes credit for all of these pre-inaugural developments contradicting this his administration has said repeatedly that the 14 million new jobs (mostly low paying and part-time) that his "stimulus has created" begins not from February 2009 (when the stimulus was signed into law) but from a year later in February 2010. For it was then says the administration that the stimulus started to impact the economy and grow jobs (see). This delay, of course, is normal for a new economic program. Reagan's Economic Recovery (Supply-Side) Tax Act of August 1981, for example, didn't start showing results until 1983 (see).
However, because the stimulus worked poorly and the recovery remained weak throughout 2010 Obama taking the advice of Christine Romer and Larry Summers extended all (100%) of the (hated) Bush tax rates another two years (see). For Romer and Summers frightened Obama into believing (and rightly so) that raising taxes on his poor, pathetic, trickle growth recovery (typical for a Keynesian fiscal stimulus) would likely make it worse possibly causing a double dip recession and jeopardizing his reelection.
When FDR took office in 1933 he inherited a worsening economy from GOP liberal progressive Herbert Hoover who tried and failed to tax, spend and regulate his way out of the depression; FDR then amplified and added to Hoover's failed programs and failed all the same. For the economy in 1939 was not much better than in 1933 having suffered a "recession within the depression" along the way-in 1937 the bottom fell out of the New Deal wiping out most of the growth and jobs that had been gained in the preceding years. And Obama (hailed by MSM as the "new FDR" with a "new New Deal") having learned nothing from Hoover's and FDR's failures (or more recently from the Japanese and 23 years of failed stimulus spending and public works projects) went boldly ahead and repeated their mistakes thinking he'd defy the laws of economic gravity and achieve a different result because the size of his stimulus was so great (the largest ever). And after seven years in office the result is the worst recovery since the Great Depression that is losing productivity and growing weaker by the day.
As for Obama's claims to have saved the US and world economy from a severe 1930s type depression, and that it was the greatest accomplishment of his administration, that distinction belongs to George W. Bush who left Obama with a stabilized banking system and an economy that was unmistakably on the mend. In short, the end of the Great Recession in June 2009 was Bush's recovery not Obama's. And I defy anyone to show me differently!
BL4L writes in the comment section:
"Apollo, you’re forgetting about Obama’s auto bailouts of GM and Chrysler and the one million jobs that it saved from the hundreds of suppliers in the auto industry: stereo manufacturers to steel and rubber producers, etc. If Obama had let those two companies fold the recession might not have been over in June of 2009, but continued for a long time afterwards"
In December 2008 while the V-shaped GDP and manufacturing  recoveries were starting George W. Bush began the bailout of GM and Chrysler with a $17 billion loan taken from TARP funds. This was Bush's last economic decision as President. Obama simply continued what Bush began, and then took all the credit for saving both companies when he was running for reelection in 2012.
So much of economics is irrational emotion, and crashes and recoveries can be spurred by what people are betting on, or "EXPECT" to happen next. So such turnarounds are often not based on events, but on anticipation.
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but the V-shaped recovery happened at a time that optimism was high that a terrible GOP president would soon be replaced by a good Democratic President.
Don't bother to connect those events, just tell us the DATE you credit with being the centerpoint of the recession, the time when things started to improve. We'll be able to compare that to what was happening politically, and then try to find out what your point is in all this ...
After Ronald Reagan crushed Jimmy Carter in a 44 state electoral sweep and at his inaugural there was a surge of national optimism and jubilation (which was greatly amplified when the hostages were freed) it did nothing to arrest and reverse the deterioration of the economy and massive loss of jobs. This was because Jimmy Carter, unlike George Bush, put nothing in place that could stop the carnage.


God only knows who the 45th President of the United States will be. Following conventional wisdom if the election were held today between front-runners Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Clinton who leads Trump in every major poll (by as much as 18 points) would probably win (see). But much can happen between now and November as it did in 1980 when Jimmy Carter in early April was crushing Ronald Reagan by 25% and was ahead 8 points a week before his catastrophic defeat. For between March and November Carter's political fortunes went from bad to worse: the US economy steadily deteriorated (as our anemic, low growth, high debt, multiple bubble economy is doing now), the unresolved Iran Hostage Crisis deepened America's sense of frustration and humiliation (after signing the nuke deal radical Islamic Iran has been constantly humiliating us), and the Soviet Union continued to rise in power and prestige on the world stage as America's geo-strategic position weakened (under neo-imperialist Vladimir Putin Russia's power is again on the rise globally at our expense). And by Election Day the American people who saw the greatness of their country in perilous decline and wanted it reversed swept Ronald Reagan into office in a 44 state landslide. Only a fool would deny that such a thing could happen again.
And that brings me to the deaths of Ronald Reagan and his faithful wife Nancy (who recently passed away) as possible signs of things to come in November. For Reagan died on June 5, 2004 in the midst of a presidential race where incumbent George W. Bush was running against then US Senator and future Secretary of State John Kerry. Likewise Nancy Reagan's recent death was in the midst of a presidential race where the clear front-runners are Donald Trump (vowing like Reagan to reverse our declining greatness) and Hillary Clinton who (like Carter in 1980) denies our decline fearing it would reflect on her tenure at State which lacked any real accomplishments. Now here is where it gets fascinating. Like George W. Bush who won reelection in 2004 when Reagan died Donald Trump was born in 1946. And like John Kerry who was defeated in a close election Hillary Clinton was Kerry's predecessor at State.
Even more fascinating, and perhaps an auspicious sign for Donald Trump and the GOP, is the extraordinary place held by the year 1946 in US presidential history. For not only was George Bush born in that year but so was his predecessor Bill Clinton. And not only were two of our 44 presidents born in 1946 but two other presidents started their political careers then.  For on Election Day 1946 two future presidents were elected to the US Congress: John Kennedy and Richard Nixon (see and see). 
In other words, the year of Donald Trump's birth and the death of Nancy Reagan a month ago look terrifically propitious for Trump. For like Bush and Bill Clinton Trump was born in 1946; like Kennedy and Nixon he is first starting out in politics; and Nancy Reagan died as did her husband in an election year where a Republican candidate (Bush) born in 1946 was in the race and won; and where he was reelected in a contest with Hillary Clinton's successor at State-which seems ominous for her*.
*It was Ohio that cost Kerry the 2004 election, a state currently governed by the popular GOP governor John Kasich 
As for Hillary, she was born in the year 1947 which to date has proved unlucky for presidential candidates. For so far two candidates born in 1947 have unsuccessfully tried three times to reach the White House:  Mitt "Mr. 47%*" Romney (born March 12, 1947) failed twice (2008 and 2012); and, of course, Hillary lost to Barack Obama in 2008.  Will Hillary's 2016 run be Mitt Romney's 2012 run all over again? It is fascinating to note that Romney's infamous 47% video damaged his campaign and was a factor in his loss; and that Hillary is under criminal investigation by 147 FBI agents for possible national security crimes on her email account.
But there's more. FBI chief James Comey (who assigned the 147 agents to Clinton's case) was born on a day when Hillary was exactly 4799 days old (12-14-1960, see).  A remarkable and possibly meaningful set of coincidences that may signify email-gate greatly hurting or ruining altogether her presidential run.
JULY 24, 2015
Moreover, when on July 24th of last year two inspectors general asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation on Hillary (see) it strangely and perhaps ominously fell on the 24,744th day of her life (see)-a five digit number encoded with the number 47.
 22, 44, 66
Also fascinating is the following mathematical pattern and progression  between Trump, Bush and Clinton. For Trump was born 22 days before George Bush (b. 7-6-46 see), and Bush was born 44 days before Bill Clinton (b. 8-19-46 see); which means that Trump was born 66 days before Clinton (see). Oddly all three men were born during the presidency of Harry Truman-our 33rd president. And of course the 44th president (the first doublet number president since Truman) is now in office. A strange and remarkable numerical pattern. But whether it's a sign of coming success for Trump is anyone's guess. 
It is also interesting to note that Truman became President upon the death of Franklin Roosevelt in 1945. This is interesting because if Trump (or some other GOP nominee) should become the next   president he'd be the 19th Republican to win that office and the 45th president. 
Like Ronald Reagan Donald Trump is a patriotic nationalist alarmed at the declining power and fortunes of our country and wants to reverse it and make this country greater than ever by succeeding the 44th president and becoming number 45. Now either by chance or providence on the day Donald Trump was born Ronald Reagan (b. 2-6-1911) was 35 years, 4 months and 9 days old. Translated into days that's 12, 913 days. And when divided by 7 to give us the number of weeks that's a total of 1844 weeks and 5 days-which rounds out to 1845 weeks (see). Strangely this gives us the relevent presidential numbers 44 and 45. 
But I'm not done. Just as strange is that on the day Trump launched his presidential campaign (June 16, 2015) Ronald Reagan would have been 105 years, 4 months and 11 days old. When translated into weeks it totals 5445 weeks and two days (see) . Encoded remarkably in this four digit number are the numbers 44 and 45.
In 2008 when Barack Obama defeated Hillary for his party's nomination he won 47% of the popular vote to her 48%-Obama   won more delegates than Hillary (see). Moreover, Obama who was 46 and 10 months old at the time was two months shy of his 47th birthday.
Just days before I learned about these polls I was saying that if the November election were held today that Hillary Clinton would likely win. Quinnipiac released this survey on May 10th, the 47th week of the Trump campaign (see). Moreover, it was the 3647th week of Donald Trump's life (see).



 Tavis Smiley attacks Trump as a “racial arsonist” right to Bill O’Reilly’s face -

Bill O'Reilly Has "Never Seen" Trump "Cast Aspersions At Any Group At All" | Video | Media Matters for America

Watch Tavis Smiley attack "racial arsonist" Donald Trump right to Bill O'Reilly's face

O'Reilly: "I've Known The Man For A Long Time. I've Never Seen The Man Do Anything Racial"

BILL O'REILLY (HOST): When you use a word racial arsonist, okay, that conjures up to me David Duke and these kinds of people who their sole reason for being is to run down blacks or Hispanics or Muslims or whatever.


TAVIS SMILEY: And it took Mr. Trump too long -- it took Mr. Trump too long to come around to denouncing one David Duke and others when they came out to support him.

O'REILLY: You make mistakes and so do I. That doesn't mean --

SMILEY: Bill, that's not a mistake. That's not a mistake. Listen, you live your life --

O'REILLY: I've known the man for a long time. I've never seen the man do anything racial.

SMILEY: You live your life by a certain set of immutable principles. I live by life by a certain set of immutable principles. And when you live your life by a certain set of principles there are some mistakes that you just don't make. It's fundamentally who you are --

O'REILLY: I don't know about that.

SMILEY: And this election is fundamentally immutable what kind of nation who the nation we are going to be.

O'REILLY: All I can tell you is I have known the man a long time and I have never seen him cast aspersions at any group at all.

SMILEY: You might not have seen it but the rest of the country has all during this campaign.

O'REILLY: But I've been around him much more than the rest of the country.



A racist is a person who shows a pattern of prejudice or hatred against people of other races over a period of time; or who believes that a particular race is superior to other races.

Trump may be vulgar and crude and made offensive remarks about Mexicans, Moslems, women and men. But does he fit the definition of a hate filled racist bigot? Not in the least. As long time friend Bill O'Reilly points out there is no evidence or racism in the man; there's no pattern of prejudice or bigotry in his past toward any racial, ethnic or religious group. And in the so-called new Donald Trump that Hillary Clinton says she doesn't recognize, no real racism or bigotry is found there either. What there is is outrage over the flood of illegal aliens coming across our porous borders (all of whom are criminals in various degrees), and concern about millions of Moslems abroad who hate this country with a passion, and the infiltration of jihadists with Islamic immigrants and refugees.



Trumps hatred here is for those who break our laws and intend us harm whether they be Latino rapists, murderers or drug dealers, or Islamic radicals (violent terrorists or not). And yes Trump has made unflattering remarks about certain women (as he has about particular men) but not about women as a whole. Showing disrespect for certain women (whether deserved or not) does not equate to misogyny or sexism: a hatred of women or belief in their moral and intellectual inferiority to men.


The Klan + Farrakhan = Donald Trump? Is that who he is?


But  race obsessed leftists like Tavis Smiley who insist that Trump is racist because his candidacy is favored by David Duke and the Klan (who he was slow to denounce) probably don't know (because it's been underreported) that he's also favored by Jew hating, black supremacist  Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam-whose support Trump has never disavowed (see). Does that mean that Trump must hate his daughter Ivanka for marrying a Jew and converting to Judaism and having Jewish kids? If the Klan supports Trump because they rightly see in him a fellow white supremacist then the Nation of Islam must support him because he's a Jew hater and believes in the racial superiority of blacks. Do you see how absurd this is?


What Bill O'Reilly says about his old billionaire friend is completely believable; and charges of racism and bigotry are political smears and totally false.






< p style="box-sizing: border-box; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; text-transform: none; color: #3f4549; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', arial, sans-serif; margin: 0px; widows: 1; letter-spacing: normal; text-indent: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center;"> 





Because they believe (but dare not say) that the best way to eliminate the debt is to go deeper and deeper and deeper into debt. Both absurdly believe that we need to put the pedal to the metal and spend baby spend like never before to get the economy moving, growing and producing again. Both believe that Obama's $825 billion stimulus (the largest in history) was undersized; that it was too small to trigger the promised robust, rip-roaring, Reagan-like recovery that would make the nation prosperous again-and significantly lower the deficit and debt making both at least manageable. And if that larger stimulus proves ineffective and fails to spark stratospheric growth then a bigger one will be needed; and that failing a still bigger one after that.

Bernie and Hillary I'm sure admire the Japanese and believe we need to follow their example of 25 years: implementing one stimulus after the next (and running up a massive 230% of GDP debt) trying to get out of economic distress, but without success. Bernie and Hillary seem to share the blind Keynesian faith of the Japanese that if we keep on spending beyond our means sooner or later it will do the trick and things will click and revive our flat and fragile economy. Though Japan hasn't gotten to the promised land of restoring the great prosperity they once had in the past yet they're confident they're on the right track and will eventually get there-as we will by plodding the same bold course.

Atheist Paul Krugman praying to God for an economic miracle to prove Keynes right.

In other words, the cure for cancer is more and worse cancer. To cure the growing disease of public debt we need to make it worse. Before we can restore our fiscal, financial and economic health we must get sicker and sicker with massive deficits and debt regardless of the consequences.  It's like Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman says (an economist that Sanders, Clinton and the Japanese greatly respect):


 How much money can the government actually spend in rescuing the economy? The answer is a lot. It’s not unlimited. A trillion here, a trillion there and soon you’re talking about real money. Vast countries with stable governments, which is us, can borrow up to 100 percent, more than that of GDP, and you work that out — we probably have $10 trillion of running room if we have to use it. I don’t want to get there, but uh, we’ve got a long ways to go."

The problem, according to Krugman  (and Clinton and Sanders agree) is that government isn't big enough, doesn't borrow, tax and spend enough, doesn't regulate and intervene in the economy enough. Enough is never enough! If a $1 trillion stimulus is tried and fails go for $2 trillion or three, or, if need be, go all the ways to a perfect ten. The solution to run away bankrupting debt is more runaway, out of control deficit spending. "Spend now save later." It's that simple.

If this sounds insane it is.

Bernie vs. Hillary = the more insane vs. the less. Bernie following Krugman will spend $10 trillion if he can, Hillary might limit that to half. Both belong in the nut house not the White House wearing inescapable straight jackets. 

Donald Trump proposing to eliminate (not vastly grow) the debt to restore strong growth and prosperity tells us which of these three candidates is the sane one, and would make the wiser and better president-whether eight years is feasible or not.


Ha ha ha ha ha. That's funny. You actually think that just because he says he can reduce the debt with hair brained schemes that makes him a better candidate? You sound like a graduate of Drumpf U. No one person including the President can erase the debt. It takes ALL of Congress to make real change.



Actually I'm graduate from the Swedish School of Supply-Side Austerity Economics.

Saving the nation from national bankruptcy would require (as a starting point) strong, relentless, energetic leadership from the White House. And Trump has the capability to be such a leader.


< p style="text-align: center;"> 


Fox Report: Rising Threats - Shrinking Military


With good reason three secretaries of defense quit the Obama administration in disgust, and only 15% of our active service men and women (an all time record low, see) think that he's fit to be Commander-in-Chief. Robert Gates, Leon Panetta and Chuck Hagel simply gave up trying to reason with Obama and steer him in the right direction in keeping America strong and the world stable and at peace. After suffering through Obama's ignorance, arrogance and gross incompetence on military, strategic and defense matters, and seeing he was beyond reform (you can't fix stupid)) Gates, Panetta and Hagel refused to continue as agents of "hope and change" and "fundamental transformation;" for change and transformation meant the end of the Pax Americana and a world spinning out of control. In good conscience these three men couldn't be party to Obama's decimation and demoralization of our military: drastically downsizing it as the world gets more chaotic and dangerous (due mostly to Obama's appeasement of foes and retreat of US power and leadership from the world); and his turning the military into a laboratory for politically correct social experiments-giving this priority over the necessary improvement of its fighting capabilities in a new era of warfare with Islamic jihadists.
Barack Obama Addresses the Troops
As Obama (the great world citizen) has no real love for this country, whenever he addresses our troops he exudes weakness and demoralizes them failing to communicate the confidence, strength, patriotism and passion of a real Commander-in-Chief.
Gates, Panetta and Hagel are patriots who love this country and watched with anxiety as a radically left anti-American president (who thinks we're too powerful for our own good) led us deliberately into economic, military and geostrategic decline out doing the disaster of Jimmy Carter-who gave us radical theonazi Iran, and under whom the US overcame its "inordinate fear of communism" and Soviet Russia reached the height of its influence and power. And now Iran is more powerful and dangerous than ever, Putin's neo-imperialist Russia is on the rise and Islamic extremism is spreading across the world like never before. And the irony is as Obama is outdoing Jimmy Carter in the Carterization of US foreign and defense policies, he chose to finish up his disastrous presidency by making a man with the name "Carter" his last Secretary of Defense.  Unbelievable, isn't it?
 Ash Carter


Obama says efforts to grow domestic economy have worked -

An economic illiterate
totally clueless on the economy, and practically everything else.

Obama praises 6 years of job creation, revived economy

"Our businesses have created jobs every single month since I signed that job-killing [Affordable Care Act]," President Obama quipped.

While Obama never tires of congratulating himself on the progress that he's made in fixing the economy (that he falsely claims to have rescued from a near depression) both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are running on campaign platforms that say otherwise-that the economy is far from fixed and getting measurably worse. In debate after debate and speech after speech both bemoan the worsening  tragedy and crisis of the "disappearing middle class" but without tying it to Obama's failed policies and leadership. Indeed, the combination of a poor, pathetic, trickle growth recovery (inhibited by high debt, new taxes, massive spending, regulations and uncertainty), Obamacare's rising insurance costs (premiums and deductibles are skyrocketing), the Fed's quantitative-easing policies (driving money into a rigged bull market benefiting the rich and killing savings rates), an anti-business climate (created by Obama's class warfare agenda) and a flood of illegal aliens (driving down wages and adding to the burden of the welfare state) are throwing an increasing number of middle class Americans into poverty, government dependency and the American Dream slips away from them.


Moreover, because Obama's promise of a rip roaring, robust, Reagan-like recovery hasn't materialized (despite the borrowing, spending and printing of $trillions) and the economy is doing worse  than expected (it's the worst recovery since the Great Depression) the Federal Reserve fearing another recession is refusing to raise its near zero interest rates. Indeed, since the end of the Great Recession in June 2009 we've had a fragile, low growth, underperforming economy verging on another recession that higher interest rates could plunge into distress.

The Fed's Zero Interest Rate Policy (ZIRP) is for economic emergencies like recessions.  If the recession is over and the economy is doing fine why then after seven years is  ZIRP still in place? ANSWER: The economy is a lot worse
than Obama and the Fed are telling us (see).

Indeed, despite Obama's happy talk about the longest economic expansion in US history (growing anemically at less than 2% per year), a 4.9% jobless rate (that excludes millions of long term unemployed workers), low inflation (that doesn't count energy, food and clothing costs, see and see), an artificial fake housing boom (caused by Wall Street bulk buying distressed homes, see) and the creation of 14 million new jobs (8 million are low paying part time) disillusionment with the Washington establishment and the rise of economic nationalism (with millions of angry, frightened, frustrated voters revolting against globalism and turning to Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump over wage, trade, inequality, jobs and debt issues) is sobering evidence of how truly false and disastrous Obama's recovery has been.

9 ominous charts showing Obama's disastrous economy and where it's headed.

The bottom line (as the graphs above show) is that America is in a state of slow, tragic, precipitous economic decline; and while Hillary and Sanders deny this (so as not to offend Obama fans) the disappearance of the middle class (the backbone of the nation) is sad proof that this decline is real-as is America's geopolitical collapse and loss of greatness and power in world affairs admitted by Jimmy Carter (see) and exploited by Donald Trump.

"Trump and Sanders are out to implode the global trade order (see)."

Millions of Americans in the growing economic nationalist/anti-establishment movement fear that America's best days are past and worse times lie ahead; and they are right to be pessimistic as all the indicators and trends point to coming calamity and woe. For if radical changes aren't made, not in soaking the rich and redistribution of wealth (which Sanders and Clinton want to do) but in cutting taxes, downsizing government, boosting productivity and creating new wealth (as Trump, Cruz and Kasich want to do) we are headed irreversibly toward national bankruptcy and blood in the streets like broken, busted socialist Greece. That is an economic certainty.


The greatest threat to our national security is the debt bomb.



This Theory Explains Why the U.S. Economy Might Never Get Better | TIME 

Is the World Economy Moving Towards Stagnation? 

Obama's underperforming economy is so wretchedly bad that many liberal economists such as Larry Summers have become economic fatalists believing that a stagnant no growth or low growth economy is the new normal, and that there's no way out of it. In other words, because liberals can't reinvigorate the economy with Keynesian stimulus spending, quantitative easing. increasing the minimum wage, amnestying illegal aliens (creating millions of new taxpayers) and redistributionism no one and nothing can. Americans, says the article, have to accept the new no growth or low growth reality and adapt to it. This, of course, is utter nonsense. "The new normal" is a term invented by panicking liberals to explain why Obama's $825 billion stimulus (the largest in history) failed.  Government, which liberals blindly love and worship like God, is the problem. This Time article is a sign that big government liberalism is exhausted and out of ideas and in its end time.



Yesterday Hillary Clinton, looking toward the November election and ahead of the April 19th primary in New York, released her first campaign ad targeting Donald Trump. The 30 second spot narrated by Hillary doesn't mention Trump by name but dumps all over him. Hillary who has come out in favor of open borders and in bringing thousands of poorly vetted (trojan horse?) Syrian refugees into this country makes reference in the video to the great wall Trump wants to build on our southern border and temporarily barring Moslem immigrants from this country. Hillary seems to think that Trump's proposals are anti-American and against the values that New Yorkers hold dear.
In response this is what Trump should do. He should put out a video that begins with the 9/11 attack on New York and the collapse of the Twin Towers amidst panic and screams as people are seen jumping to their deaths. The ad should say that the 9/11 attack (masterminded by Gitmo inmate Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) was 60 months in the planning-53 under Bill Clinton and 7 under George Bush-and how Bill Clinton failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden on several occasions.  The ad should end with the Twin Towers smoking in the background with a chaos of sirens blaring and screams and a voice asking:
Surely it's appropriate to turn Hillary's campaign logo into the devastating 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers-not only because she's the wife of the president whose weak on terror policies were largely responsible for the catastrophe; but because as secretary of state she turned the US consulate in Benghazi into a 9/11 death trap.
 (thanx Nanna)
In 2002 Bill Clinton in his own words said that in 1996 the government of Sudan offered him to take custody of Osama bin Laden. Clinton refused the offer knowing that OBL was a "financier" of anti-US terrorism.
Clinton: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [al Qaeda]. We got – well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.
In 1996 the State Department warned Clinton that bin Laden's move from Sudan (who offered him OBL) to Afghanistan could have serious consequences for US security. Clinton did nothing to stop it.
Hours before the deadly 9/11 attack Bill Clinton admitted to a group of businessmen in Australia that he had the chance to kill bin Laden in Afghanistan but did nothing fearing he'd kill the innocent Afghans around him.





BERLIN (Reuters) – German Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere said he is planning a new law that will require refugees to learn German and integrate into society, or else lose their permanent right of residence.


then why do Moslems immigrants have to learn German and be Germanized and assimilate into German society? What’s going on here? What's wrong with having a strong Moslem identity and preferring regressive Middle Eastern medieval values over modern progressive Western values? What’s become of multiculturalism and political correctness and the respect and appreciation of cultural differences in Germany? If Islam is "a religion of peace" so what if Moslems don't integrate? The vast majority of them are peace-loving and no more of a threat to Germany than the unmeltable Amish and Orthodox Jews are to this country. Why are Germans doing this to "religion of peace" Moslems then? What are they afraid of? Has the whole country gone crazy? They’re acting like bigoted, right-wing, paranoid Islamophobes and should stop it lest Germany look like the Third Reich again./sarc


The community organizer's Moslem Outreach Initiative (and appeasement model for winning the hearts and minds of the Moslem world) has been such a smashing success in moderating hate filled radicals that if Bill Clinton and George Bush had done it they would have turned Bin Laden and al-Qaida into true, religion of peace Moslems (like Islam's founding prophet); and there'd have been no 9/11 and 3000 dead, or invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. It's truly amazing what this Nobel Prize winning president has accomplished in seven years. How can we afford to lose him when there's still so much work to be done? If we make Obama president for life then before he dies the Islamic world will be jihad free and totally transformed with the West and Islam living in peace and harmony.
All the more reason to elect Hillary or Bernie who vow to continue Obama's good work of deradicalizing jihadists and bringing out their humanity by not calling them Moslem, hugging them and citing their contributions to America's founding. If Trump wins election he'll reverse all these gains and we'll regress to the Dark Ages of the anti-Moslem Crusades where Islam was corrupted by Christians defending Christendom and violent jihad was born. /sarc


We have it on the good authority of Barack Obama. He grew up in Moslem Indonesia and knows true Islam when he sees it.

Click HERE and HERE and see for yourself if he's wrong.







When Mohammed first, at heaven's command,
Arose from burning desert sands
This was a sign to every land
That Islam is their Fate.
And the holy jinn ecstatically 
Sang this triumphant strain:

Rule, Mohammed!
Mohammed is the way.
All Brits shall ever ever ever 
Be his slaves.

Britons not so blest as He
Must in their turn
Fall on their knees.
To Allah and his Prophet fall
While Islam triumphs eternally
The dread and envy of them all.

Rule, Mohammed!
Mohammed is the way.
All Brits shall ever ever ever
Be his slaves.

Still mightier shall Mohammed rise
More dreadful from each enemy blow
More deadly, deadly than before.
His sword shall tear apart the sky
And reign down hell upon his foes,
His victory assured. 

Rule, Mohammed!
Mohammed is the way.
All Brits shall ever ever ever
Be his slaves.  

Haughty infidels shall never tame,
And fail to bring the Prophet down,
And will but rouse God's wrathful flame
As they work their woe to His renown.

Rule, Mohammed!
Mohammed is the way.
All Brits shall ever ever ever
Be his slaves. 

Our jihadis with perfect freedom found, 
Shall to God's happy realm repair.
Blest with 72 pure virgins crowned,
Now that Islam's conquered the world down here.

Rule, Mohammed!
Mohammed is the way.
All men shall ever ever ever
Be his slaves.



When I was a radical, twisted, teenage, anti-American, drug abusing  leftist back in the late 1960s I came to believe that men like Vietnam's Ho Chi Minh and Cuba's Fidel Castro were the George Washingtions of their countries. My reasoning was simple: George Washington led a revolutionary army in a struggle for independence against an oppressive despotic British monarchy; and Ho and Castro led revolutionaries in a war of liberation from French colonial rule in Vietnam and a corrupt, unpopular, tyrannical dictatorship in Cuba; and because of that I esteemed them both as noble, heroic, virtuous George Washingtons. And for America to fight against Ho and oppose Castro (and punish his regime with sanctions and embargoes) was, I believed, a betrayal and inversion of the American Revolution and its ideals of justice, peace and liberty. In other words, I believed that a corrupted, fallen America had strayed from its founding principles, values and revolutionary ideals while Vietnam and Cuba were reviving and advancing them anew. Indeed, in opposing the US government and wanting to bring it down we radicals thought we were reviving the Spirit of 1776 just like Ho, Castro and all revolutionary leaders and movements across the world were doing.
The alliance made in hell that nearly turned the Cold War into a thermonuclear inferno.
Of course I was insane. For when did George Washington commit the psychopathic atrocities and crimes of a Ho and a Castro? When did Washington order his men to chop off the hands of young boys, or cut out the tongues of village chiefs then stick their bloody sliced off genitals in their mouths, as Ho ordered his soldiers to do as a warning to South Vietnam villages not to vote in democratic elections? And when Washington defeated the British and became the first US President when did he jail thousands of political opponents, rape and torture them (cutting off fingers and gouging out eyes) then shot them to death by firing squads and dump their bodies in mass graves?  When did George Washington ever do such monstrous things?
Our 1960s Radical-in-Chief in Havana urging the US Congress to lift the embargo on the Cuban people saying it was an "outdated burden on them." Actually the "outdated burden" is the evil despotic communist military regime of the Castro family which Obama stupidly thinks he can change by being good to them. What a fool.
And when did Washington set up a totalitarian, military, one party, oppressive, communist dictatorship like Ho and Castro did where people had no rights, no due process of law and were no better than slaves and property of the state given the choice of serving those in power or facing jail or death? Castro and Ho and the evil governments they formed had nothing in common with Washington and our constitutional republic. Washington believed in "ordered liberty," Ho and Castro in order without liberty. But as a crazy crackpot leftist kid engaged in a mindless war against Amerika (sic) I didn't see it that way. And apparently neither does Obama. Our first 1960s born president has much of the same deranged mentality and immature world view that I had when an idiotic, regressive, stuck on stupid teenager-which he proved as much when he said before the world, with Raul Castro at his side, "
  “Here’s my message to the Cuban government and the Cuban people. The ideals that are the starting point for every revolution, America’s revolution, Cuba’s revolution, the liberation movements around the world, these ideals find their truest expression, I believe, in democracy.”
There you have it, Obama's radical 1960s self showing itself in the speech: the American and Cuban revolutions were equivalent in their beginnings, starting off in the same place (as I believed 48 years ago); when in reality they were radically different by a 100 degrees of separation. For Castro was never a liberal democrat at heart who US policies forced into communism as Obama wants to believe. In his rebel days Castro had no intention of replacing Batista's tyranny with electoral, rule of law democracy. From the start Castro's evil plan was turning Cuba into a miserable communist prison state and satellite of the Soviet Union-which brought us to the brink of nuclear war.
Obama said that "America and Cuba share a common history in that both started out in slavery." Truth is Cuba today is more of a slave state than it's been at any time in its history.
After 57 years Fidel and his ruling family haven't changed their Marxist-Leninst-Stalinist ways; and they're not going to change because Obama is going soft and being nice to them, as many are naively hoping. What we saw in Cuba was typical Obama kindergarten diplomacy where he showers benefits on a hardened implacable foe and gets nothing in return. Obama does this to show our foes how selflessly benevolent and giving he is-that he's a different kind of US leader-hoping that if he does them good without conditions it will win their hearts, minds and trust and miraculously transform them into liberal Democrats. This kind of diplomacy failed with Abbas, Putin and the mullahs of Iran; and having learned nothing from those failures Obama is at it again butt kissing the Castros hoping against hope to get a better result.  
Indeed, taking Obama's gifts while giving nothing in return communist Cuba remains unchanged (the North Korea of the Caribbean) just as hardened in their anti-Americanism and dangerous to our free way of life (which poses an existential threat to them) as it was five decades ago. Together with their authoritarian partners in Russia, Iran, Lebanon, North Korea and Venezuela the commies of Cuba will continue to work 24/7 hell-bent on hurting us whenever and wherever they can; and no amount of appeasement will alter that.
Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner who's made peace nowhere and sown strife and discord with his policies practically everywhere, has cemented his legacy as the US president who opened relations with and benefited the Castro regime but did nothing for the people it's been repressing for years. 
It is certain that Obama's trip to Cuba (the first for a US president in 90 years) was nothing more than a worthless, self-serving "I'm making history" charade to stay in the limelight during a  presidential campaign, and burnish his foreign policy legacy of ashes, disasters and dust. It is very bad history that will live on in infamy along with his 09 apology tour, repeated butt kissing of Putin,  desertion of Mubarak, withdrawal from Iraq, war in Libya, chaos in Syria, rise of ISIS, stabbing Israel in the back and the Iran nuke deal. It is laughable that the president who promised and failed to heal race relations in this country (worsening conflict by his bad leadership and policies) believes he's begun a historic healing  process with Cuba-a completely incompatible political system headed by the ruthless, implacable, power mad, anti-capitalist Castros.
Image of Obama in terrorist Cuba (see) while Brussels burns from terrorism. Two Americans were among the dead .
Obama said that the purpose of last week's trip was to "extend the hand of friendship to the Cuban people." But by prematurely normalizing relations with this abnormal, oppressive, freedom-hating regime (rewarding decades of extreme terror, evil and death) he's extended their oppression and economic misery achieving the opposite of success.
Barack Obama Leaves the White House
 On the day Obama leaves the White House he will make history for being the first US president with a job approval rating higher with our enemies than with the American people.
Obama In Cuba
President Obama on Wednesday joked that Republicans believe he would have turned the United States into communist Cuba if constitutional limits on power didn’t exist. 
Truth be told. If Obama were a dictator like Castro and president for life America like Cuba would become a poor third world country before he died looking like broken, bankrupt, liberal Democrat Detriot which went bankrupt during his administration.
The slums of Detroit, aka Obamaville.
 Castro, grateful for nothing, giving Obama the mullah treatment humiliating him at every turn.

Fidel Castro rebuked President Obama in a lengthy diatribe Monday just days after his historic visit to Cuba.

The former Cuban revolutionary leader published a letter in state-controlled media titled “Brother Obama,” in which he recalled the U.S.’ past efforts to overthrow his government. 

“We do not need the empire to give us anything,” Castro wrote. 



that his three days of ass kissing were too few and too feeble. That he'll need  to double and triple down on them if his "historic" normalizing of relations is to work.

Why did Emperor Obama have no cloths? Because he gave them to our enemies to show them he didn't mind being naked.


< p style="box-sizing: border-box; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; text-transform: none; color: #3f4549; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', arial, sans-serif; margin: 0px 0px 15px; widows: 1; letter-spacing: normal; text-indent: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">Related


At a campaign rally at Portland, Oregon socialist presidential candidate Bernie Sanders received what appeared to be a supernatural sign about him and his campaign as he was addressing his astonished supporters: a small bird swooped down out of nowhere landed on the ground beside his lectern, then flew up and stood on it looking him in the face. As the crowd wildly erupted in cheers a smiling Bernie said this:
"I think that there may be some symbolism here. I know it doesn't look like it, but that bird is really a dove asking us for world peace. No more war."
But Sanders, who suffers from serious reality problems, was wrong about the bird's species. According to a spokesman from the Audubon Society the tiny thing was a Mountain Chickadee, a bird indigenous to Northern Mexico. But what in heavens was it doing thousands of miles from its home when it landed on Bernie's lectern? I can think of only one explanation that makes sense: it was hungry and lost and looking for a hand out. In other words, the bird like many illegal Mexican aliens needed shelter, food and caring to survive.  And who better to provide these things than big-hearted, free stuff, soak the rich Bernie?
Looking at omens from birds dates back to Greco-Roman times.
But kidding aside. Many of Bernie's followers believe that the bird was a miraculous sign from on high signifying that the gods favor his campaign over Hillary's; and that from here on in he's going to fly away with the nomination and wing his way to the White House, making history as America's first Jewish president.
 A confident rider, surrounded by birds of good omen is approached by goddess Nike bearing victors wreaths.
But they are dead wrong. Though Sanders was right to say that the incident was symbolic it did not as he believes symbolize or signify "world peace" or anything auspicious and positive. Given who Bernie is and what he represents-a socialist with a radical left-wing agenda that's failed miserably wherever it's been tried (and would make America's bankruptcy triply painful)-the tiny bird most likely signified that Bernie Sanders (like all socialists) is a

You're confusing Sanders with Donald Trump, Apollo. Trump certainly acts and sounds like a bird brain. At least Bernie is talking policy, unlike Trump who basically promotes steak and tweets insults.

Bernie's socialist policy positions are for the birds. Take "single payer healthcare" for example. Only a bird brain presidential candidate would suggest repealing "you can keep your doctor" Obamacare and replacing it with single payer universal "Medicare-For-All" when it crashed and berned (sic) in his home state of Vermont because of its staggering, middle class destroying costs.

When MSNBC's Andrea Mitchel questioned Sander's during one of the debates about the reason for Governor Shumlin's single payer program failing in Vermont Bernie brushed her off saying, "I'm the senator from Vermont not the governor. You'll have to ask him."

 Now tell me that Bernie isn't a bird brain.
View image on Twitter
The bird's brief stay on Sanders' lectern is perhaps sign of his small  brief moment in the course of events as he heads toward defeat never to be heard from in a presidential race again.



I've written about this before, but it bears repeating. When Syrian rebels saw Obama and NATO set up a "no fly zone" over Libya "to prevent Kaddafy from mass slaughtering Libyans" it emboldened them to violently attack the Assad regime. The plan was to provoke Assad into mass slaughtering his people and create a horrific humanitarian crisis so that Obama and NATO would assist them (as they did the Libyans) in deposing Assad and seizing power. In this way Obama and Clinton (who urged him to take down Kaddafy) are greatly responsible for the murderous chaos in Syria, creation of the ISIS terror state, and the refugee crisis in Europe.

Indeed, because Libya and Syria are causally linked (by the law of unintended consequences) by claiming that deposing Kaddafy was the right thing to do (which it absolutely was not) Clinton has inadvertently placed herself between a political rock and hard place, and Giuliani knows it. In accusing Clinton of playing a key role in the creation of ISIS Giuliani is correct. If Clinton should become the Democrat nominee her GOP opponent will be hammering her to death on this issue-showing the public how incompetent and blundering a secretary of state she was; and how feckless and dangerous a president she will be.




and false BS.
ISIS generals came from the Iraqi army, they didn't need to be emboldened.
what BS.



If you had studied this subject in depth you'd know that It wasn't until the US left Iraq and PM Maliki turned against and alienated the Sunnis that Sunni soldiers crossed into Syria and joined ISIS. By then the violent anti-Assad insurrection (of which ISIS participated) was well under way.










Texas Imam Agrees with Trump: Halt Syrian Refugees into America-Breitbart 


Belgian Muslims fear growing anti-Islam backlash in wake of terror attacks-USA TODAY   

Texas Imam

Imam Alsayyed said, “I certainly see it to be wise to stop temporarily accepting any new Muslim immigrants [refugees and non-refugees] into the United States....and the halt should apply to refugees of any religion."

Monday I posted a piece on Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan coming out in support of Donald Trump's call to temporarily ban refugees from Syria and other Moslem lands because of the very real and growing security risk to our country and especially to American Moslems like Farrakhan's 50,000 member organization. Domestic terror attacks by Moslems killing and injuring Americans can only turn more of the public against Islam which has since 9/11 grown steadily despite a radically pro-Moslem president in the White House. Indeed, an increasing number of Americans are coming to see Islam as a subversive anti-American, anti-Western faith incompatible with our cultural values, political traditions and free (rule of law) way of life.  Truth is ill-will toward Islam in the Western World is perhaps greater today than at any time since the Middle Ages when hordes of Moslem jihadis swept over Christian, Persian, Hindu and Buddhist lands sacking, pillaging, raping and killing millions who wouldn't submit to the faith.

So as with Farrakhan it comes as no surprise that Nidal Alsayyad, an Imam from Beaumont, Texas, speaking on behalf of his congregation of hundreds, should support Trump's ban fearing a backlash against the US Moslem community just as Moslems are fearing today in Belgium, France and other parts of Europe where "Islamophobia" is becoming pandemic. It also comes as no surprise (according to a poll conducted by CAIR) that this Imam, his group and the Nation of Islam are not alone in their pro-Trump stance. For approximately 231,000* Moslem American voters (excluding the Nation of Islam?**) share his views that Trump would be the best president for them.
*Wikipedia says that the Moslem population of the US is 3.3 million (see).
**NOI is considered an Islamic heresy by mainstream Islam.

Question Three Based on your party support which candidate do you plan to vote for in the upcoming state primary election

  This poll taken last January has a total of 14% or 462,000 Moslem voters supporting the GOP.
But this Texas Imam has a more practical approach to Syrian immigration which Trump, Cruz and others would be wise to heed and adopt: instead of limiting the freeze to Moslem refugees it should include Christians, Druze, Bahais and peoples of other faiths. Though real Syrian Christians, for example, would pose no threat to this country some jihadists might be trained to convincingly lie about their faith and claim to be Christian. Indeed, to counter the smear that they're anti-Moslem bigots Trump and Cruz should follow the Imam's advice and include Christians in their ban. If Trump and Cruz were to do that it could grow Moslem support for them and the GOP.
Tens and thousands of patriotic nationalist Poles chanting "Today refugees, tomorrow terrorists!" took to the streets of Warsaw this week opposing Moslem immigrants coming into their country.
Beata Szydlo, the new Prime Minister of Poland said, "I will not allow events in Western Europe to happen in Poland" as she shreded an agreement made by her predecessor's government to let in 7,000 Moslem migrants. Critics of her policy say that Poland has a demographics problem and needs more immigrants. I say okay. Let's send them some of our illegal peaceloving Mexican aliens of which we have way too many.

Awesome raucus anti-Moslem immigrant stadium demonstrations in Poland.  


< p style="text-align: center;">MOSLEM ORG. OF 50,000 SUPPORT TRUMP BAN ON MOSLEM IMMIGRANTS


ISIS claims credit for terror attacks at Brussels airport, Metro station | Fox News


from the heretical non-Islamic Islamic State unIslamically struck again in Brussels yesterday-after misunderstanding the anti-infidel Koran as a book of violence, war and endless hate against all unbelievers fated by Allah for conquest in a one world Moslem state. If only they can learn true, authentic, "religion of peace" Islam as it was humanely practiced and taught by the peace-loving mass murdering founder of the faith; and is practiced today in model Islamic states like moderate, progressive Saudi Arabia, and especially the Islamic Republic of Iran*-which gave up its nukes and deradicalized to join the community of nations.

"Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism."

Then once all Moslems learn true, original Islamic Islam from the Saudis and Iranians and emulate them unIslamic Islamic terror will disappear from the earth, along with Islamophobia (which mistakenly fears unIslamic Moslem killers for devout members of the faith). Then Moslem immigrants and refugees can freely flood into our country without fear. And Moslems and unbelievers will live in peace in a multicultural paradise of caring, love and sharing as compassionate "we are the world," "all are one" leftists like Obama and Hillary conceive.
*Though Barack Obama refuses to call the radical terrorist Islamic State "Islamic" because it unIslamically practices a perverted form of Islam he nevertheless before the world bowed to the Saudi King, and he often refers respectfully to  theonazi Iran by its name: THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN. What else can this mean except that unlike the unIslamic Islamic State that true, authentic, genuine Mohammeden Islam (according to Obama) is practiced in the Kingdom and Iran; and that they are model Islamic states and forces for the good, true and beautiful in the world. What a blessing for humanity to have them.



American Moslems should be very, very afraid of Barack Obama and his liberal immigration policies (supported by Clinton and Sanders) of wanting to take in tens and thousands of poorly vetted Moslem refugees and immigrants from Syria and other countries when Moslem hatred for America is on the rise and support for radical murdering terrorist ISIS is at least 100 million strong in the Moslem world. So I wasn't too shocked to hear Louis Farrakhan in a moment of rational clarity tell Alex Jones (in a little noticed interview) that he supports Donald Trump's so called bigoted, racist, Islamophobic call for a temporary ban on all Moslem immigrants until the vetting process (which lying Obama says is effective in rooting out jihadists) is brought to near fool-proof perfection. 

Trump's "terrible racist inflammatory plan" is to halt Moslem immigration UNTIL there's a program in place to filter out the dangerous, bloodthirsty murdering ones. How is that bigotry? It's COMMONSENSE! And with good reason supported by most Americans.

But don't be deceived that radical racist Farrakhan in his old age (he's 83) is moderating. Don't think for a second that the anti-semitic, America hating minister (who loves being compared to Hitler), and his 50,000 black supremacist Moslem followers have suddenly fallen in love with this country and become patriotic, pro-American nationalists like Trump. Like many on the left (including Obama) Farrakhan thinks this country is a great force for injustice, war and evil in the world; that it is the "Great Satan" or greatest of "white devils" and that its policies in the Middle East have "united [much of] Islam against us." Indeed, Farrakhan's hatred of this country hasn't changed, and (along with his friend, Obama mentor Reverend Wright) he'll go to the grave cursing it.
But why then does Farrakhan counterintuitively support Trump's controversial policies (which Hillary Clinton and the left falsely warn is making him a poster boy for recruiting jihadists)? The answer is simple: fear and self-interest. Farrakhan sees (and rightly so I believe) danger coming to Moslem Americans, and more specifically to his radical, racist organization: the Nation of Islam (NOI). When a realistic Farrakhan says "If Moslem immigrants aren't vetted properly we might be letting in our own destruction," uppermost in his mind is the destruction not of America but the heretical*  NOI. For the security of the NOI and American Moslem community Farrakhan believes that Trump is the right man; that no one is better suited to the job; that his independence from special interests (especially the neo-cons who he claimed corrupted Obama through Hillary), toughness on illegal immigration in building a wall across our southern border and banning Moslem immigrants (temporarily) will halt the flow of deadly jihadists invading this country.  And he is right.  
*Contrary to normative Islam which believes that its founder Mohammed was God's last and greatest prophet with the ultimate revelation of justice and truth the Nation of Islam believes that God's last prophet was its founder Elijah Muhammed. That makes the NOI a dangerous Moslem heresy and a logical target of ISIS.
Indeed, Farrakhan
understands that due to the rising tide of Islamic terror sweeping across the world (which he blames mostly on US/neo-con interventionist policies), and recent attacks in this country (Ft. Hood, Boston, Chattanooga, San Bernardino), Islam has a huge and growing domestic public relations problem bordering on a deadly crisis that could engulf his group. Farrakhan knows as polls show that dislike of Islam and Moslems is at an all time high and growing (see). And that a wave of domestic terror attacks could spark a violent backlash against Moslem citizens including the NOI. Hence his siding with Trump in putting a stop to Moslem immigration until the process is fixed and made more fool-proof.
I never thought I'd be saying this but one cheer for Louis Farrakhan; he deserves that much for seeing value in a Trump presidency over its current occupant and a second Clinton regime-after the first played a key role in making 9/11 possible.
If the Klan supports Trump because he's one of them: a white supremacist racist, then what does Farrahkan supporting Trump say about him? That he's a white hating, black supremacist Moslem?
I've been debating on MM for months with the blogger who identifies himself as Classicalmusiclover on issues ranging from climate change to Islamic terrorism. He claims to be a professor of German History at a leading university. He began this debate with this slightly edited jab

Islamophobic nutjob.  Thinks that Louis Farrakhan is at all typical of American or international Muslims.

I think Farrakhan has a much better sense than you of the rising tide of anti-US hatred sweeping over the Islamic world and the need for extreme caution in our immigration policies.

I think Farrakhan is a marginal figure in both US politics and international Islam. His focus has always been primarily on the United States, and he has always been prone to nativism and against immigration of all kinds, so his opinion on the "Islamic world" outside our borders is largely irrelevant.

Most people would agree with me.



Marginal or not Farrakhan is an Islamorealist on this subject. This is proved by a recent Pew Survey gauging support for ISIS to be 63 million strong in just ten Islamic countries. Extend that survey to the remaining 47 Islamic states and that horrific number would easily increase conservatively by another 150 million-and that's just support for ISIS.

And where do you get this nonsense that Trump and Farrakhan are "nativists"? Where have they called for reviving the moratorium on all immigration which for 40 years (1924-64) was the policy of the US? I would expect at least that much from nativists.



That Pew Survey does not show "support" for ISIS to be "63 million strong." Nothing of the sort. Indeed, the article you link to bears the title, "In nations with significant Muslim populations, much disdain for ISIS."

But then, your reading comprehension skills have always been as questionable as your sanity.

From the article, "In no country surveyed did more than 15% of the population show favorable attitudes toward Islamic State. And in those countries with mixed religious and ethnic populations, negative views of ISIS cut across these lines.

"In Lebanon, a victim of one of the most recent attacks, almost every person surveyed who gave an opinion had an unfavorable view of ISIS, including 99% with a very unfavorable opinion. Distaste toward ISIS was shared by Lebanese Sunni Muslims (98% unfavorable) and 100% of Shia Muslims and Lebanese Christians."

So, once again, you seem to be pushing a laughably false narrative.



When you calculate the estimated percentages per population of ISIS supporters for each of the 11 surveyed states (it includes Israel) the total is a staggering 63 million people. For example 9% of Pakistan's 191 million people support ISIS. That totals 19 million people. The populations of the remaining 47 Moslem states are three times larger than the ten surveyed. That's a potential 189 million supporters of ISIS alone. There are millions more supporting al Qaida, the Moslem Brotherhood, Hezbollah (in Lebanon), Hamas, the Taliban and other radical groups engaged in civilizational jihad


BTW, support in Lebanon for the violent, militant pro-Iran terrorist group Hezbollah (whose leader calls for the worldwide extermination Jews) is about 26% of the population or 1.5 million (the entire population of Shiites).



1. You ignore the fact that most of those percentages are all very low--lower than the percentage of Americans who believe in UFOs, think the UN's Black Helicopters are out to get them, much lower than the percentage of Americans who reject the theory of evolution, lower than the percentage of Americans who show similar support for the KKK, and comparable to the percentage of Americans who deny that the Holocaust happened--certainly low enough that you should severely question your narrative that international Muslims are inherently dangerous and should have a Trump-style ban on immigration or entry to the country.
2. You vastly overstate what the survey claims as "support," particularly when, in your typical hyperventilating style, use the word "strong." 
3. You seem to ignore the general conclusions of the report, typically, in order to amplify those parts of the report you want to amplify, in order to imply that the report's "larger message" is actually the opposite of what it says.

In other words, you are a liar with very poor reading comprehension skills.



It was only when ISIS crossed into Northern Iraq that it first received international attention. That was on August 3, 2014. The Pew survey was taken in November 2015. So in 15 short months ISIS' popularity has grown exponentially across the Moslem world. What will its level of support and popularity be by February 2017 (15 months from the survey)? If ISIS' rate of growth continues at this current pace it could double its number of supporters by then to 400 million.

Nevertheless, Farrakhan's observation is valid: hatred for America on the Moslem street is growing. All the more reason to temporarily ban Moslem immigration until the screening process is revamped to weed out jihadists. The way it currently works jihadists can breeze through the process so long as they don't strap Kalashnikovs to their chests.



You are really bad at reading. Hopeless in fact.

By November 2015, many of ISIS's atrocities were well-known and widely publicized.

That survey indicates absolutely no growth in support for ISIS. 
Let me repeat: you are ridiculously trying to twist a report indicating widespread and in some cases near-unanimous disdain for ISIS into a report indicating widespread support.

It absolutely does not support your claim that "hatred for America" is growing or has even come close to levels where a ban on Muslim immigration is justified. Let us not forget that Trump's temporary ban was phrased as "until we figure out what's going on." Considering that experts in that region know what's going on, the real meaning of Trump's ban is "indefinite ban."

Your tactics are, as always, dishonest and incompetent. 



Let me repeat: the Pew survey states that 63 million people in the 11 surveyed countries support ISIS, which grew from zero just 15 months before. The survey also states that there are millions of Moslems in those countries who are undecided (fence sitters) about ISIS (the "Don't Know" category); these range from 2% in Israel (160,000) to 62% in Pakistan (115 million people). This means that there is plenty of room for growth in the terror groups popularity. We'll have to wait for the next Pew survey to see how many if any of the "Don't Knows" decided to support ISIS.

Trump's statement on banning Moslem immigrants until we can "figure out what's going on" simply means we need to improve our pre-entry intelligence gathering capabilities on Moslem immigrants in order to prevent terror attacks inside our country. Belief that our post-entry system isn't reliable for weeding out terrorists is shared by a majority of Americans (see and see), and was stated before Congress by FBI Director Comey-certainly his opinion counts for something.


< p style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 15px; font-family: inherit; font-weight: 400; font-style: normal; margin: 0px; line-height: 21px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">NO ANSWER AFTER THREE DAYS


Last night on The Factor I saw a clip from the above interview where an angry as hell Jorge Ramos charged at Bill O'Reilly like an unhinged bull blasting him for not being tough enough in his interviews with Donald Trump-who he says is a vile anti-Mexican bigot. In his defense O'Reilly rattled off a short list of questions that he put too Trump over the last seven months which he says absolutely prove Ramos and his other critics (left and right) wrong. But I was unconvinced. I have seen every one of O'Reilly's Trump interviews and can assure you that 99.9% of the time O'Reilly is way too soft on him. How do I know?


Kidding aside. Unless Bill O'Reilly takes a baseball bat to his next interview with Trump and  mercilessly beats him to death (Al Capone style) he will never satisfy his critics that he's being tough enough on him.
Three days after Obama released his fraudulent, photoshopped, assembled, multi-layered long form birth certificate (due to the pressure applied by Donald Trump), and two days before the killing of bin Laden (likely due to Trump's ridiculing Obama's weak leadership), Obama badly humiliated Trump at a Washington dinner. And this has led to speculation that it impelled Trump to run for the presidency-which Obama isn't laughing about as Trump inches closer and closer to succeeding him.


Who is right about the state of America's greatness? Barack Hussein Obama who says that under his presidency America has never been greater, more powerful and respected in the world? Or Donald Trump and the Republicans who say that since Obama took office America has been steadily losing its power and greatness and is in precipitous free fall decline? According to a confusing and seemingly schizophrenic statement made by Hillary Clinton the other night both Obama and Trump are right: America under Obama is greater than it's ever been, but at the same time it is losing its greatness and is in decline. That is what she said when you connect the dots. I kid you not. Tuesday night in her victory speech after clobbering Bernie Sanders a bitter seeming, angry sounding Hillary  struggling to stay upbeat and positive about this country and its future attacked Donald Trump and the theme of his nationalist campaign to restore America's greatness with this puzzling and contradictory remark:
"Our work is not to make America great again. America never stopped being great. But we do need to make America whole again-to fill in what's been hollowed out." 
Huh? "To fill in what's been hollowed out"? Meaning what? That America ("which never stopped being great") is being gutted, emptied and disemboweled? That we're an exhausted nation burning out losing our energy, vigor and strength? That we've become hollow where once we were solid, full, rock like and real? A paper tiger where once we were strong, trusted, respected and feared? In other words, Hillary seeming to agree with Trump and contradicting Obama is saying that American greatness and exceptionalism are not what they used to be; that America is being "hollowed out" from the inside and emptied of its greatness. In other words, America is becoming a HOLLOW shell of its former GREAT self. And in this she is completely right.
Evidence of our national decline is the rise of Bernie Sanders on the Left and Donald Trump on the Right channeling the anger and fears of millions of Americans over their worsening fortunes and uncertain futures.
Indeed, pledging that as president she will work very hard to make a "hollowed out" and divided America happy, loving, united and "whole" Hillary whether she admits it or not is agreeing with Trump about America losing its greatness while not seeming to do so. It's as though she wants to have it both ways: while denying that American greatness under Obama's leadership is declining she simultaneously affirms that Trump and millions of Republicans have it right (this includes Jimmy Carter, see) and that Obama's presidency has been a disaster for America; that under his leadership (and massive increase in debt and erosion of the middle class) we're being gutted, emptied, "hollowed out" and steered in the wrong direction-the downward path into the abyss of decline.
 With tears in her eyes and losing ground to Obama Hillary on the campaign trail in 2008 warns that America would "go backwards" if Obama became president.
Indeed, unlike her large Democrat base Hillary Clinton isn't stupid and willfully blind about the disaster that's overtaking this country. Unlike her base she knows that Obama has been an utter, dismal, catastrophic failure; that the country is paying the price on many levels for his blundering, feckless, divisive, incompetent leadership (which she warned about in 2008). But because the vast majority of Democrats (6 out of 10 according to a CBS poll, see) stupidly and foolishly believe that Obama hasn't failed them; that he's been a great and successful president; and because they want his successor to continue his policies (see) Hillary is compelled to play along with them. What choice does she have? If she's to seize her party's nomination she can't seem to be speaking ill of Obama and the truth about America's decline steep during his presidency; to do so would be political suicide as she'd sound like Trump and anti-Obama Republicans and alienate her pro-Obama base-thus handing the nomination over to Bernie Sanders. 

Sixty-one percent of Democratic primary voters say the country is headed in the right direction (compared to just 33 percent of Americans overall). This shows us how terribly delusional the Democrats are.

Indeed, to win the nomination Hillary must lie about the state of America under Obama; lie about the economy, healthcare, foreign policy and the staggering, unsustainable debt; lie that the country isn't declining and headed in the right direction. In short, to win the nomination Hillary must pledge to stay the course and continue Obama's legacy and "good work" and virtually be his third term as president.
But Hillary's lies about Obama's leadership and policies while necessary for becoming her party's nominee poses a huge political problem in the general election. For while 40% of Democrats are unhappy with Obama (these include Reagan and Blue Dog Democats some of whom are switching parties and voting for Trumpsee), these are part of a much larger two thirds (65%) majority of Republicans and Independents that are pessimistic about the future, see Obama's America as on the wrong track and want a radical change of course and direction.  In short, this 65% can in no way identify with a candidate that claims Obama has been a success, America is great and we must stay the course.
This is Hillary Clinton's dilemma which her message that "America is still great but isn't whole and needs to be united" cannot resolve as it looks pathetically disingenuous, false and weak against Donald Trump's strong, straightforward nationalist message of





The Reaction: The end of American hegemony

As America is a declining superpower losing its power, prestige and credibility in the world-as Jimmy Carter frankly admits (see) and Obama lyingly denies-and as it is going broke from massive, bankrupting, unsustainable debt, with good reason roughly 65% of Americans believe that this country is on the wrong track:


With good reason 57% are pessimistic about the future believing our best days are past:


With good reason 73% of Americans do not want another Barack Obama in the White House as he has been a disaster:

NBC/WSJ Poll: Terror Fears Reshape 2016 Landscape - NBC News-see paragraph 17 for this terribly embarrassing poll. 
With good reason the US military has ranked this weak, pathetic, demoralizing president as the worst commander-in-chief in US history-with three secretaries of defense resigning on him: 

With good reason millions of Americans are rallying around Donald Trump's patriotic nationalism and his promise to reverse the decline of the Bush-Obama years and make America great again. 





Did you know that if Donald Trump should win the GOP nomination and goes on to beat Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders in November that eight years of Barack Obama would go to waste and America would be re-Nazified? As preposterous as this sounds that's what's going on in the muddled mind of George Soros the sugar daddy for MoveOn.Org (which claimed victory in shutting down the Chicago Trump rally), and why he's sinking $15 million of his own money in an effort to stop Trump-with $600k of that going to John Kasich in Ohio (see). 
 Nationalist Trump vs. Globalist Soros
American supremacy is the greatest threat to the world today”— George Soros 

“Make America Great Again”—Donald Trump campaign slogan

Soros is hell-bent on stopping Trump's quest for the presidency at all costs if for no other reason than it would mean to him a return to Bush era politics (though Trump is anti-Bush) and foreign policy when this country was headed by a "Nazi-like leader" with a "supremacist ideology" and became a kind of Third Reich state. However, Bush's alleged "supremacist ideology" was not understood by Soros in racial terms as "white supremacism." Bush's "supremacism" for the billionaire was something far more sinister, evil and dangerous for the world; by "supremacism" Soros meant making America SUPREME over the nations-more powerful and dominant than it had ever been. The Bush/Cheney Administration according to Soros (who ironically was a Jewish Nazi collaborator during WWII) was, like the Nazi regime, "ultra-nationalist;" and like Hitler wanting to conquer the world and make Germany supreme so too did Bush and Cheney want the same exalted status for America. "Today America, tomorrow the world!" And to that end Bush and Cheney exploiting 9/11 (so Soros believed) invaded first Afghanistan then Iraq and possibly with Iran next on the list of conquests. 
george soros communist socialist open society
 Indeed, Soros epitomizes the radical leftist view that America is too big and too powerful for its own good and that of the world-that it's a super bad actor on the world stage (the "greatest obstacle to justice and peace") doing far more harm than good. And that as powerful and exceptional as America was when Bush and Cheney took office  it wasn't enough for them.
So in 2004  Soros went to war against Bush and his reelection campaign. Calling Bush's defeat "the central focus of my life" Soros, first backing Howard Dean then John Kerry, shattered political spending records doling out $25 million on his anti-Bush campaign. But Bush eked out a victory over Kerry; and the terrible "Nazification" of America would continue another four years.
Then in 2007 Soros saw in the radical left US Senator Barack Obama the ideal candidate for what he called in Davos, Switzerland that year "the de-Nazification process of America" meaning ending America's days as a "lawless, rogue, arrogant, destabalizing superpower" on top of the world system, and subordinating it to international law and international institutions like the United Nations and World Bank. In other words, Soros saw in Obama a president who'd tame America, rein it in and make it normal and mediocre like most other nations.
Soros & OBAMA 
Indeed, thinking of himself hubristically as a "messiah figure" Soros believed that a President Obama would carry out his messianic agenda and save America from itself and the world from America; and that after the Obama presidency America would be greatly downsized militarily and geo-politically from the day it began. And Soros was right. Obama has proved to be practically everything Soros had hoped for and dreamed. For after seven years of the Obama regime America (as even Jimmy Carter says, see) is in precipitous decline on the world stage losing power, influence, credibility and prestige-just as Soros wanted it to be for the good of humanity.
But the Soros-Obama engineered decline of America's greatness and exceptionalism has led to a backlash among millions of patriotic voters who want to arrest the decline  reverse it and make America great again. Hence the rise of Donald Trump and his patriotic nationalism which for Soros and the Left is equivalent to Nazism.
Indeed, Trump for Soros, Obama and the MoveOn crowd is their worst nightmare and enemy of everything they believe in; for them he's the new menacing Adolf Hitler or Nazi American nationalist supremacist worse than George Bush wanting to undo all the progress Obama has made these last eight years in "de-Nazifying," (i.e. emasculating) this country. For Soros and Obama a weak America is a good America whatever be the consequences to the peace and stability of the world; and come what may they are intent on keeping it that way and not letting any person or movement make us great again.  It doesn't get any insaner than this. The Nazifying of Donald Trump continues.
Leftists are portraying Donald Trump as the new Adolf Hitler when their billionaire philanthropic hero George Soros is an unrepetent Nazi collaborator. 


 Trump is just using his right of free speech to discourage fascist, 1st Amendment hating leftist agitators from disrupting his events warning them they could get hurt if they do so. How does that make him a fascist?
Let me understand this: Donald Trump is said to be an American Mussolini or Hitler type authoritarian fascist for doing exactly what? Giving voice (like Bernie Sanders) to the anger of millions who feel  betrayed by the political system and powerless? Trampling on political correctness by allegedly offending minorities, Moslems and women like Sanders offends the wealthy and successful accusing them of rigging the economy, class warfare theft (robbing from the 99%) and causing the 08 crash (which was government's doing)? Or like BLMers demonizing whites, cops, judges and Republicans as white supremacist race haters?
Trump: US Should 'Temporarily' Suspend Constitution - Michael Egan ...
How does Trump using rough language against political opponents and protesters make him a violent totalitarian Mussolini?
Or is Trump a fascist for making disparaging remarks about the disruptive BLM and Sanders protesters who invade his rallies and shout at him? Who is being fascistic? The left-wing disruptors who tread on Trump's constitutional right of assembly and free speech? Or Trump exercising his rights and calling them names and threatening them with violence to discourage them from coming to his events? 'If you come here you run the risk of being hurt,' Trump warns these thugs. 'And I'll pay the legal fees of anyone who hurts you.'
Mussolini's Blackshirts. Where is the Trump equivalent causing terror and mayhem to society and political opponents?
Seriously. If Trump were the fascist his critics say that he is wouldn't he have taken violent action by now? Wouldn't he have done the Mussolini and Hitlerian thing and had his followers invade, violently disrupt and shut down Hillary, Bernie, Marco and Ted Cruz events? Isn't that what Mussolini and Hitler aggressively did to their political opponents with their black and brown shirt goons as they rose to power? But instead Trump does nothing more terrible than talk tough while enduring fascistic behavior and violence from the intolerant, free speech hating thugs on the left.
Seriously, where is Donald Trump the fascist? Fascism is in the doing not the saying. Apart from Trump verbally warning Bernie Sanders that he will hold him personally responsible and fight back with supporters crashing his rallies if anymore of his followers show up at his events Trump has done nothing fascistic to date. Nor does he want to. Trump like every other presidential candidate wants to hold his campaign events in peace and run them as he sees fit while respecting the right of Hillary, Bernie, Rubio and Cruz to do the same. So much for Donald Trump the American Fascist.
This is the lawlessness and riots of Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter come to the Trump rallies in one ugly violent fascist package.

Ann Coulter here makes the very good and valid point that Trump fans are pussy cats and wimps compared to the violent, intolerant, first amendment hating rally crashers on the left.

In interviewing Trump today Fox's Chris Wallace brought up the subject of Moslem hatred of the United States. Citing statistics from "experts" Wallace told Trump that there are roughly just 100,000 jihadists out of 1.6 billion Moslems in the world who were killing people and causing mayhem. Trump disagreeing cited a Pew Research survey saying that the actual number was as high as 250 million. But Wallace and Trump weren't talking about the same thing. Violent Islamic militants are one thing, non-militant Moslems who hate this country and the West are something else. 
The survey referenced by Trump was quite shocking as it found that roughly 62 million Moslems in just 10 of the 57 Moslem countries supported Isis; and of course like ISIS all of them hate the US and the West. But if that survey were extended to cover the remaining 47 Islamic states the number of anti-American pro-ISIS supporters would easily exceed 100 million. And if you include in that survey support for other radical Islamic groups like al-Qaida, the Moslem Brotherhood, the Iranian mullahs, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. the number of Moslem US haters would be much higher exceeding perhaps 200 million. That is frightening.



Protesters celebrate outside of the University of Illinois at Chicago Pavilion where Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump cancelled a campaign rally over safety concerns.
Protesters celebrate outside of the University of Illinois at Chicago Pavilion where Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump cancelled a campaign rally over safety concerns. Photo: Getty 

A peaceful anti-Trump rally in Chicago was hijacked by radical left-wing BLM "Kill Cops Burn Down Shops" fascists yesterday ( and terrorist Bill Ayers were there) with the evil intent of inciting a riot that could have injured or killed dozens of protestors and police, and Donald Trump is treated as a toxic villain deserving all the blame? Where are the "fascist" Trump supporters disrupting Clinton and Sanders events with violence? They're nonexistent. But ironically last summer in Seattle fascist BLM thugs disrupted a Bernie Sanders event and ignominiously drove him off the stage commandeering his mike as if he had no right to speak. Yet Sanders, Clinton and the Democrat left back BLM-a reincarnation of the radical, bloodthirsty, supremacist Black Panthers who see cops and judges as racist agents of a white racist state and want to totally destroy it as evil incarnate. And they accuse Trump of "racism," "fascism," "divisiveness" and "hate?" What laughable hypocrites and useful idiots of the very racism they condemn.


Protesting Trump's angry, passionate, in your face, "Make America Great Again" rhetoric (aimed at anti-Trump protesters disrupting his raucous events) is one thing; but trampling on his right to speak and hold rallies is illiberal, intolerant, authoritarian and un-American and should be condemned.


Will Trump ever allow any of his rallies to be shut down again? Not the man I saw in Ohio today who was unbowed and more hell-bent than ever to win-while stepping up his war on political correctness and the Washington establishment. It's all quite amazing. 


Obama: Trump's rise not my fault | TheHill


Unmistakable in your face evidence of Obama's hugely failed "progressive" left-wing presidency is the rise of Bernie Sanders' socialist movement, and Donald Trump's nationalist movement, channeling the passions of millions of Americans angry at the system and fearful of the future.


Dear Mr. Obama,

If you weren't such a feckless, dishonest, divisive president leading America into economic, military and geopolitical decline we wouldn't be seeing the rise of Bernie Sanders on the left, and Donald Trump on the right. Millions of angry, scared, frustrated Americans are rallying to these men because of what's happening to them, their families and this great country under your watch.


Indeed, despite all your happy talk of progress, growth and    recovery from the Bush years both men are agreed that you've got it all wrong; both are agreed that the economy and unemployment are far worse than you and your administration report. Both are agreed that your jobless rate of under 5% is bogus and false-that it's more than double that (Sanders says 10% Trump more) as it omits millions of "discouraged workers" who've dropped out of the work force unable to find jobs. Many of these millions disillusioned with you and your policies are turning to Sanders and Trump for answers.    


Both Trump and Sanders also agree that Obamacare (your signature legislative achievement) is a failure that must be repealed and replaced-as premiums and co-payments (contrary to your promises) are going through the roof and hurting working families who are struggling to make ends meet and live the American Dream. Both men offer different solutions but agree that Obamacare is a disaster  and must go.


And most distressingly, both men agree that the great middle class (the backbone of our economy and country ) is disappearing and in crisis with more Americans sinking into poverty then at any time since the Great Depression. Though both men disagree on the causes of this crisis they understand that a shrinking middle class means the nation is in decline which you in your willful ignorance deny.


You Mr. President, more than anyone, have made millions of desperate Americans turn to Trump and Sanders for the "Hope & Change" you couldn't achieve with your  incompetent, divisive us against them leadership and terrible policies. You Mr. President, more than anyone, has steered this nation in the wrong direction causing the rising tide of anger, fear, frustration and despair that both men are exploiting in their quest to replace you. You Mr. President more than anyone have done this. Trump's national populism and Sanders' socialist movement are very much your creation. Be a man and own up to it.


CNN's Jake Tapper to Donald Trump: Do you think all 1.6 billion Muslims hate us? - AOL 

Next to Israel no nation is more hated by the Moslem world than America. And seven years of Barack Obama (Moslem family roots, butt kissing and all) has done little to change that.
Dear Bernie Sanders,
You say that Donald Trump is a pathological liar? And what about Barack Obama who you say is a man of impeccable integrity. What about his serial lying? Does it qualify as "pathological?" These three videos catch Obama lying about Obamacare and bypassing Congress on illegal immigrant amnesty a total of 41 times: 


Is that pathological enough for you, Mr. Sanders? No? Because the above is just the tip of Obama's huge iceberg of lies. For if we include his lies on the economy, climate change, financial reform, national surveillance, the IRS, Benghazi, the war on terror, withdrawal from Iraq and foreign policy what we arguably have when it's all added up is the very worst liar in American presidential history. 




No one has seen anything quite like it. Donald Trump after a mini Super Tuesday where he took Michigan, Mississippi and Hawaii celebrated his victories with a press conference where he gleefully struck back at Mitt Romney's denigration of his business acumen (after praising it four years ago as better than his own) by listing some of his failures-among which were Trump Steaks. But before I go into this it needs to be said that like Trump greedy capitalist 1%ers such as Microsoft's Bill Gates, Apple's Steve Jobs, investment wizard Warren Buffet, etc.  made some bad and embarrassing business and investment decisions in the course of their careers (as did Romney at Bain Capital); but like Trump their smart decisions and successes so far outweighed the failures that it made billionaires of them.
Moreover, it also needs to be said (and this will be news to many of you) that what goes for Mitt Romney, accused of defrauding investors out of millions in a racketeering case, goes triple for Trump and Trump University:
A brilliant piece of political stagecraft. 
But getting back to Trump Steaks why did the audacious Donald shamelessly lie Tuesday night to reporters and millions of TV viewers not just about the steaks he had on display being his (when they weren't), but the vodka and water as well? Like Trump Steaks Trump Vodka and Trump Water were also failed ventures. Was there a method to Donald's madness? Or was this a mis-steak (sic) with his success that night going to his head and making him careless? I believe what he did was planned and calculated with a definite end in mind; and key to understanding it was obviously the steaks which went viral on the internet overshadowing all else.
Indeed, Trump made no attempt to hide the fact that the steaks weren't his. Plain for all the reporters to see and take pictures of they were Bush Brothers steaks. Why Bush and not some other quality brand like Omaha, Chicago or Hearst? Do you see where I'm going? This was an amusing and cleverly planned jab at the Bush brothers (George and Jeb) who along with Romney (called "MittBush" during his 2012 campaign) are trying to move heaven and earth to stop Trump's candidacy before it reaches the point of no return and he wins. Indeed, with the Bush Brothers steaks Trump was rubbing his victory in the faces of the Bushes, Romney and the panicking anti-Trump establishment saying 'You failed to use my failures against me and put a steak (sic) through the heart of my candidacy; if you don't find a better way I'm going to be your nominee.' Will the GOP establishment stop him? We shall see.

If Trump had a failed beer company he would likely have put the above beer on display Tuesday night with the Bush Brothers steaks.


  • bush·whack1
  1. live or travel in wild or uncultivated country:
  2. fight as a guerrilla in the bush.

Related to bushwhack




1.They are color blind (race neutral) and not obsessed with race as a  moral, social and egalitarian absolute.

2. Like the John Birchers who saw communists everywhere they don't see racists and racism everywhere when it's pandemic and America's greatest sin oppressing and hurting millions of blacks in concrete and subtle ways.

3.They trivialize skin color as the least important part of a human being-giving more value and weight to the vital organs of the body, character and spiritual qualities.

4. They don't feel "white guilt" for the crimes of slavery and Jim Crow; and don't bleed with compassionate caring for blacks because of these sins. They don't understand that the sin of black slavery is ineradicable; that just one white American having owned  black slaves in the past is like all white Americans owning them for all future eternity. 


5.They don't hate themselves for being white when the white race has been a cancer on this country-more so than on any other. This is a true sign of white (Klu Klux Klan, Aryan Nation) supremacism.

American Confederate Rebel Flag Usa Car Vinyl Bumper Sticker Decal Sfv

6. They wrap themselves in the American flag while knowing that six of the thirteen red and white stripes represent the six original slave states. They want to keep the flag when it must be replaced. This too is a sign of white supremacism (see).


7. They deceptively and subversively deploy self hating, insufficiently black, race traitors like Tim Scott, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell and Ben Carson to hide their racism, discredit liberalism, and undermine racial progress and black interests.

8.They lie when they claim that their history of opposing President Obama and Republican obstructionism in Congress is based on principle, policy and political philosophy, and has nothing to do with his being half black. Just think what he'd suffer if he had two black parents. He might have been impeached or dead today.

Black Lives Matter Black Lives Matter T-Shirt, Sweatshirt, Hoodie and ...

9. They think Black Lives Matter is a racist movement and an intentional distraction scapegoating the cops and courts for self-caused black problems plaguing our inner cities: breakdown of family and community life, and black on black murder and crime, etc. 

10. They reject the welfare state as a means of righting economic wrongs (inequality) and past social injustices through the redistribution of wealth, and treat it as a form of plantation slavery demeaning and destructive to blacks.

11. They believe that the "War on Poverty" was a failure and that poverty won turning our inner cities into war zones and moral wastelands and causing generational poverty and an epidemic of social pathologies.  

12. They deny that blacks are entitled to reparations for slavery in the $trillions citing the $trillions spent on free stuff handouts (in food stamps, cash and other benefits) since the 1960s as payment enough.


13. They believe that the Civil War (with its 500,000 dead) and abolishing of Jim Crow laws have redeemed the nation of the sin of slavery and discrimination when the legacy of these sins live on psychologically demeaning and victimizing millions.


14. Pointing to the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution (which ended slavery, made blacks citizens and gave them voting rights) they say this proves that the GOP has done more for blacks than the Democratic Party as if Republicans today were the same as in Lincoln's day.


15. They believe in the Constitution of limited government and checks and balances, and in the evil of "states rights" used by the Old South to justify slavery. Only the federal government should have power and govern the nation directly (with the president choosing state governors) so that the rights of minorities (especially blacks) are protected nationally, and there's no chance of regressing to the past. Those against the centralizing of all political and economic power in Washington are the racist enemies of economic and social justice.

The above fifteen points are why Donald Trump, conservatives and the GOP are racist; and why the Republican Party has replaced the Democratic Party of old as the new party of racism, hate and bigotry and the home of the KKK. If Lincoln were alive today he'd be ashamed at what's become of his party and be a Democrat leading the charge against it. 

Anyone who dares to dispute any one of these fifteen points is shameless racist scum and will get theirs on election day when Trump, Cruz or whoever, goes down in crushing defeat while whistling Dixie.

< p style="box-sizing: border-box; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; text-transform: none; color: #3f4549; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', arial, sans-serif; margin: 0px 0px 15px; widows: 1; letter-spacing: normal; text-indent: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center;" align="center"> 


Don't read another word on this blog. It maybe be hazardous to your mental health. For I have it on the good authority of a fellow conservative that support of Donald Trump ("Trumpism") is a form of mental illness that could be contagious.
Kidding aside, a blogger responding to a pro-Trump comment I posted on Disqus said the following:

After last night [the Fox debate], those still supporting Donald Trump are as mentally ill as he is. Get some help, those around you will be safer!

 That's clever of you inventing a new category of mental illness to humiliate people who support Donald Trump. Well let me tell you something about myself, I was a radical counterculture leftist in my youth and know what it's like to be mentally ill; and I can assure you that my support of Trump hasn't affected my mental stability one damn bit.
Moreover, if I'm mentally ill then I'm in very good company. For the list of Trump supporters include Chris Christie, Sarah Palin, Senator Sessions, Scott Brown, Governor LePage, etc. And to this list we can add  Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and John Kasich as they pledged their support for Trump if he should be the GOP nominee. Now If that happens will you say that they too are dangerous and in need of psychiatric help, while you, Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck and other Trump haters help Hillary take the White House and turn it into an open fly zone for her husband again? And you say people like me are sick?
comes just 11 days before the March 15th (Ides of March) Republican primaries. Coinciding with that day is the 2060th anniversary of Julius Caesar's assassination when Marcus Brutus and several conspirators brutally stabbed the Roman dictator to death to save the Roman Republic. In Beck's violent fantasy of killing Trump does he see himself in the role of Brutus butchering Caesar for the cause of liberty? It sounds like it.


When will Obama disavow his ties to the Jew hating, genocidal, supremacist Moslem Brotherhood, a terrorist organization that has infiltrated the US government and is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, America and Western Civilization? It’s seven years now, and despite the Brotherhood's growing list of atrocities and crimes across the Middle East Obama refuses to list it as a terrorist organization. Why?

And if Obama isn't sympathetic to black supremacism and anti-white bigotry and rage why then was he a member for 20 years of the United Trinity Church headed by black supremacist racist preacher Jeremiah Wright who taught that white people are devils (the evilest race on earth) hated by God and headed for apocalyptic destruction? And why does Obama support violent, racist, anti-cop Black Lives Matter, the reincarnation of the supremacist Black Panthers? Truth be told: there is more evidence of racism and bigotry in Barack Obama than in Donald Trump.

Obama on Ferguson: America's Racist, Give Me More Power - Breitbart


Trump loves the stoopid ones. Obama had a coalition of whites, blacks, browns, old, young, male and females. Trump has.....young, high school educated whites, and white supremacist. Good luck with that.


ApolloSpeaks     Richard Thompson


How many of Obama's black supporters are stoopid, low info, mooching, welfare dependent, black supremacist, cop-hating, racist, lawless, high school drop outs? They're legion.


lest all the good, sensitive, decent, virtue loving folks in liberal progressive Democrat America suffer a collective mental breakdown./sarc


Conservatives are equally repulsed.
Not 'cause he says what he says, because his mind is perverted beyond belief with a penchant for giving voice to the angry masses. But he is not a fit vessel for fighting the social suffocation brought on by political correctness. Trump says out loud things that no healthy person would even think, much less say — I mean, Ivanka is so hot that if she wasn’t my daughter, I’d probably be dating her? Whose mind works that way?

Read more at:





I don't know of any conservatives ending up in a shrinks office from Trump caused anxiety attacks. BTW, Trump, in part, is a product of the sick, depraved entertainment culture created by the liberal progressive anything goes Judeo-Christian hating left. Liberals judging Trump as morally unfit for office because he's indecent and vulgar at times is rank laughable hypocrisy. I love taking Trump's crap and rubbing their faces in it. Trump is the man to utterly shatter the immorality of political correctness and social justice lies once and for all. That is one of many reasons he should be president.
I don't know the political affiliations of the folks who end up in shrinks offices.
I do know the opinions expressed by conservative intellectuals.
I'd be glad to post those open opinions by folks who make their political affiliations well known btw

The Washington Post article was written by Paul Schwartzman a liberal left New York Jewish writer. The article references "Upper West Side" Manhattan shrinks-an area of the city that is overwhelmingly liberal.


Conservative intellectuals are split over Trump.


Moreover, what is perverse about a father with a beautiful daughter paying compliments to her beauty and charms? (He said that she was "hot" not that he had the hots for her.) Real perversion would be a cheating president having oral sex with a White House intern (young enough to be his daughter) in the Oval Office, no?








"Why should Trump be stopped?! --- Keep it coming... everything that he is and all that he does ....... is what I find so attractive about Donald Trump! He speaks his mind....which quite often resonates with some of my own thoughts that I have had for YEARS! Finally someone who is honest, and who tells it like it is! Sometimes being Politically Correct is like sex --- quite frankly...over-rated! Nice, I suppose, if you can get it but it is not always what you want or need! Just saying....

Furthermore, if we Trump supporters are so stupid, bad, insensitive, indecent, lacking in virtue....well, how can you even hope to convince us of anything? Hey, dude, me no understand, capisci!? Why waste your time and breath....stupid as we are?.....

Well, one thing I do know is that I do not like or trust any of the other candidates at all --- and I know enough to recognize Hillary "Rotten" Clinton for the empty inflated pant suit that she is! I always vote as an independent ...and mine is definitely one black American female vote that Hillary will not get! Ah...does it feel good to say it out loud! Thank you, Donald!"




to one of his political rallies and have the audience give him a standing ovation for his patriotic audacity in confronting Bill Clinton with his wife's lies and criminal incompetence as Obama's secretary of state. This perhaps will inspire other patriotic vets to imitate him and crash Clinton rallies defyingly shouting the truth about Hillary and Benghazi.





LBJ using George Romney in 1964 anti-Goldwater campaign ad.
Mitt Romney making reference to Ronald Reagan's famous, conservative, pro-Barry Goldwater "A Time For Choosing" speech yesterday has now assumed the leadership of the anti-Trump forces inside the Republican Party. Lashing out at Trump just hours before the GOP debate in Detroit, Michigan Romney called him "a phony, a fraud...offering promises as worthless as a degree from Trump University." Is this not oddly reminiscent of Michigan Governor George Romney (Mitt's father) in 1964 assuming the leadership of the anti-Goldwater-Reagan establishment forces in the GOP warning hysterically that  Goldwater's candidacy would mean "the suicidal destruction of the Republican Party"? Indeed, father George was so insanely hostile to Goldwater-Reagan conservatism for racial reasons (Goldwater and Reagan opposed on constitutional (not racial) grounds the Civil Rights Act) that he walked out on the 1964 GOP convention in disgust with others following him. 
Well, despite George Romney's efforts Goldwater (with Reagan's unwavering support) captured the GOP nomination getting 38% of the vote. And although Goldwater lost the election to LBJ (no Republican including Romney could have beat him) the party didn't self-destruct like Romney predicted, but went on to win the presidency four years later with Richard Nixon. Just like father George wrongly warned about the devastating consequences of a Goldwater nomination son Mitt is wrongly predicting the end of the world if Donald Trump is nominated.
Mitt Romney (like his dad) vs. Golderwaterism, i.e. Reaganism.
But 2016 is not 1964, "it's a different moment in time" as Romney himself said. For frontrunner Hillary Clinton, if she wins her party's nomination, is not an invincible LBJ (made that way by JFK's death). Instead, old, tired, corrupt Hillary (the subject of four investigations) is the failed, lying, incompetent secretary of state of a failed, lying, incompetent leftwing president that's leading America into dangerous, world destabilizing decline-which Clinton has vowed to continue. Indeed, Romney who failed to stop the reelection of Barack Obama is now trying to stop Donald Trump's nomination (who's thrice the man Obama is) warning that if Trump becomes president (meaning he believes that he's electable, which he is) his domestic and foreign policies would "throw the economy into a recession and make this nation and the world less safe."
But who is Romney to lecture us on these things? Because of his weak, ineffective and gutless presidential campaign (cautious and mannerly like McCain's failed run) Obama was reelected president and look at the results: our worsening economy is verging on a recession, and the safety and security of America and the world is the most perilous it's been since the end of the Cold War. In short, Mitt Romney's case (using Reagan) for stopping Donald Trump is no stronger, convincing or credible than his failed 2012 candidacy-or George Romney's case for stopping Barry Goldwater and the conservative movement 52 years ago.
When he needed "phony" "fraudulant" Donald Trump's endorsement and money high, ethical backstabbing Mitt said this

 photo Cco7X3_W4AEmaTN.jpg 



 Donald Trump appearing more presidential than usual says he will unite the GOP.
Donald Trump GOP Uniter? "No freakin' way!" a fellow conservative and Cruz supporter said to me yesterday. "Trump doesn't have it in him to be a uniter; he's a natural-born divider and chaos maker; that's what he loves doing and will continue doing right up to election day if he's the nominee, and lose big time to Hillary." Who can blame my friend or anyone for thinking this? After tearing his opponents to shreds and causing so much havoc and party chaos (not that its a bad thing as the GOP needs a good shaking up) Donald Trump with Chris Christie at his side said Tuesday night that he'd reinvent himself and become the Great GOP Uniter. It's hard to see, I admit. No GOP candidate ever has been more combatively anti-establishment. But after being so wrong about him it would be foolish of me or anyone to say it's impossible, and that it's stupid to hope that he could change.
Back in June when Trump announced his candidacy I was betting that he wouldn't survive the first GOP debate; I believed that his great energy, overweening ego and aggressive, crude, bombastic, bullying, blunt style, which many mad-as-hell Republicans found so appealing and refreshing (including yours truly), would be completely eclipsed by what he lacked in policy knowledge, debating skills and substance. I believed that Christie, Cruz, Rubio, Paul, Fiorina, etc. all excellent debators and policy wonks, would shame The Donald and cut him down to size showing voters that he was unfit to be the party's nominee to face inevitable, corrupt, incompetent, lying Hillary. But he survived that debate and every other unscathed while increasing his popularity with the Republican base. Indeed, none of Trump's rivals could use policy and substance as weapons to defeat him; and when they took a page from his play book and hurled insults at him it did little more than rattle him. And here we are eight months into Trump's ruckus, scorched earth campaign (with a seemingly unstoppable Donald having won nine of 15 states and finishing second in the others) pledging to radically change his image and reinvent himself as the party unifier. But can he do it? I think he can.
On Face the Nation two months ago Trump said that he'd be a much different person as POTUS from his outrageous, unconventional campaign persona. And somewhere else he said "I can be anyone I want to be." And I believe him. Why? Because of something quite telling that Hillary Clinton said last week about the billionaire not being the same person she knew in New York circles, and whose wedding she and Bill attended:
“It’s been most surprising to me to see somebody who was affable and was good company, and had a reputation of being kind of bigger than life, really traffic in a lot of the prejudice and paranoia," Hillary said on Morning Joe. "And some of the comments that he’s made which have been so divisive and mean-spirited doesn’t quite fit with what I thought I knew about him. So, I think it's going to be interesting to see what – if he does get the nomination – he decides to do with it, how he presents himself. But he has really been offensive and in many respects surprising to those of us who did know him.'
There you have it. According to Hillary (who's trying to reinvent herself into a real American sweetheart) there are two Donald Trumps: the affable, really likable Donald of old, and the new offensive, bigoted, divisive, mean-spirited Donald. There's the Donald who knew how to get along and interact with people like the Clintons and do great business deals; and candidate Donald who seems to lack the qualities of a super successful businessman and could never have created such a great company. Why then should it be impossible (as my friend and other anti-Trumpians think) for Trump to change back into something resembling his old  "affable, good-natured, larger than life" self that Bill, Hillary and others in New York knew and got on with so well? That other older, friendlier, maturer, unoffensive Donald is in him; and he can bring it out at will to advance his drive to the presidency. If Trump can be anyone he wants to be then he can put away the divisiveness and be the great party uniter he says he can be, and lead the charge in defeating the Dems and Hillary.




Firing a broadside at the theme of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and nationalist movement to "Make America Great Again" a shrill Hillary Clinton half mockingly said the other day that, "America doesn't need to be made great again because it never stopped being great." Granted that America is still the greatest, most powerful and wealthiest nation on Earth this statement is puzzling coming from a presidential candidate running on the platform that the great American middle class is "disappearing" and in crisis; and that more working class Americans and families are slipping into poverty than at any time since the end of World War II.



 Indeed, isn't the crisis of the "disappearing middle class" (acknowledged by Clinton, Sanders and many on the Left, see) an unmistakably ominous sign of national decline? That this country's great productivity, wealth and standard of living are dangerously eroding and taking its toll on the middle class? And that America  (the greatest debtor nation in history) is losing its greatness, exceptionalism and slowly dying?



Indeed, when Trump says that he wants to "make America great again" he doesn't mean that America has lost all of its greatness and is no longer great relative to all other nations. WE ARE STILL NUMBER ONE. What Trump means is that we're in the midst of losing our greatness-that if America continues on its current trajectory of runaway spending and growing, massive, bankrupting, unsustainable debt that our best days will be past and that depression and collapse lie ahead-we will be Greece with blood in the streets. 



Indeed, "making America great again" means stopping the bleeding and arresting and reversing our economic, military and geopolitical decline; it means renewing and rebuilding the great middle class by lifting more Americans out of poverty and into prosperity again; it means replacing Obama's weak, pathetic, trickle growth (borrow, tax, spend and print) recovery (which the Clintons praise) with a real, robust, jobs creating Reagan-like booming recovery of over 3% growth per year.


Graph from Pew Research Center shows that the American middle class is ...


Indeed,  when Hillary mocks Trump for agreeing with 65% of voters that Barack Obama's America is on the wrong track and is losing its greatness she's either willfully ignorant of our decline or lying about it for political reasons. For if America under Obama is a declining superpower (which it absolutely is as even Jimmy Carter says, see) and Hillary says that his presidency and policies which she pledges to faithfully continue have been a success (making America greater than ever before) then it means that she like Obama is a declinist; it means she wants America to completely lose its greatness and exceptionalism and become a far weaker and poorer nation with a shrinking economy and middle class. It means in effect four to eight years of more of the same until America is Detroited and becomes a third world state.


 Hillary disagreeing with Obama that America is great.


In other words, a contest between Trump and Hillary means restoring America to its pre-Obama era of greatness versus staying the course of our national decline; it means renewing America as the greatest economic power on earth versus turning us into a mediocre nation like other nations with some other country (China or Russia) replacing us as the world's only superpower-which would make the world unsafe and perilous for democracy.


After Obama succeeded in unifying America Hillary is going to make it whole. Can't wait.


In short, if Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton become their party's nominees it will mean either greatness restored or continued decline when the American people vote in November. That's the choice and bottom line.






The Reaction: The end of American hegemony

As America is a declining superpower losing its power, prestige and credibility in the world-as Jimmy Carter frankly admits (see) and Obama lyingly denies-and as it is going broke from massive, bankrupting, unsustainable debt, with good reason roughly 65% of Americans believe that this country is on the wrong track:


With good reason 57% are pessimistic about the future believing our best days are past:


With good reason 73% of Americans do not want another Barack Obama in the White House as he has been a disaster:

NBC/WSJ Poll: Terror Fears Reshape 2016 Landscape - NBC News-see paragraph 17 for this terribly embarrassing poll. 
With good reason the US military has ranked this weak, pathetic, demoralizing president as the worst commander-in-chief in US history-with three secretaries of defense resigning on him: 

With good reason millions of Americans are rallying around Donald Trump's patriotic nationalism and his promise to reverse the decline of the Obama years and make America great again. 


< p style="vertical-align: baseline; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; text-transform: none; color: #8e9da9; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 16px; line-height: 1.55em; font-family: 'Source Sans Pro', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; margin: 0px; widows: 1; letter-spacing: normal; text-indent: 0px; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; border: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: center; background-color: #ffffff;">