Several days ago Kellyanne Conway, Donald Trump's campaign manager, said in a CNN interview that her boss would win the first presidential debate in New York today and go on to defeat Hillary Clinton for the presidency; she said that prefiguring Trump's coming victory (at today's NBC debate) was his performance in New York on September 7th at NBC's Commander-in-Chief Forum. Indeed defying expectations that the more experienced and knowledgeable Hillary would best him Trump literally crushed her looking far more competent,
professional and presidential. Indeed, later in an NBC poll a whopping 63% verses 37% (a landslide 26 point spread) said that Trump was the more impressive of the two. And indeed he was.
View image on Twitter What begins badly often ends badly. Was Hillary's defeat at the CIC Forum prelude to tonight and November?
Not surprisingly the signs for that day were highly auspicious  for Donald Trump. For the next Commander-in-Chief will be the 45th in our nation's history. And on September 7th at the Forum when Trump was outperforming Hillary it was exactly 1 year, 2 months and 23 days from June 16, 2015, the memorable day Donald Trump launched his historic campaign. Amazingly 1 year, 2 months and 23 days translates significantly into 450 days-significant because 450 is a multiple of 45 the number of our next President (see). This was an incredible "coincidence" for Trump who had a remarkable day beating the odds and towered above Hillary in public esteem.
Or was it more than just coincidence? Was it a Providential Sign that Kellyanne was right? That Trump's stunning victory at the Forum foreshadows a coming victory in tonight's debate, with the billionaire going on to win the next two debates and becoming our 45th President? 
Will this be the fate of the Clinton campaign after tonight's historic debate?
But there were several other "coincidences" that occurred that day that are fueling my growing optimism about Trump's unorthodox candidacy. First off, when Trump shellacked Hillary she was in the 16th month of her campaign (see). Was this a sign that her failure at the Forum prophetically anticipates her fate in November? That this incredible, extraordinary, never seen before election year of 2016 (being the 16th year of the 21st century) Hillary losing the Forum event in the 16th month of her campaign signals her failure in returning to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with husband Bill? We can only hope so.
Moreover, on the day of the Forum Donald Trump was in the 64th week of his uncanny campaign. 64 is an interesting and seemingly relevant number in that it's a multiple of 16 4x. The number 16, as I have written about HERE and HERE, has been auspicious for Trump throughout his campaign. In fact, 16 months and 24 days from June 16, 2015 (the kick off date of Trump's campaign) brings us right smack to Election Day (see). Indeed, November 8, 2016 the final day of Trump's campaign is its 512th day-512 is a multiple of 16 32x. Another remarkable coincidence, or is it a Providential Sign that 2016 belongs to Trump? 
 Will New York's Donald Trump win the presidency on the 84th anniversary of New York's Franklin Roosevelt winning the presidency thus making him the next New Yorker after Roosevelt to be President?
But I'm not done. Both Trump and Clinton make their homes in New York State where the CIC Forum took place. Now 6 of our 44 presidents came from New York, with FDR being the 6th and last. Now because Trump and Clinton are New Yorkers the 45th POTUS will be the 7th politician to come from that state. The CIC Forum which the 70-year-old Trump unquestionably won fell on the 7th day of September. Now the November 8th election is exactly 63 days from the Forum; within this context 63 is an interesting number because it's multiple of 7 6x. Could this be a numeric sign that Trump who bested Clinton at the Forum will follow FDR, the 6th and last President from New York, and be numero 7?
Furthermore, FDR won the Presidency on November 8, 1932 (see); this coming November 8th, when for the 7th time a New Yorker will be elected President, it will be the 84th anniversary of FDR's victory (84 is a multiple of 7 12x). Will it be a Donald Trump victory? What Trump has in common with FDR is that (unlike Hillary) he's a native New Yorker born in the Empire State; and both were born into wealth with silver spoons in their mouths. Amazingly, when Trump was born in Queens, New York on June 14, 1946 it was exactly 64 years, 4 months and 16 days after FDR's birth (see). A seemingly propitious sign for Trump for reasons explained above.
JANUARY 20, 2017
Will Donald Trump be doing this on the 70th year of the 7th month of the 7th day of his incredible life?
But what about Kellyanne's prediction that the Commander-in-Chief Forum on September 7th points to Trump winning tonight's debate, and going on to seizing the presidency and taking the oath of office in January?
First off, as Kellyanne is working to making her 70-year-old boss the 7th President after FDR from the Empire State it just so happens that she's 49 years old-49 is 7 squared (7x7).
Secondly, as FDR was the 6th and last New Yorker to be President, and the next President will be the 7th New Yorker, it is fascinating to note that Kellyanne was born in 1967, the 67th year of the 20th century.  A seemingly auspicious sign that her boss will follow FDR 6 and be numero 7.
Thirdly, and I love this one, January 20, 2017 is Kellyanne's 50th birthday (see).
Fourthly, the next Republican President will be the 19th in our history. From Trump's September 7th NBC Forum victory to Inauguration Day is 19 weeks (see). In fact, from September 7th to tonight's first debate totals 19 days (see).
Fifthly, FDR, the last New Yorker to be POTUS, died in 1945.... a four digit number that gives us the numbers 45 (number of the next President) and 19 (the number of the next Republican President).  Remarkably, as Election Day is the 512th and final day of Trump's campaign (as explained above) and it falls on the 84th anniversary of FDR's 1932 election victory, amazingly the number 512 when multiplied by 38 generates 19456-a five digit number encoded with the year (1945) of FDR's death.
Sixthly, as the number 16 and its multiples (32, 64, etc.) have been auspicious for Donald Trump who very well might become the next New Yorker after FDR to be President, it is fascinating to note that FDR was the 32nd president becoming such in 1932-32 is double 16.  
Moreover, as FDR was the 6th and last New Yorker to be President, and Donald Trump may well be the 7th (giving us the numbers 6 & 7), amazingly on the day Trump was born it was precisely 4967 days from FDR's election in 1932 (see).  
And lastly, as I've written elsewhere, if the 70 year old Donald Trump makes it to the White House as the 7th New Yorker after FDR he will be exactly 70 years, 7 months and 7 days old when he takes the oath of office (see). Is this a sign from On High that Donald Trump has a "Rendezvous with Destiny" on January 20, 2017-when Kellyanne Conway turns 50? We shall see.
Pink Tilted Tiara And Number 45 Clip Art





Apollo writes:

"What are SICK ILLARY's internal polls telling her that made her so bat sh*t crazy yesterday raving like a loon that her lead was too small? That it should be 50 points tall? What polling data is depressing her and making her seem that she's losing hope"

So, where are these "internal polls" that you and so many other Trump supporters have been telling me about? I keep asking to see them and no one can point me to them. In the absence of any evidence that they exist or, if they do, that they say what is claimed, I have to assume that it's just another talking point advanced by some right-wing blog or pundit somewhere, designed to give Trump supporters some hope where the current polling offers none.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that they do exist and say what is claimed. I would rather have internal polling be a cause for concern in an effort to generate improvement rather than the pat-on-the-back internal polling that convinced Mitt Romney that he would win easily, to the extent that he bought fireworks for a planned celebration and didn't even write a concession speech. Looks like Karl Rove was caught a bit off-guard, too. 😉

By the way, it looks like the media finally managed to find Trump's lost baggage and is showing us the unsettling contents.

The rest of what you said reminds of what was said about President Obama's re-election. The same claims of a lack of enthusiasm, baggage (the ACA), people staying home, etc., all based more on wishful thinking rather than any hard evidence. In fact, Hillary Clinton received far more votes than Trump in their respective primaries and, unlike Trump, has the enthusiastic support of the vast majority of her fellow party members, including her former rival, Bernie Sanders. She also has a substantial GOTV initiative, unlike Trump who, despite his claims to the contrary, can't even afford basic advertising.

At this point, I have to even wonder if Trump will receive more votes for him than against him.

"And poor SICK ILLARY doesn't have any [enthusiasm]."

And THERE we have it: The utter desperation of a party who has somehow managed to nominate the most unpopular presidential candidate in modern times, despised by even many in his own party: Wishing ill health on his opponent because he has no other path to victory.

I have to chuckle at what I've been reading lately: The best anyone can hope for now is that Trump doesn't "lose it" at the debates. The lowest bar set for any candidate, ever, and one that many are worried he won't be able to hurdle. I also enjoyed reading that Trump's support is exactly where it was months ago, composed of the same small number of die-hard (but very loud) supporters who won't abandon him no matter what, to use your phrase, "batsh*t crazy" things he says or does.

Don't despair, though. Ted Cruz has finally abandoned the only principle he ever had and has now endorsed Trump. As popular as Ted Cruz is, THAT should change a lot of minds. (LOL)

Hillary Clinton's lead increased again today in RCP's national polling average.

It also dropped, again today, in Nate Silver's election forecast.

At least he didn't lose any ground in the LA Times farcical joke of a poll, the only one he is currently leading. Other than the more than 50% drop he managed this week, I mean.

"Internal polling," heh.

Although I disagree with your assertions and conclusions, I do appreciate that you have been generally civil. Thank you.



Is 2016 becoming 2008 all over again for Hillary? It looks that way.


Apparently you've done an outstanding job in ignoring all the signs of SICK LOW ENERGY MISERABLE HILLARY'S health and stamina decline; and in convincing yourself that she's wrong to feel so uncertain and depressed about her chances of success in November. Apparently you believe that this unsmiling, joyless woman has every reason to be the happy warrior: confident, sure and optimistic that she's unstoppably moving ahead to winning the presidency and continuing Obama's tragic legacy of ashes, dust and disaster. You've convinced yourself that the data she's seeing from her internal polling is all wrong; that she needs someone like you to do the analysis for her; and not listen to the likes of CNNs John Phillips who (having actually done the math that you refuse to do) sees this race as neck and neck-despite Hillary outspending Trump 5:1 in key battle ground states.

No my friend, this is a horse race that will be decided by the debates; and SICK PNEUMONIC HILLARY whose health has suffered greatly from 17 months of campaigning (light compared to Trump who did 32 rallies last month to her 11) seems to be losing the  confidence needed to win. But how can Hillary be confident when she's so physically ill; and when she failed so badly at the Commander-in-Chief Forum being crushed by Trump 63% to 37% for seeming more competent, professional and presidential  looking Trump crushed in the polls 63% to 37%? Often what begins bad ends bad, and Hillary was off to a terrible start.

Nate Silver gives Trump the edge in winning the presidency 50.9 to 49.1. The underlying reason for this must be showing up in depressed ILLARY'S internal polling.

Tell me, friend, when Hillary loses tomorrow's debate will sore losers like you blame it on Lester Holt not rescuing her like you blamed Matt Lauer for Hillary losing the CIC Forum?  

The truth is this: 2016 is looking more and more like the 2008 Democrat primaries where Hillary (she was healthy then) despite her vast experience and huge early lead, lost in a close race to a charismatic candidate who convinced voters wanting change that he was the real deal. Donald Trump is this election's Barack Obama; and status quo Hillary (the creäture of Washington, Wall Street, Big Banks, Big Pharma, Big Oil etc.) is losing heart and greatly fears this year will be 2008 redux. That much is certain from Thursday's crazy, robotic "50 points" union rant where ILLARY looked and sounded like an escapee from the nut house.

This is my prediction for tomorrow:  SICK ILLARY at best will be at her very low energy worst, and be way off her game-like she was at the DNC when her dull, joyless, uninspiring acceptance speech put poor husband Bill to sleep;  or at worse (and less likely) she'll suffer another medical event that, depending on its severity, could kill her candidacy. Hopefully for her the room temperature at Hofstra will be under 77 degrees to eliminate the chance of fainting again from extreme, unbearable heat. LOL!

Either way Donald Trump will dominate tomorrow's historic event as he did the Commander-in-Chief Forum 19 days before.

 BTW, how can anyone wish ill-health on a woman (old beyond her years) already terribly sick-whose energy, stamina and strength are so poor and unfit for the presidency that she'd fall flat on her ugly, lying, twitching face if she campaigned half as hard as Donald "The Wall" Trump?





Hillary Clinton Awkwardly Shouts Her Way Through Speech: ‘Why Aren’t I 50 Points Ahead?!’ | Mediaite

Hope springs eternal for those Clintonites who have been demoralized of late by their candidate's bad health events and     disappointing performances at interviews, rallies and especially at the Commander in Chief Forum where she failed to best Donald Trump and 63% verses 37% saw the billionaire as the more presidential candidate.  I've been told that "Hillary's lead has been increasing daily for the last week." I've been told, "Even the LA Times "poll," the only one that showed Trump having a significant lead, has him falling from a 6-point advantage to just 2."  When I point out that the one and only  Nate Silver "raised Trump's chances of winning from 3% in early August to 48% today," I'm told that my info is outdated, and that Silver has reduced Trump's chances to below 40%." And that is true. He now gives Trump a 36% chance of success down 12 points from last week.
But why then pray tell is SICK ILLARY'S "increasing lead" not giving her the positive, upbeat, confident aura of a winning candidate, such as Trump has abundantly? Why is she blowing a trumpet with an uncertain sound looking miserable, wretched and down? What is she seeing  and what does she know that is worrying her so? That made her so bat sh*t crazy yesterday frantically raving like a loon that her lead over Trump was too small? That it should be 50 points tall?

Could it be the landslide, double-digit enthusiasm gap reported by CNN and  Washington Post that's troubling her? That Trump's supporters are far more inspired, energized and likely to vote than her's? Apparently the weakest, worst, most uninspiring Democrat candidate since Dukakis (who was physically fit and didn't have her baggage) fears she won't turn out the vote in November. That too many will stay home, or vote for Johnson or Stein (or maybe cross over to Trump). "Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm," said Emerson. And SICK LOW ENERGY ILLARY doesn't have any.
If this doesn't explain SICK ILLARY's unnerving lack of self-confidence and esprit (she was completely, depressingly unhinged yesterday) then what does? Failing health? The fear of more public coughing fits and collapses? Her campaign logo ominously resembles a hospital direction sign. Is it a sign of what's to come if she exerts herself too much in the weeks ahead? If she campaigns too hard does she fear ending up in a sick-bed recovering from extreme fatigue or worse? In 2015 SICK ILLARY told NBC that she finds campaigning "incredibly demanding and exhausting."
And since she launched her campaign on the 70th anniversary of FDR's death (a terribly ill man when he died) her bad health and low energy have got progressively worse. If SICK ILLARY when campaigning exceeds the limits of what her poor stamina and strength can physically endure it could prove fatal to her campaign, or maybe to her life; she could end up dead like FDR America's last president from New York.
In August SICK ILLARY did 11 campaign rallies to Trump's 32. Why? My guess is that she couldn't do more without pressing her luck and hurting herself. Tireless, indefatigable Donald Trump is an incredibly young 70 (he says he feels 35 and campaigns as if he were). On the other hand, sick, tired, spent ILLARY is an old 69-aged badly by four grueling years as secretary of state where she traveled just under a million miles, and practically burned herself out making a mess of the world. Now 17 months of campaigning has obviously taken its toll on her health. Seven more weeks of this (pushing herself to the edge to significantly widen her lead) could decimate her badly weakened immune system and be her ruin. Is this what is troubling her? Is this why she shrieked yesterday that her lead wasn't big enough? Suffice to say does this explain her painful lack of self-confidence and spirit as she heads toward the first debate? If not, then what?  


With the race tightening nationally and in key swing states she has to unwillingly redouble her efforts to pull ahead and risk triggering multiple pneumonia fainting attacks or coughing fits from year round mysterious allergies. And if the very thought of Trump sickens her (as she coughingly said in Cleveland) what will she suffer when she's face to face with the physically larger and more powerful "xenophobic racist" ogre?


She can't be looking forward to the debate next Monday.


GOP memo: Trump won't be as polished as Clinton in debate | TheHill



Clintonites tell me that Hillary is going to mop the floor with Trump at the debates. But how could she do this when she's too weak to lift up her broom stick to whack him?



The Bar Gets Lower: Media Reinforce Double Standard For Trump Ahead Of First Debate - Media Matters 




And guarding the gates is a weak old sick miserable unhappy warrior princess who faints from 77 degree heat when she's not coughing herself to death-from allergies, or pneumonia, or the flu, or the thought of the barbarian himself (which triggered a coughing fit on Labor Day). Face reality folks: unless the merciful gods intervene we will shortly see the fall of Obamastan./sarc.





Hillary is the weakest, dullest, lest inspiring Democrat candidate since Michael Dukakis-who Bush crushed in a landslide. While Trump is the strongest, most inspiring, charismatic GOP candidate since Ronald Reagan-Bush's boss. Just as Reagan defeated GHW in the 1980 GOP primaries the Reaganesque Trump beat his son ridiculing his low energy persona-just like he's doing to hyper low energy HiIlary. Oddly, the 1988 election where Bush beat Dukakis fell on November 8th, this year's election date.



On a lighter note, Paul Ryan warned Pappa Bush that voting for Hillary will have consequences: he'll never go sky diving with him again.


Foreign diplomats on edge over Trump | TheHill






any worse than it is?


Which president and secretary of state were the greatest enablers of post-Soviet Russian power since the fall of the Soviet Union? And which have been the greatest enablers of radical Iranian terrorist power since the fall of the shah? And which midwifed the birth of the Islamic State by intervening in Libya and pulling our troops from Iraq? Could Trump do any worse than these two clowns? These diplomats should welcome change.




Have the media told you about all the #LatinosForTrump? – BARE NAKED ISLAM




And many Latino men love macho man Trump.




Media Response To Latest Analysis Of Trump’s Tax Plan: It “Screws The Middle Class”

One glance at Trump's gold-plated, marbled, Versailles-styled residence tells you that he's not going to relate to the "middle class."

Did you think a community organizer would relate to middle class workers who is ideologically hell bent on "economic justice" for the poor at their expense?



Trump-Clinton debate expected to shatter ratings records · The Hill  






at the debate will be kept under 77 degrees lest Hillary be in danger of fainting from pneumonia again. But If  (God forbid) this should happen  from other causes (the stress and strain of the debate for example) compassionate Donald will rush to her side and administer CPR. Then afterwards be accused of sexually assaulting her.






BREITBART: Palestinian Terrorist's Wife to Address Clinton Foundation


No Holds Barred: Hillary’s Clinton’s troubling relationship with Israel-hating adviser - Opinion - Jerusalem Post

Palestinian teacher Hanan Al Hroub at a ceremony where she received the Varkey Foundation Global Teacher Prize in Dubai, March 13, 2016. (Varkey Foundation via JTA)  

 Anti-Zionist educator and mind poisoner of Palestinian children Hanan al Hroub was honored by the corrupt, pay to play Clinton Foundation last night. While denying Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state this evil, twisted but very cunning Moslem snake teaches a non-violent approach to destroying it.

View image on Twitter

A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote against Israel and its right to exist as a Jewish state. If you are pro-Clinton you're anti-Israel. PERIOD!  While the wife of weak-on-terror Bill Clinton (who forced Israel in the 1990s into disastrous, war-causing "peace" talks with Palestinian terror master Yassar Arafat) was condemning the New York/New Jersey WMD bombings the corrupt, deceptive Clinton Foundation announced it was honoring anti-Zionist Palestinian educator Hanan al-Hroub and letting her address the Clinton Global Initiative which she did yesterday several miles from the Chelsea bombing. 
Bill Clinton was certain he had brokered a peace deal between the Israelis and Palestinians that Arafat couldn't refuse.  But Arafat predictably stabbing Clinton in the back refused the deal and went to war against Israel instead because the deal couldn't be used to destroy Israel.
Al-Hroub is the wife of Palestinian bomb maker Omar al-Hroub, a terrorist chemist who provided chemicals used to make bombs to kill Israeli Jews, and in 1980 participted in a terrorist shooting attack in Hebron that killed six innocent religious Jews and injured 20 others who were walking home from synagogue on Sabbath. For his murderous hate crimes Omar spent ten years in an Israeli prison when he should have been executed. Omar's wife Hanan, a recent recipient of the $1 million Varkey Foundation's Global Teacher Prize, denies, like her Jew hating husband, Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, and, like him, wants it destroyed; but she differs with him on the method and means. While violent militant Palestinians like Omar want to blow Israel off the face of the earth and obliterate every last Israeli Jew the more pragmatic Hanan (learning from her husband's mistake) is striving to achieve the same evil end by non-violent means, as outlined HERE.
Hillary giving Yassir Arafat's wife a kiss shortly after she launched an anti-Semitic blood libel accusing Israeli soldiers of shooting Palestinian children for their body parts (see).
The Clintons in honoring this vile bigoted anti-Israel Pali "educator" is proof of their ill-will toward Israel; that they share Hanan's evil goal of destroying Israel peacefully, gradually, by degrees by first transforming Palestinians into a non-violent people as a tactic in winning  international support for the return of millions of Palestinian refugees to Israel. Indeed, Hanan believes, like all Islamic supreamcists, that Moslems have a divine right of ownership to all Israeli lands; that they have the deed to those lands signed by God himself called the holy Koran. Based on passages from that book they believe that all lands conquered by Moslems eternally belong to them even when their expelled*. And that Israel (or Palestine as they call it) is unlawfully and immorally occupied by Jews who must either be killed, expelled or politically dominated as an oppressed minority in a greater Arab state. This Koran based belief is at the root of the Arab-Israeli conflict that goes back over 80 years.
* In addition to Israel belonging to Islam Moslem radicals claim Spain, Southern Italy, Crete, Georgia and other lands once conquered by Moselms still belongs to them and will be their's again.
Mad Max Blumenthal and his I Hate Israel Handbook.
Other signs of the Clintons' hidden anti-Zionist agenda is their association with and high regard for Israel-hating author Max Blumenthal (see). Son of Clinton confidant and former aid Sid "vicious" Blumenthal, Max (loved and supported by his dad) has written extensively on the need to destroy Israel peacefully through economic boycotts, non-violent resistance and slanderous propaganda. Demonizing Israel as a "Nazi State" "no different from ISIS," because of its "oppression" of Palestinians (they're self-oppressed by their hatred of Israel), Mad Max ignoring the facts of history perversely believes that Israel is the villain in the conflict; that it's at the crux of all or most of the problems plaguing the Middle East; and that true peace in the region won't be achieved until Israel ceases to exist. Moreover, joining the Clintons in their esteem for Mad Max is none other than Jew hating neo-Nazi bigot David Duke and other Aryan supremacist scum who can't get enough of this guy (see). Alan Dershowitz urged the Clintons to distance themselves from the Blumenthals warning that they could be a liability for the 2016 election. His warnings to date have been ignored. Hopefully this will be exploited by Trump in the debates, along with the Hanan al Hroub event which his campaign has condemned as disqualifying Hillary for the presidency.
Hillary has the audacity to criticize Israel for its lack of compassion toward Palestinians and treat PLO leader Abbas (a warmed over Arafat) as another Anwar Sadat. 
Moreover, a second Clinton presidency means a third term of Barack Obama the most anti-Israel US president since the founding of the Jewish state*. That Obama shares the radical left's anti-Zionist belief that Israel's nonexistence would be a blessing for the peace and stability of the region is proved by his laughably false view that Israel-hating Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is a true man of peace and peace partner for Israel. Truth is Abbas is no Anwar Sadat, but a Yassar Arafat with a friendlier face. Unlike the assassinated Egyptian leader who was a real peacemaker and courageous peace partner of Prime Minister Menachum Begin's (their Camp David Accords have endured for decades). Abbas like Hanan al-Hroub and the Blumenthals (father and son) demand a right of return of all Palestinian refugees as a condition for peace. In falsely promoting Abbas as another Sadat and real deal for Israel (when they know better) Obama and Clinton reveal themselves as Israel hating snakes; just as hell-bent on nonviolently destroying it as is Abbas (and the others) by political and diplomatic means.
*Obama's spiritual mentor was Reverend Wright a Jew hating, Hamas supporting, anti-Zionist bigot.
In short, Hillary Clinton, like Obama and her successor John Kerry, is a false friend of Israel. And it can't be repeated often enough that she is a pro-Palestinian radical in disguise as extreme as Max Blumenthal; and a vote for her, as I said above, is a vote for the destruction of the Jewish state.
London Jon writes:
"You’ll love this! Andrew Breitbart shuts down Max Blumenthal."
 My Reply
 Thanks Jon. Andy was too soft with Blumy and should have done this to him:




HRC Philly Andrew Harnick AP

The closest thing we ever had to a lifeless corpse running for president told an  unenthusiastic crowd at Temple University yesterday that the campaign is "depressing" her. The real concern is if she loses the election will she turn suicidal?

Hillary Clinton, the sickest, most lifeless presidential candidate in US history, who fainted from 77 degree heat on 9/11, whose acceptance speech at the DNC was so lacking in esprit that it put her husband to sleep, who's stamina is so poor she could only do 11 rallies in August (compared to Trump's 32), said to a crowd of millennials at Temple U that she found this campaign "discouraging" and "down right depressing." Why are her spirits so low? Why can't she stay positive, upbeat and strong? Why isn't she a happy warrior having fun instead of looking like she's drugged on downers half the time? Why? Because her opponent is a big bad deplorable ogre who "incites hatred and violence like we've never seen before in a campaign." He's the barbarian at the gates of Obamastan threatening the building of utopia.

 Could it be that what she really means is that she hates the violence that running against  Trump is doing to her health and mental well-being? That he's overwhelming her with his superior strength, stamina, energy and aggressive political incorrectness? That she can't keep pace with him? That he's "down right" exhausting her and wearing her thin? That she despairs to win the up coming debates because unpredictable Don (a weak debater) survived 11 contests with stronger, smarter candidates and  won (against all odds) his party's nomination? Is that what's depressing poor, cheerless failing Hill? The thought of letting down family and friends? And the millions of voters who lukewarmly support her and will have to drag themselves to the polls in November?
But what if she wins? What then? What will the "violence and hatred" of America's enemies do to her physical and mental well-being? If Trump's rhetoric is making her so down right miserable and ill (she blamed her coughing fit in Cleveland on him) what will killing, beheading, pillaging ISIS do to her spirits? What depressing effect will mass murdering Bashar Assad have on her if he continues the carnage, and Putin if he dares invade another country? Or Hamas if they rain down missiles on Israel again?  Doesn't the weakness, bad health and depressiveness Hillary's showing in this race disqualify her for office? Doesn't it tell us she's just as unfit for the presidency as she was for secretary of state....which she admitted was too exhausting, and certainly made her sick (see)? If Hillary could go back in time it is likely she'd refuse Obama's offer to head State because of the toll it took on her health and strength. And if she loses the election it can then be said that it was Barack Obama (in a very real sense) who defeated her again.

Happy, vivacious, high energy Hillary wows us again with her inexhaustible, upbeat, can do mentality. 













< p style="text-align: center;"> 


Obama thanking himself on a declining Keynesian economy while blasting Trump for his proven Supply-Side solutions.
Last week Barack Obama (perhaps the worst economic illiterate of any president since liberals Herbert Hoover and FDR) while campaigning for sick, crooked Hillary Clinton at a rally in Philadelphia blasted Donald Trump for claiming that his pro-business, pro-growth, Supply-Side, free market policies (that boomed the economies of the 1920S, 1960s and 1980s) would benefit common, working class Americans and create millions of new jobs. And to undermine Trump's argument that he's mismanaged the economy Obama resorted to his usual trickery using provably false economic data.
Look at the spike for 2015 in household median income and tell me it looks real.
Indeed, Obama citing (as you will see) manufactured statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau (shown above)  boasted that because of his borrow, tax and spend policies (which have worked for no one) American workers for the first time since the Great Recession got a nice pay raise last year; that 2015 showed a robust, record-breaking increase in  median household income of 5.2% (with a corresponding 1% drop in poverty).
Obama thanking himself said that this statistic proves that Trump and his GOP critics are wrong; that the economy, in fact, is roaring back along with the eroding, struggling, disappearing middle class. And when someone in the crowd reminded him about the low price of gasoline he thanked himself again as if his energy policies were its cause, when they had nothing whatsoever to do with it*
* It is totally laughable for Obama to take credit for the market crash in oil prices when it is wrecking havoc on the global warming movement and green energy industry, and causing more burning of fossil fuels (see).
Now this drop in oil prices is nothing to sneeze at as it's been a huge, welcome tax cut for consumers saving them billions in energy costs. But it's not coincidental that Obama's boasted 5.2% boost in "median household incomes" last year was preceded by falling oil prices (which began in 2014); for the two are inextricably linked. 
If the economy is doing so well as Obama claims then why is Fed Chief Janet Yellin (left) refusing to raise interest rates (see)? 
Indeed, rising economic growth, increased wages and better paying jobs had nothing to do with Obama's so-called 5.2%family pay hike. Why? Because it hasn't happened. We are still in a low growth, bad jobs economy where wages are flat with no end in sight (see). In fact, this "pay hike" is not what it seems and what Obama wants us to believe; what it is in fact is an increase in DISPOSABLE INCOME (what remains after your bills are paid) cleverly disguised as a rise in household income (what you earn from your job), and caused mostly by the crash in oil prices.
*Looked at another way, if Obama's 5.2% "family pay hike" of 2015 were real, or if real it carried over into 2016, the GDP wouldn't be declining so badly.
This is what I mean. If quitting smoking saves me money on buying cigarettes that is not an increase in my income (but it is for Obama). Likewise, if I'm spending less money to gas up my car or heat my home that is not an increase in my income (but it is for Obama).  Indeed, what I save on cigarette or energy costs increases my amount of DISPOSABLE INCOME (giving me more purchasing power)nothing more. It's not a "pay raise" or increase of my income, as Obama implies that it is when thanking himself.        
Poll-Bloomberg Ohio 091216
But two months before an election and with Donald Trump rising in the polls a desperate Obama fearing for his legacy is manipulating statistics-as he routinely does with unemployment (which is actually double the official rate as  Bernie Sanders even says, see).  With help from a politicized Census Bureau Obama is trying to deceive the public that the promised, robust, Reagan-like recovery is finally materializing; and that if we stay the economic course and change nothing by electing sick, crooked, status quo Hillary the economy will continue to revive and prosperity arrive. Obama's (and Hillary's) message is this: "Just keep on borrowing, spending and running up massive debt and we'll "build an economy that works for everyone"-which is impossible, dangerous and economic nonsense.
Indeed, we've heard this song and dance again and again for seven years now: that the "great Obama economic boom is just around the bend." And it's as false and phony today as it's ever been. The truth is, as a worried Obama knows, the US economy is in a sad state of gradual, slow motion FREE FALL. You heard me, I said "FREE FALL," as in crashing by degrees. For behind Obama's happy talk of success the economy is getting progressively worse, as you'll see from the evidence below.
Indeed, the bad news is this: despite the trillions borrowed and trillions spent, despite the trillions and trillions printed by the Fed, despite the unsustainable deficits and trillions in debt, and a rigged, manipulated 18,000 Dow (designed to create a false wealth effect), we've had FIVE STRAIGHT QUARTERS OF FALLING GDP (Gross Domestic Product which measures the health of the economy). That means 15 consecutive months of the worst recovery since the Great Depression getting steadily worse-as the nation growing poorer and less productive seems headed toward another economic crisis.
United States GDP Annual Growth Rate | 1948-2016 | Data | Chart ...
Proof the economy is trending downward.
Indeed, look at the chart above from Obama's Bureau of Economic Analysis (see) and compare it to his bullshit. In April 2015 the GDP, as you see, was growing fairly impressively 3.3%. But since then it's been all down hill. For at the start of July 2016 GDP growth was at a sorry, pathetic, anemic 1.2%-that's a drop of 2.1% in 15 months with the economy slowly crashing to the ground, seeming to be recession bound. And our idiot, lying president is congratulating himself on this? It's hilarious. Truth is if there weren't a massive oil glut driving down fuel costs-if supply didn't way outstrip demand with the Saudis, Russians and Iran having too much oil on their hands-Obama's phony, smoke and mirrors stat of 5.2% wouldn't even exist; and he'd have to invent some other trick to help sick Hillary, and make a case for continuing his policies.
After seven years of a weak, trickle growth, bad jobs economy-kept that way by massive debt, an out of control regulatory state and high corporate tax rates-the evidence is overwhelming: Obamanomics (aka Keynesianism) has epically failed in its promise to stimulate a strong, butt kicking surging recovery. 
Trump has vowed to follow in the successful, pro-growth, business friendly Supply-Side economic footsteps of JFK and Ronald Reagan   (see).
But Donald Trump's solution for fixing the economy is what reversed a depression in the early 1920s, prevented a sixth post-war recession in the mid 1960s, ended the malaise      of stagflation in the 1980s, and rescued Sweden from socialist collapse in the 1990s. After seven years of Obamanomics we're relearning the same old truth spoken by Ronald Reagan in the 1980 presidential race, and proved by the policies of his administration: "Government is the problem not the solution." 
Growth In Theme Parks Attendance Will Drive The Demand For Disney’s ...
 730 x 
Chart for disposable personal income for 2013 and 2014. You will notice it markedly improves in 2014 when the crash of the oil market began. The question is with purchasing power increasing for Americans why isn't it translating into GDP growth? The most reasonable answer is the high cost of Obamacare, food inflation and paying down of massive personal debt (averages out to $54,790 per citizen, see).  

Slower QvQ GDP growth is not a decline in GDP; it's slower growth. A decline in GDP would be when the aggregate $$$ amount is less than that which was previously measured. That would be indicated by a NEGATIVE number not a POSITIVE number.

Look, why don't I give you 10 vocabulary words a week...we'll quiz on Fridays and then I will give you the next list to work on...after a year, well, in your case probably *two*, you'll be able to have an intelligent conversation.


Apollo speaks...when he really should listen...


 LOL!!! Every recession is preceded by a steady decline in the rate of economic growth. An economy that is progressively growing slower and weaker in productivity and wealth creation is trending toward stagnation. Given our ballooning $19 trillion plus fiscal debt, $100 trillion plus in unfunded liabilities, an out of control regulatory state costing the economy $100 billion per year, high corporate tax rates and stifling regulations inhibiting capital investments for business expansion, Dodd Frank making borrowing a nightmare for start-ups and small businesses, the hidden taxes of Obamacare weakening the middle class, etc. etc our stagnant bound, trickle growth, bad jobs economy is perfectly understandable.


 For Donald Trump campaigning is healthy physical exercise; for SICK ILLARY it's incredibly physically exhausting and sickening as she herself said (see).
 In August indefatigable, Iron Man Donald Trump averaged a little over one rally per day with an average of 6200 people attending each event. While sick, pneumatic, low energy Hillary averaged just under one rally every three days with an average of 892 people attending each event. In short, Trump did 3x as many rallies as Hillary and attracted 7x as many people. I'll say it again: If SICK ILLARY were to campaign half as hard as Trump she'd likely collapse on her face from extreme exhaustion.
This has been a presidential campaign year of many firsts. We have a charismatic, anti-elitist, billionaire business man with zero political experience massively covered by a hostile press as a xenophobic racist bigot (the barbarian at the gates of American civilization) defying the odds and capturing the GOP nomination against establishment opposition and 16 seasoned rivals. Then there's crooked, corrupt, incompetent, above the law, elitist, stay the course, status quo Hillary (arguably the most mendacious presidential candidate ever) becoming the first woman to capture the nomination of a major party; and the first such nominee to put their spouse to sleep when giving their party's acceptance speech. 
Trump is an extraordinarily young 70 years old. SICK ILLARY is a very old 69 years old.
Now for the first time ever in a presidential race we have what can be called the "health trust gap" between the candidates as a possible factor on Election Day in deciding Obama's successor. Because of Hillary's fainting spell on 9/11 caused by anyone of six explanations (allergies, overheating, dehydration, pneumonia, the flu or  poisoning by Trump and Putin) voters were asked which of the two candidates were being least truthful about the state of their health. And surprise surprise, by a landslide margin of 13 points (Clinton's 50% to Trump's 37%) they distrust Hillary more. 
But this is so unfair. Shouldn't the voters give Hillary the benefit of a doubt that she's being more honest than Trump about her health? And that as sick as she seems and is Trump might be less medically fit to be president? After all, Hillary not Trump released her tax returns for 2015; and if he's concealing something not illegal or criminal but politically hurtful then what is it? What dark little secret could he be hiding about his health that he doesn't want us to know? For all we know the "toxic," Make ("White") America First candidate who's "poisoning the minds of millions of Americans with racism and bigotry," mainstreaming hatred of lawbreakers, illegal aliens, Moslem terrorists and cop killing black thugs, might be carrying the Bubonic plague, or some other deadly contagious disease that could kill millions. Never has there been a candidate so "revolting, vulgar, vile and mean." So why couldn't he be hiding a deadly infectious disease? Maybe he's Putin's weaponized Manchurian Candidate for destroying America? LOL!
Look at all the harm a medically healthy Barack Obama accomplished in eight years (with SICK ILLERY's help). Imagine what a sick President Hillary could do in four?
Seriously. Voters should have sympathy for poor, old, low energy, sick Hillary. They need to understand that if she isn't quite the same healthy, robust, upbeat candidate of 2008 it's because, as Colin Powell said, she "practically worked herself to death" on our behalf as Obama's secretary of state. Those four grueling years knocking the hell out of herself trying to reset American foreign policy after the wreckage of the Bush years (and without  success) has taken its toll on her health-and underlies her coughing fits, collapses and memory lapses.
Indeed, unlike Donald Trump who never held public office Hillary, the most traveled secretary of state in US history (her greatest feat), has earned the right (bad health and all) to be president. Woodrow Wilson had a stroke, FDR polio and JFK a wrecked back; and what Hillary is hiding can't be worse than that. And Obama agrees, and why shouldn't we? Hillary has vowed to continue Obama's legacy of ashes, disaster and dust (America hasn't been punished enough), and you don't need to be a specimen of human health to accomplish that. Never mind that American foreign policy is in shambles, and the world today is going to hell. What counts is that Hillary exerted herself (depleting her health and strength) more than any other SoS traveling a whopping 957,000 exhausting miles in just four years. It's a miracle that she's alive today. Certainly when going to the polls in November this record world traveling should count for much with voters-as she has little else to run on.
But wait a minute. Truth be told. Turns out this claim too is false; turns out it's another Clinton hoax advanced by herself and the main stream press to impress us that she's a great, tireless public servant who'll work just as hard as president. Truth is the record for most miles traveled by a US SoS belongs to Condi Rice (Clinton's predecessor). Truth is Rice expended more energy and sweat and worked harder than Hillary-103,000 MILES HARDER-as she racked up a total of 1,060,000 diplomatic air miles in under four years*(see). While then Secretary Hillary (in an Esquire interview) bitched that the job was too exhausting for her (and she couldn't take another four years,
see) Rice, on the other hand, never complained and seemed to love the job, and would do it again if called on to serve.
*Rice also holds the record for the most days traveled, 326, by an SoS in a four year term. She beats Clinton by 20 days. Clinton however traveled to more countries. As Rice beats Clinton in two of three categories that makes her the most traveled SoS. 
Ken Krammer posted this in the comment section:
"Apollo my friend, it's true that Condi Rice was more traveled than Hillary Clinton in the two categories that you cite : air mileage and days traveled. But she has been surpassed in both by John Kerry. Nevertheless, that Hillary was the most traveled is, as you say, a Clinton lie and media hoax."
Is Kerry complaining about exhaustion and fatigue like SICK ILLARY did?
The old tired face of a burnt out exhausted bankrupt liberalism. 
God! Is there anything real about this woman? Anything at all? Only a fool would trust what she says about her health: that it's equal to the staggering demands of the presidency when it fell way short of what was needed to be an effective and competent secretary of state; and after Hillary's 9/11 collapse (preceded and followed by distortions, distractions, cover ups and lies about her health) most voters aren't buying her bull as the trust gap shows. And if sick, old, tired Hillary (the exhausted face of a burnt out liberalism) shows up for the debates lacking strength, looking ill and less presidential than Trump, GAME OVER! Election Day will be another shellacking like 2014 when Obama and the Dems couldn't turn out the vote and were crushed across the country by the GOP. That means a Donald Trump Presidency, and a bigger Republican Senate and House, to reverse the decline of the Bush and Obama years and


It's amazing that severe dehydration caused by blistering, record breaking 77 degree NYC early fall weather put the Clinton campaign under water overnight. I'm surprised Hillary didn't blame her collapse on global warming. Perhaps if she weren't getting millions from Big Oil she would have (see) .  
what should she do to prove to an increasingly distrustful and skeptical public that she's physically and medically fit to resume her campaign for the office of the presidency? In a piece written two weeks before her collapse (which I predicted HERE ) I suggested that to prove that she's healthy and fit for command Hillary should do something athletic like jogging around a city block ten times; or doing 20 laps in her swimming pool at Chappaqua; or playing tennis with daughter Chelsea, or a round of golf with Obama and hubby Bill   (see). But none of these strenuous things would be practical or advisable for a low energy woman just climbing out of a sick-bed as it could cause a relapse and prove fatal.
However, there is something much less strenuous that Hillary could do that would take just a few minutes of her time; and have a tremendous impact on the public and shut up her critics on the left and right. What I have in mind is dancing. Yes, dancing. Getting up and dancing with husband Bill, or Chelsea, or anyone to this steaming, frenetic 1950s hit by Rock n Roll wild man Jerry Lee Lewis.
This in your face tune (with "pneumonia" in its title) is only two minutes long. Not enough time, I believe, to cause dehydration followed by a fainting spell.
 I greatly believe that seeing Hillary going wild and dancing up a storm (showing this much energy and life again, see) is all she need do to restore confidence that she's back on top of her game and ready to take on Trump for the presidency. What do you think?
it is tragic and deplorable what is happening to her health in her power mad quest for the White House. Forced by a tightening presidential race (and the indefatigable, tireless, Herculean Donald) to campaign harder than her energy, strength and stamina can endure she's turning into a medical basket case of exhaustion, coughing fits, memory loss, dehydration and fainting spells. It is truly tragic and deplorable what she's putting herself through and doing to herself (damaging her health and lying about it) to win the presidency. Is it really worth killing herself for? Apparently she thinks it is. How much longer before this happens:
Bill Clinton told Charlie Rose that on the morning of September 12th  a fully rested Hillary rose out of bed looking like a million bucks as if nothing had happened to her the day before. The only problem is she couldn't recollect the fainting event of the day before, and was surprised to learn of it from Bill./sarc
On September 12th Tim Kaine said in praise of Hillary that her energy level is so staggering that he has`trouble keeping up with her. Is he then more sick than she is? Anyhow, we saw` at the DNC dynamic Hillary's staggering energy level at work when her acceptance speech embarrassingly put husband Bill to sleep, with Kaine trying to block the view so the cameras wouldn't see it.

On September 12th 73 year old Joe Biden challenged Donald Trump to accompany him on a health run saying, “I’d like to jog with him, but don’t think he could keep up." Perhaps Biden is right. Perhaps he's in better physical shape than Donald Trump. And perhaps Biden is regretting his decision not to run for the presidency now that Hillary is looking more like a loser with each passing day.

But health wise what is certain is that if Hillary (who told NBC last year that she finds campaigning "incredibly exhausting") were to criss cross the county like the tireless Trump (who finds the race exhilarating and is having the time of his life) and campaign just as hard (doing up to three rallies per day) she'd likely wind up desperately ill or dead having worn herself out. And then Biden could step in to carry on.



Ground Zero for the implosion of the Clinton campaign?
Hillary Clinton's campaign logo turned into the 9/11 al-Qaida attack on the Twin Towers. Appropriate for the wife of the President whose weak on terror policies were largely responsible for the catastrophe; and who as secretary of state turned the US consulate in Benghazi into a 9/11 death trap.
When a sick, weak, run down, exhausted Hillary Clinton left the 9/11 memorial service yesterday, and then fainted on the way to her car, not only was it the 15th anniversary of 9/11 but the 4th anniversary of Benghazi as well-both events having the name CLINTON written all over them.
Indeed, the catastrophic 9/11, Islamo-Pearl Harbor, kamikaze sneak attack was 60 months in the planning: 53 months under the weak-on-terror Clinton administration (with five major al-Qaida attacks preceding it), and 7 under George Bush (who continued Clinton's weak-on-terror policies and inherited a badly weakened national security system that al-Qaida easily defeated).
And 11 years later despite may warnings was the successful, coördinated, pre-planned terror attack on the Bengahzi consulate; designed to coincide with and commemorate the 9/11 event by killing Americans it was largely the fault of Hillary Clinton and her poorly and incompetently run  Department of State.
As big government liberalism is going broke the era that began with the New Deal is at an end. But America needs a strong patriotic nationalist leader like FDR.
 Is it then possible that yesterday's medical debacle (shattering the cover up of Hillary's health lies) was a prophetic warning to the nation from On High that a second Clinton presidency would be a national security disaster? Or was Providence at work yesterday stopping the Clintons, making sure they wouldn't return to the White House? Was Hillary's "pneumonia" related fainting collapse, caught on camera by a pedestrian (reporters weren't allowed to follow her), telling the nation and world that the 45th presidency is not in her future? That as Donald Trump, myself and others have warned: Hillary lacks the energy, stamina, strength and will power to be the right president at this critical time in American and world history. That she lacks the right stuff to be an effective president, leader of the Free World, and reformer of Washington's corrupt political culture. That she's the creature of the status quo (big government, big banks, big pharma, big oil, etc.) and doesn't have it in her to radically alter the disastrous course our country and the world is on.
Is Donald Trump favored by Providence to become the next strong POTUS from New York after FDR? With each passing day it's beginning to look that way.
In other words, was Providence telling us yesterday that Donald Trump on November 8th has a "Rendezvous With Destiny" at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? That Trump not Clinton will be the next New Yorker after Franklin Roosevelt (our greatest war-time president next to Lincoln) to be Commander-in-Chief? The name "Clinton" is stamped on two 9/11 events, the death of thousands and loss of $billions; can we risk having it on a third?  




Yesterday marked the fifth anniversary of the "Miracle on the Hudson" when US Airways Flight 1549 safely crashed landed in the Hudson River with no deaths and minor injuries to its 155 passengers and crew. The crash occurred just hours before President Bush delivered his farewell address to the nation; and as you will see from my Townhall article below this miracle had the 9/11 event stamped all over it, giving the impression that it was a divine (providential) tribute to George Bush's presidency-as well as a warning to Barack Obama about the War on Terror and national security.

 Yesterday the Senate released its damning bipartisan report on the deadly 9/11 al-Qaida attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi (see). Because of Bengahzi and the subsequent cover-up and lies, as well as Obama's disastrous foreign policy of retreat from the Middle East with al Qaida expanding in influence and territorial control, Obama will go down in history as failing to live up to Bush's exemplary post-9/11 record on national security. Just before he leaves office there will be no miracles like Flight 1549.

(Published on Townhall 1/17/09) 
 I find it tremendously meaningful, significant, and providential that President Bush's moving, heartfelt, gracious Farewell Speech summing up his eight eventful years in office, with its focus on the war with Islamo-fascist terror and national security, was delivered just hours after the miraculous crash of Flight 1549-when a heroic commercial pilot who served in the military safely landed the damaged plane in the frigid waters of the Hudson River saving himself, his crew of four and a 150 passengers. I find it significant and providential to the President and his stewardship for the following reasons:

1. One of the fortunate passengers John S. Howell of Charlotte, North Carolina was brother to a firefighter who died on 9/11.

Flight 1549 at Battery Park near Ground Zero.

2. The plane once evacuated drifted down river from midtown Manhattan and came to rest by the USS Intrepid before it recommenced its journey south to Battery Park where amazingly it stopped by Ground Zero as if moved to that spot by the hand of God (see note 1).

3. As the Pentagon was one of three buildings attacked on 9/11 it is fascinating to note that January 15th (the day of the crash) was the 66th anniversary of the Pentagon's dedication ceremony, the construction of which began September 11, 1941 (see).

 4. 1549 crashed or splashed down in the Henry Hudson River named after the English explorer who discovered Manhattan Island on September 11, 1609 (see).

The heroic pilot of 1549, Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger (born in Bush's state of Texas), was clearly emblematic of George W. Bush who steered our nation to safety after 9/11 by going on the offensive and bringing the war to the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan, and greatly strengthening our domestic surveillance state to stop future attacks. The President sent our troops to war to fight our Islamic foes abroad so we wouldn't have to fight them here at home; a wise decision in my view that surprisingly kept us terror free for seven years foiling several deadly al Qaida plans to do more evil.

If a less capable man had commanded 1549 there might have been a tragic outcome where hundreds could have died with the plane crashing into the Bronx or the Upper West Side or falling fatally into the brine killing everyone aboard. As the right man was flying the plane that day so was George Bush the right man to be Commander in Chief when al Qaida struck our shores and the Twin Towers were destroyed. As a sign to the nation that George Bush's presidency was not an accident or mistake (that he was destined to be our 9/11 President) he was in Sarasota Florida the morning of the attack; that was the state that brought him victory in the closest presidential race in US history.

Indeed, the man who was born in July (the 7th month of the year), on a Saturday (the 7th day of the week), at 7:26 AM (the 7th hour of the day), was elected President on the 7th day of November in the Sunshine State of Florida (a 7 letter state shaped topographically like a 7). Moreover, Florida, at the time, was governed by his brother (who is nearly 7 years his younger (see)) when, by the skin of his teeth, he was elected president 43 winning 25 electoral votes; oddly, 25 and 43 are variants of the number 7: 2+5=7, 4+3=7 (see note 2).


Moreover, when President Bush was in Florida that terrible but fateful September morning ("Septem" is Latin for 7) he was 7 months and 22 days into his presidency (see). And the three great buildings that were struck that day, the 5 sided Pentagon and 2 Twin Towers, once again give us the number 7 (5+2=7). And lastly, 26 days after this deadly attack the President Bush ordered the bombing of al Qaida and Taliban targets in Afghanistan, thus beginning the Global War on Terror. This epoch making day, a day that changed world history, was the 7th of October. And lastly, the Hudson River Miracle occurred 7 years and 11 months into Bush's presidency (see).

 This uncanny pattern of numeric signs seem intelligently designed and are indicative, I believe, of Bush's providential destiny as one of the most consequential and transformative presidents in US history; signs of a man who reversed one thousand years of Mideast politics when he shocked and awed the region into change by ordering the downfall of the very mad and dangerous Saddam Hussein.

In a mysterious way the miraculous safe landing of 1549 was a gift to George Bush...a fitting tribute to his presidency on the day of his farewell; perhaps a tribute given by our Maker to a man who served us well, whose leadership out-performed a thousand Captain Sullys; who history will remember centuries from now as the man who brought freedom to fifty million lives, shook up a stagnant, backward, regressive region resistant to change and brought safety and security to a nation under seige-keeping us safe for 7 years (no mean feat).God bless you George Bush, President 43, and may your successor continue your conscientious work in keeping us strong, safe and free. 


 It was at first believed that flight 1549's two engines had fallen from the plane and were lost in the Hudson River. But as the plane was pulled from the water it was discovered that only the left engine was lost having sunk into the river; and that the right engine, though badly damaged, was firmly attached to the plane. Could this be a sign of things to come for the Democrat Left and the badly damaged Republican Right in the years ahead? With Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the Left weakening and damaging our country's security, economy and foreign policy and sinking in public esteem? And with the Right surviving the political crash of 2006 and 2008 and returning to power to rebuild America on sound conservative principles? The Left can't govern and the Right will come back and 1549 seems prophetic of that.


1. Steve Fink writing for WCBSTV.COM, New York said: "The plane eventually came to a rest in the water by the USS Intrepid, before drifting south on the Hudson and stopping at Battery Park, by Ground Zero, ironically."

2. It is interesting to note that Bush's first stab at public office began in July of 1977 the 7th month of the 7th year of the 7th decade of the 20th century when he announced his candidacy for Congress. Amazingly, the election date for that Congressional race was the 7th of November 1977. 1977 was also the year when Bush fell in love with and married Laura Welch who he first met when a student in 7th grade back in junior high.


April Knight posted the following interesting observation in the comment section:

"Apollo: I just noticed another numerical peculiarity with the Hudson Miracle. It happened on the 15th of January, the flight number was 1549 and there were 155 people aboard. The flight number 1549 is one number short of 1550. Just thought I’d mention it." 

Thanks. Also 1549 with its 155 occupants crashed into the Hudson at roughly 3:31 PM…or 15:31. Moreover, when 43 (Bush's presidency number) is multiplied by 36 it generates the number 1548, one digit short of 1549 the number of the crashed Hudson River Miracle plane. 
 Last night as I was watching the film Sully (absolutely terrific) I learned that on the to do list for flight emergencies (in Captain Sully's manual) landing the plane on a waterway was listed as number 15.



If tired, old, incompetent Hillary follows Barack Obama into the White House we'll have a fourth (and possibly fifth) term of Jimmy Carter - at a time, ironically, when Carter himself says America is a declining superpower "inevitably" losing credibility, influence and prestige on the world stage (see).

It is absolutely certain, as the facts indisputably show, that Donald Trump is correct in his assessment of Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama; that the Russian KGB strongman (villain though he be) has comparatively been a stronger and more effective for the Russian people (and on the world stage) than he been our weak, retreating, passive, lead from behind, failed, reset appeasing, apologetic president for the American people.


BEHOLD! The great enabler (with Hillary) of post-Soviet Russian power; and the greatest enabler (with Hillary) of radical Islamic terrorist Iran since the fall of the shah. 


America is a rudderless nation without purpose and aim adrift on a sea of growing troubles. While the Russian people want to make their country great again and have a tremendously popular leader hell bent doing just that. Mike Pence defending Trump said it best: "Obama [I paraphrase] is running the longest, unprofessional amateur hour since Ted Mack."






Indeed, it is a fact (denied by Obama Kool-aid drinkers) that Russia today under Putin (thanks to Obama and Hillary) is more prestigious internationally and commands more respect than at any time since the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union; and that the aggressive, pro-active, Make Russia Great Again Vladimir Putin, taking full advantage of America's vacuüm-creating retreat, overshadows (sad to say) Obama as a world leader. It's as if Obama is the great anti-Reagan boosting and enabling Russian power where Ronald Reagan greatly diminished and disabled it pushing Soviet Russia over the cliff into bankruptcy and ruin; what Putin called "the greatest geo-political tragedy of the 20th century" that he's now hell-bent on reversing.



Just look at the facts from the very start when Obama was running for president in 2008, and how terribly misguided, wrongheaded and delusional he's has been about himself, Putin, Russia, Assad, Syria and much, much else.



 With unintended help from the great confused blundering enabler Vladimir Putin is making Russia great again; he's slowly, carefully, methodically reestablishing his country as a world power. And the Russian people love him for it despite the economic loses it has caused.


Image and video hosting by TinyPic




During the 2008 presidential campaign Team Obama said about their fresh, charming, charismatic candidate that his opposition to the Iraq War (the "dumb war" as he called it) was all the proof the American people needed that they could trust his judgement on international affairs; and that he'd make a better, smarter, more effective foreign policy president (using "smart power" and "soft power"*) than the neo-Con interventionist George W. Bush-undoing eight years of disaster and restoring America's prestige and image in the world.

*Walking softly and carrying a tooth pick


Hillary Rodham Clinton,


 During an April 2008 campaign rally in San Francisco Obama when asked by a reporter about John McCain and Hillary Clinton criticizing his lack of experience in international affairs boasted, “Foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton and Senator McCain (see)."


 Vice President Joe Biden is


In October 2008 at a Seattle fundraiser Joe Biden effusively praised Obama as being a man with an unbreakable "spine of steel;" and predicted that as president he'd prove equal to and triumph over any overseas test and challenge to US power coming from "Russia, the Middle East or wherever (see)."


Merkel and Biden at the Munich 

Biden at Munich Conference.


In February 2009 at a security conference in Munich (the city of war causing appeasement which set the stage for World War II) Biden announced that resetting relations with Russia would have a high priority with the Obama administration. Three days later, as an ominous sign of failure to come, a US and Russian satellite collided catastrophically over frigid Siberia-as if anticipating a new period of conflict with Russia and cold war. This type of collision never happened before (see).


Putin shakes hands with 


Astonishingly, in July 2009 Joe Biden in an interview with the Wall Street Journal confidently predicted that "an economically and politically weakened Russia would have no choice but to coöperate with America and bend to our [Obama's] will (see)."


Obama cancels European missile


Portentiously in September 17, 2009 (70th anniversary of Joseph Stalin's invasion of Poland), in a major appeasement-reset move toward Russia, Obama and Clinton shocked our allies by canceling the deployment of a missile defense shield to Poland and Eastern Europe (see). Vladimir Putin delighted with the move praised Obama for doing "a very brave thing."


Confident 'Assad's Days


In 2011 with the Arab Spring revolt spreading to Syria (its violent phase inspired by Obama's intervention in Libya) Obama said that Russian/Iranian ally Bashar Assad "had to go." But compared to what he did in Libya to bring down Kaddafy Obama did little or nothing to make that happen (see).


 Kaddafy dead. Killed by rebels. Believed by Obama and Hillary to be mass murderer Bashar Assad's just fate.


In 2012 with tens and thousands of Syrians dead Obama and Hillary Clinton confidently predicted that 'Assad's  days were numbered." In other words, Obama and Clinton were predicting that Assad (the worst mass murderer and war criminal of the 21st century) would share Kaddafy's fate and eventually succumb to US backed rebel forces who'd prevail like their Libyan counterparts. 




In August 2012 an optimistic Obama confident that Assad wouldn't dare use his huge stockpile of illegal chemical WMDs drew a red line in the sand warning him of dire consequences if he crossed it and used them. Defiantly Assad used them and horribly killed people. Obama did nothing except (with Putin's help) negotiate a worthless treaty with Assad where he agreed to destroy his entire stockpile of WMDs and the infrastructure used in making them. Since then Assad (using chlorine gas) has defiantly launched new chemical attacks on his people and has given up and destroyed only a fraction of his WMD stockpile and none of his infrastructure. In fact, Assad (like Saddam Hussein) still employs his WMD  and nuclear scientists* keeping them on the government payroll (see)


*In 2007 Israeli war planes destroyed an illegal Syrian nuclear weapons plant being built with help from North Korea and Iran (see).


Assad, Putin, and the Smart


The vital role Russia played in negotiating Syria's (worthless) Chemical Weapons Treaty (prelude to the worthless Iran nuke deal) led Obama to believe that it foreshadowed a partnership with Putin in peacefully removing Assad from power and bringing democracy (which Putin hates) to Syria. 


of last night's debate.


In his October 2012 debate with Mitt Romney Obama said that his rival was wrong about Russia being America's "number one geopolitical foe" and that he was stuck in a "cold war mentality." The one who was "stuck" however was our delusional president on the stupid notion that his cowardly reset butt kissing of Putin would pay off; and he would win over his heart and mind making him a partner and ally (see and see). 



August 1, 2013, a defiant Vladimir Putin ignoring pleas and warnings from the great enabling appeaser in Washington grants traitorous NSA whistle blower Edward Snowden asylum in Russia for "12 months." It's now three years and Snowden is still there.




In 2014 a mortified Obama his reset agenda in ruins predicted that Russia would be isolated politically, diplomatically and economically if it continued its aggression against Ukraine and annexed Crimea (see).


‘Surprise’: Russia orders U.S. airplanes out of Syrian airspace as it begins airstrikes on anti-Assad rebels, not ISIS · Twitch




Then in October of last year Obama predicted that a geopolitically supercharged and surging Russia was stepping into a military "quagmire" in war torn Syria. At the time I raised the question, "After so many failed predictions and bad calls on Russia, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, al Qaida, ISIS etc. what are the chances that the man who boasted seven years ago that foreign policy was his strong suit is right about a coming disastrous "quagmire" for Russia in Syria?" I  correctly answered






'We surrender!
Putin's bombing campaign has overwhelmed us.' 

the Muslim self-rule law.
 Syrian rebels captured by Putin and Assad.
 Yeah, for Russia it's 1979 Afghanistan all over again under its heedless, Make Russia Great Again, neo-imperialist leader. If only he had listened to the brilliant, farsighted, Nobel Prize winning mastermind in the White House Russia wouldn't be in the pickle it's in today./sarc.
The great blundering foolish enabler of post-Soviet Russian power on the right (failed at bending Russia to his will) getting no thanks from hard, cold KGB Putin.
What's sealed is Bashar Assad, the greatest mass murdering war criminal of the 21st century staying in power.









She's the first human being diagnosed with All Seasons Allergy Cough Syndrome (ASACS). As there is no known cure for ASACS  (perhaps as a pay to play favor to the Clintons Big Pharma is working on it) Hillary when debating Donald Trump runs the risk of coughing her guts out (as she did in Cleveland) and jeopardizing the election. What ASACS precisely is, is fully explained below. 
 ASAC Syndrome Hillary hacking it up on the ground.
Sick, weak, unlikable, uninspiring Hillary (the worst Democrat presidential candidate since Michael Dukakis) has to be the unhappiest, most miserable and fearful candidate ever to run for the White House. Why? Because her worst fears heading into the first debate with 900 pound, healthy as a horse, charismatic, confrontational, unpredictable  Donald Trump are being realized. Indeed, with her post-convention bounce collapsing and the race with Trump tightening the woman who told NBC News (seethat she hates campaigning because "it's incredibly exhausting" has now got to fight harder for her political life and exert herself to the utmost. That means running the risk of wearing herself out (weakening her immune system) and becoming very sick, or depressingly drained and fatigued. No happy warrior she.
ASAC Syndrome Hillary hacking it up in the air.
From the end of the Democrat convention to Labor Day Hillary was betting that Donald Trump would completely undo himself and implode; and that she'd have an easy, no sweat, unobstructed path to the presidency. And so to conserve her limited energies and physical strength Hillary virtually went on vacation. Taking it easy and focusing on private fundraisers she did as little heavy campaigning as possible and stuck to her policy of doing zero press conferences. But the indefatigable, hard campaigning Donald Trump (who unlike Hillary loves campaigning and very large rallies), changing his style and looking every bit more professional and presidential, has come bouncing back from his slump in the polls just as I and others predicted (see).
And on Labor Day when the traditional lift off for the fall campaign began Hillary got off to an ominously bad start; at a rally in Cleveland (where Trump against all odds was officially nominated the GOP nominee) a sick, hoarse sounding Hillary, joking that she's allergic to the very thought of Trump, suffered a massive, alarming coughing attack (one of many) that lasted over four minutes, and practically ruined the rally. But it didn't stop there. As Hillary afterwards on her plane trip to Tampa was talking to reporters at a press gaggle about Russia and hacking ironically her hacking cough of hours before returned with a vengeance; and it was so bad and out of control that she had to withdraw from the gaggle until she recuperated.

hillary doctor 4

Hillary looking like hell having one of her bad health days - walking with her medical handler (right) in case she faints..

And it was then that another one of mendacious Hillary's lies was exposed: that her coughing (according to her and her doctor) is due to "seasonal allergies." For there is two small problems with this diagnosis: 1) Hillary's coughing has been perpetual as if she has a cough for ALL SEASONS. Indeed, winter, summer, spring, and now in the fall, we've seen Hillary make medical history and cough up a storm with a first ever year round seasonal allergy cough; or, what I call, All Seasons Allergy Cough Syndrome (ASACS)
-as if hay fever season was 12 months a year, and unique to Hillary.  
Dr. Drew gravely concerned over Hillary's health feared she may have suffered brain damage from her concussion of years ago. HLN rewarded Drew's empathetic concern and humanity for Hillary by firing him.
 And 2) on Monday after the Cleveland rally when her coughing fit resumed it was aboard a jetliner that was equipped (like all such planes, and especially Hillary's) with a high quality, high performance air filtration system that removes dust,  microbes and ALLERGENS. In other words, it is now conclusive and irrefutable that there's a cover up underway; that Hillary and her physician are lying about her health and hiding the reason for her perpetual multi-seasonal coughing fits that are occurring with increasing frequency.
As Hillary and her doctor are obviously lying about the cause of her cough what then I wonder is the reason for her low energy problems and proneness to fatigue-the reason she hates campaigning (and refused a second term as secretary of state, see)? I don't have a clue, and don't care to speculate. But one thing is certain: against her will Hillary, between now and the first debate, is being forced by Come Back Donald to campaign harder than she wants to. And what that likely means, to say the least, is that she'll not be at her best when face to face with the "beast."
 Between now and the debate you will likely see Hillary deteriorate physically as she wears down her energy, stamina and health (expect more coughing fits) struggling to regain her lead in the polls and win over independents (who are massively for Trump), and the undecided 5% who haven't made up their minds. Indeed, by the first debate Hillary could be in such a badly weakened state and so painfully ineffective (like her DNC speech that put husband Bill to sleep) that Trump will completely overshadow her (like he did Mexico's President Nieto) and crush her significantly pulling away from her in the polls. And this would have the effect of forcing Hillary to campaign much harder, pushing herself to the limit and putting her health at even greater risk.
Indeed, if the very thought of Donald Trump makes Hillary ill what then will she suffer when he'll be too close for comfort just several feet away on the debate stage? How will indefatigable, larger than life, "toxic" Donald with his aggressive charisma, massive ego and powerful "negative," "racist," "hate filled" vibs psychically affect Hillary and her fatigue-causing hidden medical problems? Indeed, Hillary knowing the truth about her medical condition-the issues that underlie her forgetfulness, fatigue and coughing fits-can't be looking forward to debating Donald Trump after hard, exhausting campaigning.
Why would it be best for Hillary not to debate Trump?
 It's her health stupid!
The unpredictable, defiant, rule breaking, in your face Donald could so upset and stress out Hillary with his antics (or by keeping her on the defensive by pounding away at her lies, corruption and failed record as secretary of state) that It could trigger a psycho somatic reaction causing some kind of medical crisis on stage-coughing      spasms, fainting or worse.  
Victorious Donald after first debate with Hillary (right) in New York. 
This is not farfetched. Possibly ominous of a coming traumatic medical event for Hillary is her campaign logo which resembles a hospital direction sign. Indeed, between now and Election Day the constant stress and strain of hard debilitating campaigning combined with headaches and worries from mounting scandals and Wikileaks revelations, could combine to so badly damage Hillary's heath that she could wind up in a hospital needing to recuperate from extreme fatigue. If that should happen then GAME OVER. Few voters will doubt that healthy, robust, Herculean Donald Trump was right about Hillary "lacking the energy, stamina and strength for the presidency;" and they will put him in the White House.
(thanx Super Worm)
ASAC Syndrome Hillary hacking it up on the radio. 
If you can't take the heat of a presidential race get out. The White House is much worse. 



Ronald Reagan and Mexico's President Portillo. 
This is absolutely mind-blowing. Over at the Weekly Standard Philip Terzian wrote a short piece praising Donald Trump's "game-changing" trip to Mexico where for the first time he stood side by side with a world leader and astonished both supporters and critics with his very presidential and statesman-like performance. It was a masterstroke. I am certain that what we saw was Donald Trump's presidency in embryo (the amateur rapidly learning and maturing) with Mr. Terzian rightly saying he was Reaganesque. In fact, as Terzian points out, just 15 days prior to his inaugural president-elect Ronald Reagan (who critics warned would make a dangerous, bumbling, embarrassing president) went south of the border to meet with then Mexican President Lopez Portillo (which no president-elect had done before) and handled himself masterfully and diplomatically (see).
 Donald Trump and Mexico's President Nieto.
Curious about Reagan's meeting with Portillo I then did my research on him and the visit and to my amazement discovered what could be an auspicious providential sign for Trump and his campaign. What I found was this: On June 16, 2015 when Trump launched his "sure to fail" chaotic presidential campaign - making illegal immigration and border security his key issues - it fell on the 96th (remember this number) anniversary of President Portillo's birth (see). In retrospect it was as if this coincidence meaningfully foreshadowed what no one could have anticipated just 14 months later: Donald Trump the GOP presidential nominee's triumphant, counter intuitive meeting with President Nieto where he looked like a  larger than life, fit for command Ronald Reagan.
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
 The question is this: was Trump's unintended  launch of his campaign on the 96th anniversary of President Portillo's birth (making illegal immigration and border security with Mexico key issues) a prophetic sign that he's destined again to defy the odds (as he did in the primaries) and prevail in November as Reagan did in his come from behind victory over Carter in 1980? Oddly, just as Reagan met with Portillo (1-5-81) nine weeks from his election on November 4th Trump met with Nieto nine weeks prior to Election Day November 8th (see and see). Also odd and seemingly meaningful is that when Trump met with Nieto on August 31 it was the 45th month of his presidency*-the number of the next US President (see).  As Nieto extended an invitation to both Trump and Clinton could this possibly be a sign that the party who refused the invite on Nieto's 45th month in power isn't the candidate destined to be our 45th President? I don't know about you but these discoveries send thrills up my spine. 
*Nieto was sworn in as Mexico's 57th president on 12-1 -2012.
But here is where it seems to get even more profound. Portillo was born on June 16, 1920. 1920 was a presidential election year where Republican Senator Warren Harding from Ohio defeated Democrat Governor James Cox also from Ohio (and his running mate FDR). Indeed, thi s election year of 2016 is, what I call, a "SAME STATE CANDIDATE RACE," - the 4th such race in our history; this is where the nominees of the two major parties reside in the same state (Trump and Clinton are both New Yorkers) - which I wrote about HERE. And of the three previous same state candidate races (Lincoln/Douglas - Illinois,  Harding/Cox - Ohio and FDR/Dewey - New York) the 1920 race is the only one where the Republican nominee won and succeeded a two term Democrat president (Wilson was held office from 1913 to 1921).
Amazingly and astonishingly Warren Harding early in his presidency signed into law the "Immigration Restriction Act." This was a temporary measure (that became a long-term deal lasting to 1964) setting quotas and preferences in limiting immigration into this country. Even more amazing when Harding's law was revised three years later under President Coolidge it completely banned immigration from all ARAB/Middle Eastern countries, as well as other parts of the world. You can't make this stuff up.
President Coolidge signing the Immigration Act of 1924.
On a lesser note, but no less fascinating, the presidential election years of 1920 and 2016 are tied together by the significant number 96 (mentioned above): for 1920 and 2016 are multiples of 96 20 and 21 times respectively. Just as taxation, the economy (which was depressed) and immigration were major issues in the 1920 race so are they today (see postscript below).
So the big question now is this: will Donald Trump, the most charismatic Republican presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan (called the Republican FDR), surmount the odds as he did during the primaries and triumph on Election Day becoming the first President from New York State since FDR? The polls at the moment don't favor Trump; but the signs (if signs they be) seem greatly auspicious of victory. Much depends on the upcoming debates (of which I'll have much to say) and the tragic course of events up to Election Day.  


The standard of living and the standard of citizenship of a nation are its most precious possessions, and the preservation and the elevation of those standards is the first duty of our government. The immigration policy of the U. S. should be such as to insure that the number of foreigners in the country at any one time shall not exceed that which can be assimilated with reasonable rapidity, and to favor immigrants whose standards are similar to ours. The selective tests that are at present applied should be improved by requiring a higher physical standard, a more complete exclusion of mental defectives and of criminals, and a more effective inspection applied as near the source of immigration as possible, as well as at the port of entry. Justice to the foreigner and to ourselves demands provision for the guidance, protection and better economic distribution of our alien population. To facilitate government supervision, all aliens should be required to register annually until they become naturalized........


There is urgent need of improvement in our naturalization law. NO ALIEN SHOULD BECOME A CITIZEN UNTIL HE HAS BECOME GENUINELY AMERICAN [caps mine], and adequate tests for determining the alien's fitness for American citizenship should be provided for by law........


The burden of taxation imposed upon the American people is staggering; but in presenting a true statement of the situation we must face the fact that, while the character of the taxes can and should be changed, an early reduction of the amount of revenue to be raised is not to be expected. The next Republican Administration will inherit from its Democratic predecessor a floating indebtedness of over three billion dollars—the prompt liquidation of which is demanded by sound financial consideration. Moreover, the whole fiscal policy of the Government must be deeply influenced by the necessity of meeting obligations in excess of five billion dollars which mature in 1923. But sound policy equally demands the early accomplishment of that real reduction of the tax burden which may be achieved by substituting simple for complex tax laws and procedure, prompt and certain determination of the tax liability for delay and uncertainty, tax laws which do not, for tax laws which do, excessively mulct the consumer or needlessly repress enterprise and thrift........   


(thanx Sue 2)
What was Hillary's first foreign test?


 I've said in another place and all over the internet that if Donald Trump's alleged racism and white nationalism is proved by his unwanted support from David Duke and the KKK then what does his support by black Moslem nationalist Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam mean? It's true that Farrakhan hasn't joined Duke in endorsing Trump for president. But it's also true that he has endorsed no one to date, and that Trump is the only candidate that he's actually praised, and in no small, insignificant way.
Indeed, Farrakhan (a realist on Islamic terrorism) shares Trump's national security fears of jihadist infiltration of Moslem refugee flows, and backs as "wise" his call for a temporary ban on Moslem immigrants. In his interview with Alex Jones Farrakhan strongly noted what Obama and Clinton choose to perilously ignore: that despite Obama's seven years of Moslem outreach hatred of America in the Moslem world is stronger and more virulent than ever before. Astonishingly and frighteningly we know from a poll done by Pew Research last year that over 100 million Moslems worldwide (a conservative estimate) are pro-ISIS (with 19 million supporters in Pakistan alone); and that's just ISIS folks. The survey says nothing about support for al Qaida, Hezbollah, the Iranian mullahs, Hamas, Boko Haram, the Moslem Brotherhood and other anti-Western Islamofascist groups (see).
Farrakhan also praises Trump's contempt for and relentless assault on political correctness; his pounding away at the self-serving elitist Washington-Wall Street establishment and his non-interventionist approach to foreign policy.  And joining Farrakhan in praising Trump is former Nation of Islam member and New Black Panther Party leader in Houston Quanell X. Indeed, no sooner did QX hear Trump's speech blasting Clinton and the Democrat Party for using blacks self-servingly as political pawns to get votes then he said this: 
It is a fact that for 54 years we have been voting for the Democratic Party like no other race in America. And they have not given us the same loyalty and love that we have given them. We as black people have to reexamine the relationship. We’re being pimped like prostitutes and they’re the big pimps pimping us politically, promising us everything and giving us nothing in return. We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at ALL the parties…"
 And by "all the parties" that includes the so-called racist Republicans and their "racist" candidate for president. Our black inner cities, the worst, most lawless and dangerous places in America are in ruins and get worse by the year with no end in sight. And after seven failed years of America's first black president with Hillary promising to stay the course an increasing number of blacks are fed up with Democrats and want change. Indeed, QX following Trump has fired a warning shot across the bow of the Democrat Party that the days of taking the black vote for granted are numbered.
Now do these near endorsements of Trump by two prominent black nationalists mean that he's an anti-white racist? Of course not. In truth, as Trump truthfully said,  "There isn't a racist bone in my body." True Trump seems to have crossed the line into racial discrimination two or three times decades ago with unfair discriminatory housing practices-that seemed limited to welfare recipients*. But there is no long, persistent pattern of such behavior in his past like lying, crooked, smearing Hillary claims.
*The settlement with the DOJ allowed Trump to deny rentals to welfare recipients.
If Trump, as Hillary insinuates, has a "long history of racial discrimination and bigotry" going back to the early 1970s then why in 2005 did she and husband Bill travel 3000 miles to South Florida to attend Trump's wedding? Why did they socialize with Trump years before and after the wedding saying they enjoyed his company ("He was a fun guy to be with," said Hillary)? Moreover, why did the Clintons accept Trump's gift of free access to his Northern Westchester golf club? And why did they accept campaign contributions from Trump, and $100,000 donation to their corrupt, politics driven foundation?  Is it possible that the Clinton's were oblivious to Trump's "long history of racial discrimination and bigotry" until after June 16, 2015 when he launched his presidential campaign? That all those years they were deceived by Trump into thinking he was a New York progressive liberal like them? That, of course, is impossible. If Trump's "long history of racism" were real the Clintons would have known it and avoided him like the plague.
When you hear this video keep in mind  that Donald Trump was a major contributor to Jackson's Wall Street Project for minorities (see). And that the office Jackson used rent free to run and advance his project was in the Trump Building at 40 Wall Street.
But quite to the contrary, it was politically safe and correct for the Clintons to pal around with Trump precisely because of his long history of being anything but racist. Indeed, making Hillary look like a damn, lying, mean-spirited fool the above video has surfaced from the Clinton years showing Jesse Jackson on two separate occasions praising Trump at a Rainbow Push Conference for his "long successful inclusive [30 year*] history of friendship and outreach to poor, underprivileged blacks and minorities." When Trump in defending himself against charges of racism said that he has had "excellent relationships with blacks," this is no small part of what he meant. And it was because of the real, big-hearted, benevolent Donald Trump (who wants to turn poor, disadvantaged blacks and minorities into winners like himself) that the Clintons were proud to be his friend. What is it that Gold Star parent Khirz Khan said about "unempathetic" Donald having a " black [unfeeling] soul?" He should eat his words.
*Jackson said his relationship with Trump goes back to 1984 which was over 30 years ago.
Trump's brash, politically incorrect campaign is drawing fire from the Clintons and Democrat leaders because he's daring to speak truth to power; he's daring to face down the entire liberal establishment over the catastrophic failure of their mindlessly compassionate welfare state and failed War on Poverty (that Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich tried to fix) that's provably done far more  harm than good to blacks. He's daring to say how $trillions in government handouts have trapped millions of dependent blacks in generational poverty, degradation and sin; how it's destroyed black community life in our inner cities and turned those once clean, safe, thriving places (compared to today) into war zones and moral waste lands of lawlessness, gang violence, drug abuse, illiteracy, failed schools, broken homes, disease and massive death. 
And because Trump is daring to speak the truth in a forceful way reminiscent of Ronald Reagan liberals are howling like wounded dogs calling him "psychopath," "mad man," "Hitler" and every ugly name. The panicking bankrupt liberal Democrat left know how badly they're failing Black America and are vulnerable to losing much of its support as QX warned. If Trump stays this course to Election Day, pounding away at the failure of liberalism, asking blacks the question, "What do you have to lose in voting for me?" he could garner more black and minority votes than Romney and McCain combined and win the presidency.
(thanx Maximus)
Trump has been working with black community leaders for decades to help economic development in the poorest areas of NYC. Here
(1986) he's receiving an award for helping inner-city charities alongside Rosa Parks and Muhammad Ali.



Okay. Seriously. Crooked, mendacious, old beyond her years,    low energy, nearly lifeless Hillary, who once lyingly claimed that her mom named her after legendary Mount Everest climber Sir Edmund Hillary (six years before his conquest, see), doesn't need to climb a mountain or Trump Tower to prove that she's physically fit for the presidency. But opening pickle jars on late night shows is not going to cut it. To dispel self-caused doubts that she lacks (for whatever reason) the energy, stamina and strength to handle the world's most difficult job (without suffering chronic fatigue*) she'll need to demonstrate some real, strong convincing athleticism and physical endurance before election day-and I don't mean yoga, some swimming and light weight lifting, which she's known to do.
*Chronic fatigue affects concentration and
   judgment and could be dangerous for a president and the nation.         
If Hillary's fit for command all she need do to give the electorate proof is run in a marathon and last twenty   minutes; or jog around a city block ten times; or swim across the East River from Manhattan to Welfare Island where she launched her campaign; or do 20 laps in her swimming pool at Chappaqua, then bench press 50 pounds several times; or play a round of tennis with daughter Chelsea, etc.
Hillary exerting herself to the utmost in playing a strenuous game of miniature golf with husband Bill. LOL!!!
DEM 2016 Clinton
If Hillary would do any truly athletic thing where she'd work up a sweat it would create a sensation and impress the nation with many declaring, "Man, this is one strong healthy bitch who's got the right stuff for the presidency!" 
Her stamina and health concerns would then go away
 making Trump and guys like me look foolish.
But as long as Hillary jokes about her health with left-wing comics (and makes no attempt to show real strength in strenuous activity which she easily can do) suspicions will persist and grow until election day about a medical cover up costing her votes and possibly the presidency.
Before and after opening an open pickle jar
Hillary climbs into a car with the help of a footstool.
Behold the sad, tired, sorry face that will sink the Ship of State like it sunk US/Russian relations, Libya, Iraq, Syria and the peace and stability of the Middle East. 
Thanx Sabastian

Trump is Fit


Let's see Hillary carry boxes of supplies to people like Trump did in Louisiana . Let's see her unload a truck - of supplies her foundation paid for - in some poor village in Africa.  

Truth is Trump is an indefatigable force of nature; while Hillary is a spent force of bankrupt liberalism.
Donald Trump playing golf with Bill Clinton and Rudy Giuliani (left) 
Hubby Bill played golf with Trump, why not wife Hillary? Before the debates Trump should challenge Hillary to a round of golf to prove her stamina, strength
and health. If she can't last 18 holes how could she last 18 weeks as Pres?

Right On Ruddy writes, "Forget about Hillary climbing Trump Tower. Let's see if she can climb ten flights of stairs without fainting from fatigue."
Does Hillary's campaign logo point in the direction of the hospital where she'd have to recuperate from exhaustion if she campaigned half as hard as Donald Trump?



 In Phone Interview, Clinton Brushes Off Lack of Press Conferences: ‘I’m Talking to You Right Now’ | Mediaite

Hillary Clinton’s run-out-the-clock strategy - POLITICO 

Rumor has it that Hillary and Bill are spending millions desperately searching the world for the legendary alchemical elixer of life to renew Hillary's health before her first debate with Donald Trump in September./sarc
It's hilarious. A phone interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper for Clinton is now the equivalent of a real, full-blown, challenging press conference where the nation could see her struggling poorly with  reporters and lying to them about her emails, the pay to play corruption scandal and worsening health. Is that what she'd do as president? Do phone conferences with the White House press corps from the comfort of the Oval Office as if it were a hospital room? Some one said that the multiple of Trump's press conferences vs. Hillary's is 20 to 30 times as many. If she were to match Trump it would be a PR disaster and cost her tons of votes as most of her pressers would be as bad as THIS



Every so often when husband Bill is asked about Hillary's stamina and health he will pull from his hat last year's Benghazi hearing and glowingly say how she coolly and masterfully withstood 11 grueling hours of hard Republican questioning. But that's not what exactly happened. Forget about her five days missing in action prior to the hearing where she rested up conserving her energies while Bernie Sanders was campaigning his butt off; and forget that the questioning totaled 8 hours at most not 11 as there were three one hour breaks; truth is, the hearing was not the feat Bill Clinton makes it out to be; roughly half of the hearing was a love fest with fellow Democrats soft balling her; while the hard questions came mostly from three Republicans: Gowdy, Jordan and Pompeo.

But that was nine months ago when Hillary was vastly out polling Bernie Sanders and had done little campaigning herself; since then her exertions have clearly taken a toll on her health and is wearing her out-everyone but her blindest followers know it. This was evident from her DNC acceptance speech (one of the worst ever given) which was so insipid, unmoving, ineffective and dull that it embarrassingly put husband Bill to sleep.

Truth is if Hillary were to do as many press conferences and campaign as vigorous and hard as dauntless, dynamic, indefatigable Donald Trump she would collapse from extreme fatigue within a week. Think I'm exaggerating? As I wrote HERE in 2010 Hillary complained in an interview with Esquire that her job as Secretary of State was too exhausting, and that she couldn't and wouldn't continue in office another four years. If she had a second term at State, or just two more exhausting years, instead of "lying, crooked, low energy Hillary" we'd probably be calling her "no energy Hill."

Hillary giving a speech on national security in Virginia and looking like hell.

But the presidency is far more difficult and demanding than heading the State Department. If Hillary lacked the energy, strength and stamina for State how could she have it for the presidency? And how will  she have it for the make or break debates with Donald Trump? Will she be running on empty by then and crash and burn physically and emotionally? Trump is a force of nature, a category four hurricane; Hillary is a spent liberal force in slow declining health that's becoming more apparent and difficult to hide. America will see the stark difference in late September when Trump and Hillary go one on one in New York. Mark my words, in that debate Trump will look like a strong, confident, forceful executive and leader; while Hillary (with worsening health) will look like Trump's weak, flabby, passive, barely competent personal secretary.

So the question, "Will Hillary's health crash before the September debate?" depends on the race tightening between now and then. If that should happen (and Trump is working like hell to make it happen) it will force Hillary to push herself harder and campaign more fiercely than is good for her health. 

Does the Clinton campaign logo ominously anticipate Hillary being hospitalized for extreme exhaustion, or some illness before election day?
This event in Atlantic City happened last month. But Hillary is always harping on Trump's four corporate bankruptcies as if he's the only billionaire to have them. Warren Buffet one of history's greatest investment geniuses has made bad investments that cost him and his company Birkshire Hawthaway billions (see). When you come down to it if Donald Trump had run his company like Hillary the State Department he'd be in the poor house today.
say about Donald Trump having an evil, self-centered, "black [uncompassionate] soul?" He apparently was a donor to the Clinton Foundation. If true, is that what "black souls" do?  LOL!!!
BTW, If Donald Trump is a "racist bigot" like Hillary claims then why doesn't she return the $100,000 donation that he made to her foundation? Isn't that filthy, immoral racist money? By keeping Trump's money what does that say about the Clintons-who accept donations from the racist, misogynistic, Islamofascist Saudis and other bigoted, intolerant Moslem government? It would be hard to find bigger hypocrites than the Clintons, no?



You've got to feel compassion for these people. They mean so well in wanting to save us from ourselves, but just can't catch a break from Nature.
I've got very bad news for the nearly bankrupt, catastrophic, save-the-earth-from-industrial-capitalism, warmunist left: that ungrateful bitch Mother Nature (aka God) will not be reversing course and rejoining your jihad on "polluting," man-caused CO2 emissions anytime soon. Maybe your not screaming loud enough and She can't hear you? Or maybe She's sick to death of your whining  and chosen to ignore you for at least another decade or two? But ignoring you She is; and this your failing movement with its shrinking numbers can't afford. For these last 18 dreadful years of what scientists call "the pause," where global temperatures defying expert predictions of dangerously soaring to record heights of two to four degrees, have stayed relatively flat
(despite rising CO2 emissions) making you look like wolf crying fools; and worse still "the [great] pause" may be greatly prolonged continuing for another 12 years-or more. That is what a distinguished "consensus" professor of climatology at the University of Washington is predicting. And he sounds alarmingly convincing-alarming for you.
Professor Tung
global ocean currents
Currents in the Atlantic could be responsible for a slowdown in temperature
In a peer-reviewed study published 21 months ago Prof. Ka Kit Tung predicted that the 18 year "pause" in the rapid rise of global temperatures-where they've greatly slowed down, stagnated or dropped (depending on how it's calculated)-will be around for at least another 12 years-or, even worse, possibly, but less likely, for another 52 years (see). This is not what you messianic doomsters want to hear. For it greatly adds to the difficulty of making your case that we need to spend trillions fighting climate change; that more important than the War on Terror is transitioning humanity ASAP from dirty fossil fuel running economies to clean, green windmills, solar power and electric cars.
Tung's study of the Atlantic Ocean has discovered that the current persistent "pause" is part of a recurring cycle of short global cooling trends of 30 years duration or more that go back to the pre-industrial age when humanity was significantly poorer but safe (the good old days); that these cycles are caused by the Atlantic Ocean sucking heat from the atmosphere and slightly cooling down the "imperiled" Earth.
Tung claims that the last 30 year cooling cycle was from 1945-1975 (where global temperatures slightly dropped raising fears among scientists of a coming ice age); and before then was the cooling period of 1880-1910. And now since 1998, which set the record for being the warmest global year on record since 1880 (when global temps were first recorded) temperatures have slightly fallen. This defied IPPC (UN) projections which predicted that global temps would surpass the 1998 high and keep on perilously rising until heat trapping CO2 emissions were substantially cut. But since then a dirty huffing and puffing industrializing third world (led by China and India) has been vastly increasing CO2  output; but temperatures relative to 1998 have fallen going nowhere near the 1998 high (caused by the Super El Nino not by human behavior)*. 
*If we measure the last 18 years relative to global temps from 1975 (the end of the last 30 year cooling cycle) we find slight increases of 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) a value close to zero.
Global warming 22nd of the 23 top national issues in Pew poll.
From Obama on down these last 18 years have greatly damaged the credibility of your movement to such a degree that of the top 23 important national issues global warming ranks a low 22. For predictions of soaring world temps causing snowless winters, iceless arctic summers, devastating coastal floods displacing millions, droughts, famines, plagues killing millions, etc haven't materialized. And if 18 years has politically caused you alarmists so much harm what will the next 12 do-or possibly another 52? For Prof. Tung has depressingly discovered that some past cooling cycles though rare have extended for up to 70 years-and this cycle could be one of them.
Desperate warmunist sets himself on fire  

protesting CO2  pollution  and becomes a  CO2  polluter./sarc

What if that happens. What will you do? Go on a rampage vandalizing SUVs?  Set yourselves on fire? Go terrorist and assassinate Big Oil execs to draw attention to your     collapsincause? Or sinking into utter despair join nihilistic alarmists like Guy McPherson declaring all is lost (see). That we've reached the tipping point of no return on carbon emissions. That the climate is spinning out of control beyond our power to stop. That because we're not deindustrializing we're going to die. What are you going to do?


Son of an economics teacher with a B.A. in the subject John Maynard Kaine is shown here in 2014 presenting his paper at the Clinton Foundation on his revolutionary idea, "Spiritual Regeneration Through Higher Taxation." Why won't he make this speech public?  What is he hiding?/sarc
that it would be good and beneficial for me for government to raise my taxes and take more of my wealth and money then it follows that the more in taxes it takes from me the "better off" and happier I'll be. Meaning that for our runaway tax and spend government to benefit me to the highest possible degree (giving me the biggest boost and bang for my bucks) it must take all of my money, wealth and property-every dime that I have and cent that I make from now till my dying day.
In other words, according to the new economic theory of Tim Kaine (could it be he's the new John Maynard Keynes?) in taking 100% of my wealth and everything I own (whether I'm rich, poor or middle class) the government by completely impoverishing me (stripping me of all my wealth and possessions down to the clothes on my back) will benefit me tremendously with blessings far outweighing in value the wealth that I had before reducing me to penury.

Senator Kaine praying to God for guidance in developing his revolutionary taxation ideas.  
In other words, in some new way that Tim Kaine has yet to explain (I'm waiting for the publication of his General Theory) I will be better off and richer than I was before- having nothing but my life and naked shivering self as if I were a world renouncing cave dwelling ascetic.
Now either Kaine is speaking economic nonsense,  or I'm just too dumb to fathom his meaning. Assuming that the latter is the case and, like John Maynard Keynes, Tim Kaine is a genius, let's try and figure out what he means by the term "better off."
Now if higher taxation will make me happier and "better off," and the more I'm taxed the happier and "better off" I'll be, then by "better off" Kaine can't mean greater material wealth-more riches than I had before government made me penniless. No matter how much government takes from me and gives to some one else, or invest in whatever projects or programs, it's not going to increase my wealth or make me happier or better off in the material sense than before. Then what in God's name can "better off" mean to Tim Kaine?
Perhaps Kaine's faith will provide a clue. A devout Roman Catholic and graduate from a Jesuit High School Kaine believes in a God, a moral law, an immortal soul and an after life of heaven, hell and purgatory. So if, as Kaine believes, the government can benefit me by taxing me more, and can benefit me optimally by taxing and taking away all of my wealth, then "better off" can only mean one thing:  benefiting me spiritually-or bettering my soul. It can only mean that Tim Kaine has discovered a new, revolutionary way to spiritual betterment, enrichment and inner wealth:  
In other words, Tim Kaine seems to believe that if government taxes me into poverty and takes everything I own God will benefit, bless me and greatly enrich my immortal soul. What else can Kaine mean? We've seen that taking my wealth from me and giving it to another (redistributing it) makes me poorer and doesn't materially benefit me at all. Indeed, the Bible (which Kaine says he reads and believes in) teaches that "man doesn't live by bread alone," and "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
Okay then. So when Kaine says that raising my taxes will make me "better off" it's likely he had these two verses of scripture in mind.  In other words, by taking the clothes off my back and the bread from my mouth government will set me free-liberate me from the dead weight, corruption and chains of owning material things; indeed, it will renew me morally and spiritually and make it easier for me to pass through the needles eye into heaven when I die. 
So by making me "better off" through what appears to be punishing taxation John Maynard Kaine means spiritual regeneration. There is no other possible explanation. When government raises our taxes it's not the state who'll reward us with material blessings, but God Himself with the riches of the spirit. In other words, for Kaine, God loves government above all earthly things; and He loves people more when government is taxing them to death and the rich are made poor. What else can Kaine mean by the words "better off?" Nothing else makes sense.


  Hillary Clinton stands with George McGovern before speaking at the Johnson County Democrats' annual barbecue, Oct. 6, 2007, in Iowa City. | AP Photo
Democrat George McGovern senator of South Dakota ran for the presidency in 1972 against incumbent President Richard M. Nixon and was crushed in a landslide election winning only 1 state out of 50 and Washington DC. Bill Clinton and then girlfriend Hillary Rodham worked for the McGovern campaign in Texas where Bill was in charge of organizing the state for the senator. During the 2008 primaries McGovern endorsed his good friend Hillary against Barack Obama, then urged her to back out when her candidacy seemed hopeless (see).
 Bill Clinton and McGovern in 1972.
On October 21, 2012, during the waning days of the presidential campaign that would reelect Obama to a predictably disastrous second term, George McGovern died at age 90. Five days later on October 26th McGovern was laid to rest in Sioux Falls, So. Dakota* (see). That very day Hillary Clinton (who did not attend the funeral) celebrated her 65th birthday (see). 
*It was at Sioux Falls in 1971 that McGovern announced his run for the presidency (see).
George McGovern's funeral.
Now here is where it gets profound. Hillary who celebrated her 65th birthday on the 26th day of October 2012 (when failed 1972 presidential candidate George McGovern was interred) was formally and historically nominated at the DNC on the 26th day of July 2016 as her party's presidential candidate. Needing 2380 delegates to win, the state during that put Hillary over the top (during the roll call) was none other than South Dakota, the home state of George McGovern (see and see). In fact, before Ann Tornberg*, head of the SD Democrat Party announced the 15 delegates Hillary would receive to secure her nomination she mentioned that her state was "the home of 1972 presidential candidate George McGovern (see)."
*It is interesting to note that Ann Tornberg is running as a pro-life, pro-family Democrat for the SD state senate (see).
Ann Tornberg
Oddly from George McGovern's funeral on Hillary's 65th birthday to her nomination on July 26th was exactly 45 months-giving us the number of the next sitting president (see). Linking the significant election year number 45 to 1972 loser George McGovern looks ominous for Hillary. 
New York State Republican Party Chairman Edward Cox with the Trump family at the RNC.
Even more fascinating and perhaps meaningful in an oracular sense is that on July 19th, seven  days before Hillary won the Democratic nomination with George McGovern's state putting her over the top, Donald Trump won his party's nomination in Cleveland. Astonishingly, and you can't make this stuff up, July 19th coincided with the 95th anniversary of George McGovern's birth (see).
But there's more. By design it was The Donald's home state of New York with its 89 delegates that put him over the top on the delegate count. Now as this day was George McGovern's 95th birthday (the loser of the 1972 election to Nixon) incredibly the first to speak for the New York State delegation (before Donald Trump Jr. cast the delegate vote) was Edward F. Cox. Who is this man? The head of the New York State Republican Party, and son-in-law of none other than President Richard M. Nixon  (see and see) .
But there's more. As I pointed out HERE the year of Donald Trump's birth, 1946, was politically auspicious for four US presidents: two of our 44 presidents, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, were born in 1946; and two other presidents, John Kennedy and Richard Nixon, began their political careers in that year. Now by providence or chance it just so happens that Edward F. Cox (son-in-law of Richard Nixon (who defeated George McGovern) also was born in 1946 (see). Could this be a sign that the 1946 born Donald Trump will surmount all of this blunders and setbacks and become the first New Yorker since Franklin Roosevelt to become president?  Roosevelt won the presidency on November 8, 1932; November 8, 2016 is the 84th anniversary of his victory. 
Does the presidential race of 1972 when George McGovern was badly defeated by Richard Nixon foreshadow Hillary Clinton losing to underdog Donald Trump in November?
When McGovern was laid to rest on Hillary's 65th birthday he was 90 years, 3 months  and 7 days old. This translates into 32,972 days, a five digit number that ends in "72" an abbreviation for the year 1972 (see).
Moreover, McGovern was defeated on November 7, 1972; from then to November 8, 2016 is exactly 44 years and 1 day. This translates into 16,072 days, giving us another five digit number ending in "72." (see)
Could these be providential signs that the American people will do to Hillary Clinton on election day what they did to George McGovern in 1972, and deny her the 45th presidency? Of course, no one but God has anyway of knowing. But it is very odd that when McGovern was defeated on November 7, 1972 Hillary was 25 years and 13 days old. What is odd about this?  25 years and 13 days translates into 9145 days of calendar time, a four digit number ending in 45 (see).
By the way, you will notice above that when George McGovern was laid to rest on Hillary's 65th birthday he was 90 years old. 90 is a multiple of 45 twice.  Will election day be the burial of tired, old, crooked Hillary's dream of being the 45th President of the United State?  Hopefully it will.


The Patriarch Abraham about to sacrifice son Isaac to God.
You've heard it said by David Horowitz over at Frontpage that "Inside every liberal there's a totalitarian screaming to get out." Well it's also true, as you will see below, that INSIDE EVERY LIBERAL THERE'S AN "ISLAMOPHOBIC BIGOT" THEY'RE TRYING TO KEEP IN. Indeed, I have found that in my debates with liberals (who mindlessly bleed for Moslems believing they're the most oppressed and discriminated group of victims on Earth) that if you scratch them hard enough you'll  find a hypocrite underneath with contempt for the faith and its millions of normative, mainstream devout believers-75% of which, as studies show, are unreformed, anti-modern, anti-liberal, backward, reactionary, medieval fundamentalists hostile to democracy, freedom and western civilization (see).
Sharia fundamentalist Khizr Khan.
Lately I've been disputing on Disqus with a leftist warrior named Peter Johnson. We've been arguing back and forth about Khirz Khan, Islam, jihadists and Syrian refugees. Khirz Khan as you know is the American Moslem Gold Star parent from Pakistan who lost a heroic son, Captain Humayun Khan, in the Iraq War to an al Qaida suicide bomber who blew him up as he was protecting fellow soldiers. As you know Khan used his son's death in a vicious partisan political attack at the DNC to smear and lie about Donald Trump-inferring that he was a black souled anti-Moslem bigot (ignorant of the US Constitution) for wanting to temporarily halt the flow of Syrian refugees into this country until the vetting process in rooting out terrorists was perfected.
At one point in his crazy, unhinged anti-Trump tirade Khan asked the billionaire candidate what sacrifices he had made in his life as he himself had made in losing his heroic son in Iraq. Of course, his son's death was a painful personal loss for Khan, but not, strictly speaking, a personal sacrifice. For it was the son who sacrificed his life to save some fellow soldiers not the father sacrificing his son to do that or anything else. In fact, the father who perhaps was opposed to the Iraq War (most American Moslems were) was against his son joining the army to fight Moslems abroad. Indeed, if Khirz Khan knowing what he knows today could go back in time it is likely he'd do everything in his power to stop his son from sacrificing his life that day; even if that meant the soldiers that he saved from death, dying instead.
But Johnson stubbornly insisted that this Moslem man (who in attacking Trump was dragging his son's memory through the mud of partisan politics) had made a very painful personal sacrifice that Trump had never made--when, in fact, Trump's loss of his father, brother, a grandmother and uncle while he's been alive were just as personally painful to him. Truth is, strictly speaking, a personal sacrifice means "giving up something of value that you want to keep especially in order to get or do something else or help someone (see)."  What personal sacrifice is not is the simple, common, everyday loss of a loved one to death which most people suffer in their lives.  
In searching for an instructive analogy to clarify the meaning of sacrifice  for Johnson I then asked him to think of the very moving and beautiful biblical story of the patriarch Abraham who was ordered by God to sacrificially kill his beloved son Isaac in order to prove his righteousness, faith and love. And then Johnson, the so-called progressive compassionate leftist friend and lover of all true Moslems (not jihadists or murdering terrorists who he considers unIslamic) stepped in it big time making a complete fool of himself, and showing his ignorance of the faith. His is what he said:
"Yes Abraham was ready to kill his own son in order to obey God?---something that if he claimed today, would quickly and correctly cause his case to be filed under the mental illness records of the local psych ward. Other than that, I don't get your analogy?......"
Now this Peter Johnson in prior posts arrogantly and condescendingly treated me as if I were a blind, bigoted, hate driven ignoramus about Islam; and that my use of such terms as "Islamic terrorism," "radical Islamic jihadism," "Islamic supremacism" or "Islamonazism" was, he said "offensive and insulting to most Muslims" who were peace-loving souls; and that this was evidence of my hatred, ignorance and insensitivity. And laughably this arrogant fool was going to set me straight and be my mentor enlightening me about the true nature of Islam so that I could approach it in a more positive, civilized and inoffensive (politically correct) way.  But, as you'll see from my reply, it turned out that Johnson hadn't even read the Koran; that what he knows about Islam is from left wing web sites; and that he's at the kindergarten level of learning about the faith. My reply was as follows:
Prophet Mohammed descendant of Abraham.
"OMG. For a leftist Islamophile who goes out of his way not to offend Moslems, and to praise their faith as a harmless, civilized and even beneficial "religion of peace," you're being brutally offensive to Islamic sensibilities, values and culture. Do you realize what you said? Are you that ignorant of Islam and its core beliefs that you called Abraham, of all people, a "mental case" for obeying the will of Allah and his command to sacrifice the life of his beloved Isaac to test  his loyalty, righteousness and faith? And do you have any idea  what would happen to you if you stated that publicly (defaming Abraham) in most if not all Moslem countries? You'd be arrested for blasphemy and legally put to death; or if you're lucky you'd have your tongue cut out or be brutally flogged receiving hundreds of lashes for your crime.
And do you know why what you said is blasphemous to devout, normal, mainstream, traditional Moslems (including Khirz Khan who believes in the supremacy of Sharia law and literal truth of the Koran)? Because the Prophet Mohammed regarded Abraham as his biological ancestor, and, most importantly, the TRUE FOUNDER OF ISLAM-the real, true, authentic, God certified monotheistic faith.
Apparently you're ignorant that the Prophet Mohammed taught that Allah revealed Islam to Abraham in MECCA the holiest site of Islam where he allegedly lived. Apparently you're ignorant that the near, sick, "psycho" sacrifice of his son Isaac took place there. Apparently you're ignorant that when devout sharia Moslems like Khirz Khan turn toward Mecca and pray five times a day they ask Allah to send His blessings upon the "mentally ill" patriarch. Apparently you're ignorant that Abraham, the Founder, Father and First Prophet of Islam is regarded by Moslems as the moral and spiritual model of faith, sacrifice, commitment, patience, obedience and friendship with God.
The Quran sums up the view of the Prophet Abraham among Muslims: "Who can be better in religion than one who submits his whole self to Allah, does good, and follows the way of Abraham the true in Faith? For Allah did take Abraham for a friend" (Quran 4:125).
You utter crazy ignorant confused leftist ideological fool. Saying that Abraham was a "mentally ill psycho " for obeying the Almighty is equivalent of saying that the Prophet Mohammed-who by divine revelation rediscovered and restored the Islam of Abraham (allegedly perverted by Christians and Jews)-was himself a deranged "mental case" unfit to govern, command or lead. It's the equivalent of saying that Islam (an Abrahamic faith) is a religion of the insane; and that the hundreds and millions of faithful Moslems (like Khirz Khan and his family) who include Abraham in their daily prayers are praying for a religious lunatic and are collectively deranged.
Now taking Abraham's intended sacrifice of Isaac as Islam's model of a father sacrificing his son how then is Captain Khan's heroic self-sacrifice in Iraq a sacrificial death made by his dad? As Khirz Khan was opposed to his son joining the army and putting his life at risk in fighting Moslems how then was his death a personal sacrifice? From the Islamic viewpoint, using Abraham's intended sacrifice of Isaac as a model, your assertion that Khan losing his son in Iraq was a personal sacrifice makes neither moral nor Islamic sense.
Perhaps a better analogy would be a Moslem honor killing of a child-widely practiced across the Islamic world (see). This is where a Moslem father or mother kills a disobedient child for sinning against Allah and bringing shame upon Him, them and their family. Indeed, Moslem parents who are shamed by a sinful son that they love but need to kill draw courage and strength from Abraham's example to go through with it. In other words, honor killings (horrible as the practice is) is a real sacrifice of a child for a higher moral good: restoring family honor and its good standing with God. In short, what the Khans suffered in the death of their hero son was a painful personal loss, not a personal sacrifice of any kind-such as would have been the case had Khan killed his son to stop him from joining the US army believing that killing fellow Moslems was a grievous sin that would have damned his soul to hell.      
Hopefully I've clarified for you the meaning of the term personal sacrifice as it's understood by most Moslems. And before I go I strongly urge that you stop getting your info about Islam from left-wing websites and buy a copy of the Koran and study it so you can begin your real education in Islam." 
 To summarize the above, in taking Johnson's assertion that Abraham (the true founder of Islam) was a "mentally ill psycho" to its logical conclusion it means that all fundamentalist Moslems (75% of them) are potentially dangerous mental cases or ticking time bombs. It means that the Islamic world community (umma) is one vast insane asylum of religious nuts and lunatics. In other words, by his own yardstick, in calling Abraham a "mental case" for dutifully and Islamically obeying God, Peter Johnson exposed himself as an offensive, bigoted, hypocritical, anti-Moslem Islamophobe who inwardly regards most Moslems (as he likely does all fundamentalists) contemptuously as dangerous mentally deranged psychos.
But the wonder of it all is that from Barack Obama on down the Peter Johnsons of this country want to open the floodgates of Islamic immigration and add to the millions of Abraham emulating,
unreformed, anti-liberal, freedom hating, reactionary, regressive medieval fundamentalist Moslem psychos already here. It's mind-boggling. But then liberalism is itself a mental disorder.








SHOCK: Hillary Clinton just got some very BAD news from this very BLUE ...

It was to the National Home Builders Association. It was measured, subdued, thoughtful, honest, funny. Gone were the bombast and outrageous statements. Gone was anything controversial that could be negatively spun. And incredibly, he did it without a teleprompter keeping him on message. What is alarming is that I didn't think he was capable of this. What is alarming is that if he continues looking so competent, presidential and unscary til November there's a very real danger he'll make it to the White House.








,,View image on Twitter




she'll be in serious danger of being targeted by millions of angry right-wing gun owners who'll load their assault weapons with the lethal Constitution and take deadly aim at her head.





Hey, remember this full length motion picture about the assassination of George W. Bush?



(thanx Sue2)

In 2008 race against Obama Clinton made these statements. "Asked if her continuing fight for the nomination against Senator Obama hurts the Democratic party, Sen. Hillary Clinton replied, "I don't. Because again, I've been around long enough. You know, my husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know, I just don't understand it. You know, there's lots of speculation about why it is. “


"So in 2008 Hillary actually said that she remained in the race as there was a chance that her opponent would be assassinated."


Exactly, Sue. Trump said nothing as inflammatory as that comment.


MARCH 3, 2016

AUGUST 8, 2016
If 121 GOP national security experts with an open letter issued in March couldn't stop Donald Trump from seizing their party's presidential nomination what do 50 of them hope to achieve now? How can fewer succeed when 71 more of them had failed? Anyway you analyze this letter it's politically and policy wise laughable in the extreme. This is what they're saying:
After Obama and Hillary blew up American foreign policy and turned the Middle East into one vast strife-torn killing field with hundreds and thousands dead that Trump is going to blow it up some more, make it worse causing more death, destruction and mayhem. That is what they're warning. But the question is what will President Hillary do differently from her disastrous, incompetent, crooked reign at the State Department? Hillary (as Rumsfeld would say) is a known known. She's been in politics for decades. Trump is a known unknown and is new to the game. We know what Obama and Hillary did: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Egypt, the Islamic State, Yemen, Iran, Crimea, the China Sea, etc; and we know what Hillary intends to do as president as she has said it often enough: stay the course and continue what she and Obama accomplished together in the world.
But Trump the nonideological known unknown  has a realistic view of the Obama-Clinton foreign policy mess and wants to clean it up. For Trump US foreign policy falls way short of where it should and could be and was not too long ago after the fall of the Soviet Union when we were indisputably numero uno. Indeed, Trump has learned from the disastrous foreign policy decisions of the Bush and Obama/Clinton years and vows not to repeat them, and he won't as his focus will be on rebuilding the economy which is in decline with massive debt and is our overarching national security threat. That's not recklessness. It's wisdom.
Hillary who apparently has learned nothing from her blunders at State and insists that she was a great historic success with a splendid record of achievements (like traveling millions of miles wearing herself out and enriching the coffers of the Clinton Foundation) has vowed to stay the same disastrous course insisting that more of the same is needed, not radical Trump change.
Tired, old, miserable looking Hillary Clinton (this campaign is slowing draining her strength and energy) complained in a 2010 Esquire interview that her job as Secretary of State was wearing her out and that she couldn't endure a second term of it. But isn't the presidency far more demanding, stressful and exhausting than Secretary of State (see)?
In other words, we need more Arab Springs to destabilize the Middle East; we need to precipitously pull our troops from Afghanistan, like we did from Iraq, so that al-Qaida and the Taliban can prevail and return to power again; we need to send billions more to the terror masters of Iran so they can more effectively spread their brand of radical Shiite Islam and become the regional hegemon. In short, we need more insanity hoping to get a better result. And Donald Trump is the crazy, reckless, dangerous one?
These 50 Republicans like their ineffective 121 predecessors have lost their minds. They're no different from Ford, Kissinger, GHW Bush and the other establishment Republicans who tried to stop Ronald Reagan saying his strong anti-communism made him one of history's most dangerous men, and that he couldn't be trusted with the nuclear codes as he might cause Nuclear Armageddon. It was Reagan's predecessor JImmy Carter who blew up America's foreign policy then. And now we have 50 Republican experts who want to give Carterism another chance after three terribly destructive terms. Who in heaven's name is being reckless here?





Back in May of last year I posted a piece on this site called "Is George Zimmerman A Sign The Six Baltimore Cops Will Be Acquitted Of Any Crime In The Death Of Freddie Gray (see)? In it I noted two extraordinary coincidences which I believed at the time might prophetically anticipate the racially mixed Baltimore Six being acquitted of all crimes in the death of Freddie Gray-just as racially mixed George Zimmerman was rightly acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin by a jury of six.
In the piece I noted that Freddie Gray's arrest (which led to his death) on April 12, 2015 fell squarely on the 3rd anniversary of Florida judge Mark Herr's ruling that prosecutor Angela Corey's politicized affidavit accusing Zimmerman of murder sufficiently established probable cause. I also noted that just 23 days after Gray's death* Zimmerman was in the news again as the target of a shooting where a bullet was fired into his car shattering a window and injuring him with flying glass (see).
*Gray died on April 19, 2015.
What do Eric Garner, Freddie Gray, Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown have in common, besides being canonized as saintly martyrs in the cause of racial justice? If they had been decent, good, law-abiding citizens they'd all be alive today.
Judge Barry Williams
Then it happened: On July 27th (67 weeks after Freddie Gray's fatal arrest) to the dismay of Black Lives Matter and the race obsessed, lynch mob left (which rioted over Gray) a Judge Barry Williams (a black man) struck down all charges on the Baltimore Six; and crazy, out of control, lynch mob prosecutor Marilyn Mosby was excoriated by her peers and in the press. And just as Freddie Gray's death was followed by Zimmerman making the news, incredibly it happened again. For just ten days after the last three defendants of the Baltimore Six were acquitted it was reported that Zimmerman was the alleged victim of an assault in a Sanford, Florida restaurant for talking about killing Trayvon Martin (see). You can't make this stuff up.
But just as fascinating and incredible is that just as Freddie Gray's arrest fell on the third anniversary of Judge Herr's rulling in the George Zimmerman case so July 27th (when the nightmare was finally over for the remaining Six) landed on the third day of the Democrat Convention. What is fascinating is that the day before on the 26th is when eight black mothers (including Trayvon Martin's mom) of the "Mothers of the Movement" endorsed Hillary Clinton for president; and the following day on the 28th (the day of Hillary's acceptance speech) Dallas Sheriff Lupe Valdez was booed by despicable, cop hating, Black Lives Matter fascists when she asked for a moment of silence to honor fallen cops.
BLM booed Sheriff Valdez.
Also incredible is that April 12, 2015, the day of Freddie Gray's arrest (67 weeks before the exoneration of the Six), was the day that 67 year old Hillary Clinton (formerly the 67th Secretary of State) launched her second presidential campaign.
Could it be that Hillary Clinton starting her run for the White House on the day of Freddie Grey's fatal arrest, and the Baltimore Six being finally acquitted during the convention that would nominate her president, are signs of the imminent demise for the radical fringe Black Lives Matter movement? And that it reached its political apogee at the convention and now will wane and disappear going the way of Occupy Wall Street? Or could it signal that more BLM inspired racial strife, violence and cop killings are ahead? And that this will help Donald Trump (the pro-cop law and order candidate) defeat Hillary Clinton in November? We shall see.
 Image and video hosting by TinyPic 


Trump Says He's 'Afraid' Election Is 'About to Be Rigged' - NBC News


POLLS: Donald Trump's feud with the Khan family was very damaging - AOL

It was deja vu all over again. Last week the normally super-confident "winners never quit" Donald Trump very certain of being elected 45th president, in a moment of uncharacteristic doubt told supporters in Ohio that he feared "the election will be rigged" against him, and that he could lose in November. This triggered a frenzy across anti-Trump media land speculating that with Hillary "surging" in post-convention polls that Trump was turning negative and pessimistic about his election prospects; that seeing a dimming  light at the end of the tunnel for taking the White House he was playing the "rigged card" to delegitimize the outcome of a Clinton victory; and that the election if he should lose would be unfairly and criminally stolen from him.
But as I said, it was "deja vu all over again." For Trump during the primaries had said practically the same thing about the GOP primary process. In early April after losing to Ted Cruz in Wisconsin, and with Cruz and Kasich afterwards forming a stop Trump alliance, Trump fearing that he could lose and be "cheated" out of the nomination in a contested convention said in mid April, "It's a rigged system. It's a crooked system. It's a 100 percent totally rigged and broken system (see).
But then came April 26th and Trump's super Tuesday landslide sweep of five northeastern states which all but clinched the nomination for him. And when the primaries were over for both parties the results for Trump and the GOP were astounding, as it hopefully will be in November.
Trump with his 13 million plus primary votes (eliminating 16 rivals)     set a GOP record out doing both McCain and Romney by 3.5 million votes, and George W. Bush in 2000 by 1.5 million votes. Moreover, Republicans overall outdid Democrats by 750,000 votes as they gained a total of more than 8 million votes over 2008 (28 million vs. 20 million); while Dems (moving in the opposite direction) lost 8 million votes (35 million vs. 27 million). Another disappointment for Dems was Hillary Clinton under performing from 2008 by a huge 2,052,365 votes-gathering 15,805,136 vs. 17,857,501 votes eight years ago. 
But on top of the above bad numbers for Dems (showing a far more motivated Republican party), where they are really hurting is with the vitally important independents. Indeed, according to a July 25th CNN poll Trump is crushing Clinton with independents by a whopping 18 point margin 46% to 28% (see).  And though the Gold Star parents blowup occurred shortly after this poll was taken there is evidence from a more recent poll that Trump's support with independents is flourishing like never before and continues to grow.
This is what I mean:
Amazingly, as Rasmussen reported two days ago (despite Khizr Khans vicious unwarranted partisan attack on Trump and his "insensitive" replies) independent support for him has been surging. Indeed, from just a week ago Hillary who enjoyed a 5 point post-convention lead over Trump with independents has precipitiously   dropped an astonishing 17 points with Trump now leading her by a commanding 41% to 29% (see).
So now we have two major credible quality polls (one center-left the other center right) showing an overwhelming double-digit gap between Trump and Clinton on independents-exceeding what Romney achieved in 2012. Indeed, Romney beat Obama with independents nationally by just 5 points 50% to 45%. But this time it looks like independents by double-digit majorities are with Trump; and if Trump can just sustain that margin to election day its inconceivable that he would lose.
As for those who challenge the value of independents in this or in any national election and say "it's importance is overblown" they are ignoring that there are more indies today than ever before as noted in 2014-when Republicans won back the Senate from Dems (see). It is two years later and as disenchantment with Washington is far stronger now than it was then there is certainly more indies fed up with the status quo looking for a leader of Herculean strength to clean out the Augean stables of DC and Wall Street corruption.
Moreover, as astute Washington Post reporter Robert Costa told Charlie Rose (I heard this on Rush) there seems to be a new class of voters in the multi-millions who he calls "the previously disengaged." These are a silent ANYONE BUT THE ESTABLISHMENT voting block that sat out the last two elections and are roaringly for Donald Trump the ultimate establishment bashing nonpolitical outsider (see five minutes into the interview).
The center right FOX News poll which sent MSM into ecstasy this week showing Hillary Clinton with a ten point post-convention lead over Trump (five less than Carter over Reagan in the August 1980 Gallup poll) was taken from a sample of 1022 registered voters. Not a very large group. On the other hand, the center left USC/LA Times Daybreak (daily rolling) poll (taken from a larger group of 3000 registered voters) showing Clinton (like all other major polls) with a good post-convention bounce (and sliding numbers for Trump) have them at a virtual dead heat at 44%, and is holding steady with Clinton unable to rise any further.  Based on the number of participants (3000 vs. 1022) which of these two quality polls seems more credible?
As you can see from the above the doomsayers are very wrong: the Trump campaign is anything but imploding. Typical of this anti-gravity impossible candidate when he seems to stumble and fall and it looks like the end is near he defies conventional wisdom    
and stumbles and falls upwards.






Is Khirz's Khan's ideal of an "empathetic leader" the Prophet Mohammed who ethnically cleansed Medina of Jews, and savagely ordered the beheading of up to 900 Jewish men in front of their horrified wives and kids  because they wouldn't renounce their Judaism and bow down to him as God's final messenger and prophet with the ultimate revelation of truth to mankind? In other words, does Mr. Khan believe that if Trump modeled himself on the Prophet Mohammed it would save his "black soul" from the sin and darkness of cruelty and inhumanity?      




ApolloSpeaks    Tex

Simple Definition of the term "sacrifice."

:the act of giving up something that you want to keep especially in order to get or do something else or help someone.

: an act of killing a person or animal in a religious ceremony as an offering or sacrifice to please a god.  


Do you now understand the universally accepted meaning of the word "sacrifice?" And how it's completely and dishonestly distorted by Khirz Khan in his slanderous, politicized, demonizing of Donald Trump  as a self-centered, anti-Moslem bigot ignorant of the Constitution? Do you understand that like Trump Khan never in his life personally put himself at risk to save the lives of others like his heroic, self-sacrificing son did in Iraq? And that he Khan is no more sacrificing or self-sacrificing or heroically selfless then is Donald Trump or most human beings?  Truth is if Khan losing a son (hero or not) was a sacrifice for him then Trump is just as sacrificing having lost a father, brother, grandmother and uncle while he's been alive.

Tex  ApolloSpeaks 

No. However I do understand how a soulless, vapid Trump apologist might try to define the word and try to rationalize Trump's total lack of empathy.

Sacrifice is to give up something valuable for the GREATER GOOD. Soldiers do this. Builders do not (nor do their elder parents, or siblings), and this is especially true of builders who had the opportunity to serve their country and "got out of it" by designs, by deferments, and by getting a doctor's note: "Donald cannot join you in VietNam, his foot hurts."

ApolloSpeaks    Tex 

Tell little adorable Megan Nichols, crippled from birth with brittle bone disease, that Donald Trump is a heartless, soulless, vapid man totally lacking in empathy, compassion and love and she'd think you were mad.

As Maury Povich says in the video, "Donald Trump is one of the most generous men that I know." And indeed he is "most generous" as he can probably multiply his act of kindness to this little unfortunate girl thousands of times. So much for Khizr Kahn's filthy, disgusting, black lie denigrating Trump as having a "black soul" as if he were an evil creature of darkness like the prophet Mohammed who he reveres.         As far as Megan Nichols is concerned her great her great, good, humane benefactor Donald Trump has a HEART OF GOLD.

If Donald Trump's legal avoidance of the draft during the Vietnam War era disqualifies him from becoming President then what about Bill Clinton whose avoidance is legendary?

Now that you know Clinton's history of avoiding the draft and becoming a soldier to "give up something valuable for the GREATER GOOD" was it right, in your view, that he served as president for eight years? And should he be allowed back into the White House as First Gentleman?

Tex  ApolloSpeaks

If you're going to be promoting Trump as a "saint", perhaps you should contact him and urge him to release his tax returns so we can ALL see what a generous and feeling fellow he is.


As to "avoiding the draft", I draw a sharp distinction between those who ADVOCATE war and killing, and those who look at it as a terrible last resort, to be avoided if possible. Trump is the former, Clinton the latter. 


ApolloSpeaks   Tex 


There are no saints in politics.


If Trump weren't a generous, feeling, good-natured soul why would he help little crippled Megan Nichols? And why would Maury Povich a good, honest, charitable man testify publicly that Trump "is one of the most generous men I know" if he wasn't a witness to other acts of Trump's kindness? 


Several years ago the very generous Donald offered to donate $5 million dollars to Barack Obama's charity of choice if he released his college transcripts. Obama, however, refused, and in doing so deprived perhaps hundreds of needy children like Megan Nichols of that money. Shame on him.


Moreover, since he started his campaign Trump hasn't promoted or proposed any wars other than taking a more aggressive approach to the one we're fighting against ISIS.



Wow, that's sad. You have to go back 16 years to have Trump give a girl a cheque. The mother was not floored, and did not break into tears, so it wasn't anything life changing. Man, you're desperate.




Megan Nichols is emblematic of Trump's great generosity and giving soul. As Maury Povich says in the video: "Donald Trump is one of the most generous men that I know." Meaning that there were many other Megan Nichols-before and since; but done quietly and humbly as long time friend Mayor Giuliani recently said (see).


Trump's soul is so unfeeling, inhumane and black that apparently he contributed $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

Donald Trump appears to have donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation - AOL







classicalmusiclover  ApolloSpeaks  


Your condemnation of the Khans as immoral politically driven hypocrites is sick and twisted..


It's Donald Trump who has no moral compass, and neither do you nor anyone who supports him.


ApolloSpeaks   classicalmusiclover


What moral compass were the Khans using when they politicized and demeaned their patriotic son's heroic death and used it to vilify and lie about Trump being  an anti-Moslem racist bigot who is ignorantly violating the Constitution? What political compass were the Democrats using when they put the Khans up to this charade?


classicalmusiclover  Plutarchus 


There was nothing immoral about their attack on Trump. 


He has indeed sacrificed nothing comparable to losing a son on the battlefield, as he demonstrated in his fumbling interview with Stephanopoulos. He actually tried to peddle job creation as a "sacrifice." This was completely an unforced error on Trump's part.


And if his policies were in place when Mr. Khan immigrated from Pakistan, he would indeed have been blocked from doing so.


I guess you also missed Khan's later statement (in the interview on The Last Word, where he called on Republican leaders to repudiate Trump.

There is no evidence other than giving him a speaking slot that the DNC "put them up to" anything.


Your doubling down on Trump's criticism of the Khans  


is more evidence that you are a vile and twisted solipsist. Denying that the Khans have a moral compass is purely vile on your part.


ApolloSpeaks   classicalmusiclover


Khizr Khan's moral compass was immorally pointed downward toward   the darkness of deceit and lies about Donald Trump, not upward toward the light of truth. That Khan was on the high moral ground in attacking Trump is completely laughable as his charges of anti-Moslem bigotry and shredding the constitution  have no basis in reality or morality.


Indeed, if Captain Khan's death was such a tragic heartbreaking loss in Khizr Kahn's life then where was  his condemnation of the Iraq War (the "wrong war" as Democrats believe) that killed him? And where was

his outrage at George W. Bush who sent his son into the wrong war to die? Moreover, where was his moral outrage at Hillary

Clinton whose vote for the Iraq War Resolution

authorized Bush to go to war. And who reauthorized funding for it 21 times over a four year period?


As Captain Khan would be alive today if there were no

Iraq War Hillary then deserves more of Khan's anger and outrage than does Trump who opposed the war before Hillary did and simply wants to prevent ISIS terrorists from entering this country through poorly vetted Moslem refugees.


Hillary in part is morally responsible for

sending Captain Khan to his death, and dying for nothing in a war that  Trump had nothing to do with it.  So again I ask the question: what was the moral basis for Khizr Khan viciously attacking Donald Trump who (unlike Killery) did him and his wife and children no harm?


BTW, your claim that the Khans made a sacrifice when they lost their son in the Bush/Clinton War is preposterous. The Khans in fact sacrificed nothing. They lost a son who volunteered for military service in wartime knowing the risks; and then in  performing his duties heroically sacrificed himself to save others.  It was the son who did the sacrificing, his parents sacrificed nothing. 


Khan self-righteously asking Trump "what did you ever sacrifice in your life" when he lost his father, brother and other loved one's is an insincere duplicitous partisan political attack disguised as moral outrage and shouldn't be taken seriously. 


The DNC vetted Khan's anti-Trump speech and approved it  which is normal in a convention.



More typical dodging, weaving, and hand-flapping from ApolloSpeaks, the dishonest solipsist.


Donald Trump supported the war at the time of the War Resolution; there is no record that he did not, and he made statements in interviews supporting it. Just because he didn't vote, doesn't mean he didn't support it.


Calling Hillary "in part morally responsible for sending their son to his death" is ridiculous, because you know and I know that the actual invasion of Iraq was based on bad intelligence, which was pushed by the Bush administration over objections of their own intelligence officers.


You also miss the basic point (I believe deliberately): Trump's proposed Muslim ban, had it been in effect when Mr. Khan immigrated, would have blocked his immigration. Trump has stopped shy of making a distinction between "Islamic extremism" and Muslims who love this country. This has been read consistently by his followers--including you--as casting suspicion on the entire Muslim community. It is the Muslim ban and the trumping up of anti-Muslim sentiment that do harm.


As for claiming that the parents have sacrificed nothing when their son died, that is pure sociopathy on your part, and you know it. I believe it is because you believe that Muslims are a lower life form than Apollo the Clown. 


Plutarchus  classicalmusiclover 


In 2002 Trump weakly (half heartedly, unenthusiastically) supported the idea of going to war in Iraq telling Howard Stern "Yeah. I guess I'm for it." While at the time both Clintons were gung ho war hawks hell-bent on going to war based MOSTLY (not exclusively) on the wmd intel Bush inherited from the Saddamophobic Clinton administration   

-the new bad Bush intel confirmed the old bad Clinton intell.




In January 2003 Trump on Neil Cavuto voiced skepticism about the war indicating that the economy was more important than going to war, and that perhaps Bush should focus on the economy.


Five days into Operation Iraqi Freedom (March 25, 2003) Trump feeling very uneasy and uncertain about the war told a Hollywood reporter "It's a mess."


In July 2004 Trump ripping into Bush in an Esquire interview came out in full-throated opposition to the war saying it was a mistake and was destabilizing the Middle East. At the time the Clintons still fully supported it. In fact it wasn't until November 2005 (16 months later) that Hillary Clinton turned against the war and said it was a mistake. But Hillary's voting for refunding the war hypocritically continued until May 2007 when she joined with Barack Obama in opposing a $124 billion Iraq War spending bill.




Now while Donald Trump certainly lied about being against the war before it started so did Slick (wiley) Willy


If Khizr Khan was blocked from entering the US and remained in Pakistan it's highly probable that some other brave soldier would have done what his son did and sacrificed himself that day.


Only a liar or a fool would say that Trump and Hillary are equally responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans. Hillary, not Trump, has drops of Capt Khan's blood on her hands and every other dead soldier in that war.


And lastly define for me the term "sacrifice" then show me how it applies to the Khans in their loss of a courageous patriotic SELF-SACRIFICING son in a war.


This should help you


Now that you know the standard, universally accepted definition of the term "sacrifice" for you to say (as you did) that the Khans SACRIFICED their brave, wonderful,  heroic SELF-SACRIFICING son is illogical and stupid, right?





Does being a Gold Star parent give one the licence to slander a presidential candidate? 



When has Hillary Clinton ever heroically risked her life to save the lives of other human beings? When has Barack Obama ever done that? Better still when has Khizr Khan or his wife committed any heroic act in their lives comparable to their son's on the deadly battlefield of iraq? How can the Khans fault Donald Trump for never heroically placing his life at risk to save others when neither they nor the Clintons nor most human beings have ever done that? Self-sacrificng heroes like Captain Khan are rare.

The Khans are typical partisan Democrat hypocrites redefining and distorting the universally accepted meaning of the word "sacrifice" to suit their jihad to politically destroy Donald Trump for his views on national security. This is intellectually dishonest, morally shameful, and will fail with anyone who owns a dictionary.

(See DEBATES below for more on this subject.) 


Khizri Khan, Democratic National Convention


Moreover, weren't the Khans grossly and immorally dishonoring the memory of their son's heroic death by politicizing it during a Democrat convention, dragging his brave, life saving deed through the muck and mud of election year politics? It is completely reprehensible that the Democrats put the Khans up to this; and that they let themselves be used as political attack dogs against Trump as if it were he who killed their good, noble, patriotic son and not radical, murdering, Islamofascist terrorists-which they never once mentioned.




Furthermore, what is unconstitutional about the President of the United States banning certain groups of people for national security reasons from migrating to this country when Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did just that in 2011? Apparently they didn't know and weren't told that Obama and Hillary placed a temporary ban on Iraqi Moslem  refugees from entering this country because Islamic terrorists infiltrated their ranks-which ISIS says it's doing with Syrian refugees. Apparently it's Khizr Khan not Donald Trump who desperately needs lessons in constitutional law.




And lastly, if the Iraq War was a wrong war that should never have been fought (as Hillary now says) doesn't she then bear some blame for Captain Khan's death because of her vote authorizing the war and 21 subsequent votes to reauthorize its funding? Why do the Khans feel moral outrage at Donald Trump and none for Hillary and her war vote which helped send their son to his untimely death?

While Trump's done nothing to hurt the Khans Hillary has done so indirectly with her hawkish, gung ho support of the Iraq war from her vote on the Iraq War Resolution in 2002 to November 2005 when she said the war was a mistake-but hypocritically voted to continue funding it until May 2007. Hillary can't escape the fact that she has drops of Captain Khan's blood on her hands (and that of 3000 other dead US soldiers killed in Iraq). The Khans outrage at Donlad Trump with none for Hillary is unjustified, trumped up political bullsh*t with no moral basis.






Trump has spent a lifetime enriching himself through the use of his daddy's money and his daddy's political connections and his daddy's business connections.

He has earned the scorn of employees, contractors, lenders, and customers. He has bullied them, threatened them with legal action, and left them holding the bag on multiple occasions.

Great people don't need to constantly tell you how great they are.



What does your ignorant critique of Trump have to do with the Khan's immoral politicization of his son's death? His lying about Trump violating the US Constitution? And his faulting Trump for never having risked his life to save others when Hillary has never acted heroically herself?

Also, was JFK's political career invalid because he relied on his criminal, bootlegger, mob tied father and his wealth to run for Congress, the Senate and the Presidency?

And if Trump is such a horrible boss and unfairly stiffs  his employees, and if he screws contractors and lenders, then how do you explain the tens and thousands of happy employees who work for him? And how do you explain the contractors the world over working on his projects? Moreover, why does Trump have no problem obtaining loans for his projects if he screws lenders? How come his credit so good?

And lastly, there's no such thing as businessmen who aren't in business to enrich themselves. Or could it be that you're an anti-business nut who thinks that "profits" are immoral?




Jay Thompson


"Khans like Trump sacrificed nothing. They lost a son who heroically sacrificed himself. It wasn't their sacrifice, it was his"..
Are you friggin kidding us?
It's not a parents sacrifice when they lose a child in service of their country!?
That's about the worst thing i have ever heard in defence of a political position.
You need to really think about that statement you made and if you do and you feel no shame for saying it, I really feel sorry for anyone in your condition.
And if youre an American and a human you might want to apologize.




No need to apologize.The Khans lost a son who heroically sacrificed himself. If they made the decision for the son to risk his life sending him to his death to save others then it would be their sacrifice-they would own it and participate in the glory of his heroism. If you chose to risk your life to save another and die doing so it is your sacrifice and yours alone-not your parents', not your wife's. not your childrens', not your friends'. No one but you are the self-sacrificing hero.





 I'm glad for ANY AND ALL attacks on this Gold Star couple coming from the right, and especially from Donald. It makes you look hateful and small. And scared and petty and mean spirited. I LOVE it!



Now only if these misogynistic Moslem terrorists can restrain themselves till after election day from launching more mass murder attacks here and in Europe they might get their wish of having a "weak" woman in the White House over a strong, aggressive alpha male who wants to "bomb the hell out of them."






ApolloSpeaks says, "Khans like Trump sacrificed nothing."

Message: "Losing a child to the defense of this nation is NOT a sacrifice. Ditto losing a spouse, or any loved one. No sacrifice there. Cop's wives wailing about their husbands shot dead in the line of duty? No sacrifice. Suck it up, you babies. You didn't lose anything, you didn't risk anything."


It would have been helpful to you to have looked up the meaning of u the term "sacrifice" before going off on an emotional tangent and misusing it to mean the loss or death of a loved one: parents, children, spouse, relatives, friends.

In using the term "sacrifice" in the ridiculous, unheard of, mistaken way that you do Donald Trump would then know more about making personal sacrifices in his life than do the Khans. The Khans we know lost a son; however, Trump we know lost his dad, his grandmother Liz, his uncle John and brother Fred. That's four Trump sacrifices to Khan's one. Next time remember to be less emotional and more careful in your use of terms so you don't embarrass yourself again.



"Politicizing" is when you don't like it. 




So the reason for Captain Khan's heroic death wasn't to save the lives of fellow soldiers from anti-American al Qaida suicide terrorists, but to smear, trash and lie about a Republican presidential candidate, and benefit his Democrat opponent? That was the ultimate, overarching reason for Captain Khan's sacrificial life saving death? To replace the al-Qaida terrorists that killed him with Donald Trump as the real enemy as if Trump was the one who blew him up?





DONALD TRUMP says it’s obvious Hillary Clinton’s speechwriters wrote that BS convention speech for the Paki Muslim - BareNakedIslam




When David Axelrod on CNN said last night that Hillary's speech on the historic occasion of her nomination "wasn't a great speech" he was grossly understating just how bad, low energy, unelectric, ineffective, platitudinous and mendacious it was. It was so bland, so boring, so lacking in fire, passion, conviction and strength that it couldn't keep tired, old, feeble husband Bill awake. No doubt about it! Bill Clinton shut his eyes and dozed off into dreamland last night-with Tim Kaine leaning forward to block the cameras from picking up the embarrassing shot. You can't make this stuff up.

This is the man Hillary wants to put in charge to revive Obama's weak, pathetic, high debt, trickle growth, bad job's economy-that grew last quarter a mere 1.4%. Just as Bill dozed off during Hillary's speech he could just as easily do that at the wheel of the economy and drive it over the cliff-just like he nearly did with his reckless subprime housing program to quickly turn millions of low-income borrowers into middle class folks (SEE).
Trump is a force of nature. Hillary is a spent liberal force. 
Towards the end of President Obama's speech - Hilary could not keep her eyes open and began to look like she had fallen asleep
Worn out from her travels as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton falls asleep at historic event.
It runs in the family. If Hillary fell asleep at such an important event when Secretary of State what will she do as President? By her own words this low energy, tired,   oldeasily fatigued woman limited her term at State to four years because the job (which is far less grueling, stressful and demanding than the presidency) was wearing her out- weakening her immune system and very possibly making her sick. It is possible that another term at State would have completely shattered Hillary's health. Just think then what the presidency (the hardest job in the world)      could do to her?
Again I say with Donald Trump that Hillary lacks the energy, stamina and strength for the presidency-her lack of endurance when Secretary of State (a job she hated and couldn't wait to end) proves it.  
Hillary told Jimmy Kimmel at her great pickle jar opening feat      that "Donald Trump is as healthy as a horse." And so he is-and so she ain't.


Hillary Clinton could have an enormous problem tonight and it's not just the indefatigable, larger than life, Napoleonic 
Donald Trump who spending peanuts on his campaign is pulling ahead of her in the polls nationally and in key battle ground states. The problem is the unrealistic expectations foolishly and stupidly raised by her husband, the Obamas, Joe Biden, Tim Kaine, Cory Booker and others who said of her in idealistic terms that she's a women of true, exceptional greatness and worth more qualified to be president than her husband and Obama (laughter) and Donald J. Trump. The bar that's been set for her tonight is way too high and beyond her reach. Hillary lacks the charisma and communication skills of Obama and her husband which they seem to have forgotten when they praised her so effusively as more qualified for the office then them. 
I swear to God Hillary is more qualified to be president than I ever was.
Indeed, it is unrealistic to assume or hope that Hillary will do on the biggest, most important night of her life what Trump accomplished with his blockbuster speech at the Republican convention last week: outshine every other speaker. Giuliani, Christi, Cruz, Gingrich, Pence, all of them were overshadowed by Trump's impassioned speech. With the exception of Cruz (because of his betrayal) I barely remember their speeches as good as they were. No speech made so great an impression and was seared so deeply into me than Donald Trump's forceful speech.  Last Thursday when Trump accepted his party's nomination he made the night and the convention his own stamping his name all over it and winning the enthusiastic applause of an astonishing 75% of 35 million viewers.
What difference does it make that I'm a tired old woman who could take no more than four years as secretary of state?
But Hillary lacks the stuff for doing that. After tonight's speech the country most likely will better remember Obama, his wife and Hillary's feeble husband with his charming stories and embellished tales. Tonight we will see at best a mediocre performance by a mediocre woman straining and struggling to rise to a standard of greatness transcending her powers. Indeed, Hillary is under enormous pressure to deliver what's impossible for her: an inspiring historic world-class memorable speech like Trump gave in Cleveland last week. Because she's been idealized into a greatest of great souls on the world stage the reality of her speech tonight will likely disappoint many and dampen the enthusiasm that Obama brought to fever pitch yesterday.
But how badly she'll do depends on her energy level-which over the last few months of battling both Bernie and Trump has often been low to the point of exhaustion (as CNN's Chris Cuomo noted on one occasion HERE). Indeed, as Hillary's stamina is very poor (made that way from aging and globe trotting when secretary of state*) the worry and stressfulness of the unrealistic performance that's expected of her tonight could very well be wearing her down as I write.
Hillary's wanted so badly to be the first woman president and to that end plotted, schemed, lied and cheated for years to get to this moment of moments; and now with the nation and world watching if Hillary is anything less than her mediocre best it will be seen as a mini or major disaster like the first Obama-Romney debate-where Obama bombed out for lack of strength. And when her speech ends (if it's as bad as it could get) Trump will be gleefully tweeting to the world, 'You see folks, like I've been saying from the start Hillary doesn't have the energy, stamina and strength for the president's job.'
In an interview with Esquire in 2010 Hillary complained that her job as secretary of state was wearing her out; and that she could not take a second term of it.  If she found that job so taxing how could she handle the presidency with its greater responsibilities and demands? When Trump says that Hillary lacks the stamina and strength for the presidency he's not smearing her or being sexist.



Two articles ago I noted that the 2016 race for the 45th presidency of the United States is extraordinary not only because of political novice Donald Trump's gravity defying triumph in winning big the GOP nomination, and Hillary Clinton being the first female nominee of any major political party, but because these two historic figures are from the same state. This has rarely occurred in US presidential politics. In fact, of the 57 prior presidential contests same state candidates only happened a mere three times in 1860, 1920 and 1944.

Indeed, in 1860 former Republican Congressman Abe Lincoln of Illinois battled Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas for the 16th presidency. In 1920 Ohio Republican Senator Warren Harding fought Ohio Democratic Governor James Cox (FDR was his running mate) for the 29th presidency. And in 1944 New York Republican Governor Thomas Dewey challenged the 32nd president New York's Franklin Roosevelt for the White House.

 Now though Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump like Roosevelt and Dewey are New Yorkers this year's same state race is more like the 1860 and 1920 races.  For Hillary and Trump, like Lincoln, Douglas, Harding and Cox weren't incumbent presidents running for reelection. Whereas in 1944 FDR was the incumbent running to stay in office for an unprecedented fourth term. In fact, like Republican  Donald Trump Lincoln and Harding were agents of change promising a new direction for the nation from the  policies and unpopular presidencies of Democrats James Buchanan and Woodrow Wilson. Indeed, Lincoln ran and won on the Republican platform of stopping the expansion of slavery (which he achieved as president and much, much more); and Harding ran and won on the platform of ending the depression that engulfed the nation after World War I and restoring a robustly growing jobs creating economy-which he achieved as President by slashing taxes, federal spending and crushing regulations. However, though Governor Dewey ran as the change candidate against FDR's New Deal wanting to cut taxes, regulations and shrink the size of government (like Harding campaigned for after World War I) America was at war in Europe and the Pacific; and because a sick and ailing FDR was leading the nation to victory, voters wanting to stay the course reelected him for the third time.

Indeed, this year's same state race is more like 1920 than 1860 or 1944. Though in 1860 we were a terribly divided nation about to plunge into a Civil War over the issue of slavery, and there are growing racial divisions and tensions today with cops shooting blacks and visa versa;  and though in 1944 we were in a world war like we are today but on a far smaller scale with Islamonazi enemies, the nation now as in 1920 is similar in that the central issue is jobs and economic distress. Though the economy isn't depressed as in 1920 it's clearly in a state of decline headed toward a crisis due to massive debt, runaway spending, high taxes and crushing anti-business regulations (the main reasons for the 1920 depression).  

The Forgotten Depression

Moreover, 1920 is similar to 2016, and distinct from 1860 and 1944, in that like this election year the incumbent president Barack Obama (a former college professor) is in his second and last term; this too was the case with two term president Woodrow Wilson who, by the way, like Obama was a college professor. And one last similarity to the present race is that Donald Trump's running mate (Mike Pence) like Warren Harding's (Calvin Coolidge*) was the governor of a state.

*Cool Cal was governor of Massachusetts.

So the big question is this: will history repeat itself? Of the three past same state presidential races Republicans won the first two and lost the third. It's two to one in favor of Republicans; and of the three races the Republican year of 1920 is closer to 2016 than the other two years. However, one thing is clear: the 45th President of the United States will be the 7th from New York State after FDR. And by an astonishing and perhaps meaningful or prophetic coincidence if number 7 is Donald Trump instead of Hillary, when he's sworn into office on January 20, 2017 he will be exactly, precisely, amazingly 70 years, 7 months and 7 days old (see).







Last night Michelle Obama gave the best, most effective and inspiring speech of the evening and perhaps of her life Saying that "America is [still] the greatest nation on earth," and that those who work hard with the will to succeed could make a good life for themselves she then called on the nation to elect as the next president someone who'd "make America even better for our kids." But unluckily Michelle Obama is the wife of a failed two term president whose destructive left wing domestic agenda and incoherent, blundering, incompetent foreign policy has made America and the world a worst place for her kids and ours, and perhaps for generations to come. Indeed, the economic and national security impact of her husband's bad judgment and terrible leadership has raised up tens and millions of angry, fearful, unhappy Americans as shown by the rise of Bernie Sanders on the Left and Donald Trump on the Right. Never before in our history has there been two strong politically opposite populist movements emerge in the same election year crying "ENOUGH!" and calling for a radical change of direction. The closest analogy to this election year is 1968 when the political Left turned violent over the Vietnam War, racial injustice issues and assassinations; and a frightened nation wanting law, order, stability and peace turned to Richard Nixon.
Ironically, Obama whose presiding over a weakening economy, growing racial strife, terrorist violence and a rudderless foreign policy in utter dangerous disarray was the first US president born in the tumultuous 1960s. And Donald Trump (born 1946) was born in the year Richard Nixon began his political career running for Congress.
But returning to Michelle Obama's uplifting "America is great" speech no sooner did it end than the rest of the evening went downhill going from bad to worse. For Michelle was followed by a dark, negative, blistering indictment of her husband's America by Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Indeed, these two social justice warriors painted a bleak, depressing picture of a country in extreme peril and decline badly suffering from a multitude of economic, social, racial and environmental ills."
Warren and Sanders angrily complained about a dying, eroding, disappearing middle class; 47 million people living in poverty with more joining them daily; millions of unemployed or underemployed workers lacking healthcare benefits with low paying "starvation" jobs; millions of immigrants without legal status facing deportation; job killing free trade agreements destroying America's manufacturing base by shipping US plants overseas; a rigged Wall Street economy (and manipulated stock market) where 85% of newly created wealth goes to the top 1% at everyone else's expense; excessive burning of fossil fuels causing droughts, flooding and hurricanes driving catastrophic world destroying climate change; a broken criminal justice system with too many in jail; an America with too many young people unable to afford college; an America with too many guns on the street (though violent crime is down); too many cops killing blacks(most of whom are violent criminals); too many homeless, too many this too many that-and the litany of ills and grievances went on and on ad nauseam. 
Though he was effusively praised by Warren and Sanders Obama obviously has miserably failed his own agenda to transform America into an economy that works for all-meaning a cradle to grave free stuff utopia paid for by the rich whose wealth is imagined to be unlimited with enough to provide for the needs of all (socialism in a nutshell).
With a government $19 trillion in debt and growing, and over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities that's crushing innovation, growth and opportunities in the worst recovery since the Great Depression-the message of Warren, Sanders and the Dems is insanely clear: the government isn't big enough, doesn't tax enough, doesn't borrow, spend and print (money) enough, doesn't regulate and control our lives enough. Until government is more "compassionate," loving and caring, until its mighty arms are holding all of us in one great big hug (the message of Cory Booker), until it's more activist, centralized and planning our lives, it is unjust, unfair and barely civilized; it falls short of the ideal of a truly good, great and just society of redistributed wealth.
Indeed, though Obama's been in office eight years getting an  $800 billion stimulus to fix a trickle growth economy (which hasn't worked), healthcare reform to insure the uninsured (millions are still uninsured) and Dodd-Frank to protect consumers from predatory lenders (its making big banks bigger and killing small ones); though Obama's pulled our troops from Iraq (they're still fighting there), killed bin Laden (after seven months of dithering) and is closing Gitmo as promised (releasing terrorists to kill again); though he got same-sex marriage and repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" (demoralizing the military), after listening to Warren and Sanders last night you'd think that zero has been accomplished; that nothing's been done; that Obama's America differs little from the Bush years; that the status quo still reigns. Despite all the praise and accolades that Warren and Sanders showed on Obama they weren't being sincere-they couldn't have been. For they lead millions of mostly middle class voters who are angrily up in arms with what's happening in their lives. And who are Warren and Sanders turning to for the "Hope and Change" salvation that's eluded the country for eight years? Crooked, corrupt, low energy Hillary, the "Queen of the Status Quo," the "ultimate insider," the darling of greedy, cut throat, too big to fail, 1% run Wall Street. The establishment has defeated the socialist revolution, and Bernie and Liz have lost their souls throwing themselves under the Clinton bus.



Could it be? Is it possible that Vladimir Putin is covertly intervening in US politics and aiding Donald Trump (most likely without his knowledge) in his quest for the presidency by doing what he can to undercut and stop Hillary Clinton? Only a fool would deny the possibility. After all, something similar happened in 1983 when Ted Kennedy on behalf of the Dems colluded with the Soviets in trying to defeat Ronald Reagan and elect Walter Mondale-who promised to restore detante and unilaterally freeze the production of nuclear weapons. This was a clear act of treason which Kennedy should have been held accountable for (see).

However, it is certain that Putin prefers Trump in the White House (who he flattered by calling him a "genius") over Hillary who he loathes like Obama. If Hillary is elected it's practically certain she'd be more difficult than Trump to deal with on the lifting of EU and US sanctions which were imposed after Russia annexed Crimea in March 2014. These sanctions, which are hurting Russia in the billions, include restrictions on major Russian state banks and corporations; and the blacklisting of dozens of Russian officials and firms accused of undermining Ukrainian sovereignty. It is practically certain that a Clinton presidency would make the lifting of sanctions contingent on Russia withdrawing its remaining troops from Ukraine, stop supplying anti-Ukrainian rebel separatists with money, training and arms; and lastly returning Crimea to Ukraine. And that would happen in stages. 


But with Trump as president there's no telling what he'd be willing to do as he is unpredictable at this point. He did say confidently that he'd get on better with the Russian leader than Obama is doing; but that's about it. From Putin's viewpoint it's preferable for Russia to have a known unknown like Trump as president than a known known like Clinton (as Rumsfeld would say). 

But last Friday on the 21st during his impassioned acceptance speech in Cleveland, Trump, as he was listing Hillary's foreign policy failures made one glaring and perhaps telling omission: Russia.  Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, ISIS, and Clinton's overall disaster in the Middle East, were scathingly mentioned. But not a peep about her failure at Russian Reset, or blaming her for Russia's conflict with Ukraine and annexing of Crimea. Russian analysts could not have failed to notice this omission and probably took it as a sign, despite Ukraine and Crimea, of Trump's good will toward their country and its leader. Putin is certainly hoping that a Trump presidency would recognize Russia's ownership of the Crimean Peninsula and lift all sanctions in exchange for withdrawing its remaining troops from Ukraine, and cutting all aid to pro-Russian Ukrainian separatists.

Indeed, it was after Trump's speech on the following day (the 22nd) that Wikileaks posted the 20,000 DNC hacked emails that have thrown the Dems into pre-convention chaos, and forced Debby W. to resign as DNC chairperson, over evidence of their rigged pro-Clinton primary process.  Coincidence? I'll let you be the judge of that. But one thing is clear: Putin does not want a third term of Barack Obama, and he'll do whatever he can to prevent it.  





Those who are claiming that the hacked DNC emails came from Russia and ultimately from Putin (and this includes the FBI) are lying. It is very probable that professional Russian hackers working with the Kremlin were behind the job for the reasons stated above; but being that these were highly skilled professionals they erase all traces of their hacking so that it can't be traced back to them. In other words, when they exit the server they leave no footprints behind and become invisible. In other words, until the hackers reveal who they are and admit to the deed their identities are unknowable and a matter of speculation.


(Robinson: "It Was An Angry Speech For Angry People")

Clinton to call on Black Lives Matter at Dem convention | TheHill



of the 35 million Americans tuned into Donald Trump's historic 75 minute, double barn burner acceptance speech Thursday a whopping 75% were supportive of him. So much for GOP disunity. In other words, at least 26 million Americans are dark, divisive, mad-as-hell, "crude, racist, xenophobic, fascist" anti-establishment Donald Trumps wanting to take back America from the spinelss pc appeasers, America last globalists and self-serving special interests. Apparently, 75% share Trump's fear and pessimism that Obama's America sucks big time; that it's losing its greatness and is working against them; that Obama's nation with its rigged, booming, middle class hurting stock market and financial system overwhelmingly favoring the rich is in economic, military and geopolitical decline; and that it's losing the War on Islamic Terror in a world that is spinning out of control and is falling apart due to the absence of strong US leadership.  There is much to be angry about-righteously angry.



Obviously these 26 million reject as delusional the sunny, bright, optimistic, rainbows and unicorn Obamunism that things are much better than they seem; that though growing fossil fuel use is dooming the planet (a complete pseudo-scientific lie), and there's an epidemic of murderous gun violence (this is only true in our lawless, anarchical black inner cities) that the nation and world, nevertheless, are more peaceful, less violent and prosperous today than at any time in history; that America is greater, stronger and more respected now than ever  (does any of this make sense?); that the public is being deceived by MSM, Fox, Hannity,  Limbaugh and Trump; that all the wonderful, uplifting, good news of Obama's stellar historic achievements-from ending two wars (when we're still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan), to the millions getting health insurance (at a huge cost to jobs and a dying middle class), to saving the economy from depression (which was done by George Bush with TARP)-are being drowned out and obfuscated by all the bad sensationalist news of a few random cop killings, some isolated, unconnected, lone wolf "religion of peace"  terror attacks, and a weakening economy of under 2% growth ("the fault of a global slowdown," not of trillions in debt, high taxes, massive anti-business regulations and poor demoralizing economic leadership). 

Under George Bush polls showing that the US was on the wrong track reached a high of 67% in 2008. Under Obama it's exceeded that reaching 73% in September 2011. Today it's at 70% up from 65% a few short months ago (see) .

Now if these 26 million angry Americans-part of the 224 million (or 70%) that see Obama and Washington leading us in the wrong direction-don't want to trash all the great, good, transformational change that Obama has made these last eight years (in building "A More Perfect [Dependency] Union" of increasing poverty and hardship for millions) they must stay the course with progressive, hopeful, "stronger together," low energy, weak, establishment Hillary-who made such a mess of US foreign policy. 

Indeed, Hillary promises to continue Obama's good work and add to his glowing legacy (of ashes and dust) a new, glorious chapter of national greatness for posterity. And to help her write this new chapter she's calling on the race obsessed, anti-cop, capitalist hating Marxist leaders of Black Lives Matter-with their positive, inspiring, unifying vision of a white supremacist America that's oppressing millions of blacks and keeping them in poverty and degradation-trapped in dysfunctional, strife-torn inner city hell holes that worsen by the day as its victims cry out for police and white blood.

Needless to say Obama, Hillary and the Dems are misreading the American people; they've learned nothing from the rise of anti-establishment outsiders Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump; and if present economic, racial, foreign policy and national security trends continue on their downward course they're going to pay a bitter price on Election Day. From now to then the anger and fear over America's decline can only grow, along with the national Trump movement.

And BTW if Eugene Robinson wants to hear a red hot, divisive, angry white man then he should listen to any one of Bernie Sander's scorching, America sucks socialist speeches. Bernie garnered 13 million primary votes; and millions of these are mad-as-hell with Hillary, Kaine and the DNC that plotted to defeat their dear, beloved, crackpot hero for being unelectably too extreme.





That 2016 is perhaps the most unusual presidential election year in American history goes without saying made that way officially Tuesday night with the nomination of billionaire businessman and political novice Donald Trump. But what also makes it unusual is that the two candidates of the major parties are from the state of New York. That has never happened before in American history. And now a New Yorker will be living in the White House which hasn't happened in 71 years when Franklin Roosevelt died in office 71 years ago.
Oddly, on the Democratic side the race for that party's nomination boiled down to Bernie Sanders who was born in Brooklyn, New York and moved to Vermont in his late 20s. And Chicago born Hillary Clinton, who, as First Lady, moved to New York in January 2000 so she could run for US senator of that state. But unlike Bernie and Hillary Donald Trump was born in New York and remains a New Yorker having been one for 70 years.
Now when Hillary as First Lady won the US senate seat from New York it was on November 7, 2000. That was the day that Republican Texas governor George W. Bush defeated vice president Al Gore for the presidency in the closest race in US history. Indeed, the Democrats after two successful terms of Bill Clinton (he left office with a 66% approval rating) amazingly lost the White House when they should have kicked butt. Now Hillary Clinton in 2008 after failing to succeed two terms of Republican Bush is hoping to break the pattern started by Bush and win the White House while a two term president of the same party is in power.
Indeed, Hillary is hoping to become the first presidential candidate since George HW Bush in 1988 to win an election for the incumbent party and continue in the White House. When that happened it fell on a November 8th election date which is the date for this year's contest. However, George HW had the advantage of following the larger than life, very popular Ronald Reagan, a super successful transformational two term Republican President who left office with a 63% Gallop approval rating. The American people loved Reagan and wanted him for a third term in the person of his very loyal VP.
Indeed, unlike today with a weak economy showing signs of deterioration, a world in increasing turmoil and suffering, and domestic Islamic and anti-cop violence and terror on the rise, George H.W. Bush inherited a very unified, prospering and happy nation, and a stable post-Cold War world. Indeed, though two term president Barack Obama (the great anti-Reagan and divider) has been a dismal failure Hillary is lyingly claiming the contrary: that Obama's been a great president with a record of worthy achievements and is vowing to continue his sorry legacy of ashes and dust.
To be sure, the only way Hillary can win in November is by convincing voters that she'd be the lesser of two evils. And that though Trump is offering change which millions desperately want he'd be far worse than Obama-and worse then herself. Or that somehow Trump would return the nation to "disastrous" Republican or Bush era policies that caused the housing crisis and nearly collapsed the economy. However,  that would be an awfully hard case to make since Trump has established himself as radically anti-establishment (GOPe), as well as viciously anti-Bush. With the Bushes having ditched the Convention it will prove nearly impossible for Hillary and the Dems to make a credible case (as was done to McCain and Romney) that Trump will be George W's third term.
When asked about the amount of 
 Dewitt Clinton on a $1000 bill.
I've written about this before (see) and it's worth repeating that Hillary isn't the first US senator from New York with the name Clinton to run for the presidency. In 1812 governor and former US senator Dewitt Clinton from New York ran for the presidency against James Madison on the Federalist Party ticket. He lost in a close race.





As I've previously written, on the 16th day of June 2015 (16 days from the publication of Ann Coulter's book "Adios, America" on illegal immigration, and 16 days before an illegal alien killed Kate Steinle in San Francisco) Donald Trump (16 months from Election Day 2016) announced his run for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave-making illegal immigration and border security the focus of his campaign (see and see).

*Today, July 18th, the start of the RNC when Donald Trump will be nominated the Republican presidential nominee, is 114 days to Election Day or 16 weeks (see).

I also wrote (see) that the important date of April 26th*, when Trump won five northeastern primary states virtually making him the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, fell on the 316th day of his campaign-which oddly was the 116th day or 16th week of the year (see). Moreover, as I  noted, not only was April 26th the 316th day of Trump's historic campaign it was also auspiciously its 45th week-the number of the next President.
* April 26th was  Melania Trump's 46th birthday (see)  .
 The GOP has joined the Hair Club For Real Men.
But it wasn't until the following week with Trump's victory in Indiana (when Cruz and Kasich called it quits) that Trump effectively secured the nomination as announced by Reince Priebus (see). Oddly, Indiana (which ranks 16th in population) was the 19th state to join the Union doing so in 1816, the 16th year of the 19th century. By the way, the next Republican to live in the White House will be the 19th in American history (see).
Is Trump to Clinton what Obama was too McCain eight years ago? The "Hope & Change" candidate? The hope he can stop and reverse Obama's change?
Needless to say the prospering state of Indiana (a conservative economic model for the nation) was politically propitious for Trump; and now auspiciously he's picked its very successful governor Mike Pence as his running mate. Amazingly, on Friday when Trump announced his selection of Pence it was 116 days or 16 weeks to Election Day (see). And when on Saturday at the Hilton Trump and Pence* appeared together publicly for the first time it was the 16th day of July.
*It's also interesting to note that Governor Pence was born on a Sunday and Donald Trump on a Friday. Sunday and Friday are the 1st and 6th days of the week giving us the numbers 1 & 6 (see).
No one but God knows who the next President and VP will be. But could the above numeric patterns of 16s in this 16th year of the 21st century be a providential sign that conservative Republican Mike Pence will prove a big factor in Trump winning the presidency? We can only hope so. But there appear to be other signs suggesting that Pence will  prove to be a valuable asset for Trump in November. These are as follows:
What Trump and FDR have in common (besides being born and raised in New York) is their patriotic nationalism, indomitable strength and the immense drive to win.
Donald Trump is a native of New York a state that has produced 6 of our 44 presidents (see). This means that if elected in November Trump at age 70 would be the 7th New Yorker to be President following Franklin Roosevelt who was the 6th*. Now by chance or providence Mike Pence was born June 7, 1959 or the 6th month and 7th day of 1959 giving us the numbers 6 &7. Moreover, when Pence was born Donald Trump was in his 667th week on this earth (see)**.
*Oddly if Trump wins the presidency he will be sworn into office on the 70th year, 7th month and 7th day of his amazing life (see).
**When Trump began his candidacy on June 16, 2015 it was the 167th day of the year-the 67th number of the 100 series (see).
Furthermore, as I mentioned elsewhere, FDR was elected the 6th New York resident to be President on November 8, 1932. In other words, this November 8th* will be the 84th** anniversary of FDR's landslide victory over Herbert Hoover. And lastly, as the number 16 seems to be politically auspicious for Trump, he's now within striking distance of following FDR into the White House as the 7th President from New York, it just so happens that FDR was the 32nd President of the United States-32 is 16 doubled.
*On Election Day November 8th Donald Trump will be exactly 25,716 days old-a five digit number ending in 16. BTW, 8 is half 16 (see).
*84 years translates into 1008 months of calendar time (84x12=1008). 1008 is a multiple of 16 63 times.
And lastly, underscoring the significance of Indiana for Donald Trump as a possible sign of triumph in November was Hillary Clinton's loss of that state to Bernie Sanders (the populist Donald Trump of the Left) in an upset victory- which I wrote about HERE. Did underdog Bernie's defeat of Hillary in Indiana foreshadow underdog Donald being helped by Indiana's Mike Pence to defeat Hillary in November? As of today with the Baton Rouge and Dallas cop killings, the jihadist massacres in France and Orlando and the weakening of the economy (three straight quarters of GDP decline) things are looking brilliant for "the law and order," give-ISIS-hell, "make America great and safe again" presidential candidate and his terrific running mate.

Pence the Con is a gift for the Dems and will sink Trump and the Republican Party!  Here's why:

Pense's stand on some key issues

Abortion: As governor, Pence signed into law a sweeping bill banning abortion if a fetus has a "genetic abnormality" such as Down syndrome and holding doctors legally liable if they had knowingly performed such procedures. The law also required that aborted fetal tissue be buried or cremated. A federal judge blocked the law from going into effect.

The environment: Pence has frequently expressed skepticism about the reality of climate change and fought back against key environmental acts designed to curb carbon emissions. In 2014, he told NBC's Chuck Todd that he doesn't know if climate change "is a resolved issue in science today." He wrote a letter to President Obama in 2015 saying he wouldn't comply with new Environmental Protection Agency regulations for coal plants.

Guns: Pence has an "A" rating from the NRA, and while in Congress he regularly voted with the gun lobby. That included voting against an assault weapons ban — something Trump has mentioned supporting during this election.

Immigration: In a December tweet, Pence called Trump's ban on Muslims entering the United States "offensive and unconstitutional." He has, though, supported strict immigration measures and opposed the resettlement of Syrian refugees in Indiana.

LGBT rights: Pence helped pass one of the nation's first "religious freedom" laws that protected people and businesses who wanted to refuse service to LGBT people if they cited religious objections. After businesses pulled out of expansion plans into the state, Pence faced immense pressure to roll back the law, which he did. Trump has actually been fairly open when it comes to rights for gay and transgender people.

Trade: Pence has offered support for the Trans Pacific Partnership, which Trump has routinely attacked, going so far as to call it a "rape" of the country. Pence in 2014 said, "Trade means jobs, but trade also means security. The time has come for all of us to urge the swift adoption of the Trans Pacific Partnership."




Pence will sink Trump like GHW Bush sank Reagan: Bush opposed Reaganomics (ridiculing it as "voodoo economics"), was pro-Detente (thought Reagan's anti-communism extreme), voted for the Civil Rights Amendment which Reagan opposed. The American people chose Reagan over Carter and cared nothing about Bush's anti-Reagan positions, and Reagan's alleged racism, because he projected an image of strength promising to restore America's greatness at a time when we were in economic, military and geopolitical decline.

BTW, according to Pew Research of the top 14 national issues gun control ranks 5th, immigration 6th, race relations 10th, global trade 11th, environment (climate change) 12th, abortion 13th, and LBGT issues dead last in 14th place. The top four issues: the economy, terrorism, foreign policy and healthcare (Obamacare is hugely unpopular) favor Trump-Pence over Hillary and the Dems.




On the day that Barack Obama and John Kerry were festively congratulating themselves on the first anniversary of their completely worthless $150 billion nuke deal with Islamo-nazi "Death to America" terrorist Iran terrorism struck Nice, France ruining their day of appeasement, stupidity and infamy. A Moslem suicide terrorist armed with an 18 ton refrigerator truck bearing guns and grenades plowed into a large crowd of pedestrians at full speed walking on a promenade celebrating Bastille Day killing 84 and injuring more.
As yesterday July 14th was France's July 4th (Independence Day) the innocent victims of the Islamist attack were celebrating "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," the values of the French Revolution and Democracy. But for the mass murdering terrorist, Tunisian born Mohamed Bouhlel, Bastille Day was a godless day that comes from hell hated by God with murderous rage which he became a channel for. 
For "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" are unIslamic values that conflict with the Koran (Islam's constitution of tyranny)-a declaration of endless war against democracy and infidel humanity until the later are conquered and the former is no more.
This jihadist who went on the rampage was a soldier of Allah in a 1400 year old war unleashed by the Prophet Mohammed to advance the political and religious supremacy of Islam. Not "Liberty" but despotism and slavery. Not "Equality" but the oppression of minorities (women, gays, Christians, Jews, pagans). Not "Fraternity" but US versus THEM division, conflict and hate. That is what Mohammed Bouhlel  was fighting for when he martyred himself after killing liberty loving Frenchmen in droves. And that too is what Iran is fighting for in their jihad against America, Israel and the Democratic West.
Yesterday was the second worst July 14th in human history. The first just one year before was worse as it saw a weak, self-serving, appeasing US president looking to his legacy expanding Iran's capabilities to spread its evil influence and power across the region and world. It also didn't stop them getting the bomb. Go a head 
 and prove me
Oh look! A Jihadist armed with a large speeding 18 ton truck just killed at least 84 people causing the same number of deaths (and injuring more) than the Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, San Bernardino and Aurora shooters combined. He now holds the world's record  for one single man mass murdering others exceeding the record held by Anders Breivik in Norway by seven deaths. It's horrific what one bloodthirsty Islamic terrorist with a truck can do. I guess those like our befuddled president who reduce mass shootings to a gun control problem need now to restrict who gets truck drivers licenses because truck jihad copy cats are coming.



Obama: "Islam Is A Religion That Preaches Peace" | Video | RealClearPolitics

Obama Administration Imposes Transgenderism Nationwide - Breitbart

Above is a Moslem man cross dressed as a Moslema (Moslem woman). If he's a violent, radical, bloodthirsty jihadist who thinks he's transgender Obama, Clinton and the PC Left would deny that his self-identity as Moslem was valid; but they would validate his self-identity as a female.

If an extremely violent, bloodthirsty, sadistic man who enjoys making people suffer or killing them thinks he's transgender (believes he's a woman trapped in a male body who experiences the world like a female) Obama, Hillary and the PC Left (rejecting the truth that he has a treatable mental obsession, fantasy or disorder    see) would urge us to accept him (violence and all, and despite the gap between his mentality and genetic reality) as really, truly, authentically female.

But if an equally violent man strongly self-identifies as Moslem, and kills in the name of his God and faith, Obama, Hillary and the Left would deny that he's truly, really, authentically Islamic. In other words, no matter how strongly a violent Moslem (jihadist) feels like a Moslem, sees the world and experiences life as a Moslem-no matter if he's a frequent mosque goer and practices all the rituals of the faith-to Obama, Hillary and the Left his religious identity isn't valid, and he's a fake.

Indeed, leftists would have us believe  that a jihadist's self-identity as Moslem was a mental obsession and fantasy out of whack with true Islamic reality; and that he shouldn't be respected as truly Moslem, but stigmatized as a perverter of the faith-no matter how badly we might offend him.



What does transgenderism and liberalism have in common? Both are treatable mental disorders. I should know. I was once a liberal.

In truth, for Obama, Hillary and the Left a Moslem man isn't truly Moslem unless he's a harmless, peace-loving, progressive liberal like themselves. This of course would exclude Mohammed, the warlord founder of the faith, who was a mass murdering terrorist thug; and who (among his many atrocities and crimes) completed the ethnic cleansing of Medina of Jews by ordering the beheading of hundreds of Jewish men in front of their women and children. BTW, the Jewish women and children were sold into slavery; the only Jewish man who survived that "religion of peace" massacre was a convert to Islam (see).




But it gets worse. Adding to the leftist confusion and incoherence of who is truly Moslem Obama rejects as Islamic the violent terrorist Islamic State (ISIS) but accepts as genuinely Islamic violent radical terrorist Iran, which he deferentially refers to as the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC.


In other words, for Obama, Hillary and the Left violent terrorist "Death to America and Israel" Iran practices true "religion of peace" Islam, as if it's an exemplary model of what an Islamic state should be. Is it any wonder why US foreign policy is in such incoherent disarray and is leading America and the world deeper and deeper into peril and tragedy? And who is it that wants to stay the course and continue Obama's legacy in foreign policy?  Hillary Clinton, one of its brilliant authors and architects. And she says Donald Trump is a dangerous man? 





As Commander-in-Chief Donald Trump wants to equal or surpass in brutality and inspiring fear Saddam Hussein when fighting our Islamic terrorist enemies. But Hillary, on the contrary, wants to continue in the way of another Hussein with the first name Barack, a reluctant warrior weak in the use of force when fighting merciless, menacing Islamic jihad. Which of the two candidates is more suitable to lead us in the war against a fanatical enemy hell-bent on our destruction? An enemy every bit as evil, power mad and bloodthirsty as the Nazis and Japanese who we fire bombed and nuked into surrender, submission and defeat?  
Would she have preferred they used the Koran as a guide? 
When Ginsberg was sworn in as a supreme she swore to God  to uphold the Constitution. How could she do that when she doesn't believe in it? And (like Obama) would like to tear it up and replace it with something radically different?




If America the great, good and beautiful is in reality an ugly, evil "White Supremacist Nation" politically, socially and economically rigged to keep blacks in poverty, oppression, degradation and sin then how did   black American Barack Obama become the most powerful black man in all of human history? Isn't Obama's astonishing success in becoming a two term US President proof that "White Supremacist America" is a complete lie? That it only exists in the mind's of racially obsessed America-hating Leftists, grievance spewing race pimps and the low info   ignorant? And that the millions of blacks living in poverty and despair in our depressed, lawless, strife-torn inner cities is largely self-caused-having zero to do with racist cops, racist courts and a so-called "white racist controlled"  political, social and economic system?
Surely if Barack Obama could rise so high in prominence, power and wealth any black person with the will to succeed and surmount what racial difficulties exist (every society has them) can achieve the American Dream and live a good a rewarding life-as many blacks do. 
And as Black Lives Matter is based on the outrageous lie of a White Supremacist America that criminally discriminates against blacks using cops, courts and economic discrimination to kill and massively jail them and keep them down why would Martin Luther King, a man of God with enormous integrity and character who loved the truth and hated lies, favor BLM and march with them? King's Civil Rights Movement was from heaven, BLM is from hell; King (who opposed the Black Panthers in his day, seewouldn't  have legitimized them like Obama has done.
Alveda King niece of MLK.
If Martin Luther King were President instead of Barack Obama he would never have invited "No Justice, No Peace" "Fry Cops Like Bacon"  BLM leaders to the White House like Obama did . It's more than likely he'd have denounced BLM (like he did Huey Newton and the Black Panthers) as a [GODLESS] movement of divisive, mindless, insane race haters just like his niece Minister Alveda King ( speaking authoritatively in her uncle's name) is doing.
"Godless," now? Goodness you are full of yourself. Won't that come as a surprise to the pastors and priests marching in peaceful protest with BLM?
As Alveda King says her great uncle put God (the Divine Author of our Individual Rights and Liberties) at the center of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement and used Him (the Creator and Father of the human race) as a unifying principle to join blacks, whites and everyone else together.
What is BLM's unifying principle? If not God then what? Without such a powerful compelling principle how could BLM hope to succeed? With most Americans hostile to BLM, seeing it as a radical movement of divisive, violent, toxic, anti-white race haters (its public image) how does it expect to succeed like King's inclusive, peaceful, nonviolent, "God is Love" mainstream movement?
MLK's children: MLK III and Minister Bernice King. They talk the talk about BLM, but won't walk the walk and march with them.
How presumptuous of you and O'Reilly. It just so happens that
MLK's son and daughter both say he would have supported BLM. In fact His son said his dad would be "PROUD' of BLM. But, then, surely they don't know their own father as well as you and Bill O'Reilly..
Well, that was embarrassing for you and Billy. 😉
Actions always speak louder than words, friend. Where is the actual, active, passionate support of Bernice King and MLK III for BLM? Since it started three years ago how many BLM meetings, rallies and marches have they attended? How much money have they raised for the cause? Obama invited BLM's leaders to the White House. But when have the King children invited them to their homes? To date the Kings' support for BLM seems more lip (perhaps to appease friends and relatives who support it) than anything real and concrete.
And, BTW, like Alveda King Bernice is a Christian minister and pro-life, pro-family, anti-gay social conservative; and like Alveda she has nothing philosophically in common with the secular progressive, Marxist leaning BLM leadership-and its simplistic reduction of all       black socio-economic problems to the lie of White Racism. Hence, in her interview with Amy Goodman (which you linked) King commends BLM for "bringing attention to the suffering of blacks," and that's it; her praise goes know further; as King understands that underlying the problems and pathologies plaguing black inner cities (poverty, gang violence, drug abuse, illiteracy, broken families and schools)
is a profound crisis of values; and because the solution is spiritual not political or racial what she doesn't say is that BLM has the right answers-which it absolutely doesn't.
So now you see into the minds and hearts of MLK's children, not just MLK?
Goodness, you've tangled yourself up here. I will pray for you.
People should be judged by what they do or fail to do, not by what they say. What's striking is the gulf between the Kings' very few words of support for BLM and their actions in supporting it which to date are non-existent. Compare them to their father and the anti-war movement. MLK not only passionately spoke out against the Vietnam War and in support of the anti-war movement he participated in its marches and rallies (despite the frequent violence) demanding an end to the war.
After three years and dozens and dozens of BLM rallies across the country demanding an end to anti-black police violence the Kings have kept aloof from the cause not going to a single rally. What sensible person based on a few words of support for BLM followed by such glaring inaction would interpret it, as you do, as a sign of resounding support? It would seem that you're grasping at straws and reading too much into their words. Instead of a passionate commitment to BLM their support seems quite less than lukewarm.
In sum, Bill O'Reilly is correct: just as Bernice King and MLK III haven't marched with BLM neither would their father. And if he were President the White House would be off-limits to them-as well as Al Sharpton and every other deranged "racism-is-everywhere" Leftist ideologue.