Monthly Archives: March 2016



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





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


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


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


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

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







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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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




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





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

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

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

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

 Now tell me that Bernie isn't a bird brain.
View image on Twitter
The bird's brief stay on Sanders' lectern is perhaps a sign of his small brief moment in the national spotlight (that his candidacy doesn't have a wing and a prayer) as he heads toward defeat and back to the Senate never to be seen or heard from again in a presidential race.



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

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





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



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











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


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

Texas Imam

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

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

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

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

  This poll taken last January has a total of 15% or 495,000 Moslem voters supporting the GOP.
But this Texas Imam has a more practical approach to Syrian immigration which Trump, Cruz and others would be wise to heed and adopt: instead of limiting the freeze to Moslem refugees it should include Christians, Druze, Bahais and peoples of other faiths. Though real Syrian Christians, for example, would pose no threat to this country some jihadists might be trained to convincingly lie about their faith and claim to be Christian. Indeed, to counter the smear that they're anti-Moslem bigots Trump and Cruz should follow the Imam's advice and include Christians in their ban. If Trump and Cruz were to do that it could grow Moslem support for them and the GOP.
Question Two Which political party do you plan to support in your upcoming state primary election
According the above CAIR  chart roughly 15% of 3.3 million American Moslems, or 490,000, are Republican. But the number could be as high as 820,000. For 11% of those surveyed (representing 333,000 voters) refused to disclose their party affiliation. Is it far-fetched to assume that most if not all of the 11% are Republican, and that they refused to answer the survey because they're afraid to admit it?
Tens and thousands of patriotic nationalist Poles chanting "Today refugees, tomorrow terrorists!" took to the streets of Warsaw this week opposing Moslem immigrants coming into their country.
Beata Szydlo, the new Prime Minister of Poland said, "I will not allow events in Western Europe to happen in Poland" as she shreded an agreement made by her predecessor's government to let in 7,000 Moslem migrants. Critics of her policy say that Poland has a demographics problem and needs more immigrants. I say okay. Let's send them some of our illegal peaceloving Mexican aliens of which we have way too many.

Awesome raucus anti-Moslem immigrant stadium demonstrations in Poland.  



< p style="text-align: center;">There really are Muslims who support Trump | New York Post 


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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

Most people would agree with me.



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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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


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



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

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



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

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



You are really bad at reading. Hopeless in fact.

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

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

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

Your tactics are, as always, dishonest and incompetent. 



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

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


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


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


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


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

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

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





The Reaction: The end of American hegemony

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


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


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

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

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





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

“Make America Great Again”—Donald Trump campaign slogan

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


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

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

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



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

A peaceful anti-Trump rally in Chicago was hijacked by radical left-wing BLM "Kill Cops Burn Down Shops" fascists yesterday ( and terrorist Bill Ayers were there) with the evil intent of inciting a riot that could have injured or killed dozens of protesters and police; and Trump is treated as a toxic villain deserving all the blame? Where are the "black shirt fascist" white supremacist Trump supporters violently disrupting Clinton and Sanders events? They're nonexistent. But ironically last summer in Seattle fascist BLM thugs disrupted a Bernie Sanders event and ignominiously drove him off the stage commandeering his mike as if he had no right to speak. Yet Sanders, Clinton and the Democrat left back BLM-a reincarnation of the radical, bloodthirsty, supremacist Black Panthers who see cops and judges as bigoted agents of a white racist state and want to totally destroy it as evil incarnate. And they accuse Trump of "racism," "fascism," "divisiveness" and "hate?" What laughable hypocrites and useful idiots of the very racism they condemn and can't tolerate.


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


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


Obama: Trump's rise not my fault | TheHill


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


Dear Mr. Obama,

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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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




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

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


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

Related to bushwhack




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

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

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

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


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

American Confederate Rebel Flag Usa Car Vinyl Bumper Sticker Decal Sfv

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

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



This country has had two back to back two term presidents, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, born in the year 1946-the year GOP front running presidential candidate Donald Trump was born (6-14-46). On the day Bush was born (7-6-46)  Donald Trump was 22 days old (see)*; on the day Clinton was born (8-19-46) Bush was 44 days old (see) and Trump 66 days old (see). Is this amazing, uncanny arithmetical progression a prophetic sign that Trump like Bush in 2000 and Clinton in 1992 will win the primaries and the nomination of his party and advance victoriously to the presidency**? I believe so.  
*It is fascinating to note that just as Trump was 22 days old when George W. Bush was born, George H. W. Bush (b. 6-12-1924) was 22 years and two days old on the day Trump was born (see) .
**8 years separate 1992 from 2000; and when we double 8 to 16 we get the number of years separating 2000 from 2016; and when we triple 8 to 24 we get the number of years separating 1992 from 2016. 
Moreover, we have had two losing presidential candidates, Mitt "Mr. 47%" Romney* and Hillary Clinton born in the same year 1947. Romney (b. 3-12-47) is a two-time loser having lost the 2008 GOP primaries to John McCain, and then losing the presidential race to Barack Obama in 2012. Hillary Clinton (b.10-26-47) lost to Obama in 2008 and is currently leading and favored to beat Bernie Sanders for the Democrat nomination. Now should Hillary defeat Sanders (which is practically certain) and becomes the Democrat nominee she will be like unlucky, ill-starred 1947-born Mitt Romney a presidential candidate who lost her party's presidential primary four years before she finally won it. In other words, just as Bill Clinton's and George Bush's pattern of success in winning the White House could (and I believe does) prefigure Donald Trump's success so does Romney's pattern of failures very likely prefigure Hillary losing in November. But now there appears to be another ominous sign suggesting coming defeat for Hillary:
Like Ronald Reagan's 1980 presidential campaign Donald Trump is running on the positive, upbeat, optimistic message of "Making America Great Again;" and this is resonating with millions of voters who want a president with Reagan-like patriotism, commitment, will power and strength to reverse Amerca's decline and renew our national prosperity and greatness. But against the reality of our decline (which even Jimmy Carter admits see), and 65% of Americans who see us on the wrong track and want change, Hillary Clinton (like Obama) claims that America is doing just fine and, in fact, is on the rise; she claims that (though U.S. foreign policy is in shambles with our enemies advancing on all sides) we are greater, stronger and more respected on the world stage than ever before; and that she, Hillary Clinton (Obama's former secretary of state) is in part the architect of this "success."
This of course gives Trump (should he be the nominee which is very likely) a huge advantage over Hillary as he can undermine her credibility by simply pointing to the worsening state of the world, and America's weakening geo-political position since she and Obama took office.
And now, amazingly, in the midst of this presidential campaign Nancy Reagan (God bless her soul) passed away  to join her husband Ronald in heaven. What is utterly incredibly fascinating here is the timing of both their deaths: for like wife Nancy, Ronald Reagan (a two term Republican President) died during a presidential election. This was in 2004 when Republican President George Bush (son of Reagan's two term VP*) defeated then Senator (and future secretary of state) John Kerry, and was reelected in a close race.  
*Just as George H. W. Bush was this nation's two term 43rd VP, his son was our two term 43rd President-an amazing coincidence
And now it seems that 12 years later Nancy Reagan providentially died when Republican Donald Trump (born like Bush in 1946 and in Queens, New York like Mrs. Reagan*), and Hillary Clinton (John Kerry's predecessor at State) are running for the presidency and likely to be rivals. This is not a propitious sign for Hillary who will be vying with the Reagan-like Trump while John Kerry (loser of the 2004 race) is her successor at State continuing her failed foreign policy. In short, it looks like Hillary is John Kerry redux.
*Nancy Reagan was born in Flushing, Queens, and Trump in adjacent Jamaica, Queens.
Another fascinating coincidence is that Nancy Reagan (born July-6-1921) celebrated her 25th birthday when George W. Bush was born (7-6-1946)-22 days after Trump's birth. Also Reagan, the 40th president, died on the 40th month of the Bush administration; and when he died the administration was in its 176th week (see). This is mind bogglingly odd in that on Reagan's death (6-5-04) Donald Trump was exactly 21,176 days old  (see). Even odder is that encoded in this five digit number is Nancy Reagan's date of birth: 7-6-21. This looks like another sign that the 2004 reelection of George Bush (who defeated John Kerry) foreshadows the defeat of Hillary Clinton, Kerry's predecessor at State. Indeed, Ronald and Nancy Reagan dying when they did make Donald Trump's prospects for becoming the next Ronald Reagan look truly outstanding. But there's more.
On March 3rd, three days before Nancy Reagan's death, loser Mitt Romney (leader of the doomed to fail Never Trumpers) gave an excoriating anti-Trump speech blasting the billionaire as being unfit for the presidency. This is the same Mitt Romney whose father George tried and failed to stop Barry Goldwater from getting the Republican nomination in 1964 (see). As Ronald Reagan backed Goldwater (he was his greatest champion and friend) his wife's death three days after Romney's anti-Trump speech looks like he'll be no more successful in stopping the billionaire than was his father in stopping Goldwater. But this is not 1964. And Hillary is not an invincible LBJ running on the promise to continue the agenda and legacy of the murdered and very popular JFK. Aside from all her baggage (she's under three investigations) Hillary is an old tired woman lacking the energy, stamina and strength to keep pace with the indefatigable almost Herculean Donald Trump; and she could possibly burn out before election day if she's not careful when exerting herself on the campaign trail. But regardless of her health, Hillary, I believe, is the 2016 Mitt Romney and John Kerry rolled into one; and, God willing, she will share the fate of both these men when November 8th comes around.
This is extraordinary. In 2004 when Ronald Reagan died John Kerry was defeated by George Bush, who was born in 1946. In 2016 when Nancy Reagan died Hillary Clinton was defeated for the presidency by Donald Trump, who also was born in 1946. Incredibly, the births of Kerry and Clinton were separated by exactly 46 months (see).
And while the number 47 has proved to be inauspicious for the 1947 born Hillary exactly 47 weeks separates the launch of her campaign (April 12, 2015) from Nancy Reagan's death on March 6th of last year (see). Moreover, Nancy Reagan died at age 94, a multiple of 47 2x. And she died exactly 11 years and 9 months from her husband's death (see). This equate to 141 months, a multiple of 47 3x.  Eerie, isn't it?


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

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

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


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

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

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


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


ApolloSpeaks     Richard Thompson


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


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


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

Read more at:





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

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


Conservative intellectuals are split over Trump.


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








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

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

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




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





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

 photo Cco7X3_W4AEmaTN.jpg 



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




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



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



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



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


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


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


 Hillary disagreeing with Obama that America is great.


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


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


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






The Reaction: The end of American hegemony

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


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


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

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

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


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