The Front Page Cover
2016 The truth will set you free
Featuring:
What if Trump and liar-Clinton
Have the Same Core Beliefs?
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
~~~
.
The Second Presidential Ambush, er, Debate
This was not a debate, it was a seemingly coordinated ambush of Donald Trump by liar-Hillary Clinton, Martha Raddatz and Anderson Cooper. The "moderators" asked questions from the town hall audience, from social media, and of their own. There were questions about nObamaCare, liar-Clinton's email and her deplorable remarks, but it was clear from the outset that liar-Clinton had a tag team in the moderators, who incessantly interrupted Trump, chased him for the answer they wanted or flat out cut him off in the middle of answers. Not once did they do that to liar-Clinton. They both actually debated him on his tax returns and Syria. "It's one-on-three," Trump rejoined at one point. He was right, and in spite of it all he had a pretty good night.
The bias extended to the treatment of the audience. Early on, Raddatz rebuked Trump supporters for cheering, but not 30 seconds later, liar-Hillary's fans went wild without a word from the moderators. Five minutes later, the moderators chastised Trump supporters again — Cooper even lectured, "You're just wasting time."
liar-Clinton cleverly avoided the much-talked-about Trump tape (more on that below) while answering the first question about "modeling appropriate and positive behavior for today's youth." Perhaps that's because she was biding her time for the second question, which, right on cue, hit directly on the recording. Cooper repeatedly badgered Trump to actually confess to a crime on national TV. liar-Clinton then declared Trump to be the first Republican unfit for office. But remember: She is the alternative, and she is decidedly unfit to serve.
Trump hit back, though Raddatz stopped him in his tracks to ask again about the tape. So he attacked the liar-Clintons' record of deeds: "If you look at Bill liar-Clinton, far worse. Mine are words, and his was action. His was what he's done to women. ... Bill liar-Clinton was abusive to women. liar-Hillary Clinton attacked those same women and attacked them viciously." He even brought up liar-Hillary laughing on tape at a victim of rape. "Don't tell me about words," he said. "What President liar-Clinton did..."
(Significantly, just before the debate Trump held a press conference featuring three of Bill liar-Clinton's victims — Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick. Also present was Kathy Shelton, who was raped as a 12-year-old girl, only to see a young liar-Hillary Clinton defend her rapist and besmirch her character. The press event was a brilliant stroke for Trump, and set the stage for the debate in a way even the liar-Clinton Machine must envy.)
Briefly, a couple of other key moments. At one point, liar-Clinton launched into her feel-good leftist bromides, saying, "We are going to respect one another, lift each other up. We are going to be looking for ways to celebrate our diversity." Later, she criticized Trump's proposed Muslim ban, saying, "We are a country founded on religious freedom and liberty. ... Are we going to have religious tests when people fly into our country?" We have one simple rebuttal: Let's ask the bakers, florists and photographers being run out of business by the Rainbow Mafia for declining to service same-sex weddings whether they think we're having religious tests or celebrating diversity in a country founded on religious liberty. Let's also ask the "basket of deplorables" whether liar-Clinton is tolerant.
Furthermore, the most dangerous thing for Muslims is not Trump's rhetoric but the liar-Clinton-nObama record. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims are dead or facing humanitarian crisis in Syria and Iraq because liar-Clinton and nObama created the Islamic State.
Taxes were another moment that Trump more than held his own, and that's because, despite the liar-Clinton-favoring question about the wealthy "paying their fair share," Trump boiled it down to this: "She is raising your taxes and I'm lowering your taxes." That was a moment to remember.
Best line of the night was when liar-Clinton patronized, "It's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country." Without missing a beat, he said, "Because you'd be in jail." Clearly, liar-Clinton brought a knife to a gunfight.
All in all, Trump kept himself in the race in the wake of his worst weekend yet. The firestorm over his "locker room talk" won't soon go away, but he parried the charges well enough and counterpunched liar-Clinton where it hurts. He also answered one much broader question — he isn't going anywhere. ~The Patriot Post
.
Donald's Boorish Comments and Bill's Criminal Actions
liar-Hillary Clinton and her Leftmedia super PAC got their dream candidate. We warned throughout the primary that the Leftmedia wanted Donald Trump as the Republican nominee because stories like the one that broke Friday afternoon would help boost liar-Clinton, an incredibly weak candidate. And indeed, the Left couldn't ask for a better October surprise than to be able to run headline after headline about Trump's awful comments coupled with GOP leaders withdrawing their support and calling for the nominee to step aside.
We'll leave Trump's actual lewd and despicable comments for others to repeat, but the reason they're so devastating is, as Andrew McCarthy put it, "[T]he power of a tape to make its mark on our consciousness is simply unequaled by written and oral descriptions."
In any case, there are a couple of primary takeaways. First, Trump is Trump, and he's not going to change. If that wasn't clear before, well ... it should have been. Second, for liar-Clinton and her Leftmedia allies, this is all about women voters. How they feel about Trump will either depress his support and/or increase liar-Clinton's. She's depending on women to win.
But we'll say this to liar-Clinton and her leftist gaggle: Spare us your indignations.
We'll leave Trump's actual lewd and despicable comments for others to repeat, but the reason they're so devastating is, as Andrew McCarthy put it, "[T]he power of a tape to make its mark on our consciousness is simply unequaled by written and oral descriptions."
In any case, there are a couple of primary takeaways. First, Trump is Trump, and he's not going to change. If that wasn't clear before, well ... it should have been. Second, for liar-Clinton and her Leftmedia allies, this is all about women voters. How they feel about Trump will either depress his support and/or increase liar-Clinton's. She's depending on women to win.
But we'll say this to liar-Clinton and her leftist gaggle: Spare us your indignations.
What Trump said and did is horrible and inexcusable. But Bill liar-Clinton raped several women, had an affair with another in the Oval Office itself, and liar-Hillary Clinton viciously attacked those women in public in a craven attempt to save her own political future. This was consistent with her character, too. As a young lawyer, liar-Clinton defended a child rapist, happily destroying the victim's character in the process. As the nation's top diplomat, liar-Clinton broke federal law regarding classified information, endangering national security, and she ran a pay-to-play operation called the liar-Clinton Foundation. And Democrats do nothing but rally around the liar-Clintons. What Trump said 11 years ago doesn't change the fact that liar-Hillary is manifestly unfit for office. And either liar-Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump is going to be president come January. Make your choice, America. ~The Patriot Post.
WikiLeaks liar-Clinton Emails Released I
ncluded These On Communications Security
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ It’s more than interesting that liar-Hillary Clinton has played dumb in her recent email scandals when emails released today by WikiLeaks show she was very familiar with the risks associated with hand-held communication devices and with computers... She even derides the State Department and government for being so far behind in their use of technology. The following email samples, taken from documents released by WikiLeaks on October 7th, provide interesting insight into the contradictions between her actions and her claims. The emphasis was added for the article. liar-Hillary Clinton: “When I Got To The State Department, It Was Still Against The Rules To Let Most — Or Let All Foreign Service Officers Have Access To A Blackberry.” *“I mean, let’s face it, our government is woefully, woefully behind in all of its policies that affect the use of technology. When I got to the State Department, it was still against the rules to let most — or let all Foreign Service Officers have access to a Blackberry. You couldn’t have desktop computers when Colin Powell was there. Everything that you are taking advantage of, inventing and using, is still a generation or two behind when it comes to our government.” [liar-Hillary Clinton Remarks at Nexenta, 8/28/14] http://rickwells.us/wikileaks-clinton-emails-released-included-these-on-communications-security/
.
liar-Hillary’s Benghazi Coverup
Threatens Terror Prosecutions
by Andrew C. McCarthy
{nationalreview.com} ~ Well, you heard it here first: As I warned back in August 2015, liar-Hillary Clinton’s recklessly irresponsible mishandling of classified intelligence and destruction of thousands of government records was certain to undermine any government attempt to prosecute cases related to the Benghazi massacre and the nObama-administration policies... spearheaded by then-Secretary liar-Clinton – that led up to it. It has now happened. And there is still another shoe to drop – one the nObama Justice Department has conveniently managed to push beyond Election Day. On Tuesday, Politico reported that the Justice Department had quietly dropped a criminal case against Marc Turi. He had been indicted by federal prosecutors in Phoenix for supplying arms to Libyan “rebels” during the 2010–11 civil war...
.
Allen West: DAYS before debate,
new Benghazi BOMBSHELL
by Allen B. West
{allenwestrepublic.com} ~ During the vice presidential debate earlier this week, Sen. Tim Kaine listed a bunch of accomplishments by former Secretary of State liar-Hillary Clinton. The problem is, most of what he laid out were just delusional fabrications... Well, the hits just keep on coming about what liar-Hillary Clinton, and Barack nObama, actually did accomplish — in addition to abandoning Americans for 13 hours to die and then lying about it. Federal prosecutors faced a Wednesday deadline to turn over discovery documents to the legal team of American Marc Turi, who had been charged with selling weapons to Libyan rebels. Late Tuesday, an announcement came that the government was dropping the case, which was set to go to trial on Nov. 8 – the day American voters choose between liar-Clinton and GOP nominee Donald Trump. The move may avert a release of potentially explosive documents...
.
Checklist of liar-Hillary's crimes all in 1 case
by Curtis Ellis
{wnd.com} ~ The Department of Justice dropped its case against an American charged with attempting to ship arms to Islamic terrorists. This one story contains pretty much everything that’s wrong with the liar-Clinton/nObama regime... law breaking, deception, aid to Islamist terrorists, the mixing of public and private business and the politicization of all government agencies, including Justice. As WND previously reported, on Feb. 11, 2014, the Department of Justice indicted arms dealer Marc Turi for allegedly making false statements in filing to obtain a license to supply weapons to Libya. The indictment essentially said Turi knew that weapons he was ostensibly selling to the Gulf state of Qatar would end up arming Islamist militias in Libya fighting to overthrow Moammar Gadhafi. Turi’s defense attorney said if the case came to trial it would expose a covert gun-running operation conceived by the liar-Clinton State Department to arm al-Qaida-affiliated militias in Libya. The operation would be a violation of a U.N. arms embargo and U.S. laws against providing material support for terrorist organizations. Under 18 U.S. Code 2339A & 2339B, penalties for providing or attempting to provide material support to terrorism include imprisonment from 15 years to life...
.
BREAKING: FBI Agents are
Ready to REVOLT over liar-Clinton probe
by Paul Sperry
.
nObama Public Comments More Offensive
Than Trump, Media Ignored It Completely
by Rick Wells
{rickwells.us} ~ Our current squatter in the dingy-White House had some things to say that should have been even more offensive to the sensitivities of those in possession of a highly developed liberal sense of selective outrage... For some reason, mysteriously, they were completely ignored. Rather than being the trash talk in what was thought to be a private conversation between two guys, Hussein nObama aired his spicy diatribe in public, at an institute of liberal thinking. That’s the type of thought that is sometimes confused for intellectualism by those who practice it. nObama demonstrated not only his lack of respect for women, but his condescension of Arabs, those who, unlike himself are not half-whites but complete 100 percent rib-eating black people, especially those unfortunate Africans still forced into a primitive life “in the jungle.”... http://rickwells.us/obama-public-comments-offensive-trump-media-ignored/
.
The noose is tightening quickly
on the global economy
by Brandon Smith
{personalliberty.com} ~ The investment world has a distinctly short attention span. Frankly, it is a necessity. If daytraders, hedge funds and other horses in the carousel actually had to look beyond the next week of market activity or look back at market history in comparison to today... then they would not be able to retain their blind optimism, which is exactly what is necessary for them to continue functioning. If they were all to look at the global financial situation with any honesty, the entire facade would collapse tomorrow. Ultimately, it is not central bank stimulus and intervention alone that drives equities and bond markets; it is the naive faith and willful ignorance of average market participants. There is a problem with this kind of economic model, however. Reality is never kept in check indefinitely. Fiscal truths will be exposed, one way or another. How does one know when this full spectrum shift in awareness will occur? Well, there’s no science to help us with that. While basic economics is subject to the forces of supply, demand and mathematical inevitability, human psychology is another matter entirely... http://personalliberty.com/noose-tightening-quickly-global-economy/
.
Trey Gowdy "There’s One Last Way To Punish
liar-Hillary Clinton For Email Server"
by Douglas Wright
GOP Chaffetz and Gowdy Heated Exchange
with Democrats "House GOP vows penalty
for TECH no show"
by samuel ezerzer
.
nObama Department of Injustice Drops Case
Against Arms Dealer to Protect liar-Hillary!
by Onan Coca
{constitution.com} ~ On Thursday we reported that the Justice Department had refused to pursue charges against an arms dealer due to worry that it could hurt liar-Hillary Clinton’s run for the White House... Today, we tie some of the loose ends to that story together to show liar-Clinton’s history of illegal behavior. On September 11, 2012 Muslim terrorists attacked our embassy in Benghazi, Libya and the nObama administration immediately went into full spin mode attempting to hide the reality of what was taking place. They told us that there was a “spontaneous uprising,” then they explained that a YouTube video was to blame, and finally that there was no indication that the embassy was targeted by terrorists. This spin continued out of the nObama administration for weeks, back and forth from protest, to terrorism, and back again we went. It would be months before the picture began to clearly appear and years before enough pieces of the puzzle were available for us to actually piece together what happened...
.
D.C. thinks Americans are "stupid and
should do what they are told"
{conventionofstates.com} ~ The ruling “elite” in Washington “have no idea what Americans think and they don't care. They think Americans are stupid and should do what they are told," according to a new survey... Among the federal bureaucrats, think tank leaders, and congressional staff members surveyed, 72 percent believe the public has no knowledge about policies to aid the poor and 71 percent believe the public doesn’t understand science and technology. Among the eight different policy areas surveyed, no more than 6 percent believed the public had “a great deal” of knowledge on the topic. While media outlets endlessly poll and probe the American people to understand why they feel so disenchanted with their government, Professor Benjamin Ginsberg and Senior Lecturer Jennifer Bachner instead looked at America's political ruling class for answers. The federal bureaucrats, think tank leaders, and congressional staff members they surveyed, Ginsberg said in an interview with VICE News, "have no idea what Americans think and they don't care...
.
.
What if Trump and liar-Clinton
Have the Same Core Beliefs?
by Judge Andrew Napolitano
{townhall.com} ~ What if the most remarkable aspect of this presidential election is not how much the two principal candidates disagree with each other but how much they actually agree?
What if they are both statists? What if they both believe that the government's first duty is to take care of itself? What if they both believe in the primacy of the state over the individual? What if, in clashes between the state and individuals, they both would use the power of the state to trample the rights of individuals?
What if the first priority of both is not to decrease the size and scope of government but to expand it? What if they both believe that the federal government may lawfully and constitutionally right any wrong, tax any behavior and regulate any event? What if they both want to add a few thousand new employees to the federal payroll, give them badges and guns and black shirts, and engage them as federal police to insulate the federal government further from the people and the states?
What if, when James Madison wrote the Constitution, he took great pains to reserve powers to the people and the states that were not delegated away to the feds? What if both liar-Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump couldn't care less about that?
What if both of them reject the Madisonian principle that the federal government is limited in scope to the 16 unique and discrete powers given to it by the Constitution? What if they even reject the corollary to that principle, which is that the balance of governmental powers -- those not delegated by the Constitution to the feds -- resides in the states? What if they both reject the Madisonian principle that in areas of governmental power retained by the states, the states should be free from federal interference?
What if this principle of a limited federal government depends upon the principle of natural rights -- areas of human behavior and choice stemming from our humanity and immune from government interference? What if the Declaration of Independence and the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution define our natural rights as inalienable? What if both Trump and liar-Clinton reject that? What if she believes in killing innocents by drone and he believes in torturing innocents at Gitmo?
What if both liar-Clinton and Trump accept the principle that the federal government can address any problem for which there is a national political consensus? What if this idea -- championed by Woodrow Wilson, who hated the values of Madison -- is the opposite of what the Framers wrote and intended?
What if this Wilsonian principle has unleashed the federal government to regulate nearly all aspects of personal behavior and to enhance immeasurably the powers of an unelected, unseen and unaccountable federal bureaucracy, which never seems to shrink or change?
What if both Trump and liar-Clinton embrace the idea that federal power, rather than being limited by the Constitution, is limited only by what the feds can't get away with politically? What if this concept was expressly rejected by the Framers but both Trump and liar-Clinton don't care? What if neither of them believes that a limited federal government must reside and remain within the confines of the Constitution?
What if Trump wants the police to be able to stop anyone they wish based on just a hunch that the person is armed or possessing contraband? What if the Fourth Amendment -- which requires the police to have individual articulable suspicion, not just hunches and not judgments based on race, in order to stop a person -- was expressly written to prohibit just what Trump wants? What if Trump doesn't care because he prefers votes to constitutional fidelity?
What if liar-Clinton wants free higher education for all in America who go to community colleges, all of which are government-owned? What if the Constitution does not delegate regulatory or spending authority over education to the feds? What if there is no such thing as "free" college? What if someone somewhere will need to pay for it?
What if all federal revenue is already committed to wealth transfers (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare), interest payments on the federal government's debt (now north of $400 billion annually) and the Pentagon (which spends crazily so its budget won't be reduced in the future)? What if the liar-Clinton "free" college deal would mean the feds would need to tax more or borrow more or both?
What if more taxation means less money for the productive aspects of society? What if more borrowing produces a decrease in the value of what you already own? What if a dollar spent by the feds produces far less wealth -- jobs, income, productivity -- than a dollar invested in the private sector? What if liar-Clinton doesn't care because she prefers votes to economic productivity?
What if both Trump and liar-Clinton believe they can use the federal government to bribe the poor with handouts, the middle class with tax breaks, the rich with bailouts and write-offs, and the states with block grants? What if Trump himself has benefited enormously from federal write-offs available only to the very rich?
What if neither talks about personal liberty in a free society? What if they both talk about the government's duty to keep us safe? What if neither talks about the government's first duty, which is to keep us free? What if neither believes that the government works for us? What if they both really believe that we work for the government?
What if Mark Twain was right when he said that the reason we get to vote is it doesn't make much difference?
What if they are both statists? What if they both believe that the government's first duty is to take care of itself? What if they both believe in the primacy of the state over the individual? What if, in clashes between the state and individuals, they both would use the power of the state to trample the rights of individuals?
What if the first priority of both is not to decrease the size and scope of government but to expand it? What if they both believe that the federal government may lawfully and constitutionally right any wrong, tax any behavior and regulate any event? What if they both want to add a few thousand new employees to the federal payroll, give them badges and guns and black shirts, and engage them as federal police to insulate the federal government further from the people and the states?
What if, when James Madison wrote the Constitution, he took great pains to reserve powers to the people and the states that were not delegated away to the feds? What if both liar-Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump couldn't care less about that?
What if both of them reject the Madisonian principle that the federal government is limited in scope to the 16 unique and discrete powers given to it by the Constitution? What if they even reject the corollary to that principle, which is that the balance of governmental powers -- those not delegated by the Constitution to the feds -- resides in the states? What if they both reject the Madisonian principle that in areas of governmental power retained by the states, the states should be free from federal interference?
What if this principle of a limited federal government depends upon the principle of natural rights -- areas of human behavior and choice stemming from our humanity and immune from government interference? What if the Declaration of Independence and the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution define our natural rights as inalienable? What if both Trump and liar-Clinton reject that? What if she believes in killing innocents by drone and he believes in torturing innocents at Gitmo?
What if both liar-Clinton and Trump accept the principle that the federal government can address any problem for which there is a national political consensus? What if this idea -- championed by Woodrow Wilson, who hated the values of Madison -- is the opposite of what the Framers wrote and intended?
What if this Wilsonian principle has unleashed the federal government to regulate nearly all aspects of personal behavior and to enhance immeasurably the powers of an unelected, unseen and unaccountable federal bureaucracy, which never seems to shrink or change?
What if both Trump and liar-Clinton embrace the idea that federal power, rather than being limited by the Constitution, is limited only by what the feds can't get away with politically? What if this concept was expressly rejected by the Framers but both Trump and liar-Clinton don't care? What if neither of them believes that a limited federal government must reside and remain within the confines of the Constitution?
What if Trump wants the police to be able to stop anyone they wish based on just a hunch that the person is armed or possessing contraband? What if the Fourth Amendment -- which requires the police to have individual articulable suspicion, not just hunches and not judgments based on race, in order to stop a person -- was expressly written to prohibit just what Trump wants? What if Trump doesn't care because he prefers votes to constitutional fidelity?
What if liar-Clinton wants free higher education for all in America who go to community colleges, all of which are government-owned? What if the Constitution does not delegate regulatory or spending authority over education to the feds? What if there is no such thing as "free" college? What if someone somewhere will need to pay for it?
What if all federal revenue is already committed to wealth transfers (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare), interest payments on the federal government's debt (now north of $400 billion annually) and the Pentagon (which spends crazily so its budget won't be reduced in the future)? What if the liar-Clinton "free" college deal would mean the feds would need to tax more or borrow more or both?
What if more taxation means less money for the productive aspects of society? What if more borrowing produces a decrease in the value of what you already own? What if a dollar spent by the feds produces far less wealth -- jobs, income, productivity -- than a dollar invested in the private sector? What if liar-Clinton doesn't care because she prefers votes to economic productivity?
What if both Trump and liar-Clinton believe they can use the federal government to bribe the poor with handouts, the middle class with tax breaks, the rich with bailouts and write-offs, and the states with block grants? What if Trump himself has benefited enormously from federal write-offs available only to the very rich?
What if neither talks about personal liberty in a free society? What if they both talk about the government's duty to keep us safe? What if neither talks about the government's first duty, which is to keep us free? What if neither believes that the government works for us? What if they both really believe that we work for the government?
What if Mark Twain was right when he said that the reason we get to vote is it doesn't make much difference?
Comments