Monday, December 19, 2016

Michelle Obama's suggestion Trump is end of 'hope' for America gets pushback

Published December 17, 2016

President-elect Donald Trump on Saturday was gracious to first lady Michelle Obama, yet he countered her suggestion that the United States has lost "hope" since Trump's November victory, saying Obama must have been talking "about the past."

"Michelle Obama says there is no hope,” Trump said at a rally in Alabama. “I assume she was talking about the past not the future. I honestly believe she meant that statement differently than the way it came out.”

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker was even more blunt during his opening remarks for Trump, speaking directly to Obama: "Yes, Michelle, we have hope again."

Obama said in an excerpt of her final White House interview, conducted by Oprah Winfrey: “We feel the difference now. ... Now we’re feeling like what not having hope feels like. … What do you do if you don’t have hope, Oprah?”

Read more at:

Michelle Obama - AP photo 2016

Monday, October 31, 2016

This Judge Says He’s 100% Certain Hillary Will Be Indicted And CONVICTED

Featured Contributor
The Political Insider

Judge Andrew Napolitano has long been leaning towards the possibility that Hillary Clinton could face a recommendation of indictment by the FBI over her handling of classified information.

Napolitano has previously stated that Clinton is at “the vortex of a perfect storm of legal misery.”

Now he’s upping the ante, however, saying he’s not only 100% certain that the FBI has enough evidence to indict the former Secretary of State, but that he’s 100% certain there is also enough to convict her.

“The evidence of her guilt is overwhelming,” Napolitano told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly.

He also revealed that the FBI is in the final stages of their investigation, suggesting a decision could be right around the corner.

Will we actually see the untouchable Clinton’s pay for their alleged crimes?

Read more at:

Hillary Clinton - D'ohh!

Friday, October 28, 2016

FBI reopening investigation of Hillary Clinton email server

By Theodore Schleifer, CNN
Updated 2:13 PM ET, Fri October 28, 2016

FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers Friday the bureau is reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton's personal email server, a surprise development 11 days ahead of the election.

After recommending earlier this year that the Department of Justice not press charges against the former secretary of state, Comey said in a letter to eight congressional committee chairmen that "recent developments" urged him to take another look.
"In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear pertinent to the investigation," Comey wrote the chairmen. "I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation."
Comey said that he was not sure how long the additional review would take and said the FBI "cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant."
Law enforcement sources say the newly discovered emails are not related to WikiLeaks or the Clinton Foundation. They would not describe in further detail the content of the emails. It's also unclear whether the emails in question are from Clinton herself.
Clinton's campaign learned of the news while they were aboard a flight to Iowa.

Read more at:

Monday, October 24, 2016

Concern Grows Over Soros-Linked Voting Machines

Concern is growing over revelations that voting machines in a significant number of states will be controlled by a company tied directly to billionaire leftist George Soros and his personal quest to create a nationless, borderless global state.

The U.K.-based Smartmatic company has provided voting machines for 16 states, including important battleground states like Florida and Arizona. Smartmatic Chairman Mark Malloch-Brown is a former U.N. official and sits on the board of Soros’ Open Society Foundations.

If Malloch-Brown’s Soros ties weren’t troubling enough, he also has ties to the Clintons through his work at two consulting firms.

Leaked emails courtesy of WikiLeaks have shed further light on the deeply incestuous relationship between Soros and high-level Democratic Party players. The discovery that the man in control of voting machines in 16 states is tied directly to the man who has given millions of dollars to the Clinton campaign and various progressive and globalist causes will surely leave a bad taste in many voters’ mouths.

Malloch-Brown’s ties to Soros stretch far beyond his position at OSF. In the mid-1990s, Malloch-Brown was part of the Soros Advisory Committee on Bosnia. Malloch-Brown is also a member of the executive committee of the International Crisis Group, an organization he co-founded in the 1990s and built primarily with funds from George Soros’ personal fortune.

Whilst working for the U.N., Malloch-Brown rented an apartment from Soros when on assignment in New York. In 2007, Soros appointed Malloch-Brown vice president of his Quantum Funds, vice chairman of Soros Fund Management, and vice chairman of the Open Society Institute (the former name of OSF).

If Malloch-Brown’s Soros ties weren’t troubling enough, he also has ties to the Clintons through his work at two consulting firms known for their Clinton connections.

Malloch-Brown was a partner with Sawyer-Miller, the consulting firm where close Clinton associate Mandy Grunwald once worked. She ran the firm’s communications contract with the 1992 Clinton campaign. Malloch-Brown was also a senior adviser to FTI Consulting, a firm at which Jackson Dunn, who spent 15 years working as an aide to the Clintons, is a senior managing director.

Malloch-Brown’s ties to George Soros and the Clintons are enough to elicit fear over Smartmatic’s involvement in the U.S. election — but when combined with Smartmatic’s dismal track record of providing free and fair elections, their involvement in the U.S. presidential election becomes downright terrifying.

A 2006 classified U.S. diplomatic cable obtained and released by WikiLeaks reveals the extent to which Smartmatic may have played a hand in rigging the 2004 Venezuelan recall election under a section titled “A Shadow of Fraud.” The memo stated that “Smartmatic Corporation is a riddle both in ownership and operation, complicated by the fact that its machines have overseen several landslide (and contested) victories by President Hugo Chavez and his supporters.”

Read more at:

Read Full Story At LifeZette:

George Soros

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

President Hillary Clinton Would Declare War on Conservative Christians

October 18, 2016 By Kristie McDonald

Make no mistake about it. If you are a conservative Christian and Hillary Clinton becomes our next president, she will declare war on certain aspects of your faith. Your religious liberties will be targeted, and your biblical beliefs will be branded disturbing, if not downright dangerous.

Do not be deceived.

She has made herself perfectly clear on this in the recent past, and we deny this is to our own peril.
Writing for the left-leaning Washington Post, Marc Thiessen, former chief speechwriter for George W. Bush, declared that “Hillary Clinton is a threat to religious liberty.”

He began his October 13 column with these two sobering paragraphs:
“In a speech not long before she launched her 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton made a stunning declaration of war on religious Americans. Speaking to the 2015 Women in the World Summit, Clinton declared that ‘deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.’

“Religious beliefs have to be changed? This is perhaps the most radical statement against religious liberty ever uttered by someone seeking the presidency. It is also deeply revealing. Clinton believes that, as president, it is her job not to respect the views of religious conservatives but to force them to change their beliefs and bend to her radical agenda favoring taxpayer-funded abortion on demand.”
Theissen is not overstating the case, and in light of one recent court case and one pending bill, both in California and both with potential to go to the Supreme Court, the real dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency can hardly be exaggerated.

Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that pro-life pregnancy centers are required to promote abortion, meaning, that if a pregnant woman comes to them not knowing what to do about her pregnancy, along with counseling her about adoption or keeping her own baby, they must also refer her to a local abortion clinic.

Yes, under the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act, this is the law, the Ninth Circuit upheld it.
What an absolute outrage, and what an infringement on religious liberties, since these pro-life centers, which are invariably run by conservative Christians, are being forced to violate their sacredly held beliefs.

Hillary Clinton supports legislation like this, and she would absolutely appoint Supreme Court justices who would support this as well.
She has made this abundantly, unequivocally clear for many years, without wavering, and she is the most favored Planned Parenthood candidate in history.
As I wrote previously, if you vote for Hillary Clinton, you will have the blood of the unborn on your hands.

And note also the extreme hypocrisy of this ruling, since abortion clinics are not required to refer their clients to local pro-life pregnancy centers. They are not even required to show the mother an ultrasound of her baby, since that would allegedly infringe on her rights.
God forbid that you remind her that she has a baby in her womb.

In an email announcing the Ninth Court’s ruling, Matt Bowman, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel, said, “It’s bad enough if the government tells you what you can’t say, but a law that tells you what you must say — under threat of severe punishment — is even more unjust and dangerous.”
The ADF is considering appealing the ruling, which, as stated, could ultimately make it to the Supreme Court, but with Hillary as president, you know how the court will rule.

Do you want to facilitate this by helping to elect her to the highest office in the land? Do you want to be one of the people who helped empower her to be president?

Hillary Clinton 2016 Press conference

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

If you are even THINKING of voting for Hillary Clinton, you MUST read this!

Th story at the attached link is a MUST read for anyone even thinking about voting for Hillary Clinton (If the article gets forced offline I will post it in its entirety here!):

Never in American history has anyone as unfit and undeserving as Hillary Clinton run for U.S. President. While she stands on the threshold of being elected to the White House, she quite literally belongs in a prison cell. This article lays out the case against her, chapter and verse.

Read the article at:

#Hillary Clinton 10/2016

Monday, October 17, 2016

Clinton/WikiLeaks: Weapons to ISIS… Then Drops Another BOMBSHELL!

Featured Contributor
The Political Insider, October 17, 2016

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is a controversial character. But there’s no denying the emails he has picked up from inside the Democrat Party are real, and he’s willing to expose Hillary Clinton.

Now, he’s announcing that Hillary Clinton and her State Department were actively arming Islamic jihadists, which includes the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria.

Clinton has repeatedly denied these claims, including during multiple statements while under oath in front of the United States Senate.

WikiLeaks is about to prove Hillary Clinton deserves to be arrested.

JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, WikiLeaks has become the rebel library of Alexandria. It is the single most significant collection of information that doesn’t exist elsewhere, in a searchable, accessible, citable form, about how modern institutions actually behave. And it’s gone on to set people free from prison, where documents have been used in their court cases; hold the CIA accountable for renditions programs; feed into election cycles, which have resulted in the termination of, in some case—or contributed to the termination of governments, in some cases, taken the heads of intelligence agencies, ministers of defense and so on. So, you know, our civilizations can only be as good as our knowledge of what our civilization is. We can’t possibly hope to reform that which we do not understand.

So, those Hillary Clinton emails, they connect together with the cables that we have published of Hillary Clinton, creating a rich picture of how Hillary Clinton performs in office, but, more broadly, how the U.S. Department of State operates. So, for example, the disastrous, absolutely disastrous intervention in Libya, the destruction of the Gaddafi government, which led to the occupation of ISIS of large segments of that country, weapons flows going over to Syria, being pushed by Hillary Clinton, into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS, that’s there in those emails. There’s more than 1,700 emails in Hillary Clinton’s collection, that we have released, just about Libya alone.

Read more at:

Hillary Clinton, 2016

Thursday, October 13, 2016

Clinton campaign mocks Catholics, Southerners, ‘needy Latinos’ in emails

- The Washington Times - Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Long before Hillary Clinton called millions of Americans a “basket of deplorables,” her top campaign advisers and liberal allies openly mocked Catholics, Southerners and a host of other groups, according to newly released emails that offer a stunning window into the vitriol inside the Clinton world less than a month before Election Day.

The emails, published by WikiLeaks after a hack of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s private account, also show Clinton campaign officials and Democratic leaders disparaging supporters of Sen. Bernard Sanders as “self-righteous” whiners, calling Hispanic party leaders such as Bill Richardson “needy Latinos,” labeling CNN anchor Jake Tapper “a d—k” and even lambasting longtime Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal.

The sheer number of insults in the email trove has left the Clinton campaign, along with outside organizations such as the Center for American Progress that were routinely involved in the brutal bad-mouthing, unable or unwilling to respond. Instead, they have blamed the hack on Russia and have refused to even confirm that the emails are genuine, though they also haven’t denied their authenticity.

The Clinton campaign’s biggest problem may be its assault on Catholics. Prominent Catholic organizations called on Clinton campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri to resign after the surfacing of messages showing her making fun of the faith. The campaign of Republican nominee Donald Trump seized on the opportunity to appeal to religious voters.

“We call on Hillary Clinton to apologize and to fire the staff who have engaged in this vicious anti-Catholic bigotry. All of this shows who these people are at the core,” Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway told reporters on a conference call. “The American people need to know who they are and their very radical agenda that will be an assault on Catholics and all people of faith and good will.”

The messages in question are part of an April 2011 email discussion between Ms. Palmieri and John Halpin, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, which Mr. Podesta founded.

Read more at:

Hillary Clinton - AP Photo

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Hillary Clinton's Phantom Tax Relief Plan

Jeremy Scott, Contributor

Jeremy Scott, Contributor

Hillary Clinton would like voters to believe she’s the candidate most likely to help  working Americans.  After a surprisingly difficult primary fight with a socialist senator  from Vermont, Clinton has adopted a lot of populist economic rhetoric.  On her campaign  website, she says she has an eight-point plan to help the middle class, with the first  point saying, “Hillary is proposing middle-class tax breaks to help families cope with  the rising cost of everyday expenses.”  However, Clinton actually hasn’t ever released  her plan to cut middle-income taxes (or really any taxes), instead relying on evasive  answers and proposals for small-change tax expenditures.

In this photo taken Sept. 21, 2016, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton  speaks during a campaign stop in Orlando, Fla. The most telling moments in presidential  debates often come out of the blue, an offhand remark or unrehearsed gesture that helps  to reveal the essence of a candidate who’s already been poked, prodded and inspected for  years. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

Nowhere in Hillary’s plan for a raise for the middle class does her campaign discuss  lowering any income tax rates.  In fact, she most often talks about raising taxes on the  wealthy.  She talks about expanding child care credits and making college affordable.   She touts her support for unions, clean energy, and infrastructure, but doesn’t really  make it clear how those would increase voters’ take-home pay.

In March the Clinton campaign released a tax plan that would raise $1.1 trillion in new  taxes.  She told the Tax Policy Center that an income tax cut for low- and middle-income  families was forthcoming.  We’re still waiting.

On September 22 Clinton updated her tax plan again, this time spelling out major changes  to the estate tax (mirroring a plan put forward by Bernie Sanders).  But she still didn’t  talk about her promised middle-income tax cut.  And her campaign has hinted in some  places that what you see is what you get.  The tax credits for “everyday expenses” that  she has outlined in disjointed fashion throughout the Democratic campaign and general  election might be her only version of a tax cut for the middle class.

Hillary’s reluctance to commit to a specific tax cut for the middle class could be  related to her husband’s 1992 campaign.  During the battle with President George H. W.  Bush and Ross Perot, Bill Clinton pledged to cut taxes for most Americans, while fighting  the deficit.  Once he was in office, however, his plan changed almost entirely to deficit  reduction.  In fact, President Clinton’s 1993 budget was a massive tax increase (albeit  one that contributed to the first surpluses in decades by the time he left office).  The  backlash to that budget, along with a failed carbon tax and healthcare reform plan,  propelled Republicans to seizing both chambers of Congress for the first time in 40  years.  Maybe Hillary Clinton would like to avoid repeating that mistake.  Perhaps she,  probably accurately, sees that deficit reduction and new spending needs will trump any  desire for broad tax relief and doesn’t want to get caught up defending a flip-flop in  2018 and 2020.
Recommended by Forbes

Another possibility, which isn’t mutually exclusive from learning from her husband’s  experiences, is that Hillary Clinton simply isn’t all that committed to tax relief.   Rifle-shot tax expenditures that sound good, but don’t cost the government that much  revenue, have always been among the Clintons’ favorite political gambits.  Perhaps that’s  all Hillary thinks she needs to talk about to win over populists who were backing Sanders  or who might be thinking of supporting Donald Trump.

If that’s the case, then Clinton owes it to voters to make it clear that no new plan is  coming.  And voters who believe that actual tax relief is a key part of fighting  inequality or increasing take-home income need to look elsewhere.

Read more at: phantom-tax-relief-plan/#193623344a63

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

FBI uncovers 14,900 more documents in Clinton email probe

By Spencer S. Hsu August 22 at 4:50 PM
The Washington Post

The FBI’s year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server uncovered 14,900 emails and documents from her time as secretary of state that had not been disclosed by her attorneys, and a federal judge on Monday pressed the State Department to begin releasing emails sooner than mid-October as it planned.

Justice Department lawyers said last week that the State Department would review and turn over Clinton’s work-related emails to a conservative legal group. The records are among “tens of thousands” of documents found by the FBI in its probe and turned over to the State Department, Justice Department attorney Lisa Ann Olson said Monday in court.

The 14,900 Clinton documents are nearly 50 percent more than the roughly 30,000 emails that Clinton’s lawyers deemed work-related and returned to the department in December 2014.
In announcing the FBI’s findings in July, Comey said investigators found no evidence that the emails it found “were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.” Like many users, Clinton periodically deleted emails, or they were purged when devices were changed.

Clinton’s lawyers also may have deleted some of the emails as “personal,” Comey said, noting their review relied on header information and search terms, not a line-by-line reading as the FBI conducted.

Also on Monday, a GOP lawmaker issued subpoenas to three private companies that helped run or protect Clinton’s email server. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who chairs the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, is demanding documents by Sept. 9 after the firms declined earlier this year to produce them voluntarily.

The demands are part of a joint probe by Smith and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), who heads the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs panel. The lawmakers say that while the criminal investigation has ended, they have questions about the structure and security of Clinton’s email system and whether it met federally-recommended standards for cybersecurity and record preservation.

The subpoenas target Platte River Networks, which provided information technology services for Clinton’s server; Datto, Inc., which furnished immediate recovery of back-up data in the event the primary server failed; and SECNAP Network Security Corp., which carried out threat monitoring of the network connected to Clinton’s server. The firms’ services were retained in 2013.

A science committee aide said they are looking for information about breaches or potential breaches, and documents that detail the firms’ scope of work, for example.

Read more at:

Friday, August 12, 2016

Hillary Clinton's emails haunting her again!

Once again, Hillary Clinton’s carefully laid campaign plans have been disrupted by old emails.
On a day in which Clinton was hoping to inflict considerable damage on Donald Trump — this time, by ripping into his economic agenda — her campaign was on the defensive, scurrying to clean up the latest damaging revelations in years-old messages that were sent by Clinton and her staff and released as the result of a lawsuit.

The ongoing email dispute undermined the potency of a speech for which Clinton’s campaign had been laying groundwork all week, one in which she presented her economic agenda in full and tried to brand her self-styled populist rival a fraud.
Clinton, speaking in Michigan, did manage to deliver a combative, policy-laden address that effectively rebutted the economic plan that Trump presented in the battleground state days before.  Both are reaching out to the so-called Reagan Democrats who will decide the race’s outcome in the Rust Belt.

But Clinton and Trump continue to be distracted by self-inflicted wounds. Trump’s economic address was overshadowed by his suggestion soon after that maybe gun rights proponents would find a way to stop Clinton from appointing certain judges, which earned him widespread rebuke for casually inciting violence. Then, in unrelated and repeated comments, the Republican bizarrely 
repeatedly accused President Obama and Clinton of founding the Islamic State terrorist group.
But Clinton, too, has had difficulty staying on task. The fresh batch of emails was pried from the State Department thanks to a lawsuit filed by the conservative advocacy group Judicial Watch. It revealed what appeared to be seedy dealings by Clinton’s team at the agency.

In one message, a top Clinton aide appears to be trying to get a million-dollar donor from the family’s Clinton Foundation access to the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, after an executive at the foundation requested it. In another, the foundation executive appeared to request special help finding a job for an associate, and he was assured that the right people knew of the potential employee.   

The emails are not devastating, but they are damaging as Clinton struggles to boost her trustworthiness with voters. And such messages will continue to surface until the election. The State Department is being forced to release more documents as a result of government investigations and lawsuits like the one filed by Judicial Watch.

Hillary Clinton speaks Thursday in Warren, Mich., where she took on Donald Trump's economic agenda and what she called "outlandish Trumpian ideas." (Mandi Wright / Detroit Free Press)

Friday, July 29, 2016

More Hillary Clinton Emails to Be Released

More Hillary Clinton Emails to Be Released, Despite Conclusion of Criminal Probe

ABC News Go

Jul 22, 2016, 5:02 PM EST

If you're like most Americans, you might think we'd seen the last of Hillary Clinton's email messages when the State Department said in February that it had made them all public.

Turns out there's many more.

Originally, Clinton said she turned over 55,000 pages of work-related emails to the State Department that she'd accumulated during her time as secretary of state and deleted 30,000 personal ones.

But when FBI Director James Comey announced earlier this month that no criminal charges would be brought against her, he also revealed that his investigators had recovered many of the missing emails, some of which were work-related, not personal.

And because the State Department is the rightful owner of Clinton's work-related emails, the FBI has started returning them to the State Department.

State Department spokesman Elizabeth Trudeau said the FBI turned over an "initial set" of those documents on Thursday.

Read more at:

Hillary Clinton, 2016

Wednesday, July 6, 2016

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook

by Andrew C. McCarthy July 5, 2016 12:45 PM @AndrewCMcCarthy There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.
I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me. Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

Read more at:

Hillary Clinton

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Trump Issues Obama Epic Ultimatum: Say These 3 Words Or Resign!

Conservative Tribune
June 14, 2016

After the most deadly terror attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, Donald Trump has had enough with President Barack Obama’s equivocating on extremism. In a Twitter post published after the attack in Orlando early Sunday morning, Trump said that if Obama is not willing to call the attack “radical Islamic terrorism,” then he needs to resign.

According to CNN, Omar Mateen entered the Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando at 2 a.m. Sunday heavily armed, wanting to kill as many people as possible. Three hours later, when the standoff ended, 50 innocent lives had been taken.

Mateen called 911 during the attack to pledge allegiance to the Islamic State group. In addition, a statement posted on a web site affiliated with the Islamic State group said that “the armed attack that targeted a gay night club in the city of Orlando in the American state of Florida and that bore more than a 100 killed and wounded was carried out by an Islamic State fighter.”

...When addressing the nation, President Obama went as far as to say that, “We know enough to say this was an act of terror and act of hate.”

You may notice one or several words missing from that: namely, “Islam” or “Islamic State.” And Donald Trump isn’t having it.

“Is President Obama going to finally mention the words radical Islamic terrorism?” Trump wrote. “If he doesn’t he should immediately resign in disgrace!”

Sadly, this isn’t the first attack where the president has absolutely refused to mention Islam in conjunction with the terror that the radical form of it causes. After the Paris and Brussels attacks, he refused to say it either.

Unfortunately, it’s hardly going to be the last attack where the president has refused to mention Islam, either. That’s because he simply doesn’t realize what the problem is.

To him, this is just a hate crime — the same as two mentally ill Klansmen finding a black man and beating him with a baseball bat. While that’s completely vile, it isn’t part of an insidious multinational conspiracy to replace freedom of religion and lifestyle with an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-punishing caliphate.

Donald Trump is right. If President Obama cannot admit this, he cannot possibly fight it. It’s time for a president who can. Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter if you agree.

Read more at:


Thursday, June 2, 2016

Twenty Thousand Committed To Anti-Hillary ‘Occupy DNC’ Protest

Peter Hasson
The Daily Caller
8:19 PM 05/31/2016

More than twenty thousand people have committed to protest Hillary Clinton’s likely nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia — and that number is quickly growing.

The protesters are united in their support for Bernie Sanders, as well as their opposition to “a fraudulent Hillary nomination,” according to the group’s website.

Their leaders have set up a Facebook group — titled Occupy DNC Convention — to organize housing and transportation.

Protesters are encouraged to read documents shared within the group. One document is titled “Civil Disobedience Training.” Another is titled “Health and Safety at Militant Actions” and includes tips on first-aid and withstanding teargas.

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Bernie Sanders is starting to get the “everybody hates Ted Cruz” treatment
Ryu Spaeth
May 18, 2016

Bernie Sanders is starting to get the “everybody hates Ted Cruz” treatment.

The ongoing battle between Sanders and the Democratic National Committee has revealed not only the extent of Sanders’s contempt for Democratic officials, but that the feeling is mutual. His refusal to take a harder line against supporters who have issued violent, sexist threats against Nevada Democratic Chair Roberta Lange, along with his suggestion that they were justified in their anger, has brought condemnation from prominent Democrats and emboldened them to make harsher criticisms of Sanders and his brand of populist, anti-establishment politics. Barney Frank has gone so far as to suggest that this is why Sanders is something of an isolated figure in the party, a la Cruz.

Of course, no one’s calling Sanders “Lucifer in the flesh.” But he’s not making any friends either.

Read more at:

Bernie Sanders, 4/30/2015 Associated Press photo

Thursday, May 12, 2016

Mitt Romney: Trump Not Releasing His Tax Returns Is 'Disqualifying'

In an afternoon Facebook post, Romney, who released his own tax returns in 2012 after his personal finances came under scrutiny, skewered Trump's running excuse that an ongoing audit prevents him from releasing the records.
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service," the former Massachusetts governor wrote.
Romney said tax returns provide "sole confirmation" of the candidate's claims about charitable giving and personal wealth. He said the documents would also reveal any "hidden inappropriate associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other unsavory groups," while noting such findings aren't likely.
He also suggested Trump release his returns for the years not currently under audit.
"Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents releasing tax returns that are being audited," Romney said.
He continued: "There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr. Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume it's a bombshell of unusual size."
In an AP interview published Wednesday, Trump said he doesn't plan to release his tax returns before November.

Read more at:

Mitt Romney 5/2016  AP Photo / Julio Cortez

Friday, April 29, 2016

Ted Cruz Isn't Crazy – He's Much Worse

Ted Cruz Isn't Crazy – He's Much Worse

Cruz knows exactly what he's doing

BY JEB LUND December 4, 2015
Rollng Stone Magazine

For a long time, the left has had two caricatures of conservatives: that we are either stupid or evil," Ted Cruz is fond of saying. "I take it as a backhanded compliment that they have, to some extent, invented a third category for me: 'crazy.'" Porter Gifford/Corbis

In no particular order, Texas senator and Republican presidential aspirant Ted Cruz has: said acts of Christian terrorism stopped centuries ago, forgetting the Ku Klux Klan and the shooting in Colorado last week; claimed he has never met an anti-abortion activist who advocates violence, despite being endorsed by one just days before; dismissed the need for Planned Parenthood because there isn't a shortage of "rubbers" in America; and made an offhand comment that Colorado mass shooter Robert Dear could be a "transgendered leftist activist." All this in just the last week.

Cruz also has a favorite line he likes to use, which appears on the stump and in his book. "For a long time, the left has had two caricatures of conservatives: that we are either stupid or evil. I take it as a backhanded compliment that they have, to some extent, invented a third category for me: 'crazy.'" It's typical Cruz: both self-aggrandizing and distant from the truth, with a little temporizing statement ("to some extent") that rescues the self-aggrandizing part from being an outright lie. Either way, it's wrong.

Ted Cruz is far from crazy, which is the essential Ted Cruz problem. Crazy you can deal with, even forgive a little, often ignore. Ben Carson is a bowl of Froot Loops floating in a sad lethal pond of gasoline. Donald Trump went warp speed into the Trumpiverse decades ago. Both men have conducted their campaigns and recent years on perpetual tangents. But Ted Cruz knows exactly what he's doing. He doesn't even hide it particularly well. Not only is his intelligence one of his favorite selling points, his book undermines any notion that he misspeaks. He is gaffe proof because the gaffes are not arrived at by error. Ted Cruz does awful things by intelligent design.

Read more at:

Ted Cruz 2015

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Katie McGinty U.S. Senate, PA - Are you kidding???

Obama, Biden throw support behind Katie McGinty in U.S. Senate race

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have endorsed former state Environmental Secretary Katie McGinty in the April's competitive Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate.

---->> Bloggers notes:
Are you kidding me? Who the hell would vote for this Tramp with Obama and Biden BOTH endorsing her?? She also brags about how great ObamaCare is!

DON'T support this loser! Show her the door!!

Katie McGinty running for U.S. Senate PA 04/28/16 Mark Pynes - Penn Live

Thursday, April 14, 2016

REVOLT: Colorado Trump Fans Blast State GOP… Announce Revenge Set for Friday

The Republican Party in Colorado may have given away the state’s delegates to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz without a vote, but that doesn’t mean that Trump supporters are giving up without a fight.

A social media campaign has begun to protest the state party’s decision to decide its delegate allocation without a vote — 34 in total — during this election cycle. Sen. Cruz — whose ground game and political maneuvers have been besting Trump even when Cruz hasn’t been beating the billionaire at the polls — took all 34 Colorado delegates this weekend.

Colorado Votes Matter, a newly formed protest group, aimed to change that, and they planned to start this Friday.

“The Colorado Republican Party shamefully silenced its voters this election season. We demand that Colorado give the power to vote in the Presidential primary to the voters,” a statement on the group’s Facebook page read. “We will exercise our right to assemble and peacefully protest the corruption of the Colorado GOP and disenfranchisement that we the voters have suffered.”

That assembly will happen this Friday, when the group plans to demonstrate en masse against the Colorado state party outside its headquarters in Greenwood Village.

On the group’s website, it also said it aimed to show “how many people they have angered by silencing our voice … (and) a preview of what is to come if we come to a contested convention.”

Trump has also expressed great anger at the Colorado process. In an interview with “Fox & Friends” Monday, Trump said Colorado was the result of corruption by the Cruz campaign.

“I’ve gotten millions … of more votes than Cruz, and I’ve gotten hundreds of delegates more, and we keep fighting, fighting, fighting, and then you have a Colorado where they just get all of these delegates, and it’s not (even) a system,” Trump said, according to WND.

Trump also accused Cruz and his campaign of buying the vote.

“They offer them trips — they offer them all sorts of things, and you’re allowed to do that,” Trump said. “I mean, you’re allowed to offer trips, and you can buy all these votes. What kind of a system is this? Now, I’m an outsider, and I came into the system and I’m winning the votes by millions of votes. But the system is rigged. It’s crooked.”

It’s pretty common to see a candidate complain about that sort of thing when it doesn’t go their way. But a group of supporters who never even got to vote for him?

Like him or hate him, one thing’s for sure — Donald J. Trump has inspired passion that few other candidates have in recent times. The people of Colorado should have been able to vote for him if they wanted to — and, if Colorado Votes Matter has their way, they will be.

Read more at:

Donald Trump during a debate 2016

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

My Personal ObamaCare Experience

[From the blogger - True story!]
Andrew Shecktor
April 4, 2016

Obamacare IS broken, WAS broken, and will CONTINUE to be broken. It is un-fixable because it was poorly designed. It is illegal and unconstitutional (and I don't care what the liberal, long term, "should be impeached judges" have determined - the constitution is pretty much black and white!) My wife is just one example. She works at a grocer. Pre-Obamacare she paid $100.00 per month for good coverage with a $500.00 deductible. Obamacare comes - the store says "we're cutting all your hours so you can go on the exchanges and "save money." Guess what? The losers (including Hillary "The Criminal" Clinton) who designed this piece of crap base the cost of your insurance, and what subsidies you get on HOUSEHOLD income - and they apparently think that $40,000.00 is "rich"; I guess since they don't understand you can't live on that sort of income. In any event - I tried getting insurance at work, we tried getting insurance in the marketplace. Cost of new insurance would be between $450 and $600, with a $4,000 out of pocket and $1000 deductible! My wife makes $450 per month!!! Then - If I don't buy her insurance, they want to fine me 5 or 6 thousand dollars! And, all the slackers who are getting free or cheap insurance go the the hospital thinking "Oh, I have insurance." Then they get the deductible and out of pocket bill, don't pay it, and stiff the hospital. Guess who gets to pay this? We, the now poverty stricken middle class! This piece of crap has to be de-funded and repealed, and insurance companies dropping out is the start of a grand revolution against this illegal plan!

The Federal Government's $146 Billion Obamacare Boo-Boo

Bad things can happen when a government forecast proves to be way off.

Sean Williams
The Motley Fool
April 3, 2016

There are mistakes, and then there are big mistakes. What the Congressional Budget Office's latest report on federal subsidies revealed was a mistake of monstrous proportions on the part of the federal government.

Here's what a forecasting error looks like
The Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, has been making projections on the future of Obamacare, and healthcare in general, for years. Initially, the CBO had projected that up to 21 million people would sign up for private health insurance using Obamacare's transparent marketplace exchanges by 2016. However, that estimate has been substantially reduced to just 12 million. According to the Department of Health and Human Services, Obamacare enrollment totaled "about 12.7 million" as of the end of third enrollment period (Jan. 31, 2016). Ultimately, the CBO foresees private health enrollment via Obamacare topping out at between 18 million and 19 million people between 2018 and 2026.


Is Obamacare sustainable? It's anyone's guess at this point
What does the future of Obamacare hold now that its total cost is expected to be 11% higher between 2016 and 2025 than initially expected? That's really anyone's guess, as major changes could be on the horizon.

Obamacare's demise could be the 2016 presidential elections. With the exception of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party front-runner who has said she would build upon the progress of Obamacare, the remaining four candidates (Bernie Sanders from the Democratic Party and Republicans Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and John Kasich) have all suggested that Obamacare would be repealed under their watch. It's unclear how disruptive a full repeal would be for consumers or insurers.

We also have insurers that are struggling to make ends meet, at least in terms of Obamacare plans. UnitedHealth Group (NYSE:UNH), the nation's largest insurer that also happens to be operating in about half of all Obamacare exchanges, warned its investors recently that it could lose nearly $1 billion from its Obamacare plans in 2015 and 2016 combined. UnitedHealth has been crystal clear that it should have waited longer to enter the exchanges, and it's also cautioned that it may completely leave Obamacare's marketplace exchanges by 2017. Peer Humana has also threatened to do the same after individual market losses. The nation's largest insurer being unable to turn a profit and figure things out puts into question the program's long-term sustainability.

We're also seeing premium costs accelerating at a rapid pace. After a period of tame premium cost inflation, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimated the average premium increase of 50 major cities in 49 states at 10.1% in 2016. The transparency of Obamacare's marketplace exchanges was supposed to keep a lid on premium inflation, but crushing losses have caused some insurers, including more than half of Obamacare's healthcare cooperatives, to close up shop. Premium cost inflation like we're seeing in 2016 could make the Affordable Care Act quite unaffordable in short order.

Despite pushing uninsured rates to their lowest levels on record, Obamacare's long-term outlook is starting to look as shaky as ever.

Read more at:

White House Flikr photo 2016

Friday, April 1, 2016

Ted Cruz, false hope

The unctuous Texan is squandering a great chance handed to him by Stop-Trump Republicans

[Bloggers note: This is exactly how Mitt Romney lost in 2012 - by preaching the Gospel. Not that I personally have anything against that, but you won't win elections by doing so. There are to many atheists, agnostics and others, as well as liberals who fear your personal belief will take away their "right" to things like abortion, gay marriage, etc... As a political candidate, you need to tone down your personal beliefs and tweak your speeches to fit the audiences you need to win elections. You need to be honest but not pushy - you need to show you understand even issues you don't personally believe in. Neither Ted Cruz nor Mitt Romney seem able to do this.]

Apr 2nd 2016 | From the print edition

The day Ted Cruz announced he was running for president, in March 2015, he began his speech to thousands of cheering Christian evangelical students, "God bless Liberty University.”

One year later to the day, Cruz stood in midtown Manhattan under crystal chandeliers and addressed a suit-clad crowd much the same way, "God bless the great state of New York.”

Cruz’s unapologetic brand of Christian conservatism hasn’t changed much in the past 12 months, but the political terrain of the 2016 campaign has. After meticulously building an evangelical base that delivered Cruz an opening victory in Iowa and helped him amass the second-most delegates to Donald Trump through March, the Texas senator now faces a gantlet of some of the least religious states in the country. As few as four of the remaining states are projected to have a majority-evangelical GOP electorate.

Much has been made over the past few days of Trump's challenges in securing enough delegates to win the nomination. But unless Cruz can quickly make inroads with non-evangelical voters who so far have mostly rejected him, he has little chance of stopping Trump. So far, the candidate who disparaged his rival's "New York values" has shown no sign of tweaking his message to appeal to a less religious coastal electorate, gambling instead that antipathy toward Trump will be enough to draw those voters into his camp.

“You can safely say that his best days are behind him when it comes to the solid evangelical states,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University poll. “He’s going to have to appeal to people who are not necessarily terribly religious at this point.”

Read more at:

Ted Cruz 2016 - AP photo

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Will Hillary get charged, or what?

By Charles Gasparino
New York Post
March 20, 2016 | 8:00pm

By Charles Gasparino
New York Post
March 20, 2016 | 8:00pm

FBI chief James Comey and his investigators are increasingly certain that presidential nominee Hillary Clinton violated laws in handling classified government information through her private email server, career agents say.

Some expect him to push for charges, but he faces a formidable obstacle: the political types in the Obama White House who view a Clinton presidency as a third Obama term. With that, agents have been spreading the word, largely through associates in the private sector, that their boss is getting stonewalled, despite uncovering compelling evidence that Clinton broke the law.

Exactly what that evidence is — and how and when it was uncovered during Comey’s months-long inquiry — has not been disclosed. For the record, the FBI had no comment on the matter, and government sources say no final decision has been made.

Clinton denies she did anything wrong, claiming she had no idea she was getting classified information (a violation of federal law) on her private server during her years as Obama’s secretary of state because the documents she received contained no such headings.

And as FBI director, Comey can only recommend charges to the hacks in the Obama Justice Department. Indeed, many law enforcement officials who know the FBI chief and the bureau’s inner workings believe the evidence would have to be overwhelming for Comey to even recommend charges, much less for DOJ to pursue them.

Still, some FBI staffers suggest the probe’s at a point where Comey might quit in protest if Justice ignores a recommendation to pursue a criminal case against Clinton.

Just how close Comey is to any recommendation — whether to indict or exonerate Clinton — is difficult to know. But agents believe the probe is nearing an end. A State Department staffer who set up Clinton’s email server, for instance, was recently granted immunity from prosecution to provide Comey’s team with evidence.

“You don’t start granting people close to Clinton immunity unless you are seriously looking at charges against your target,” one former official told me.

I’m also told Comey and his team increasingly doubt Clinton’s story. Most officials know private email servers are easier to hack into than secure government servers. They also know that even documents not labeled “classified” may be top secret.

That’s why they’re supposed to be sent only through government accounts. Those who don’t follow those rules, like former CIA Director David Petraeus, have faced consequences.

Another matter for Comey & Co.: whether Clinton comingled her official State Department business with her role at the Clinton Foundation, and whether she wiped clean messages that show her using her office at State for foundation work.

Law enforcement sources also say Comey’s record as a prosecutor shows he has zero tolerance for such abuses.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton checks her BlackBerry from a desk inside a C-17 military plane upon her departure from Malta, in the Mediterranean Sea, bound for Tripoli, Libya, in 2011. 
Photo: AP

Thursday, March 10, 2016

Everybody Hates Ted (Cruz)

By Alex Shephard and Clio Chang
March 04, 2016

Indeed indeed, I cannot tell, / Though I ponder on it well, / Which were easier to state, / All my love or all my hate. —Henry David Thoreau

Thoreau, it seems, never met Ted Cruz, a man so blissfully easy to hate that loathing for him has become a form of political poetry: “wacko-bird,” “abrasive,” “arrogant,” and “creepy” are some of the kindest adjectives that have been thrown his way. Cruz has alienated about everyone he’s ever encountered in life: high school and college classmates, bosses, law professors, Supreme Court clerks, and especially his Republican colleagues in the Senate. Some detest Cruz the politician because of his grandstanding, but most dislike Cruz the person. In that respect, he’s really not your average politician—after all, most people hate politicians. But everyone hates Ted Cruz.

Did we miss anything? Or have you personally experienced the awfulness of Ted Cruz? Tag us with #everybodyhatested or email:

Read more at:

Ted Cruz - GOP debate - FOX News 2016

Friday, February 26, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s Response to BLM May Have Cost Her The Election

There Goes the Firewall: Hillary Clinton’s Response to BLM May Have Cost Her The Election
By Walker Bragman  |  February 26, 2016  |  11:38am

“I’m not a superpredator!” Ashley Williams, a young Black Lives Matter protester told Democratic presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton—her confidence belied by a slight quiver in her voice.

Even when heckled by the mostly white crowd at a $500-per-plate campaign fundraiser dinner in conservative South Carolina, Williams held her ground. She faced down an evasive Clinton, demanding an explanation for racist remarks the former First Lady made in 1996, where she referred to inner-city, black youth as “super-predators” with “no conscience” and “no empathy.” “We need to bring them to heel” she explained.

At the time, Clinton was touting her husband’s “tough on crime” policies—specifically the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994—which imposed harsh punishments on a variety of nonviolent offenses, and is widely accepted as a driving force (though not the only force) behind the explosion of incarceration over the next decade. Black America was hit particularly hard.

After a tense confrontation, Clinton’s security detail physically removed the young woman who had paid $500 to deliver her message.

After she was gone, a visibly annoyed Clinton, seemingly unable to stop herself, turned to the crowd and said “Back to the issues…” not realizing she was on camera. She could not have made a more tone-deaf statement, especially given the name of movement she had just been confronted by.

Read more at:

Hillary Clinton, AP Photo July 2015

NJ Gov Christie endorses Donald Trump for president

Everett Rosenfeld | @Ev_Rosenfeld

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie endorsed GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Friday, the latest sign that Republicans are beginning to accept the idea that the real estate magnate may win the party's nomination.

"I am proud to be here to endorse Donald Trump for president of the United States," Christie said at a news conference alongside the businessman, explaining that he has been friends with Trump for over a decade. "I absolutely appreciate him as a person and as a friend."
Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore
Gilmore: I'd back any GOP nominee, even Trump

But the endorsement extended beyond the personal, and Christie said he believed that "there is no one who is better prepared to provide America with the strong leadership that it needs, both at home and around the world, than Donald Trump."

Among the field of GOP candidates — which also includes Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, and retired doctor Ben Carson — Trump is "the clear standout, and the person who will do exactly what needs to be done to make America a leader around the world again," Christie said.

In fact, Christie said establishment favorite Rubio is "desperate" and that his attacks on Trump during Thursday's debate would not succeed: "Nobody is going to get inside this guy's head," Christie said of his presidential pick.

"Senator Rubio has shown himself over the course of time to be wholly unprepared to be president of the United States," Christie said — just as many pundits and GOP notables had begun to rally around the senator as Trump's primary competition.

Christie's endorsement of Trump — which follows consecutive wins in the Nevada caucus, and primaries in South Carolina and New Hampshire — may indicate Republican politicians are reconciling themselves to the fact that the businessman is in a strong position to become the party's standard-bearer.

Read more at:

NJ Governor Chris Christie

Friday, February 19, 2016

Hillary Clinton just can’t win

H.A. Goodman
Friday, Feb 19, 2016 10:09 AM EST

Hillary Clinton just can’t win: Democrats need to accept that only Bernie Sanders can defeat the GOP

In one major poll, Bernie Sanders is now leading Hillary Clinton nationally. In most others, he’s not far behind from the former Secretary of State. Vermont’s Senator already has an “edge over Clinton in matchups with GOP opponents,” dispelling Clinton’s electability myth. In an average of national polls, Bernie Sanders is less  than eight points from Hillary Clinton, after being over 50 points behind in 2015. In addition, there’s only one person capable of challenging a Republican in 2016 without James Comey declaring national security was jeopardized by a private server.

Bernie Sanders is the only Democratic candidate capable of winning the White House in 2016. Please name the last person to win the presidency alongside an ongoing FBI investigation, negative favorability ratings, questions about character linked to continual flip-flops, a dubious money trail of donors, and the genuine contempt of the rival political party. In reality, Clinton is a liability to Democrats, and certainly not the person capable of ensuring liberal Supreme Court nominees and President Obama’s legacy.

The precious and all-knowing polls already show Bernie Sanders defeating Republicans in a general election and Robert Reich has already explained why Sanders can easily win the presidency. In a Huffington Post piece titled “6 Responses to Bernie Skeptic,” Reich debunks the trusted myth of Clinton supporters and Republicans:

    “He’d never beat Trump or Cruz in a general election.”

    Wrong. According to the latest polls, Bernie is the strongest Democratic candidate in the general election, defeating both Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in hypothetical matchups. (The latest RealClear Politics averages of all polls shows Bernie beating Trump by a larger margin than Hillary beats Trump, and Bernie beating Cruz while Hillary loses to Cruz.)

    “America would never elect a socialist.”

    P-l-e-a-s-e. America’s most successful and beloved government programs are social insurance – Social Security and Medicare. A highway is a shared social expenditure, as is the military and public parks and schools. The problem is we now have excessive socialism for the rich (bailouts of Wall Street, subsidies for Big Ag and Big Pharma, monopolization by cable companies and giant health insurers, giant tax-deductible CEO pay packages) – all of which Bernie wants to end or prevent.

As Reich points out in his article, America is already a nation of Democratic-Socialists, but many of us (Democrats and Republicans) simply uphold “excessive socialism for the rich.”

Bernie Sanders, unlike Clinton, defeats Donald Trump in a landslide of  “epic proportions” in a general election and is the antithesis of a Republican. If you don’t believe me, then watch my friend Brian Hanley’s animated rap videos about Bernie Sanders demolishing Donald Trump.

Most importantly, and something the naysayers should learn, is that Bernie Sanders does better than Clinton against the GOP in a general election.

In addition, American voters don’t trust Hillary Clinton. At what point will critics of Bernie Sanders realize that American voters will never vote for a candidate they don’t trust and don’t like? In October of 2015, I explained in the following YouTube segment why Clinton is unelectable, and in another segment why Clinton must always evolve on key issues.

53.8% of all American voters have an “unfavorable” view of Hillary Clinton.

67% of American voters find Hillary Clinton “not honest and trustworthy,” compared with 59% for Donald Trump. Yes, more people trust Donald Trump.

After all, it’s difficult to trust a politician who completely fabricated a story about being fired upon by snipers. Like POLITIFACT states, “it’s hard to understand how she could err on something so significant as whether she did or didn’t dodge sniper bullets.”

71% of men and 64% of women find Clinton “not honest and trustworthy.”

74% of Independent voters find Clinton “not honest and trustworthy.”

35% of Democrats find Clinton “not honest and trustworthy.” Yes, even Democrats.

In contrast, Kathy Frankovic of states “Bernie Sanders is the most widely trusted presidential candidate of either party.”

Quinnipiac’s Feb. 18 report states “Sanders has the highest favorability rating of any candidate and the highest scores for honesty and integrity, for caring about voters’ needs and problems and for sharing voters’ values.” Sanders also ties Clinton on “having strong leadership qualities.”

In terms of Clinton’s leadership qualities, they haven’t translated to good judement. If the Clinton campaign expects to build upon President Obama’s accomplishments, then it should first discuss things with a former Obama intelligence official. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn explains his view of Hillary Clinton’s email scandal in a CNN article titled “Former Obama Intel Official: Hillary Clinton Should Drop Out”:

    President Barack Obama’s former top military intelligence official said Hillary Clinton should pull out of the presidential race while the FBI investigate her use of a private email server for official government communication while secretary of state.

    “If it were me, I would have been out the door and probably in jail,” said Flynn, who decried what he said was a “lack of accountability, frankly, in a person who should have been much more responsible in her actions as the secretary of state of the United States of America.”

    “This over-classification excuse is not an excuse,” Flynn said Friday. “If it’s classified, it’s classified.”

    Flynn, who headed the Defense Intelligence Agency from July 2012 to August 2014, told Tapper that Clinton “knew better…“

No, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn isn’t part of the GOP. He actually worked for President Obama. If you think the FBI, a former Obama intelligence official, the State Department’s own “internal watchdog,” and all the other elements of this expanded investigation make for a great presidency, then you’re certainly ready for Hillary in 2016.

Yes, a former Obama intelligence official suggests Clinton “drop out” of the presidential race. The FBI’s investigation of Clinton’s emails is “not letting up” and there is no end in sight. Good luck with nationally televised debates against a ruthless opponent like Trump (who will certainly make the email scandal a primary issue of every discussion), if you fear the loss of Supreme Court nominees and the future of our country. It’s doubtful any GOP challenger would gracefully declare, “Enough of the emails.”

Even if you believe Clinton would win a general election, remember that the FBI, or even the State Department, could uncover yet another group of “Top Secret” emails well into Clinton’s first term. The FBI could also urge the Justice Department to take action; even if Clinton wins the presidency. We’ve already seen one Clinton White House defend against scandal.

Read more at:

Hillary Cllinton, Bernie Sanders Credit Reuters Brian Snyder Jim Young Photo montage by Salon 2016