COUNTER-PUNCH: Eighteen Ways Trump Can KO Hillary … With Her OWN Words

1465966659659-cachedOriginally posted at CLASH Daily

Evidently, when Donald made the decision to forgo impropriety at the first debate, he was unaware that the matriarch of the Clinton Crime Family was about to call him a cheating, tax-evading, lying, greedy, misogynist, racist, fraud and do it in front of his wife and children who were also sitting in the front row.

As a result, Hillary’s well-practiced tactics presented opportunities that Trump could have easily tied to 40 years of scandals but failed to do so.

Hillary fired the first salvo by bringing up class warfare when she said that:

Donald was very fortunate in his life… started his business with $14 million, borrowed from his father, and… really believes that the more you help wealthy people, the better off we’ll be [.]

An apt follow-up might have been for Donald to ask Hillary to explain how, with assistance from a non-transparent family foundation, and the deep pockets of Wall Street donors, she managed to accumulate $153 million in speaking fees between 2001 and 2015?

After Clinton accused Trump of “living in his own reality” Donald might have mentioned Hillary’s harrowing experiences with Bosnian snipers and Chelsea jogging near the WTC on 9-11.

Feeling confident in her ability to portray Trump as a liar, the Democrat presidential hopeful invited debate viewers to fact check her opponent on her website. Hillary said: “So if you want to see in real-time what the facts are, please go and take a look.”

That invitation was an open door for Trump to steer the conversation toward Benghazi by asking Hillary where the fact checker was on the night she told America that four Americans died because of an anti-Muslim video.

When Hillary brought up ISIS by saying, “Well, at least I have a plan to fight ISIS,” Trump should have asked whether her plan includes State Department Marie Harf’s Jobs-4-ISIS program or ISIS entering the U.S. through borders Hillary vows to keep open?

As for Clinton accusing Trump of lacking transparency on his taxes, Trump could have indicted her deleted emails by joking that he hired the same lawyers who deleted her emails to delete his tax returns.

Mrs. Clinton went on to impugn Mr. Trump’s character by implying that his tax returns may show that he’s “not as rich as he says he is…[and]… not as charitable as he claims to be.”

A good retort would have been for Trump to force Hillary to explain her pay-to-play scheme and ask her why her 2015 tax returns say that 96% her charitable contributions went to the Clinton Foundation?

Clinton accused Trump’s failure to make his financial disclosures public as an attempt to “hide something”. That and talk about cyber security presented the Republican candidate the chance to redirect the conversation towards Hillary’s mishandling confidential emails – but he didn’t.

Trump could have agreed with Clinton and said that secrecy is something he learned from former State Department employee Bryan Pagliano who, after defying Congress and refusing to answer questions about Hillary’s private e-mail server, appears to be also “hiding something”.

When Clinton asked Trump: “Do the thousands of people that you have stiffed over the course of your business not deserve some kind of apology?” That’s when Trump should have said: “If we’re discussing ‘stiffing’ people, in the famous words of the woman who ‘stiffed’ four Americans in Benghazi, ‘What difference, at this point, does it make’ if I apologize or not?”

Hillary censured Trump saying: “I can only say that I’m certainly relieved that my late father never did business with you.” Trump could have responded, “I can only say that I’m certainly relieved that I wasn’t in Benghazi when you were Secretary of State!”

When the birther debate came up, no one would have argued if Mr. Trump chose to remind America that Barack Obama has been known to lie.

Trump could have then said now is as good a time as any for the president to release those elusive college transcripts, or broached the subject of the pseudonym Obama used when communicating with Hillary on the private email server he claimed to know nothing about.

During Hillary’s attempt to paint the whole nation as racist, Donald really should have thanked Hillary for not arriving at the debate on “colored people’s time”, and, in light of her recent health issues, congratulated the pandering politician for looking “no ways tired!”

When Hillary mentioned “Donald started his career back in 1973 being sued by the Justice Department for racial discrimination,” he could have brought up Hillary starting her career defending a child rapist she knew was guilty.

After Hillary accused Trump of calling “women pigs, slobs and dogs, and someone who has said pregnancy is an inconvenience to employers,” Trump could have respectfully pointed out that her untrue comments are a “basket of deplorable” lies.

Trump would have also been justified in bringing up “bimbo eruptions”, which he chose not to do, and citing the first lady’s radical stance on abortion, which suggests that she, not he, is the one who thinks pregnancy is “an inconvenience”.

As for the segue into “equal pay,” Trump failed to inquire of Hillary whether “equal pay” means that everyone should earn $250K for a 15-minute speech like she does, or hired for a $600K entry-level job like her daughter.

Regarding Clinton mocking her debate opponent by saying he “loves…supporting. and hanging around beauty contests”; Trump wasted a picture-perfect opening to welcome Miss America pageant judge, and Hillary’s guest of honor, Mark Cuban.

All things considered, it’s clear from the first debate that when all is said and done liberals are more concerned with Trump sniffling than they are with Hillary lacking the “stamina” to walk up a flight of stairs.

Moreover, what is also clear is that instead of Trump defending himself in the next two debates, The Donald should listen to what the woman with the specially constructed podium has to say, and, then, use her own words to defeat her.

Hillary’s beauty pageant hypocrisy

197244_5_Originally posted at American Thinker

One of the most amazing examples of hypocrisy from the first presidential debate involved Hillary’s controversial guest list.

It happened at the end of the debate, when moderator Lester Holt pressed Trump about his alleged comment that Hillary lacks “the presidential look.”  The implied meaning of the question was that Trump was judging Hillary’s physical appearance as a presidential criterion.

Trump attempted to clarify what he had said, replying: “She doesn’t have the look. … She doesn’t have the stamina.”

In response, Clinton, whose wandering husband has already proven that stamina is a family trait, mockingly smiled and replied, “As soon as he travels to 112 countries, he can talk to me about stamina.”

Throughout the debate, Hillary suggested that Donald Trump is an ignorant, greedy, spoiled, lying, cheating, tax-evading fraud, as well as a racist.  Toward the end, Clinton was happy to add misogynist and sexist to the list.

Clinton accused Trump of trying to shift the conversation from her “look” to her “stamina.”  Then she said:

This is a man who has called women pigs, slobs, and dogs. One of the worst things he said was about a woman in a beauty contest. He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them. He called this woman ‘Miss Piggy,’ and then he called her ‘Miss Housekeeping,’ because she is Latina. She has a name, Donald.

The insinuation from Hillary’s rant was that Trump is a racist and sexist who hates Latinos and objectifies and judges women on how they look.

Judging from those remarks, the “smartest woman in the world” may believe she has plenty of stamina, but what is evident is that Hillary has a poor memory, poor eyesight, and poor taste in men.

Hillary’s attempt was to portray Trump who owns Miss Universe Inc. in a negative light.  In order to do that, the Democrat candidate submitted the idea to the debate audience that men who have an affinity for beauty pageants are lecherous fiends who don’t appreciate the intrinsic value of women.

Meanwhile, sitting in the front row were two men who embody every quality Hillary attempted to assign to Donald Trump.

One was her husband, a notorious philandering Lothario who supposedly had a one-night stand in the 1980s with a Playboy model and Miss America winner named Elizabeth Ward Gracen.  Maybe Hillary forgot, but Bill is a notorious cheater, womanizer, and adulterer, all of which Hillary has not only enabled, but also repeatedly ignored or shielded from criticism for more than 40 years.

In response to Hillary’s hubris, Trump did suggest that he had considered broaching the Clinton family’s tawdry reputation but decided, to his credit, to take the high road.

However, what Trump could have done was to ask Hillary, why, if she had such an aversion to beauty pageants, did she invite Mark Cuban as her special front row guest to the debate?

After all, on September 11, the day Hillary collapsed on a New York City street, the billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks was otherwise occupied on a panel of judges at the 2017 Miss America pageant in Atlantic City.  Hillary’s special guest Mark Cuban was so lewd during the bathing suit portion of the event that the Shark Tank star was caught licking his lips as Miss Arkansas, of all people, Savvy Shields, modeled her black bikini.

So, at the debate, Hillary portrayed men who have a connection to beauty pageants in a negative way and did it to vilify Donald Trump by saying, “He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them.”

Meanwhile, her philandering husband, who, allegedly, once had a one-night stand with a beauty queen, and a letch who judged a parade of women in swimsuits just two weeks prior, were both Hillary’s guests of honor.

Socialism, Babies in Cardboard Boxes, and the Right to Life

Originally posted at American Thinker

197232_5_Lately, a shocking percentage of American voters are eager to have a government that fails at everything from healthcare to illegal immigration put in charge of controlling more stuff.

Meanwhile, 2,800 miles away in Venezuela, the consequences of such wrongheaded thinking is starkly revealed in pictures of sleepy newborns snoozing in cardboard boxes in a maternity ward with no money for nursery bassinets.

The row of babies in boxes is a glaring example for socialist-minded American millennials that Marxism is not as glamorous as some politicians would have us believe.

That’s why, in hopes that the extent of his country’s healthcare catastrophe would be exposed to the world, a brave Venezuelan doctor anonymously leaked the photos of the infants in boxes to opposition lawmaker/Congressman Manuel Ferreira.

The truth is that oil-rich Venezuela was once a prospering nation. Now, except for a small group of political elite, the economic playing field has been leveled and ‘the wealth spread around,’ which has made everyone, including newborns, equally poor and miserable.

Yet rather than abort children for economic purposes, an excuse used by those convinced that being underprivileged is worse than being dead, at least thus far, pro-life Venezuela has not allowed paucity to preclude the right to life.

And so, from a maternity ward in the hospital Domingo Guzmán Lander, in Venezuela’s northeastern state of Anzoátegui, abortion advocates have gotten a message that, regardless of hardship and desperation, human beings still deserve to live.

Simply put, as bad as economic conditions may be, breathing infants sleeping in empty fruit crates are still a whole lot better off than aborted fetuses smoldering in trash heaps.

But the message out of Venezuela is two-fold.

One stresses that conditions should never determine sanctity of life and the other illustrates that free, government-run health care systems are doomed to fail. That’s why Americans who prefer régime ownership to private enterprise should take note of what happens when the central government promises to run things.

According to Ferreira, in maternity wards located in what were once Venezuela’s leading hospitals:

Mothers are not fed properly and babies are born really weak. On top of that, the shortage of medicines and vaccines creates a mortal situation that is like a death cocktail.

In fact, as the box baby images were made public, across town at Anzoátegui’s Luis Razetti Hospital, where 17 newborns died last year because of an opossum infestation, 15 newborns recently died because of lack of food and medicine.

Douglas León, the president of the Venezuelan Medical Federation (VMF) admitted that hospitals are operating with only 5% of the medical equipment needed. In fact, in the last four years, Venezuela has lost 20% of its medical staff as the best doctors flee the country.

Redistributive social policies made lofty promises to the Venezuelan people, so how did a nation with the world’s largest oil reserves get here?

As usual, rather than impart fairness and fix things, Marxism’s failure repeated itself and, instead of economic justice, inflicted misery on millions of people.

The downward spiral began under the administration of the late Hugo Chávez, where, from the start, the promised panacea of socialism proved to be no panacea at all. Then, in 2014, under Chávez’s successor Nicolás Maduro, global oil prices plummeted and things got worse.

As a result, the collectivist government that vowed it could deliver socialist utopia to 30 million people found itself with no money to provide staples like food, medicine, and toilet paper.

That’s why, besides newborns being forced to sleep in cardboard boxes, the Venezuelan people also suffer waiting in a line for half a day to buy a loaf of bread. The citizens of what should be a tropical paradise undergo rolling blackouts due to electricity shortages and endure water rationing, hyperinflation, and not being able to find a single Tylenol.

Meanwhile, rest assured, that if Nicolás Maduro Guerra, the only son of socialist president Nicolás Maduro, were a newborn, he would not be napping in a cardboard box, nor will he be forced at age twenty-six to eat dog, horse, or butcher zoo animals to survive.

Speaking of animals, according to the Venezuelan Pharmaceutical Federation, because of the 80 percent shortage in every kind of common and specialized drug government paid healthcare workers have resorted to using veterinary medicines on human beings.

Worse yet, empty grocery shelves and critical shortages in every basic need has resulted in an epidemic of violent crime, kidnappings, bloody protests, fatalities, human rights abuses, and, especially in the capital city of Caracas – the very thing the anonymous doctor feared – political oppression.

In defense of his government, Carlos Rotondaro, the country’s director of social security angrily reacted to the photos of the babies. Rather than blame the lack of nursery bassinets on a failed system, Rotondaro accused media manipulation of portraying Venezuela’s bankrupt government-run healthcare system in a negative light.

So, in other words, similar to what happens in the U.S., in socialist countries government goons also refuse to assume responsibility for their failures?

Either way, for those that prefer collectivism to capitalism, Venezuela’s purely man-made predicament provides undeniable proof that no matter how well intentioned it may be socialism always results in abject failure.

As for Venezuela’s now-famous box babies, their silent message is that although neediness can sometimes reduce a hungry person to rummage through trash for food, poverty, no matter how hopeless, should never determine the right to life.

OPINION ‘The World’s Smallest Baby’ has lesson for Amy Brenneman

Originally posted at Live Action News

amy-brenneman2Of late, abortion advocates like activist, actress, and self-proclaimed progressive Amy Brenneman are trying to convince themselves, as well as gullible women, that killing offspring is as benign an activity as getting a pedicure.

Brenneman said she spoke out about her abortion because the “light of community and shared experience” dispels shame. Apparently, Amy, ‘who has never not for one moment, regretted her abortion’ is of the opinion that being unwanted is worse than being dead and that wantedness is the determining factor as to whether an unborn child gets to live, or ends up dying.

If given the chance to speak, nine-month-old Emilia Grabarczyk would likely disagree with Amy.

Delivered by emergency caesarean section in the German city of Witten at 25-weeks, Emilia, weighing in at just 8-ounces, puts a face on the life Ms. Brenneman bragged in Cosmopolitan magazine she lackadaisically disposed of in a “clean and respectable” abortion clinic 31-years ago.

At just 8 inches, or 22 centimeters long, Emilia is believed to be the “world’s smallest baby” ever to survive such an early delivery. At the time of her birth, Emilia weighed no more than a “bell pepper” and her tiny, inch-long feet were the size of one of Amy Brenneman’s perfectly manicured fingernails.

At 25 weeks, a healthy baby in its mother’s womb typically weighs about a pound and a half. Because Emilia’s mother Sabine’s placenta was not nourishing her unborn child, at 25 weeks, the baby girl’s birth weight was equivalent to a baby 19 weeks in utero. In fact, on the day she was born, Emilia was almost half the weight of babies that are routinely aborted at 22 weeks.

Rather than discard or leave her to die, German pediatricians, gynecologists, and pediatric surgeons saved Emilia’s life. And despite her minuscule size, just like many babies born alive in botched abortions, Emilia was in good health. At just 12 ounces, she even survived abdominal surgery.

During the six months following her birth, her parents and her doctors were unsure whether or not Emilia Grabarczyk would live and questioned if she did survive, whether she would be plagued with lifelong hyperactivity and learning difficulties.

Currently, 9-months-old, Emilia shows no visible signs of disability. The miracle baby weighs 7 lbs.-2 ounces, and, according to doctors, seems to be growing stronger with each passing day.

Head of the Children and Youth Clinic at St Mary’s hospital, Dr. Bahman Gharavi described Emilia’s birth as exceptional. Gharavi said: “Even children with a birth weight of 14 ounces rarely survive. We have to thank Emilia as well for her own survival. She is a little fighter.”

According to her mother’s obstetrician Dr. Sven Schiermeier, over the past 9-months, “There were many difficult days and many tears, but [Emilia] clearly wanted to survive…[and]… in recent weeks she is getting more robust.”

Meanwhile, in the name of choice, every day two-dozen late-term babies are scraped into red biohazard bags and dragged to an incinerator similar to the one Amy Brenneman’s son or daughter probably occupied more than three decades ago.

Nonetheless, what we learn from Emilia’s story is that contrary to actress Amy Brenneman’s taciturn attitude toward the value of her own child’s life, and despite a small size and questionable ability to survive, the right to life is not measured by whether or not a woman wants a child, but rather, by a God-given will to live.

In the end, feisty Emilia Grabarczyk’s existence sends a message to prochoice/#shoutyourabortion types like ‘responsible family planner’ Amy Brenneman who, after her abortion, breathed a sigh of relief and said, “I get my life back!”

To ‘get her life back’ Amy Brenneman is proud that she forfeited the life of her child who, Emilia Grabarczyk has proven if given the choice, would have struggled to live.

Did Anthony Weiner homeschool a 15-year-old?


Originally posted at American Thinker

Last month, while his wife was at work, and his 4-year-old son Jordan Zain slept beside him, Anthony Weiner, aka Carlos Danger, spent the evening sexting a picture of his engorged manhood to a shapely Trump supporter. Weiner got sloppy and got caught.

Recently, the world’s most famous sexter was caught again.

For months, while his wife Huma was busy administering CPR to Hillary Clinton, Weiner, with too much free time on his hands, was sending lewd messages to a school-aged girl. This time, the object of the sext addict’s online attention was a 15-year-old teenager from North Carolina.

And while that may be shocking to some, what’s more shocking is the liberal outrage over Weiner’s purported shenanigans. Aren’t liberals usually the ones celebrating unbridled sexuality? And don’t the left make it their life’s work to sexualize children as early as possible?

Yet extreme abortion supporter Governor Andrew Cuomo responded to the Weiner revelations in the following way: “If the reports are true, it’s possibly criminal and it is sick.”

Cuomo expressed an amazing level of moral indignation, especially because the judgmental New York governor supports underage girls having access to abortion without parental notification. If liberals like Cuomo believe that youthful girls have the right to choose at 13 years old, why shouldn’t a 51-year-old man feel comfortable sexting a consenting child of fifteen?

The same holds true for New York City mayor de Blasio, who recently signed an executive order mandating that city facilities provide gender-neutral bathrooms. If de Blasio would allow a little girl to share a bathroom with a 45-year-old sexually confused male, who is he to condemn Anthony Weiner by suggesting that the ex-congressman “address his issues”?

Moreover, in keeping with de Blasio’s bathroom logic, wouldn’t a man participating in online sex play with a high school sophomore be exonerated if the girl self-identifies as a consenting adult?

Let’s not forget, Anthony Weiner is a former politician from a city where kindergarten teachers are asked to refer to students by their preferred gender. So if a 6-year-old can select a gender, why can’t a schoolgirl choose to exchange salacious texts with a guy who posts pictures of his Johnson while his wife is otherwise playing handmaiden to a presidential hopeful?

Add to all those glaring contradictions, Anthony Weiner hailing from a state where high school student’s sex education includes activities where:

Teens are referred to resources such as Columbia University’s Web site Go Ask Alice, which explores topics like “doggie-style” and other positions, “sadomasochistic sex play,” phone sex, oral sex with braces, fetishes, porn stars, vibrators, and bestiality.

With that in mind, maybe Anthony was merely homeschooling the girl. Or maybe, like last month, the self-proclaimed “chick-magnet” was seeking a play date for his son.

Play date or not, Weiner still has to deal with the ramifications stemming from a teenaged girl telling the Daily Mail she met her sext-mate on Twitter last January and that the two conversed for months through direct messages.

Based on screenshots, in their first chat, Weiner told the teen she was “kinda sorta gorgeous.” From there, the duo moved up to Skype and an encrypted app that, unlike the cloth Hillary used when she wiped her email server, deletes messages after a first reading.

Besides allegedly sending the schoolgirl extremely vulgar direct messages referring to what he’d do to her private parts, Weiner also sent shirtless pictures of his torso, a swimming pool selfie, and one photo with his hand stuffed down his infamous drawers.

The North Carolinian student shared that Weiner, whose estranged wife spends most of her time with a woman whose husband is actually accused of rape encouraged her to engage in “rape fantasies.” Judging from the captured images, the former congressman, who also asked the girl to “to touch herself” and “dress up in schoolgirl outfits,” knew full well he was chatting with a minor.

After last month’s scandal involving the raunchy text Weiner sent featuring his sleeping son, the Administration for Children’s Service said it would investigate what went on at home while Huma was on a campaign bus placing cold rags on Hillary’s forehead. The agency would not comment on the teen sexting disclosure, but despite Huma calling the accusations a “hoax,” said it “routinely investigate(s) new allegations pertaining to current open cases.” Federal authorities in North Carolina did not return comment.

Meanwhile, sounding a lot like Hillary Clinton admitting that her email setup was a “mistake,” Weiner, who didn’t deny “flirtatiously” sexting the girl he called “Baby,” confessed that he had “repeatedly demonstrated terrible judgment about the people [he had] communicated with online and the things [he had] sent.”

And just as when he was nabbed in 2011 and 2013, Weiner also said:

I am filled with regret and heartbroken for those I have hurt. While I have provided the Daily Mail with information showing that I have likely been the subject of a hoax, I have no one to blame but me for putting myself in this position. I am sorry.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but since when does a morally relativistic liberal pronounce anything as “terrible,” especially if it concerns sex?

Either way, disingenuous regrets, liberal contradictions, hyper-sexualized children, and gender-identity issues aside, now that he’s single again, if Anthony Weiner really does have a proclivity for underage girls, the former congressman should really visit Slick Willy on “Pedophile Island.” Because at the end of the day, after being caught in the act three times, Weiner has a lot to learn from Bill Clinton about how to elude negative consequences when caught with your pants down.

Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

DIVERSITY: Feds Grant CITIZENSHIP to 800+ People from TERRORIST Nations

cs7mioeviaewb3yOriginally posted at CLASH Daily

One of the most inept mistakes the US federal government makes is to send billions of dollars to dead people in the form of welfare, farm subsidies, and social security. Although economically wasteful, those sorts of errors do not threaten lives. After all, deceased people can’t hurt anyone, and although they’ve been known to vote a time or two, “corpse men” usually don’t cash checks.

Meanwhile, from a government that promises to be good stewards of our money, oversee healthcare for 300+ million people, and properly vet 110,000 ISIS–infiltrated Syrian refugees, a problem exists for the living. It’s hard to believe but, according to Inspector General John Roth of the Homeland Security Department, the government that sends checks to dead people, mistakenly granted citizenship to 800+ living breathing immigrants with pending deportation orders from countries that threaten national security, or with high rates of immigration fraud.

The auditors reported that America’s newest citizens used fraud and aliases to apply for citizenship with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Unfortunately for America, those incongruities weren’t caught because old records can’t be searched electronically, therefore immigrants from “special interest countries” didn’t have fingerprints on file in government databases.

This database gap occurred when obsolete fingerprint paper records were never added to the system that the defunct Immigration and Naturalization Service and the FBI created in the 1990s. In addition, until 2010, neither ICE nor the DHS, both of which were responsible for locating and deporting illegal immigrants, were diligent about adding fingerprint records to their databases.

Bottom line: If the fingerprints were missing and there were gaps in the records, citizenship should never be granted to anyone.

So, after being “mistakenly awarded” US citizenship, instead of being sent back to places like Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan, nefarious characters, like three of the immigrants-turned-citizens who received aviation and transportation worker credentials used their US citizenship to receive security clearances where they had access to secure areas in air and seaports. In fact, the report states that a fourth person, whose lack of fingerprints did not deter his citizenship, is now a law enforcement officer, who didn’t, but could have, killed a lot of people with a gun hanging from his duty belt.

Since 2008, the year Barack Obama was elected, the government has specifically known about problems concerning 206 immigrants who applied for citizenship using aliases and discrepancies in biographical information. Yet despite the president’s massive push to flood America with immigrants, many of whom are coming from the Middle East, Customs and Border Protection did nothing to investigate or correct the “alias…discrepancy” problem or follow through on the 206 cases.

According to the Chicago Tribune:

Roth’s report noted that fingerprints are missing from federal databases for upwards of 315,000 immigrants with final deportation orders or who are fugitive criminals. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has not reviewed about 148,000 of those immigrants’ files to add fingerprints to the digital record.

ICE officials told the DHS that many of these cases have not been pursued because federal prosecutors “generally did not accept immigration benefits fraud cases.” ICE also stated that the DOJ did agree to investigate cases involving people who have acquired security clearances, jobs of public trust, or other security credentials. Good idea.

The Chicago Tribune also reported that:

Roth’s report said federal prosecutors have accepted two criminal cases that led to the immigrants being stripped of their citizenship. But prosecutors declined another 26 cases. ICE is investigating 32 other cases after closing 90 investigations.

Roth recommended that all of the outstanding cases be reviewed and fingerprints in those cases be added to the government’s database and that immigration enforcement officials create a system to evaluate each of the cases of immigrants who were improperly granted citizenship. DHS officials agreed with the recommendations and said the agency is working to implement the changes.

So, for future reference, if a terrorist from a “special interest country” seeks American citizenship, all he or she needs to do for an alias is attain a government check sent to a dead person and a falsified birth certificate from Hawaii signed by a registrar named Mr. Ukulele.

Meanwhile, immigrants who run Afghani fried chicken joints in New Jersey and Somalis who like to slash their way through Minnesota malls are free to come and go as they please.

That’s why the whole mistaken citizenship thing is suspect. After all, granting citizenship to 800+ disreputable, fraudulent, dangerous potential terrorists does provide those like Obama who apologize for Islam a larger pool of homegrown terrorists to blame the mayhem on.

Either way, in the end, sending checks to the deceased and granting citizenship to 800+ could-be terrorists may be slip-ups. However, much like erasing confidential emails from a server in a bathroom closet, the latter “mistake” appears too politically expedient to not be purposeful.

WOOF-WOOF! Is Hillary’s Barking Exposing Her Own Lies?

hillary-coughing-attacks-01Originally posted at CLASH Daily

On February 16, 2016, at a campaign event in Reno, Nevada, Hillary reminisced about an old political ad from Bill’s Arkansas days where a rural radio announcer talked about training dogs to bark whenever a politician tells a lie. Hillary said that, at the time, Arkansans went around for days barking at one and other.

To the delight of the audience, Hillary then suggested training dogs to follow around Republicans and when those on the right “with a straight face” say things like the Great Recession was caused by “too much regulation”, the lie-detecting dogs could respond by barking.

Hillary barked — and much to her own dismay — has been barking uncontrollably ever since.

That’s right; America is just two months shy of Election Day, and lo-and-behold there’s a “dog” in the fight that has been barking like crazy and that bloodhound is none other than the woman who came up with the idea to sniff out lies with a bark — Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As confirmed at the Benghazi hearings, Hillary is a serial liar. That’s why; every time the presidential hopeful speaks it’s like a barking dog returning to its own “vomit.” So, instead of siccing dogs on her political adversaries, it’s Hillary’s lies that are being exposed to a chronic cough that sounds like a dog’s yelp.

Of late, every time Hillary opens her lying mouth to speak, a dry hacking irrepressible woof issues forth stopping her dead in her tracks. Although she proposed employing barking dogs to keep Republicans honest, Hillary’s relentless hacking has become her own fact checker.
Recently in Cleveland, Ohio, a coughing Hillary blamed Trump for making her “allergic”! As soon as she uttered the words, the hacking and spewing overwhelmed her ability to continue.

Hillary made a valiant effort to suppress the cough but (thank the good Lord) could not speak. Every time the presidential hopeful attempted to press forward with her blather she was inconveniently overwhelmed by her own bark!

A little later in the day, aboard her spanking new campaign plane, Hillary tried to talk with reporters.

First, she made the suggestion that her opponent Donald Trump is aligned with Vladimir Putin. Then, she brought up Arkansas again by sharing a quaint image of a turtle on a fence post. Referring to a Trump/Putin alliance, Hillary said, “If you find a turtle on a fence post it didn’t get there by accident.”

Hillary should know. Like a turtle on a fence post, didn’t other people’s money, her emails, Whitewater files, and her husband’s wayward cigar end up somewhere they didn’t belong – and not “by accident”?

Either way, no sooner were the words “Trump has a bizarre attraction to dictators” out of Hillary’s mouth than a coughing fit that sounded strangely similar to a dog barking reared its ugly head.

For me, Hillary’s barking brings to mind a Scripture from Exodus 11:7. In that verse the Lord differentiates between Israel and Egypt when He tells Moses, “But against any of the sons of Israel a dog will not even bark… that you may understand how the LORD makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel.”

In other words, it was Hillary Clinton who originally advocated sniffing out Republican lies via dog trainnig. Now, after making that peculiar suggestion, it’s Lying Hillary that is being exposed by an affliction that has her drowning out her own words like a barking dog.

Is Putin Poking Hillary?

140605065920-newday-dnt-keilar-putin-hillary-clinton-00013325-story-topOriginally posted at American Thinker

By accusing Vladimir Putin of (believe it or not) rigging Russia’s 2012 election, then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton gave new meaning to the theory of psychological projection.

The potential problem for Hillary is that Putin is not as naïve as most Democrat voters, and when affronted, the Russian president usually finds a way to exact vengeance, or at least deliver what Peter Rutland, an expert on Russia at Wesleyan University, calls a Putin “poke in the eye.”

Putin eye-poking was on full display when Obama, the doyen of gay rights, acted the complete fool after finding out that, in Russia, White House LGBTQ restroom users would face jail time for public displays of “non-traditional sexual relationships.”  Obama expressed his displeasure with the Russian law by recruiting three openly gay athletes to join the U.S. delegation headed to the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi.

Putin, a man who doesn’t suffer fools gladly, responded to Obama’s insult by selecting Olympic figure skater Irina Rodnina to participate in Sochi’s opening ceremonies.  Obama flouted Russia’s tough stance on homosexuality, and Putin poked Obama in the eye by choosing a woman to light the Olympic flame who once tweeted a picture of Obama and his wife Michelle ogling a banana.

Get the picture?

Now rumor has it that Russian hackers may have gained access to the unsecured server full of confidential emails Hillary Clinton stored in a bathroom closet of  the Chappaqua home national-security-risk Bill (when not nodding off) shares with a mistress the Secret Service nicknamed “The Energizer Bunny.”

If the Russians really are in possession of Hillary’s emails, that means Vladimir Putin may be preparing to give Hillary Clinton the poke in the eye she deserves.

It also means the Russian president knows whether or not Hillary actually mastered the “destroyer of the universe” yoga pose, has specifics concerning the recipe for Chelsea’s $10K gluten-free wedding cake, and is aware of the particulars surrounding how the DNC mocked and subverted the political aspirations of a popular Jewish socialist.

Notwithstanding Hillary’s tall tales about her successes as secretary of state, Eugene Rumer, a former national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at the National Intelligence Council, begs to differ.  According to Rumer, “I think there is good and credible evidence that there is no love lost in Moscow for Mrs. Clinton.”

It all started in 2011, when, after two terms as prime minister and after serving as Russia’s president from 2000 to 2008, Putin hoped to win the presidency again.  Prior to the March 2012 election, Secretary of State Clinton suggested that the Russian leader had “rigged” the system and sided with thousands of anti-Putin demonstrators, journalists, and political activists, all of whom believed that the process was flawed.  Furious, Putin accused Clinton of attempting to undermine his candidacy and of inciting street protesters.

Lest we forget, Saul Alinsky-trained community organizers Obama and Clinton have already proven to be well schooled in the tactics of how to advance an agenda via agitation on the street.

Wary of the “unacceptable” practice of “foreign money being pumped into election processes,” the Siberian Swimmer was wise to be suspicious of Obama and members of his “flexible” administration.

Putin asserted that by calling the elections “dishonest and unfair,” Hillary’s tone had sent a signal to groups opposed to his re-election. Putin alleged that the opposition recognized Hillary’s signal, and, in response to her attempt to impose negative influence, dutifully “launched active work with the U.S. State Department’s support.”

Granted, Vladimir Putin is no choir boy.  However, rather than “reset relations” with Russia, which was supposedly the goal, Secretary Clinton’s accusation that Russia’s  parliamentary election was “neither free nor fair” resulted only in provoking the bear.

Fast-forward five years.  America is currently in the throes of a contentious election of our own, and from where we currently sit, Putin’s suspicions that Hillary is trying to usher in Russian “regime change” don’t seem all that far-fetched.

Recently, the Obama international election machine did a similar thing in Israel, when the President’s operatives, funded by the State Department, attempted to disrupt Bibi Netanyahu’s 2015 bid to remain prime minister.

According to The Washington Times, in a bipartisan staff report, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations found that during the Israeli election, anti-Netanyahu group OneVoice received $465K in State Department grant monies to “build a voter database, train activists and hire a political consulting firm with ties to President Obama’s campaign.”

Lo and behold, that same Senate subcommittee also found that State Department officials deleted emails containing information pertaining to Obama’s surreptitious campaign to oust Netanyahu.

So, within the last few years, two foreign leaders charged the U.S. State Department with being directly involved in two parliamentary elections.

In response to the original accusation Putin made in 2011, Hillary responded in the following way: “We value our relationship with Russia.  At the same time … we expressed concerns that we thought were well-founded about the conduct of the elections.”

Hillary, the bastion of election transparency and fairness, argued that “Russian voters deserve a full investigation of electoral fraud and manipulation” – something Bernie supporters, thus far, are being denied here at home.

“Regardless of where you live,” said the woman who, together with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, frustrated the will of 12 million voters, “citizenship requires holding your government accountable.”

Sorry, but Hillary Clinton expressing apprehension over voters’ voices not being heard or condemning conduct during an election or lamenting the lack of government accountability is like Angela Merkel questioning François  Hollande’s decision to continue to accept Syrian refugees.

For all intents and purposes, by accusing Putin of dirty doings, Hillary, the self-appointed successor to the American presidency, projected onto him the dark impulse that astute voters recognize as the force that drives Hillary Clinton’s insatiable appetite for power.

Either way, much like Barack Obama, Hillary miscalculated when she poked a Russkiy bear.  That’s why, in the end, if Russia exacts revenge by releasing Hillary’s 30,000 missing emails, a Putin poke may be the very thing that saves America.

Liberal Feminist Refuses to ‘Vote with Her Vagina’ for Hillary… But Then Does THIS

CYM6APmWYAAcA2cOriginally posted at CLASH Daily

Susan Sarandon is the 69-year-old liberal actress who #feelsthebern so intensely that when weighing in on Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency tweeted “I don’t vote with my vagina.” No doubt a vagina voting is, indeed, a disturbing word-picture. However, when she said it, Susan was adamant about making clear that “It’s so insulting to women to think that you would follow a candidate JUST because she’s a woman.”

Now Susan has announced that when not dating men young enough to be her son, marching in pro-choice parades, speaking out to raise the minimum wage, or campaigning for that other erotic beast, Bernie Sanders, she wants to contribute to society by directing pornographic films aimed at female audiences.

For analytical purposes let’s leave aside the bawdy nature of Marlow Mae Marino’s grandmother wanting to direct, let alone watch, porn and focus instead on the hypocrisy of the liberal mindset.

Didn’t Susan say that it was insulting for people to think that she would “follow a candidate JUST because she’s a woman?”

If that’s true then how come at the Cannes Film Festival recently, at an event to promote women in film, sex expert Susan lamented that the pornography industry is too focused on men and is in dire need of a woman’s touch, so to speak.

In other words, according to Susan, in film, women can promote their gender but in politics, women cannot and sexy senior citizen Sarandon is the one who sets the rules.

Speaking of porn, when former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright found out some women weren’t voting for Hillary “Woman Card” Clinton, Albright told a New Hampshire audience that “there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.” Wonder whether Madeline believes there is a “special place in hell” for Granny’s who fornicate in retirement, exploit women in porn, or argue that the females have a better (ahem) eye for exploring sex on the screen?

Either way, fallen away Catholic Sarandon, who played Sister Helen Prejean in Dead Man Walking, told the British newspaper The Times, “I have threatened in my eighties to direct porn. I haven’t watched enough to know what the problems are.”

If I may? Isn’t it just like a promiscuous liberal to make a statement about wanting to fix something they admit they know nothing about?

Susan continued, “Most pornography is brutal and doesn’t look pleasurable from a female point of view. So I’ve been saying when I no longer want to act, I want to do that.” Again, for someone who supposedly doesn’t watch porn Ms. Sarandon sure has a strong opinion on the topic.

Not only that, but an 80-year-old directing porn is as terrifying as 87-year-old Dr. Ruth Westheimer doling out titillating sex advice to twenty-year-olds. Moreover, when Susan says: “When I no longer want to act, I want to do that,” what exactly is the “that” she wants to “do”?

For such a smart liberal, activist Sarandon, who has spoken out for women at risk, hasn’t made the connection that women at risk are the ones who typically get involved in porn?

Apparently not.

Either way, suffice it to say that besides playing characters like Louise Sawyer in Thelma and Louise, Sarandon’s prolific filmography includes Marmee March in Little Women, Randy Jammer in Ping Pong Summer and Beverly Farley in Mr. Woodcock, as well as a whole host of naked romps on and off screen.

[Susan] was the older, bolder woman who seduced a young widower played by James Spader in White Palace(1988). In Bull Durham (1990), she was a philosophical baseball groupie who bedded dim fireballer Tim Robbins. Atlantic City (1980) saw her slowly wiping down with a sponge while Burt Lancaster’s aging gangster peeps through her open window.

Of late, when not opining about women in sexually explicit filmmaking, Sarandon has also been criticized for parading around with her aging saggy breasts exposed at the aptly named SAG Awards.

A supporter of socialism worth $50-million, Susan also supports fornication because she gave birth to three children with men she never married. And when not lecturing on sex in the cinema, Sarandon grants interviews in magazines where she recommends old ladies have more sex to stay young looking.

In other words, the nana who wants to direct pornography at 80 is no prude:

Sarandon’s most famous erotic scene, though, is undoubtedly her tryst with Catherine Deneuve — the latter is a vampire attempting to swap blood, or “transfuse,” with Sarandon’s non-vamp — in Tony Scott’s 1983 horror flick The Hunger.

Can we all agree that this future porn director/Bernie Sanders supporter is a colorful character?

And here America thought Susan Sarandon, who keeps her vagina out of politics but reinserts it into discussions concerning women and porn, was just another big mouth hypocrite liberal sleaze bag with a crush on a cantankerous old socialist.

The DNC wall to guard Hillary’s Armani jacket collection

Hillary-Clinton-wears-pricey-jacket-1Originally posted at American Thinker

Before the first-historic-female-to-run-for-president-while-under-federal-investigation was against border security, Hillary Clinton was for it.  In 2006, the former first lady even called for “physical barriers … secure borders … tougher employer sanctions,” and deportation for illegals who have “committed transgression.”

Recently, Hillary evolved, and all that changed.  Now, the presumptuous presumptive Democratic nominee has altered her protectionist viewpoint and vowed that when she’s in charge, “[w]e’re going to be building bridges, not walls.”

You know what?  Hillary might be onto something with her bridge-not-wall idea.

A 100-yard footbridge over the Rio Grande would be a great way to do away with the rafts, jet skis, and blown out tire tubes.  If Hillary is elected, she can expand on Obama’s “shovel ready” jobs program by employing ISIS-infiltrated Syrian refugees to build bridges for Democrat voters to cross over from Mexico into the U.S.

But right now, it’s still 2016, and the Democratic National Convention is scheduled to take place on July 25-28 at Philadelphia’s Wells Fargo Center Xfinity Live!  Therefore, the bridges will have to wait.  Instead, to keep out rowdy protesters sporting well thought out man buns and bad attitudes, the City of Brotherly Love is taking Donald Trump’s advice and building a wall around the arena.

So a wall will be built around the location where Hillary will formally denounce the idea of Trump building a wall.

Put simply, Hillary Clinton does not condone walls that keep out illegal gangs, Mexican drug lords, felons, murderers, rapists, and undocumented child molesters.  However, if a barrier can keep out First Amendment types, Bernie supporters, and disgruntled vagina voters, Hillary believes in building walls.

In February, after winning the South Carolina Democratic primary, Hillary screeched out the following words:

 [W]e’re going to start by working together with more love and kindness in our hearts, and more respect for each other, even when we disagree. Despite what you hear, we don’t need to make America great. America has never stopped being great. But we do need to make America whole again. Instead of building walls, we need to be tearing down barriers.

This is the woman who once objected to Mexico “pushing migration north across our border.”  Now, in an effort that will involve lots of government agencies examining “infrastructure, transportation, security, and crowd management,” Hillary is standing by and allowing more than 20 subcommittees to erect a barrier around the amphitheater where the coronation she has slavered after for decades is about to be realized.

The question is, how can Mrs. Clinton renounce “no-scale fencing” to protect Americans from illegal invasion while simultaneously allowing the Secret Service to orchestrate the building of a wall to protect her and her wardrobe of $12,000 Armani jackets for three days?

Shouldn’t Hillary Clinton, the self-appointed champion of paths to citizenship and blanket amnesty be demanding that bridges of love span from the footpaths of Philadelphia right onto the floor of the sports arena?

Besides, how will illegal immigrants who’ve successfully made it over the border feel if they make it all the way to the City of Brotherly Love only to find out that the woman who beckoned them with promises of “love … kindness … [and] more respect” has excluded them from getting a donkey-shaped balloon and a free Philly cheesesteak sandwich?

By refusing to disavow the security perimeter being placed around the arena, Hillary, whose latest mantra is “comprehensive immigration reform with a path to full and equal citizenship,” is missing the chance to make a symbolic statement about how she differs from an opponent she believes is a wall-obsessed, xenophobic racist.

So instead of “tearing down barriers,” as she advocated in South Carolina, to keep out Americans who disagree in Philadelphia, Hillary Clinton is about to permit what Trump says we should construct on the border to be built around the Democratic National Convention.

© 2009-2016 jeannie-ology All Rights Reserved

%d bloggers like this: