Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Trump Exposes Phony Republicans' True Colors

nationalinterest.org ^ | 8/15/16 | Ying Ma 

Establishment Republicans won’t stop saying or doing stupid things this election season. One after another, they have declared their hatred for Donald Trump or endorsed Hillary Clinton. Those who have not stooped to such unseemliness have little to brag about either, as many of them have repeatedly failed to defend their party’s nominee or undermined him at every turn.
Each time, establishment Republicans eagerly proclaim that they are more decent than the man chosen by a record number of GOP primary voters and supported by 83 percent of self-identified Republicans. Yet, while objecting to Trump’s unconventional style and rhetoric, the Trump haters have no appreciation or answer for the grave issues he raises.
Trump’s refusal to stay quiet upon being attacked by the Muslim parents of deceased Army Captain Humayun Khan unleashed a torrent of anger and self-flagellation on the right. One former senior Republican official, announcing his support for Hillary, said that Trump was “a bigot, a bully, and devoid of grace or magnanimity.” Soon afterwards, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and dozens of former national security advisors for former Republican administrations declared they could not vote for Trump either.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalinterest.org ...

‘Extreme Vetting’ Is Extremely Overdue

 National Review ^ | 08/15/2016 | MARK KRIKORIAN

Donald Trump’s speech yesterday on the threat of radical Islam included a section about immigration policy that has the usual suspects in a tizzy. This section focused not on terrorism, but rather on what Andy McCarthy calls the “grand jihad,” the importation of Islamist ideology that rejects our constitutional order and open society.
In his trademark manner, Trump departed from the prepared text to Archie Bunker-ize the speech by calling this “extreme vetting,” which is not the phraseology you should use once you’ve won the nomination and are trying to persuade the middle-of-the-road voter in Ohio and Florida. But rather than calling for body-cavity searches, as this label might suggest, he was instead calling for ideological/values screening, with the commonsense goal that “we should only admit into this country those who share our values and respect our people.” He explained:
In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles — or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.
Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.
It takes an Ivy League education to object to using our borders to keep out Jew-haters, gay-killers, and apostate-stoners. And, sure enough, in the Washington Post, Politico, and elsewhere, a passel of experts tells us that this is crazy, illegal, unconstitutional, and various other adjectives.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...

Hillary scrubs sexual assault pledge after allegations against Bill resurface

NY Post ^ | August 15, 2016 | Daniel Halper 

The Clinton campaign has removed a statement from its Web site declaring that all survivors of sexual assault “have the right to be believed” — after being reminded that Bill Clinton was accused of rape decades ago.
The passage had been prominently featured on a page dedicated to “campus sexual assault” on HillaryClinton.com.
“I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed, and we’re with you,” it read.
But by February, the sentence “You have the right to be believed, and we’re with you” was deleted ...
The deletion came after new attention was focused on Juanita Broaddrick, who has accused Bill Clinton of raping her in 1978, when he was the attorney general of Arkansas.
...
Clinton ignored her protests, forcibly moving her onto the bed, where he raped her, she alleges.
“There was no remorse,” Broaddrick told BuzzFeed. “He acted like it was an everyday occurrence. He was not the least bit apologetic. It was just unreal.”
...
Donald Trump has repeated Broaddrick’s rape allegations and has even released video of Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey, another woman who has accused Bill Clinton of sexual harassment.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...

Trump Effectively Hits Obama and Clinton in National Security Policy Speech

The Weekly Standard ^ | Fred Barnes 

Donald Trump delivered a strong speech Monday on thwarting terrorists and crushing ISIS while cleverly disguising it as an address on national security policy.
For once in recent days, Trump didn't get too clever. He lashed out at President Obama and Hillary Clinton for allowing Iraq to become fertile soil for the creation of ISIS. He didn't claim they had "founded" ISIS—that was Trump's position last week—only that their policies had allowed the terrorist group to flourish.
So the speech marked a sorely needed improvement in Trump's credibility. By failing to reach a status of forces agreement with the Iraqi government and then pulling the last contingent of American troops out of the country, Trump said Obama and Clinton in effect "launched ISIS on the world stage."
And Trump did advocate a new policy. He promised to "chart a new course" in fighting ISIS and halting "the spread of radical Islam." If elected president, Trump said he would put together a broad coalition of countries, including NATO members and Russia, to crush ISIS. Among his specific goals would be blocking the terrorist outfit's access to the internet.
With Trump, terrorism and immigration are twin issues. So it was no surprise when he outlined tough new rules in dealing with immigrants. He labeled them "extreme vetting." If anyone had doubts, this made it clear he would be far tougher with visa seekers than would Obama or Clinton.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...

NBC Online poll puts lie to media poll narratives: Trump 54% and Stein 20% leads Clinton

The Coach's Team ^ | 8/16/16 | Kevin "Coach" Collins 

Jim Rutenberg of the New York Times did Donald Trump and his supporters a great favor when he admitted the media was not being objective in its reporting on Trump.

Last Sunday, without any self-consciousness, Rutenberg looked America straight in the eye and said, “Yes we lie for Clinton. What you are going to do about it?”
His snarky “up yours” meshes perfectly with the polling fraud exposed in the DNC leaked Emails. They proved both CBS and NBC collaborate with the DNC to create false poll results favorable to Hillary Clinton.
Now comes an NBC online poll that is frankly astounding not only in its results but in the very fact that it is being run from yesterday and is still open as of this writing.
The current results of this poll are as follows: of 81,186 votes cast Trump has 43,545 giving him 54% Jill Stein 16226 for 20% Hillary Clinton 13,037 for 16% and Gary Johnson 8378 for 10% of the vote.
We Trump supporters now have definitive forensic proof that the polls we are being fed by the large media outlets are universally faked. A June 2015 New York Times article stated that just 8% of the people contacted by pollsters answer their questions. This leaves a huge 92% playground for the polling fraud we see has been established.
The results of NBC’s poll destroy false media/Democrat narratives about their polls.
They argue: “Saying Trump does better in online polls is just a way to avoid the truth that he is losing.” Clearly this argument is no longer valid since Trump doesn’t just “do better” in this on line poll conducted by a major news organization, he laps the field.
They argue: “There are more anti-Trump than pro-Trump votes out there and their only worry is...
(Excerpt) Read more at thecoachsteam.com ...

Trump is right, 1952 McCarran-Walter Act allows us to keep out immigrants we can’t trust!

The Coach's Team ^ | 8/16/16 | Kevin "Coach" Collins 

Just a little bit of research shows that as usual Donald Trump is right and the lazy hate filled media is wrong. Trump’s call for “extreme” vetting falls squarely within the options outlined by the 1952 Immigration and Nationality revise Act commonly known as the McCarran-Walter Act, which was passed to strengthen America’s ability to protect ourselves in matters relating to immigration, naturalization, and nationality.
H.R. 13342; Pub.L. 414; 182 Stat. 66. 82nd Congress; June 27, 1952.
SUMMARY
“Otherwise known as the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 was meant to exclude certain immigrants from immigrating to America, post-World War II and in the early Cold War. The McCarran-Walter Act moved away from excluding immigrants based simply upon country of origin. Instead it focused upon denying immigrants who were unlawful, immoral, diseased in any way, politically radical etc. and accepting those who were willing and able to assimilate into the US economic, social, and political structures, which restructured how immigration law was handled. Furthermore, the most notable exclusions were anyone even remotely associated with communism which in the early days of the Cold War was seen as a serious threat to US democracy. The main objective of this was to block any spread of communism from outside post WWII countries, as well as deny any enemies of the US during WWII such as Japan and favor “good Asian” countries such as China. The McCarran-Walter Act was a strong reinforcement in immigration selection, which was labeled the best way to preserve national security and national interests. President Truman originally vetoed the law, deeming it discriminatory; however there was enough support in Congress for the law to pass.”
Radical Islamists who profess allegiance to Sharia Law, which forbids assimilation, above the US Constitution can and should be excluded from entry into our country. They are exactly the type of people the McCarren-Walter Act was written to exclude from our nation. A simple examination of what it means to be adherent to Sharia Law reveals that those who practice it will never become part of our melting pot – they hate assimilation – they will never follow our laws regarding fair treatment of all Americans and will never yield to our political system. True to the Democrat nature of always being on the wrong side of issues, Democrat Harry Truman vetoed this law but was overridden and it was forced into law by Republicans who wanted security and safety for all Americans.

Most Think Hillary Likely to Have Done Favors At State for Clinton Foundation Donors

Rasmussen ^ | August 16, 2016 | Staff 

Following news reports that ( federal investigators are taking a deeper look at the charitable foundation established by Bill and Hillary Clinton), voters are even more suspicious that the Democratic presidential nominee traded favors to donors while she was secretary of State.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on August 11 and 14, 2016 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by ( Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.)
a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/methodology">(See metodology)
(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...

Aetna to cut back 70% on Obamacare plans in 2017

CNBC.com ^ | Bertha Coombs 

Aetna is sharply cutting its participation in Obamacare exchanges for 2017.

The health insurer said it will offer individual Affordable Care Act exchange plans in just four states, down from 15 this year, in an effort to reduce its losses.
"As a strong supporter of public exchanges as a means to meet the needs of the uninsured, we regret having to make this decision," Chairman and CEO Marc Bertolini said in a statement.
The insurance giant says it will offer ACA exchange plans in Delaware, Iowa, Nebraska and Virginia, slashing its Obamacare footprint by 70 percent next year. It will offer ACA plans in just 242 counties nationally, down from nearly 780 this year.
Aetna's announcement comes two weeks after the company booked $200 million in ACA-related pretax losses in its Q2 earnings report and nearly one month after the Department of Justice's antitrust division sued to block the health insurer's acquisition of rival Humana.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...

Ransom Delivery

EBhza5g.jpg

Butterflies

05l3Z9f.jpg

NOT a baby

waQZkwB.png

Blame AlGore

eHtNAUN.png

Discipline?

hillary_message_lie.jpg

The Kiss

B0J63rG.jpg

Sick and Tired

cfZqALP.jpg

The Media

183429_600.jpg

Change!

Ab6SGXZ.jpg

The Pits

183416_600.jpg

Zip Line

7Vu241M.png

Carry

tTniLLU.jpg

Be Careful

Watch-your-back.jpg

LOGIC

gojVe4J.jpg

Sticking the landing!

WeuA9Wk.jpg

"It Hurts"

0WTpaBi.jpg

Detail Oriented

egbwZnR.jpg

Snake Oil Saleswoman

W6fiPFY.jpg

Photo ID

yeDMqBq.jpg

BS Expert!

rQchu5d.jpg

WHEW!

5DtuudL.jpg

Unique

ZVyUMoC.gif

Churhes

5ZLfdeL.jpg

Senator Hypocrite

m8azi5M.png

One Bullet

GWVkbG5.jpg

New Hire

zaUMGGA.jpg

Leadership

X2pKOOW.gif

Cooking

oOo2tjk.jpg

Wind

wZRz1xI.png

TRUTH!

iklaoug.png

Women

3SRhdjs.jpg

Cheer Leaders

OLNam4a.jpg

Sheriff David Clarke on race riots: Progressive policies hit black community like a nuclear blast

Canada Free Press ^ | 08/15/16 | Robert Laurie 

Hey media, they're "riots" not "protests"
Dear media outlets,
All the violence we’ve been witnessing in Milwaukee for the last few days? Yeah, that’s not a “protest.” You keep calling it that, but the fact is you’re just plain wrong. These are “riots.” Ugly, violent, racist, riots.
I know, I know. You get all uncomfortable when you’re forced to report things accurately. You hate to use a label that you think will get you called “racist” by the left. God forbid you’re not invited to the White House correspondent’s dinner.

Why Donald Trump faces 'unfair' media scrutiny, and how he's trying to take advantage of it

OregonLive ^ | August 15, 2016 | Douglas Perry 

Donald Trump complains relentlessly that the media doesn't treat him fairly. Reporters, he says, are "the most dishonest people."
That's a compelling argument, especially for his supporters. Fox News media critic Howard Kurtz, in a column last week about news coverage of Trump, insisted that for the mainstream press to line up "against one candidate in a presidential election can't be justified."
Ordinarily, that's a no-brainer statement for any self-respecting journalist. These are not ordinary times.
Kurtz, who plied his trade for the Washington Post and CNN before moving over to Rupert Murdoch's conservative news channel, pointed out that journalists' "credo is supposed to be fairness." Then he goes on to argue: "And now some of them are flat-out making the case for unfairness -- an unprecedented approach for an unprecedented campaign."
That's where Kurtz goes off the rails. The case that's being made isn't for unfairness. It's for facts and context. Reporters are making clear, for example, what Trump's various "dog whistle" call outs actually mean, so that even readers who aren't racists or dedicated Hillary Clinton haters understand what he's up to. It's called responsible journalism, and Kurtz knows this.
The latest example is the GOP nominee suggesting that assassination is the patriotic answer to Clinton winning the election in November. "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks," Trump said last week. "Although, the Second Amendment people -- maybe there is, I don't know."
Trump backers have tried to insist that the candidate's meaning wasn't what it obviously was, and that's where good journalism comes in. Any decent reporter must acknowledge that Trump here is saying that "Second Amendment people" -- that is, gun-rights proponents -- could take matters into their own hands to stop a President Clinton. And many decent reporters are indeed acknowledging it.
"In one interview after another, (Trump spokesman Jason Miller) maintained that Trump was referring to 'voting power,' though it was clear that Trump had been talking about what 'Second Amendment people' could do after losing the vote," wrote The New Yorker's Evan Osnos. He added:
"At this stage, so little that Trump says shocks us, but, now and then, it is worth stepping back and regarding the full damage of it all: the wounds to our fading global image of openness and generosity; the stomping on our admiration for intelligence, eloquence, or honesty; and now the blithe contempt for safe and civil government."
So many of Trump's lies and misdirection are transparently ridiculous, such as his response to 50 Republican national-security professionals publishing an open letter in which they insist Trump "would be the most reckless president in American history." The candidate's reaction: "Well, I respond by saying that I wasn't using any of them and they would have loved to have been involved with the campaign."
But Trump's blithe contempt for truth as well as safe and civil government is having a destructive effect on public discourse and, worse still, public knowledge. A poll of North Carolina voters found that 69 percent of Trump supporters believe that if Clinton wins in November it will be because the election has been stolen. Trump has repeatedly warned that the system has been "rigged" to elect his Democratic opponent. Another recent poll determined that 72 percent of registered Republicans nationally -- 72 percent! -- don't believe President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Trump, of course, first rose to political prominence by leading the "birther" movement that has challenged Obama's citizenship and thus his right to be president, despite iron-clad evidence that the president was born in Hawaii.
As Trump has fallen behind in the polls, he and his backers have ratcheted up their efforts to undermine facts, insisting the problem isn't Trump's lies and obfuscations but the media's unfairness.
"You don't give him a fair shot," Trump surrogate and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said last week in a CNN interview, referring to the media. "You take his words and you parse them and you take them apart." He added: "I don't think that the overwhelming majority of your profession is fair."
That has been Republican cant for the past few decades. What they want from reporters is for them to print Trump's words and, at worst, print the Clinton campaign's response to those words, and leave it at that. It's called he-said-she-said reporting, and it's widely viewed by political partisans as the gold standard for objective journalism. (CNN provided a classic he-said-she-said example last Thursday when it reported on Cheryl Mills interviewing Clinton Foundation director candidates in 2012 while she was Clinton's chief of staff at the state department. The segment offered Trump saying "Crooked Hillary" enriched herself through government service and the Clinton campaign insisting Mills was doing unpaid charity work that fell well within ethics rules. Were Mills' actions a conflict of interest? CNN didn't say.)
Such an approach simply is not adequate this election season, where facts and lies arguably are being spun together more aggressively than ever before. Writes New York University professor Jay Rosen in New York magazine: "I treat he-said-she-said reporting as a problem ... When a new study (about, say, health-care costs) comes out, and the hospital association says, 'Costs are decreasing,' and the consumer's group says, 'Actually, that's not true, costs are continuing to go up,' and you have to write a story by deadline, then he-said-she-said makes it writable. Then you don't have to know who's right. So a lot of times repetitive narratives, or lazy narratives, or devices like he-said-she-said, are substitutes for real knowledge."
Exactly. Political campaigns want he-said-she-said reporting because it allows them to offer their own spin without being challenged on it. But with Trump, unlike with health-care costs, the average reporter has real knowledge. Which is that Trump is a shameless liar who loves to use inflammatory and coded language that could be a real threat to our democracy. "Suggesting an election is going to be stolen, this is Third World dictatorship stuff," CNN's Brian Stelter recently said.
Even many Republicans recognize that Trump is not an ordinary candidate and cannot be treated as one by the press.
"The Muslim ban, the David Duke denial, the 'Mexican' judge flap, the draft dodger denigrating John McCain's military service, the son of privilege attacking an immigrant Gold Star mother and the constant revisionism and lying about past political positions taken are but a few of the lowlights that have punctuated Donald Trump's chaotic chase for the presidency," Joe Scarborough wrote in the Washington Post last week. The former Republican congressman and current co-host of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" talk show added, referring to the "Second Amendment people" comment: "A bloody line has been crossed that cannot be ignored. At long last, Donald Trump has left the Republican Party few options but to act decisively and get this political train wreck off the tracks before something terrible happens."
That's not going to happen, despite the growing discomfort of traditional Republicans. The political train wreck will continue to the end of the line.
Which is how it should be. Ultimately, this election isn't about what journalists or even unhappy Republicans have to say. It's about what voters have to say.
Occidental College politics professor Peter Dreier has encouraged voters to consider a famous phrase political theorist Hannah Arendt coined when writing about Nazi mass murderer Adolph Eichmann. "'Sociopathic' might describe Trump's condition, but it doesn't describe our condition as we routinely hear [outrageous] Trump statements on the campaign trail," Dreier wrote on The Huffington Post. "The only thing that comes close is philosopher Hannah Arendt's notion of the 'banality of evil.' ... The 'banality of evil' also applies to an entire society. We can get used to outrageous things -- slavery, Jim Crow segregation laws, massive homelessness, widespread malnutrition, the frequent killing of black men by police -- until we are provoked to view them as unjust."
Will American voters decide, however legitimately frustrated they might be about the economy and the political status quo, that Trump's outrageousness is unworthy of them? We'll find out come November.

Intel Confirms ISIS Hid Among Refugee Hordes Flooding Europe

The Federalist ^ | 8/15/2016 | M. G. Oprea 

In Germany last week, the vice president of Bavaria’s intelligence-gathering agency, Manfred Hauser, announced ISIS “hit squads” had entered Europe with the flood of migrants that came across the borders over the last year and a half. According to Hauser, there are hundreds of reports that these kinds of terrorist cells have infiltrated European countries, and “irrefutable evidence that there is an IS command structure in place” that will “likely” launch a coordinated attack on Germany.
It appears ISIS took advantage of Europe’s generosity by concealing its fighters in the mass of people desperately seeking a new home. If this comes as a surprise, you haven’t been paying attention.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefederalist.com ...

ARMAGEDDON: HOW TRUMP CAN BEAT HILLARY

Dick Morris offers a battle plan.
   
5
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
The last time a Republican sat in the White House was in another decade that often feels like another century. After four years in which the economic potential of the country declined while the potential of Islamic terrorists grew, Republicans unnecessarily lost a winnable election in 2012.
Obama won his greatest victory over Republicans by convincing them to doubt themselves. Republicans turned their political movement into a party of defeat when they became convinced that their vision was too extreme, their base doomed to an inevitable decline and their politics out of step with the country.
And so, consumed with doubt and uncertainty, robbed of their passion, they lost.
This primary season, above all else, came down to two competing visions. Would the Republican Party continue to retreat from its identity, trapped by doubts and fears that its time had passed and that it must go left or perish? Or would it joyously and unashamedly embrace its identity while putting Obama and Hillary on the defensive
That question has been answered in full, but transforming that maelstrom of energy into a battle plan to actually defeat Hillary Clinton is a more complicated problem that the GOP is still struggling with.
And that’s what Dick Morris and Eileen McGann offer in their book, “Armageddon: How Trump Can Beat Hillary”. Few people know the Clintons better than Dick Morris who once stood at their side. And so few political experts could be better at offering a battle plan to beat Hillary. This is Dick Morris’ moment.
“Armageddon: How Trump Can Beat Hillary” is a comprehensive battle plan that focuses less on Trump than it does on Hillary. The bulk of the book is an analysis of Hillary’s weaknesses, both personal and political, the vulnerabilities of her deeply corrupted character and of her divided Democratic base.
Much like David Horowitz’s “Go For the Heart: How Republicans Can Win”, Morris and McGann argue that Trump can win by combining gut punches and emotional connections with voters on core issues.
Morris and McGann lay out the case for why stopping Hillary Clinton is so crucial and then they zero in on a deeply flawed candidate. They make the case against her character, from her compulsive lying (including the famous airport sniper fire story) to her financial corruption. And they make the case against her policies, from the Arab Spring to her fundamental ignorance of all things economic that don’t involve her frantic rush to fill her pockets with corrupt cash and other people’s money.   
The stories here may be familiar to many conservatives, but would still be new to many of the voters Trump needs to win over in order to win. And they are presented here concisely and devastatingly.
But they are only the appetizer for the banquet of the Hillary battle plan. That’s where Morris and McGann begin looking at strategy from voter demographics to the coming collapse of ObamaCare. Their strategy divides the fight into two punches. One punch energizes conservative voters. The other speaks to a white working class left behind by left-wing political correctness and a wrecked economy.
Morris and McGann see this demographic being defined more by economic concerns than political ones. This is where they see Trump focusing on the economy, particularly in the areas he has already embraced including trade policies and illegal immigration. One broad punch appeals to core conservative voters with a spectrum of issues. The other is targeted at voters who care more about economic grievances than big picture policies, who want to know where their jobs went and why.
Some will find his call to embrace class warfare controversial. But Dick Morris is ready to translate the dramatically radical policies that have defined the Trump campaign into a strategy to beat Hillary. And that means hitting Hillary in unexpected places, like using her ties to Wall Street against her.
But Dick Morris doesn’t just stop there. Instead he argues that the real key to victory in the battle plan to beat Hillary is taking the battle to her base. The fundamental contention in “Armageddon: How Trump Can Beat Hillary” is that her weakness is her unpopularity. It’s no secret that Republicans hate her or that she performs poorly with independent voters. But Morris and McGann argue that Hillary is also very weak with her base, including minorities and female voters, and that a committed effort can break her hold.
Armageddon’s battle plan here zeroes in on policy weaknesses, areas where Trump can make inroads with these key demographics. Along the way Morris and McGann destroy key myths of the political class, including the myth that amnesty is a prerequisite to being competitive with Hispanic voters, or that demographics will doom the country to a permanent Democratic majority unless the GOP abandons all conservative principles and ideas to become the fiscally conservative wing of the Democratic Party.
The battle plan calls for finding wedge issues, such as appealing to black voters with school choice, that will continually keep Hillary and her campaign off balance. And that is also the larger strategy.
If there’s one single strategy that can sum up “Armageddon: How Trump Can Beat Hillary”, it’s keeping the pressure on. As Morris and McGann write, "When we challenge Hillary, it will be like peeling an onion: Each time we disprove one layer of denial, another will take its place, Hillary's denial strategy will blow up in her face. On the campaign trail, she will hang herself by lying and covering up. The key is to keep her under pressure."
This aptly describes the phenomenon of the Clintons. And it highlights an area where Hillary is weaker than Bill. We’ve seen that weakness already on the campaign trail. We’ve seen it with her fumbling responses to the email scandal. And we’ve seen it in the bigger picture of the way that Democrats dodge their scandals because the pressure doesn’t stay on. This is what Dick Morris understands.
“Sanders did not go for the jugular. But Donald Trump will.”
"Keep up the pressure. Make her make mistakes. Force her to dig herself deeper and deeper into lies and cover-ups. That's how we keep Hillary out of the White House. And put Donald Trump in."
“Armageddon: How Trump Can Beat Hillary” combines this brute force logic of political conflict with a deep analysis of demographics, political trends and voting bases that makes it a compelling read.  It connects the familiar Hillary scandals with a battlefield strategy. It takes the data that drives elections and overlays it onto gut arguments that resonate with people who may have never voted before.
Morris and McGann understand the numbers, but they also understand the emotional forces that move people. Armageddon is a plan to beat Hillary by going beyond the usual politics and throwing a punch.