Saturday, October 22, 2016

Pollster John Zogby: Presidential Race Far From Over

Newsmax ^ | 10/22/2016 | John Zogby 

It's still too early to say who will win the presidential election despite several polls and the national polling average tipping the scales toward Democrat Hillary Clinton, pollster John Zogby told Newsmax TV. During an appearance on "America Talks Live," Zogby told host J.D. Hayworth 18 days between now and election day is a long time. "I've been doing this a long, long time and these races go up and down and up and down," Zogby said. "We still have 18 days to go, that means 18, maybe 36 news cycles as well. "You see still a very passionate Donald Trump support, I see three credible polls that are out there that show Donald Trump getting 85, 89 percent of Republican support, winning among whites, winning by double digits among men, . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

How Obama Political Aides Get Preference Over Veterans for Government Jobs

Daily Signal ^ | October 13, 2016 | Fred Lucas 

A disabled veteran didn’t get a job he sought in a federal agency, although he was qualified for the position and was supposed to receive preference. The job went instead to a political appointee of the Obama administration.
This was just one instance in which a nonpartisan government investigation found agencies didn’t follow the rules in hiring one-fourth of all the President Barack Obama political appointees who will be settled in career posts after a new president is sworn in Jan. 20.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Trump's 'Gettysburg address' makes closing argument for choosing him and unveils first-100-days...

Daily Mail ^ | 10/22/2016 | David Martosko 

Trump's 'Gettysburg address' makes closing argument for choosing him and unveils first-100-days agenda as he promises 'the kind of change that only arrives once in a lifetime'
'First 100 days' agenda speech formalized his mainstay political pledges with promises of legislation and executive orders
Called it a 'Contract with the American Voter,' modeling it after the 1994 Republican 'Contract with America'
Trump touted 'the kind of change that only arrives once in a lifetime' and made his final substantive pitch to frame the campaign's last two weeks Told an audience of about 300 invited guests that he will 'drain the swamp' in Washington
Borrowed a line from Abraham Lincoln's 1863 speech, saying he would replace D.C. elites 'with a new government of, by and for the people.'
A Trump aide said the Civil War battlefield site is appropriate because 'Gettysburg was the moment when the war turned'
The candidate briefly visited the site of the famed Civil War battle after his speech
Donald Trump planted a flag on hallowed ground Saturday morning by laying out near the Gettysburg National Battlefield what he would do in his first 100 days as President of the United States. Touting 'the kind of change that only arrives once in a lifetime,' Trump told an audience of about 300 invited guests that he will 'drain the swamp' in Washington, replacing the current government 'with a new government of, by and for the people.'
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Hillary Clinton: Architect of failure

Washington Examiner ^ | 22 Oct, 2016 | KEITH KELLOGG 

My experience in decision-making has shown that patterns are tough to break. In the military we study an opponent looking for gaps, flaws, or weaknesses that can be exploited. Successful leaders at all levels in all disciplines conduct this kind of analysis.
It is quite clear, using that kind of analysis, that Hillary Clinton can best be described as an architect of failure when it comes to national security and international relations. The potential consequences of her flawed decision-making would be destructive to the nation if she were commander in chief.
The second presidential debate made that assessment even clearer when, in an exchange on Syria, Clinton denied being secretary of state when President Obama drew his red line against Syrian use of chemical weapons against civilians. Clinton's continued obfuscation, deception and shading of the truth went beyond the pale. "I was gone," she claimed. No, Madam Secretary, you were not gone. You were responsible for our government's foreign relations during that time.
Let's briefly review her qualifications to be commander in chief and focus on key international decisions considered to be, by her supporters, a strength. Clinton's policy decisions have affected thousands: decisions that resulted in the loss of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines; decisions that have cost this country trillions of dollars; decisions that have destabilized the Middle East and decisions that demonstrate her decision-making quality (a quality that is sadly lacking).
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Earth faces another ICE AGE within 15 YEARS as Russian scientists discover Sun 'cooling'! ^ | 10/22/2016 | Sean Martin 

Experts say that solar activity as low as it currently is has not been seen since the mini-ice age that took place between 1645 and 1715 – a period known as the Maunder Minimum where the entire Thames froze over.
A new model has allowed experts to predict solar activity with more accuracy than ever before and it suggests that magnetic activity will fall by 60 per cent between 2030 and 2040.
The model looks at the Sun’s ’11-year heartbeat’ – the period it takes for magnetic activity to fluctuate. This cycle was first discovered some 173 years ago.
However, a mathematician has established a more up-to-date model that can forecast what the solar cycles will look like based upon dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun.
Dynamo effects are a geophysical theory that dictate how the movement of the Earth’s outer core conducts materials like liquid iron across the magnetic field to create an electric current – this also influences fluid motion beneath Earth’s surface to create two magnetic fields along the axis of the Earth’s rotation.
Valentina Zharkova from Northumbria University applied this theory to the Sun, and was able to predict the affects of solar cycles with 97 per cent accuracy.
Ms Zharkova said at the National Astronomy Meeting: “We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun's interior.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

FBI Data Dump Shows Clinton Is Criminal and Clueless (Hillary = dishonest or dumb)

The ^ | 09/02/16 | John Schindler (security expert & ~NSA analyst) 

FBI Data Dump Shows Clinton Is Criminal and Clueless Hillary is either dishonest or dumb—there is no third choice
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Today, on the Friday afternoon before the long Labor Day weekend, the Federal Bureau of Investigation released documents on its investigation of Hillary Clinton and her mishandling of email while she was secretary of state. The Friday afternoon data dump is a venerable Washington cliché, a shady way to bury a story that the bureaucracy doesn’t want covered in depth, but even by Beltway standards this was a shocker.
Nobody expected much from the FBI here, given the Bureau’s recent punting on its formal inquiry into Hillary’s dubious activities with her “unclassified” email of bathroom server infamy. I’ve been covering the EmailGate story for over a year, from the beginning, and I too didn’t expect the FBI to reveal much about what Hillary did that was unwise and perhaps criminal.
To be fair, a good amount of today’s release has been redacted. The original documents were classified at the Secret/Not Releasable to Foreign Nationals level, and to make it Unclassified about a third of the text has been cut out.
But what’s there is awful enough for Team Clinton. Although the FBI’s press release is terse, the documents themselves indelibly portray the Democratic presidential nominee as dishonest, entitled, and thoroughly incompetent.
Considering that Hillary has been accused of mishandling classified information on an almost industrial scale, what shines through is that Clinton is utterly clueless about classification matters, betraying an ignorance that is shocking when encountered in a former top official of our government—and one who wants to be our next commander-in-chief.
Our Federal classification system isn’t particularly complicated, the basics can be explained in a quarter-hour, and there are courses of instruction that exist precisely to explain how to identify classified information and properly handle it. In fact, they’re mandatory. Since Hillary blew off those courses, even though they are required for government workers at all levels, it’s not surprising that she has no idea what she’s talking about.
There are three basic classification levels (with a bunch of handling caveats that can be added): Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret. These are abbreviated in classified documents as C, S, and TS, respectively (for a quick primer on how this works in the real world, read this).
Since Hillary had been accused of mishandling a lot of classified information, in her July 2 interview with the FBI, agents understandably asked her about this, only to discover that America’s former top diplomat doesn’t have the smallest clue how classification works.
If Hillary actually is as dumb as she appears in these FBI documents, she is nowhere near smart enough to be our commander-in-chief.
When asked, “Clinton could not give an example of how classification of a document was determined,” the FBI recorded. Hillary could not explain what the (C)—for Confidential—classification marking at the beginning of a paragraph was. She thought it perhaps had something to do with alphabetical order.
This tragicomedy continued with the FBI pressing Hillary on specific examples of classified information that wound up in her “Unclassified” emails. She explained her position concisely. As the FBI noted, “Clinton stated that she did not pay attention to the ‘level’ of classified information.”
We can safely assume that the FBI agents present gasped at that one, since classification is all about the level. Simply put, compromising Confidential information will get you a letter of reprimand, while compromising Top Secret information can easily get you a trip to the Federal penitentiary. Not to mention that brave Americans have died to protect Top Secret information.
The Clinton follies continued, with Hillary’s lawerly position clear: “Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system,” the FBI recorded. She even stood her ground when asked about emails regarding drone strikes—a subject that the CIA and the Pentagon consider to be highly classified. Indeed, it’s Top Secret and part of a super-sensitive Special Access Program or SAP.
Not to Hillary. Such SAP information wound up in her “Unclassified” emails but Clinton would have none of it. As the FBI noted, “Clinton stated deliberation over a future drone strike did not give her cause for concern regarding classification.” This would be stunning news to the thousands of American military and intelligence personnel who have to treat such Top Secret SAP information according to the strict rules and regulations that apply to anybody not named Clinton.
Here Hillary has confirmed what many have long suspected—that there’s one set of laws for Clintons and Friends, and a very different set for the rest of us. Classes on how to handle classified materials—much less actually following those rules on pain of arrest and prosecution—are for Little People, not for Clintons and their charmed retinue.
The FBI inquiry descended into farce. The Bureau’s investigation determined that hundreds of the emails containing classified information had been sent by Hillary while she was out of the United States—including in Russia. Since these were sent on Clinton’s ubiquitous Blackberry, all of those should now be assumed to be in the hands of foreign intelligence agencies—particularly the security service of whatever country Hillary was in when she clicked “open” or “send.”
The FBI could not find evidence of cyber-tampering with Hillary’s Blackberry, but that’s irrelevant here. As someone who used to do these things for a living when I worked for NSA, let me state that it’s easy for any marginally competent intelligence service to intercept unencrypted (or lightly encrypted) messages sent to or from a Blackberry. No “hacking” is required. Such routine intercepts would leave few, if any, traces for the FBI to find.
Not that Hillary and her staff took even the most rudimentary security precautions. They emailed each other everywhere, all the time, even in high-threat countries like Russia and China. Anybody who doesn’t understand that Moscow and Beijing—and probably many others—have those emails (and worse, may have used them to crack into other, even more sensitive U.S. Government systems) is uninformed about 21st century espionage.
In perhaps the most laughable of the FBI’s revelations, we learned that Hillary had a bad habit of losing her personal electronic devices. As many as thirteen of them went missing—including ones that possibly had classified emails on them. In a couple cases, Clinton staffers disposed of old devices by smashing them with a hammer. Which does nothing to render whatever classified information may have been on them unreadable to any competent spy service.
There are strict rules about how to destroy classified information systems that are no longer needed. Of course, Hillary followed those rules no more than she did any of the dozens if not hundreds of other security regulations she ignored altogether when she was secretary of state.
Saddest of all in this sordid saga is that Hillary had no excuse for any of it. It’s ok not to be a whiz at the nuances of classification. Cabinet secretaries are busy people. When you’re the secretary of state, you’ve got seasoned security personnel on call, 24/7, anywhere in the world, to answer questions and resolve security dilemmas like how to handle classified materials. Calling them apparently would have been too much trouble for Hillary and her inner circle.
It beggars belief that Hillary Clinton is really as clueless as she came across in her interview with the FBI. I’ve given classified briefings to cabinet officials. None of them were ever this out of it. Perhaps, accompanied by her lawyers, the Democratic nominee decided to play dumb to dodge possible prosecution. If that’s the case, Hillary repeatedly flat-out lied to the FBI—which, yet again, is something normal Americans go to prison for doing.
If Hillary actually is as dumb as she appears in these FBI documents—utterly clueless about basic classification matters even after years of Federal service at the highest levels—she is nowhere near smart enough to be our commander-in-chief.
In my time with NSA I worked in counterintelligence and I investigated people who mishandled classified information. It was rarely a pretty story and it seldom ended well. Let me state with 100 percent confidence, having now seen at least some of what the FBI discovered about Hillary and her emails, that anybody not named Clinton who did these things would be facing severe criminal charges and potentially years in prison. Democrats need to seriously ask themselves if this is the kind of person they want to represent them on November 8.

Politicization of the FBI Threatens American Democracy!

The XX Committee intelligence, strategy, and security in a dangerous world ^ | October 21, 2016 

Obama and Hillary have allowed our secret police to become a tool of the Democrats—which should trouble all Americans!

During the presidency of GWB, Americans heard a lot about the “politicization of intelligence” after Operation Iraqi Freedom went disastrously wrong. Without reopening that whole can of top secret worms, it’s clear our Intelligence Community made some bad calls on Iraq—specifically regarding Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction.

... We didn’t have hard evidence of WMDs, but there wasn’t evidence of their absence either. I, like all my colleagues, assumed Saddam had WMDs because he’d had them in the past, moreover he wanted his enemies to think he still did.
Saddam was a cagey fellow and he had an intricate scheme—what spies call Denial and Deception—to convince Iran (which he considered a much bigger threat to his regime than the Americans) that he had WMDs, when in fact he really didn’t. Alas, that plan worked too well. Saddam successfully fooled Tehran, Washington, and pretty much every intelligence service on earth. We know what happened next.
The consequences are still with us today. In Iraq, America got a painful lesson in the politicization of intelligence, particularly what happens when spies tell policymakers what they want to hear. Politicization of intelligence hasn’t gone away, in fact President Obama has done much the same regarding the Islamic State, with the White House making clear the “correct” answers to intelligence questions. As with so many issues, the media considered this a really big problem when George Bush did it, but much less so when Barack Obama does.
However, politicization of intelligence is a manageable problem compared to what’s transpired during Obama’s two terms as our commander-in-chief. I’m talking about the politicization of our secret police—an alarming development that threatens democracy itself.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

This Is It: Wikileaks Drops 1 Last Bomb On Hillary, It’s Over Folks, She Can Quit Now!

ETF News ^ | October 22, 2016 | ETF News 

Hillary betrays the number one thing liberals love in this explosive new Wikileaks. She wants Obamacare to FAIL! Obama’s signature policy initiative, his legacy no less, Hillary wants to gut.

Obama is said to be seething and removing his support from her flailing campaign. The Bernie liberals already fled her sinking ship when earlier Wikileaks showed she played bernie and his band of fools for chumps.

Via National Insider Politics:

It would appear there is no honour among thieves. Wikileaks still has some aces up its sleeve, even though the site probably got its power cut by Democrat operatives. The latest email release shows yet another Clinton revelation.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Democrats know their happy face talk about the economy is a lie!

vanity | Oct 22, 2016 | Kevin "Coach" Collins 

Wikileaks has retrieved an email sent to John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, from Donna Brazile the acting Chairperson of the Democrat National Committee. In part, Brazile said, “I think people are more in despair about how things are – yes new jobs but they are low wage jobs. HOUSING is a huge issue most people pay half of what they make to rent.”

She wrote these words on February 13, 2016 just days after Ed Goeas, one of the most respected pollsters in the country, wrote an alarming warning about the sentiments of likely voters regarding the economic future of their children and grandchildren.
Writing on January 31, 2016, Ed Goeas the head of Tarrance Group polling firm said he was shocked to find that 70% of middle class voters “do not believe that the next generation will do as good as they have, moving the American Dream out of reach for millions.”
The Tarrance Group message said, “[We] found that so many [middle class voters] are so depressed that it's going to take candidates far more than an Obama-styled call for "hope and change" to stir them at the voting booths. Clearly, simple sloganeering like 'Hope and Change' is not going to meet the smell test with voters this political season. The current political environment has voters thinking the federal government is an ineffective mess that is causing more harm than good. However, they still want this government to be doing more, more that works, and works for them.”
Goeas pointed to Middle Class voters as the key to the election, “..because most Americans either are, or think they are members of the group. They have always made up the bulk of those who believe in the American Dream of owning a car and home and being well-employed. But Goeas, said the dream is shattered, maybe forever. A saddened Goeas continued saying, “The American Dream is getting further, further, further from our reach." After Goeas mentioned the fading American Dream five times he concluded saying, that “…middle class voters are worried that the economy has put [the American dream] out of reach for their kids who will be stuck with the bill of inefficient government and social welfare. The middle class also has deeply held feelings that the next generation will not do as well as their generation (70 percent), moving the American Dream further from their reach. Seventy-five percent believe that with the current federal government solutions, the rich get the benefits, the poor get the programs, and the middle class get the bill. In other words, the American electorate truly questions whether the American Dream, a better life for our children and grandchildren, is still within reach."
Goeas said these concerns “give Republicans an opening in the upcoming election, especially among voters who don't like Barack Obama and feel the nation is headed in the wrong direction.”
Goeas’ partner Brian Nienaber wrote:
"For the middle class in this election, the frustration runs deeper, as will the measurement they use in deciding where to cast their vote. They feel the country is, and has been, moving in the wrong direction. They are extremely negative about the current president and his policies, but are equally cynical about the ability of the federal government to effectively implement solutions that work, and truly question whether those solutions are aimed at making their lives better. To top it off, those solutions may be moving the American Dream further and further from their reach. There is a path for Republicans in the upcoming election, but it is not as simple as a few choice issue positions or creative slogans. It is about painting a full picture of where we want to take this country to build a better future, and more specifically build a stronger economic future for the middle class."
An April McClatchy survey found 89% of Republicans said the country is on the wrong track, 77% of Independents agreed as did 49% of Democrats.

Poll: Paul Ryan's Approval Collapses, More GOP Voters Say Trump ^ | 10/21/16 | Matt Vespa 

Justin wrote about the hostile reception to Speaker Of The House Paul Ryan from Trump supporters at a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Chants of “Paul Ryan sucks” were shouted, but is this an isolated incident? That is, is this just a representation of Trump supporters from the local area? No—not really. The latest polling shows that support for Ryan has collapsed, sinking 28 points…in a week. The YouGov poll had some interesting points concerning Ryan, Trump, and the brewing tensions that seem bound to erupt in civil war once this election is over.
Allahpundit noted that Ryan is experiencing the Ted Cruz treatment from his own side by refusing to campaign with Trump, though he hasn’t yanked his endorsement, which rightfully leaves some people wondering why this late in the game would anyone just stop supporting Trump. For starters, the Access Hollywood tape isn’t a deal breaker with many Republican voters, but it is one with almost a quarter of independents, who Trump needs to win over in order to win this election. Another interesting find in the crosstabs about Ryan is that most Republicans, despite their increasing dislike of him, view him as the leader of the GOP, not Trump:
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Perfectly Clear!

When it comes to talk of a ‘rigged’ election the progressive left is already there!

Hot Air ^ | October 21, 2016 | John Sexton 

The issue that progressives suddenly seem very concerned about, i.e. that Donald Trump will corrode America’s faith in our electoral system, is a case of rushing to close the barn door after the horse has already gotten out. Whatever damage Trump has done in the past couple months can’t compare to what progressives themselves have been doing for the past 16 years.

The concern about Trump being expressed, seemingly everywhere this week, is that he will poison the well of democracy, i.e. he’ll convince people a presidential election was stolen. But that’s a concern about something that may happen in the future. What already has happened is that progressive Democrats have been making exactly this case, that a presidential election was stolen, for the past 16 years.
Before going any further, I have to say that I agree that having Trump repeatedly suggest the election is rigged strikes me as a really bad idea. I do think it could influence people to believe the election is tainted and therefore illegitimate. And barring proof of some actual electoral scandal, I don’t think that’s a good thing for America.
So while I don’t approve of what Trump is saying, it seems very clear to me that he’s far from the first person to say it. In fact, it was quickly pointed out after the 3rd debate that progressives have been saying something similar for 16 years. You may recall the phrase “selected not elected” which was shorthand for the idea that Bush was illegitimate because of Bush v. Gore.
There was plenty of push back to the comparison between Trump and Gore. Philip Bump wrote a piece for the Washington Post titled “Al Gore’s fight in 2000 was very different from the way Trump is undermining the process now.” Here’s Bump’s conclusion:
Gore’s fight was a fight over counting ballots, not over an allegation that the election itself was unfair. There were disputes about the intent of voters and some insincere rhetoric on both sides, but there was no question that the system, however flawed, was working the way it was supposed to. There was no question that Gore had won more votes nationally, but there was also no question that the 2000 election was one of the closest in history and that the result was the will of almost precisely half of the voting public. It was a test case for the strength of our democracy, as Gore noted, and we passed — however frustrating to Gore and his supporters then and in the years that followed.
I see what Bump is trying to do here but, intentionally or not, he has completely missed the point. I’d certainly grant that Al Gore wasn’t trash talking the system before the 2000 election. In that way it’s true that Gore and Trump are behaving very differently. I’d also grant that because of how close the election turned out, Gore was justified in waiting to see how the recount process would turn out and that his eventual concession message hit some good notes.
But that’s not the end of the story.
Contrary to Bump’s tidy summary in which Gore does the right thing and his supporters move past their frustration, reality has been somewhat different. This clip put together by Morning Joe offers a few highlights:

All of this electoral skepticism trickles down. When Al Gore showed up to campaign with Hillary in Florida earlier this month, he was greeted with chants of “You won!” from the crowd. You can hear it yourself in this clip and notice that Hillary doesn’t seem horrified by this widespread skepticism of the system. On the contrary she seems to think it’s a hoot:

Ultimately, it really doesn’t matter whether Al Gore is leading the chants of “You won!” That might be even worse, but the point is that lots of people are chanting it anyway and Gore certainly doesn’t correct them for it.
What matters ultimately is that the damage has been done. Faith in democracy has been eroded. The thing that the media and the professional left are suddenly very worried could happen…has happened already. There is widespread belief on the American left that one or more U.S. presidential elections were rigged or stolen.
Will things be even worse if people on the right start saying the same thing about 2016? Yes, I believe that would be even worse for the country, but it hasn’t happened yet and maybe it won’t. If it does then a segment of the right will be landing in territory progressives have been occupying proudly for more than a decade.

Colorado law enforcement officials warn dangers of legalizing marijuana ^ 

BENTON, Ark. (KATV) - Medical marijuana is now legal in 25 states and Arkansas could potentially be added to the list.
Two major law enforcement officials from Colorado are urging from their experience that voters say no to legalization in Arkansas.
Former president and current vice president of the Colorado Drug Investigators Association spoke exclusively to Channel 7 on Friday about how marijuana has changed their state and how it could affect ours.
"It's not a good thing for a community to do something like this," Jerry Peters, former president of the the Colorado Drug Investigators Association, said.
Peters said legalizing medical marijuana will only lead to legalization for recreational use like it did in Colorado and other states.
"This has brought an impact to the state of Colorado that's going to be hard to reverse," Peters said.
"I don't see anything that's been positive about legalizing marijuana, whether it's for recreational or for medicinal purposes," Jim Gerhardt, vice president of the Colorado Drug Investigators Association, said.
Gerhardt said it has become an unpredictable industry that has led to major problems in public safety and public health.
He also said they've seen an increase in homelessness, underage use, crime and death. There's also been a 62 percent increase in car fatalities involving marijuana.
"It has not been properly studied by the FDA to be able to say it's safe and effective," Gerhardt said.
Gerhardt said they've also seen more home invasions because of home growing, which is something that one initiative, ballot issue 7, in Arkansas would allow.
"A week ago we had a 14-year-old shot and killed when he jumped into the backyard of a man's house trying to take marijuana out of the backyard," Gerhardt said.
Both Gerhardt and Peters blame the potency of marijuana today. They said in the sixties and seventies marijuana had 3-5 percent THC and now it has 15-30 percent THC.
Plus, marijuana edibles and concentrates can have up to 95 percent THC.

Don't be fooled, Arizona & Texas are not going "Clinton Blue".


Over the last few days or so....The Hillary Clinton political machine has openly prroclaimed that both Arizona & Texas are now in play in the POTUS race, and that the Clinton campaign is going to spend abut $2M dollars on ads in these states to turn them to Hillary Clinton's favor.

Both Arizona & Texas are large, important states in this POTUS election. Clinton spending a "PALTRY" $2M dollars in each of them is like spending a drop of water into a a bucket with a gaping hole inside it.

I can assure you neither of the states will ever go "blue" in the near future!!! So....good folks do not be misled and fooled by the "Clinton machine" and their idle babble!!! After viewing The Clinton political Rallies today...and their meager supporter turnout...i might suggest that Ms. Clinton focus on the possible, rather then the impossible!

Come election day, November 8th, Donald J. Trump will easily carry the states of Texas, Florida, Ohio & many more...and Trump will be elected POTUS!!! American voters, be not fooled, by the false banter & babble of the HRC campaign!!!

He’s With Her: Inside Paul Ryan’s Months-Long Campaign to Elect Hillary Clinton President!

Breitbart ^ | Oct 21 2016 | Julia Hahn 

Donald Trump made headlines this week when he questioned whether Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan wanted him to prevail over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
“Maybe not,” Trump told Good Morning America on Tuesday. “Because maybe he wants to run in four years… or maybe he doesn’t know how to win. I mean, who can really know?” Trump said.
The view that Ryan “doesn’t know how to win,” however, neglects the reality that both Ryan and Clinton share a progressive, globalist worldview, which is at odds with Trump’s “America first” approach. Indeed, both Clinton and Ryan have said that they see themselves as representatives not only for American citizens, but also for foreign nationals and foreign interests. This view that the needs of foreign citizens are equal to the needs of American citizens reflects the belief that Americans are only part of many interest groups that a lawmaker ought to consider when crafting legislation—even as he or she negotiates with other countries, which always put their citizens first.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Trump: A better candidate than Reagan

WND ^ | Oct 21, 2016 | Scott Lively 

Many of the people announcing an intention to vote for Donald Trump are adding a disclaimer to distance themselves from his unsavory comments or actions of the past. I’m not going to do that. In my view Donald Trump is today a far different and better man than the one who threw his hat in the ring at the start of this election cycle. I credit that to the unprecedented level of public vilification – the “borking” of Donald Trump – he has endured and appears to have been transformed by.
Whatever his worldview and the context of his past experience might have been, and regardless of the level of his sincerity at the beginning of his campaign, this man has made himself the spokesman for numerous positions and values that Christian conservatives (at great personal cost) have advocated for years. He hasn’t just pandered to us, he has walked in our shoes these past months, going far beyond the minimum necessary to align himself with us, and he has learned firsthand what we have endured at the hands of the Marxist elites. And through it all he hasn’t been intimidated into caving and pandering to the left like every other champion we’ve put our hopes in – including the otherwise stalwart Mike Pence in the Indiana RFRA debacle. Trump’s transformation is the best example of personal growth and maturity in a public figure that I’ve seen in my lifetime.
What more could Christian conservatives hope for than to watch a man of Trump’s wealth, power, acumen and courage discover the truth of the culture war and the utter corruption of the left by personal experience on his path to the White House?
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Rasmussen Poll: Most Voters Say Clinton Should Have Been Indicted!

Newsmax ^ | Friday, 21 Oct 2016 05:55 PM | Joe Crowe 

Most voters say that Hillary Clinton should have been indicted over her mishandling of classified information when she was secretary of state, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll.
In the poll, voters said:
  • The FBI should have sought a criminal indictment: 53 percent;
  • The FBI made the right decision not to seek one: 39 percent.
A large portion of voters believe that Clinton’s issues with classified information are an important factor in whom they choose for president. …

(Excerpt) Read more at ...