Showing posts with label #Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #Iran. Show all posts

Monday, August 29, 2016

Editorial: The Clinton Foundation - Crimes and Corruption

Editorial

In the Must Read book "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer, the Clinton Foundation and other crimes by the Clinton family are alleged to have happened and this should be a PLAYBOOK, for the House and Senate when they come back from their summer recess, as well as by Donald Trump in his campaigning.

The Clinton Foundation is only one of many items that need to be investigated. Others include the TRUTH about Benghazi, the Iran deal, arming the Chinese, selling uranium to Russia, as well as a whole host of other charges.



Tuesday, August 23, 2016

The Iran Nuclear Deal Spiritual Blindness at Work?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Iran. This follows this post about gender blurring.  This follows this post about Zika. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

As more and more details of the Iran nuclear negotiations unfolded over recent months, the questions grew more and more puzzling. Why were the world’s leading powers so eager to cut a deal with an Iranian regime that:
• Has been the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism,
• Repeatedly threatens to eliminate Israel,
• Routinely refers to the United States as “the great Satan” (and supports mass rallies where people chant “Death to America!”), and
• Has leaders who believe they are divinely destined to initiate a period of worldwide upheaval that will lead to their version of fundamentalist Islam attaining dominance over the entire world.
The Western powers’ surrender to Iranian negotiating demands were equally puzzling. Why did major Western leaders so eagerly line up behind the United States to sign off on an agreement that:
• Provides a dictatorial regime a windfall of more than $100 billion (frozen when Iran took over the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979 and imprisoned all embassy personnel for 444 days),
• Relieves economic sanctions (imposed by the UN Security Council due to Iran’s refusal to suspend its nuclear programs),
• Bans American and other Western personnel from inspections of Iranian sites (and allows Iran to do its own inspections of sites where it’s suspected of carrying out banned activities!),
• Allows Iran to purchase advanced military weaponry in a few years,
• Includes secret side deals hidden from the U.S. Congress, and
• Paves Iran’s way to producing (and helps finance) nuclear weapons regardless of whether Iran abides by the terms of the agreement or chooses to cheat.

Why agree to such a one-sided deal?

Why did Western leaders not insist that Iran make concessions of its own, such as halting its support of violent terror groups, freezing or dismantling its ballistic missile programs, ending its threatening behavior toward its neighbors, or truly offering “anytime, anywhere” inspections of its nuclear facilities—especially if they really are entirely for peaceful purposes as Iran claims?
In light of such facts, why would anyone support such an agreement with a foreign power with such a track record?
Some reasons are evident. The European participants in the agreement appear to be motivated mostly by economic greed. They see lifting of sanctions on Iran as a way for European companies to enter a potentially lucrative business market, and they gain access to Iranian oil.
Russia, long familiar with the Middle Eastern adage “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” sees an opportunity to strengthen an enemy of the United States as an opportunity not to be missed, and it sees a huge market for advanced Russian military hardware.
Some believe U.S. President Barack Obama is motivated primarily by a desire to add a notable foreign policy landmark to his presidential legacy, and possibly another Nobel Peace Prize to cap his career.
In any case, what is really at the heart of the matter? The Bible reveals deeper issues— spiritual issues that lie beyond normal human perception.
God’s Word reveals a spiritual dimension to international affairs where unseen spirit beings are at work behind the scenes shaping the world in profound ways (see “Kingdoms at War ” and “An Evil Spirit World: Where Did It Come From? ).
When we see things on the international stage that make no sense on the physical level—such as an international agreement like this that defies all logic and common sense—it is virtually guaranteed that something profound is taking place on the unseen spiritual level, a spiritual dimension revealed in the Bible where spirit beings and forces shape the world to their own ends.
On the physical level, it makes no sense to provide the world’s greatest sponsor of terrorism billions of dollars and a clear path to nuclear weapons—yet that is exactly what world leaders have done! Spiritual forces are at work.
Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again while expecting a different result. World history has repeatedly shown that appeasing dangerous tyrants—think Adolf Hitler—leads to only greater demands and ultimate disaster.

Spiritual blindness and drunkenness

Another factor ties in closely with this. It’s an additional spiritual component that the Bible calls “drunkenness.” The biblical prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel all used the same term to describe the irrational decision-making of leaders and people who have forsaken and rejected God. They lose their ability to think rationally and reason properly because they have turned their backs on the source of true wisdom.
Notice one such passage in Isaiah describing this spiritual blindness: “Go ahead and be blind. You are stupid, but not from wine! You stagger, but not from liquor! For the Lord has poured out on you a spirit of deep sleep. He has closed the eyes of your prophets and visionaries …
“And so the Lord says, ‘… Because of this, I will once again astound these hypocrites with amazing wonders. The wisdom of the wise will pass away, and the intelligence of the intelligent will disappear.’ What sorrow awaits those who try to hide their plans from the Lord, who do their evil deeds in the dark! ‘The Lord can’t see us,’ they say. ‘He doesn’t know what’s going on!’ How foolish can you be?” (Isaiah 29:9-16, New Living Translation, 2013).
Why are people who certainly should know better—especially prominent leaders—caught up in such self-destructive blindness? The answer is simple. God says it’s because they “have removed their hearts far from Me” (Isaiah 29:13).
A deeper spiritual issue is at work in the Iran treaty. Western leaders have been hell-bent on securing this deal, largely at the behest of President Obama. In the words of the biblical prophets, it is as though they have all become “drunk” and cannot discern the reality of the threat and the dangerous times we live in. Our world will grow only more dangerous as leaders and people become ever more spiritually blind and intoxicated due to sin.
May you have the wisdom and courage to heed your Creator and turn to Him before it’s too late!

You might also be interested in...

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Demand The Department Of Justice Release The Official Report Of Hillary Clinton’s FBI Interview and also Impeach Obama For Iran Ransom Payments!

A timely post from http://www.dickmorris.com about Hillary's e-mails and Obama's ransom. This follows this post about Intolerant Liberalism at Universities. This follows this post about rap songs referencing Donald Trump.
You can follow me here.


Demand The Department Of Justice To Release The Official Report Of Hillary Clinton’s FBI Interview!

By Dick Morris

CLICK HERE NOW Tell The Department Of Justice To Release The Official Report Of Hillary Clinton’s FBI Interview!
The Department of Justice is evaluating whether or not to release the official report of what transpired during Hillary Clinton’s FBI interview about her private email server. FBI Director James Comey promised to release the report — if he was allowed — during his press conference announcing his findings. But now, news reports indicate that the Department of Justice, pressured by the White House, is reconsidering whether to release the report. As citizens, taxpayers, and voters, we the public are entitled to see the report.
WE, the Undersigned, petition the United States Department of Justice to release the report of the FBI interview with Hillary Clinton about her emails and private server. We are entitled to know what she said before we have to decide whether to vote for her.
Please sign this petition and please get as many of your friends and family as possible to sign!
Your signature will count! We will send an email in your name to the Department of Justice telling them of your position!
We’ll add your email address to our Alerts list to keep you posted on progress and let you know if we need to take further action.
Thank you,
Dick Morris

Impeach Obama For Iran Ransom Payments!

By Dick Morris

Dear Friend,
CLICK HERE NOW To Sign The Petition To Impeach Obama For Iran Ransom Payments!
I hope you were as shocked as I was that President Obama paid $400 million in cash to Iran after which the Ayatollah released four American hostages. The Administration maintains the fiction that the payment was not a ransom and reaffirms the US policy against paying ransom. But the fact that the plane did not take off to free the hostages until the moment the other plane carrying the cash arrives makes it look a lot like ransom.
Not only would this transaction violate US law prohibiting payment of ransom, but it would also run afoul of the Iran anti-terrorist sanctions passed in 1996 that preclude any cash payments to Iran or any laundering of cash through third parties.
WE, the Undersigned, petition Congress in general and the House Judiciary Committee and its Chairman, Congressman Bob Goodlatte, to hold hearings to determine if President Obama violated U.S. law in making the payment to Iran and whether such a violation rises to the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors specified in the Constitution as a basis for impeachment.
Please sign this petition and please get as many of your friends and family as possible to sign!
Your signature will count! We will send an email in your name to President Obama and your Senators and Congressman telling him or her of your position!
We’ll add your email address to our Alerts list to keep you posted on progress and let you know if we need to take further action.
Thank you,
Dick Morris


Thursday, August 11, 2016

Should You Believe All the News?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about media bias. This follows this post about violence. This follows this post about Zika. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

The credo of professional journalists is to report facts and events objectively. Yet several recent books document journalists slanting their reporting to favor their biases and further their prejudices, especially left-leaning agendas.
Longtime CBS News reporter Bernard Goldberg realized how deep media bias can run as he reviewed a February 1996 story presented by fellow CBS reporter Eric Engberg. In his best-selling book Bias, Mr. Goldberg expressed his shock at the way Mr. Engberg's report poked fun at presidential candidate and Forbes -magazine publisher Steve Forbes' proposal for a flat tax rate.
“Steve Forbes pitches his flat-tax scheme as an economic elixir good for everything that ails us,”Mr. Engberg began. He then proceeded to interview three supposed tax experts, all of whom opposed Mr. Forbes' proposal to overhaul the massive U.S. tax code. He then referred to the flat-tax idea as “wacky” and a “giant, untested idea” that should be “test[ed] out someplace-like Albania” (2002, pp. 16-18).
As Mr. Goldberg points out, Mr. Engberg could easily have found respected economists who supported Mr. Forbes'flat tax- especially since two Nobel-prize-winning economists and various conservative university economics professors were on record as supporting the idea.
Mr. Goldberg concludes: “From top to bottom the Engberg piece was breathtaking in its lack of fairness. So how could CBS put it on the air? Well, news fans, here's one of those dirty little secrets journalists are never supposed to reveal to the regular folks out there in the audience: a reporter can find an expert to say anything the reporter wants - anything! Just keep calling until one of the experts says what you need him to say and tell him you'll be right down with your camera crew to interview him.
“If you find an expert who says, 'You know, I think that flat tax just might work and here's why …' you thank him, hang up, and find another expert. It's how journalists sneak their own personal views into stories in the guise of objective news reporting. Because the reporter can always say, 'Hey, I didn't say the flat tax stinks- the guy from that Washington think tank did!'” (ibid., p. 20).
Mr. Goldberg also notes that too many reporters, editors and columnists live in their own insular world, isolated from other views and sources of information. He cites the example of New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael, who expressed astonishment when Richard Nixon beat liberal candidate George McGovern in the 1972 U.S. presidential election. “How can that be?” she exclaimed. “Nobody I know voted for Nixon.”Yet Mr. Nixon had carried 49 of the 50 states in a landslide election victory.

Slanted news reporting

William McGowan, former reporter for Newsweek and the BBC and a regular contributor to The Wall Street Journal explains in his recent book Coloring the News that the news media's crusade for a favorite liberal cause-diversity- has corrupted American journalism by promoting homosexual rights, feminism, affirmative action, race and immigration over objective debate and honesty.
He recounts that in December 1992 he attended the Diversity Summit Meeting of the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the Newspaper Association of America. From that point forward, he notes, media coverage underwent a major and lasting change.
“The cause of diversity had become a crusade across the length and breadth of the American media, and would be a defining and dominating force in journalism in the decade to come. Almost every day after that 1992 meeting, one could hear echoes from it in newspaper stories and nightly network broadcasts. Diversity was the new religion, and anybody who wanted to be anybody in the news industry had to rally behind it” (2001, pp. 9-10).

From media darling to pariah

Another revealing book documenting the bias of many in the media was written by Tammy Bruce, longtime advocate of liberal causes. Ms. Bruce, a Los Angeles political figure and talk-show host, was head of the Los Angeles chapter and a national board member of the National Organization for Women (NOW) as well as an avowed lesbian and abortion-rights activist. However, after defending conservative author and talk-show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger and charging NOW with hypocrisy, she found herself a pariah among reporters who had formerly sought her out for interviews.
Based on such experiences, she wrote The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds. In it she explains that “what began so many years ago as a noble cause-ending the scourge of bigotry-has devolved into something far different. It's not bigots that the new Thought Police are after. It's people … who dare to speak their mind and contradict the 'progressive' point of view …
“There is enormous irony in the fact that it is those on the Left-the supposed protectors of all things culturally important-who are imposing severe sanctions on anyone who espouses an idea or expresses an opinion that might be deemed 'offensive' to some favored group” (2001, p. 4).
The result is that “the effects of this new intolerance are felt in the media and in the arts, on college campuses, even in offices and factories. The message is clear: Don't speak up. Or else-you'll be fired [or] sued … Labels such as 'racist,' 'sexist,'and 'homophobe'are routinely used to demonize anyone who utters a word that doesn't support the Left's agenda. Television producers allow their scripts to be edited by groups that purport to represent aggrieved minorities. On college campuses, student newspapers that don't toe the party line are collected and destroyed, and speakers with un-PC views are shouted down” (ibid., pp. 2-3).
Not surprisingly, all three books have been generally ignored in the mainstream media, even though Bias has become a best-seller in the United States.

Bias affects reporting

How do such media biases affect everyday reporting? One notable example involved coverage of the campaigns leading up to a recent national election. The major liberal candidate was consistently portrayed by the mainstream media as a deep thinker and intellectual heavyweight. The leading conservative candidate, on the other hand, was typically portrayed as something of an amiable dunce, a man generally incapable of speaking clearly and presenting ideas coherently.
Seldom compared by the media were details of the academic backgrounds of the two candidates. Both had graduated from Ivy League schools, one from Harvard, the other from Yale. However, from there the “smart” one went to Vanderbilt Divinity School, where, according to a biography and column in The Boston Globe “he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters” before dropping out. He then enrolled for a brief stint at Vanderbilt Law School before again dropping out and entering a lifetime of politics.
The other candidate, depicted as an intellectual featherweight, went on to earn an M.B.A. from Harvard, no insignificant accomplishment. He flew fighter jets in the National Guard. In spite of an impressive showing since assuming office and the most-sustained high approval ratings of any person occupying that office in history, reporters and columnists still occasionally snipe at President George W. Bush for his supposed lack of intelligence.

Mass-media alienation

Most media firms are, in fact, businesses that promote strong liberal biases. Such leanings reflect a warped worldview and lead them to assume their views are normal while the perspectives of those who disagree with them are abnormal. Significantly, several media corporations have been fast losing audiences, some say because of their profound bias.
Many Americans appear to be increasingly aware of the distorted diet the majority of media outlets feeds them in the name of news reporting. Columnist Jack Kelly's perception of modern mainstream media is telling:
“For people who are convinced we're awfully smart, we journalists can be pretty stupid. We've been driving away customers. In 1980, 75 percent of Americans routinely watched evening newscasts on ABC, NBC, or CBS. Last year only 43 percent did. In 1980, 67 percent of adults customarily read a daily newspaper. In 1999, only 57 percent did.
“Television news has lost 43 percent of its audience, newspapers 15 percent of ours. In other businesses, such losses would trigger massive changes. Heads would roll. If word spread McDonald's was using rat feces as filler in hamburgers, McDonald's market share would drop. Viewers and readers are deserting us in droves because they think our product is shallow and biased” (“Media Is Its Own Worst Enemy,” Jewish World Review Jan. 28, 2002).
But not all journalists remain loyal to liberal biases. Bernard Goldberg, cited above, is perhaps the most popular television journalist who has stood against media bias. Radio-talk-show hosts with countering views, such as Rush Limbaugh, have become nationally popular by riding a wave of dissent against the mainstream media's liberal biases, as have conservative-leaning commentators such as the Fox network's Bill O'Reilly. Fox has been built on mainstream media's abandonment of any vestige of unbiased objectivity. Fox's motto itself is revealing: “We report; you decide.”
Today a sentiment grows that the very media outlets that rose to greatness during World War II through most of the last half of the 20th century have begun to engineer their own demise by failing to fulfill their promise of objectivity in reporting.
There also exists a growing belief that the owners of the vast majority of network news outlets are more interested in promoting entertainment personalities and products, along with issues and views popular in related fields, than in promoting and providing unbiased reporting. As a result,Western society often is informed only of news and issues that harmonize with the opinions of those who control the media. This approach leaves in its wake a distorted view of reality as its most disturbing consequence. GN

You might also be interested in...

Monday, August 8, 2016

Trump Endorses RATs—So They’ll Support Him Now, Right? RIGHT?

An interesting article from http://www.vdare.com about Donald Trump's recent endorsements. This follows this post about Donald Trump and other Republicans. Remember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
Please follow me here.


ryantrump

Trump Endorses RATs—So They’ll Support Him Now, Right? RIGHT?


Donald Trump disappointed many of his most fervent supporters when he recently endorsed John McCain, Paul Ryan, and Kelly Ayotte, all of whom cucked and denounced him after the Main Stream Media created Khizr Khantroversy.
Donald J. Trump belatedly endorsed the re-elections of Speaker Paul D. Ryan and Senators John McCain and Kelly Ayotte on Friday, moving to heal a deepening rift within the Republican Party touched off by Mr. Trump’s feud with the parents of a slain American soldier…
The endorsement on Friday, in Mr. Ryan’s home state, Wisconsin, had the rollout of a carefully crafted campaign event. A fund-raising email was sent to supporters immediately after Mr. Trump’s announcement. Moments later, subscribers to Trump campaign texts received an alert that said, “Party unity will help Make America Great Again.”
He read the endorsement from a script. But before he got to those words, he spent several minutes in the off-the-cuff mode he is known for. He predicted that the Green Bay Packers would have a strong season, excoriated Hillary Clinton and argued that the news media had misconstrued his suggestion at a previous event that a crying baby be escorted out.
“The baby that had a voice that was superior to Pavarotti,” he said, adding, “I want to sponsor that baby.”
[Donald Trump Endorses Paul Ryan and John McCain in bid for GOP Unityby Nick Corasanti, New York Times, August 5, 2016]
It’s interesting that Trump mentioned the baby. The “Trump kicked out a baby” story is why we call them the “Lying Press,” not just the deceptive press. Trump did no such thing.
But now, the mother of that baby says the incident did not happen the way the media presented it, writing “I am in no way offended and I again reiterate, Mr. Trump NEVER kicked me or my child out of the Briar Woods High School, Trump rally.”
“The media has severely blown this out of proportion and made it out to be something that it wasn’t and is clearly using this as political gain for the Democratic Party. I hope this message sheds light to what really happened,” the mother wrote on social media.
You have our vote. Trump 2016
[Trump never kicked me out! Mom of crying baby sets record straight after media runs with false storyby John Binder, BizPacReview, August 5, 2016]
Now, none of the innumerable media outlets who reported on this phony controversy are going to withdraw their charges and apologize. Most reporters are simply far-Left activists, quite willing to lie in service of their agenda. Why would such scum have any interest in truth? They know exactly what they are doing.
ADVERTISEMENT
But the real problem are Republicans like McCain and Ryan who work with in the frame set for them by their enemies. The phony Khan story was just like the phony Trump-kicked-out-a-baby story. That’s why Trump’s non-endorsement of these weaklings was so exhilarating and that’s why his endorsement was so disappointing.
At the same time, Trump does have to unite the party. He’s the de facto leader and that means sometimes taking one for the team. Trump’s recent dip in the polls is largely due to “conservatives” backing away from home, after briefly coming home after the Mike Pence VP announcement and the Republican convention. One could argue this endorsement is a necessary step.
Paul Nehlen had a gracious response to Trump’s endorsement of his opponent.
Nehlen understands the transformation of the Republican Party from a “true conservative” party of useless goobers interested in pointless wars and cheap labor into a populist, nationalist party which can actually confront the problems facing the American people will be  a gradual process. Trump can’t simply continue to wage war on his own party. His endorsement, undoubtedly something pushed on him by campaign manager Paul Manafort and RNC head Reince Priebus, smothers the controversy and allows Trump to finally, finally pivot away from the chaos of the past week.
And there are rumors a big hack of Hillary emails is on the way…
However, there’s a counter to this. Trump’s own party is waging war on him. From Ted Cruz’s selfish refusal to endorse the winner of the Republican Party to the continued opposition of “conservative” publications like National Review, one of the many truths being revealed by the 2016 election is that Conservatism Inc. has absolutely no stake in victory.
If Hillary Clinton is president, what do they care? They can continue to shill for donations. If Hillary and Tim Kaine immediately push through a nation-breaking mass Amnesty (assisted, no doubt, by Speaker Paul Ryan), what difference does it make to the “true conservatives?” Their can continue to pretend their ill-defined by oft-cited “principles” will be somehow transferred to hordes of Third World migrants via the magical properties of American dirt.
And if mass Hispanic immigration turns Texas blue, what does Ted Cruz care? The process won’t be complete until after his political career is over.
Of course, the American people actually have to live with the consequences of the decisions of those who rule us. For us, after 2016, there is no “next time.”

Trump is not giving his foes within the GOP or the conservative movement any excuse for their continued stabs in the back. He’s doing what he needs to do.
But that doesn’t mean these constant betrayals won’t continue. For many supposed “conservatives,” a Trump victory poses far more dangers to their own position than a Trump defeat.

Friday, August 5, 2016

Trump’s Road to Victory Still Open



A timely post from http://www.vdare.com about Donald Trump's campaign. This follows this post about VP candidate Kaine and about Candidate Clinton. This follows this post about rap songs referencing Donald Trump.
You can follow me here.



trumpintoledo

Trump’s Road Still Open


At stake in 2016 is the White House, the Supreme Court, the Senate and, possibly, control of the House of Representatives.
Hence, Republicans have a decision to make.
Will they set aside political and personal feuds and come together to win in November, after which they can fight over the future of the party, and the country?
Or will they split apart, settling scores now, lose it all, and, then, after November, begin a battle to allocate blame for a historic defeat that will leave wounds that will never heal.
Republicans have been here before.
After the crushing defeat of 1964, Govs. Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney and William Scranton, whose principles required them to abandon Barry Goldwater, discovered that, when the cheering of the press stopped, they carried the mark of Cain.
As national leaders, they were finished.
Richard Nixon, who had lost to JFK, lost to Gov. Pat Brown, quit politics and moved to New York to practice law, took off two months in 1964 to campaign for Barry Goldwater.
Four years later, with Barry’s backing, Nixon was rewarded with the party’s nomination, and the presidency.
Now between Goldwater and Trump there are great differences. A relevant one is this: Trump still has a chance of becoming president.
In August 1964, Barry was 36 points behind LBJ. As of today, Trump is 10 points behind Clinton. From Harry Truman to George H. W. Bush, many presidential candidates have been able to close a 10-point gap and win.
What does Trump need to do? In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, “Keep your eyes on the prize”—the presidency. And between Trump and the presidency today stands not Paul Ryan, but Hillary Clinton.
The Donald, his campaign, and party need to cease attacking one another to the elation of a hostile media, and redirect all their fire on the sole obstacle between them and a Republican sweep.
Nor is it all that complex or difficult a task.
For, as secretary of state, Clinton made a compelling case for her being ranked as about the worst in American history.
She began her tenure by breaking State Department rules and setting up a private email server in her home. She compromised U.S. national security, setting off a criminal investigation that ended with the director of the FBI virtually accusing her of lying about everything she told the country about her misconduct.
As of mid-July, 56 percent of Americans thought the Democratic nominee should have been indicted.
She is a compulsive fabricator, telling a harrowing story about running under sniper fire across the tarmac of some Balkan airfield, until TV footage showed her accepting a bouquet from a little girl.
sniperHer “reset” with Russia was brushed aside by Vladimir Putin. Spurned, she now compares him to Hitler. Is this the temperament America wants in the First Diplomat, in dealing with nuclear powers?
ADVERTISEMENT
She was a cheerleader for a war in Libya that left that nation a hellhole of terrorism, requiring another war to clean up.
Benghazi” has today become a synonym both for the selfless heroism of American warriors, and for the squalid mendacity of politicians desperate to cover their fannies. Clinton is in there with the latter, accused of misleading families of the fallen about why their sons died.
Twenty years ago, The New York Times William Safire called Clinton a “congenital liar.” Has her subsequent career disproven or validated that judgment?
Trump, though, needs not only to make the case against her, but for himself, and for the ideas that vaulted him to victory in the primaries that brought out millions of new voters.
What are they?
Trump will secure the Southern border and halt the invasion of illegal immigrants.
He will throw out the Obama tax and trade policies that have betrayed American workers and bled us of our manufacturing power. In all future trade deals, Americanism will replace globalism as our guiding light.
Where Clinton regards Ruth Bader Ginsburg as her model Supreme Court justice, Trump’s nominees will be in the tradition of Justice Antonin Scalia.
“America First” will be the polestar in foreign policy. Cold War commitments dating to the 1950s, to fight wars for freeloader nations, will all be reviewed. Allies will start standing on their own feet and paying their fair share of the cost of their own defense.
As for the defense of the United States, Peace through Strength, the Eisenhower policy, will be the Trump policy. And as our strength is restored, Trump will, like Ike, Nixon, Reagan and Bush I, negotiate with enemies and adversaries from a position of strength. But we will negotiate.
America’s era of endless wars—is coming to an end.
Where Clinton will continue all of the policies that produced the unacceptable present, we will change Washington as it has not been changed since Ronald Reagan rode in from the West.
As for the renegade and cut-and-run Republicans who just won’t come home, as they say at Motel 6, “We’ll leave the light on for you.”

Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his books State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, and Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? are available from Amazon.com. Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority