Newbill Emails on Crooked Hillary 2nd Set


crooked-hillary-descriptors

Edited by John R. Houk

Posted November 6, 2016

 

This batch of emails focuses on Crooked Hillary. There is some email information on Donald Trump through the eyes of Left Wing detractors. Newbill examines a post from a Bernie Sanders supporter that calls Crooked Hillary an evil Neocon. I disagree with the appellation Neocon on Hillary Clinton. I explain my disagreement on the Neocon accusation and that Neoconservatism is not evil down below.

 

JRH 11/5/16

Please Support NCCR

**************

Trump needs to Identify this Person and use his Extreme ECO-Marxism to Label Hillary with an ANTI-Economic Growth vision

10/14/2016 11:18 AM

 

Trump can say this shows we are Out of Balance with how Obama and NOW Hillary want to Implement policies that will enable the People’s access to their Rights and Liberties!!!! There is No Way we can Have a Robust Economy that serves the people when these people want to OPPRESS access to our Resources with Extreme ECO-Marxism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

We Must EXPOSE this Hillary Clinton Campaign Manager as the ECO-Marxist. [This ECO-Marxist represents] the People doing the Dirty work behind our Government’s Closed Doors that’s KILLING OUR LIBERTY!!!!!!!!!!

 

http://www.hcn.org/issues/47.9/john-podesta-legacy-maker     

 

…  It was 2014, and McCarthy, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was about to make her case for blocking the controversial Pebble gold mine planned for Alaska’s Bristol Bay watershed, home to one of the world’s most prolific salmon fisheries. …

 

But McCarthy also knew there would be a new player in the room. Longtime Democratic operative John Podesta, Bill Clinton’s former chief of staff, had just returned to the White House as counselor to Barack Obama. And Podesta had a reputation for bold conservation policy.

 

 

And 10 minutes into the conversation, Podesta broke in. He said that he and the president endorsed McCarthy’s plan, and then laid out exactly how the announcement would roll out. McCarthy left the room, dumbfounded and elated.

 

 

“Nobody in the 21st century in U.S. government has had the influence that he has had on public lands and climate change,” says Douglas Brinkley, a Rice University professor of history.

 

 

Podesta’s political philosophy was shaped by his time at Knox College, a small liberal arts school in Galesburg, Illinois, where he joined Vietnam War protests and civil rights demonstrations. His first major political experience involved working on the doomed 1972 presidential campaign of liberal Democrat George McGovern.

 

 

Podesta also understands how public lands can be leveraged to benefit his boss and political party. Toward the end of the Clinton administration, he supported Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck’s proposal to permanently protect the remaining roadless areas on national forests from logging, mining, drilling and other development. …

 

… But as the point man for the many scandals that plagued the Clinton White House, he got a reputation for having an evil twin known as “Skippy,” who could be harsh and unusually direct. …

 

… in2001, Podesta and some colleagues decided to create a progressive think tank that would be tough enough to compete with those on the political right. They called it the Center for American Progress, and it grew into a revolving-door powerhouse that harnessed the intellectual and political capital of the academic, NGO, philanthropic and government communities, often shuttling people in and out of key positions in all these realms. … and today, it boasts a staff of 314 policy wonks, professors and writers.

 

“Democrats and progressives did not have an institution dedicated to thinking up policies and finding a way to move them into the public sphere,” … “We called it a think-and-do tank. …”

 

Liberal pundits and mainstream journalists have occasionally questioned Podesta about his think tank’s financial and policy ties to its energy, defense and pharmaceutical company funders. … Hansjörg Wyss, a billionaire businessman who, for two decades, has financed efforts to conserve public lands. Podesta’s financial White House disclosure showed he collected $87,000 in 2013, for consulting for the HJW Foundation, a Wyss philanthropy.  The conservative Daily Caller website accused Podesta of violating White House ethics rules for taking funds from Wyss and then pushing Obama’s proposal to expand the area off-limits to oil and gas drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge …

 

Together, HJW and Wyss Foundation donated more than $5 million to the Center for American Progress between 2011 and 2013 … The article is pro-Podesta & pro-Eco-Marxist – I chose the info that demonstrates that (John Podesta: Legacy maker; By Elizabeth Shogren; High Country News; 3/25/15)

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/20/fbi-doj-launch-probe-firm-clinton-campaign-chairman-john-podesta/

 

The FBI and Justice Department have launched an investigation into whether the Podesta Group, the lobbying and public relations firm co-founded by Hillary Clinton presidential campaign chairman John Podesta, has any connections to alleged corruption that occurred in the administration of former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych.

 

 

The Podesta Group, run by John Podest’s [sic] brother Tony Podesta, was retained by the Russia-controlled firm UraniumOne in 2012, 2014, and 2015, to lobby Hillary Clinton’s State Department. The lobbying firm was paid a total of $180,000 according to public records.

 

 

As it was first detailed in the New York Times bestselling book Clinton CashUranium One — which hired the Podesta Group — is the firm that funneled millions to the Clinton Foundation as the Russian government gained ownership of the company.

 

 

According to the New York Times, Russian President Vladimir Putin had a “goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”

 

The Times reported last April:

 

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

 

“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock,” the Times report said.

 

According to the Daily Caller, Uranium One “paid the Podesta Group $40,000 to lobby the State Department, the Senate, the National Park Service, and the National Security Council for ‘international mining projects,’ according to a July 20, 2012 filing.”

 

Distancing itself from the work it did for an organization with ties to Yanukovych’s pro-Russian regime, the Podesta group said it hired lawyers to READ ENTIRETY (FBI, DOJ launch Probe into Firm of Clinton Campaign Chairman John Podesta; By JEROME HUDSON; Breitbart; 8/20/16)

 

+++

These are the Weasels that have created Groper-gate!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 10/14/2016 11:18 AM

 

The Enemy’s with-in!!!!!

 

Trump needs to go after these “So Called Biographers” with the “Hey Wayne Barrett, Gwenda Blair, Michael D’Antonio, Harry Hurt and Timothy O’Brien where’s your same Criticism of the Clintons, Bill on the Women Abuse side and Hillary on the Breaking All the Laws of the USA Side”???????????

 

 

This Guy and all these so-called Biographers of Trump need medication for their Bias-ism disease!!!!!!

 

http://www.michaeldantonio.net/ 

 

Drawing upon extensive and exclusive interviews with Trump and many of his family members, including all his adult children, D’Antonio presents the full story of a truly American icon, from his beginnings as a businessman to his stormy romantic life and his pursuit of power in its many forms. For all those who wonder — Just who is Donald Trump? – Never Enough supplies the answer. He is a promoter, builder, performer and politician who pursues success with a drive that borders on obsession and yet, has given him, almost everything he ever wanted.

 

Read More (Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success; Book synopsis of author Michael D’Antonio; MichaelDantonio.net)

 

I watched this Guy this Morning on The MS Media paint the most disgusting image of Trump as a guy with a Pattern towards abusing Women!!!!! I would elevate this “Screen Writer” Michael D Antonio “up to the Level of” PORNO Propagandist!!!!!!

 

This one is awful:

 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/donald-trump-2016-biographers-214350

 

Back in early March, Politico Magazine brought together five Donald Trump biographers for a conversation over lunch at Trump Tower. At the time, the country was just beginning to grapple with the reality that the presidential nominee from one of the two major American political parties stood a good chance of being a real estate mogul and entertainer. Wayne Barrett, Gwenda Blair, Michael D’Antonio, Harry Hurt and Timothy O’Brien knew him better than anybody, had studied him more than anybody, had written an aggregate 2,195 pages in books.
So much has happened over the past seven months: the crackpot conspiracy theories, the rageful late-night Twitter tirades, the surges and slides in the polls, an onslaught of investigative reporting that painted him as a racist, sexist, selfish, uncharitable, lying predator. So we thought it was time, especially in the wake of “grab them by the pussy,” for an emergency reconvening of the Trumpologists. [Blog Editor: “Trumpologists” in this case means Leftist MSM hit squad.]

 

He is, the biographers said, “profoundly narcissistic,” “willing to go to lengths we’ve never seen before in order to satisfy his ego”—and “a very dangerous man for the next three or four weeks.” And after that? “This time, it’s going to be a straight‑out loss on the biggest stage he’s ever been on,” one biographer predicted. And yet: “As long as he’s remembered, maybe it won’t matter to him.”

READ ENTIRETY if you desire to vomit (‘I Think He’s a Very Dangerous Man for the Next Three or Four Weeks’; By SUSAN B. GLASSER and MICHAEL KRUSE; Politico Magazine; 10/12/16)

These People, Like the Bill and Hillary Clinton & Co., are a Disease on FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

+++

Hillary’s Shadow Government

10/18/2016 9:37 AM

 

Dear John, you need to Please talk about Hillary’s Shadow Government that the FBI refers to in this Investigation report and say this is why Washington does not work for the American People and Shields Hillary and themselves from the rule of LAW!

 

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-part-04-of-04/view (it’s on page 56)

 

vault-home-%e2%80%a2-hillary-r-clinton-%e2%80%a2-hillary-r-clinton-part-04-of-04-pg-56-screen-capture

Vault Home • Hillary R. Clinton • Hillary R. Clinton Part 04 of 04 – pg. 56 Screen Capture

+++++++++++

The Corruption exposed by Wikileaks about Hillary Clinton.

10/19/2016 3:42 PM

**************ATTENTION****************

Here is an EYE-OPENING summary of the corruption exposed by Wikileaks about Hillary Clinton.

 

http://www.thecsconservative.com/podestaemails/

 

Here is a summary of the corruption exposed by Wikileaks about Hillary Clinton.

 

John Podesta is Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign Chairman. Podesta previously served as Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton and Counselor to President Barack Obama.

 

On October 7th, 2016, WikiLeaks publish thousands of emails belonging to Podesta’s private email archives. More emails were released in the days that followed. Below is a compilation of some of the most revealing and damaging emails discovered:

 

POLICY / POSITION

 

Transcripts from Hillary Clinton’s lucrative closed-door paid speeches delivered to elite financial firms and other special interests groups (which she has refused and failed to disclose to the public after much demand) have finally surfaced:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927 (See Attachment)

 

Clinton staff conspiring to stage ‘leaking’ of favorable excerpts from wall street speech, in efforts to calm down the public while leaving out more damaging parts:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8086#efmAYqAgR

 

Leaked private speech, Clinton: “You Need Both A Public And A Private Position”

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927#efmAaQAdiFjUFkd

 

Leaked private speech, Clinton: “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders”:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927#efmFjUFkd

 

Mocking environmentalists in private meeting with unions, Clinton: “I want to defend fracking.” Climate change environmentalists should “Get a life”:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9617 (See attachment)

Politico article

 

Leaked private speech transcript shows Clinton’s warm ties to Wall Street’s most powerful figures: Clinton: “There is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives” The pressure on officials to sell or divest assets in order to serve, she added, had become “very onerous and unnecessary”:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927#efmDEMDKk

 

Leaked private speech to Goldman Sachs, Clinton: Wall street was only accountable for the financial crisis for political reasons. The blame placed on the United States banking system for the crisis “could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened”:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927#efmA2YA5Q

 

Leaked private speech to Goldman Sachs, Clinton: I mean, right now, there are so many places in our country where the banks are not doing what they need to do because they’re scared of regulations, they’re scared of the other shoe dropping, they’re just plain scared, so credit is not flowing the way it needs to to restart economic growth.”

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/11011

 

Leaked private speech, Clinton: US will “ring China with missile defense”:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927 (See attachment)

 

Hillary Clinton flipped her public position on TPP after her team discussed how she would be “eaten alive” by Labor:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8452#efmAH1APRA0NA5c

 

Clinton speechwriter: “We are trying to find a good way to leak her opposition to the pipeline without her having to actually say it”:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3855#efmAAGADH

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

 

Hillary admits Qatar & Saudi Arabia are funding ISIS:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774#efmBA5BDe

 

Qatar gifts Bill Clinton $1,000,000 for his birthday:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8396#efmAEOAGW

 

Clinton’s advisors agree to take foreign lobbyists money: Clinton’s National Finance Director, Dennis Cheng: “how do we explain to people that we’ll take money from a corporate lobbyist but not them; that the Foundation takes $ from foreign govts but we now won’t”. Campaign manager Robby Mook responds: “I’m ok just taking the money and dealing with any attacks. Are you guys ok with that?”, “Take the money!!” – READ THE REST (Breaking News – Wikileaks Release Exposes Hillary Clinton Corruption; By Robert Z; The Common Sense Conservative; 10/17/16)

 

++++

Huma Abedin Admits to a $12 Million Dollar Pay-For-Play

10/20/2016 11:59 AM

 

Hillary’s top assistant Huma Abedin admits to a $12 million dollar pay-for-play from Morocco!

 

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/day-debate-wikileaks-strikes-hillary-pay-to-play-shocking/#ixzz4Ne3uQoEu

 

We have always known that Hillary Clinton was for sale during her time at the State Department.

 

Many politicans [sic] try to do this, but Hillary’s corruption is so massive that it’s historic.

 

Now, just hours after the debate, WikiLeaks provided the smoking gun we’ve been waiting for. Hillary’s top assistant Huma Abedin admits to a $12 million dollary pay-for-play from Morocco!

 

This leaked email from the 13th batch of John Podesta’s hacked emails shows direct confirmation that a meeting was set up with Hillary Clinton, and it was paid for with that massive cash payoff:

wikileaks-huma-abedin-emailWikileaks Huma Abedin Email

 

And Hillary Clinton confirmed that the WikiLeaks emails are authentic last night during the debate:

 

 

Hillary Clinton can blame the Russians and foreign agents all she wants. The emails are real, and so is the criminal corruption. Hillary Clinton used the Secretary of State’s office to become obscenely wealthy, and she put America’s national security at risk repeatedly.

 

Hillary couldn’t apply for a job in the federal government because READ ENTIRETY (Day After Debate, WikiLeaks Strikes Hillary With The Most Shocking Leak of 2016! By Kosar; Political Insider; 10/20/16)

++++

Russia has already Bribed Hillary!!!!!

10/20/2016 11:01 PM

 

What Romney says WAS BEFORE WE HAS THE RESULTS FROM FBI Comey … and if Hillary Clinton has already COMPROMISED U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY. The First response by the FBI would be to act in the best Interest of the USA and the Market and divert from this conversation!!!!

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/24/romney-every-appearance-that-hillary-clinton-was-bribed-on-uranium-deal/

 

Mitt Romney made the argument around which everyone else danced yesterday after the New York Times exposed the UraniumOne deal and its principals’ big cash avalanche to the Clinton Foundation. The State Department’s approval of the deal under Hillary Clinton wasn’t just “undue influence,” and not “a poor choice of timing,” either. “It looks like bribery,” Romney told Hugh Hewitt last night:

 

VIDEO: Mitt Romney on Clinton foundation uranium payments: “It looks like bribery”

 

Posted by Hugh Hewitt Show

Published on Apr 23, 2015

 

Hugh Hewitt Interview w/ Mitt Romeny [sic]

 

READ THE REST (Romney: “Every Appearance That Hillary Clinton Was Bribed” On Uranium Deal; ED MORRISSEY; Hot Air; 4/24/16 10:01 am)

 

Hillary Clinton has already been Bribed, we just did not realize it until the Lawless FBI ran its course letting Hillary off so she could skate into the Oval Office and Pardon her and her cohorts!!!!!

 

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Hillary+Clinton+bribed+by+Russia+&qs=n&form=QBLH&pc=MOZO&pq=hillary+clinton+bribed+b&sc=0-24&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=45D62613D14A40A48C2FAF788F995258

 

[Blog Editor: Bing Search Link under the query “Hillary Clinton bribed by Russia”]

+++

Hillary has already been bribed

10/21/2016 7:05 AM

 

The FBI cover up through Lawless Means shows this:

 

What was the U.S. Asset that was used as the bribed is the Question?

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/24/romney-every-appearance-that-hillary-clinton-was-bribed-on-uranium-deal/

 

[Blog Editor: See above summary of the same link.]

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dear-clinton-campaign-and-brian-fallon-stop-accusing_us_57fcab23e4b0d786aa52bcaa?

 

Brian Fallon recently accused WikiLeaks of working on behalf of the Russian government to help Donald Trump. Fallon’s Twitter barrage was full of accusations against the whistleblowing organization, including an ironic plea for WikiLeaks to disclose Trump’s tax returns. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton and her campaign have engaged in Cold War-era propaganda, primarily to deflect from numerous cyber-attacks. There’s also the tiny issue of 20% of U.S. uranium sold to the Russian government from a company run by Clinton Foundation donors.

 

Thus far, WikiLeaks, DC LeaksGuccifer 2.0, and apparently “Russian hackers” have managed to hack into computer networks associated with the Democratic Party. Rather than assess why these various cyber-attacks have taken place, Brian Fallon, Robby Mook, and others in the Clinton campaign have leveled baseless accusations against WikiLeaks and Russia. U.S. intelligence officials might believe Russia is involved with the leaks, but have yet to disclose any evidence READ THE REST (Dear Clinton Campaign and Brian Fallon, Stop Accusing WikiLeaks of Working for Russia; By H. A. Goodman; Huffington Post; 10/11/16 05:27 am ET)

 

Look at the Credits in this video, it is HUGE!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAM48bmtMDc

 

VIDEO: NEW CLINTON EMAIL SCANDAL: State Dept Bribed FBI To Protect Hillary From Espionage Act Indictment

 

Posted by H. A. Goodman

Published on Oct 16, 2016

 

My name is H. A. Goodman and I’m an author, columnist, and journalist www.hagoodman.com
Dear Clinton Campaign and Brian Fallon, Stop Accusing WikiLeaks of Working for Russia:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dear-clinton-campaign-and-brian-fallon-stop-accusing_us_57fcab23e4b0d786aa52bcaa

 

New FBI files contain allegations of ‘quid pro quo’ in Clinton’s emails:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/15/new-fbi-files-contain-allegations-quid-pro-quo-in-clintons-emails.html
PODESTA 9 JUST RELEASED! https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787625546461175808
WikiLeaks releases transcripts of Hillary Clinton Goldman Sachs speeches:

 

http://myfox8.com/2016/10/15/wikileaks-releases-transcripts-of-hillary-clinton-goldman-sachs-speeches/
Subpoena: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/6391

 

FAKE CRAIGLIST: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803
Podesta Suggested Coordinating With State Dept. To ‘Hold’ Hillary’s Emails With Obama:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/14/podesta-suggested-coordinating-with-state-dept-to-hold-hillarys-emails-with-obama/

 

READ THE REST

 

If Hillary has already been bribed whatever was bribed is grounds for Impeachment as this article shows.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439715/impeach-hillary-clinton-congress-has-power-do-it

 

For months, I have been arguing that Hillary Clinton should be impeached. It is all well and good to prosecute a former government official for any crimes she has committed. Indeed, the Constitution expressly provides for criminal prosecution in addition to impeachment. Nevertheless, for the Framers — and, if we had common sense, for us — the imperative was to deprive a corrupt person of any further opportunity to abuse government power. Whether the official should also be convicted and sent to prison was not unimportant but, in the greater scheme of things, decidedly secondary.

Interestingly, the main pushback I received upon positing this argument was not that Mrs. Clinton is undeserving of impeachment. That, of course, is a measure of the seriousness of her high crimes and misdemeanors: the e-mail scandal; the reckless mishandling of classified information that has surely exposed our national-defense secrets to hostile powers; the mass destruction of thousands of government records after Congress asked for them; the obstruction of government investigations; the serial lies to Congress and the public; the shocking failure to provide security for Americans stationed in Benghazi and the failure to attempt to rescue them during a terrorist siege; the lies to the American people and to the families of murdered American officials about the cause of the attack; the trumping up of a prosecution against the video producer scapegoated for the Benghazi attack; the Clinton Foundation corruption involving the sale of influence for donations, the favors done for shady benefactors at the expense of national security, and the use of the State Department as an arm of the Clinton pay-to-play enterprise.

 

… How could she be removed from an office she does not hold based on offenses not committed while wielding presidential power?

These questions and the non-incumbency theory behind them fundamentally misconstrue the constitutional remedy of impeachment, which is not limited to removal from power but includes disqualification from future office. Moreover, their premise is wrong: The proceeding against Clinton would not be a presidential impeachment; it would be an impeachment based on her abuses of power as secretary of state, which would have the constitutional effect of disqualifying her for the presidency.

… Article I endows the House of Representatives with the “sole Power of Impeachment” — i.e., the power to file articles of impeachment. It further empowers the Senate with “the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” Significantly, in prescribing the standard for conviction in the Senate, Article I, Section 3 states that “no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present” (emphasis added).

 

Note carefully: The Constitution does not say the impeached person must be a current officeholder. As we shall see, that makes perfect sense: The point of impeachment is to deny power to any person — not necessarily an incumbent official — whose high crimes and misdemeanors have demonstrated unfitness for a high public trust.

 

The constitutional standard for impeachment also elucidates that incumbency is not necessary. The standard, prescribed by Article II, Section 4, is the commission of “Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Obviously, one need not be in office to commit treason or bribery; but if one has at any time committed these heinous offenses, one is unsuitable for public office. The same is true, by definition, of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” a term of READ ENTIRETY (Impeach Clinton to Bar Her from Holding Federal Office. It’s Constitutional; By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY; National Review; 9/6/16 4:00 AM)

+++

Hillary Clinton: Oliver Stone & U.S. Foreign Policy ‘Elite’

10/21/2016 9:02 AM

 

Oliver Stone has penned a powerful and emotional takedown of Hillary Clinton

https://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/03/31/were-going-to-war-oliver-stone-opines-on-the-dangerous-extremism-of-neocon-hillary-clinton/

 

 

Oliver Stone has penned a powerful and emotional takedown of Hillary Clinton, focusing on her insane neocon foreign policy chops in a piece published in the Huffington Post titled, Why I’m for Bernie Sanders.

 

What follows are just a few paragraphs, I suggest reading the entire thing:

 

We’re going to war — either hybrid in nature to break the Russian state back to its 1990s subordination, or a hot war (which will destroy our country). Our citizens should know this, but they don’t because our media is dumbed down in its “Pravda”-like support for our “respectable,” highly aggressive government. We are being led, as C. Wright Mills said in the 1950s, by a government full of “crackpot realists: in the name of realism they’ve constructed a paranoid reality all their own.” Our media has credited Hillary Clinton with wonderful foreign policy experience, unlike Trump, without really noting the results of her power-mongering. She’s comparable to Bill Clinton’s choice of Cold War crackpot Madeleine Albright as one of the worst Secretary of States we’ve had since … Condi Rice? Albright boasted, “If we have to use force it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future.”

Hillary’s record includes supporting the barbaric “contras” against the Nicaraguan people in the 1980s, supporting the NATO bombing of the former Yugoslavia, supporting the ongoing Bush-Iraq War, the ongoing Afghan mess, and as Secretary of State the destruction of the secular state of Libya, the military coup in Honduras, and the … You can read the rest of this Leftist rant if you choose (“We’re Going to War” – Oliver Stone Opines on the Dangerous Extremism of Neocon Hillary Clinton; By Michael Krieger; Liberty BlitzKrieg; 3/31/16 12:01 pm)

 

***[Blog Editor: I disagree with Mr. Krieger that Crooked Hillary is a Neocon. Part of that disagreement is because I believe the venom and vitriol against Neoconservatism is based on erroneous perceptions from both sides of the political aisle. Did Neocons make some bad decisions after 911? It turns they did. However, at the time the concept of throwing despotic leadership to give people a more democratic representative choice was a valid objective. The reason is history has shown people are given a voting representative choice their government tends toward more individual freedom. Examples are post-WWII Germany and Japan. Both those nations developed into solid allies of America according to the needs of U.S. National Interests. The thing Neocons didn’t count on is Islamic culture which is totally contrary to Western Liberty, especially in the USA. Islam by nature is intolerant and despotic of any individual choice that might run counter to Islamic tenets. Muslims for the most part concur with their faith of intolerance. This Muslim intolerance will factor into a mutual National Interest benefiting the USA or a Muslim nation. The Neocon failure was finding this out the hard way. The Neoconservative key is a foreign policy that validates U.S. National Interests, keeps America strong and keeps America Exceptional. NONE OF WHICH is of interest to Crooked Hillary (falsely accused of Neoconservatism) or to uber-Leftist Bernie Sanders who author Michael Krieger has endorsed]***

 

U.S. Foreign Policy ‘Elite’ Eagerly Await an Expansion of Overseas Wars Under Hillary Clinton

http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/10/20/u-s-foreign-policy-elite-eagerly-await-an-expansion-of-overseas-wars-under-hillary-clinton/#comment-114647

 

Comment 114647 is Tony Newbill

N3angus — October 21, 2016 at 7:22 am

 

Facebook has blocked me from public comment posting of this, Hillary has already been bribed.

 

The FBI cover up through Lawless Means shows this.

 

What was the US Asset that was used as the bribed is the Question?

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/24/romney-every-appearance-that-hillary-clinton-was-bribed-on-uranium-deal/

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dear-clinton-campaign-and-brian-fallon-stop-accusing_us_57fcab23e4b0d786aa52bcaa?

 

My name is H. A. Goodman and I’m an author, columnist, and
journalist http://www.hagoodman.com

 

Dear Clinton Campaign and Brian Fallon, Stop Accusing WikiLeaks of Working for Russia. Look at the Credits in this video, it is HUGE!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAM48bmtMDc

 

If Hillary has already been bribed whatever was bribed is grounds for Impeachment as this article shows:

 

For months, I have been arguing that Hillary Clinton should be impeached.

 

Read more at:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439715/impeach-hillary-clinton-congress-has-power-do-it

 

[Blog Editor: This comment is covered above in a Newbill email.]

_________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Any text or links enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Tony Newbill

 

More Sifu/John Debate on Trump


John R. Houk

Sifu Mode

© October 13, 2016

hillary-the-criminal

Sifu and I continue our debate on Donald Trump. He posted the comment on the post that inspired the debate: “Trump vs. Crooked Hillary – Conservative vs. Leftist”. However Sifu’s thoughts are based on the cross post of his original comment on the newer post, “Trump the same as a Dem Administration?

 

I thought Sifu was a Leftist the way he came after Trump, but it appears I am mistaken. I went to his G+ page and it looks to me that Sifu is a bona fide Conservative. I can only guess he is a NeverTrumper. That is absolutely Sifu’s right, but I think NeverTrumpers will insure a Crooked Hillary election even if they vote for neither Hillary or Trump. Crooked Hillary will take America further down the tubes with a large amount of certainty. I’m willing to give Trump a shot to follow through or modify his campaign promises to make America great again.

 

If the NeverTrumpers turn out to be correct or Crooked Hillary is indeed elected, then I will abandon the GOP completely as in never voting for a Republican because of ineffectiveness. If bad scenarios evolve it will be time to replace the Republican Party with politicians actually accountable to Conservative voters rather than some elitist Establishment with an elitist agenda out of touch with constituents.

 

Since I was unaware of Sifu’s political persuasion I am not going to search for where I may have called him (or her) a Leftist. NeverTrumper Conservatives are still Conservatives. It is my humble opinion an elected Crooked Hillary will corrupt America absolutely. A corrupt America is not a good America. On a personal level a Trump gamble is better than a crooked and corrupt Hillary Clinton.

 

Sifu, if you are reading this, I have been researching and writing this piece for the better part of the day. I am too lazy to fix any of my accusations of you being a Leftist. I apologize ahead of time.

 

Sifu quotes me in italics text then offers his thoughts criticizing Donald Trump. I answer Sifu in bold text primarily defending Trump but also tossing in some Crooked Hillary barbs.

 

JRH 10/13/16

Please Support NCCR

*************

Sifu Mode

10/12/16

 

+John Houk

 

I don’t see any massive growth of government

Look at everything he says he wants to do. Everything. It is by federal programs. He will have to create departments with staffs and budgets. He wants to continue Obamacare. He wants to raise the minimum wage. He wants to try to run the economy like it is one of his businesses. If you don’t see it, that is you choosing not to.

 

I want Trump to run the Executive Branch like his business. Efficient spending rather than wasteful spending. If a project isn’t working, rather than making excuses or blaming someone else then scrap and start over – much like a high dollar bankruptcy restructuring for success. Frankly unlike most of my fellow Conservatives I don’t have a problem Big Government. My problem with government is private citizen intrusion and wasteful spending. Obamacare is a debacle of good intentions ruined by lies and deception and worse – INEFFICIENCY. I have no problem with healthcare reform, but a socialist system will be too costly and inefficient much like Veteran’s Healthcare has led to deaths.

 

Obama’s military reduction, idiotic rules of engagement and a strategy to lose rather than win has made America less secure. AND I like the idea of our allies contributing a fairer share of defense money or making a deal that makes our protection worthy of our cost.

 

Donald does want a higher minimum wage but not as high as the Dems AND he favors an Amendment 10 (10th Amendment Explained) action rather than Federal action on a minimum wage.

 

Donald Trump on 5/8/16:

 

No, I’d rather have the states go out and do what they have to do. And the states compete with each other, not only other countries, but they compete with each other, Chuck. So I like the idea of let the states decide. But I think people should get more. I think they’re out there. They’re working. It is a very low number. You know, with what’s happened to the economy, with what’s happened to the cost. I mean, it’s just– I don’t know how you live on $7.25 an hour. But I would say let the states decide.

 

I understand the fiscal difficulties with rounding up illegal aliens and deporting them en masse; however, preventing more illegal aliens should be preeminent then work on getting rid of criminal illegal aliens then amnesty for working illegal aliens so that they can pay taxes and responsible for the rule of law like American citizens.

 

Trump Policy Page

 

 

Blog Editor: I suspect Crooked Hillary has her own version of cybersecurity that probably includes Bit Bleach and a hammer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blog Editor: The Child Care policy seems to me to be Liberal slanted rather than Conservative; however, it is practical for lower income citizens.

 

 

All these policies may have some government growth BUT they also enable government streamlining as well as economic growth which means job creation which means more tax revenue without raising personal taxes. That works for me as opposed to Hillary’s Leftist Transformative Obama-utopianism that destroys social and personal Liberty fabric of American culture.

Trump is not Hitler!

I never suggested he was. I pointed specifically to the fact that nationalism is not a binary good or bad, yet that is one of the only differences between him and Obama. This is not necessarily a good thing.

 

Hmm Sifu … You said, “Maybe he will be rabidly nationalist. How are those necessarily good? Putin isn’t weak. Doesn’t make him good. Hitler was nationalist. Didn’t make him good.”

 

Binary or not, the imagery alludes to the picture that Trump’s nationalism is comparable to Hitler’s Socialist Nationalism (Nazi: Comes the German “Nationalsozialist”, in English “National Socialist which is derived from “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”). It sounds like a Trump=Hitler image to me. I understand that “binary” in this case refers to the potential of good and bad, but there is a large disparity between Trump’s Nationalism and Hitler’s racial supremacist socialistic Nationalism. Trump’s Nationalism makes America exceptional and Hitler’s Left Wing Nationalism was imperialistic and genocidal.

Is Trump fascist? Well, remember, fascism doesn’t have to include genocide as Hitler did.

 

But fascism is despotic, supremacist and worse elitist statism as opposed to American Constitutional Originalism that limits the power of National Government.

fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

So, if we made a checklist
1. Nationalist
2. What the leader says, goes
3. Not allowed to criticize the administration
4. Harsh social regimentation
5. Harsh economic regulation
6. Strong central government
This description is more relevant to the current makeup of the Obama/Crooked Hillary domination of America rather than a limited government.

  1. We know Trump is a nationalist, so CHECK

BUT not a Socialist/Fascist National, so NOT CHECK!

  1. He is constantly saying he will impose his ideas, regardless of anyone else’s opinion, so the second point is CHECK

Again, NOT CHECK! If a person given a job fails, they are fired. That has nothing to do with imposing Trump’s will on WE THE PEOPLE such as Obama has done and the Obama third term via Crooked Hillary.

  1. http://countercurrentnews.com/2016/02/trump-promises-to-make-harsh-media-criticism-of-him-illegal-if-he-becomes-president/

Counter Current News – really? Sounds more like a Leftist rag concerned about litigation from a deep pockets billionaire when spin something into a lie.

 

From the link:

 

It almost sounds like satire, but during a speech in Texas on Friday morning, the Republican candidate and frontrunner, Donald Trump said he wants to sue news outlets if they negative stories about him.

 

He acknowledged that currently the First Amendment of the Constitution protects a free press, and thus shields journalists from suits like this.

 

But Trump said on Friday that he would limit the press using litigation that would be permitted due to “opening up” libel laws and allowing them to include things like criticism and critiques that he doesn’t like.

 

“I think the media is among the most dishonest groups of people I’ve ever met,” Trump stated. “They’re terrible.” (Trump Promises Harsh Media Criticism of Him Will Be ILLEGAL If He’s President; By Counter Current News Editorial Team [too cowardly to pin a writer’s name]; Counter Current News; 2/27/16 9:51 am)

 

Time.com is a part of the Left Stream Media meaning it also provides slanted anti-Trump and pro-Crooked Hillary news bytes was a bit more even handed than Counter Current News:

 

Donald Trump won raucous cheers from his Fort Worth, Texas, crowd on Friday when he promised supporters that he would make it easier for them to sue journalists with whom they disagreed.

 

 

“One of the things I’m going to do if I win—and I hope we do, and we’re certainly leading—I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,” Trump said of a litigation wave against major news organizations. “So when The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected,” Trump said. (Donald Trump Promises to Make America Litigious Again; By Philip Elliott; Time.com; 2/26/16)

 

How is this an attack on the First Amendment? Trump is working within the law threatening litigation for a lack of honesty in reporting. It would not be a questionable Executive Order such as has President Barack Hussein Obama has done frequently in his bully politics.

 

  1. Just look at how he intends to shape society. He isn’t planning to free us to shape ourselves. He wants to do it himself with government authority.

Again Sifu you are confusing Trump’s government streamlining and waste-fighting with the Big Government despotism of Democrats under Obama. Which again, Crooked Hillary vows to continue:

 

 

 

 



  1. Trump plans to run the economy like he is used to running one of his businesses, NOT allowing the free market to work
    https://fee.org/articles/trump-s-economic-plan-higher-taxes-higher-inflation-and-higher-minimum-wage/?gclid=Cj0KEQjw3s6-BRC3kKL_86XDvq4BEiQAAUqtZ08FoUgqKY9afGUHmbY-aMZ9I66G8_CYHEaYydTHH_4aAuKA8P8HAQ

 

Hmm… The above link is largely the Dem talking points cherry picking Trump’s words and twisting them to offend Conservative Less-Government proponents. The whole article is such but here is an excerpt that mirrors Sifu’s above sentiments on the economy:

 

Usually presidents run on a platform of reforming government, cutting government, improving government, controlling government, etc.. After all, government — not the whole country — is their bailiwick.

 

But not Trump. He posits himself as the head of the whole country, running America the same ways he runs his businesses. He would stamp his name brand on the nation, as he does with everything else he owns, thereby imparting it with his own purported greatness. Probably the last president who was so open about his belief that he runs the nation was FDR himself. (Trump’s Economic Plan: Higher Taxes, Higher Inflation, and Higher Minimum Wage; By Jeffrey Tucker; Foundation for Economic Education; 5/9/16)

 

Now what gives weight to this evaluation by FEE is that the organization is guided by the Conservative/Libertarian thought of Austrian Economics. So the perspective definitely not Leftist, ergo kudos to Sifu for finding the Trump criticism. Nevertheless, I have said Trump is no Conservative in the traditional sense but rather an apolitical realist on making profitable deals that have little to do with ideology.

 

I wonder what FEE profiles about Hillary Clinton?

 

 

After years of toiling in the halls of power, the presidency finally seems hers for the taking. Yet, the closer Hillary comes to assuming the presidential chair, the closer Americans examine her public pose only to recoil.

 

 

In a word, many Americans find her “mendacious,” and the revelations regarding the appearance of the Clinton State Department’s “pay-to-play” scheme – delivering special access and favors to Clinton Foundation donors – is only the latest episode in a long series of scandals besmirching her trustworthiness.

 

The revelations – and there are more to come and they will never end – is shocking and not shocking. If you think government is good, clean, and constantly striving for the public good, seeing all this up close must be startling. Most thinking people long ago let go of their naïveté about government and therefore find nothing particularly surprising about any of this.

 

 

Where power may begin as simply a means to achieve one’s dreams, winning and wielding power ultimately becomes the dream itself. Compromise after compromise of principles is made for the sake of power. Sacrifice after sacrifice of others is offered for the sake of power. Lie after lie is told for the sake of keeping the truth of power-hungry dreams alive. One’s ideals become hollow pretense, mere words, and the curse of power takes hold, i.e. for every good deed done, two or three “necessary” evils must be committed.

 

Such appears to be the tragic tale of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

 

The Radical Turned Establishment Figure

 

In 1969, Hillary Clinton wrote her senior thesis, titled “There Is Only the Fight,” on the work of that now infamous radical, Saul Alinsky. … At the beginning of his own book, Rules for Radicals, Alinsky quotes himself:

 

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.

 

That said, Hillary diverges with her role model Alinsky in her thesis on one crucial point. Rather than rebelling against the establishment to win her own kingdom, she would become the establishment. 

 

 

At this point, Hillary Clinton is, indeed, the establishment. 

 

 

Power Corrupts

 

Do Hillary Clinton’s “noble” ends justify her choice of means, her ambitions for state power?

 

In my opinion, the answer is a firm “no,” but I do not say this as something unique to Hillary Clinton. She comes from a long line of murderers and thieves dressed up in high ideals – the type of person Isabel Paterson once called the “humanitarian with the guillotine,” – those who, as Paterson wrote, cause great harm as “the result of their deliberate actions, long persevered in, which they hold to be motivated by high ideals toward virtuous ends.” In step, Hillary is quick to downplay her mistakes and the “collateral damage” left in her wake in the name of her “virtuous ends.”

 

 

Faith in state power and the corruption that follows may not be unique to Hillary Clinton – before writing Clinton Cash, author Peter Schweizer wrote another excellent book, Extortion, outlining how our dear public servants systematically use their political power to manipulate those they supposedly serve – but Hillary’s career in politics certainly provides a crash course in how such a faith corrupts.

 

Whether it be her support of NSA mass surveillance programs, her penchant to centrally plan the American economy through a morass of crony capitalists enabling job-killing policies, or the Clinton Foundation’s global pay-for-play scheme, Hillary has in many ways become the very establishment she used to dream of replacing. She makes the ‘69 establishment President Richard Nixon look like a domesticated pussy cat, as she escalates America’s imperial wars, facilitates arms deals for Clinton Foundation donors, and continually lies to the American public about her own record.

 

Break with Alinksy [sic]

 

When did Clinton READ ENTIRETY (Hillary Clinton: A Portrait of Power and Corruption; By Joey Clark; Foundation for Economic Education; 8/26/16)

 

Sifu, there is the reality of the matter according to FEE. The Austrian Economic organization does not Trump’s economic plan because the Trump numbers do not conform to the Austrian model, BUT Mrs. Clinton is soooo Crooked that our government would slide further into a quagmire of corruption and despotism to elicit Leftist utopian ideology by hook or crook.

 

I’ll go with FEE’s description of Crooked Hillary and give Donald Trump at least a chance!

 

  1. Everything he says/promises, he intends to do through government power. He intends to grow government and its authority.

Trump worked within the law.

Legal! = right

A thing can be legal and still not right. Look to his usage of eminent domain.

 

Hmm… Trump has been criticized for using eminent domain to bulldoze widow Vera Coking’s house for a Casino parking lot, right? Well, not actually factual:

 

A Ted Cruz TV ad says Donald Trump “colluded with Atlantic City insiders to bulldoze the home of an elderly widow” for a casino parking lot. Trump called that claim “false.” We wouldn’t go that far. He wanted to bulldoze the home but lost an eminent domain case. However, the ad leaves the false impression that the widow lost her home, and she didn’t.

 

After a long court battle, a New Jersey Superior Court judge ruled in favor of Vera Coking of Atlantic City and said that she could keep her home. Trump eventually decided not to fight the ruling.

 

 

Two months later, the CRDA officially dropped the case, deciding not to appeal the judge’s ruling because the Trump organization said it was no longer interested in the properties.

 

So, Coking was able to keep her home for more than a decade longer until she moved to a retirement facility in California. Her house in Atlantic City was purchased at auction for $530,000 in 2014… (Widow’s Home Wasn’t Bulldozed; By D’Angelo Gore; FactCheck.org [A project of Annenberg Public Policy Center – biased to the Left]; 1/25/16)

 

The Leftist Website Think Progress give Donald Trump kudos for his eminent domain in a GOP Primary debate:

 

Donald Trump made the case for eminent domain at Saturday night’s ABC debate, arguing for the government’s right to seize property for infrastructure projects in exchange for appropriate compensation.

 

“Eminent domain is an absolute necessity for a country for our country. 

 

Trump is right. Eminent domain paved the way for major infrastructure projects now taken for granted in the U.S. Water supplies, highways, subways, and other sprawling public projects required the government’s power to buy private land. … (Trump Makes Surprisingly Reasonable Defense Of Government Power; By Aviva Shen; Think Progress; 2/6/16)

 

I realize the American Left will not agree but it is my opinion a President would utilize government eminent domain for infrastructure and pipelines – job producing projects that Obama failed to institute and undoubtedly so would Crooked Hillary fail.

 

By the way Trump lost his imminent [sic] domain case and complied

So losing means his unethical attempt never happened? His character is less blemished because he was stopped by an external source? No, he is still THAT slimeball.

 

Hmm… Did Trump’s big business agenda kill anyone – ever? Crooked Hillary’s Foreign Policy agenda did kill people – Benghazi! Compare Trump’s “slimeball” accusation to nearly an entire adult life of Crooked Hillary scandals (right along with Slick Willie):

 

  1. Benghazi: Committing Perjury or Lying Under Oath

Hillary has repeatedly committed perjury or lied under oath throughout her career. One of the most telling examples was during her Benghazi testimony when she claimed a video had inspired a protest that ended up killing Ambassador Stevens and 3 other Americans. This was subsequently shown to be a lieHillary famously declared, “What difference does it make?” when the questioning got too tough, in regards to the causes of the American deaths and personnel she was supposedly in charge of protecting. She stated she had submitted all documents, but 20 months later, FOIA requests uncovered 41 new documents. Yet another lie.

 

  1. Faking Uncontrollable Fits of Coughing

Check out this compilation of clips where Hillary pretends she can’t stop coughing in order to avoid answering tough questions or testify on an issue at all. On the Benghazi issue, Clinton testified 4 months late to Congress.

 

  1. Email Gate: Illegally Mixing Government and Personal Emails

In the latest scandal over emails, dubbed Email Gate by some, Clinton set up a homebrew server to hold official Government property in terms of classified information. She also used her official Government work email to conduct private and personal business.

 

  1. Email Gate: Endangering National Security and State Secrets

Another aspect of Email Gate was the reckless endangering of Governmental secrets Clinton engaged in. Although many readers of The Freedom Articles will be all too aware of the way Government abuses the concept of national security, the fact remains that there is some need for it. Numerous officials have stated there is no doubt –zero ambiguity– that her emails endangered national security, due to the fact many were classified SAP (Special Access Program). However, she may have been doing this deliberately (see point 6).

 

  1. Email Gate:  Obstruction of Justice, Destruction of Evidence

Email Gate has many aspects to it. A further aspect is Hillary’s deliberate withholding (and deleting) of around 30,000 emails. Her excuse was that these were the personal, private ones, yet Congress had asked to see them all. Given what we know of Hillary as a cover up agent extraordinaire, what are the chances that she wasn’t deleting them to destroy information? It remains to be seen what will come of the deletion, since the FBI is reported to have the server and flash drives (with all the emails) in its possession.

 

  1. Selling State Secrets to Foreign Countries

Mike Rivero (WhatReallyHappened.com) puts forth impressive evidence that Hillary has deliberately sold US Government State secrets to foreign countries. She and Bill did this with China during Bill’s presidency. Hillary may also have intentionally set up her homebrew server with weak security that could easily be hacked, so that the hackers could get the information and Hillary could claim the problem was “weak or flawed security” rather than a deliberately set up situation to leak data.

 

  1. Bill the Rapist, Hillary the Coverup Agent

As I covered in the article Billary Clinton: Rapist and Coverup Team Par Excellence, Hillary has been covering up for Bill’s violent sexual escapades and rape for decades, threatening his female victims into silence, sometimes with death threats. Some of them have been outright killed.

 

  1. Failed Stint as Secretary of State 2009-2013

A State Department spokesperson could not point to a single tangible achievement by Clinton. Hillary wasted $80 million on an Afghan US consulate. She lost $6 billion due to improper filing of contracts. She refused to classify Boko Haram as a terrorist group, leading to the kidnapping of 300 school girls. She called off internal investigations into her State Department involving the endemic engagement of prostitutes by her security, drug use by State Department contractors and the US Ambassador to Belgium soliciting male child prostitutes.

 

  1. A Giant Whopper: Pretending to be Under Fire in Bosnia

Hillary claimed she was under attack by snipers when she landed in Tuzla, Bosnia, 1996, but subsequent CBS footage showed her walking calmly along the tarmac there and even stopping to greet a young girl. Liar, liar, pants on fire.

 

  1. Flip-Flopping: NAFTA

This video (also embedded above) shows how Hillary has flip-flopped on the issue of NAFTA, saying to some people that she favored it (“NAFTA has proven its worth”) while saying to others she opposed it (“I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning”). Anything to get elected!

 

  1. More Lies: Gun or No Gun?

In the same video, Hillary claimed her grandfather taught her to shoot, yet later on, claimed she grew up in a house without any guns. Which is it?

 

  1. More Lies: Bringing Peace to Northern Ireland?

Hillary claimed she brought Protestants and Catholics together in a Town Hall meeting for the first time. However, as this video states, “negotiators from the parties that helped broker the Good Friday agreement in 1998 told the Daily Telegraph that her role was peripheral and that she played no part in the grueling political talks over the years.”

 

  1. Flip-Flopping: Marriage Equality

Hillary has variously claimed that she opposes gay marriage and supports gay marriage at different times. It’s all about opportunism and pandering to a political base.

 

  1. Hillary during Watergate Investigations: An “Unethical, Dishonest Lawyer”

Bill Clinton was asked to serve on the special staff to handle the Nixon impeachment inquiry. He declined and suggested they hire his girlfriend Hillary Rodham instead. As Mike Rivero writes:

 

Hillary Clinton was later fired from the staff of the House Judiciary committee investigating the Watergate scandal in 1974. She was fired by her supervisor, lifelong Democrat Jerry Zeifman, who stated, “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer,” he said. “She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” Zeifman refused to give Clinton a letter of recommendation, one of only three employees he refused during his entire career.”

 

  1. Blood Gate: Selling AIDS-Infected Blood

When Bill Clinton became Governor of Arkansas, he awarded a fat contract to a Little Rock company called Health Management Associates (HMA). The company was paid $3 million a year for “medical services” for the state’s prison system. The game was to pay prisoners for their blood ($7 per pint) then resell it at massive profits on the international plasma market ($50 a pint). HMA’s entry into the blood market coincided with the rise of AIDS in America, but HMA did not screen the prisoners’ blood, even after the FDA issued special alerts about the higher incidents of AIDS and hepatitis in prison populations. In Canada alone, more than 7,000 people died from contaminated blood transfusions, many of them hemophiliacs. More than 4,000 of them died of AIDS. In 1986, public outrage forced the cancellation of HMA’s contract.

 

  1. Whitewater Scandal

The Whitewater Scandal involved Bill using the power of office of Governor of Arkansas to build public roads to the Clintons’ private land. The Clintons and McDougals made money with real estate contracts for Whitewater property that included harsh clauses. This resulted in elderly buyers defaulting on land payments and repossessions. The habit of using State power to personally enrich themselves is a very common theme running through the Clintons’ careers.

 

Hillary was the first woman ever subpoenaed by a Grand Jury in relation to Whitewater. Pervasive conflicts of interest were discovered between Rose Law Firm (Hillary) and Madison Guaranty (McDougal). Billing records disappeared (presumed stolen) from Vince Foster’s office the night he died. They reappeared in the Clinton residence following their acquittal, covered with Hillary’s fingerprints. Susan McDougal refused to testify against the Clintons, so went to prison, but was pardoned by President Bill. 15 Clinton friends were found guilty of 40 federal crimes. This cost US taxpayers around $145 million.

 

  1. Cattle Gate: Insider Trading – Hillary’s Magical Trade

Hillary invested $1000 and turned it into $100,000 through insider trading. She entered and exited the market at the exact right time. According to economists at Auburn and Nth Florida University, 1995, who concluded in their study in the Journal of Economics and Statistics, the probability of Hillary’s trade being genuine and not an insider trade was 1 in 250,000,000! The broker involved was given a 3 year suspension.

 

The trade was connected to Tyson Foods, the largest employer in Arkansas and a big Clinton donor.

 

  1. Eliminating Drug Testing at the White House

In an effort, no doubt, to avoid embarrassment over Bill’s cocaine-snorting habits, the Clintons eliminated random drug testing at the White House through the appointment Patsy Thomasson.

 

  1. File Gate: The Clintons’ Enemy List

The Clinton Administration improperly requested and received FBI background reports on 900 Republican officials in 1996. These FBI files contained sensitive information on average American citizens. It turned into a “Compilations of Enemies” list. Hillary was the source of the requests. The NYT called Hillary a “congenital liar”. Congressman Bob Barr commented:

 

“Clearly what the Clinton Administration is trying to do is an orchestrated systematic effort to thwart justice, to thwart the rule of law, to thwart legitimate investigations by the Congress, whether it is impeachment proceedings or regular oversight  to derail investigations (and) derail prosecutions.”

 

  1. China Gate: The China Connection

Bill Clinton and Al Gore took money from rich Chinese donors who ran prostitution rings. Again in 1996, agents of the Chinese Government and military funneled money into the Clinton re-election campaign, Clinton Legal Defense Fund and Democratic National Committee, in violation of US law.

 

  1. Prison Population Explosion under Bill

The total prison population increased by 673,000 people under Clinton’s tenure or by 235,000 more than it did under President Ronald Reagan, according to a study by the Justice Policy Institute.

 

READ 23 MORE (44 Reasons to NOT Elect Hillary Clinton;Makia Freeman– Editor; The Freedom Articles [Conspiracy Theory site, but I’m smoke/fire kind of guy]; 2/4/16)

 

A Crooked Hillary/Slick Willie list dwarfs any scandal linked to Trump primarily because the Clinton scandals demonstrate a Teflon get-out-of-jail elitism. Trump hasn’t even been close to felonious jail and potential treasonous activities.

He also donating money to Republicans. The donations demonstrate advancing his business goals and profiting his investors. That’s not politics,

Having no principles and going as the wind blows to maximize your personal desires? That is the ESSENCE of “political”.

 

Sifu there is a vast difference office politics in business and politics in government or at least government in America. Office politics is accountable to the Board of Directors, Shareholders and/or the Boss. Politics in government in America are accountable to the voters Constitutionally known as WE THE PEOPLE. The Dems have lost the concept of voter accountability. Unfortunately, I believe, the Establishment Republicans have lost that concept as well. Politics is the art of power agenda to achieve an agenda that can be good or nefarious. I am uncertain if Trump has use Office Politics to break any laws. He certainly has been challenged on a civil level and he has done his share of civil challenges as well. The Clinton clan can easily be called a crime family due to the prosecutions they slinked out of and the prosecutions that never went forward. THAT THE ESSENCE OF CORRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT!

Your blog is attempting to make me sign up for a new g+ account to comment, so my comments will have to remain here.

 

Sifu I apologize for your G+ issue. That is truly odd there is a Google demand to sign up for a new account apart from the one you already have.

Neocons and Templars


crusader-poker-jihad

John R. Houk

© September 17, 2016

 

On September 11 commenter Jeremy Auldaney asked a couple of question that had little to do with the post entitled “Donald Trump 10 PT Immigration Speech from Phoenix” at my NCCR Blog (I posted the same title at two other blogs). The questions had to do with the full name of the NCCR Blog and my use of the symbolism of a Templar Crusading Knight.

 

NCCR is the acronym for the NeoConservative Christian Right. Since Neocons are definitely on everyone’s vilification list these days I thought I’d state my reasoning in short fashion. I could have embellished a bit more but the short answer is good for now. Perhaps a long answer will be forth coming when the political correct crowd is willing to address the depravity of Muhammad’s Islam which is the same Islam that the blind West chooses to define as “Radical” Islam as if a “Moderate” Islam follows a different prophet today.

 

I provide the same short answer in the use of Templar Crusader symbolism as well. Again further embellishment would be beneficial; however, both expansive answers probably would take up the time of a small book or at least several long blog posts. For now, yawl will have to live with the short answers.

 

One thing I feel compelled to address though pertaining to Templar symbolism is to my Jewish readers. Some of you who may not know your Crusader history well may not realize that when the first Crusaders conquered Jerusalem, they slaughtered not only Muslim resisters but also Jewish inhabitants which had become quite substantial by medieval times. Some chroniclers of the period say the blood flowed on the streets that was ankle deep. This included Jews who had congregated in their Synagogues hoping for refuge from the Crusader conquerors. There was no Christian mercy for the Jews in Jerusalem. Jews that know their history are a bit peeved at my use of Templar symbolism because them it is just another atrocity of Christian Antisemitism that was so very present in medieval days (and unfortunately flowing through history even to this present day to one degree or another).

 

I indeed do feel shame for that Crusader Antisemitism; nevertheless, it was the Crusader mentality that began a longtime need reversal Muslim aggression in which the last vestige a Muslim empire was destroyed at the end of WWI and the dividing up of old Ottoman Turk holdings in the Middle East into independent Arab Muslim nations and the beginning to the return of Jews to their ancient homeland – ISRAEL. It is the Crusader mentality needed today to thwart the expansion of Islamic terrorism.

 

From this point I will poise the two questions Jeremy Auldaney poised followed by my answers on the NCCR Blog.

 

+++

 

Jeremy Auldaney

September 11, 2016 at 10:27 PM

 

I am puzzled by your name of NeoConservative. It is the NeoConservatives among the Republicans that are supporting the Liberal Conspiracy to set up a world government under Marxism.

 

oneway2day

September 17, 2016 at 12:58 PM

 

Jeremy you are misinformed probably by Jew-haters and/or Leftists. Neocons are largely former Marxists or ex-Dems that woke up to the dangers of a Leftist agenda to the Rights and Privileges guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Prior to the al Qaeda attack on 911 Neocons favored bringing democratic principles to intolerant Muslim nations ruled by oppression. The concept was sound, but the application to a Muslim society proved unworkable. Most Neocons recognize that reality. But Leftist propaganda has taken the failure of Neocon democratization to blame the former Lefties for war embroilments rather than recognize that Neocons had a plan better than sitting on their butts waiting for more terrorism on American soil. Obama Leftists went around the world apologizing for American ideals and blaming Neocons for American failures largely due to the American Left intransience on submission to Multiculturalism as the save-all for global peace. MULTICULTURALISM has proven to be a worse failure than Neocon democratization because inaction has made Islamic terrorism worse under Obama. At least Neocons subdued radicals rather allow than allow radicals to call the shots on a death agenda.

 

Now it is incumbent for Neocons and Conservatives to develop a better strategy for a subduing Islamic terrorism. That better strategy probably includes an agenda that politically correct Multiculturalists would find abhorrent because the rules of engagement would be much more brutal than GW Bush and Obama have utilized to date.

 

Jeremy Auldaney

September 11, 2016 at 10:31

 

Also I notice you use a picture of a Knights Templar. This is the secret society that is behind the Liberal Conspiracy Including the Masons and Jesuits.

 

oneway2day

September 17, 2016 at 1:11 PM

 

Actually my usage of Templar symbolism has little to do with the cultic aspects of Templar evolution leading to their final demise in subterfuge and betrayal AND more to do with the original call of the Crusades when Europeans became fed up with Muslim raids and military expeditions carving up Christian lands.

 

Persecution of Christian Pilgrims butchered or enslave on their way to medieval Jerusalem was the excuse (real or perceived) of a confrontation a long time in coming. After all the Middle East was a majority Christian land LONG BEFORE Muslim invaders conquered and oppressed the Christians to convert to Islam over a 2 or 3 centuries time until Islam became the dominant religion. Oppression was the conversion tactic not a free-will choice.

 

TODAY the world needs a Templar Crusader rules of engagement minus the Antisemitic hate to overcome Muslim oppression even if so-called innocent civilians are harmed by the rules of engagement. The Allies were not concerned about civilian casualties in a win at all costs war against Nazis and Imperial Japanese and neither should we be in this current threat to Western Society.

 

JRH 9/17/16

Please Support NCCR

 

Why would a Conservative Christian Vote for Trump?


Trump wack-a-mole game

John R. Houk

© May 30, 2016

 

I have never claimed Donald Trump was a perfect candidate for President. Indeed, I was a Cruzer right up until he suspended his campaign after he did the math. From a Conservative perspective Ted Cruz was nearly the perfect candidate:

 

Unrepentant Conservative in principles: Less government, NO income tax, dissolve the IRS, Pro-Life, Devout Christian, Pro-Israel, Strong Military, Stop illegal immigration, Tough on Islamic terrorism and anti-establishment and more.

 

Trump is probably not a devout Christian BUT he is not a hater of those who are devout Christians as most Leftist Dems – including Obama and Hillary – in fact do everything to diminish America’s Christian ethos.

 

My son is a Never-Trump Christian Conservative who is very displeased with all Conservatives who have begun supporting Trump for POTUS. Needless to say he is very unhappy with me.

 

I do like some of the things Trump has said even if it sounds a bit incredulous. At least he has abandoned political correctness to stick with “Make America Great”: a strong military, build a southern border wall, stop Muslim immigration and Muslim refugees until they are thoroughly vetted as NOT being anti-American-culture and subversive Caliphate globalists. These Trump points alone are a slap in the face of Obama’s degenerative agenda to transform America. THE SAME POLICY Hillary would continue to the detriment of the USA!

 

My son pointed me to a Never-Trump article entitled, “Dear Christian Leaders, You’re Playing a Very Dangerous Game” by one of my son’s favorite Conservative pundits in Steve Deace. Essentially Deace is concerned that Christian leaders would even think of placing their support behind a man of poor character such Donald Trump.

 

After expressing his concerns Deace turns to Scripture in Exodus 18 and makes this quote as his premise for Never-Trump:

 

Moreover, look for able men from all the people, men who fear God, who are trustworthy and hate a bribe, and place such men over the people as chiefs of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens.

 

Steve fails to give Bible and verse in this quote but points to the NIV portion of the entire chapter 18 of Exodus in a link. The irony is there is a bit of difference from the version Deace quotes and that which he links to.

 

Now here is the full context of the quote from the NIV that Steve Deace linked to:

 

13 The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening. 14 When his father-in-law [i.e. Jethro the Kenite Midianite Priest] saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, “What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?”

 

15 Moses answered him, “Because the people come to me to seek God’s will. 16 Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God’s decrees and instructions.”

 

17 Moses’ father-in-law replied, “What you are doing is not good. 18 You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone. 19 Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. You must be the people’s representative before God and bring their disputes to him. 20 Teach them his decrees and instructions, and show them the way they are to live and how they are to behave. 21 But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 22 Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. 23 If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied.”

 

24 Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said. 25 He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 26 They served as judges for the people at all times. The difficult cases they brought to Moses, but the simple ones they decided themselves. (Bold Text Editor’s Emphasis – Exodus 18: 13-26 NIV)

 

I am guessing Deace’s biggest problem with Trump is the potentiality of not being God-fearing, not trustworthy and a recipient of dishonest gain. Deace cites these examples that demonstrate Trump as a man lacking the godly principles set out in Exodus 18:

 

Now that we’ve addressed the biblical case, what about the moral one?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Steve Deace provided a link for each judged accusation. Let’s look at those links and see if there is any silver lining that still makes Trump a “capable man” in the language of the NIV Bible:

 

Scam Artist: Deace goes to the National Review which is no Conservative friend of Trump (and neither was I a friend when the NR began attacking him) – “Yes, Trump University Was a Massive Scam

 

First thing first, Trump University was never a university. When the “school” was established in 2005, the New York State Education Department warned that it was in violation of state law for operating without a NYSED license. Trump ignored the warnings. (The institution is now called, ahem, “Trump Entrepreneur Initiative.”) Cue lawsuits.

Trump University is currently the defendant in three lawsuits — two class-action lawsuits filed in California, and one filed in New York …

 

 

How could that have happened? The New York suit offers a suggestion:

 

The free seminars were the first step in a bait and switch to induce prospective students to enroll in increasingly expensive seminars starting with the three-day $1495 seminar and ultimately one of respondents’ advanced seminars such as the “Gold Elite” program costing $35,000.

 

At the “free” 90-minute introductory seminars to which Trump University advertisements and solicitations invited prospective students, Trump University instructors engaged in a methodical, systematic series of misrepresentations designed to convince students to sign up for the Trump University three-day seminar at a cost of $1495.

 

 

To do that, instructors touted Trump’s own promises: that students would be “mentored” by “handpicked” real-estate experts, who would use Trump’s own real-estate strategies. …

 

[Blog Editor: after this point there are a series of Youtube videos used to drive home the point of Trump scam artist. Of the videos three are blocked from showing telling the reader they are now marked as “private”. Could it be there might be some legal problems against the videos?]

 

 

Meanwhile, Trump — who maintains that Trump University was “a terrific school that did a fantastic job” — has tried to bully his opponents out of the suit. Lawyers for Tarla Makaeff have requested a protective order from the court “to protect her from further retaliation.” According to court documents, Trump has threatened to sue Makaeff personally, as well as her attorneys. He’s already brought a $100 million counterclaim against the New York attorney general’s office.

 

… (Yes, Trump University Was a Massive Scam; By IAN TUTTLE; National Review; 2/26/16 5:18 PM)

 

Yup, there is really nothing to defend the Trump U scam. If Trump was promoting a school on Trump principles in business, he could argue that those who failed to make good business decisions with those principles have themselves to blame. But apparently the salesmen for recruiting students, used some kind of “playbook” with principles of hooking a buyer with illegitimate promises combining a business education. No one can make a promise insuring success, rather only a promise to provide the tools to make sound choices that may or may not lead to success. I have to give Deace a plus on this one. However, Americans have to decide if a man that has managed to become a billionaire then go bankrupt, then become a billionaire again is not capable of making different decisions to overcome previous bad decisions.

 

After nearly eight years of Leftist Dem hubris that a socialized America with humanistic ideology has made America great, I have to give Trump a shot at looking at a different path. Crooked Hillary will simply continue the downward spiral of cultural and economic collapse of America with a transformist concept differing from the Founding Fathers’ vision. Ergo the civil suit does not change my mind.

 

Consider Nebuchadnezzar. The ten northern Hebrew tribes under the King of Israel was given up to conquest by Assyria because of the Northern Kingdom’s spiral into immorality and rejection of the God who delivered them from bondage in Egypt. That left the two tribes that formed the Southern Kingdom of Judah. Roughly one hundred years later Judah’s leaders were leading that nation to the point of no return in the sight of God. When the leadership of Judah rejected the insights of God given by the Prophets of God, Judah also lost their right to have a governing nation. God sent an unbelieving polytheist conqueror named Nebuchadnezzar who emptied Judah of its leadership families, educated families and Priestly families and sent them to Babylon. Perhaps Trump is America’s Nebuchadnezzar giving Americans a wake-up call to abandon humanistic ungodly ideology and return to God’s morality of purpose:

 

And command them to say to their masters, “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel—thus you shall say to your masters: ‘I have made the earth, the man and the beast that are on the ground, by My great power and by My outstretched arm, and have given it to whom it seemed proper to Me. And now I have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant; and the beasts of the field I have also given him to serve him. (Jeremiah 27: 4-6 NKJV)

 

Gossip: Deace here is referencing the Trump camp pushing Ted Cruz had some extramarital affairs: “5 Things You Need To Know About #CruzSexScandal” –

 

… They’re firmly convinced that the National Enquirer’s anonymously sourced story alleging that Cruz has had extramarital affairs with at least five women must be true. …

 

 

  1. Trump’s People Have Been Pushing The Story.Trump has a long, friendly history with the CEO of the National Enquirer, as Gabe Sherman of New York Magazine pointed out back in October:

 

 

  1. Katrina Pierson, One Of The National Enquirer’s Women, Has Denied The Story.Pierson, … She would have every interest in confirming the story, given that it would put an end to Cruz’s presidential hopes and, indeed, his entire career. Yet here’s what she’s tweeted this morning about the Enquirerstory:

 

What’s worse? People who actually believe the trash in tabloids, or the ones who know it’s false &spread it anyway? #stupidity on all levels

 

  1. Amanda Carpenter, Another Of The National Enquirer’s Women, Has Denied The Story.

 

  1. The Cruz Super PAC That Donated Money To The Carly Fiorina Campaign Almost Certainly Didn’t Do It To Shut Up Sarah Isgur Flores.

 

  1. Cruz Has Denied The Story, And Blamed The Trump Campaign For The Smear.

 

 

UPDATE: Trump has now responded in his own typically bombastic manner:

View image on Twitter

Trump Responds to Cruz Accusations on National Enquirer Story

Trump Responds to Cruz Accusations on National Enquirer Story

 

(5 Things You Need To Know About #CruzSexScandal; By BEN SHAPIRO; The Daily Wire; 3/25/16)

 

I believe Ted because well, he’s Ted. Ben Shapiro posts the Trump denial as if we shouldn’t believe him because well, he’s the Donald. Ben you have to prove Trump ordered the story just like Trump and the National Enquirer would have had to prove that Ted Cruz was an adulterer. There is and was no proof from anyone’s camp. It all falls on the National Enquirer.

 

But you have to ask yourself if Trump or someone in his campaign did push an untrue story, why would he do so? Because Trump believed the Cruz campaign posted some photos of Trump’s wife Melania with a nude model, shot in bad taste with the epithet that went something like, “This could be your First Lady.”

 

Trump typically lost his New York temper. Who do you think he was going to blame? Of course Ted denied he had anything to do with disparaging Melania Trump. So Trump posted an unflattering photo of Ted’s wife Heidi Cruz beside Melania. Then Ted went ballistic. Then somewhere in there, Trump says he’ll spill the beans on Heidi which never came to light as far as I know. The point is Trump isn’t the only gossip. Yet the Never-Trump people never talk about the other gossipers in politics. Let’s be consistent.
Slanderer: This is more Trump vs. Cruz tit-for-tat. I assure you if Donald was attacked he would not attack back: “Trump accuses Cruz’s father of helping JFK’s assassin” –

 

Donald Trump on Tuesday alleged that Ted Cruz’s father was with John F. Kennedy’s assassin shortly before he murdered the president, parroting a National Enquirer story claiming that Rafael Cruz was pictured with Lee Harvey Oswald handing out pro-Fidel Castro pamphlets in New Orleans in 1963.

… (Trump accuses Cruz’s father of helping JFK’s assassin; By NOLAN D. MCCASKILL; Politico; 5/3/16 07:36 AM EDT)

 

Even if that was true and it is not, what does or did that have to do with today’s Ted Cruz? So why did Trump pop-off with another tabloid-sourced accusation that is easier to disprove than to prove? Here’s the New York reasoning of Donald Trump:

 

After Ted Cruz’s father Rafael pleaded with believing Christians to support his son, Trump slammed him, saying that it was a disgrace for Cruz to say that the election of Trump could contribute to the destruction of America. Rafael Cruz had stated from the pulpit:

 

I implore, I exhort every member of the body of Christ to vote according to the word of God and vote for the candidate that stands on the word of God and on the Constitution of the United States of America. And I am convinced that man is my son, Ted Cruz. The alternative could be the destruction of America.

 

Stung, Trump pouted:

 

I think it’s a disgrace that he’s allowed to do it. I think it’s a disgrace that he’s allowed to say it … You look at so many of the ministers that are backing me, and they’re backing me more so than they’re backing Cruz, and I’m winning the evangelical vote. It’s disgraceful that his father can go out and do that. And just — and so many people are angry about it. And the evangelicals are angry about it, the way he does that. But I think it’s horrible. I think it’s absolutely horrible that a man can go and do that, what he’s saying there. (Trump Says Cruz’s Father Shouldn’t Be ‘Allowed’ To Say Mean Things About Him; By HANK BERRIEN; The Daily Wire; 5/3/16)

 

Trump took Pastor Rafael’s plea to vote for his son Ted amidst an Evangelical crowd as a slight interpreting “The alternative could be the destruction of America” as an unnamed slight to himself rather perhaps to Hillary. I wasn’t there so I don’t know the context of Pastor Rafael’s speech. If it was a Trump slight, I do understand the Trump response. The response goes, “You hit me I hit back harder.” The response valid or invalid is what has attracted voters to Trump. It’s kind of like the disagreements people have in a living discussion. It’s plain speaking. People like plain spoken.

 

Trump as a Misogynist: Here Deace uses People Magazine, alluding that Trump is a misogynist because defending his wife by attacking the wife of the candidate he believed slighted Melania, makes Trump a misogynist. Then the People post provides a lesson in a happy marriage message. Since People believes all the tit-for-tat is all Trump’s doing and nothing to do with Ted defending his wife Heidi, then Trump needs this good marriage advice. Apparently Deace feels since Trump must need marriage advice he must be a misogynist: “Doubling Down, Donald Trump Tweets a My-Wife’s-Prettier-Than Yours Meme Featuring Heidi Cruz – and Ted Fires Back”.

 

I think Steve Deace should have found a better to prove Trump misogynism. The only thing Deace could find was either Trump defending his wife or counter-attacking a lady (e.g. Fiorina or Hillary) for attacking him. Ergo misogynist disproved in this case.

 

Trump as an adulterer: Deace offers no proof or even an accusation from another woman or a cuckcolded husband, but turns to an innocuous quote from Trump’s book The Art of the Deal. Deace uses The rightscoop as his adulterer source: “Here’s when Trump BRAGGED in his book about his MULTIPLE AFFAIRS with wealthy married women!” –

 

The Daily Beast has the quote:

 

“In The Art of the Deal, Trump boasted about bedding other men’s wives.

‘“If I told the real stories of my experiences with women, often seemingly very happily married and important women, this book would be a guaranteed best-seller,” he wrote.’” (Here’s when Trump BRAGGED in his book about his MULTIPLE AFFAIRS with wealthy married women! By [This pseudonym is hilarious] SooperMexican; The rightscoop; 3/25/16 9:20 AM)

 

I have a huge problem with adultery even those who may brag in jest to inflate their manhood. Nevertheless, it is apparent Trump parted ways with previous marriages on good terms and his marriage with Melania appears solid at the very least evidenced by Trump’s rash defenses of her honor. I find it unfortunate that Steve Deace is stooping to Dem Party standards to smear Donald Trump.

 

Is Trump a Deceiver: In high stakes business I have no doubts that Donald Trump used his share of smoke and mirrors in making deals. Again no one thinks Trump is a devout Christian. He is a secular minded fellow that DOES NOT discount Christianity as the American Left has gone to great measures to do to transform America into a Socialist-Humanistic culture. If you actually listen carefully to the CNN video at the top of this post, the newscasters are doing the misdirection and smoke and mirror deception. They correctly state that Trump opted out of the last GOP debate in favor of a Veterans fundraiser. The CNN deception is on how they reported on the disbursement of Six Million Dollars Trump claims he raised. When listening carefully, only ONE charity claims they did not receive any money. ALL the rest claimed they received money and ONLY one of those charities disclosed the amount. And makes Trump a deceiver, how? “Trump campaign admits it did not raise $6 million for veterans” –

 

CNN VIDEO on Youtube: Did veterans group get millions raised by Trump?

 

 

Posted by CNN

Published on Mar 3, 2016

Donald Trump says he raised six million dollars for veterans including a million dollars of his own money. CNN’s Drew Griffin has been tracking down the donations.

 

 

The list showed that the majority of the money that had been donated at that time came from Trump’s foundation or the foundations of two of his friends, businessman Carl Icahn and pharmaceutical billionaire Stewart J. Rahr.

 

The campaign did not identify any contributors Friday who pledged funds without following through in actual donations.

 

Charities that have benefited from the fundraiser include Fisher House Foundation, Green Beret Foundation and Disabled American Veterans, while others, such as Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, said they did not want to receive any of the contributions. (Trump campaign admits it did not raise $6 million for veterans; By Curt Devine; CNN; 5/20/16 Updated 6:55 PM ET)

 

Where in the world in this article or video does ANYONE in the Trump campaign ADMIT that “$6 million” was NOT raised for veterans? The only Trump campaign admission ranged from uncertain to the exact amount to a guess of about $4.5 million. Talk about deception! This why I often say the acronym for CNN stands for the Communist News Network.

 

Is Trump a liar? Steve Deace goes to The Daily Wire which claims to provide 101 absolute lies Donald Trump. I’m not going to go through all 101 accusations. Frankly that would take too much of my time to see if Trump told a flagrant lie, made a mistake, said something taken out of context or told the absolute truth. I have to wonder if The Daily Wire is going to go through all the lies Hillary (and Bill) told to the American public and measure her verbiage as outright lie, mistaken, taken out of context or (chuckle) told the absolute truth?

 

The article Deace goes to is “Lyin’ Donald: 101 Of Trump’s Greatest Lies”. If the next 100 accusations are as flimsy as the first listed accusation, one has to wonder on the integrity of The Daily Wire

 

  1. March 30: Trump claims MSNBC edited their released version of his interview with Chris Matthews in which Trump stumbled on abortion: “You really ought to hear the whole thing. I mean, this is a long convoluted question. This was a long discussion, and they just cut it out. And, frankly, it was extremely — it was really convoluted.” Nope; that was a lie. (Lyin’ Donald: 101 Of Trump’s Greatest Lies; By HANK BERRIEN; The Daily Wire; 4/11/16)

 

Hmm… The accused lie is that MSNBC edited the Chris Matthews-Donald Trump conversation to make Trump look bad. However, the real problem Trump has is being made to look bad for saying quite haphazardly that women that seek an abortion should be punished. Huh… Maybe Deace would have had a better chance with the misogynistic accusation if he went to the abortion issue in this conversation. The Dems and the Pro-Choice (i.e. women can have a doctor kill their unborn baby as a birth control method) think such Trump thoughts are misogynistic.

 

So I’m going to share the MSNBC transcript the begins with abortion rather than the entire transcript:

 

MATTHEWS:  OK, look, I’m monopolizing here.

 

Let’s go, young lady?

 

TRUMP:  Hello.

 

QUESTION:  Hello. I am (inaudible) and have a question on, what is your stance on women’s rights and their rights to choose in their own reproductive health?

 

TRUMP:  OK, well look, I mean, as you know, I’m pro-life.  Right, I think you know that, and I — with exceptions, with the three exceptions.  But pretty much, that’s my stance.  Is that OK?  You understand?

 

MATTHEWS:  What should the law be on abortion?

 

TRUMP:  Well, I have been pro-life.

 

MATTHEWS:  I know, what should the law — I know your principle, that’s a good value.  But what should be the law?

 

TRUMP:  Well, you know, they’ve set the law and frankly the judges — I mean, you’re going to have a very big election coming up for that reason, because you have judges where it’s a real tipping point.

 

MATTHEWS:  I know.

 

TRUMP:  And with the loss the Scalia, who was a very strong conservative…

 

MATTHEWS:  I understand.

 

TRUMP:  … this presidential election is going to be very important, because when you say, “what’s the law, nobody knows what’s the law going to be.  It depends on who gets elected, because somebody is going to appoint conservative judges and somebody is going to appoint liberal judges, depending on who wins.

 

MATTHEWS:  I know.  I never understood the pro-life position.

 

TRUMP:  Well, a lot of people do understand.

 

MATTHEWS:  I never understood it.  Because I understand the principle, it’s human life as people see it.

 

TRUMP:  Which it is.

 

MATTHEWS:  But what crime is it?

 

TRUMP:  Well, it’s human life.

 

MATTHEWS:  No, should the woman be punished for having an abortion?

 

TRUMP:  Look…

 

MATTHEWS:  This is not something you can dodge.

 

TRUMP:  It’s a — no, no…

 

MATTHEWS:  If you say abortion is a crime or abortion is murder, you have to deal with it under law.  Should abortion be punished?

 

TRUMP:  Well, people in certain parts of the Republican Party and Conservative Republicans would say, “yes, they should be punished.”

 

MATTHEWS:  How about you?

 

TRUMP:  I would say that it’s a very serious problem.  And it’s a problem that we have to decide on.  It’s very hard.

 

MATTHEWS:  But you’re for banning it?

 

TRUMP:  I’m going to say — well, wait.  Are you going to say, put them in jail?  Are you — is that the (inaudible) you’re talking about?

 

MATTHEWS:  Well, no, I’m asking you because you say you want to ban it.  What does that mean?

 

TRUMP:  I would — I am against — I am pro-life, yes.

 

MATTHEWS:  What is ban — how do you ban abortion?  How do you actually do it?

 

TRUMP:  Well, you know, you will go back to a position like they had where people will perhaps go to illegal places.

 

MATTHEWS:  Yes?

 

TRUMP:  But you have to ban it.

 

MATTHEWS:  You banning, they go to somebody who flunked out of medical school.

 

TRUMP:  Are you Catholic?

 

MATTHEWS:  Yes, I think…

 

TRUMP:  And how do you feel about the Catholic Church’s position?

 

MATTHEWS:  Well, I accept the teaching authority of my Church on moral issues.

 

TRUMP:  I know, but do you know their position on abortion?

 

MATTHEWS:  Yes, I do.

 

TRUMP:  And do you concur with the position?

 

MATTHEWS:  I concur with their moral position but legally, I get to the question — here’s my problem with it…

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

TRUMP:  No, no, but let me ask you, but what do you say about your Church?

 

MATTHEWS:  It’s not funny.

 

TRUMP:  Yes, it’s really not funny.

 

What do you say about your church?  They’re very, very strong.

 

MATTHEWS:  They’re allowed to — but the churches make their moral judgments, but you running for president of the United States will be chief executive of the United States.  Do you believe…

 

TRUMP:  No, but…

 

MATTHEWS:  Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?

 

TRUMP:  The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.

 

MATTHEWS:  For the woman?

 

TRUMP:  Yes, there has to be some form.

 

MATTHEWS:  Ten cents?  Ten years?  What?

 

TRUMP:  Let me just tell you — I don’t know.  That I don’t know.  That I don’t know.

 

MATTHEWS:  Why not?

 

TRUMP:  I don’t know.

 

MATTHEWS:  You take positions on everything else.

 

TRUMP:  Because I don’t want to — I frankly, I do take positions on everything else.  It’s a very complicated position.

 

MATTHEWS:  But you say, one, that you’re pro-life meaning that you want to ban it.

 

TRUMP:  But wait a minute, wait a minute.  But the Catholic Church is pro-life.

 

MATTHEWS:  I’m not talking about my religion.

 

TRUMP:  No, no, I am talking about your religion.  Your religion — I mean, you say that you’re a very good Catholic.  Your religion is your life.  Let me ask you this…

 

MATTHEWS:  I didn’t say very good.  I said I’m Catholic.

 

(LAUGHTER)

 

And secondly, I’m asking — you’re running for President.

 

TRUMP:  No, no…

 

MATTHEWS:  I’m not.

 

TRUMP:  Chris — Chris.

 

MATTHEWS:  I’m asking you, what should a woman face if she chooses to have an abortion?

 

TRUMP:  I’m not going to do that.

 

MATTHEWS:  Why not?

 

TRUMP:  I’m not going to play that game.

 

MATTHEWS:  Game?

 

TRUMP:  You have…

 

MATTHEWS: You said you’re pro-life.

 

TRUMP:  I am pro-life.

 

MATTHEWS: That means banning abortion.

 

TRUMP:  And so is the Catholic Church pro-life.

 

MATTHEWS:  But they don’t control the — this isn’t Spain, the Church doesn’t control the government.

 

TRUMP:  What is the punishment under the Catholic Church?  What is the…

 

MATTHEWS: Let me give something from the New Testament, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”  Don’t ask me about my religion.

 

TRUMP:  No, no…

 

MATTHEWS:  I’m asking you.  You want to be president of the United States.

 

TRUMP:  You told me that…

 

MATTHEWS:  You tell me what the law should be.

 

TRUMP:  I have — I have not determined…

 

MATTHEWS:  Just tell me what the law should be.  You say you’re pro-life.

 

TRUMP:  I am pro-life.

 

MATTHEWS:  What does that mean?

 

TRUMP:  With exceptions.  I am pro-life.

 

I have not determined what the punishment would be.

 

MATTHEWS:  Why not?

 

TRUMP:  Because I haven’t determined it.

 

MATTHEWS:  When you decide to be pro-life, you should have thought of it.  Because…

 

TRUMP:  No, you could ask anybody who is pro-life…

 

MATTHEWS:  OK, here’s the problem — here’s my problem with this, if you don’t have a punishment for abortion — I don’t believe in it, of course — people are going to find a way to have an abortion.

 

TRUMP:  You don’t believe in what?

 

MATTHEWS:  I don’t believe in punishing anybody for having an abortion.

 

TRUMP:  OK, fine.  OK, (inaudible).

 

MATTHEWS:  Of course not.  I think it’s a woman’s choice.

 

TRUMP:  So you’re against the teachings of your Church?

 

MATTHEWS:  I have a view — a moral view — but I believe we live in a free country, and I don’t want to live in a country so fascistic that it could stop a person from making that decision.

 

TRUMP:  But then you are…

 

MATTHEWS:  That would be so invasive.

 

TRUMP:  I know but I’ve heard you speaking…

 

MATTHEWS:  So determined of a society that I wouldn’t able — one we are familiar with.  And Donald Trump, you wouldn’t be familiar with.

 

TRUMP:  But I’ve heard you speaking so highly about your religion and your Church.

 

MATTHEWS:  Yes.

 

TRUMP:  Your Church is very, very strongly as you know, pro-life.

 

MATTHEWS:  I know.

 

TRUMP:  What do you say to your Church?

 

MATTHEWS:  I say, I accept your moral authority.  In the United States, the people make the decision, the courts rule on what’s in the Constitution, and we live by that.  That’s why I say.

 

TRUMP:  Yes, but you don’t live by it because you don’t accept it. You can’t accept it.  You can’t accept it.  You can’t accept it.

 

MATTHEWS:  Can we go back to matters of the law and running for president because matters of law, what I’m talking about, and this is the difficult situation you’ve placed yourself in.

 

By saying you’re pro-life, you mean you want to ban abortion.  How do you ban abortion without some kind of sanction?  Then you get in that very tricky question of a sanction, a fine on human life which you call murder?

 

TRUMP:  It will have to be determined.

 

MATTHEWS:  A fine, imprisonment for a young woman who finds herself pregnant?

 

TRUMP:  It will have to be determined.

 

MATTHEWS:  What about the guy that gets her pregnant?  Is he responsible under the law for these abortions?  Or is he not responsible for an abortion?

 

TRUMP:  Well, it hasn’t — it hasn’t — different feelings, different people.  I would say no.

 

MATTHEWS:  Well, they’re usually involved.  Anyway, much more from the audience here at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay.  We’ll be right back.

 

(APPLAUSE)

 

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

 

… (FULL TRANSCRIPT: MSNBC Town Hall with Donald Trump Moderated By Chris Matthews; MSNBC; 3/30/16 5:10 PM EDT)

 

On a personal level I wouldn’t punish a woman for participating with baby-murder with done as a form of birth control. I might not have a problem with accessory to murder. Trump’s complaint is this townhall meeting was skewed to defame Trump as a misogynist and mentioned very little Chris Matthews double-talk hypocrisy on being a good Catholic agreeing with Church doctrine against abortion but being pro-abortion legally for those deluded women who want birth control by murder.

 

And so merely by showing that the first accusation in The Daily Wire was actually disingenuous manipulation and time constraints I’m not going to wade through the 100 other skewed accusations of Trump lying. AGAIN Steve Deace should examine the Hillary lies and make a voter decision based on how wicked she is rather than how much Trump doesn’t measure up to Conservative snuff or Christian ethics.

 

JRH 5/30/16

 Please Support NCCR

LEFT PROMOTING MASS DELUSION, SAYS JOURNALIST


As part of the progressive-left influence that Kupelian says is so adversely affecting the nation, Americans are being intimidated, bullied and seduced into accepting a whole slew of false “narratives” as though they represented reality, said Kupelian.

A “narrative,” he said, is just “a nice name for a … mass delusion.”

… I’m saying we have a culture and a presidency in which basically we’re taught there is no God, there is no right and wrong and the biblical morals that this country did pretty well with for several centuries are oppressive and racist and we need to get rid of them!” …

How can a person cope with living in a world of false narratives and dreamlike illusions? Kupelian argues the solution is simple:

“We need to wake up. We just need to wake up.”

He continued: “People tell me, ‘You know, this is a nightmare we’re living in under Obama.’ … It’s true, but there’s only one step away from a nightmare to being awake again. You just have to wake up. You have to put aside these sleepy delusions” that make us feel so comfortable in our dream world, he said. (LEFT PROMOTING MASS DELUSION, SAYS JOURNALIST; By Joseph Farah; WND; 11/11/15)

That is an excerpt from WND’s editorial/promotion of author David Kupelian’s new book about how the Obama/Leftist American transformation agenda is destroying America from within by eradicating everything that has made the USA an exceptional nation in a world of oppressive agendas.

I haven’t read Kupelian’s book yet but I’m going to get a copy.

JRH 11/12/15

Please Support NCCR

***********************

LEFT PROMOTING MASS DELUSION, SAYS JOURNALIST

Hear ‘Snapping’ author David Kupelian on fast-paced San Francisco broadcast


From email alert sent by Joseph Farah

Email sent: 11/12/2015 5:09 AM

November 11, 2015

WND

Listen to David Kupelian’s rapid-fire interview with Brian Sussman on San Francisco’s KSFO Morning Show:

Embed
http://player.ooyala.com/iframe.js#ec=psYmhyeDqeaRWPGyiJXjh66IwLFwYKwL&pbid=40d9b99b682e4c5f990d970e4a0828cd

From alleged widespread racism to “Islamophobia” to “gender reassignment,” the way the American left currently portrays many of today’s top issues is not only wrong, says bestselling author David Kupelian, it is an attempt to forcibly replace reality with a series of coveted delusions – commonly called “narratives.”

Kupelian, whose latest book is “The Snapping of the American Mind,” made his comments during a fast-paced drive-time interview with popular San Francisco KSFO radio talker Brian Sussman.

“The statistics are simply mind-melting,” said Kupelian, referring to the astronomical levels of addiction, depression and family breakdown in today’s America, which he ties in his book to the left’s ongoing “fundamental transformation of America.” “One hundred and thirty million people are dependent on legal or illegal mind-altering substances. We’re not talking 130,000. This sounds like all the adults, almost – it’s like [we’re] a nation of addicts!”

As part of the progressive-left influence that Kupelian says is so adversely affecting the nation, Americans are being intimidated, bullied and seduced into accepting a whole slew of false “narratives” as though they represented reality, said Kupelian.

A “narrative,” he said, is just “a nice name for a … mass delusion.”

Kupelian rattled off a few examples of present-day false media narratives:

“Faisal Mohammad wasn’t motivated by jihad.”

“Bruce Jenner is a woman.”

Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, was a victim of racist police – even though it’s proven that he was a predator,” Kupelian added. “He was a punk on drugs who had just knocked off a convenience store and he tried to kill a cop, to grab his gun!” But “it doesn’t matter” to the left, said Kupelian. “You still hear about Ferguson and Michael Brown” as though the mythical “gentle giant” was a victim of trigger-happy, racist cops.

Another delusion-based narrative, said Kupelian, is that “Islam is a religion of peace. I have to tell you, I have about 100 family members who were killed by jihadists during the Armenian Genocide,” said Kupelian. “Islam has not been a religion of peace for the last 14 centuries. And it doesn’t show any signs of beginning now.”

“Where is this all coming from?” Kupelian asked rhetorically.

“We don’t live in a vacuum. … I’m saying we have a culture and a presidency in which basically we’re taught there is no God, there is no right and wrong and the biblical morals that this country did pretty well with for several centuries are oppressive and racist and we need to get rid of them!” He added, “There’s a side of us that feels like this is liberation, but there’s a price to pay. We’re paying the price now.”

Indeed, American politics has become so unhinged, he said, it is hard for normal Americans to even process what is happening.

“Hillary Clinton should be in prison, he noted, adding, “We have this socialist who, God bless Donald Trump, he referred to Bernie Sanders as a ‘communist maniac.'”

He then told Sussman: “I defy your listeners to go to the CPUSA website, Communist Party USA [cpusa.org] … Tell me the difference between the communist – forget socialism, the Communist Party USA – and the Democrat Party. Everything [on the CPUSA site] is ‘war on women,’ ‘racism,’ all the same stuff” over which today’s Democrat Party obsesses, he said.

The result of this political and moral insanity, Kupelian believes, is a kind of massive psychological strain imposed on Americans who find it difficult to live on a diet of lies.

In “The Snapping of the American Mind,” said Kupelian, “I’m connecting the dots between that big picture” of the Obama-left’s “fundamental transformation” of America “and the individual picture of the wretchedness and brokenness and pathology of the 130 million Americans that are dependent on [toxic] substances,” said Kupelian, who contends that leftist deception and intimidation “is actually driving good, unsuspecting Americans over the edge to depression, anger, mental illness, addiction, family breakdown – all the pathology and the wretchedness we see on the individual level which we don’t really attach to politics so much.”

Sussman, who frequently guest-hosts for Michael Savage on “The Savage Nation” and is the author of “Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda Will Dismantle America,” agreed with Kupelian.

“I hear that all the time!” he exclaimed.

As a talk show host, Sussman said he must often guard his listeners from everything that’s happening.

“If I just gave them the news of the day, people would be crashing their cars,” he joked. “Their minds are about to snap. ‘I can’t take this anymore.’ And I think you’re nailing it with this book.”

But it can be hard to break away from an all-encompassing media culture. Misspeaking for a moment, Kupelian said, “Bruce Jenner is still a woman,” when he meant to say Jenner is still a man.

Realizing his mistake, he laughed, “Oh no, they’ve gotten to me!”

Sussman chortled, “It’s gotten to you as well, your mind has snapped, David!”

Jokes aside, Kupelian’s message is deadly serious. And for those who actually want to help troubled people, he has simple advice – stick to reality. He affirmed the biological impossibility of “sex change” – or to use today’s euphemism, “gender reassignment” – citing the finding of the former psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital that changing genders is “biologically impossible.”

“This is a controversial thing to say, especially in San Francisco,” Kupelian advised. “You cannot transition from one sex to the other. An adult male has about 37 trillion cells. Every one of them is permanently branded with Y [male] chromosomes.”

Kupelian said going along with transgenderism and other absurdities amounts to encouraging mental illness. As he put it, if a pathologically skinny anorexic woman thinks she is fat – a common syndrome among anorexics – “we don’t need to pretend she is fat.”

How can a person cope with living in a world of false narratives and dreamlike illusions? Kupelian argues the solution is simple:

“We need to wake up. We just need to wake up.”

He continued: “People tell me, ‘You know, this is a nightmare we’re living in under Obama.’ … It’s true, but there’s only one step away from a nightmare to being awake again. You just have to wake up. You have to put aside these sleepy delusions” that make us feel so comfortable in our dream world, he said.

In the end, Sussman told his listeners, “I want to promote this book heavily. David, great book, and it’s flying off the shelves as I would expect.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: David Kupelian’s “The Snapping of the American Mind” is being widely acclaimed for its startling and original analysis of what the progressive left is doing to America. Readers can get an autographed, hardcover copy of “The Snapping of the American Mind: Healing a Nation Broken by a Lawless Government and Godless Culture” at a special discount at the WND Superstore! Also, get Kupelian’s culture-war bestseller, “The Marketing of Evil” – now available in paperback – and the acclaimed sequel, “How Evil Works,” also in paperback – all available, autographed by the author, at the WND Superstore!

__________________________

© Copyright 1997-2015. All Rights Reserved. WND.com
Please honor copyright! Piracy hurts creators, devalues their works, and puts you and your employer at risk.

 

WND About Page

 

For 18 years, WND has been the world’s best-kept secret in Christian content and marketing. But the word is getting out.

 

There’s a reason WND.com has the largest reach of any Christian website on planet Earth.

 

There’s a reason WND’s weekly and monthly subscription magazines are growing—online and off—when other national news magazines are struggling.

 

There’s a reason WND Films have dominated the sales charts among faith releases since 2012.

 

There’s a reason the WND Superstore is among the largest online retailers in the world.

 

  • Are you in the business of reaching Christians, particularly in North America?

 

  • Are you a Christian book publisher or film producer?

 

  • Are you a Christian broadcaster?

 

  • Are you part of a Christian business that needs more attention and more customers?

 

If the answer to any of those questions is YES, you need to understand the opportunities WND offers you and your business.

 

WND is not your competitor. We’re your partner.

 

WND can best be explained by its mission statement:

 

WND is an independent news company dedicated to uncompromising journalism, seeking truth and justice and revitalizing the role of the free press as a guardian of liberty. We remain faithful to the traditional and central role of a free press in a free society — as a light exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power. We also seek to stimulate a free-and-open debate about the great moral and political ideas facing the world and to promote freedom and self-government by encouraging personal virtue and good character.

 

Russia Enters Syria – Is it Geopolitics or Prophecy?


A rebel group in Syria said to be backed by the US, claimed that Russian warplanes have hit its positions in the centrre (sic) of the country.

John R. Houk

© September 30, 2015

Pertaining to Israel, I have to be upfront. My view of the Jewish State is through the lens of the Holy Bible. As a Christian that means I am labelled a Christian Zionist. The kind of guy that Orthodox Jews mistrust due to history and the viewpoint that Christian evangelism is a threat to Judaism. I am also the kind of guy Left Wing (sometimes called Liberal and sometimes called Progressive) Jews loathe due to a non-secular pigeon-holing Israel in Biblical terms rather than a secular homeland for Jews to escape centuries of global antisemitism. Frankly I’m not claiming to know an Israeli/Jewish middle ground of the acceptance Christian Zionist friendship. I just pray a growing trust for Christians supporting Israel grows. At the same time I advise Jews – particularly Israeli Jews – to be wary of Western Leftists and of Progressive (Leftist) Christians who have disowned Biblical essentials and the reality of God Almighty.

NIV Quotes:

Ezek 39:27-29 “When I have brought them back from the nations and have gathered them from the countries of their enemies, I will show myself holy through them in the sight of many nations.” 28 “Then they will know that I am the LORD their God, for though I sent them into exile among the nations, I will gather them to their own land, not leaving any behind.” 29 “I will no longer hide my face from them, for I will pour out my Spirit on the house of Israel, declares the Sovereign LORD.”

Amos 9:13-15 “The days are coming, declares the LORD, when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman and the planter by the one treading grapes. New wine will drip from the mountains and flow from all the hills. 14 I will bring back my exiled people Israel; they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit. 15 I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them, says the LORD your God.”

Jer 30:2 “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: ‘Write in a book all the words I have spoken to you. 3 The days are coming,’ declares the LORD, ‘when I will bring my people Israel and Judah back from captivity and restore them to the land I gave their forefathers to possess,’ says the LORD.”

Jer 31:10 “Hear the word of the LORD, O nations; proclaim it in distant coastlands: ‘He who scattered Israel will gather them and will watch over his flock like a shepherd.”

Jer 33:7 “I will bring Judah and Israel back from captivity and will rebuild them as they were before.”

Ezek 37:21-27 …..“I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land. 22 I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. There will be one king over all of them and they will never again be two nations or be divided into two kingdoms.” (Quotes taken from: Israel: The Greatest Sign; By Ken Marineau; Bible Probe for Christians and Messianic Jews)

Stratfor bills itself as a geopolitical intelligence firm and as such does not look geopolitically through a Biblical lens. From Stratfor I have learned the strategic importance of Israel from history to the present. A Stratfor email was sent out that I believe is no coincidence of the timing of Putin’s Russia demanding the USA to stop bombing inside Syria. Russia is deploying troops to Syria AND so far its own strafing is occurring where ISIS is not in control. Could it be that Russia is engaging the Syrian rebels trying to topple Bashar al-Assad – the same rebels not connected to the brutal Islamic terrorists of ISIS and al Nusra?

Does Secretary of State John Kerry (representing Obama Administration) sound clueless to Russian intentions or what?

VIDEO: Kerry: US Welcomes Russia Strikes if Target IS

 

Published by Associated Press

Published on Sep 30, 2015

Secretary of State John Kerry announced that the United States is prepared to welcome Russia’s actions in Syria if they are directed at the Islamic State group and al-Qaeda. (Sept. 30)

Subscribe for more Breaking News:
Get updates and more Breaking News here:

The Associated Press is the essential global news network, delivering fast, unbiased [cough] news from every corner of the world to all media platforms and formats.

AP’s commitment to You can read the rest of the lame self-promotion

Is Russia jockeying itself to be the prophetic invaders from the north of Israel that ironically lines up with the Stratfor analysis of the geopolitical importance of Israel? Here is the Stratfor tease from the PDF:

Israel exists in three conditions. First, it can be a completely independent state. This condition occurs when there are no major imperial powers external to the region. We might call this the David model.

Second, it can live as part of an imperial system — either as a subordinate ally, as a moderately autonomous entity or as a satrapy. In any case, it maintains its identity but loses room for independent maneuvering in foreign policy and potentially in domestic policy. We might call this the Persian model in its most beneficent form.

Finally, Israel can be completely crushed — with mass deportations and migrations, with a complete loss of autonomy and minimal residual autonomy. We might call this the Babylonian model.

Below is the Stratfor PDF reformatted for blogging:

JRH 9/30/15

Please Support NCCR

************************

The Geopolitics of Israel: Biblical and Modern

STRATFOR PDF

Downloaded 9/30/15

Notification Sent: 9/29/2015 9:42 PM

This study was originally published by Stratfor in 2008 as the first in a series of monographs on the geopolitics of globally important countries.

Introduction

The founding principle of geopolitics is that place — geography — plays a significant role in determining how nations will behave. If that theory is true, then there ought to be a deep continuity in a nation’s foreign policy. Israel is a laboratory for this theory, since it has existed in three different manifestations in roughly the same place, twice in antiquity and once in modernity. If geopolitics is correct, then Israeli foreign policy, independent of policymakers, technology or the identity of neighbors, ought to have important common features. This is, therefore, a discussion of common principles in Israeli foreign policy over nearly 3,000 years.

For convenience, we will use the term “Israel” to connote all of the Hebrew and Jewish entities that have existed in the Levant since the invasion of the region as chronicled in the Book of Joshua. As always, geopolitics requires a consideration of three dimensions: the internal geopolitics of Israel, the interaction of Israel and the immediate neighbors who share borders with it, and Israel’s interaction with what we will call great powers, beyond Israel’s borderlands.

Table of Contents

Introduction 2

Table of Contents 3

Israel in Biblical Times 4

Israeli Geography and Borderlands 6

Israeli Geography and the Convergence Zone 11

Internal Geopolitics 13

Israel and the Great Powers 15

The Geopolitics of Contemporary Israel 16

Israel in Biblical Times

Israel has manifested itself three times in history. The first manifestation began with the invasion led by Joshua and lasted through its division into two kingdoms, the Babylonian conquest of the Kingdom of Judah and the deportation to Babylon early in the sixth century B.C.

FIRST MANIFESTATION (1200 BCE)

 

The second manifestation began when Israel was recreated in 540 B.C. by the Persians, who had defeated the Babylonians. The nature of this second manifestation changed in the fourth century B.C., when Greece overran the Persian Empire and Israel, and again in the first century B.C., when the Romans conquered the region.

SECOND MANIFESTATION

The second manifestation saw Israel as a small actor within the framework of larger imperial powers, a situation that lasted until the destruction of the Jewish vassal state by the Romans.

Israel’s third manifestation began in 1948, following (as in the other cases) an ingathering of at least some of the Jews who had been dispersed after conquests. Israel’s founding takes place in the context of the decline and fall of the British Empire and must, at least in part, be understood as part of British imperial history.

THIRD MANIFESTATION (1948)

 

 

Israeli Geography and Borderlands

At its height, under King David, Israel extended from the Sinai to the Euphrates, encompassing Damascus. It occupied some, but relatively little, of the coastal region, an area beginning at what today is Haifa and running south to Jaffa, just north of today’s Tel Aviv. The coastal area to the north was held by Phoenicia, the area to the south by Philistines. It is essential to understand that Israel’s size and shape shifted over time. For example, Judah under the Hasmoneans did not include the Negev but did include the Golan. The general locale of Israel is fixed. Its precise borders have never been.

Thus, it is perhaps better to begin with what never was part of Israel. Israel never included the Sinai Peninsula. Along the coast, it never stretched much farther north than the Litani River in today’s Lebanon. Apart from David’s extreme extension (and fairly tenuous control) to the north, Israel’s territory never stretched as far as Damascus, although it frequently held the Golan Heights. Israel extended many times to both sides of the Jordan but never deep into the Jordanian Desert. It never extended southeast into the Arabian Peninsula.

Israel consists generally of three parts. First, it always has had the northern hill region, stretching from the foothills of Mount Hermon south to Jerusalem. Second, it always contains some of the coastal plain from today’s Tel Aviv north to Haifa. Third, it occupies area between Jerusalem and the Jordan River — today’s West Bank. At times, it controls all or part of the Negev, including the coastal region between the Sinai to the Tel Aviv area. It may be larger than this at various times in history, and sometimes smaller, but it normally holds all or part of these three regions.

Israel is well-buffered in three directions. The Sinai Desert protects it against the Egyptians. In general, the Sinai has held little attraction for the Egyptians. The difficulty of deploying forces in the eastern Sinai poses severe logistical problems for them, particularly during a prolonged presence. Unless Egypt can rapidly move through the Sinai north into the coastal plain, where it can sustain its forces more readily, deploying in the Sinai is difficult and unrewarding. Therefore, so long as Israel is not so weak as to make an attack on the coastal plain a viable option, or unless Egypt is motivated by an outside imperial power, Israel does not face a threat from the southwest.

Israel is similarly protected from the southeast. The deserts southeast of Eilat-Aqaba are virtually impassable. No large force could approach from that direction, although smaller raiding parties could. The tribes of the Arabian Peninsula lack the reach or the size to pose a threat to Israel, unless massed and aligned with other forces. Even then, the approach from the southeast is not one that they are likely to take. The Negev is secure from that direction.

The eastern approaches are similarly secured by desert, which begins about 20 to 30 miles east of the Jordan River. While indigenous forces exist in the borderland east of the Jordan, they lack the numbers to be able to penetrate decisively west of the Jordan. Indeed, the normal model is that, so long as Israel controls Judea and Samaria (the modern-day West Bank), then the East Bank of the Jordan River is under the political and sometimes military domination of Israel — sometimes directly through settlement, sometimes indirectly through political influence, or economic or security leverage.

Israel’s vulnerability is in the north. There is no natural buffer between Phoenicia and its successor entities (today’s Lebanon) to the direct north. The best defense line for Israel in the north is the Litani River, but this is not an insurmountable boundary under any circumstance. However, the area along the coast north of Israel does not present a serious threat. The coastal area prospers through trade in the Mediterranean basin. It is oriented toward the sea and to the trade routes to the east, not to the south. If it does anything, this area protects those trade routes and has no appetite for a conflict that might disrupt trade. It stays out of Israel’s way, for the most part.

Moreover, as a commercial area, this region is generally wealthy, a factor that increases predators around it and social conflict within. It is an area prone to instability. Israel frequently tries to extend its influence northward for commercial reasons, as one of the predators, and this can entangle Israel in its regional politics. But barring this self-induced problem, the threat to Israel from the north is minimal, despite the absence of natural boundaries and the large population. On occasion, there is spillover of conflicts from the north, but not to a degree that might threaten regime survival in Israel.

The neighbor that is always a threat lies to the northeast. Syria — or, more precisely, the area governed by Damascus at any time — is populous and frequently has no direct outlet to the sea. It is, therefore, generally poor. The area to its north, Asia Minor, is heavily mountainous. Syria cannot project power to the north except with great difficulty, but powers in Asia Minor can move south. Syria’s eastern flank is buffered by a desert that stretches to the Euphrates.

Therefore, when there is no threat from the north, Syria’s interest — after securing itself internally — is to gain access to the coast. Its primary channel is directly westward, toward the rich cities of the northern Levantine coast, with which it trades heavily. An alternative interest is southwestward, toward the southern Levantine coast controlled by Israel.

THE GOLAN HEIGHTS

As can be seen, Syria can be interested in Israel only selectively. When it is interested, it has a serious battle problem. To attack Israel, it would have to strike between Mount Hermon and the Sea of Galilee, an area about 25 miles wide. The Syrians potentially can attack south of the sea, but only if they are prepared to fight through this region and then attack on extended supply lines. If an attack is mounted along the main route, Syrian forces must descend the Golan Heights and then fight through the hilly Galilee before reaching the coastal plain — sometimes with guerrillas holding out in the Galilean hills. The Galilee is an area that is relatively easy to defend and difficult to attack. Therefore, it is only once Syria takes the Galilee, and can control its lines of supply against guerrilla attack, that its real battle begins.

To reach the coast or move toward Jerusalem, Syria must fight through a plain in front of a line of low hills. This is the decisive battleground where massed Israeli forces, close to lines of supply, can defend against dispersed Syrian forces on extended lines of supply. It is no accident that Megiddo — or Armageddon, as the plain is sometimes referred to — has apocalyptic meaning. This is the point at which any move from Syria would be decided. But a Syrian offensive would have a tough fight to reach Megiddo, and a tougher one as it deploys on the plain.

On the surface, Israel lacks strategic depth, but this is true only on the surface. It faces limited threats from southern neighbors. To its east, it faces only a narrow strip of populated area east of the Jordan. To the north, there is a maritime commercial entity. Syria operating alone, forced through the narrow gap of the Mount Hermon-Galilee line and operating on extended supply lines, can be dealt with readily.

There is a risk of simultaneous attacks from multiple directions. Depending on the forces deployed and the degree of coordination between them, this can pose a problem for Israel. However, even here the Israelis have the tremendous advantage of fighting on interior lines. Egypt and Syria, fighting on external lines (and widely separated fronts), would have enormous difficulty transferring forces from one front to another. Israel, on interior lines (fronts close to each other with good transportation), would be able to move its forces from front to front rapidly, allowing for sequential engagement and thereby the defeat of enemies.

Unless enemies are carefully coordinated and initiate war simultaneously — and deploy substantially superior force on at least one front — Israel can initiate war at a time of its choosing or else move its forces rapidly between fronts, negating much of the advantage of size that the attackers might have.

There is another aspect to the problem of multifront war. Egypt usually has minimal interests along the Levant, having its own coast and an orientation to the south toward the headwaters of the Nile. On the rare occasions when Egypt does move through the Sinai and attacks to the north and northeast, it is in an expansionary mode. By the time it consolidates and exploits the coastal plain, it would be powerful enough to threaten Syria. From Syria’s point of view, the only thing more dangerous than Israel is an Egypt in control of Israel. Therefore, the probability of a coordinated north-south strike at Israel is rare, is rarely coordinated and usually is not designed to be a mortal blow. It is defeated by Israel’s strategic advantage of interior lines.

Israeli Geography and the Convergence Zone

Therefore, it is not surprising that Israel’s first incarnation lasted as long as it did — some five centuries. What is interesting and what must be considered is why Israel (now considered as the northern kingdom) was defeated by the Assyrians and Judea, then defeated by Babylon. To understand this, we need to consider the broader geography of Israel’s location.

Israel is located on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, on the Levant. As we have seen, when Israel is intact, it will tend to be the dominant power in the Levant. Therefore, Israeli resources must generally be dedicated for land warfare, leaving little over for naval warfare. In general, although Israel had excellent harbors and access to wood for shipbuilding, it never was a major Mediterranean naval power. It never projected power into the sea. The area to the north of Israel has always been a maritime power, but Israel, the area south of Mount Hermon, was always forced to be a land power.

The Levant in general and Israel in particular has always been a magnet for great powers. No Mediterranean empire could be fully secure unless it controlled the Levant. Whether it was Rome or Carthage, a Mediterranean empire that wanted to control both the northern and southern littorals needed to anchor its eastern flank on the Levant. For one thing, without the Levant, a Mediterranean power would be entirely dependent on sea lanes for controlling the other shore. Moving troops solely by sea creates transport limitations and logistical problems.

It also leaves imperial lines vulnerable to interdiction — sometimes merely from pirates, a problem that plagued Rome’s sea transport. A land bridge, or a land bridge with minimal water crossings that can be easily defended, is a vital supplement to the sea for the movement of large numbers of troops. Once the Hellespont (now known as the Dardanelles) is crossed, the coastal route through southern Turkey, down the Levant and along the Mediterranean’s southern shore, provides such an alternative.

There is an additional consideration. If a Mediterranean empire leaves the Levant unoccupied, it opens the door to the possibility of a great power originating to the east seizing the ports of the Levant and challenging the Mediterranean power for maritime domination. In short, control of the Levant binds a Mediterranean empire together while denying a challenger from the east the opportunity to enter the Mediterranean. Holding the Levant, and controlling Israel, is a necessary preventive measure for a Mediterranean empire.

Israel is also important to any empire originating to the east of Israel, either in the Tigris- Euphrates basin or in Persia. For either, security could be assured only once it had an anchor on the Levant. Macedonian expansion under Alexander demonstrated that a power controlling Levantine and Turkish ports could support aggressive operations far to the east, to the Hindu Kush and beyond. While Turkish ports might have sufficed for offensive operations, simply securing the Bosporus still left the southern flank exposed. Therefore, by holding the Levant, an eastern power protected itself against attacks from Mediterranean powers.

CONVERGENCE ZONE

The Levant was also important to any empire originating to the north or south of Israel. If Egypt decided to move beyond the Nile Basin and North Africa eastward, it would move first through the Sinai and then northward along the coastal plain, securing sea lanes to Egypt. When Asia Minor powers such as the Ottoman Empire developed, there was a natural tendency to move southward to control the eastern Mediterranean. The Levant is the crossroads of continents, and Israel lies in the path of many imperial ambitions.

Israel therefore occupies what might be called the convergence zone of the Eastern Hemisphere. A European power trying to dominate the Mediterranean or expand eastward, an eastern power trying to dominate the space between the Hindu Kush and the Mediterranean, a North African power moving toward the east, or a northern power moving south — all must converge on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean and therefore on Israel. Of these, the European power and the eastern power must be the most concerned with Israel. For either, there is no choice but to secure it as an anchor.

Internal Geopolitics

Israel is geographically divided into three regions, which traditionally have produced three different types of people. Its coastal plain facilitates commerce, serving as the interface between eastern trade routes and the sea. It is the home of merchants and manufacturers, cosmopolitans — not as cosmopolitan as Phoenicia or Lebanon, but cosmopolitan for Israel. The northeast is hill country, closest to the unruliness north of the Litani River and to the Syrian threat. It breeds farmers and warriors. The area south of Jerusalem is hard desert country, more conducive to herdsman and warriors than anything else. Jerusalem is where these three regions are balanced and governed.

Photos: Source: Lehava Taybe via Israeli Pikiwiki project* – Source: Israel Defense Force** – Source: Avishai Teicher via Israeli Pikiwiki project*

[*Images provided under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license. These images have not been altered in any way other than cropped to fit available space. Terms of the license can be viewed here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/deed.en

**Image provided under the Creative Commons 2.0 Generic license. Terms of the license can be viewed here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 2.0/deed.en]

 

There are obviously deep differences built into Israel’s geography and inhabitants, particularly between the herdsmen of the southern deserts and the northern hill dwellers. The coastal dwellers, rich but less warlike than the others, hold the balance or are the prize to be pursued. In the division of the original kingdom between Israel and Judea, we saw the alliance of the coast with the Galilee, while Jerusalem was held by the desert dwellers. The consequence of the division was that Israel in the north ultimately was conquered by Assyrians from the northeast, while Babylon was able to swallow Judea.

Social divisions in Israel obviously do not have to follow geographical lines. However, over time, these divisions must manifest themselves. For example, the coastal plain is inherently more cosmopolitan than the rest of the country. The interests of its inhabitants lie more with trading partners in the Mediterranean and the rest of the world than with their countrymen. Their standard of living is higher, and their commitment to traditions is lower. Therefore, there is an inherent tension between their immediate interests and those of the Galileans, who live more precarious, warlike lives. Countries can be divided over lesser issues — and when Israel is divided, it is vulnerable even to regional threats.

We say “even” because geography dictates that regional threats are less menacing than might be expected. The fact that Israel would be outnumbered demographically should all its neighbors turn on it is less important than the fact that it has adequate buffers in most directions, that the ability of neighbors to coordinate an attack is minimal and that their appetite for such an attack is even less. The single threat that Israel faces from the northeast can readily be managed if the Israelis create a united front there. When Israel was overrun by a Damascus-based power, it was deeply divided internally.

It is important to add one consideration to our discussion of buffers, which is diplomacy. The main neighbors of Israel are Egyptians, Syrians and those who live on the east bank of Jordan. This last group is a negligible force demographically, and the interests of the Syrians and Egyptians are widely divergent. Egypt’s interests are to the south and west of its territory; the Sinai holds no attraction. Syria is always threatened from multiple directions, and alliance with Egypt adds little to its security. Therefore, under the worst of circumstances, Egypt and Syria have difficulty supporting each other. Under the best of circumstances, from Israel’s point of view, it can reach a political accommodation with Egypt, securing its southwestern frontier politically as well as by geography, thus freeing Israel to concentrate on the northern threats and opportunities.

Israel and the Great Powers

The threat to Israel rarely comes from the region, except when the Israelis are divided internally. The conquests of Israel occur when powers not adjacent to it begin forming empires. Babylon, Persia, Macedonia, Rome, Turkey and Britain all controlled Israel politically, sometimes for worse and sometimes for better. Each dominated it militarily, but none was a neighbor of Israel. This is a consistent pattern. Israel can resist its neighbors; danger arises when more distant powers begin playing imperial games. Empires can bring force to bear that Israel cannot resist.

Israel therefore has this problem: It would be secure if it could confine itself to protecting its interests from neighbors, but it cannot confine itself because its geographic location invariably draws larger, more distant powers toward Israel. Therefore, while Israel’s military can focus only on immediate interests, its diplomatic interests must look much further. Israel is constantly entangled with global interests (as the globe is defined at any point), seeking to deflect and align with broader global powers. When it fails in this diplomacy, the consequences can be catastrophic.

Israel exists in three conditions. First, it can be a completely independent state. This condition occurs when there are no major imperial powers external to the region. We might call this the David model.

Second, it can live as part of an imperial system — either as a subordinate ally, as a moderately autonomous entity or as a satrapy. In any case, it maintains its identity but loses room for independent maneuvering in foreign policy and potentially in domestic policy. We might call this the Persian model in its most beneficent form.

Finally, Israel can be completely crushed — with mass deportations and migrations, with a complete loss of autonomy and minimal residual autonomy. We might call this the Babylonian model.

The Davidic model exists primarily when there is no external imperial power needing control of the Levant that is in a position either to send direct force or to support surrogates in the immediate region. The Persian model exists when Israel aligns itself with the foreign policy interests of such an imperial power, to its own benefit. The Babylonian model exists when Israel miscalculates on the broader balance of power and attempts to resist an emerging hegemon. When we look at Israeli behavior over time, the periods when Israel does not confront hegemonic powers outside the region are not rare, but are far less common than when it is confronting them.

Given the period of the first iteration of Israel, it would be too much to say that the Davidic model rarely comes into play, but certainly since that time, variations of the Persian and Babylonian models have dominated. The reason is geographic. Israel is normally of interest to outside powers because of its strategic position. While Israel can deal with local challenges effectively, it cannot deal with broader challenges. It lacks the economic or military weight to resist. Therefore, it is normally in the process of managing broader threats or collapsing because of them.

The Geopolitics of Contemporary Israel

Let us then turn to the contemporary manifestation of Israel. Israel was recreated because of the interaction between a regional great power, the Ottoman Empire, and a global power, Great Britain. During its expansionary phase, the Ottoman Empire sought to dominate the eastern Mediterranean as well as both its northern and southern coasts. One thrust went through the Balkans toward central Europe. The other was toward Egypt. Inevitably, this required that the Ottomans secure the Levant.

For the British, the focus on the eastern Mediterranean was as the primary sea lane to India. As such, Gibraltar and the Suez were crucial. The importance of the Suez was such that the presence of a hostile, major naval force in the eastern Mediterranean represented a direct threat to British interests. It followed that defeating the Ottoman Empire during World War I and breaking its residual naval power was critical. The British, as was shown at Gallipoli, lacked the resources to break the Ottoman Empire by main force. They resorted to a series of alliances with local forces to undermine the Ottomans. One was an alliance with Bedouin tribes in the Arabian Peninsula; others involved covert agreements with anti-Turkish, Arab interests from the Levant to the Persian Gulf. A third, minor thrust was aligning with Jewish interests globally, particularly those interested in the refounding of Israel. Britain had little interest in this goal, but saw such discussions as part of the process of destabilizing the Ottomans.

The strategy worked. Under an agreement with France, the Ottoman province of Syria was divided into two parts on a line roughly running east-west between the sea and Mount Hermon. The northern part was given to France and divided into Lebanon and a rump Syria entity. The southern part was given to Britain and was called Palestine, after the Ottoman administrative district Filistina. Given the complex politics of the Arabian Peninsula, the British had to find a home for a group of Hashemites, which they located on the east bank of the Jordan River and designated, for want of a better name, the Trans-Jordan — the other side of the Jordan. Palestine looked very much like traditional Israel.

The ideological foundations of Zionism are not our concern here, nor are the pre- and post- World War II migrations of Jews, although those are certainly critical. What is important for purposes of this analysis are two things: First, the British emerged economically and militarily crippled from World War II and unable to retain their global empire, Palestine included. Second, the two global powers that emerged after World War II — the United States and the Soviet Union — were engaged in an intense struggle for the eastern Mediterranean after World War II, as can be seen in the Greek and Turkish issues at that time. Neither wanted to see the British Empire survive, each wanted the Levant, and neither was prepared to make a decisive move to take it.

Both the United States and the Soviet Union saw the re-creation of Israel as an opportunity to introduce their power to the Levant. The Soviets thought they might have some influence over Israel due to ideology. The Americans thought they might have some influence given the role of American Jews in the founding. Neither was thinking particularly clearly about the matter, because neither had truly found its balance after World War II. Both knew the Levant was important, but neither saw the Levant as a central battleground at that moment. Israel slipped through the cracks.

Once the question of Jewish unity was settled through ruthless action by David Ben Gurion’s government, Israel faced a simultaneous threat from all of its immediate neighbors. However, as we have seen, the threat in 1948 was more apparent than real. The northern Levant, Lebanon, was fundamentally disunited — far more interested in regional maritime trade and concerned about control from Damascus. It posed no real threat to Israel. Jordan, settling the eastern bank of the Jordan River, was an outside power that had been transplanted into the region and was more concerned about native Arabs — the Palestinians — than about Israel. The Jordanians secretly collaborated with Israel. Egypt did pose a threat, but its ability to maintain lines of supply across the Sinai was severely limited and its genuine interest in engaging and destroying Israel was more rhetorical than real. As usual, the Egyptians could not afford the level of effort needed to move into the Levant. Syria by itself had a very real interest in Israel’s defeat, but by itself was incapable of decisive action.

The exterior lines of Israel’s neighbors prevented effective, concerted action. Israel’s interior lines permitted efficient deployment and redeployment of force. It was not obvious at the time, but in retrospect we can see that once Israel existed, was united and had even limited military force, its survival was guaranteed. That is, so long as no great power was opposed to its existence.

From its founding until the Camp David Accords re-established the Sinai as a buffer with Egypt, Israel’s strategic problem was this: So long as Egypt was in the Sinai, Israel’s national security requirements outstripped its military capabilities. It could not simultaneously field an army, maintain its civilian economy and produce all the weapons and supplies needed for war. Israel had to align itself with great powers who saw an opportunity to pursue other interests by arming Israel.

David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister (Public domain)

Josef Stalin, first Secretary-General of the Soviet Union (Public domain) – Robert Schuman, French prime minister, 1948 (Public domain)

Israel’s first patron was the Soviet Union — through Czechoslovakia — which supplied weapons before and after 1948 in the hopes of using Israel to gain a foothold in the eastern Mediterranean. Israel, aware of the risks of losing autonomy, also moved into a relationship with a declining great power that was fighting to retain its empire: France. Struggling to hold onto Algeria and in constant tension with Arabs, France saw Israel as a natural ally. And apart from the operation against Suez in 1956, Israel saw in France a patron that was not in a position to reduce Israeli autonomy. However, with the end of the Algerian war and the realignment of France in the Arab world, Israel became a liability to France and, after 1967, Israel lost French patronage.

Israel did not become a serious ally of the Americans until after 1967. Such an alliance was in the American interest. The United States had, as a strategic imperative, the goal of keeping the Soviet navy out of the Mediterranean or, at least, blocking its unfettered access. That meant that Turkey, controlling the Bosporus, had to be kept in the American bloc. Syria and Iraq shifted policies in the late 1950s and by the mid-1960s had been armed by the Soviets. This made Turkey’s position precarious: If the Soviets pressed from the north while Syria and Iraq pressed from the south, the outcome would be uncertain, to say the least, and the global balance of power was at stake.

The United States used Iran to divert Iraq’s attention. Israel was equally useful in diverting Syria’s attention. So long as Israel threatened Syria from the south, it could not divert its forces to the north. That helped secure Turkey at a relatively low cost in aid and risk. By aligning itself with the interests of a great power, Israel lost some of its room for maneuver: For example, in 1973, it was limited by the United States in what it could do to Egypt. But those limitations aside, it remained autonomous internally and generally free to pursue its strategic interests.

Celebrating the Camp David Accords, September 1978: Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, U.S. President Jimmy Carter, Egyptian President Anwar El-Sadat (Source: Bill Fitz-Patrick, public domain)

The end of hostilities with Egypt, guaranteed by the Sinai buffer zone, created a new era for Israel. Egypt was restored to its traditional position, Jordan was a marginal power on the east bank, Lebanon was in its normal, unstable mode, and only Syria was a threat. However, it was a threat that Israel could easily deal with. Syria by itself could not threaten the survival of Israel.

Following Camp David (an ironic name), Israel was in its Davidic model, in a somewhat modified sense. Its survival was not at stake. Its problems — the domination of a large, hostile population and managing events in the northern Levant — were subcritical (meaning that, though these were not easy tasks, they did not represent fundamental threats to national survival, so long as Israel retained national unity). When unified, Israel has never been threatened by its neighbors. Geography dictates against it.

Israel’s danger will come only if a great power seeks to dominate the Mediterranean Basin or to occupy the region between Afghanistan and the Mediterranean. In the short period since the fall of the Soviet Union, this has been impossible. There has been no great power with the appetite and the will for such an adventure. But 15 years is not even a generation, and Israel must measure its history in centuries.

It is the nature of the international system to seek balance. The primary reality of the world today is the overwhelming power of the United States. The United States makes few demands on Israel that matter. However, it is the nature of things that the United States threatens the interests of other great powers who, individually weak, will try to form coalitions against it. Inevitably, such coalitions will arise. That will be the next point of danger for Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint session of the U.S. Congress in March 2015 — warning of dangers to Israel if Washington reaches an accord with Iran. (Public domain)

In the event of a global rivalry, the United States might place onerous requirements on Israel. Alternatively, great powers might move into the Jordan River valley or ally with Syria, move into Lebanon or ally with Israel. The historical attraction of the eastern shore of the Mediterranean would focus the attention of such a power and lead to attempts to assert control over the Mediterranean or create a secure Middle Eastern empire. In either event, or some of the others discussed, it would create a circumstance in which Israel might face a Babylonian catastrophe or be forced into some variation of Persian or Roman subjugation.

Israel’s danger is not a Palestinian rising. Palestinian agitation is an irritant that Israel can manage so long as it does not undermine Israeli unity. Whether it is managed by domination or by granting the Palestinians a vassal state matters little. Nor can Israel be threatened by its neighbors. Even a unified attack by Syria and Egypt would fail, for the reasons discussed.

Israel’s real threat, as can be seen in history, lies in the event of internal division and/or a great power, coveting Israel’s geographical position, marshaling force that is beyond its capacity to resist. Even that can be managed if Israel has a patron whose interests involve denying the coast to another power.

Israel’s reality is this. It is a small country, yet must manage threats arising far outside of its region. It can survive only if it maneuvers with great powers commanding enormously greater resources. Israel cannot match the resources and, therefore, it must be constantly clever. There are periods when it is relatively safe because of great power alignments, but its normal condition is one of global unease. No nation can be clever forever, and Israel’s history shows that some form of subordination is inevitable. Indeed, it is to a very limited extent subordinate to the United States now.

For Israel, the retention of a Davidic independence is difficult. Israel’s strategy must be to manage its subordination effectively by dealing with its patron cleverly, as it did with Persia. But cleverness is not a geopolitical concept. It is not permanent, and it is not assured. And that is the perpetual crisis of Jerusalem.

________________________________

Russia Enters Syria – Is it Geopolitics or Prophecy?

John R. Houk

© September 30, 2015

________________________________

The Geopolitics of Israel: Biblical and Modern

 

www.Stratfor.com

221 West 6th Street

Austin, TX 78701

 

About Stratfor

 

Stratfor is a geopolitical intelligence firm that provides strategic analysis and forecasting to individuals and organizations around the world. By placing global events in a geopolitical framework, we help customers anticipate opportunities and better understand international developments.

 

We have two core offerings: online subscriptions and custom consulting services. Subscribers gain a thorough understanding of world events through full access to our analysis, published around the clock. Clients get direct access to our analysts and to our global networks, enabling them to better assess geopolitical risk, make strategic investments and expand into challenging regions.

 

Founded in 1996 by author George Friedman, Stratfor brings customers an incisive new approach to examining world affairs. Stratfor taps into a worldwide network of contacts and mines vast amounts of open-source information. Analysts then interpret the information by looking through the objective lens of geopolitics to determine how developments affect different regions, industries and markets.

 

Vision

 

Stratfor’s vision is to be the most respected provider of predictive intelligence services. Our core philosophy centers on the understanding that transformative world events are not random and are, indeed, predictable.

 

Building on nearly 20 years of experience as the world’s premier geopolitical intelligence firm, Stratfor develops constraint-based narratives for key trends around the globe — placing today’s events in context and forecasting tomorrow’s new developments well before they appear in the headlines.

 

Mission

 

Stratfor’s mission is to provide a strategic advantage for our clients and subscribers.

Stratfor produces accurate forecasts and intelligence reports for the globally engaged. The success of Stratfor’s predictive intelligence service is measured by our client’s ability to identify opportunities, make better decisions and manage risk through information that is timely, relevant and — above all else — actionable.

 

The Stratfor Difference

 

  • Analysis and forecasting capabilities for more than 175 countries

 

  • Unparalleled expertise in the world’s most complex environments

 

  • Clients get direct access to a team of experts

 

  • Accurate forecasting using proven geopolitical methodology

 

  • Multinational professionals who speak 29 languages and live in every region

 

  • Trusted partner of leading Fortune 500 companies, financial institutions, natural resource firms, nonprofits and high-net worth individuals

 

  • Proven track record maximizing investment opportunities

 

  • No political agenda and no national bias

 

  • Live subscriber support

 

“Whenever I want to understand the details behind world events, I turn to Stratfor. They have the most detailed and insightful analysis of world affairs and are miles ahead of mainstream media.”Muneer A. Satter; Satter Investment Management, LLC

Obama’s Bitter Fruit


Iran Nuke Missile toon

 

Most sane people understand a nuclear deal with Iran without verification that nuclear weapons are not being developed is insane. It is apparent President Barack Hussein Obama does not comprehend a valid and open verification process is needed pertaining to Iran keeping a promise to develop uranium enrichment for only peaceful nuclear energy rather than the stealth production of nuclear weapons.

 

Justin Smith shines a light on the untrustworthiness of Iran’s promises pertaining to nuclear weaponry. The key to this mistrust is Iran’s nuclear facility at Parchin. For context here is some of the exposed nefariousness one can glean about Iran’s Parchin nuclear facility:

 

On October 9, 2014, we posted on the mysterious explosions that occurred at the Parchin Military testing site.  The Islamic Republic attributed the blast to an unnamed “foreign intelligence power”.   We noted the findings of nuclear watchdog, the Washington, DC –based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) headed by former UN inspector David Albright:

 

Earlier today, it has been reported that the imagery shows that the damage is consistent with an attack against bunkers and that the locality is adjacent to another installation where work was being conducted that involves controlled detonation of fuses intended to serve as triggers for nuclear devices.

 

However, it is important to note that there is no evidence of either an attack or nuclear weapon-related activities at this specific site. There may be confusion over alleged high explosive nuclear weapon-related activities at another site at Parchin that occurred prior to 2004.

 

 

Fast forward to satellite imagery taken on January 31, 2015 that raised more questions about what is going on at Parchin, a site barred by Iran from IAEA inspections. Further, it is excluded from the final P5+1 agreement with a target date of March 24th looming.  ISIS recently published its assessment of new activity at Parchin, noting that the asphalting was consistent with hiding prior activities, perhaps the explosions that occurred there last October.  The ISIS report concluded:

 

Over the last three years, Iran has substantially modified the Parchin site. Like its actions at the Lavisan site, Iran’s more recent modifications at Parchin are probably aimed at concealing past nuclear weapons-related activities from the IAEA and the P5+1, who are in charge of negotiating a long term agreement with Iran. Tehran has a long history of hiding its nuclear facilities and conducting secret, illicit nuclear procurement activities to outfit its nuclear programs. The removal of key economic and financial sanctions will depend on a variety of factors in a long term agreement, including significant cuts in Iran’s centrifuge program. But the lifting of these sanctions also depends on Iran stopping its nuclear-related concealment activities and its illicit nuclear procurements and addressing the IAEA’s concerns about past and possibly on-going work on nuclear weapons.

 

ISIS further commented on the wisdom of the pending final agreement:

 

Prospects for a comprehensive agreement dim if Iran remains intransigent on Parchin. A deal that does not include Iran addressing … READ THE REST (Satellite Imagery Analysis of Iran’s Parchin Military site Question Nuclear Deal; By Jerry Gordon; New English ReviewThe Iconoclast; 2/13/15)

 

Iran Nuke Sites Map 

 

JRH 3/30/15

Please Support NCCR

*****************************

Obama’s Bitter Fruit

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 3/28/2015 9:15 PM

 

America will point to this juncture in history one day, and it will note that this was the critical moment when the Grand Fool, Barack Obama, and his Court Jester, John Kerry, failed to recognize the greatest threat to America and the world in the 21st century. Ignoring all sound reason and stark warnings from numerous U.S. and world leaders, such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s March 4th speech before Congress, they are proceeding with a bad agreement that does not prevent the growth and perfection of a broad Iranian nuclear weapons delivery system, and they are paving a path to nuclear weapons for the Revolutionary Guard and a rogue regime and state-sponsor of terrorism.

 

Iran’s nuclear weapons program has long been evident. Its heavy water nuclear facility at Arak is one proof, since this type of facility is only good for making weapons grade plutonium. Iran’s high explosive components for implosion-type nuclear weapons are made at Parchin.

 

Parchin has been mentioned numerous times by the U.K., France and Germany in these ongoing negotiations, from which Iran hopes to gain relief from all economic sanctions. However, Iran has refused to allow any further inspection of Parchin, since 2005, and it now says further inspections are out of the question.

 

Any arms deals most usually demands verification of one’s compliance. And due to Iran’s resistance to allow for proper verification measures, most of America is asking, “Why are we negotiating with Iran at all at this point?”

 

While Iran cannot be trusted, there is a liar leading the U.S., who wants to side-step the Senate’s advise and consent role, even though in 2013 Obama stated that “the people’s representatives must be invested in what America does abroad.” Look where the U.S. stands now and compare it to Obama’s March 6, 2012 statement: “… My policy is to prevent [Iran] from getting a nuclear weapon, because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region … it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.”

Shortly after Netanyahu’s speech in the halls of Congress, Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal Saud warned, in a BBC interview, that any terms granting Iran nuclear power would result in a massive wide-open arms race across the Middle East. Similar concerns are currently being voiced by Turkey, the United Arab Emirates and many other nations.

 

Iran is already in flagrant violation of past U.N. Security Council resolutions, and yet they are proceeding in their efforts to develop nuclear weapons and inter-continental ballistic missiles. And contrary to the purpose of dissuading Iran from this course, the U.S. and other nations now seem unwilling to stop Iran from going nuclear, as they concede Iran’s right to retain its current capabilities.

 

The price-tag on Obama’s dismal legacy is a high one, since Ayatollah Khamenei demands immediate relief from all sanctions. That means more money in Iranian coffers and an increased ability to assist the likes of Hezbollah, the Houthi rebels in Yemen and murderous Shia militia in Iraq. Enabling this terrorist regime to reshape the Middle East through force of arms, slaughtering innocents and nuclear blackmail certainly promises peace will elude the world throughout this century.

 

Well within their rights, duty and authority to serve and protect the United States, Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA) of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, ranking committee member Eliot Engel (D-NY) and 365 House members sent a bipartisan letter to Obama, dated March 20th, that specified in part: “… Congress must be convinced that [the agreement’s] terms foreclose any pathway to a [nuclear] bomb, and only then will Congress be able to consider permanent sanctions relief … Finally … it is critical that we also consider Iran’s destabilizing role in the region.”

 

Similarly, just days previous, Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark) and 46 other Republican senators published an “open letter” to Iran and its leaders. It essentially stated that any agreement with President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry could be rescinded by any successor and was basically not worth the paper it is written on, without Senate approval.

 

Nothing has changed in the thirty-five years after Iran took U.S. diplomats hostage for 444 days or after the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut in 1983. As noted by Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Laureate Elie Wiesel on February 14, 2015: “The Ayatollah Khamenei has been as clear as his predecessor in declaring his goal __ ‘the annihilation and destruction’ of Israel. He is bent on acquiring the weapons needed to make good on his deadly promise: And, just weeks ago, as Khamenei rallied his country to endorse the nuclear negotiations, he joined the crowd in their chants of “Death to America.”

 

During his 39 minute speech before the U.S. Congress, Benjamin Netanyahu told lawmakers and visitors, “This deal won’t be a farewell to arms, it will be a farewell to arms control … a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.” At one point, Bibi turned to the 86 year old Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel, who sat with Sara Netanyahu in the Congressional gallery, and poignantly continued, “I wish I could promise You, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past.”

 

Much in the manner that Czechoslovakia was betrayed at the 1938 Munich Conference, Israel is being betrayed by Obama’s executive agreement with Iran, and Israel is now left alone to mount a military operation that can destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. Israel can accomplish this, just as it did at Osirak in 1981, but a much more thorough job would result from U.S. and European assistance. A pre-emptive strike is the only answer to a nuclear armed Iran that most certainly will bring the world to the brink of destruction.

 

America is nearing a terrible milestone in its history. It must not refuse to stand against Iran’s naked aggression, just as it initially refused to stand against the Nazis, or history will weigh our nation in the balance and find it wanting. America must recover its moral character and rebuke Obama’s bitter fruit of appeasement. Considerably less danger exists in a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities than going forward with a bitter fruit that only promises a dark future filled with exponentially larger conflagrations, massive wars and chaos.

 

By Justin O. Smith

_____________________________

Edited by John R. Houk

 

© Justin O. Smith