Intro to LaSalle’s the Traitors Hillary & Barry


John R. Houk, Editor

William LaSalle, Author (Could be a pseudonym – not sure)

© February 16, 2018

 

William LaSalle posted a huge comment to my share at the G+ Community Truth Warriors. Google flagged it as spam with these loving words from the social platform masters: “Removed as spam and only visible to you”.

 

I thought, “Well that is annoying.” I began reading LaSalle’s post.

 

The LaSalle comment was huge which might have contributed to Google flagging as spam.

 

As (or if) you read the comment, LaSalle comes off as an angry person ranting about the state of affairs left for America by one of the most Presidential Administrations in U.S. history. The thing is LaSalle backs his rant with admittedly Conservative sourced links, yet he includes some links that are from the Left MSM.

 

AND I made the post even longer by adding some excerpts to most of those standalone source links for better context.

 

I might add I concur with 95% of LaSalle’s rants but not all. LaSalle has several paragraph-lists of nefarious individuals and organizations in which some overlap, one example:

 

The M.O. of George Soros, Barack Obama, Muslims, the Roman Catholic Church, Organized Crime, the United Nations, Obama’s Administration, Liberals, Socialists and Communists, and Hilary Clinton is the same.

 

I point the “Roman Catholic Church” in bold text. As huge as the comment is, his inclusion of the Catholics as nefarious actors is not sourced. This leads me to believe a bit of personal animus against Catholics which is not an uncommon issue even among good moral upstanding Protestants (as opposed to a hate group).

 

I am a Protestant/Charismatic/Word-of-Faith Christian. Being in this crowd I have received share of animus from Mainstream Protestants and Catholic in Denominational Christianity.

 

The irony of LaSalle’s animus toward Catholics is he is commenting to a post that showed my displeasure of Jew-Hating Muslims promoting the proven forgery/hoax document The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as legit.

 

Those that have animus toward Catholics have some legit gripes with Catholic Dogma, such as: Papal Infallibility, encouraging prayers to angels and canonized saints and so on.

 

The reality is that devout Catholics have the same Conservative Family values as Biblical-minded Protestants. Today’s modern world has both Catholics and Protestants that have eschewed the Bible as God’s Word to Believers. These watered down diluted Catholics and protestants are worthy of criticism but not animus. Well, that’s my two-cents on the Catholics.
You might want to bookmark William LaSalle’s comment enabling to return to where you left off if you need a break from reading this book of frustration of virus of Leftists polluting the U.S. Government and the Constitution of the United States of America.

[Blog Editor Update 2/17/18: It took me forever to format this post at my flagship Blog. Forgive me, I’m feeling a bit lazy and I’m choosing not to the format thing on this blog. Ergo, I am truncating this post through William LaSalle’s first stand alone link. Read the rest at SlantRight 2.0.]

JRH 2/16/18

Please Support NCCR

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

William LaSalle

Posted as a comment “Article In Egyptian Government Daily: Trump’s … About Jerusalem Is … Phase In … Of ‘The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion’

Comment posted at G+ Community Truth Warriors

Truth Warriors Date: Feb 15, 9:52 AM

Comment Date: Feb 15, 2018

Comment Marked as Spam by Google awaiting Moderator/Owner Final Decision

 

The Traitors Hillary and Barry and the criminal, socialist, radical Islamic Terrorist supporting Democrats.

 

More than 11,000 private messages from Julian Assange reveal the WikiLeaks founder believed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was a “well connected, sadistic sociopath.”

On November 19, 2015, Assange said: “Her role in the war in Libya is what should bring her down, however, the GOP is too close to others who have benefitted to exploit this, it seems. that Hillary helped to sew the foundation for ISIS against Pentagon generals’ advice seems huge. But the GOP resolutely ignores it.

Our CIA and FBI have no credibility because from 2008 through 2016 they were on the wrong side.

 

Robert Mueller and Huma Mahmood Abedin should be a FBI paid Informants, to escape charges of Treason and working against the Government of the United States, on the Treason of Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama and his Administration on the Uranium One Deal and the Election Tampering by George Soros and his NGO’s and the Nations with Islamic Law in 2008, 2012, and 2016.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/11/14/hillary-clinton-uranium-one-deal-russia-explainer-244895

What you need to know about Clinton and the Uranium One deal

Sessions has raised the possibility of the DOJ probing the matter, as Trump has publicly called for.

By LOUIS NELSON

11/14/2017 03:48 PM EST

 

Attorney General Jeff Sessions this week raised the possibility that a special counsel may be appointed to investigate potential wrongdoing by the Clinton Foundation, specifically suggestions that a U.S. government panel approved the sale of a large uranium firm to Russian interests in exchange for donations to the foundation.

 

The so-called Uranium One deal has been a focus of conservative media and President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly asked on Twitter why the DOJ is not actively investigating the matter.

 

What is the Uranium One deal?

 

The deal in question involves the sale of a Canadian company, Uranium One, with mining interests in the U.S. to Rosatom, Russia’s nuclear energy agency. The sale occurred in stages, beginning in 2009 when Rosatom purchased a minority stake in Uranium One, and continued in 2010, when the Russian agency took ownership of a 51 percent share of the company. In 2013, a third transaction gave Rosatom full ownership of Uranium One.

 

With its purchase of Uranium One, Rosatom assumed control of roughly 20 percent of uranium production capacity in the U.S. The current licenses issued to Rosatom’s U.S. subsidiaries, issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, prohibit the company from exporting uranium outside the country, according to OilPrice.com.

 

 

What are the allegations of wrongdoing?

 

Controversy surrounding the deal largely pertains to 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state in 2010 when the State Department signed off on Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One. Several of Uranium One’s owners were also donors to the Clinton Foundation, giving $145 million to the charitable foundation, and critics have alleged that Clinton greenlighted the sale to appease donors to her family’s … READ MORE at SlantRight 2.0

 

From #NeverTrump to #NeverClinton


Hillary 2016 - Laws R 4 Little People

Here is a post that I pray provokes the sting of reality to Conservatives that are taking the Never Trump stand. If you enjoyed the last 7 ½ years Obama’s Leftist fundamental transformation of America, by all means write-in your favorite Conservative, vote for a Third Party or don’t vote at all. Following the Never Trump path will ensure the election of Obama’s third term vicariously through Crooked Hillary.

 

Honestly answering Mark Alexander’s check list of “Who is more likely to …”, should shake a Never Trumper out of their righteous indignation and principled hubris over Donald Trump’s perceived lack of integrity and at least give him a shot to keep at least some of his promises.

 

If the Donald screws up, how bad could it be compared to the continued dilution of America’s moral fiber and divested Liberty with another four to eight years of a Leftist POTUS?

 

JRH 7/29/16

Please Support NCCR

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

From #NeverTrump to #NeverClinton

Vote for the Supreme Court! Choosing not to vote for the “lesser of two evils” is a vote for the greater of those evils.

 

By Mark Alexander

July 27, 2016

The Patriot Post

 

“In the midst of these pleasing ideas we should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections.” —John Adams (1797)

 

Hillary v Trump

Hillary v Trump

 

(Aggravation Alert: I have received a considerable number of objections from fellow Patriots this year complaining either that my analysis of Donald Trump was too hard or too soft. This column is directed at those who believe either one to be true — the #NeverClinton and #NeverTrump folks who plan to abstain or vote for a third-party candidate.)

 

It’s no small irony that the Socialist Democratic Party is hosting its confab in Philadelphia this week, the cradle of Liberty and Rule of Law.

 

On the opening night, Bernie Sanders, the candidate who was narrowly defeated by Clinton thanks to hacked DNC emails indicating they rigged the primary, offered this assessment of the last eight years: “Together, my friends, we have begun a political revolution to transform America, and that revolution — our revolution — continues.”

 

If that sounds familiar, it should. That “political revolution to transform America” would be the fulfillment of Obama’s 2008 campaign promise of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

 

On the other hand, Republicans should be debating the re-election of Mitt Romney this year, but we aren’t. Here’s why.

 

Without debating Romney’s merits all over again, the reason that the contest this year is not between Romney/Ryan and Clinton/Kaine is because millions of “faith and values” voters chose to sit it out in 2012. Weeks before the 2012 election, I had a very intelligent young Christian woman ask a question far too typical of evangelicals: “Can you really vote for a Mormon?”

 

Of course, in addition to those evangelicals, there were also millions of principled conservatives who didn’t cast their ballots in 2012, protesting that Romney was a centrist, moderate, Northeastern elitist.

 

So how did that work out?

 

Four more years of Barack Obama’s colossal failures in both domestic and foreign policy.

 

Let’s review.

 

Obama’s domestic policies have been defined by his litany of lies and legacy of scandals, most notably the failure of his so-called “economic recovery” plan; his long list of ObamaCare lies; his IRS Enemies List targeting conservatives; his “Fast and Furious” gun control ploy; the VA death panels cover-up; the immigration crisis on our southern border, and the long-overdue resignation of his corrupt attorney general, Eric Holder.

 

The Obama-Clinton foreign policy malfeasance is unparalleled in American history, including the Benghazi cover-up ahead of the 2012 election; the “Russian Spring” in Crimea; the hollow “Red Line” in the Syrian sand; the Middle East meltdown in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Jordan and Gaza; the disintegration of Iraq; the dramatic resurgence of al-Qa’ida; the rise of the Islamic State; and the re-emergence of Iran as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, which is now metastasizing into Western Europe and North America.

 

All that being the case, once again, millions of conservatives are reluctant to vote because the choices are the assurance of extending Obama’s disgraceful legacy for four more years under a Clinton regime or the prospect that Donald Trump will prove to be the “lesser of two evils” come January 2017.

 

For value and principle conservatives wrestling with whether to vote for Trump or not at all, political philosophers and moral theologians have written for generations about the “incommensurability in values,” or, in common parlance, choosing between the lesser of two evils.

 

Some of my conservative friends subscribe to the observation of 19th century British theologian Charles Spurgeon, who wrote, “Of two evils, choose neither.” But Spurgeon’s words, as related to evil actions, are taken out of context in reference to civic duty. Of such duties, Spurgeon said, “I would not, however, say … despise the privilege which you have as citizens.”

 

The question of voting for Trump is no quandary for me.

 

Obama in a blie Hillary outfit toom by Ramirez

Obama in a blue Hillary outfit

 

While I understand well the nature of presidential character, and believe both Clinton and Trump fall substantially short of that character, I also understand that the outcome of the November election will not only determine our president for at least the next four years, but also the composition of the Supreme Court for at least the next quarter-century. Think about that before you decide to stay home this year or to cast a “protest vote” for a third-party candidate.

 

On this point, I would state emphatically that those who choose to sit this election out or “choose neither” are making a choice. In fact, I would argue that handing this election to Hillary Clinton is far more evil than choosing the lesser of the two. If you can’t vote for Trump, then at least vote against Clinton. If you can’t vote for Trump, then at least vote for the Supreme Court. And make no mistake: A vote this year for a third-party candidate in any state where the Clinton v Trump contest is close constitutes a vote for Clinton and a third term for Obama. Period.

 

After the conservative congressional advances across the nation in 2010 and 2014, despite the needless presidential loss in 2012, throwing this year’s contest to Clinton would be disastrous.

 

Conservative political analyst Dennis Prager wrote a letter “To My Conservative #NeverTrump Friends,” in which he makes the case for supporting Trump:

 

“The ‘conscience’ argument that one can sleep with a clear conscience by not voting for Trump [asserts] that your conscience is clear after making it possible for Clinton to win. … In the 2016 presidential race, I am not interested in moral purity. I am interested in defeating the left and its party, the Democratic Party. The notion … that we can live with another four years of a Democratic president is, forgive me, mind-boggling. To that end … multiple additional leftists on the Supreme Court, a Republican presidential victory in 2020 would mean nothing. … Left-wing judges pass so many left-wing laws that they render those who control Congress, and even the White House, almost irrelevant. I just don’t understand how anyone who understands the threat the left and the Democrats pose on America will refuse to vote for the only person who can stop them.”

 

(Notably, Prager argues that Trump’s convention speech was not “dark enough.”)

 

Last week, Donald Trump delivered his GOP convention acceptance speech, outlining in the broadest terms what his objectives would be if elected president.

This week, Hillary Clinton will conclude the DNC convention with a similar speech, promising mostly the antithesis of the Trump platform. And it is unlikely that any of her adoring media will highlight her extensive record of incompetence and lawlessness.

 

Hillary-BHO mock voters for obeying law

Hillary-BHO mocking law

 

In advance of Clinton’s diatribe, we compiled a list of questions for consideration by those who are not yet committed to vote for Trump. Our editors have expanded that list to include the following questions:

 

Who will achieve more with Republicans in Congress?

 

Who will nominate judges for the federal bench and Supreme Court who will uphold Rule of Law?

 

Who is more likely to formulate and enforce stronger foreign policy in an effort to restore America’s standing in the world?

 

Who is more likely to seek to begin rebuilding America’s military might?

 

Who is more likely to implement policies to protect America and the West from catastrophic terrorist attacks?

 

Who is more likely to clearly identify the greatest ideological threat to the West as “Islamic extremism”?

 

Who is more likely to treat our nation’s military personnel and veterans with the dignity and respect they have earned?

 

Who is more likely to enforce immigration laws and protect American borders?

 

Who is more likely to support the Second Amendment?

 

Who is more likely to reduce taxes?

 

Who is more likely to balance a budget?

 

Who is more likely to address our ruinous national debt?

 

Who is more likely to be a better communicator of free market principles?

 

Who is more likely to reduce oppressive central government regulations?

 

Who is more likely to repeal ObamaCare and implement market solutions for health care?

 

Who is more likely to repeal the onerous Dodd-Frank regulations?

 

Who has more experience creating and protecting American jobs?

 

Who is more likely to promote Americanism rather than globalism?

 

Who is more likely to flex American muscle when dealing with foreign tyrants?

 

Who is more likely to aggressively pursue energy exploration?

 

Who is more likely to re-write trade agreements that undermine the U.S. economy?

 

Who is more likely to populate their administration with free enterprise advocates?

 

Who is more likely to advocate for retention of Republican majorities in the House and Senate?

 

Who is more likely to resist the influence of Wall Street?

 

Who is more likely to reject Obama’s unconstitutional executive overreach?

 

Who is more likely to denounce Black Lives Matter and other Democrat Party fronts seeking to disunite America?

 

I’m sure you can add to this list, and I’m equally sure that Trump will fare better across the board than Clinton.

 

In her convention remarks, Michelle Obama declared, “This election … is about who will have the power to shape our children for the next four or eight years of their lives.” Indeed it is, and well into the next generation. Will our children and their children fare better with leadership from Democrats on the Left or Republicans on the Right?

 

So to my fellow conservatives who don’t plan to vote in 2016, I ask the following: What will our nation look like in 2020? How about 2030?

 

I ask this question not only as a citizen and fellow Patriot, but also as one who, like many other Patriots, has family blood on the line in this election. As the father of a young Marine who is bound by oath to “Support and Defend” our Constitution, I am, like so many of you, deeply concerned about who will be our next commander in chief.

 

The last seven years have been very demoralizing for those of us who are in the trenches every day advocating for Liberty. But take heart. While Liberty is eternal, the contest to maintain its beacon of freedom is also eternal, and sitting this election out or voting for a third-party candidate in a closely contested state only makes that contest more difficult.

 

Finally, the Demos are very divided. Let’s finish them off. Hillary Clinton is a deeply flawed status quo candidate in an election year for change. My advice to anyone who hasn’t yet committed to vote for Trump and the Supreme Court, or at least vote against Clinton: Embrace the suck. Just do it, and convince everyone you know to do the same.

 

(Read our analysis of Hillary Clinton’s DNC convention diatribe, and her plans to take our nation to a much darker place.

 

Pro Deo et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mors
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis

 

________________

*PUBLIUS*

 

The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2016 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

 

REPRINTING, FORWARDING AND POSTING: Subscribers may reprint, forward or post original content from The Patriot Post, in whole or part, in accordance with our Terms of Use, with the following citation: “The Patriot Post (http://patriotpost.us/subscribe/)”

 

[The Patriot Post depends on voluntary support from readers for operations]

 

The Patriot Post
PO Box 507
Chattanooga, TN 37401