There have been unsubstantiated rumors that Hillary Clinton
is about to be indicted. Very recently the Huffington
Post put out a report that an indictment was imminent, then the report was
pull off the HuffPo website in less
than 24 hours:
Huffington Post Removes Article
Claiming Hillary Clinton Will Be Indicted
The liberal publication Huffington
Post removed an article on its website Sunday claiming that the FBI plans to
pursue an indictment against Hillary Clinton on federal racketeering charges.
The Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States Federal Law passed in 1970
that was designed to provide a tool for law enforcement agencies to fight
organized crime. RICO allows prosecution and punishment for alleged
racketeering activity that has been executed as part of an ongoing criminal
enterprise.
Activity considered to be
racketeering may include bribery, counterfeiting, money
laundering, embezzlement, illegal gambling, kidnapping, murder, drug
trafficking, slavery, and a host of other nefarious business practices.
James Comey and The FBI will
present a recommendation to Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the Department
of Justice, that includes a cogent argument that the Clinton Foundation is an
ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and
soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors to
individuals, corporations and even governments both foreign and domestic.
…
But the article link now directs to a page that says
“404” with a frownie face and the message “This is so
embarrassing” after Huffington Post took the piece down Sunday.
In this vein the Freedom
Outpost cross posts a PBS
News Hour interview with a Washington
Post reporter talking about how egregious Hillary Clinton’s email scandal
has become. When two Left leaning news media outlets begin reporting Hillary is
in trouble then I am guessing something is up for Crooked Hillary.
(Spoiler Alert: The
PBS interview is so bland you may fall asleep before the end of the five minute
or so segment. Tape your eyes open and listen to the details it is quite
enlightening.)
Clinton Cooked: Report on Email Scandal Worse Than
Initially Expected (Video)
Even though this specific report has no “official” legal
ramifications, it very likely provides a small window for the general public to
gain some idea as to the nightmare the FBI is dealing with, and that
doesn’t look very good for Mrs. Clinton moving forward.
The State Department’s report condemning Hillary Clinton has
brought the debate over her conduct as Secretary of State back to the forefront
of the political landscape, and throws the race for the White House into
uncharted territory. Judy Woodruff talks to Rosalind Helderman of The
Washington Post about the details of the report and why Clinton’s violations
are worse than her predecessors’.
In the video below, you’ll learn that the main purpose of
the most recent report that could jeopardize Clinton’s bid for the White House,
was to examine the overall usage and handling of State Department email while
in office, and then the preservation of those government records upon leaving
office. The investigation examined the records for the five
previous Secretary’s [sic] of State to get a fair comparison. This
particular report concluded that of the last five Secretaries, Hillary’s
violation of Department policy, and her lack of compliance with the
Federal Records Act were by far the most egregious.
The primary reason that Clinton’s records were the worst,
was because during her tenure as Secretary, the threat and risks associated
with cyber security were much better understood than they were perhaps 15
years prior to her tenure. That fact, coupled with her lack of taking anything
even resembling reasonable steps to protect and securer
the information in her possession made her the worst offender.
The report also states that despite Clinton’s public
statements about how she has remained always willing to help in any way
requested of her, the reality behind the scenes has been anything but
cooperation from Hillary and most of her aids. The Department’s Inspector
General still has yet to ever interview Hillary herself (at
all), because Hillary has refused every request. Also, several of her
aids have failed to respond to various questions asked of them.
Even though this specific report has no “official”
legal ramifications, it very likely provides a small window for the general
public to gain some idea as to the nightmare the FBI is dealing with, and
that doesn’t look very good for Mrs. Clinton moving forward. Perhaps
it's best Bernie is sticking around after all.
The State Department’s report
condemning Hillary Clinton has brought the debate over her conduct as Secretary
of State back to the forefront of the political landscape, and throws the race
for the White House into uncharted territory. Judy Woodruff talks to Rosalind
Helderman of The Washington Post about the details of the report and why
Clinton’s violations are worse than her predecessors’.
Hillary Clinton and her top
aides failed to comply with U.S. State Department policies on records by using
her personal email server and account, possibly jeopardizing official secrets,
an internal watchdog concluded in a long-awaited
report (pdf) on Wednesday.
Clinton also never sought
permission from the department's legal staff to use the server, which was
located at her New York residence, a request which—if filed—"would
not" have been approved, the report by the agency's Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) states.
"At a minimum, Secretary
Clinton should have surrendered all emails dealing with Department business
before leaving government service and, because she did not do so, she did not
comply with the Department's policies that were implemented in accordance with
the Federal Records Act," it continues.
The findings are the latest
development in the email scandal that has persisted throughout Clinton's
presidential campaign to little effect—but its conclusion was unexpectedly
critical.
And it could spell trouble for
the former secretary of state in the final stretch of the election, as public
trust in Clinton continues to decline while polls
show her rival Bernie Sanders has become the most formidable
candidate against Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump.
As Politico's Rachael Bade,
Josh Gerstein, and Nick Gass write:
The watchdog’s findings could
exact further damage to Clinton’s campaign, and they provide fresh fodder for
Trump, who has already said he will go after Clinton for the email scandal
“bigly.” The Democratic frontrunner’s bid for the White House has already been
hindered by high unfavorability ratings, with people saying they don’t trust
her.
The report represents the
latest pushback — in this case by a nonpartisan government entity — against her
campaign’s claim that she did not break any rules and that her use of a private
server was completely allowed.
In fact, technology staff in the
Information Resource Management (S/ES-IRM) office who brought up concerns about
Clinton's use of her private server were reportedly instructed not to question
the arrangement.
"In one meeting, one staff
member raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary
Clinton’s account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in
order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements," the report states.
"According to the staff member, the Director [of S/ES-IRM] stated that the
Secretary's personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal
staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further. As previously
noted, OIG found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser
reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton's personal system."
Other staff from different
offices were also instructed "never to speak of the Secretary's personal
email system again."
On Wednesday, Clinton's campaign
was quick to point out that the report's criticisms also extended to the State
Department in general, which the OIG found to be riddled with
"longstanding, systemic weaknesses related to electronic records and
communications" and noted that other department officials, including
former Secretary of State Colin Powell, also used personal e-mails while in
office.
The findings were issued a day
after a group of U.S. intelligence veterans, including William Binney, John
Kiriakou, and Diane Roark, published an open
letter to President Barack Obama urging him to expedite the
forthcoming FBI report on Clinton’s alleged email security violations.
"The question is not
whether Secretary Clinton broke the law," the letter states. "She
did. If the laws are to be equally applied, she should face the same kind of
consequences as others who have been found, often on the basis of much less
convincing evidence, guilty of similar behavior."
Clinton Cooked: Report on
Email Scandal Worse Than Initially Expected (Video)
Edited by John R. Houk with
spellcheck.
Text enclosed by brackets are
by the Editor.
About MIchael DePinto
Michael is a member of the
fast growing un-silent majority that is sick of the insanity going on in this
country right now. He has been accused of being vitriolic, bombastic, sarcastic
to the extreme, and probably worse behind my back. He is sick of being branded
a right wing extremist, racist, homophobe, warmonger, or whatever asinine
adjectives Liberal Progressives have for the words COMMON SENSE these days.
Michael is also a blogger atThe Last Great Standand
and an Attorney.
This is the first time I have read Shamim Mahmood
(Masih) write an op-ed article which openly is critical of Islam. I admire his courage
but he has just embarked on a dangerous path in Pakistan where the Blasphemy
Law is used as a tool to persecute Christians and other religious minorities
with often fabricated accusations of insulting Islam and the pseudo-prophet
Mohammed.
First Shamim addresses the legislative advice of the Council
of Islamic Ideology which recommended essentially to chattelize women on all stratospheres
of life which includes Muslims, Christians, Hindus and etc. Then pulls some
essential understanding Quranic suras that tell Muslims how to treat
Christians.
Then Shamim criticizes the CII as a contradiction of
religious liberty found in America’s First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (AMENDMENT I – The Heritage Guide to The Constitution)
I emphasized the clause of the First Amendment that
addresses Religious Liberty. Shamim has read the interpretation of the First
Amendment based on the Living Constitution
Separation of Church and State. With the persecution that Christians suffer in
Pakistan I can understand Shamim’s excitement about separating Church and State
in totality. I am certain he doesn’t understand the repercussions of total
separation.
I stand with the Originalist interpretation of the
Constitution which can only be changed by a Constitutional
Amendment. The Living Constitution crowd have allowed the Supreme Court of the
United States to change constitutional meanings according to America’s Leftist
interpretation of the way cultural mores have evolved and the way Christian
memes have slowly been disallowed. America’s Left has been making huge strides
in diminishing the influence of Christianity in the USA. This Christian diminishment
has ended prayer in schools, ended
prayers in public forums (e.g. City government or Public School sports events),
removed icons of Western rule of Law such as removing the Ten Commandments from
Courthouses, disallowing symbols of Christmas on taxpayer supported public
property, disallowing Christmas parties or pageants forcing a name change to
Winter festival or celebration, even High School Valedictorian speakers are
forbidden to than Jesus for the Lord’s influence in their life and on and on!
This has been the curse of the Living Constitution concept has brought upon
America.
Originalist interpretation correctly does NOT Church and
State BUT rather prevents the State to establish a State Religion or Church.
Meaning religion (the Founding Fathers envisioned CHRISTIANITY) can influence
the State BUT the State can make zero legislation forcing religion or people to
worship the way the State wants you to worship. The only position the State has
with religion is to protect people to worship as they please or to not worship
at all if a person or people choose atheism. THIS IS ORIGINAL INTENT RELIGIOUS
LIBERTY IN AMERICA.
American Originalists emphasize that NO WHERE in the
Constitution or the First Amendment that the wording of “Separation of Church
and State” exists. Rather the First Amendment Clauses No establishment of
religion (aka Disestablishment Clause) and that religion can be freely exercised
without Federal government interference.
Shamim Masih: Few
days back, Islamic constitutional body, Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) [Wikipedia] has proposed its own
women protection bill, recommending ‘a light beating’ for the wife if she
defies the husband. This recommendations spark outrage though the CII chairman
soften the tone stating ‘violence’ is not permissible in Islam. As he believes
that light beating does not mean violence.
Earlier CII rejected Punjab’s controversial Protection of
Women against Violence Act (PPWA) [“Women's
Protection Bill — A case of men's insecurities”; Dawn; 5/12/16 01:35PM]terming
it un-Islamic and drafted its own bill and will now forward to the Punjab
Assembly. However, the parliament is not bound to consider its recommendations.
The 20-members CII proposed that a husband should be allowed to ‘lightly’ beat
his wife if she defies his commands and refuse to dress up as per his desires;
turns down demand of intercourse without any religious excuse or does not take
bath after intercourse or menstrual periods. The bill also suggested that
beating is also permissible if a woman does not observe Hijab; interacts with
strangers; speaks loud enough that she can easily be heard by strangers; and
provides monetary support to people without taking consent of her spouse.
In a bill of 163-pages there are several bans on women, like
a ban on co-education after primary educations, a ban on women from taking part
in military combat, a ban on welcoming foreign delegations, interacting with
males and making recreational visits with ‘Na-Mehram’ (not known [Possible meaning from Wikipedia]). Female nurses should not be allowed to
take care of male patients and women should be banned from working in
advertisements etc.…. The CII is a powerful body because of its influence on the
political system in Pakistan. It advises the Pakistani legislature whether laws
are in line with the teachings of Islam.
I don’t know for how long blasphemy laws allow me to speak
about Islam or its teaching, but let me tell you; there is difference between
women, children and minorities rights and Islamic permission. There are no
equal rights for women and other minorities residing in a nation in which the
Quran and Sharia Law define culture and society and its rule of law. Women’s
rights given in Islam are the same as recommended by CII. Saudi Arabia,
Afghanistan and Iran are clear examples and so much so Pakistan is another
Sunni Dominated Islamic country inspired by Saudi Arabia.
A Muslim apologist usually says that Islam is religion of
peace and provides the rights for women, children and for the people of the
Book like Christians and Jews. The Council must have given Islamic references
in support of these recommendations. And I am giving few quotes from Quran
about how Islam deal with other minorities, which one of my U.S. friends
quoted.
In the Quran, Christians are
generally referred to as “people of the book” and then in the various suras and
ayahs (or chapters and verses) a number of references are made. In 2:120,
“Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you till you follow
their religion. Say: ‘Verily, Islamic Guidance is the only Guidance. And if you
were to follow their desires after what you have received of Knowledge, then
you would have against Allah neither any protector nor helper.”
In 3:56: “As to those who disbelieve, I
will punish them with a severe torment in this world and in the Hereafter, and
they will have no helpers." In 3:85: “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be
accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.” In
3:118: “O you who believe! Take not as
your helpers or friends those outside your religion since they will not fail to
do their best to corrupt you. They desire to harm you severely. Hatred has
already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse.
Indeed we have made plain to you the verses if you understand.”
3:178 states: “And let
not the disbelievers think that our postponing of their punishment is good for
them. We postpone the punishment only so that they may increase in sinfulness.
And for them is a disgracing torment”. Hardly encouraging for the basis for
a peaceful co-existence and a comfortable pluralism. Muslim love of the Quran
that tells them to physically coerce non-Muslims through humiliation to convert
or to kill them if they insult Islam or its prophet Mohammad is a dooms day
promise toward Christians and other religious minorities in Pakistan.
CII recommendations could rightly be according to Islam but
legislature is not bound to obey it. Religions are one’s own dealing with his
creator but State deals with every individual’s matter and have to protect
every citizen. Today, anyone can construct a mosque, synagogue or temple in the
U.S. or any Christian majority country and can worship according to his faith
but not in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Even if someone says that the
constitution of Pakistan protects the rights of minorities but on the ground the
situation is totally different, Jews cannot even proclaim their faith in
Pakistan. And we are witness to the number of attacks on churches and temples
and on minorities in the country.
Decades back, Christian majority countries have separated
Church from the State matters. The First Amendment to the United States
Constitution includes a clause that calls for the separation of church and state.
Many people now espouse the belief that American government was designed to
include “an impenetrable wall” separating church and state. The Reason would
have been the same [for] the domination of religious leadership supervision
over the state matters. One should learn a lesson from history, and may be
tomorrow we will come up with the conclusion to do so, if we want to survive.
Be Blessed,
Shamim Mahmood
SUPPORT Shamim’s Christian advocacy in Pakistan.
First contact Shamim
in case he has found an easy way to donate. I like to use Western Union sending
money with this LINK to
the destination of Islamabad (Contact
Shamim in case he has changed cities). Shamim’s email
is shamimpakistan@gmail.com,
Western Union may ask for Shamim’s phone - +92-300-642-4560
Greetings to you! Let me introduce myself first, though
many of you are witness to my professional work. I am the only Christian
journalist in this arena with diverse work experience with different media
outlets like Independent News Pakistan (INP), as columnist with “Daily Times”
for two years, two years with one of the leading Urdu daily, “Khabrain” &
Channel 5, Daily Mail and now with Pakistan Today. I have been working as lead
Reporter for “British Pakistani Christian Association” since 2010. As stringer
I have worked with BBC world service. Being a Christian journalist, I have been
writing on minority rights and working as a social reformer/peace maker as
well.
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 KeniteMidianitePriest] 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.
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:
4 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: 5 ‘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. 6 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:
…
2. 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 Enquirer story:
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
3. Amanda Carpenter, Another Of
The National Enquirer’s Women, Has Denied The Story. …
4. The Cruz Super PAC That
Donated Money To The Carly Fiorina Campaign Almost Certainly Didn’t Do It To
Shut Up Sarah Isgur Flores. …
5. Cruz Has Denied The Story,
And Blamed The Trump Campaign For The Smear. …
…
UPDATE: Trump has now
responded in his own typically bombastic manner:
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 NationalEnquirer 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.
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!” –
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” –
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.
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.
