How in the World was Trump Elected?

shutterstock_315714344

A friend recently posted an article by the Wall Street Journal, on Facebook. The article was titled, ” ‘Deplorables’ Rise Up to Reshape America,” written by Gerald Seib. Intrigued, as I have always considered the Wall Street Journal to be a respected publication, I read the article. It was insulting to say the least. Sadly, I tossed my Wall Street Journal in the trash and have cancelled my subscription, and with a sigh admit that there is no honest ‘middle of the road’  journalism left in the United States.

We have all heard the bloviating of every major news station and every mainstream publication, who demonized Trump from the beginning, thinking they understand the reason that he was propelled into the White House. Of course, those of us who jumped into the “deplorables” basket freely with enthusiasm, relieved that someone was finally running for office who understood what was happening to our country, know the REAL REASON Trump won. We should all be asking ourselves why anyone would believe the mainstream media in their post-election frenzy, when they clearly lied, misrepresented the truth, cheated in the debates and flat-out lied to the American people during the entire election process. These same naysayers are now standing up clearly delusional in their belief that only they can predict what he will do when he takes control of the White House and the once most powerful Nation in the world.

Well, here’s a newsflash. They didn’t have clue when he joined the race, they purposefully tried to destroy him when he was winning the race and now they will misrepresent, yet again, what they think will happen to the United States now that he has won. In their infinite stupidity and allegiance to the liberal political elite, they scream racist, homophobe, Islamaphobe, bigot and destroyer of the atmosphere in a continued effort to scare anyone who might agree that we need change. I think, as a self-professed deplorable, I should explain the real reason he won from the point of view of a person who actually voted for him.

Unfortunately, the WSJ article is full of accusations, divisiveness and polarization which is, in fact, the message of the liberal left. A left who demands tolerance, unless of course you disagree with them, which will result in the destruction of  your personal property, the burning of your business or the beating of your life. Trump won the White House because the “majority” of Americans who voted for him….whites, blacks, gays, women, Latinos, immigrants (legal), rich, poor uneducated and educated, white-collar and blue-collar are sick of the lawlessness and the complete disregard for the exceptionalism of the United States and its people. The majority of America falls in the middle, not only in opinions, but in a class of people who believe that hard work, the rule of law and our constitution should be important enough to defend. This majority is tired of being sacrificed at the altar of Wall Street and the political elites through bail outs and stimulus given to the very people who destroyed the economy for their own personal gain in the first place. Crooks who were handed our money, earned by the same hard-working American people, who lost their homes, their jobs, their savings and retirement plans. Our money, given to the same crooks who were allowed to take the millions they stole and continue with their lives while never being punished or held accountable for their illegal manipulation of the housing market in the first place.

This ‘Trump’ majority was tired of hearing Democrats and our President apologize for the very things that made this country great and safe, while throwing anyone, who held this country dear, under the bus. A bus full of politically well-connected politicians, CEO’s and special interests who were purposefully throwing billions of American dollars to the United Nations while they, in their high and mighty, misguided infinite wisdom, want the UN to rule the world. ‘Globalization,’ the new buzz word of the liberal left. A word that ultimately means that the US should be bowing to the altar of the same power-hungry global elites who think they know what is best for the ‘stupid’ Americans. The same elites that want open borders that will eventually make America a place that no longer honors its citizens or puts them first.  If they could fool us in to handing over our democratic society, then who else in the world would dare question their intentions. The United States is a great nation and one that has served as a beacon of freedom to the majority of the world. A country that offers liberty, freedom of speech and religion without fear of persecution. A country where hard work will reap great success. A country where millions will place their money and their lives on the line, in order to be called an American citizen. However, ignoring the immigrants  who have lined up for years to become a part of this great nation, our political elite give ambassadorships, visas and passports to anyone who will write a check to their favorite charity….them. They chastise anyone who disagrees with allowing unvetted refugees, who have already committed mass murder as a thank you to those who have opened their borders, to overtake our nation by calling us racists instead of realists.

Meanwhile here at home, the liberal left, in their misguided self-professed wisdom decided to fundamentally change our great Nation. They took over our healthcare, promising lies of affordability, while knowing from the beginning that a single payer system was the ultimate prize. Our education system, taken over by government, is infiltrated with liberal professors and educators who slowly but surely poison the minds of our future generations. They begin by destroying the integrity of the our nation and then follow-up with altering our actual history to suit their twisted agenda of eventually controlling the masses.  Dumb down the youth of today so they can control the adults of tomorrow.  Now, their successful infiltration of the education system has resulted in a generation who think they are entitled to everything without lifting a finger. A generation who was congratulated and handed trophies in their youth for doing nothing. A generation who is so spoiled and uninformed that they demean the very people who fought for and died for their rights to insult our country and burn our flag without retribution. The same generation who, under the protection of democracy, burn their communities and destroy local businesses because they didn’t get their way. Riots and destruction funded by the liberal elites who use the youth to do the dirty work so they can continue to pretend outrage.  The same generation who cheer the corrupt political elite who have weaponized our government agencies and used them to attack and destroy anyone who dare call out their destructive agendas. A generation who cannot recognize how they are being used by the left to seal a future for the United States that gives the well-connected and the elites more power and more money while the rest of us are sacrificed at the altar of globalism.

Yes, Donald Trump was elected and has, by the wish of the majority of the people, separated himself from the old Republican party and the Democrats, by standing up for life, liberty and the right of every American to pursue happiness without the interference of a bloated, misguided, noninclusive government, who has forgotten its place.  Trump, though the power of the people, will put our government back where it belongs….a government of the people, for the people and by the people.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Americans Held To Different Rule Of Law Than Our Elected Officials!

imagesWhat would happen to any American citizen if their computer servers were subpoenaed and they responded by destroying them?  Do you think jail time would be a potential outcome?  Obviously, Hillary Clinton believes she lives by a different “rule of law” than the average American.  These are the very people who decide what the rule of law will be and obviously, who will be required to live by them.  As we have seen year after year, and term after term, our law makers and our president live by a completely different set of rules than the American citizens.

The Benghazi committee headed by Senator Trey Gowdy, released this statement:

“After seeking and receiving a two-week extension from the Committee, Secretary Clinton failed to provide a single new document to the subpoena issued by the Committee and refused to provide her private server to the Inspector General for the State Department or any other independent arbiter for analysis.”

“We learned today, from her attorney, Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server. While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department. “‘

In July of 1992, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was put into law, to address corporate responsibility and accountability, and also addressed destruction of evidence.

“With the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which President Bush labeled as “the most far-reaching reforms of American business practices since the time of Franklin Delano Roosevelt,” and the increased commitment of prosecutors to stamp out corporate fraud, today’s company executives have more legal requirements and challenges to meet than they have ever faced in the past. In particular, 18 U.S.C. § 1519 takes aim at individuals who obstruct justice by destroying or altering documents in an attempt to thwart criminal and other government investigations or inquiries.”

The institution of this law allows for more strict enforcement and punishment of individuals who destroy evidence during an investigation or criminal case, and punishes those who destroy evidence under even the “contemplation” of an investigation.

“The new provisions reach those who destroy documents merely “in contemplation” of an investigation or “any matter” within the jurisdiction of a federal agency. Moreover, destruction of documents under § 1519 contains a maximum sentence of twenty years, at least twice what could be attained under the previous statutory scheme.”

Based on this law, the average American citizen can be sentenced to prison for destroying evidence even when the government is merely thinking about investigating them or their company. Martha Stewart was sent to jail under the provisions of this law. So it appears as though Hillary Clinton has broken the law and should be held accountable. This means jail time.  But will she be punished as any other American would be?  Only time will tell if the powers at be will demand she follow the rule of law or if, once again, the Clintons and everyone else on the Hill will be held under different  standards than the rest of us.

Although Hillary Clinton claimed she refused to use her government server because she wanted to avoid   carrying two different phones,  just weeks before in an interview, she admitted to having an iPhone, a blackberry and a iPad.

Clinton said, during her press conference at the UN,

“The vast majority of my work emails went to government employees at their government addresses, which meant they were captured and preserved immediately on the system at the State Department.”

Yet it was discovered that “Hillary Clinton emailed with her top advisers at the State Department about the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya on their own personal emails,” as reported by The New York Times.

During her press conference at the UN, Clinton said,

“The server contains personal communications from my husband and me, and I believe I have met all of my responsibilities and the server will remain private and I think that the State Department will be able, over time, to release all of the records that were provided. “

When asked about emails, Bill Clinton stated he only sent two emails his entire time in office, one of them going to John Glenn in 1998 and the other went to U.S. troops serving in the Adriatic. He said he still does not use email today.

Questions still remain regarding the legality of Hillary Clinton’s deletion of her server.  Americans have to ask themselves if this is the person that should be running for president of the United States? We have certainly seen the negative results of a “lack of transparency” within the Obama administration.

The American people are owed the truth and should have access to the communications from and between our elected officials. When we begin to allow the laws to be manipulated by those in power, while we are held to task, we certainly have graduated from the “elected over the electorate to the ruling over the ruled”- Edward Snowden.

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

“Trickle Down Hatred and Contempt”

COMIC white house _edited-1 copy copy

Trickle down hatred and contempt. Is it real? Is it being used to control us?  Where does the buck stop on this issue, or more importantly, where does it begin?

We have all heard of trickle down economics, but what about trickle down hatred and contempt?  Can a leader set the stage and simply, imply by their action or non action, that they will tolerate hatred and contempt of a specific group in order to further their own agenda? Can negative comments by a leader regarding specific groups of people influence how those people will be treated or seen by others? Should the president of the United States be  representing only the portion of the public that believes as he does? How do our leader’s comments and actions influence the level of tolerance or acceptance exhibited by the American people?

The International Journal of Leadership Studies released a study by Diane J. Chandler from the Regent University School of Divinity, United States titled, “The Perfect Storm of Leaders’ Unethical Behavior: A Conceptual Framework,

“We can and do condemn the actions of leaders who decide to lie, belittle followers, and enrich themselves at the expense of the less fortunate.”  Unethical leadership behavior is, therefore, defined  as the organizational process of leaders acting in a manner inconsistent with agreed upon standards of character, decency, and integrity, which blurs or violates clear, measurable and legal standards, fostering constituent distrust because of personal interest.”

“Unethical behavior and its persistence must have a catalyzing starting place, a tipping point moment that prompts all subsequent unethical behavior, similar to the vortex of a tornado drawing everything into its fury.”

“Unethical charismatic leaders select or produce obedient, dependent, and compliant followers. Consequently when leaders deviate from ethical norms, compliant followers tend not to critique leaders’ decisions, since leaders are considered to be the standard bearers for moral conduct. The downside of charisma concerns possible negative consequences, including abuse of personalized power, the nurture of blind loyalties, and the inhibition of any criticism.”

Since the beginning of the Obama presidency, many of his speeches have resulted in great condescension towards Americans who disagree with his policies.  Obama has claimed that Americans who don’t agree with his administration on climate change are “a fairly serious threat to everybody’s future,” and “we don’t have time for a meeting of the flat earth society.” In another speech,  “You go in to small towns in Pennsylvania and it’s not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to their guns and their religion.”  In another, “Ideological extremism and maximalist position is much more prominent in the Republican party.”   Obama has made negative inferences regarding Fox News on more than one occasion, and a top official in his cabinet called Netanyahu a “Chickens**t.” In a ‘hot mic’ moment, Obama was caught calling tea party members, “dangerous extremists.” Is calling out those who disagree with his policies the proper behavior for the President of the United States? Are those who disagree, really a threat to society, racists, naysayers, flat-earthers, terrorists and extortionists?

When the president demonizes groups that disagree with him is he encouraging the mistreatment and exploitation of these groups? Do his comments influence and encourage the press and his public supporters to treat members of the tea party as extremists,  small town Americans as crazy and christians as religious fanatics? Is it right for the President of the United States to single out members of American society for disdain, ridicule or potential retaliation?

In June of 2013, according to a Rasmussen report, one in four voters who supported Obama reported believing that the tea party was the biggest terror threat to the United States. The most surprising aspect of this poll was that one in four believed that tea party members were not only the biggest threat to the United States, but a bigger threat than terrorists.

What about the race card?  Has the president and his team, used race as a tool to garner support for their policies, elicit votes or basically stir up opposition and in turn create more racial divide?

In October, in the Review and Outlook section of the Wall Street Journal, it was said,

“All this brings to mind a young presidential candidate named Barack Obama, who warned in 2008 that Republicans would play the race card. “They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. ‘He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’” he told a rally. Mr. Obama won, and won again, but that hasn’t stopped Democrats from rolling out that same racism charge at any opportunity, using it in particular as a tool to drive minority turnout in elections….But Democrats do themselves no credit and the country no good by playing up racial divisions for partisan ends. Alas, they’ll keep doing it until voters stop rewarding them with votes.”

Are there still racial issues currently in the United States? As long as there are people in the world, there will always be differing opinions and therefore discrimination against many races and religions.   However, in the United States, we have made giant steps towards resolving these issues since Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. In 2008, we elected a black president.  According to exit polls, President Obama did better with white voters than the past 2 democratic nominees, John Kerry and Al Gore. However, even with such great support from whites, Democrats still blame racism for the downward spiral of support for Obama.  Did every white person who voted for Obama suddenly turn racist? Or could it possibly be attributed to a failure in his policies and the continued stagnation of the economy and job creation among other heated issues?

In his recent speech to the UN, Obama compared the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson to the situation the world faces with ISIS. Does this place mis-founded ideas about racism over and above the threats by ISIS? Do his comments supporting Michael Brown over the police, prior to the completion of an investigation, cause distrust of our police by other communities, therefore encouraging unnecessary protests and dissension?

Does Obama’s silence on the slaughter of Christians around the world, represent a trickle down condemnation, and therefore, without words, send a message that Christians are no longer a group that we, as Americans, should support?

Ben Carson a pediatric neurosurgeon, and current candidate for the 2016 presidential election said,

“We need to understand that we are not each others’ enemies in this country. And it is only the political class that derives its power by creating friction. It is only the media that derives its importance by creating friction…that uses every little thing to create this chasm between people. This is not who we are……I think one of the keys to leadership is recognizing that everybody has gifts and talents. A good leader will learn how to harness those gifts toward the same goal.”

Martin Luther King said,

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but the content of their character.”

As Americans we must not allow our leaders to use polarization for their own political ends. We must work towards a common goal and find solutions to make the country stronger.  Having an open mind and listening to all sides is a true sign of maturity, broad mindedness and tolerance. If we can all learn to co-exist and attempt to understand the position of others, instead of demonizing those who think differently, the country will be able to heal itself.   If you preach tolerance, and expect other to be tolerant, then you must be tolerant yourself. If you preach divisiveness, then you must expect divisiveness from others, therefore prohibiting the very tolerance we all so desperately  want.
 We must recognize, that when we support leaders who use polarization to their own political ends, then it will, one day,  be our own beliefs that will be at the receiving end of the trickle down hatred and contempt.
Links: (http://www.regent.edu/acad/global/publications/ijls/new/vol5iss1/IJLS_Vol5Is1_Chandler%20(2).pdf)
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/307655-obama-we-dont-have-time-for-a-meeting-of-the-flat-earth-society
http://redalertpolitics.com/2014/08/09/obama-calls-democrat-position-common-sense-trashes-republican-view-wacky-nonsense-new-york-times-interview/

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather

Against the Rule of Law, Terrorists Still Funded by U.S!

shutterstock_141927565

 

Since 1990, the United States Government has committed $5 billion in bi-lateral assistance to the Palestinian Authority (PA) who continue to be the largest per capita recipients of international foreign aid.

In 2006, Hamas, a terrorist organization,  participated and won a majority in the Palestinian parliament, and as a result, the Palestinian Authority (PA) formed a coalition government with Hamas.  Mahmoud Abbas claimed the presidency and Ismail Haniya, a member of Hamas, became the prime minister. However, there was fighting between the two factions over a failed deal to share government power, and over 600 Palestinians were killed. As a result, the government coalition split leaving Haniya, (Hamas) in control of the Gaza Strip, and Abbas (PA) the West Bank.

Who is Hamas? They were established in 1987 and their origins begin in Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. What do they stand for? In 2006, The New York Times reported on the Hamas Charter which includes, but is not limited to the following items,

  • Hamas’ goal is Jihad and the death of Jews.
  • All Muslims are duty bound to commit jihad against Israel
  • Peace is not an option
  • Women must train their children to become Jihad fighters
  • Hamas cares about human right and religious toleration provided all other religions live in the shadow of Islam.
  • (http://lawofnations.blogspot.com/2006/01/hamas-party-platform.html)

In 2014, the two groups, again, decided to join forces which resulted in the halting of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Because of the creation of this new coalition government between Hamas and the Palestinians,  Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, responded by saying,

“So instead of moving into peace with Israel, he (Abbas) is moving into peace with Hamas. He has to choose. Does he want peace with Hamas or peace with Israel. You can have one but not the other. I hope he chooses peace; so far he hasn’t done so.”

Should the United States continue its financial support of the Palestinian Authority? More importantly, is it in line with the letter of United States law?

In a report for the Congressional Research Service, prepared by Jim Sanotti, Specialist in Middle Eastern affairs, there are three U.S. policies that dictate the reason for the financial support to the Palestinians from the United States: 

  • Preventing terrorism against Israel from Hamas and other militant organizations.
  • Fostering stability, prosperity and self-governance in the West Bank that inclines Palestinians- including those in the Hamas controlled Gaza Strip- toward peaceful coexistence with Israel and a “two-state solution.”
  • Meeting humanitarian needs

Additionally, the Congressional Research Service states there are restrictions on the United States offering aid to Palestinians, which includes, but it not limited to the following:

  • No aid is permitted for Hamas or Hamas controlled entities.
  • No aid is permitted for a power-sharing PA government that includes Hamas as a member or that results from an agreement over which Hamas exercises “undue influence” unless they have accepted the following 2 principles.  1. recognition of the “Jewish state of Israel’s right to exist” and 2. acceptance of previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

The United States has identified Hamas as a “Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization” in October of 1997.  At the website for the U.S. Department of State, there is a list of the current foreign organizations that have been classified as “terrorists.”  In order for the State Department to classify a group as terrorist, they must meet the Legal Criteria for Designation:

  • It must be a foreign organization
  •  It must engage in terrorist activity  or retain the capability and intent to engage in terrorist activity or terrorism.
  • The organization’s terrorist activity must threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security of the United States.

Congress and members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee have raised concerns about  continued U.S. financial support to the Palestinian Authority.  However, even with the restrictions and definitions required by the rule of law, President Obama has stated that he will continue offering U.S. financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority, even though they have formed a coalition government with Hamas, which clearly is in direct conflict with the rule of law. Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee made the following statements:

“The administration is not demanding that [Abbas] return to the negotiation table with Israel without preconditions nor that he stops his unilateral statehood scheme at the U.N.”

“If the PA refuses to go back to the negotiation table with Israel and will not recognize a two state solution, why does the United States continue to offer financial aid to the Palestinians/Hamas?”

“The administration also says we need to help rebuild the Palestinian economy at a time when our economy is facing serious challenges and Americans are suffering.”

How much does the United States currently give in financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority?  In 2014, the United States offered approximately $440 million in assistance to the Palestinians and an additional $200 million annually through the U.N Relief and Works Agency, (UNRWA). Congress has raised concerns in regards to the UNRWA noting that funds might be used to support terrorists. UNRWA claims it screens staff and contractors every 6 months for terrorist ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, however, their screening does not include Hamas, Hezbollah or other terrorist groups in the area.

Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netenyahu spoke out in a speech made to the UN in 2014,

 “Last week, many of the countries represented here rightly applauded President Obama for leading the effort to confront ISIS. And yet weeks before, some of these same countries, the same countries that now support confronting ISIS, opposed Israel for confronting Hamas. They evidently don’t understand that ISIS and Hamas are branches of the same poisonous tree.”

“…… they all share a fanatic ideology. They all seek to create ever-expanding enclaves of militant Islam where there is no freedom and no tolerance – Where women are treated as chattel, Christians are decimated, and minorities are subjugated, sometimes given the stark choice: convert or die. For them, anyone can be an infidel, including fellow Muslims.” 

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is deep in negotiations with Iran and their president, Haassan Rouhani,  in assisting in the fight with ISIS. However, what will we need to concede in order to obtain their support, and do we really want to make a deal with the devil?  Iran is a supporter of terrorism and is currently helping Syria’s Assad in the slaughter of rebels, gays, and Christians and has also threatened to wipe Israel and Jews off the map.  Are these really the people we want to climb into bed beside?

President Obama wants to loosen sanctions against Iran in exchange for their promise not to develop Nuclear weapons. A November 24 deadline is looming for Iran and the P5+1 group (U.S. , France, China, Britain, Russia and Germany) to discuss whether Iran will be allowed to continue to enrich uranium in defiance of U.N Security Council resolutions. President Rouhani has said that Iran will not “surrender” on the question of enrichment. In response to Obama, over 30 Republican senators sent a letter to John Kerry, Secretary of State saying,

“We have learned that the United States and its P5+1 negotiating partners may now be offering troubling nuclear concessions to Iran in the hopes of rapidly concluding negotiations for a ‘deal.’ Given that a nuclear Iran poses the greatest long-term threat to the security of the United States, Israel and other allies, we are gravely concerned about the possibility of any new agreement that, in return for further relief of U.S. led international sanctions, would allow Iran to produce explosive nuclear material.”

In August of this year, Iran’s president Hassan Rouhani said,

Iran supports the brave resistance of great and patient Palestinians and Gazan people.” Muslims in Gaza stood firm in the face of blood thirsty Zionists’ bombs and missiles and emerged victorious. Iran always stands by Palestine, Iraq and Syria. The Iranian nation will take the next steps with more power. The world knows that threats and sanctions against this great nation will have no effect.”

In his speech to the UN, Netanyahu further said,

“To defeat ISIS and leave Iran as a threshold nuclear power is to win the battle and lose the war.”

President Obama could learn something from him!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmailby feather