Obama and Hillarious Have Never Failed Me!! Trump Has Every Right To Be A Non-Traditional Candidate!

America's Weakness!
===
I have been listening to Obama for 7 plus years and Hillarious for over 30.  I have come to expect politicians to twist the truth, to bob and weave, to duck, to deny and to act in a two faced manner.  I also do not place a lot of faith in their commitments and promises. I even have come to accept the fact that they can be hypocrites when the moment serves them and their principles and promises often melt when the going gets hot and their "pledges" are exposed to the light of day..

I can also truthfully say Obama and Hillarious have never failed to meet my expectations!!!

Obama lied about health care, Iran, America, the conduct of his appointees, has been two faced in defense of whom he has chosen to defend and has used wedge issues like race and illegal immigration  to divide our nation.  His acts of blatant perfidy are endless.

Hillarious is a committed  "born agin" but not in terms of her religion but in terms of her ability to lie her way out of anything. Yes, she has proven to be a born liar and even fails when trying to come across as being compassionate because she is a pseudo one for political purposes. (See 1 below.)

God, if you are listening,  help America.

And

This was sent to me by a dear friend, fellow memo reader and no fan of Hillary.. Apparently Donald is not the only one seeking the Oval Office who is full of expletives.  His are stated publicly, Hillarious is a more coy grandmother type. (See 1a below.)
===
I will now discuss illegal immigration from two perspectives one emotional and the other logical.

Most anyone in their right mind would agree every nation has a right to construct reasonable laws by which they expect their citizens to be governed.

I would also submit,  most reasonable people would agree a nation has the legal right to secure borders and can enforce this right. If you do not agree, then you are an advocate  of Wendell Wilkie's "One World Concept" and no longer give a fig about who you are.

The issue becomes emotional when a nation which  has failed to protect its borders,  finally decides to do something about this default.  Yes, America has a right to protect its borders but we failed to do so and now must decide what to do about this failure.  In other words, how do we handle either the exportation of illegals and/or construct new laws allowing them to become legal citizens.

Those who wish to gain a political advantage, in order to reshape voting patterns and numbers, obviously favor either allowing illegal immigration to continue and,in the most extreme, allow them the sacred privilege of voting or seek legislation making it  possible for illegals to become citizens. Obviously, gaining favor through entitlements for illegal immigrants moves the needle. (This is what Hillarious' daughter, Chelsea, now suggests her mother is willing to embrace because her mother has said she wants to follow in Obama's path.)

By making illegal immigration a wedge issue and turning it into a battle over "compassion" and not "legality" converts it into an emotional matter and this is what Democrats, Progressives and most particularly Obama, are all about.

Thus, when Trump, the non traditional campaigner, takes a stance in opposition and offers a solution, not in accord with what is deemed the more compassionate view or even rational from a cost or practical  standpoint, rowdy crowds form preventing him and his supporters from another right called freedom of speech and assembly.

Since the press and media know theater and drama sells and they already tend to favor liberal and progressive thinking they highlight the issue and then blame Trump for not only bringing the issue up,  but also for making comments that incite. It is the neat "reversal" ploy Obama has been employing for the past 7 plus years and Democrats have engaged in for decades. What infuriates is, Republicans have given up and allowed themselves to be painted into the "bias" corner. Trump has released this pent up energy of disgust and used it to run an effective and narrow campaign.

Now I will try a logical and reasoned comparison and hope that it touches a responsive chord.

Let us suppose you build a house and have been told you cannot have doors and/or locks or if you are allowed to have them you must not lock them. You come home from work and find your home occupied by a group of foreigners who are sitting down to dinner eating food taken from your own refrigerator. To make matters worse several get ill from the food they prepared and now expect you to pay their medical bill.  When you protest they respond they are entitled.

Let's carry the proposition one step further and say they are not even foreigners but are legal citizens - your neighbors. Does the loss of your right to your security, your property, your privacy to legals makes a difference? Are you the one at fault for building a house whose doors you are not allowed to lock etc.?

If you believe compassion 'trumps' your right to have locks on your door, to protect your property from occupation then you have become a Democrat and you should get in your car, block roads, burn our flag and vote for Hillary or Bernie - capiche?

As an American, do you wish to allow and /or can you accept the fact that your rights have become subservient to those of illegals. If your answer is yes, the experiment called America is over and when you wonder what eventually happens to other freedoms, to our Constitution simply look in the mirror and go out and march with the fascists and live in the jungle you will have helped create.

On the other hand, if you believe rules of law should be obeyed and those who violate them should either be constrained and/or should pay some cost for doing so then you are a Conservative who believes your Constitutional rights have been violated and then the issue to be resolved is whether there is a compromise position that is just and economical and which candidate best appeals to your sense of balance and justice.

Trump has taken the extreme view, has played upon the anger and frustration denial has created but he still has a right to speak, to offer unrealistic ideas and to use inflammatory language and pay the consequences but not be barred from doing so by thugs. That is why we have the ballot box.

If you do not understand that then, in my humble opinion, you are an ignorant citizen who does not understand the beautiful subtleties of our Constitution.  If you choose to protest in a manner depriving others of their rights you are more than ignorant, you are dangerous.

I await a response from the likes of Obama , Hillarious and Bernie to the tack their sympathizers have engaged and reject the blame being placed on Trump, notwithstanding the fact he has chosen the extreme avenue for discussion and offered solutions that are unrealistic. He has every right to be un-presidential, to be authentic and a non typical candidate.
===
Obama and Kerry have a few months left to rub Israel's face in the sand and they are figuring out how best to do it. (See 2 below.)
===
Dick
========================================================================
1)

Why Sanders is an AIPAC No-Show

By JONATHAN S. TOBIN 

The big story about the AIPAC conference is the appearance of Donald Trump and the possibility of a walkout or otherwise negative reaction from some of those in attendance. Trump is deeply despised by many in the pro-Israel community because of his vulgar style of politics and his encouragement of hate and violence. Others at the annual AIPAC gathering are just as unhappy about him because of his inability to articulate a coherent foreign policy, as well as his talk about neutrality between Israel and the Palestinians that is frighteningly reminiscent of the Obama administration he seeks to replace. But while Trump at AIPAC will be yet another edition of the political world’s greatest show on earth, another story that is, in its own way, even more significant, is getting buried. That involves Bernie Sanders’ decision to be the only presidential candidate that is still in the race to decline an invitation to speak to the umbrella pro-Israel lobby group.

Sanders hasn’t yet announced why he will stay away from an event that has always been considered a must for any serious presidential candidate and perhaps there is a chance that he will reconsider. But his decision to avoid AIPAC is important not just because of what it might or might not mean about his own campaign but also because of what it tells us about the base of the Democratic Party that has embraced him.

After Hillary Clinton’s latest primary victories, the already untenable scenarios about Sanders stealing the nomination from the frontrunner are no longer viable. In a statist party that is primarily about holding onto power, the challenge to Clinton was never going to work even if the books weren’t cooked by unelected superdelegates to ensure her victory. But the ability of even a 74-year-old socialist to give Clinton a strong run for her money and to win several states where her hold on African-American voters couldn’t ensure victory has been impressive. Clinton has the money and the party establishment backing that is crucial for the Democrats (though neither factor means much among Republicans this year), but Sanders has won the affection and the enthusiasm of much of the party base as well as young voters.

The party base’s distrust of Clinton’s ties to Wall Street and her weather vane policies on trade and a host of other issues are well known. But the activist core of the Democrats is also alienated from Clinton’s more mainstream foreign policy views. Though she was a reliable supporter of President Obama’s effort to create more “daylight” between Israel and the United States, as well as of the Iran nuclear deal, she is still perceived as being more supportive of the Jewish state than Sanders. Moreover, as polls consistently show, Democrats tend to be far less supportive of Israel than Republicans.

As I wrote in the December issue of COMMENTARY, the gradual “Democratic divorce” from Israel is the work of decades and not merely the result of the feud between Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu. But while the president has exacerbated relations between the two countries, the problem is that much of the left-wing base of his party is more likely to buy into the lies about Israel being an apartheid state than they are to be part of the bipartisan pro-Israel consensus that is at the heart of AIPAC’s continued strength and influence.

Thus, it should hardly be considered surprising that Sanders would choose to avoid an appearance that could only alienate some of his most ardent followers. Indeed, some of them have signed a petition urging him to stay away from AIPAC. Why? Because they view it as “sworn to promote the racist, militaristic, and anti-democratic policies” of the Jewish state in the words of the petition drawn up by radical anti-Zionist propagandist Max Blumenthal (the son of the shadowy Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal).

That disappoints some left-wingers both here and in Israel because they would like Sanders to go to AIPAC so he could tell off the lobby and openly espouse the sort of “even handed” approach to the Middle East that goes even farther than Obama’s “daylight.” But since doing so wouldn’t win Sanders any applause among more mainstream Democrats, he is taking the easy way out and blowing off the conference altogether.

That the most successful candidate for U.S. president who happens to be Jewish would boycott AIPAC might be seen as ironic. But since Sanders’ ties to Judaism and support for Israel have always been marginal to his political career (the only thing that he spoke of as having great meaning to him as Jew is the Holocaust), we shouldn’t be shocked at his decision. To the contrary, it is symbolic of the waning support for Israel among a Democratic Party base that has little interest in backing Israel.

While the question of whether AIPAC members will give Trump a Bronx cheer is transfixing members of the media that will cover the conference, Sanders’ decision to stay away is probably more significant in the long run. While support for Israel is still a matter of bipartisan consensus, Sanders represents the heart of the Democratic Party that has little interest in mobilizing to defend the Jewish state. When one considers that his youthful supporters may eventually have more to say about the future of the Democrats than Hillary’s fans, that’s something that should be deeply troubling to all friends of Israel.


1a) “Broom Stick One” 

LOOK THESE UP IN THE BOOKS AND PAGE NUMBERS CITED IF YOU  WISH. 

EIGHT QUOTES FROM DIFFERENT BOOKS

 Her actual words: 
 
1) "Where is the God damn flag? I want the God damn fucking flag up every morning at fucking sunrise". Hillary to staff at the Arkansas Governor's mansion on Labor Day 1991. From the book "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 244 
 
(2)  “Fuck off!  It's enough I have to see you shit-kickers every day! I'm not going to talk to you, too!  Just do your Goddamn job and keep your mouth shut." Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good Morning." From the book "America Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p.90 
 
(3)  "If you want to remain on this detail, get your fucking ass over here and grab those bags!" Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident. From the book "The First Partner" p. 25 
 
(4) "Stay the fuck back, stay the fuck back away from me! Don't come within ten yards of me, or else! Just fucking do as I say, Okay!!?"  Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail. From the book "Unlimited Access" by Clinton ’s FBI Agent-in-Charge, Gary Aldridge, p.139 
 
(5) "Where's the miserable cock sucker?" (otherwise known as “Bill  Clinton”) Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer. From the book "The Truth about Hillary" by Edward Klein, p. 5 
 
(6) "You fucking idiot" Hillary to a State Trooper  who was driving her to an event. From the book "Crossfire" ~pg.  84 
 
(7) "Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo.  I need those fucking sunglasses!  We need to go back! Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while in route to Air Force One. From the book " Dereliction of Duty" p. 71-72 
 
(8) "Come on Bill, put your dick up! You can't fuck her here!!" Hillary to Gov. Bill Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female. From the book "Inside the White House" by Ronald Kessler, p. 243

There it is ........book, chapter and page.......the real Hillary 
 
Additionally, when she walked around the White House, NO ONE was permitted to look her in the eye, they all had to lower their heads with their eyes towards the ground whenever she walked by. Clearly she is a class act......! 
 
This ill-tempered, violent, loud-mouth, hateful and abusive woman wants to be your next President, and have total control as Commander-in-Chief of our Military, the very Military for which she has shown incredible disdain throughout her public life . 
 
Remember her most vile comment about Benghazi: “What difference at this point does it make?”

Most recent of her outbursts was to Obama when she learned that  the FBI was investigating her:  "Call off your fucking dogs".

 
Now it will be clear why the crew of "Marine One" helicopter nick-named the craft, "Broomstick ONE "

========================================================
2) John Kerry to the World: Let’s Gang up on Israel

 By Stephen M. Flatow 

John Kerry has a new strategy for achieving Mideast peace: mobilize the international community to gang up on Israel.

That was the essence of the secretary of state’s disturbing remarks in Paris on March 13. Kerry declared that the Obama administration is “looking for a way forward” to bring about creation of a Palestinian state. He said that Palestinian statehood is “absolutely essential.”

Not just “an idea worth exploring;” not just “something to be considered’.” Rather, “absolutely essential.” Kerry and President Obama have made up their minds and will not consider any alternatives. They have decided that establishing an independent Palestinian state is the only solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It’s just a question of how to make it happen.

The administration’s attempts to pressure Israel into creating a Palestinian state obviously have not been successful so far. So Kerry is looking for new ways to harangue the Israelis. Standing next to a group of European foreign ministers at the Paris press conference, Kerry said: “There’s not any one country or one person who can resolve this. This is going to require the global community, it will require international support.”

Significantly, Kerry’s quest for an international alliance to pressure Israel comes on the heels of France’s recent announcement that it will try to convene an international conference to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The French said that if the conference failed to produce a Palestinian state, they will go ahead and unilaterally recognize such a state. That’s the French idea of “negotiations.”

The French approach, which Secretary Kerry now seems to be moving towards, is reminiscent of similar proposals that were made back in 1985. Alarmed, then-Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin flew to Washington to try to head off the convening what was being called an “international umbrella” for Mideast negotiations.

“Whenever anyone mentions umbrella, it reminds me of Chamberlain and Munich,” Rabin declared. For Rabin to invoke the memory of Chamberlain selling out to Hitler at Munich — and for Rabin to use those words at a press conference in Washington — vividly illustrates how dangerous he considered the ‘international’ proposal to be.

It’s not hard to understand why Rabin in 1985 opposed such a proposal, and it’s not hard to see why Israel’s leaders today oppose it, too. If Kerry succeeds in his strategy, such an international conference or umbrella would consist of a dozen or more Arab and European countries ganging up on Israel and demanding that the Israelis make unilateral concessions to the Palestinians. Knowing the Obama administration’s pro-Palestinian slant, one must assume that the US would side with the Arabs and Europeans.

The French — evidently with Kerry’s tacit approval, or perhaps even his encouragement–are pushing forward. French diplomat Pierre Vimont will be visiting Israel and the Palestinian Authority this week to promote France’s initiative. French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, appearing alongside Kerry at the press conference: “The conflict is getting worse and the status quo cannot continue.”

The conflict is getting worse? No, it’s not.

The status quo cannot continue? Yes, it can.

I am the last person in the world to minimize the reality of Palestinian terrorism. But there’s no way anybody can say the current attacks are worse than the weekly bus bombings of the 1990s. Israel’s strong military response put an end to the suicide bombings — which shows that if Israel does not fight with one hand tied behind its back, it can beat the terrorists.

And the status quo may not be the ideal solution, but show me a better one that’s feasible. Withdrawing to indefensible borders? Setting up an armed or soon-to-be-armed Palestinian state just a few miles from Jerusalem and Tel Aviv? In 1976, people were saying “the status quo cannot continue.” They were saying it 1986 and 1996 and 2006, too. Yet here we are, nearly 50 years after the 1967 war — and it has continued, because the alternatives have been worse.

Of course, what Kerry and French call the “status quo” is not at all the same as the status quo of the 1970s or 1980s. In 1995, Rabin withdrew from the areas where 98% of the Palestinians reside. For the past 21 years, the Palestinian Authority has functioned as a de-facto state in a large portion of Judea-Samaria. The only thing the PA lacks is a full-fledged army and the ability to import tanks and planes. And from Israel’s point of view, that’s not such a bad status quo.

So maybe it’s time for Kerry and his gang of would-be interveners to step back, take a deep breath, and face the fact that the slogans and ideas of the 1980s — “status quo,” “international umbrella” and the like — are just not suited to today’s reality.

Stephen M. Flatow, an attorney in New Jersey, is the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995.

=========================================================================================