Monthly Archives: December 2015

Hillary’s Flatulence Enhances Global Warming


Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s debate performance Saturday night has had reporters and commentators scrambling to fact check again. Their pursuit of the truth has debunked her claim that the Muslim terrorist group ISIS was employing a video of Donald Trump to recruit new members.

Trump is demanding an apology from the often apoplectic Hillary, but her campaign has slammed the door on that. Even tonight on The Kelly File, with the lovely Martha MacCallum filling in, Clinton associate Lanny Davis maintained HIllary had spoken the truth, though he could not identify any video put together or used by ISIS. He simply pointed to ordinary clips of Trump that he claimed news organizations like Al Jazeera had aired.

While the the news has thrust – some would say continues to thrust – the spotlight on Clinton’s alleged dark deceit, we think it a ploy to cover up a deeper and darker matter: Clinton’s flatulence.

Naturally, it has been hard to penetrate the deep darkness of this cavern of conspiracy. The people we spoke to, some of them experts, would only provide information on condition of anonymity or altered appelation, so we have granted it.

What those people are saying is both the Obama administration and the Clinton campaign want to keep Hillary’s flatulence buried. The reason is not so much because of the avalanche of embarassment that public flatulence instigates, but because of the political irony: her flatulence fuels global warming!

That may seem difficult to believe, perhaps as difficult to believe as global warming itself, but insiders and experts say it’s a fact, both that Hillary lets them rip and that her emissions damage the ozone layer.

They say proof positive was obtained during hearings before Congress. Loaded with prior consumption of some Mexican culinary delights (no word on whether the cooks were “undocumented aliens”), Hillary’s anger propelled what witnesses called “a barrage of boom boom”, something one insider said the photo below demonstrated.

Angry Hillary Clinton 03

An expert in body language, whom we shall call Dr. Phillipe Le Foof, identified several signs in Hillary’s posture. He noted the agony on her angry face, indicative, he said, of a desperate effort against constipational resistance. The angry, wide-open mouth symbolized the deep desire for expulsion and the use of exhalation recoil to force air out at the other end.

Finally, Le Foof pointed to Hillary’s clenched fists as containing both symbolic and actual energy to aid and abet the elimination of her internal pressures, which she used to make a final push.

The result devastated those present in the comparatively packed congressional hearing room already warmer from a persistent malfunction of the air conditioning units. Papers fluttered as the warm winds passed by. People fanned themselves to shoo away the deadly scents. Some got up and left. One woman, in a row near the back, bent over and puked into her purse.

So why isn’t Hillary’s problem reported? First, as a courtesy. Second, because her strategy for the concealment of her ejecta is to lie. Her lies draw the attention of both sides of the press: the conservatives go after them to publish them; the liberals find ways to explain them away or wipe them from the public’s consciousness. She knows in the end nothing will come of her lies, that the cons and the libs will cancel each other out, so she casually flings them to the public as she blasts away.

So neither the administration nor Hillary’s campaign is worried about the the lies or the flatulence per se. They are agonizing, however, over the environmental impact.

Inisders say a small cadre of scientists from the environmental group “Seafoam” (SFOME, Stop Fu****g Our Mother Earth – I know, it should be Esfoam, but with FOME in place, and no C word for stop, they let the “S” lead rather than the phonetics to create something catchy) set up equipment to measure Hillary’s impact on the environment. Using an intricate device called a “methanometer”, they determined that effect was nothing short of devastating.

The scientists found that each time Hillary thundered, the methanometer recorded levels equal to the simultaneous expulsions of 500 to 1,000 bovines. In an hour, she was capable of emissions exceeding 100,000 bovines.

“We are having to drastically revise our timetable for the utter erosion of the ozone layer,” one scientist said. “Needless to say, we will all be tanning a lot faster less than 10 years from now.”

They say Hillary’s dastardly discharges will accelerate global warming and could serve as the prime ignition of a nuclear-like winter.

Observers now believe these revelations begin to shed light on some of Hillary’s previous statements, for instance, her prevarication about coming under fire after landing in Bosnia some years ago.

Hillary later said her claim was a mistake in memory. Insiders say it was only partly a mistake: they and the Bosnians waiting at the airport came under fire from Hillary’s vitriolic vapors. One Bosnian guard at the airport fell down as if shot, so strongly did the expulsion strike him.

As further confirmation of a matter that will likely remain plugged up, insiders point to Hillary’s delay coming out for Saturday night’s debate. She was, indeed, occupied in the bathroom. One janitor who had to clean up spoke on condition of anonymity.

“We had to wear them surgical masks, but perfumed, all scented up lady-lake,” the janitor explained. “Even then, the stink was terrible. We had to walk out and come back many times. And the toilet seat, why, it was blowed up!”

The janitor said Hillary apologized but laughed it off.

“She say, ‘Sorry, boys, but there’s a lesson here. You don’t f**k with gramma.'”






Bergdahl Republicans


If you want to understand why presidential candidate Donald Trump represents the thoughts and feelings of average Republicans and represents a truer conservatism and truer Republicanism than the hypocritical Republican establishment that hates his guts for exposing them, check out the significance of the omnibus spending bill House Speaker Paul Ryan boasts as an accomplishment.

To phrase it another way, Trump may not wax as ideological as some self-proclaimed conservatives, but he stands for the policies that most Republicans hold most dearly.

And the establishment’s game plan crystallizes with each passing day, particularly with Ryan’s massive spending bill, one being executed faithfully by other Bergdahl Republicans.

Ryan has negotiated a deal with the president to spend $2 trillion over the next year. By the time you will have read this, the House may have passed the bill then have sent it on to the Senate.

According to and other sources, Ryan’s budget betrayal funds the so-called DREAMer program: executive amnesty, work permits, and federal benefits funded by your taxes for the welfare of illegal aliens who crossed into the United States surreptitiously when they were minors.

That’s not the least of it. Ryan’s omnibus bill provides federal grants for the so-called “sanctuary cities”, invests in the president’s refugee resettlement program for tens of thousands of Middle Easterners and confers access to federal benefits upon them, continues to fund the regular, hole-ridden immigrant and visa programs for people from jihadists countries, and spends your money to resettle illegal immigrants from south of the border.

Even more could be said, not to mention the increased spending, which will increase the deficit.

So what do Americans get? What causes justify Ryan’s trumpet of success?

“Instead, Mr. Ryan said Republicans should be happy with the end of the oil export ban and with extending the dozens of [special interest] tax breaks”, wrote Stephen Dinan and Dave Boyer in the Wednesday edition of the Washington Times, “predicting they would both spur new jobs and help keep the economy on track.”

Really? So oil companies benefit by ending the oil export ban and then by getting a tax break, along with a few other businesses and interests, and that is supposed to be a big deal for the average American and the average Republican?

You have to be kidding me, and 300 million Americans. Many of us think and want that our borders are secured, American lives protected, terrorists kept out of the country, illegal aliens leave and, if they want to try, return legally, Middle Eastern refugees be kept out of the country, sanctuary cities shut down, and benefits be reserved for American citizens only.

And the biggest slap in the face is Ryan and his buddy Republicans (and Demos) using our money, OUR MONEY, to give benefits to people who don’t even belong here, all while we fight to stay afloat economically in our recessed economy, sometimes working two jobs.

That is so wrong!

So remember that when Ryan and Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham and many of the other establishment Republicans are ripping Donald Trump for standing up for America and Americans, they are doing something behind your back – spending your money – to fund the illegal alien and refugee programs they want and you don’t. They are giving tax breaks to special interests already making millions and billions of dollars; not to you, who can barely survive.

When they say Donald Trump isn’t serious and is unhinged and call his programs jokes and unconstitutional, what they really mean is they either don’t want to accomplish them or don’t have the will to do so. Establishment Republicans have other plans, and they aren’t yours or mine.

They are Bergdahl Republicans: selfish political deserters of the will of the American people and Republican ideals. Those Bergdahl Republicans would put you in harm’s way for a nickel! And the nickel would be yours!

Debate and Post-Debate Observations


I am watching Morning Joe this Wednesday morning after last night’s CNN Republican Debate in Las Vegas. In my humble opinion, Morning Joe ranks as the most informative and instructive news commentary and political program on any cable, satellite, or network channel. It beats anyone. That said, I disagreed with many things uttered this morning by the diverse members of its intelligent and perspicacious ensemble and agreed with others.

As importantly, I disagreed with the characterizations uttered by some of the candidates themselves at both the main and undercard debates.

In this first article, I will address the compliments paid to Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, and the substance of Graham’s debate remarks.

The compliments included the assessment that Graham won the undercard debate and belonged on the main stage with the big boys. In winning the undercard, his Morning Joe complimenters, principally Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, and Mike Barnacle, praised him, wondering where he had been all her life (Mika), extolled the proper, sensitive, Republican attitude toward Muslims (Barnacle), and declared what should be the emotionally mitigated Republican position toward terror and the steps to counter it (Joe).

Let’s acknowledge that Graham laid out a plausible plan for dealing with terror, bonded with establishmentarians by praising former President George W. Bush and creating a continuity doing so, and provided more details about why his plan was the one to take and why those of others should be rejected.

But Graham also laid bare his weaknesses, if unwittingly. He said he had been studying terror and figuring out how to defeat it for the last 10 years. Not that you shouldn’t study, but did it really take him that long to come up with effective proposals?

He ripped those who offered other alternatives, especially Trump (but also Cruz), whom he continued to demonize, reflecting a grudge and sense of hurt he (Graham) has not been able to overcome since Trump revealed his hypocritical campaign tactics and gave out his cell phone number.

Most importantly, he, and others, continue to proffer the notion that Islam is a peaceful religion and that a president cannot redefine a religion to create a strategy to defeat terror.

This last point in particular is patently false and misleading, and is usually compounded by the declaration that to say anything harsh about Islam will play into the hands of ISIS, which will use it to recruit greater numbers of prospective terrorists and to commit greater numbers of acts of terrorism.

It is those sentiments, so frequently expressed by Democrats and some Republicans alike, that disturb the average American citizen, who stands by and watches as his leaders allow his American culture to dissolve into nothingness, who goes undefended by the persons who should be defending him the most.

For the establishment mindset, the axis is always the other, and not American citizens. The leaders forsake their citizens and cover it with an effort to convince them it’s okay, that to win the war against terrorism they must swallow such indignities, because we need Muslim cooperation to win, and they will otherwise take offense and refuse to participate, leaving us powerless to complete the job.

They also throw in the point that accepting the axis of the other represents American values!

It is an argument from weak-mindedness, and it is patently false and misleading, like the chief idea – that Islam is a peaceful religion – to which it is conjoined.

This stands out as one of the main reasons Trump resonates with the American public. Our citizens are the axis of his mindset, and he is not going to let anyone compromise that with an argument from weakness. The safety and security of Americans predominates in his thinking. This is why he wants to install a temporary ban on Muslim migration to the United States. This is why he wants to “bomb the shit” out of ISIS. This is why he wants a terrorist’s family members to pay the price. They are not innocent; they are complicit in what their terrorist relative plans and executes! Or, let us say, when they are complicit, they, too, must be punished or rendered incapable of assisting terror.

Let us return to the chief issue, the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion. This pronouncement is false, and such falsehood is attested by the many verses of violence toward infidels found in the Quran.

LIke a lot of people, I want that to be true. For some Muslims, especially those in America, it may be the case. Religions change. We want to understand why, however, because at the heart of the Quran is a moral teaching that it is right to murder those who are infidels, particularly Christians and Jews, or in the alternative allow them to live if they pay a heavy tribute and remain silent and obedient to Islamic law rather than their own.

Has that theology, that ideology, that moral teaching, which typically weaves deeply into and throughout the fabric of Muslim societies, been rejected?

Do Muslims who have settled in America reject that Quranic teaching? Have they modified their beliefs to exclude that demand on their spirituality?

American citizens deserve to know, and they deserve to be reassured. They came here, among other reasons, to find religious freedom. A theocratic religion and ideology that espouses death because its scriptures call for it from its one and only prophet, speaking on behalf of God, cannot find purchase in our free American society.

By the words of its own scriptures, Islam makes bigotry and discrimination and murder spiritual, moral, and legal. It is that belief which Americans do not and will not tolerate, because it terminates life and liberty.

Further, the other ideas that spring from the Quran fall far short of being worthy of toleration. For many, the Quran itself reveals that Muhammad acted as a pedophile, being betrothed to a six-year-old and marrying her when she turned nine. Women are not merely subordinate, they are in their essence sinful and harmful to men, and must be controlled strictly.

It is irrational and irresponsible to ignore these realities and to espouse the falsehood that Islam is peaceful when intrinsically it is not. In that sense, Muslims alienate themselves from other belief systems, rational and religious, and make war on them.

It is not for an American political leader to declare that Islam is a peaceful religion; it is for a Muslim to declare that Muslims reject the violent verses of the Quran and that those verses came from God.

That Graham and Bush continue to paper over these religious and ideological realities remains nothing short of fraudulent, as does Bush’s claim that insults litter Trump’s doomed pathway to the presidency.

Funny, isn’t it? Bush can say or suggest Trump is “unhinged”, a “chaos candidate”, a “joke”, “not serious”, not tough enough, and watches cartoons to get policy ideas, but decries Trump for insults. Similarly, holier-than-thou Graham blasts Trump as a race-baiting bigot because he wants to keep bloody terrorists out of the country, but issues the ultimate condemnation, that Trump should “go to hell.”

It’s okay to offend a fellow American but don’t you dare rile those Islamics! Why not? More broadly, why is it okay to offend American citizens but not Muslims? Christians and Jews get reviled; why not Muslims?

There is much more to say for another post. Here, it is clear that darker motivations underpin the rhetoric of those candidates considered establishment or more centrist. Graham, like any other politician, said what his supporters or prospective supporters wanted to hear. He panders as much as anyone, and the folks on Morning Joe praised that pandering rather than called it what it was because it was what they wanted to hear. It fit more what they are looking for in a candidate; but upon closer inspection, it remains detached from what a huge chunk of Americans want… and need and obscures realities that must become part of the national discussion.

Ah! The Partialisms of the Press


It is far too easy to criticize the media, yet they bring it on themselves. The media’s coverage of events generally lacks substance and accuracy, not completely, but enough. I know, time limits prevent the communication of deeper, more accurate understandings. Then one should consider the avenue of expression compromised, at least somewhat.

Today I will harp on the media’s representation of one of Donald Trump’s comments about Ted Cruz. We have become acculturated to sensitivity, so for many, even conservatives, the utterances of the Donald seem harsh or offensive. Some hearers take umbrage at Trump’s words while others revel in them because, in their view, political correctness has devolved into censorship and stifled honesty, and Trump smashes through that cage with the honesty of expression for which those voters have hungered.

Someone can be honest and still be a jerk. But then someone can be a jerk and still be the most qualified person for the office of president.

We are still learning.

Meanwhile, let’s look at how the media reported one of Trump’s comments about Cruz. Trump told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that Cruz was “a little bit of a maniac” when he castigated Mitch McConnell publicly and on the senate floor over a recent vote to re-authorize the Export/Import Bank. Cruz said McConnell told “a simple lie.”

Cruz’s comments ran athwart of good sense and civility, some critics said, but also a Senate rule which prohibits such public denigration.

Whatever one thinks of Cruz or McConnell, or Trump for that matter, Trump said that Cruz was “a little bit of a maniac.” Yet reporters did not repeat Trump’s statement that way. They said Trump called Cruz “a maniac.” Over and over again they reported it that way, and they are still saying it that way, as I listened to a report earlier this morning from a journalist on MSNBC’s Live with Jose Diaz-Balart.

As a voter who wants to understand Trump’s use of hyperbole in his speeches and quotes, the distinction is important. Despite the media effort to create a fight between Trump and Cruz, neither has been too critical of the other. Cruz was caught saying Trump’s campaign would fail and he (Cruz) would collect his support. That prompted Trump’s “attack” on Cruz, which included a fumbled questioning of whether Cruz was an evangelical and a legitimate remark about Cruz’s temperament, since Cruz, if he became president, would have to work with people like McConnell.

The question becomes why the media reports Trump’s words inaccurately. The answers are similar but different.

Many in the conservative media want Trump and Cruz to consume each other with vitriol so either Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush, establishment candidates, can step forward to fill the void. So the inaccuracy is useful to them.

Many in the liberal media want Trump or Cruz to earn the Republican nomination because, in their opinion, both are more easily smeared and flayed, so by the time they reach the general election, Hillary, most likely, can defeat their crippled candidacies. Repeating inaccuracies and deliberately misrepresenting utterances, however hyperbolic or figurative, helps to cripple Trump and Cruz and advance the cause of their candidate.

So the game is truly afoot, with the media weighing in for its own purposes. It is getting hard to cry “foul”, though. The Republican leadership, establishment, elites, insiders -whatever you want to call them, are losing this election for their party and its members. They neither understand nor accept the deep disenchantment and outcry of their own members.

By alienating Trump and Cruz, the Republican leadership alienates the bulk of their members, or at least a huge bloc of them. If Rubio or Bush get the nomination through dishonest machinations, the party faithful, feeling cheated and betrayed, will not go to the polls or will vote for a third party candidate. Hillary wins.

Alternatively, the Democrats reliance on current sentiment about Trump stands out as gross overconfidence. People may not like the way Trump expresses himself, but plenty of them want a strong leader who will protect them and protect their borders and restore the economy. Hillary’s high negativity, even within her own party, could cost her votes as citizens look at Trump and say he is more likely to protect them and create prosperity. Hillary will have a hard time winning on those grounds.

Novelty props up Hillary – the first female presidential candidate from the two major parties. People speak of her resume, but it is open to criticism and devaluation. In tough economic times, it’s hard to sell more government spending, especially for welfare, when the bulk of the citizenry is not doing all that well. Certainly, the ideologues will stand with her. With uncertainty about the future prevalent, Trump’s chances, in particular, actually look pretty good.

People will complain about the way Trump speaks, but in the end, when it comes time to pull the lever, the voter is not going to pull it for political correctness, but for the person who will give them more opportunity, more freedom, more prosperity, and more safety.

That’s Trump, hands down. Trump may be rough, but he’s real. Hillary comes across as the charlatan who’s been prepping for the job just because she wants it and she wants to make history. Trump is open about his elitism and his billions. Hillary hides it in the dark and pretends to be a middle class person while she bargains surreptitiously for her own enrichment.

Frankly, there is no comparison, and the voters, regardless of party affiliation, sense it and know it. Trump chafes them, and they want to stop him from getting the Republican nomination, if they can, but they are going to vote for him if he gets to the general election, because they know he is the better, more qualified person. They don’t like him, but the reason for that is he is right even as he is insufferable.

Hillary is a shadow, and shadowy, candidate by comparison, an ideologue who wants to shape America into her self-inflated image.  She cannot be trusted. She cannot be relied upon. Ultimately, she is only about herself and her “legacy”.

I know I couldn’t take it: four or more years of Bush or Clinton. God, please, no!

And for all those old-time Republicans Joe Scarborough has been talking about, who allegedly said they will never vote for Trump and for the first time in their political lives they will vote Democrat for Hillary: then you will become the party’s Brutus!

For years you have told your disenchanted members that they had to vote for the candidate you proffered because the alternative was to vote for the greater evil: a Democrat! Now the shoe is on the other foot. Your deafness to all but a few of your party members has been destroying the Republican Party for years. Now a time of change has arrived, and once again you want to force your way down people’s throats. No! No! No! Not this time. Now it’s your turn to be faithful. Now it’s your turn to suck it up and support “the party.” Stop that greater evil from being elected: Hillary!

Ah! How treachery brews in the heart, in the darkened, isolated caverns of the mind!

And it all begins with deliberate inaccuracy!

Beware the Mind Manipulators, and the Murderers


Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump recently proposed a ban on Muslims entering the United States until the government can get a handle on the why of the terrorist problem and the what and how of the solution. Trump’s proposal came in the wake of another Islamic mass murder of innocents, this time in San Bernardino, California.

The proposal would not affect Muslims who are American citizens. It would affect only those who want to migrate here or visit here for one period of time or another.

Since his announcement, Trump has been bullied by Republicans and Democrats alike. Party “leaders” have been spitting every acidic slander and insult at him that they could find in their bags of tricks to smear his reputation, subvert his candidacy, and, most vitally, funnel and control the way you and I – average citizens – think.

They – the elitists and their minions of both parties – ordain that we shall think only within the boundaries THEY set. If we disobey, we are chastised and shunned, as Trump has been, and branded un-American by their hissingly hot irons of political correctness.

Whether or not you agree with Trump’s plan, you should vehemently reject the criticism of the elitists. They are supposed to be responding to “we the people”. We are not supposed to jump when they bark their intellectual and moral commands!

Trump is actually quite astute – and I do not mean in a shrewd, political sense – because he perceives that Islam’s culture and ideology clash with our American thinking, based largely on Christianity and rationalism. He sees this dissonance has long gone unaddressed amid the platitude that Islam is a “peaceful religion”. It is time to face the truth and to strike down the perverted objections of his detractors. The truth to be faced is that the Quran, or Koran, the holy book for the followers of Muhammed, whom Muslims believe to be a prophet, espouses vicious, bloody violence against all unbelievers, in particular Christians and Jews.

Worse, the Quran teaches Muslims to believe that Muhammed spoke for God, whom they call Allah, and that God Himself is calling on Muslims to wage bloody war against all non-Muslims, in some cases describing gruesome acts to be perpetrated even on women and children.

Jesus may have had Muslims in mind, as he had had Jews, when he said these words in John 16:2, “They will put you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service.”

How different are Christianity and Islam! In Christianity, Jesus gives up his life to pay the penalties for each and every sinner. In Islam, one group of sinners passes judgment on and gruesomely murders another group of sinners, allegedly for God. That is forbidden in the New Testament (see the story of the adulteress in John).

How long will our leaders cover up this clash of thinking and feeling, and the murderous animus inherent in Islam?

For those who want to know more about the verses of violence in the Quran, go to the search engine Duckduckgo, type in “verses of violence in the Quran”, or Koran, and click. You will find a wealth of material, some of it good, some of it not. Some verses may refer to this life, some to the next, some to both. Some may be figurative; others, not. The state of mind engendered by these verses, however, seems nothing short of sadistic.

Islam comes across as a religion of victimization. The mere existence of Christians and Jews is an affront to God and a persecution of Muslims. Therefore, they must be wiped out or extorted of huge sums of money, living out their days in silence and fear.

Frankly, it baffles me why any Muslim would want to come to the United States or go to any European country. Oh, that’s right: life is better here, and there, and opportunity greater, thanks to our Christian and rationalistic roots. Many Muslims want to eradicate that and establish “sharia law”, an angry, retributive, bloody, disfiguring system of rule. I cannot understand why any decent, reasonable person would desire any intercourse with such a system.

So when Trump seeks a ban on the entry of foreign Muslims to the United States, his motivation is to protect his fellow American citizens. Trump isn’t being intolerant of Islam; he’s being intolerant of one element of it: the notion and tenet that it’s okay to murder men, women, and children in the most gruesome ways because they are infidels. He has seen their murderous rampages here and abroad, and he wants to eliminate, as much as is possible, the risk of more loss of life until he can secure our borders. He does not oppose Islam per se: he has stated he enjoys friendships with many Muslims and does business with many Muslims. He is not willing to put American lives at risk, however, by failing to acknowledge  that there is a problem in their ideology that must be addressed.

Murder cannot be an accepted tenet of Islam, not if you want to live in these United States. It must be utterly rejected. That means that Muslims must reject the Quranic teaching that killing infidels is a just or holy act. It isn’t. It is ungodly and evil. That is not a religious test; it is a civil test. That is the law of our land. If you want a different law, go live somewhere else and create a malignant, hateful society. You can spill all the blood you want in your own house.

Please don’t listen to the self-righteous proclaim that interfering with a religion represents an un-American value. We made Mormons abandon their four-wives belief when there was actually a case in that instance for not doing so. Our law forces stormed the Waco compound of the Branch Davidians! No defense exists for the notion that sawing off someone’s head or blowing up someone into a thousand pieces is a righteous act because the murderer thinks God doesn’t like the victim. There is absolutely nothing morally wrong with preventing such a person or group of people from entering the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Is it unconstitutional to ban a group because of their religious beliefs? No, not if the group’s religious beliefs call for the murder of Americans who do not hold those same religious beliefs. We keep hearing about religion not being a test for public office. Well, we aren’t talking about public office. In fact, we aren’t even talking about American citizens. We are talking about foreigners who believe murder is a good thing.

In fact, it is those who hold to the perverted belief that murder of infidels is good and holy and comes from God who are making religion a test of whether an American citizen lives or not!

What is constitutional is providing for the defense of our citizens and for the welfare of those citizens. What is constitutional for the legislative and executive branches to perform, and that is backed up by statutory law, is the control of immigration for the benefit and safety of the country.

It is the height of hypocrisy for people, usually Democrats, to call for a full or partial ban on gun ownership, something constitutionally guaranteed, while saying it’s unconstitutional to ban the group of people who accept the murder of infidels as holy and lawful. And keep in mind it’s a temporary ban.

To recap the mind manipulation and word abuse so far, the manipulators want you to believe that it is unconstitutional to ban a group of people who believe in murder based on the source book for their beliefs. Wrong (although who can figure out the mystery of the supreme court, which has validated slavery, the murder of pre-born children, and the personhood of corporations – get that: a corporation is a person but a human being in the womb isn’t!)!

They want you to believe Donald Trump is a bigot, and that you are, too, if you agree with him. Wrong! The only thing he is intolerant of – the only thing Trump is extremely intolerant of – is the slaughter of Americans.

They want you to believe that by proposing a temporary ban on foreign Muslims entering the United States that Trump is helping the vanguard of Islam, ISIS, recruit more members. This statement has been parroted dozens, if not hundreds, of times. The thinking is that such a proposal ignites the sense that the United States is engaged in a war on Islam.

I have no doubt that many actions our country takes are twisted around and used by ISIS to lure recruits. I get it. But really? We aren’t going to act in defense of our citizens because Muslims are going to scream bloody murder? So ISIS hasn’t recruited anyone the last few years, right? They have never said we are in a war with them? Better, we have never said we are in a war with them? Why, Jeb Bush is running all kinds of negative ads declaring we are in a war with them. ISIS is Muslim. Muslims get their belief in holy murder from the Quran. The verses are there.

Granted, as in any religion, including Christianity and Judaism, there are many nominal and casual believers in Islam, many who don’t know or understand the Quran and who just want to live their lives, and some who could probably care less. However, it’s part of their culture, which is another dimension to the problem. People may not believe in a religion or practice it meaningfully, but they are loathe to abandon it, and to betray it and the family members, friends, and neighbors who do live it, because the religion is so intricately woven into their culture and experience. People go with what they know.

Whether our use of a travel and migration ban on foreign Muslims is used by ISIS as part of a recruiting pitch should not determine whether or not we employ it to make our citizens safer by reducing the likelihood of a domestic attack. We are – finally – beginning to bomb the crap out of them. I am sure that serves as a much stronger indicator of how we feel and is used by them to scream their sales pitch to kill the Great Satan.

Think of the spiritual and practical implications of that statement from believers of Islam: “The United States is the Great Satan.”

If the members of ISIS want to say the United States is in a war with Islam, so be it; Muslims have already said that they are. We ARE  at war (or should be, intellectually and spiritually, and, if necessary, militarily) with the notion that murdering infidels is righteous and lawful and holy and comes from the mouth of God.

The jackbooted thugs of political correctness, even as they lob one slanderous broadside after another at those who disagree with them, calling them racists, bigots, fascists, xenophobes, and the like, assert that it is morally wrong to criticize flawed belief systems and proffer commonsense proposals like Trump’s temporary ban that would protect Americans. It will anger Muslims and help their recruiting.

That’s kind of like saying, “Don’t say bad things about the Nazis. It will anger them, and they will use it to recruit more people into the Nazi Party.”

Is it a coincidence that at least some Muslim leaders admire Adolf Hitler and do not have a problem with the evil he perpetrated during World War II, in some cases even claiming it never happened?

One must question the motives of the elitists, and their horde of minions whom they directed into verbal assaults on Trump. The motive remains simple: they elitists – the insiders – want THEIR candidate nominated regardless of what the average citizen thinks and feels. It’s the same ole same ole so they can control. That means what you want gets trampled. Now that’s fascism: controlling the media and the message  and the means so you think what they want you to think. That determines the outcome.

If Trump or Cruz or Paul gets the nomination, that will make it very tough on the elitists. It would mean you, the citizen, would have a much stronger and louder say. The big brotherism from the party that supposedly stands for individual freedom nauseates the rational person.

Most sickening of all is the elitist criticism that Trump is pandering to fear, an accusation from his Democrat and Republican slanderers. Yet the very nature of THEIR accusation is… pandering to fear! The country will become fascist if you elect Donald Trump! The Muslim murderers will recruit more murderers and murder more! The constitution will be violated if you protect American citizens! The land will be filled with un-Americanness!

Paul Ryan says Muslims overseas embrace plurality and democracy. In what countries might those Muslims be? Iran? Yemen? Somalia? Syria? Sudan? Niger? Saudi Arabia? Ha!

Jeb Bush denigrates Trump, and every Republican candidate but himself, in a recent ad, violating Reagan’s 11th Commandment, because he’s only in single digits in poll percentages. Ha! How could one vote for Bush’s slump-shouldered self and silver-spoon face? Look at Trump’s broad shoulders and his face lined with experience and savvy! Bush is the gangly, buck-toothed youth throwing paper wads at the barrel-chested man. Oh! The lesson that will be taught!

Lindsey Graham shouts that Trump should go to Hell. Sounds like a terrorist’s wish! Ha! Graham’s a wuss! Trump spanked Graham when he gave out Graham’s phone number, and Graham’s been seething since like a jilted prom queen!

Hillary Clinton moralizes and points her crooked finger at Trump, even as she tries to sit on the facts about Benghazi and her emails, about not even trying to save American lives when forces were ready to go, then blaming their loss of life on a video! She was appeasing murderous Muslims then at the expense of American lives! She couldn’t protect them, or wouldn’t. How is she going to protect you? Ha!

The media has been publishing reports of “outrage” and “uproar” as reaction to Trump’s proposal. From whom? From the people running or potentially running against him? From party elites who own a conflict of interest with his candidacy? From the long-tilted, agenda-driven media? Ha!

And Dick Cheney? Do you feel Cheney creeping up on you? Is he planning to be part of ANOTHER Bush administration? Ha!

You know what the truth is? Many of those people are also motivated by their economic and social ties to the folks in Saudi Arabia and the like. Money is at stake. Black gold. Yet Saudi Arabia is a hotbed of murderous zeal and the denigration of women, a land where a few enjoy immense wealth and the rest trudge their way through the desert sands. Why do we have close ties with such an undemocratic nation?

Finally, I am a Christian, but I don’t want even Christians or anyone else coming here until we have sound and effective vetting procedures in place. Who knows what a person really is? We can be compassionate without bringing refugees here. We can help fund and help build areas over there. Where is the compassion of the wealthy, oil rich Muslim world? Let Saudi Arabia, Qatar (they have money to bribe FIFA officials), Iran (they have money to build nuclear weapons), et. al., open their doors and fund the refugee problem so the refugees do not have to move so far away from home. Maybe they don’t want the “rabble”, eh?

All throughout the Muslim world in Africa and the Middle East war and slaughter rage. We have no obligation to allow it to migrate to these United States. None.

Vote for whomever you want. Vote for the policies you think will be most effective. Just don’t be controlled. Don’t have your mind engineered. Don’t be afraid to exercise your freedom and promote you desires. It’s our country!