Obama Claims He's Never Experienced a Major Scandal

President Obama has managed to sit in the Oval Office for eight years without facing a major scandal, so he claimed at a campaign rally for Hillary Clinton Sunday night in Florida. The statement came in response to criticism from Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA).

"Here's a guy who called my administration perhaps the most corrupt in history — despite the fact that actually we have not had a major scandal in my administration," Obama said.

On behalf of the American people, we would like to remind Obama about the decline of the Veterans Affairs agency, in which we learned thousands of veterans may have died waiting for care. We would also like to trigger his memory as to the IRS' targeting of conservative groups. Finally, we'd like to point out to him what happened in Benghazi and how his administration tried to cover up the terrorist attack as a spontaneous result of a YouTube video.

Why bother. We already know the president lives in his own reality. Last week, he gave a glowing review of his Affordable Care Act, arguing it has improved Americans' wellbeing - even if they don't know it. 

I dare him to repeat that when these premium hikes arrive.

WikiLeaks Exposes Hillary's Hypocritical Gender Pay Gap

In April, we found out that the Clinton Foundation pays its female employees 38 percent less than its male employees. This past week, WikiLeaks has provided some numbers to put that disparity into perspective. In the following exchange, uncovered from a hack into Clinton campaign chair John Podesta's emails, Hillary Clinton's staff were concerned about a "huge" gender pay gap at the Clinton Foundation. The financial divide was so obvious, in fact, they worried nosy journalists would notice.

With a little help from Julian Assange, they did.

Here's what The Washington Times found after some digging.

“3 out of the 11 highest paid employees of the Foundation are women. Avg salary of the highest paid men is $294,157.50, while the avg salary of the highest paid women is $181,576.66 ($112K difference),” Mrs. Seshasai said in an email seen by campaign manager Robby Mook and Cheryl Mills, Mrs. Clinton’s State Department chief of staff. “Median salary of the highest paid men is $346,106, while the median salary of the highest paid women is $185,386 ($190K difference).”

Of course, this salary gap does not jibe with the Clinton's pledge to break the glass ceiling and ensure that women are given the same opportunities as men.

This skewed pay ratio didn't start with the Clinton Foundation, however. Back when Clinton was a New York senator, her female employees were found to have been paid thousands of dollars less than their male counterparts. 

Unreal: Pentagon Demands Soldiers Repay Bonuses

Thousands of California soldiers are being forced to repay large bonuses that were given to them a decade ago for reenlisting and going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bonus of $15,000 or more was offered as an enticement by the California National Guard, but now the Pentagon is demanding the money back after an audit revealed they were overpaid.

If they refuse, the nearly 10,000 soldiers this affects will be hit with interest charges, tax liens, and wage garnishments.

Investigations have determined that lack of oversight allowed for widespread fraud and mismanagement by California Guard officials under pressure to meet enlistment targets.

But soldiers say the military is reneging on 10-year-old agreements and imposing severe financial hardship on veterans whose only mistake was to accept bonuses offered when the Pentagon needed to fill the ranks.

Some veterans like Susan Haley are taking a huge financial hit in an effort to pay back the bonus. She's sending a quarter of her family’s income each month to the Pentagon and her family may even need to sell their home to make the payments.

“I feel totally betrayed,” Haley, who served 26 years in the Army, told the LA Times.

“They’ll get their money, but I want those years back,” she said about her six-year reenlistment.

The bonuses were supposed to be limited to soldiers in high-demand assignments like intelligence and civil affairs or to noncommissioned officers badly needed in units due to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan.

The National Guard Bureau, the Pentagon agency that oversees state Guard organizations,  has acknowledged that bonus overpayments occurred in every state at the height of the two wars. 

But the money was handed out far more liberally in the California Guard, which has about 17,000 soldiers and is one of the largest state Guard organizations.

In 2010, after reports surfaced of improper payments, a federal investigation found that thousands of bonuses and student loan payments were given to California Guard soldiers who did not qualify for them, or were approved despite paperwork errors.

Instead of being forgiven for something that wasn’t their mistake to begin with, veterans now risk facing debt collection action.

“I signed a contract that I literally risked my life to fulfill,” Robert Richmond, an Army sergeant first class, told the LA Times. “We want somebody in the government, anybody, to say this is wrong and we’ll stop going after this money.”

Miley Cyrus Visits GMU To "Register Voters" For Hillary One Day After Registration Deadline Passes

On Saturday, singer/actress Miley Cyrus campaigned for Hillary Clinton on the campus of George Mason University in Fairfax, VA. Cyrus visited dorms, met with students, and encouraged people to register to vote and to vote for Hillary Clinton come November. There's just one small issue--Virginia's voter registration deadline was Friday, October 21, and Cyrus visited the school on October 22nd. 


Given that 81 percent of GMU students are Virginia residents and therefore can no longer register to vote in the state as of Friday, it seems as though perhaps the timing wasn't exactly the best for Cyrus' visit. While in theory it's possible that she was able to register some out-of-state students who still have time to get their registrations in, this just seems like a complete waste of time and did nothing to actually improve the democratic process.

Cyrus has threatened to leave the country if Donald Trump were elected president.

Professor With "Remarkable" Record of Predicting Elections Says Trump Will Win

Forget what the polls and pundits are saying, Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States, predicts Stony Brook University professor Helmut Norpoth.

Norpoth, who has accurately predicted the last five presidential elections, uses two models. The first, he told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, is the primary model, which tracks how the candidates are performing, and “it usually turns out the candidate who does better in his party's primaries or her party’s primaries beats the other guy who does less well.”

He used the primary races in South Carolina and New Hampshire for the 2016 election, where Trump won and did better than Clinton did in the Democratic race.

The second model, he explains, is called the Swing of the Pendulum, which is the tendency for a change after two terms of a party being in the White House. This, of course, gives the prediction that a Republican will win in 2016.

Norpoth is so convinced by his models that he’s putting his money where his mouth is. He bought shares in the Republican candidate in the Iowa Electronic Markets a long time ago and he’s sticking with it, he said. 

Wow: Watch This Incredible National Anthem Performance--With a Twist

Singer/artist Joe Everson performed the Star-Spangled Banner before the Toledo Walleye (an ECHL hockey team) game on October 22nd, and his rendition of the national anthem is about the most patriotic thing that's ever happened. I won't spoil it for you, but just watch what happens at the very end:

What a unique way to honor the United States and the brave men and women who serve in the military.

New ABC Poll Has Trump Down By Double Digits

A new ABC poll has Donald Trump down to Hillary Clinton by a double-digit margin. Clinton saw a huge boost in numbers after a 2005 audiotape of Trump making disparaging comments about women. Previously, Clinton only had a four-point lead over Trump, which has since grown to 12 points. Trump also had a large drop in the percentage of voters who were "enthusiastic" about voting for him.

Clinton is also polling higher among men for the first time this campaign season.

Given ABC's past accuracy in polling, these numbers have to be alarming for the Trump camp.

Not good.

Venezuelan Government: No Food (What's Left Of It) For Those Who Criticize Us

Venezuela is still paying for its failed experiment with socialism. The country still faces shortages of basic supplies, especially food, and the Chinese have cut off new loans after a decade of economic assistance. The supply shortages are probably the most pressing debacle facing President Nicolas Maduro, the late Hugo Chavez’s successor. Venezuelans have resorted to looting, breaking into zoos and eating animals, and finding sustenance in trashcans. For those who live with chronic illnesses, medicine is hard to find. For those suffering mental illnesses, the breakdown of reality only becomes more explicit (via NYT):

The voices tormenting Accel Simeone kept getting louder.

The country’s last supplies of antipsychotic medication were vanishing, and Mr. Simeone had gone weeks without the drug that controls his schizophrenia.

Reality was disintegrating with each passing day. The sounds in his head soon became people, with names. They were growing in number, crowding the tiny home he shared with his family, yelling obscenities into his ears.

Now the voices demanded that he kill his brother.

“I didn’t want to do it,” recalled Mr. Simeone, 25.

He took an electric grinder from the family’s garage. He switched it on.

But then, to spare his brother, he attacked himself instead, slicing into his own arm until his father raced in and grabbed the grinder from his bloody hands.

Venezuela’s economic collapse has already decimated its health system, leaving hospitals without antibiotics, surgeons without gloves and patients dying on emergency room tables.

Now, thousands of mental health patients — many of whom had been living relatively normal lives under medication — are drifting into despair and psychosis because the country has run out of the vast majority of psychiatric medicines, leaving families and doctors powerless to help them, medical experts say.

The hospital system has deteriorated to the point where conditions resemble the 19th century and reports of newborns being placed in cardboard boxes in maternity wings because there are no supplies. To deal with the food crisis, the government established the Local Committees of Supply and Production (CLAP), but has threatened to cut off food aid to anyone who has criticized Maduro’s government, the same government that’s so detached from reality that they’ve banned lines outside of bakeries and grocery stores to avoid showing the world how terrible 21st Century Socialism has become. It’s a total disaster (via PanAm Post):

Six months after the creation of the Local Committees of Supply and Production (Clap) that is designed to “distribute food directly to the people,” the government has decided to change its approach by threatening those using the program.

The Venezuelan government announced that it will suspend delivery of food packages to those who criticize its policies.

The suspension of an unnamed member of the communal council will last for three months, but could extend much longer, officials warned.

In addition, officials threatened to impose penalties against those who make their discontent with the government public by removing their information from the Clap database.

Isn’t socialism great, folks?

Biden: Oh, I Wish I Could Beat Up Trump For Those Remarks He Made About Women

The Huffington Post is one of many news publications that channeled their inner concern troll about violence at Trump rallies. HuffPo even adds various disclaimers at the end of all their political pieces, some of which go like this:

Donald Trump regularly incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims — 1.6 billion members of an entire religion — from entering the U.S.

Yet, on Friday, at a campaign event in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, Vice President Joe Biden said that he wish he were back in high school so he could beat up Trump for his crude remarks about women, specifically the graphic groping comments caught on a hot mic from that leaked Access Hollywood tape back in 2005.

“He [Trump] said ‘because I’m famous, because I’m a star, because I’m a billionaire I can do things other people can’t. What a disgusting assertion for anyone to make,” said Biden. “The press always ask me don’t I wish I were debating him? No, I wish we were in high school I could take him behind the gym — that’s what I wish,” he added.

Well, gee, ladies—where would you be without creepy Joe Biden standing there to say he wishes he could time travel and beat up a person because…he engaged in some locker room talk. Also, let’s not kid around here; Joe has been caught numerous times touching women in some of the most awkward photos in vice presidential history. Of course, it’s nothing related to sexual assault, but it’s certainly gotten it’s fair share of media attention for being…wholly aberrant. But that’s just Uncle Joe being Joe, right? No harm no foul.

Trump got some flack for saying in January, that he could shoot someone and not lose supporters. It was an irresponsible hypothetical, but a hypothetical nonetheless. In Biden’s case, he specifically said he wished he could kick the crap out of Donald. What would be the media reaction if the roles were reversed, even with Trump saying he wished he could beat up President Obama? Everyone would go apoplectic, but because Joe is a Democrat—he’ll get a pass.

Also, some of that violence that has erupted at Trump rallies, which became another criticism of the billionaire’s candidacy, might have been spurred on and instigated by paid Democratic operatives, seeking to create an unflattering media narrative against his campaign. Another video from James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, who uncovered the web of operatives who engage in these activities, is set to drop Monday. But for now, just enjoy Biden acting like a tough guy.

Sheryl Crow Petitions DNC and RNC For Shorter Campaign Cycle

Maybe this is a change that will do America good: Singer Sheryl Crow has launched a Change.org petition asking the RNC and the DNC to please shorten the 2020 presidential election cycle. Crow's petition asks for the RNC and DNC to "tweak" the presidential primary calendar so that candidates will not begin campaigning as early. The 2016 election cycle will last over 600 days by the time Election Day rolls around, which, Crow argues, is "disrespectful" to the American people. The petition also points out that most countries are able to pull off an election with just a few weeks of campaigning.

So far, more than 30,000 people have signed the petition.

The full text of the petition:

By the time Americans go to the polls on November 8th, this Presidential campaign will have run over 600 days, kicking off with Ted Cruz’s announcement in March of 2015.

This election cycle has been extremely damaging and has incited fear and hatred in a country founded on the beauty of our differences and the desire to lift each person, no matter race, religion, political party, or economic status, to reach his or her fullest potential.

We love our country. It is because we love our country that we want to limit the length of the campaign season. By tweaking the Presidential primary calendar, the DNC and RNC could drastically reduce the amount of time we are exposed to presidential campaigns.

Countries across the globe have limited campaign seasons to as short as 6 weeks. With an organized system, a successful, informative, professional campaign could be run.

The American people have been extremely disrespected in this campaign season with the ugliness that pits us against each other and with nonsense and fear-mongering. It is time this comes to an end and that we demand better for ourselves.

We cannot sustain another lengthy slugfest like what we have witnessed for the past two years and ask both the DNC and RNC to reform the process and shorten our election season.

I mean, she's got a point. This has been a long cycle, and it's been very nasty. Meanwhile in Canada, they managed to pull their entire federal election together in 11 weeks--and even they freaked out that it was too long of a campaign season. While I'll concede that 11 weeks is too short, I think we can all agree that 20+ months of constant campaigning is far too long. Something has to be done.

Townhall Bookshelf: True Allegiance

True Allegiance is an upcoming political thriller written by conservative commentator and author Ben Shapiro.

As I read True Allegiance, I could not help but see the parallels between this novel and that of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. The novel details the perils of a politically correct government that refuses to acknowledge the malignant elements within its country: a president only concerned with his legacy despite imminent terror threats, a police force which kowtows to extreme racial sensitivity, environmental regulations pushing ranchers into desperation, and a governor protecting his border to the dismay of the federal government.

True Allegiance clarifies the faults of liberal sentiment and its implementation in government. The realistic scenarios and continual action kept me intrigued from chapter to chapter.

I highly recommend to any conservative reader who enjoys an exciting story.

True Allegiance will be released on November 1.

Oh, So The Trump Campaign Is Not Much Different From The Nazis...Says Ken Burns

Renowned historian and documentarian Ken Burns, who has done terrific series on the American Civil War, Baseball, and Prohibition, is a bit fuzzy concerning Donald Trump and the 2016 election. In an interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Burns incredulously said that he doesn’t recognize America anymore—and that this election is an existential crisis that likes we haven’t seen since World War II or the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Then, Amanpour talks about Trump’s accusation that the election is rigged, citing an LA Times op-ed by conservative Max Boot, who is staunchly anti-Trump, noting that the Republican nominee’s cries echo that of the “stabbed n the back” myth propagated by the Nazi party and other right wing German figures.

What Trump is doing is dangerous and reprehensible. He is creating his own version of the “stabbed in the back” myth propagated by German rightists after World War I. They claimed that the German army had not really lost the war; it had been betrayed by Jews and Marxists on the home front. Trump is assigning blame for his potential defeat to a shadowy cabal that includes such groups as international bankers and ethnic minorities.

Burns agreed, saying that the Trump campaign is taking the playbook of the Nazi party to heart this cycle.

“Hitler said let’s make Germany great again,” said Burns. And so did former President Bill Clinton; is he a Nazi? Is demanding stronger border security and allowing federal agents and local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws Nazi-like policies? It’s just too easy to label someone who you really despise a Nazi. That’s lazy.

As you all know, I’m not a fan of Donald Trump, but a) I’m never voting for Hillary, nor am I voting for any third party candidate since they have no chance of beating Lady Macbeth (guess who that leaves?); and b) attacks likes these need pushback from everyone.

No, Donald Trump is not a Nazi. Kellyanne Conway, his campaign manager, is not a Nazi. We don’t have an Enabling Act and I’m sure Trump doesn’t have a vast conspiracy to set the Capitol Building on fire that would necessitate emergency powers. Historically, Hitler, who was already Chancellor, used the Reichstag Fire to eventually combine the office of the president and the chancellery, making him the horrid dictator we know today. But I’m not going to parse this hypothesis because it’s outright lunacy. Trump and his campaign isn’t a silent cabal of National Socialists.

Frankly, it’s quite disturbing that slogans like Make American Great Again, which, again, have been used by Bill Clinton—or any outward displays of patriotism—is construed as racist, wrong, or problematic to the American Left. When did loving one’s country become part of the criteria of proto-Nazi in America? Don’t know; don’t care because I’m not nuts unlike the scores of people who will vote for Hillary Clinton.

(H/T Mediaite)

Trump Outlines His "Contract With The American Worker" in Speech

During a speech in Gettysburg, PA, Donald Trump gave a last-ditch, "closing argument" to woo voters during the waning weeks of the campaign. Trump outlined his potential first 100 days in office, and spoke of the need to change Washington, D.C. from within. Dubbing the plan his "Contract with the American Worker," Trump took a populist message and described six key actions that he will begin pursuing during his first day in office.

Trump's plans centered around term limits, limiting federal regulations, and restrictions on who can become lobbyists.

FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;

SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);

THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;

FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;

FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;

SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

In addition to these six points, Trump also released seven things that he plans on doing to help preserve American jobs. These include withdrawing from NAFTA (or renegotiating the agreement), withdrawing from the TPP, and allowing the Keystone XL pipeline to move forward.

Despite Hillary's Claims A Private Email Address Was More Convenient, The State Dept. Kept Sending Her Emails To Spam

One of Hillary Clinton's claims was that having a private email server was a more convenient option than having a State Department email address. However, as some newly-released emails reveal, perhaps this may have been less-than-truthful. An email from Clinton to Huma Abedin complains about how none of her emails are going through, and Abedin replies that perhaps she should let the State Department actually know about the email so that things would stop being redirected to the spam folder.

Now, I may not be Secretary of State, but how in the world is that possibly more "convenient" than a regular email address?

Just another one of Clinton's lies.

REVEALED: Facebook CEO Responds to Board Member’s Support of Donald Trump

Silicon Valley billionaire and Facebook board member Peter Thiel has been widely criticized for his support of the Republican nominee, Donald Trump. 

Thiel officially announced his support in July during the GOP National Convention. He presented a speech during the event, calling Trump a “builder,” ready to put America back on track.

Then, just last week, Thiel decided to up his support for the Republican nominee. The New York Times revealed that Thiel pledged $1.25 million in donations to Trump’s campaign, according to “a person close to the investor.” 

The news prompted Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to address the “issue” of Thiel supporting Trump. In a leaked, internal post, Zuckerberg did the unexpected: he defended Thiel’s right to support Trump and stressed the importance of free speech and freedom of expression in our society. 

I want to quickly address the questions and concerns about Peter Thiel as a board member and Trump supporter. 

We care deeply about diversity. That’s easy to say when it means standing up for ideas you agree with. It’s a lot harder when it means standing up for the rights of people with different viewpoints to say what they care about. That’s even more important.

We can’t create a culture that says it cares about diversity and then excludes almost half the country because they back a political candidate. There are many reasons a person might support Trump that do not involve racism, sexism, xenophobia or accepting sexual assault. It may be because they believe strongly in smaller government, a different tax policy, healthcare system, religious issues, gun rights or any other issue where he disagrees with Hillary.

I know there are strong views on the election this year both in the US and around the world. We see them play out on Facebook every day. Our community will be stronger for all our differences—not only in areas like race and gender, but also in areas like political ideology and religion.

That’s ultimately what Facebook is about: giving everyone the power to share our experiences, so we can understand each other a bit better and connect us a little closer together.

Back in May, Gizmodo reported that several members of the Facebook editorial team responsible for curating trending content allegedly knowingly suppressed conservative news stories. Specifically, they prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, as well as news about Facebook, from appearing in the section—even if those stories were trending among the site’s users. The workers also told Gizmodo that they were required to “inject” other stories into the feed, even if they weren't gaining any traction on the site.

In response to the news, Zuckerberg met with a number of conservatives to address their concern and then released a statement saying that “Republicans have always been an important part of Facebook” and expressing his desire to “build trust.”

This latest news regarding Theil seems to show Zuckerberg doubling down on his commitment to make Facebook a marketplace of ideas.

Stop Hillary PAC Spends $1 Million in Swing States to Remind Voters About Benghazi

The Stop Hillary PAC wants to make sure that swing state voters don't forget that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton failed to lead during the 2012 terror raid in Benghazi, Libya. So, they are re-airing an ad from last year that highlights her inaction.

“Now we know why Hillary deleted her emails. She didn’t want Americans to know how much she fears being held accountable for Benghazi,” said Ted Harvey, chairman of the Stop Hillary PAC. “Stop Hillary PAC isn’t backing down. We are doubling down. We are prepared to spend up to $1 million in the next few weeks to re-air that ad and stop Hillary Clinton from becoming president.”

The ad, entitled, "I'd Like to Ask," gives a voice to the four men killed in Benghazi. One-by-one, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith and U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens ask Clinton how she could ignore the calls of help coming from Benghazi, why she lied that the attack was the spontaneous reaction to a YouTube video, and why she tried to silence the testimony of a Benghazi whistleblower.

The PAC is especially hoping the ad will make an impression in Arizona, where Clinton is currently up be five points, according to recent polling.

“We cannot take Arizona for granted, as the most recent poll shows Hillary up by five points in the state,” Harvey said. “Arizona is more of a swing state than most people realize, and it is critical in the quest to reach 270 electoral votes.”

Cardinal Dolan Reveals "Touching Moments" Between Clinton and Trump at Al Smith Dinner

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump traded barbs Thursday night at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, but there were a few “touching moments” between them, Cardinal Dolan revealed.

“After the little prayer, Trump turned to Clinton and said, ‘You are one tough and talented woman,’” Dolan said in an interview with NBC News. "[Trump] said, 'This has been a good experience, this whole campaign, as tough as it’s been.'"

Clinton replied, "Donald, whatever happens, we need to work together afterward."

The politeness is surprising given the animosity they’ve showed toward one another on the campaign trail. Cardinal Dolan, who sat between the two during the dinner, even joked that he was catching a cold from sitting in the chilliest place on earth.

And while he admitted there were “awkward” moments, he said he was moved by some of their private conversations.

 "I was very moved by the obvious attempt on behalf of both Sec. Clinton and Mr. Trump ... to be courteous, get along, to say nice things privately to one another. I was very moved by that, that was pleasant," Dolan said. 

ISIS Executes 284 Men and Boys in Mosul

ISIS has executed 284 men and boys in Mosul, Iraq, according to a CNN intelligence source.

A mass grave was established for the dead as ISIS used a bulldozer to dump the corpses at the scene of the executions.  The victims were all shot and some were children, said the source, but CNN could not independently confirm the claim.
The United Nations earlier said it is "gravely worried" that ISIS has taken 550 families from villages around Mosul and is using them as human shields as Iraqi forces engaged the ISIS stronghold.  
Two hundred families from Samalia village and 350 families from Najafia were forced out Monday and taken to Mosul in what appears to be "an apparent policy by ISIS to prevent civilians escaping," Ravina Shamdasani, deputy spokeswoman for the UN Human Rights Office, told CNN.
Meanwhile, ISIS launched a major counter-offensive on the city of Kirkuk in retaliation on Friday morning.

The Islamic State's assault on Kirkuk, which lies in an oil- producing region, killed 18 members of the security forces and workers at a power station outside the city, including two Iranians, according to Reuters.

Of Course, Facebook Had An Internal Debate About Banning Trump’s Posts

Remember when Donald Trump wanted a total and complete shutdown of Muslim immigration into the United States. Well, of course, the social justice warriors at Facebook too deep, deep offense to that, setting of an internal debate whether to ban the presidential nominee’s posts from the social media network over violations of its terms of service (i.e. hate speech). The site’s director, Peter Thiel, pledging $1.25 million effort to elect the billionaire president, exacerbated the tension on this matter between Trump and Facebook, according to The Wall Street Journal. The platform recently said “In the weeks ahead, we’re going to begin allowing more items that people find newsworthy, significant, or important to the public interest—even if they might otherwise violate our standards.” Yet, all of this talk about content, free speech, censorship, and Trump began with those December 2015 remarks about banning Muslims, which was a reaction to the horrific terrorist attack in San Bernardino:

Issues around Mr. Trump’s posts emerged when he posted on Facebook a link to a Dec. 7 campaign statement “on preventing Muslim immigration.” The statement called for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.” Mr. Trump has since backed away from an outright ban based on religion, saying his policies would target immigrants from countries with a record of terrorism.

Users flagged the December content as hate speech, a move that triggered a review by Facebook’s community-operations team, with hundreds of employees in several offices world-wide. Some Facebook employees said in internal chat rooms that the post broke Facebook’s rules on hate speech as detailed in its internal guidelines, according to people familiar with the matter.

Content reviewers were asked by their managers not to remove the post, according to some of the people familiar. Facebook’s head of global policy management, Monika Bickert, later explained in an internal post that the company wouldn’t take down any of Mr. Trump’s posts because it strives to be impartial in the election season, according to people who saw the post.

During one of Mr. Zuckerberg’s weekly town hall meetings in late January at the company’s Menlo Park, Calif., headquarters, a Muslim employee asked how the executive could condone Mr. Trump’s comments. Mr. Zuckerberg acknowledged that Mr. Trump’s call for a ban did qualify as hate speech, but said the implications of removing them were too drastic, according to two people who attended the meeting. Mr. Zuckerberg said he backed Ms. Bickert’s call, they said.

Many employees supported the decision. “Banning a U.S. presidential candidate is not something you do lightly,” said one person familiar with the decision.

But others, including some Muslim employees at Facebook, were upset that the platform would make an exception. In Dublin, where many of Facebook’s content reviewers work, more than a dozen Muslim employees met with their managers to discuss the policy, according to another person familiar with the matter. Some created internal Facebook groups protesting the decision, while others threatened to leave.

In the end, these folks lost—and the decision by Zuckerberg was final. Facebook doesn’t get good marks from conservatives, given that Zuckerberg has voiced his support for some of Obama’s controversial policies, like rewriting federal immigration laws via executive order, and he’s from Silicon Valley; a techno-centric mecca that’s chock full of progressive lefties. Yet, you have to give credit where credit is due: he held firm against what was probably an intense internal debate over whether to ban a presidential candidate from posting material. On the other hand, the site is expected to reap $300 million from online political advertising this cycle, so that might have something to do with it as well. Nevertheless, whether it was the aspect of losing revenue, allowing the site to share both liberal and conservative views from either candidates, or a mixture of the two, I guess we can say that Zuckerberg made the right call. After all, hate speech criteria is usually social justice warrior drivel, in which any speech that offends them is considered something akin to a Nazi rally. The Journal did note, as did many publications at the time, that Trump would only restrict immigration from countries with ties to terrorism, which isn’t controversial. In fact, it might be a popular proposal with the spike in terrorism attacks, especially from ISIS.

At the end, Facebook is a business. It takes pride in being a platform where news is shared, money can be raised, and people can connect. During that December month, which was preceded by ISIS killed over 100 French citizens in Paris, there was a concern about Syrian refugees being infiltrated by terrorists, there was no way to screen all of those (10,000 in all for now) coming here regarding possible ties to terrorism. It was a huge issue, which the Republicans took seriously while the Democrats mocked them; a sign that this party shouldn’t be taken seriously on national security. Is a Muslim ban outrageous? Yes. It is hate speech? Hardly. If a pro-lifer called a pro-choice activist a baby killer (there are better ways to convey defense of the unborn), I would say that’s a bit over the top, like the Muslim ban, but hardly what is actual hate speech.

I use the pro-life position as an example since there are multiple instances where those activists are viewed as spreading hate speech. Folks, even pro-Trump chalkings are considered hate speech. It’s absurd and again the Left’s notion of such despicable speech should always be subject to extreme scrutiny. In the end, it’s usually a blanket attempt to ban opinions they disagree with.

What Trump says is controversial. It’s provocative, but it’s nowhere near the language used in Klan rallies, which is the purest form of hate speech in America. Moreover, the fight to ban so-called hate speech has led to the deplorable phenomena known as safe spaces, speech codes, and triggering. In some cases, it’s led to our history being targeted for the sake of not making soft, weak liberal students uncomfortable.

Also, banning the GOP nominee from posting because you disagree with him…c’mon. There are a lot of despicable opinions out there folks. Some are blatantly racist; others merely fall within the realm of being a conservative, like being pro-life, which isn’t racist. The trick is to tolerate those terrible opinions, while having the will to simply walk away from someone spewing racist filth. You can counter protest those folks too, you know. There are many ways to fight true hate speech without taking those censorship steroids that's become a terrible addiction for the Left.

Watch Live: Trump Speaks in Newtown

WSJ: On SCOTUS, Trump Has ‘Superior Grasp’ On Constitution, While Clinton's Views Threaten Liberty

The Wall Street Journal editorial board tore into Hillary Clinton’s debate performance regarding the Supreme Court, saying that she represents a view that threatens American liberty, while giving Republican nominee, Donald Trump, props for having the superior grasp of our constitution.

For starters, The Journal ripped into Clinton’s notion that the Supreme Court should represent us, especially in its composition. That’s wrong. That’s what the legislative branch is for. Second, they aptly noted how Clinton supports abortion on demand and without exception, which is an extreme position. Support for third-trimester (aka late-term abortion) abortions is incredibly low—and there already is an exception for the life of the mother in the 2007 Gonzalez v. Carhart decision, which upheld the federal ban on partial birth abortion. On guns, Clinton pretty much said that she would appoint judges who would overturn the landmark Heller decision, but not before giving us all a chuckle by saying she supports the Second Amendment. In all, Clinton’s Supreme Court would be everything we on the Right have feared, a hard left, activist court that will seek to undermine individual rights to gun ownership and create a more solid legal basis for killing babies right up until birth. That’s one, hot American mess:

“The Supreme Court should represent all of us. That’s how I see the Court,” she said. “And the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on our behalf of our rights as Americans.”

Where to begin with that one? The Supreme Court doesn’t—or shouldn’t—“represent” anyone. In the U.S. system that’s the job of the elected branches. The courts are appointed, not elected, so they can be nonpartisan adjudicators of competing legal claims.

Mrs. Clinton is suggesting that the Court should be a super-legislature that vindicates the will of what she calls “the American people,” which apparently excludes “the powerful.” But last we checked, the Constitution protects everyone, even the powerful. The law is supposed to protect individual rights, not an abstraction called “the people.”

The Democrat went downhill from there, promising to appoint judges who would essentially rewrite the First and Second Amendments. Asked about the 2008 Heller decision that upheld an individual right to bear arms, Mrs. Clinton claimed to support “reasonable regulation.” She said she criticized Heller because it overturned a District of Columbia law intended merely “to protect toddlers from guns and so they wanted people with guns to safely store them.”

Toddlers had nothing to do with it.


If Mrs. Clinton supports such gun restrictions, then she thinks an individual’s right to bear arms is meaningless. If the Justices she appoints agree with her, then they can gradually turn Heller into a shell of a right, restriction by restriction, even without overturning the precedent.

Then there’s the First Amendment, which Mrs. Clinton wants to rewrite by appointing Justices she said would “stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system.”

Citizens United is the 2010 Supreme Court decision that found that unions and corporations can spend money on political speech—in that specific case for a movie that was critical of Mrs. Clinton. The Democrat seems to take the different view that while atomized individuals might have the right to criticize politicians, heaven forbid if they want to band together to do it as a political interest group.

As for “dark” money, she certainly knows that territory. Does money get any darker than undisclosed Clinton Foundation donations from foreign business magnates tied to uranium concessions in Kazakhstan?

It’s no surprise that this is Clinton’s vision of America, especially on gun rights. She’s said publicly that she wants to look into Australian-style gun control, which includes gun bans and confiscation. Democrats and the anti-gun Left try to blind the public with the notion that they are for common sense gun control proposals, all of which are already established law. For abortion, it’s also no surprise that this party wants is adopting the abortion on demand position. After years of trying to convince the public that killing babies is totally okay—the Left has utterly failed. So, in a temper tantrum, they back this position, while saying that all opposition is due to the sexist, misogynistic system of patriarchy. Oh, and because the GOP hates women, or something. Are they aware that almost 30 percent of its members describe themselves as pro-life and are gun owners? For those people, the GOP is always open.

Trump isn’t the perfect candidate. In fact, like Clinton, he’s incredibly flawed and unpopular, but he won the primary, he’s the Republican nominee, and he’s not Hillary Clinton. If anything, the latter part should be enough to convince the Never Trump wing of standing idly by and allowing Clinton to easily take the White House. I’m sure many of you know that I’m not a Trump fan, but you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that he’s better than Clinton and a Trump White House working with a Republican Congress is better that Clinton’s anti-gun, pro-abortion progressive cesspool that she wants to force all of us to take a dip in. Yes, I will call out Trump for when he goes off the hinges or says something stupid, but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to back away and vote for Clinton or stay on the sidelines and abstain. You can vote for someone, while finding their brand of politics and personality to be incredibly unappealing. That point is magnified when the opposing candidate is Hillary Rodham Clinton. If you don’t want a Supreme Court that undercuts the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and promotes a legal framework for abortion on demand, the choice for president is explicitly clear.

Philippine President Clarifies His 'America Has Lost' Remarks

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has made some controversial remarks in recent weeks. In September, he called President Obama a "son of a whore." He then raised eyebrows when he said the Phillippines would not be taking part in military drills with the U.S. earlier this month. In Beijing, China on Thursday, he said matter-of-factly that he is cutting off military and economic ties to the United States.

"America has lost now. I've realigned myself in your ideological flow," he told business leaders in Beijing on Thursday. "And maybe I will also go to Russia to talk to Putin and tell him that there are three of us against the world: China, Philippines and Russia. It's the only way."

After these biting remarks, the Obama administration immediately responded. They have not received any such requests from Duterte, Deputy White House Press Secretary Eric Schultz told reporters on Thursday.

Now, Duterte is walking back his comments. He claims he did not mean total separation from the U.S. He just wants a more independent foreign policy so the Phillippines can pursue a stronger relationship with China. He cannot cut economic ties to America, he ensured the press.

"It is not severance of ties. When you say severance of ties, you cut diplomatic relations. I cannot do that," the Philippine leader told reporters at a midnight news conference in his southern home city of Davao.

"It's in the best interest of my countrymen to maintain that relationship."

Clinton Foundation: Hillary Personally Negotiated $12 Million Pay Day From Morocco's King

Why was Hillary Clinton still entertaining a lucrative face-to-face meeting with Morocco's king on behalf of the Clinton Foundation, even after she'd announced her presidential run last year?  Because there was a lot of money at stake, hacked Wikileaks emails reveal. Fox News' Ed Henry reports:

Just hours after Hillary Clinton dodged a question at the final presidential debate about charges of "pay to play" at the Clinton Foundation, a new batch of WikiLeaks emails surfaced with stunning charges that the candidate herself was at the center of negotiating a $12 million commitment from King Mohammed VI of Morocco. One of the more remarkable parts of the charge is that the allegation came from Clinton's loyal aide, Huma Abedin, who described the connection in a January 2015 email exchange with two top advisers to the candidate, John Podesta and Robby Mook. Abedin wrote that "this was HRC's idea" for her to speak at a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative in Morocco in May 2015 as an explicit condition for the $12 million commitment from the king. "She created this mess and she knows it," Abedin wrote to Podesta and Mook. The "mess" refers in part to the fact that the three Clinton advisers were discussing the possibility of the former secretary of state pulling out of speaking at the May 2015 event because it was happening one month after the official launch of her presidential campaign and could raise more questions about her role at the foundation.

In January 2015, Mook indicated Clinton was still considering whether to attend the event, even though her advisers clearly seemed to be concerned about the appearance of such heavy involvement in the foundation amid questions about its fundraising. With the subject line, "FYI CGI Africa," Mook sent an email to Podesta and Abedin on January 18, 2015. "Came up on our call with HRC," wrote Mook. "John flagged the same issues we discussed, Huma. HRC said she's sitll(sic)considering." Abedin wrote back later that day, and suggested the King would be furious if Clinton pulled out of the event. "Just to give you some context, the condition upon which the Moroccans agreed to host the meeting was her participation," Abedin wrote. "If hrc was not part if(sic) it, meeting was a non-starter." Abedin added that CGI had not even come up with the idea to hold the event in Morocco, instead it was generated by Clinton herself. "This was HRC's idea, our office approached the Moroccans and they 100 percent believe they are doing this at her request," wrote Abedin. "The King has personally committed approx $12 million both for the endowment and to support the meeting."...While Clinton was secretary of state, her department in 2011 charged that the Moroccan government was behind "arbitrary arrests and corruption in all branches of government."

The King of Morocco set up an elaborate visit for Hillary Clinton, apparently at her suggestion, and agreed to contribute $12 million to the foundation.  Given his country's blemished corruption record -- according to Clinton's State Department -- what did the monarch believe he might receive in exchange for his generosity, one wonders?  Surely something was worth $12 million to him, and it couldn't have been her mere presence.  (In another questionable episode, the ISIS-funding Qatari regime offered a $1 million "birthday gift" to Bill Clinton, asking for five minutes of face time with the former president to present the check.  This extreme generosity cannot realistically be viewed as purely altruistic).  At Wednesday's debate, Mrs. Clinton side-stepped questions about pay-for-play allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation -- whose high level donors have received preferential treatment in terms of access to Sec. Clinton, coveted invitationscontracts, and even appointments.  It was one giant conflict of interest.  She boasted of the organization's strong charity-to-overhead cost ratio, as well as its strong ratings from charity watchdogs.  What she failed to mention was that the foundation's finances have looked much more profligate and wasteful in the recent past, and that the foundation was on a charity watch list -- getting removed under heavy political pressure in 2015.  Mrs. Clinton has egregiously mischaracterized the level of transparency with which her family ran the organization while she was Secretary of State, during which time she repeatedly violated her ethics agreement with the Obama administration.  Oh, and here's another curious little tidbit from new Wikileaks documents.  I share Democrats' alarm about Russia clearly attempting to influence our election, but granting and setting those concerns aside, how can the Clinton campaign explain this?

Political campaigns are legally barred from any coordination with SuperPACs.  Via CBS News, I'll leave you with this delightful flashback video of Hillary admonishing her underlings at State to be vigilant about, er, cybersecurity:

Photo credit: PBS

Flashback Friday: Here's President George H. W. Bush's Letter To President Bill Clinton On His First Day On The Job

A letter written by President George H. W. Bush to President Bill Clinton on his first day as president is going viral as a reminder of a time when civility seemed to exist in politics. Bush wrote the letter to Clinton to encourage him and wish him well in his new job.

Jan 20, 1993

Dear Bill,

When I walked into this office just now I felt the same sense of wonder and respect that I felt four years ago. I know you will feel that, too.

I wish you great happiness here. I never felt the loneliness some Presidents have described.

There will be very tough times, made even more difficult by criticism you may not think is fair. I’m not a very good one to give advice; but just don’t let the critics discourage you or push you off course.

You will be our President when you read this note. I wish you well. I wish your family well.

Your success now is our country’s success. I am rooting hard for you.

Good luck-


Those were the days, weren't they?

Bill Clinton Destroys "Old White Gray-Haired" Americans, Says Immigrants Keep America Young

Bill Clinton acknowledged Friday during a campaign speech for his wife that there have been millions of Americans left behind as the the world advances on its ultra-progressive path.  What he failed to do is mention any shift in pace or remorse for the harm that such liberal policies cause.

“We know that there are whole areas of America that have been left out and left behind,” Clinton acknowledged.  “But so has coal country, and most of them are supporting [Hillary’s] opponent because they’ve been told that President Obama and those of us who think something has to be done about climate change are responsible for the loss of those jobs.”

Clinton said that anger does not solve the problems America faces.  He also said that illegal immigrants are keeping America young.

“Even in our own lives, there are reasons to be angry. But answers work better. There are always reasons to be frustrated. But empowerment is the only answer... They’re against immigration reform when that’s the only thing that we got keeping us young right now. Our first-generation Americans."

He said that old gray-haired white guys should be worried about who is going to pay for Social Security and Medicare.

“All these old gray-haired white guys, how do they think our Social Security is going to be paid out and our Medicare is going to get funded?,” Clinton stated.  “We need you. We all need this. Everybody has got a legitimate beef. Sometimes the things that happen are unfair and unjust…What are you going to do about it and how are you going to feel about it?”

“We’ve got to be a tomorrow country again. Can’t do it without a mind,” he said, and a “heart well turned.”

The Clinton's continue to show their disdain for white people throughout America, especially old white males.