The Romney sidekick total CUCKservative Ryan is a complete piece of work - in no way did Trump suggest a ban against Muslims yesterday what he said verbatim was:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-relea...l-security

The immigration laws of the United States give the President the power to suspend entry into the country of any class of persons that the President deems detrimental to the interests or security of the United States, as he deems appropriate.

I will use this power to protect the American people. When I am elected, I will suspend immigration from areas of the world when there is a proven history of terrorism against the United States, Europe or our allies, until we understand how to end these threats.

After a full, impartial and long overdue security assessment, we will develop a responsible immigration policy that serves the interests and values of America.

We cannot continue to allow thousands upon thousands of people to pour into our country, many of whom have the same thought process as this savage killer.

Many of the principles of Radical Islam are incompatible with Western values and institutions.

Radical Islam is anti-woman, anti-gay and anti-American.

I refuse to allow America to become a place where gay people, Christian people, and Jewish people, are the targets of persecution and intimidation by Radical Islamic preachers of hate and violence.

###

What Trump did do is emphasize the clear and present danger threats posed by Radical Islamic Terrorism and Obama and Clinton's complete lack of action against these threats - worse the FBI admits that there are many Radical Islamist cells operating in Florida with over 900+ active ISIS investigations in all 50 states and the media insists Trump "has doubled down on wanting to ban all Muslims".

Time to keep a list of Cucks in the book of which GOP members in the House and Senate to Keep and which to replace Taxed Enough Already TEA party style.

Samseau Wrote:By the way, this is exactly how Reagan won as well. He was losing in the polls until the failed mission in Iran, and afterwards Reagan's numbers went through the roof. He was seen as too tough and scary before the attack, but afterwards it seemed too scary not to choose him.

You know there are several parallels to Reagan. Both Reagan and Trump:

-B rate movie/TV actors
-Liberal leaning previously
-Running a conservative message
-Use tough non-PC "real talk"
-Despised by their own party
-Very effective and motivational speakers

I can only hope we bear a repeat of Reagan's years because I fear for the alternative.

(06-14-2016 06:20 PM)spokepoker Wrote:  

Paul Ryan. What a cuck bastard. He's worse than Obama with his sneaky tactics that could have the result of the GOP imploding. I still distinctly remember the VP debate between him and Joe Biden. Biden destroyed Ryan. He tried to be calculated and knowledgeable but was no match for Biden's better charisma frankly. It was like listening to nails on a chalkboard, although Sarah Palin took the cake there. Which brings me to my next point.

The guy does not have an "influencing" personality that Trump does. That scares the shit out of him. The only way he can hold on to any power and create any negotiation leverage for himself is by doing petty shit like this in the hopes of possibly using it when Trump wants to pass orders and bills. He doesn't want to look like Trump's bitch at that point so he is trying to "hedge" himself. However, the inevitable will be that Trump will just override his bitchy personality and appeal to other republicans in the house anyways.

This jackass is working for the other side.

I think Ryan's days are numbered. Trump did lose Wiscuckson to Cruz, but I am pretty sure Cruz voters hate Ryan.

The Push For Disarmament Begins: “The Globalists Are Waiting in the Wings To Take Down America And Confiscate Firearms”

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/th...s_06142016

The headlines and news networks are awash with the shooting that occurred on Sunday in Florida – 50 dead and 53 hospitalized in the largest single mass-shooting incident in the history of the U.S. History in the making, and as Rahm Emmanuel put it, never let a crisis go to waste. The governor of Florida quickly declared a state of emergency, and as the FBI is labeling it as a “terrorist incident,” undoubtedly the federal presence is going to increase.

All of the machinery is in place and has been in place for quite some time, now. The harbinger of things to come was already outlined by Obama, on January 14, 2014 in a White House Press Conference:

“…we are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone, and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward…”

-Barack Hussein Obama I

Now in case anyone hasn’t noticed, the tempo of “town hall” meetings has been picked up quite a bit, especially Obama’s push for more gun control. In between using taxpayer dollars to campaign for Hillary Clinton and vacationing at Martha’s Vineyard, Obama has “resurrected” the push for gun control. Coincidentally, this mass shooting occurs barely even a week after Obama met with his plants and puppets to “discuss” gun control policies. This on the heels of the 9th Circuit Court on which on June 9, 2016 struck down the right to carry concealed as a right given under the U.S. Constitution. Undoubtedly this one will run right up to the Supreme Court for a liberal “reinterpretation” of the Second Amendment.

This latest incident will give him the juice to proceed with an executive order. We knew that it was inevitable: a pretext would be created to provide “justification” for either some form of gun registration (this always leads to gun confiscation) or the emplacement of martial law. Remember, the UN and the globalists are just waiting in the wings for the ability to take down the United States and confiscate the firearms.

On September 25, 2013 John Kerry signed the UN Arms Trade Treaty, “On behalf of President Obama and the United States of America.” Seems to this author that the United States of America didn’t really have much of a say-so on this issue. There are many who will say, “Well, in order for that treaty to be exercised, it will have to have the Senate approve it. Even then, it is onerous to the Constitution…Marbury vs. Madison, and all.”

Let us remind ourselves that Obamacare was not able to be rammed through as commerce, so they confirmed that it is a tax. Only trouble is…it didn’t originate in the House of Representatives, now, did it? Yet here it is. This next round is for the firearms, and they’re ramping up for it from every angle: domestic terrorism, and the constant global threat of terrorism. Some catch phrases here that will come into play: “In the interests of national security,” and “in the interests of public safety.”

The bottom line: they can’t take the U.S. down without taking the guns out of the hands of its citizens.

Don’t forget some of the other wonderful agreements, pacts, and statements of understanding Obama has drawn up with countries such as Canada, Russia, and others to bring their forces onto American soil to help “enforce order” if the President of the United States – Obama – is unable to enforce the laws under his administration. According to the UN, only “authorized state parties” (referring to the governments and their armed forces and police apparatuses) are to have any firearms.

Executive Order 13603 is the one that confiscates all of the resources under an emergency (men and materials, the former being forced labor). The NDAA provides direction for the inculcation of martial law during an emergency and the indefinite detention of American citizens with neither a writ of Habeas Corpus or a trial. We are seeing the draconian measures taken in the private sector and the banks in terms of limiting cash withdrawals from the institutions and the ATM’s.

We are seeing the positioning of military equipment throughout the United States, the federalization of National Guard Troops, the federalization of municipal, local, and state police forces, and all of the above coming under the blanket of the federal government and activated by FEMA and the DHS.

They need a war or a false flag to start the whole ball rolling and this shooting is just the beginning. “Wag the Dog” never really stopped playing…only in the theaters. The federal government picked up the movie and has been writing the sequels and following them as policy, both foreign and domestic.

They are telegraphing the left hook: they are going to use this incident to come for the guns, starting out with “assault” weapons and high-capacity magazines. Hillary will use her clout and get behind it, but it is Obama who will make it happen. Why?

Obama is the outgoing president: he’ll make the gun control happen, so that it isn’t an uphill battle for Hillary. What can’t be obtained through Congress will be obtained by EO, and “justified” by the false flag incident where he “had to act for the public good.”

This is just the beginning, and it may very well be that it isn’t just the firearms that come under fire with an EO. One or two more of these type of incidents and they’ll roll out the martial law juggernaut. They didn’t put all of these measures into place as a hobby, and with 315 million Muppets, the faster they act with a situation such as this, the easier it will be to control the public and inculcate these measures before they even realize what has happened.

Jeremiah Johnson is the Nom de plume of a retired Green Beret of the United States Army Special Forces (Airborne). Mr. Johnson is also a Gunsmith, a Certified Master Herbalist, a Montana Master Food Preserver, and a graduate of the U.S. Army’s SERE school (Survival Evasion Resistance Escape). He lives in a cabin in the mountains of Western Montana with his wife and three cats. You can follow Jeremiah’s regular writings at SHTFplan.com

(06-14-2016 06:15 PM)Sweet Jones Wrote:  Does anyone know why the front page of r/the_donald is majority text post at the moment? I'm pretty sure it has been that way when I checked the last couple of days too. It definitely looks better dominated by memes

Because reddit changed the rules on 'sticky posts' - previously any kind of post (text, links, pictures etc) could be stickied and put at the top.

Now only text posts can be stickied.

(they also renamed it from sticky to announcement)

Trump at his North Carolina rally also said that the Clintons should return the money they received from Saudi Arabia and other places which oppress women and gays. He's hammering her on corruption and undermining her base at the same time, to come off the heels of his Obama LKS in the waiting and his making Obama crack for the second time in less than a month. All in one day. Unbelievable.

Happy birthday, Mr. President.

So I know a lot of guys on here have been active betting during the primaries and I have been seeing things about other ways to cash in on an election cycle.

One method I have seen is buying stock in gun manufacturers which supposedly increase consistently around elections. Does anyone have any intel on this? Is it wise to dump some cash into these stocks in the hopes that the sea hag scares enough people into purchasing guns during the debates this summer? Not to mention we are probably guaranteed another terrorist attack or two.

Surprisingly, the Washington Post published a pro Trump opinion piece from a retired diplomat.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/..._tw-bottom

Quote:Most of my former colleagues at the State Department will be appalled by the assertion, but much of the media-fed angst about Donald Trump’s dearth of foreign policy expertise is contrived.

Our cadre of neoconservative foreign policy experts, unhumbled after marching us into a reckless war in Iraq and a poorly conceived one in Afghanistan, who applauded as we bombed Libya and bitterly resent our having failed to bomb Bashar al-Assad in Syria, are frightened. Wisely, they often focus on comments that Trump has made on issues that are of less genuine interest to them — from his strident stance on immigration to his “threat” to our liberties to his sometimes deplorable commentary about women and some minorities. But what really troubles them is his generally level-headed and unmessianic attitude toward foreign affairs. Trump has no desire to make the rest of the world in our image; he is concerned only about the world not making America in its image.

The neocons bemoan Trump’s rejection of a global role for the United States, but Trump has no intent to withdraw the United States from the world stage. He only rejects the wanton use of our young men and women on foreign adventures of questionable value.

The neocons have two clear foreign policy objectives, and Trump may grant them neither. For many of them, their deepest yearning, ungranted even in the waning days of the George W. Bush presidency, is an air campaign against Iran. Trump doesn’t like the Iran nuclear agreement, but his instinct is to make a better deal rather than attacking, while Hillary Clinton has a strong record of supporting the prodigal misuse of military force. Clinton is just another neocon, though wrapped in sheep’s clothing — just as on some foreign policy issues Trump is little more than Bernie Sanders in wolf’s clothing.

But clothing makes a huge difference. Most Americans don’t want the United States to be disrespected, and they want a muscular military that doesn’t take any nonsense — but they also don’t want military adventurism. Trump succeeds in having it both ways: He reassures that the United States will be respected and also that we will not employ our troops as cannon fodder on distant battlefields. Underneath all the tirades against illegal immigration and the need to be tough with our adversaries, there is an inward focus. There is a sense that America — in order to be great again — needs to relinquish its role as global cop and tend first to its needs at home. By sounding caustic, Trump is able to appear more militaristic and tougher than the far more reckless Clinton. Calculating and cavalier, Clinton would agree with her old pal, then-U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albright: “What’s the point of having this superb military . . . if we can’t use it?” The stern rebuke to that question later provided by Gen. Colin Powell that the military is not a toy is lost on the neocons and Clinton. Among Clinton’s weaknesses, her fear of appearing weak may be her most damning.

The second neocon priority? A new Cold War with Russia. Vladi­mir Putin, unlikable and increasingly uncooperative and antagonistic, admittedly makes this objective more within reach, but Trump might avoid it as well. Clinton repeats over and over that Russia only understands a tough and determined opponent, while Trump may have a more sophisticated and mature approach. Far less petulant than most of the former Republican candidates, Trump says he would actually talk with Putin. That takes real courage given the general view among Republican elites. Contrast that with Clinton, who thinks we should not be talking too much to Putin and that we ought to further expand NATO because , in her view, Russia would be an even greater threat had it not been for NATO expansion. Of course, to admit that NATO expansion triggered the current crisis would be admitting that her husband is largely responsible for it. Trump seems to understand George Kennan’s warning that NATO expansion would directly lead to a more paranoid and aggressive Russia.

During an ambassadorial conference in 2014, a former colleague breathlessly characterized the Ukraine crisis in neocon terms as a Manichean struggle between good and evil. Such comic-book notions now dominate our political discourse, distorting reality and making it nearly impossible to objectively assess complex issues. Trump, for all his bizarre commentary on domestic issues, better grasps the subtleties of global politics and the dangers of thinking ourselves infallible and invincible.

It’s quite an irony: The ostensibly more reckless, infantile, inexperienced and bombastic candidate may actually be more mature, level-headed and reasonable on foreign policy than his critics, who, against all the good advice our parents gave us as children, pout and refuse to talk to those they don’t like, escalate arguments to violence when they are upset, lack any remorse for the harm caused by their past opinions and actions, and fail repeatedly to see that there might be two sides to any disagreement.

Trump at the Greensboro rally

Trump Wrote:“I watched President Obama today and he was more angry at me than he was at the shooter, and many people said that. One of the folks on television said ‘Boy has Trump gotten under his skin.’ But he was more angry [at me]— and a lot of people have said this — that kind of anger he should have for these shooters and these killers that shouldn’t be here.”

In contrast to the sad state of affairs in California where the police were told to stand down, in Greensboro the police made protesters stay on the other side of the street from Trump supporters and arrested those who tried to cross.

Some interviews with attendees:

Quote:Tavaris Smith, 32, of Greensboro said he likes presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump because "he puts America first."

Smith, who is gay with a longtime partner, believes America is still great but he'd like to see more jobs and more security. He said his mother lost her job at a Goodyear plant in 1992 due to the North America Free Trade Agreement.

Quote:Jesse Jeffries, 30, of Greensboro is attending the rally with his girlfriend and their 9-month-old.

Jeffries, a nine-year Army National Guardsman, went to Trump's rally in Hickory in March but couldn't get in. He said he is historically a Democrat but is willing to "explore new avenues."

Jeffries said he doesn't support Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presumptive nominee, because of her "track record of lying."

Quote:Beverly Lester, 58, and Deonna Cook, 43, both of Kernersville, got there at 5 a.m. Lester thought the rally started at 7 a.m. The rally is set to begin at 7 p.m. with doors opening at 4 p.m.

Lester, a teacher, said she came to the rally because she wanted to hear what Trump had to say rather than getting information through the "distorted media."

Lester likes that Trump is a big supporter of veterans and she likes his stance on illegal immigration.

"We need to close the border completely until we can take care of what we have here," Lester said. "Our hospitality as Americans has been taken advantage of."

This guy shows that what many of us have said is indeed happening:

Quote:Harveland McCallister said he became a supporter after a Chicago rally for Trump was canceled amid protests. McCallister said although he doesn’t agree with everything Trump says, he paid closer attention to the candidate after protesters silenced him.

“The riots in Chicago were unbelievable,” McCallister said. “He should have at least had the right to speak even if the entire city didn’t like what he had to say. He should’ve had the right to speak, but he basically felt terrorized by these terrorists (protesters) and he was forced to cancel that speech.”

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politic...95262.html

The average American isn't an idiot. They are good people who just want to feel secure and feel fairly treated, many many people see through the lies and hatred of the dishonest progressive nihilists.

Dusty that is a good article, thanks for posting.

(06-14-2016 08:10 PM)Deepdiver Wrote:  Obama is the outgoing president: he’ll make the gun control happen, so that it isn’t an uphill battle for Hillary. What can’t be obtained through Congress will be obtained by EO, and “justified” by the false flag incident where he “had to act for the public good.”

Don't take this post to mean we should let our guards down, but this is the worst kind of fear mongering. The UN Arms treaty was not ratified by the Senate therefore Kerry's signature is merely symbolic, it has zero force of law. Let me speak very frankly, if they couldn't ram gun control through when 20 white kids in CT were killed are you telling me 50 gays in FL are going to be it? With a ® majority no less? No way, no how. EO's do not work that way, they have to be backed by established law passed by both houses of Congress. Obama can sign whatever he wants to but if there are no means to enforce violations of it in the US Code then it is toilet paper.

Its IntelliHub so take it with a grain of salt:

Black Lives Matter Leader Hacked - Private Messages expose plan to disrupt GOP, DNC conventions, force Martial Law; give Obama another 4 years.

Quote:Operation “Summer of Chaos” exposed: Obama Admin, Soros, Black Lives Matter, plan to activate martial law before General Election revealed.

10,000 bought and paid for BLM dissidents to create chaos at the Philadelphia Democratic National Convention in late July

Black Lives Matter leader Deray McKesson had two of his email accounts hacked last Friday, along with his Twitter.

Reports indicate that the perpetrators successfully hacked into several of McKesson’s accounts after posing as McKesson to a Verizon Wireless Tech Support operator in order to gain access and post a provocative Tweet which endorsed Donald J. Trump for the Presidential bid.

“At 10:31 a.m., an individual called Verizon posing as Mr. Mckesson and convinced a technician to change the unique SIM associated with the activist’s phone, allowing the hacker or hackers responsible to have his messages rerouted to a different device. The culprit then requested password reset codes for Mr. Mckesson’s Twitter and other internet accounts, and subsequently gained access by intercepting those codes when they were sent as text messages,” the Washington Times reported.

However, the mainline press made no mention of the real purpose for the hack, which was to obtain secret information about a George Soros, Obama Administration, sponsored plot, an elaborate operation dubbed the “Summer of Chaos,” which is aimed at shutting down both the Democratic National Convention and the Republican National Convention in order to trigger martial law nationwide, keeping President Barack H. Obama in the White House beyond his allotted two terms under National Security Presidential Directives.

Shockingly, in a private message obtained and released by the hackers, Samuel Sinyangwe, a Black Lives Matter activist, said that law enforcement officials “will not be ready for the type of crowds” that the group will be bringing which are designed to shutdown the convention and create “disruptions nationwide.”

The group plans to bring more than 10,000 people to create chaos July 18-21 in both Philadelphia and Cleveland, according to the leaked PMs.

I think Trump really has gotten under Obama and Hilary's skin. Obama just has less reason to hide it. While Obama may not like Hilary personally, she also represents a continuation of his policies. Therefore, a rejection of Clinton as candidate is a rejection of his legacy as President. The prospect, and increasing likelihood, that Donald Trump will become President is causing Obama a narcissistic injury. That's why he's lashing out against the guy.

(06-14-2016 09:59 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  Trump at the Greensboro rally

Trump Wrote:“I watched President Obama today and he was more angry at me than he was at the shooter, and many people said that. One of the folks on television said ‘Boy has Trump gotten under his skin.’ But he was more angry [at me]— and a lot of people have said this — that kind of anger he should have for these shooters and these killers that shouldn’t be here.”

In contrast to the sad state of affairs in California where the police were told to stand down, in Greensboro the police made protesters stay on the other side of the street from Trump supporters and arrested those who tried to cross.

A side note- some interviews with attendees at the rally show what many of us have said is indeed happening:

Quote:Harveland McCallister said he became a supporter after a Chicago rally for Trump was canceled amid protests. McCallister said although he doesn’t agree with everything Trump says, he paid closer attention to the candidate after protesters silenced him.

“The riots in Chicago were unbelievable,” McCallister said. “He should have at least had the right to speak even if the entire city didn’t like what he had to say. He should’ve had the right to speak, but he basically felt terrorized by these terrorists (protesters) and he was forced to cancel that speech.”

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politic...95262.html

Trump is on fire at this Greensboro Rally




Calling for Crooked Hillary to give the 25 Million+ back to Saudi Arabia that she raised with the Clinton Foundation for her campaign.

"How can you be a friend to women when you take millions of dollars from a country that enslaves women?"

How can you be a friend to L G B T S when you take money from countries that murder them every day!?

"We're not going to let people take advantage of us! We're going to go to the movie theater! We're going to go on airplanes! We're going to lead our lives how we're supposed to live our lives! We're gonna be straight down the middle, everything is going to be fair and there's going to be total justice. But we can't continue to live this way. People are going to be afraid to go out...they already are! (Do) you feel safer now than you did 8 years ago, I think there's probably not anybody here that feels that way..."

(06-14-2016 06:40 PM)Prince of Persia Wrote:  

Great rally.

Quote:Poll: Voters Don’t View Hillary Clinton Nomination as ‘Historic’

A survey from Morning Consult finds most voters unmoved by sentiments that Hillary Clinton’s nomination is an “historic” moment in American politics.
Just 38 percent of voters viewed Clinton becoming the first female nominee of a major party as “historic.” Even among the small number of voters who name “women’s issues” as their top political concern, far less than half (43 percent), felt Clinton’s nomination was “historic.”

When Hillary Clinton claimed victory in the Democrat nomination contest last week, though, she wrapped herself, and her campaign, within the women’s rights movement.

“Tonight’s victory is not about one person, it belongs to generations of women and men who struggled and sacrificed and made this moment possible,” Clinton said. “We’re all standing under a glass ceiling right now, but don’t worry — we’re not smashing this one. Thanks to you, we’ve reached a milestone.”

Clinton even took the stage for her victory speech against the pulsating backdrop of pop song “Brave,” by Sara Bareilles. One of the song’s co-writers has described it as a “civil rights anthem” for the LGBT community. Clinton certainly hopes that she can borrow some of the history-tinged feelings that propelled President Obama to the White House.

Only a very small and distinct subset of voters are buying it, though. According to the crosstabs of the Morning Consult survey, only older Democrat women feel Clinton’s nomination is in any way historic. Age, in fact, is a big determinant. Voters under the 30 are the least likely to feel that Clinton’s nomination is historic.

It is possible, of course, that President Obama’s election as the first African-American President has rendered the potential of the first female President as somewhat anti-climactic. Women in positions of power and authority isn’t exactly novel anymore.

At the end of May, Alex Swoyer Breitbart News reported that Hillary Clinton was downplaying the significance of being the first female presidential candidate. Research conducted on behalf of EMILY’s List, a left wing PAC for female candidates, had found the message didn’t move voters toward supporting Clinton.

The Morning Consult survey suggests another reason voters aren’t buying the “history” narrative of Clinton’s campaign, i.e. doubts about Hillary herself. More voters view her winning the Democrat nomination as a “step backward” for the country, rather than a “step foreward.”

More female voters, even, view Clinton’s nomination as a step backward, (25 percent), rather than a step forward (24 percent). While voters view Clinton as intellectual, successful, powerful and wealthy, they also find her unlikable.

More than half of voters, 52 percent, say Clinton is a liar. A similar number, 51 percent, say Clinton is untrustworthy. A large plurality of women, around 15 points, also think Clinton is a liar and untrustworty. Almost a third of women also think Clinton is “rude” and a “bully.”

A recent CNN poll found that 80 percent of American voters said the country was “ready” to have a female President. Interestingly, though, just 31 percent felt it was an important milestone for the country to achieve in their lifetimes. Voters, in other words, think the country should have a female president, but it just isn’t a priority.

Perhaps voters just don’t want Hillary Clinton to be president.

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/...ium=social

(06-15-2016 12:55 AM)RaccoonFace Wrote:  

Quote:A recent CNN poll found that 80 percent of American voters said the country was “ready” to have a female President. Interestingly, though, just 31 percent felt it was an important milestone for the country to achieve in their lifetimes. Voters, in other words, think the country should have a female president, but it just isn’t a priority. just not Hilary Clinton.

Fixed that for the writer of the article.

I'd be fine with Ivanka running (and winning) in 12 or 16 years. I know she won't look as good as she does now, but she has the temperment and personality to be a statesman, or I guess stateswoman. But Hillary? Fuck that nonsense.

Picture of the shooter father visiting Clinton State Department when she was in office.

The Cuckservatives/RINOs are reacting as expected.

Quote:Mitch McConnell Says He May Be ‘Open’ to Post-Orlando Gun Control

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) says he be may be “open” to placing new gun controls on law-abiding citizens following the terror attack on Pulse Orlando.
According to CBS News’s Steven Portnoy, McConnell has a meeting with FBI director James Comey and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson on Wednesday. Portnoy Tweeted that McConnell has signaled he may be willing to consider new gun controls after that meeting.

The suspected gunman in the Orlando attack passed background checks for his guns, submitted to a waiting period before picking up his handgun, and held a Florida Security Officer license and a Statewide Firearms License. There is no word on what additional gun controls McConnell might be “open” to discussing.

Breitbart News previously reported that Secretary Jeh Johnson has already said gun control will be part of Homeland Security post-Orlando.

Source: http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2...ium=social

(06-15-2016 01:57 AM)Latinopan Wrote:  Picture of the shooter father visiting Clinton State Department when she was in office.

It's like all of Hilary's sins combined in one: State Department, fakefugee arselicking, and the subject of the photo unavailable for discussion.

Here's Donny!

Associated Press finally realises Trump is playing them -- and yet still buys into his frame in the process:

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-ameri...875960c04d

Quote:DONALD Trump’s favourite nickname for the news media is the “dishonest press”.

He swaps in “disgusting press” from time to time.

And sometimes, he puts it all together: “disgusting, dishonest human beings”.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee has a whole menu of take-downs for individual reporters and news organisations.

In recent weeks, he’s used his microphone and his tweets to label them “third-rate,” “not nice,” “disgraceful,” “phony,” “low-life,” “very unprofessional” and “bad people.”

Or, for extra emphasis in a tweet, “BAD”.

He’s also been quick to yank or withhold credentials from news organisations whose coverage he doesn’t like — most recently, The Washington Post.

Trump seems to be perpetually mad at the press, but there’s a method to his madness.

He sees little downside to bashing the media — and plenty of potential benefits.

“It’s a truism of American politics that you don’t lose an election by criticising the media,” said Robert Lichter, president of the private Center for Media and Public Affairs.

“It plays well with the public, particularly with Republicans.”

While Trump’s language is more incendiary and he lashes out more personally at reporters than typical for past candidates, he’s following a long tradition of modern politicians who shoot barbs at the messenger.

Former President Dwight Eisenhower energised the 1964 Republican convention with his complaint about “sensation-seeking columnists and commentators”.

Richard Nixon’s vice president, Spiro Agnew, famously threw shade at “nattering nabobs of negativism” in the press.

President George H.W. Bush, who played horseshoes with press photographers and invited reporters to White House picnics and other events, still exhorted voters during his re-election campaign to act on the bumper-sticker slogan: “Annoy the Media: Re-elect Bush.”

His wife, Barbara, had some biting advice for Hillary Clinton when the incoming first lady visited the White House in November 1992: “Avoid this crowd like the plague,” Bush told Clinton, sweeping her hand toward the reporters and photographers on the South Lawn.

Trump is taking the beat-the-press strategy to a whole new level.

In a recent one-month period, he delivered 39 tweets skewering reporters and media organisations, mixed in with a much smaller number of positive and neutral references in his Twitter feed.

Just one example: “The media is really on a witch-hunt against me. False reporting, and plenty of it — but we will prevail!”

This week, Trump revoked the Post’s credentials, citing what he called the paper’s “incredibly inaccurate coverage and reporting.”

Other news organisations he’s banned, either short-term or permanently, include Politico, the Des Moines Register, BuzzFeed, the Daily Beast and the Huffington Post.

Post editor Martin Baron called Trump’s latest move “nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press”.

Kathleen Carroll, executive editor of The Associated Press, said his credentialing bans do a disservice to the public.

In the race for the most powerful position on the planet, she said, “the public is interested in what the candidates do and say, and having independent coverage is part of what keeps the public informed”.

Why is Trump so quick to pick a fight with the press?

For one thing, his over-the-top language can be a successful strategy for changing the subject when he wants to divert attention.

Last month, when reporters pressed Trump to document what he’d done with millions of dollars raised for veterans, he turned on them, calling one reporter “a sleaze” and sarcastically referring to another as “a real beauty.”

That language itself became a big part of the story, shifting some of the attention away from questions about his handling of the money for veterans.

Trump’s constant criticism of the press also helps to inoculate him against future negative news stories.

But it's just like Eminem's lyric: "Feminist women love Eminem: 'Slim Shady, I'm sick of him, look at him, walking around, grabbin his you-know-what, flippin the you-know-who (yeah, but he's so cute tho!)"

Quote:Conservatives, in particular, already are wary of the mainstream media, and Trump’s rhetoric reinforces the message that nothing from the media is to be believed.

“Part of what he’s probably decided is that he wants to be very aggressive, to make sure that his supporters routinely discount any kind of news media attack,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Trump supporter, said in a recent interview with Fox News.

With the Republican Party in turmoil over Trump’s candidacy, the billionaire’s broadsides also serve as a unifying theme within the party.

GOP faithful may have big differences with Trump on the issues, but they’re at one with him on contempt for the mainstream media.

While Trump’s very public display of disdain is strategic, says Lichter, it’s also just “part of his daily dose of pugnacity”.

At the same time, though, Trump can be charming in one-on-one interviews, flattering reporters and complimenting their questions.

He calls many of them by their first names.

He takes questions and offers considerable access, seeming to understand that for all his complaints about the press, he can’t live without them.

“You know the press is the most dishonest people ever created by god,” he said at a March press conference.

“So I would love to take a few questions from these dishonest people. Go ahead, press.”

Is there any doubt a female reporter wrote this? Spin, hamster, spin!

Putin Steals the DNC'S Opposition Files on Trump
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/06/14/puti...candidate/

Quote:Cyber attackers linked to Moscow’s military intelligence unit, the GRU, and to the FSB, the successor to the KGB, broke into the DNC and won wide-ranging access to its computer systems, which was first reported by the Washington Post. The DNC and Crowdstrike, the security firm called in to kick the Russian hackers off the network, confirmed the details of that story to Foreign Policy.

Calls to the Russian Embassy on Tuesday went unanswered.

In April, the DNC grew suspicious that its networks may have been penetrated and called in Crowdstrike, based in Irvine, Calif. to investigate. Dmitri Alperovitch, the company’s co-founder and chief technology officer, told Foreign Policy in an interview that his company immediately recognized the hackers as Russian-backed groups that it had previously encountered. The breach used techniques and codes consistent with the groups, which are well known and have been linked to a number of prominent breaches.

Stealing opposition research on Trump makes perfect sense from a foreign intelligence perspective, according to Alperovitch. “Every world leader right now is trying to figure out this election. Trump is an unknown, and it is unclear what his positions are,” he said.

DNC officials told the Post that they have no evidence that donor or financial information was targeted.

The DNC’s Trump files present an appealing target. Opposition research might give the Kremlin insight into how Trump would approach countries in which he has investments or provide fodder for blackmail. It could also help Russian President Vladimir Putin sort out whether Trump is as potentially friendly to Moscow as he seems; the GOP frontrunner has spoken warmly about Putin, and the Russian strongman has responded with positive words of his own.
...

...

This can be construed as Russia has already seen Trump as the next POTUS.

Had a random thought about Russia.

Russia had the best spies and propaganda in the 20th century, period. After learning how infectious they were in the CIA, MI6, and government during the same time frame, I've always been skeptical of them. Especially when they have news outlets like RT and people sympathetic to the cause.

But, the more I think about it, the more I think that Russia has ramped down the propaganda. The U.S. is so obviously corrupt, partly due to Russian influence in the 20th century, partly due to general emperial decadence, that its media is completely useless to the average citizen.

The best move for the Russians is to just tell the truth that the US media isn't telling its countrymen. I'm still very skeptical, but if your enemy's news makers are just slightly more truthful than your own, what does that tell you?