Being Not Hillary
And so it's come to this: The Criminal Careerist vs The Corporate Combover for the heavyweight title — Leader of the Free World. Like Trump's hair, and the crooked Clintons themselves, you couldn't make it up.
But then who are we Catholics to judge? Our latest election produced the Aberrant Argentine! The Bull-In-A-China-Shop from Buenos Aires! The Flaming Pharisee who constantly cries off making political interventions when they need to be made — in defence of orthodox faith and morals for the good of souls, born and unborn — yet mounts his privileged papal soapbox to intervene whenever a liberal hobby horse is challenged. As during his recent visit to Mexico, when he demonised Donald Trump for touting a wall on the Mexican border that offended his social gospel sensibilities.
Setting aside the pros and cons of Great Walls (few of which have great records), merely for dissenting from received 'progressive' wisdom on illegal and mass immigration — suggesting a physical barrier to help control a southern border under constant siege from homicidal drug cartels and people smugglers — Francis anathematised The Donald. A man of such views, he snapped, "is not Christian." A rather judgmental call from His Heterodox & Heretical Humbleness. And grossly hypocritical. As exhaustively documented last month in "The 'Bergoglian Synthesis'," his own claim to Christian belief is hardly watertight, n'est-ce pas?
Unlike the Vicar of Christ, America's Evangelical leaders have preferred to see the kernel of goodness in Trump and cultivate it. Renowned Evangelical leaders like James Dobson have quizzed Trump, "ministering to him personally" and asking him hard questions. Describing Trump as a "lot nicer guy" than many people would believe, Dobson admits that Trump "doesn't know our language, he really doesn't, and he refers a lot to religion and not much to faith and belief. He didn’t grow up like we did."
People need to cut him "some slack," said Dr. Dobson. "I think there’s hope for him, and I think there’s hope for us." Revealing that Trump had very recently "accepted a relationship" with Jesus Christ (through a minister known to Dobson), he insisted: "I believe he really made a commitment, but he's a baby Christian. We all need to be praying for him, especially if there's a possibility of him being our next chief executive officer."
What a striking difference in Christian attitude and approach to that adopted by our shameful pontiff! And what of U.S. shepherds missing in evangelical action? Do the massive government grants doled out to 'Catholic' charities for refugee projects, now dictate who they support, and which lost sheep they seek out?
Typically ill-judged and unwarranted, the Pope's intervention also showcased his shameless habit of saying what his audience or hosts (in this case Mexicans) want to hear. Before such rank opportunism, Trump replied: "I don't think he understands the danger of the open border that we have with Mexico." The Pope heard one side of the story south of the border, he said, and did not see the crime, drug trafficking and negative economic impact Mexico's policies had on the United States. Not one to turn the other cheek, he added spikily: "If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS's ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president." Ouch! While his social media director tweeted: "Amazing from the Pope — considering Vatican City is 100 percent surrounded by massive walls." Touche!
A fair scorecard of that skirmish would read: Team Donald 2 : Pope 0. Forever advocating instead of reporting, the mainstream media scored it precisely the opposite, of course. "Dope v Pope" trumpeted one headline in a 'conservative' newspaper. Since their distaste for even-handedness mirrors the illiberal Bergoglian modus operandi, it was hardly surprising that Francis joined forces with them to assist Hillary's cause by demonising her opponent: the brash, belligerent, egoistic loudmouth 'conservative' currently challenging their shared socialistic ideology like no-one else.
Not even Trump's unabashed pro-life pledges could save him from the gratuitous papal barb. His list of 11 potential Supreme Court nominees was well received by pro-lifers. Moreover, when asked: "As a President Trump, if a bill came to your desk that would defund Planned Parenthood you would support that, you would sign that?", he replied without hesitation: "Yes, because as long as they do the abortion I am not for funding Planned Parenthood… As long as they’re involved with abortion, as far as I’m concerned forget it, I wouldn’t fund them regardless."
Now, let us restate from the outset our usual reservation about the capacity of any righteous candidate whomsoever to overcome the fascistic Western establishment. Only perseverance in truth, prayer, penance, and long suffering will bring down the vast network of self-interest that powers and sustains that ungodly edifice. It also goes without saying that in a perfect world of virtuous candidates, Catholic voters would hardly embrace the promiscuous, thrice married Trump (— although, unlike Francis, they might try to convert rather than rebuke him).
Nonetheless, despite the permanent socio-political roadblock set up by the arrogant elites, and notwithstanding the risk of expedient campaign U-turns at any moment, let us assume the sincerity detected in Donald Trump by the many pro-life leaders, Catholic and Protestant, who have met with him. For, in that case, even his regrettable caveats on abortion (e.g., acceptable in cases of rape) and contradictory praise for Planned Parenthood's non-abortion 'services', do not outweigh his stated option for life — in support of which he named a pro-life running mate who proclaims that a Trump presidency would consign Roe v. Wade to the "ash heap of history"!
This commitment immediately puts Catholic daylight between Trump and the death-dealing Clinton, regardless of anything else.And yet, not satisfied with denigrating his faith, Francis, like most bishops, gives Mr Trump no credit for this Christian choice, while turning a blind eye to his furiously anti-life opponent.
Meantime, the partisan press embellished the partisan Pope's insult by ludicrously labelling Trump a racist to boot; for advocating the wall, calling for a moratorium on Muslim immigration, daring to call illegal immigrants "illegal" not "undocumented", and threatening to deport them. Although he has modified his original position on deportations somewhat, deporting "illegals" is viewed favourably by large numbers of Latinos themselves! According to a McLoughlin Group survey in 2011, 40% of American-born Latinos (which group represents three-quarters of all Latino voters), opposed President Obama's decision to grant amnesty to many of the immigrants who arrived in the U.S. illegally. Even 20% of foreign-born Latinos did not embrace Obama's decision.
A law unto itself, the media smears Trump as racist without regard for truth or balance. Yet in doing so, it also defames a vast number of American Latinos who share his views. The double-standard is shameless. There is no investigation of Hillary's racist infractions, such as her filthy outbursts against Jewish people. She was even allowed to lionise a one-time Ku Klux Klan grandee, and claim him as her "mentor," with barely a media murmur.
Senator Robert C. Byrd once wrote that he would never fight in the armed forces "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels" (letter, 11 Dec. 1945). Although the late Senator often apologised for that part of his life (in the 1940s), his latent KKK streak appeared to reveal itself here and there during his long career. Among other things: he was the only senator to vote against both African-American Supreme Court nominees Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas; and as recently as 2005 described the KKK in his memoir as a fraternal assembly of "upstanding people."
Even if largely and rightly forgiven and rehabilitated, given the Senator's record, can we even imagine the media frenzy if Trump had dared to commend him? Yet the normally hyper-PC media ignore the fact that in 2010, when he died, Hillary went much further still. "Today our country has lost a true American original, my friend and mentor Robert C. Byrd," she eulogised. "As Secretary of State, I continued to rely on his advice and counsel. ... We will not see his like again."
To top off the duplicity, on 25 August Mrs Clinton's campaign released a video ad featuring Ku Klux Klan leaders praising Donald Trump, thus portraying him as the KKK-connected candidate! The video narrator describes Trump's supporters as "the sort of dressed-up-in-suits version of the neo-Nazi and white supremacist movements." While Hillary tweeted the same day: "There's a reason the most hateful fringe of the right wing is supporting Donald Trump." But they are also supporting her! One KKK member offered her campaign $20,000, but you won't read that in the New York Times.
It hardly matters either way, since anyone can voice support for anyone. Moreover, the KKK itself, though a perennial liberal bogeyman, is an irrelevancy nowadays, boasting barely 5,000 adherents in toto. What it does reveal, though, is Mrs Clinton's perennial freedom to attribute her own crimes, misdemeanors and bad judgment to others infinitely less blameworthy (and usually blameless), without a peep from a mainstream media that turns the most inconsequential missteps and gaffes of her opponents into global headlines. The wall of silence surrounding her hero-worship of an ex-KKK Senator is a classic case in point. But infinitely worse is the blackout of her adulation and emulation of her wicked heroine.
Who's the Racist, Then?
A fanatical abortion advocate, Hillary lauds the life and work of eugenicist Margaret Sanger, the Planned Parenthood founder who despised the "feeble minded," sought to breed "a race of thoroughbreds", and typically confided in 1939:
We should hire three, or four colored ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful, educational approach to the negro, is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members. (Letter to Dr Clarence Gamble, my emphasis).
Her Extermination Plan continues on. Today, 36% of the nation’s abortions comprise African Americans, despite their constituting only 13% of the population. While government figures for 2012 revealed that "black women were 3.6 times more likely to have an abortion than non-Hispanic white women".
Can there be any wonder why Planned Parenthood opens its facilities in poor inner city neighbourhoods populated by minorities? Can there be any doubt that Sanger’s philosophy of creating a pure race is what fuels Planned Parenthood’s support of embryonic stem cell research? Margaret Sanger was a racist. She’s responsible for the millions of babies that have been ethnically cleansed from our country, and should not be celebrated.
Hillary does not hesitate to do so, however; openly extolling this racist monster and her monstrous PP legacy without the least fear of media reaction. "I will always stand with Planned Parenthood," she told activists at a PP abortion business rally in early June. "It should be funded, supported and appreciated.... Every single day, all across America, the staff at Planned Parenthood is doing extraordinary things." An objective, impartial media would point out that these "extraordinary" homicidal/genocidal/eugenic "things" impact disproportionately on African Americans. But they refuse to hold both candidates to the same standard and critique them firmly but fairly. Which is why Trump trails Hillary by wide margins among non-white voters, and not vice versa as the truth dictates should be the case.
It is precisely Sangerians like Hillary who keep the black populace on the 'plantation' — slaughtering their unborn babies in genocidal numbers; enslaving them to welfare handouts; continually stoking their sense of victimhood. Despite this and much more, African Americans continue to support the Clintons come what may. They surely would not do so if the press bothered to publicise some simple home truths. Such as Bill's frequent use of the phrase "Goddamn nigger" behind their backs while Governor of Arkansas — attested to by Bill's childhood sweetheart and longtime lover Dolly Kyle. But since their obnoxious attitudes and behaviour, like their criminal activities, are downplayed or ignored, it only took Bill looking cool and playing the saxophone on a TV show to convince most black Americans that he was one of them. How pathetic.
Clearly, the black electorate does not think deeply enough about the two-faced Clintons and their self-serving mendacity. Nor does it reflect sufficiently on the negative impact on black lives of Clinton-enacted legislation (particularly apropos abortion, welfare and crime). Indeed, African American voters seem altogether oblivious to the cynical manner in which they have been used and abused by the couple, who have conned and patronised the black populace with weaselly slogans that only worsen their situation.
A proud Arkansian, Dolly Kyle laments the dire poverty, unemployment, and incarceration rates of blacks in the Delta area of the State, as well as historic gerrymandering of boundaries to deny black people the ability to elect one of their own. She explains how the Arkansas Clintons personified the real racism at play:
When Billy Clinton was governor and Hillary was his co-conspiratorial First Lady in the 1980s, Billy was sued several times by groups of minorities (both blacks and Hispanics) for violations of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Billy lost every case. He was reprimanded several times by the federal courts for violations of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. All the detailed information about these (and other) lawsuits is available in public records, but you probably won’t find many references to these cases against the racist Clintons in any mainstream media reports. You won’t find anything anti-Clinton in most new school textbooks, either, because the Clinton cronies have been busy rewriting history.
Re-writing and erasing their despicable history like tyrants, the Clintons also perform 180-degree turns with a regularity and flagrance that would make a Third World dictator blush.
During the 90s, for instance, 'co-presidents' Bill and Hillary publicly criticised racial profiling as a "morally indefensible, deeply corrosive practice." Yet just a few short years before, as part of his politicised anti-drug programme, Governor Clinton of Arkansas pushed virtually unfettered racial profiling of Hispanics! Given the white nature of the drug taking and dealing in Bill's circle, this naturally perplexed Kyle. After all, his younger stepbrother, Roger, had a $5,000-a-week cocaine habit and went to prison for drug dealing. Roger's drug suppliers and friends to whom he sold drugs were also white. And of course there is Bill himself, who, like Barack Obama, has a history of drug-use. (Roger has been quoted as saying that Bill "had a nose like a vacuum cleaner" when it came to cocaine. His mistress Gennifer Flowers also referred to his drug-taking.) Furthermore, during his tenure he likely had a vested interest, financial and/or political, in the CIA's clandestine drug running out of Arkansas' Mena airport (which cocaine flooded American cities, funding CIA covert operations).
Instead of targetting whites, however, Bill decided to target Hispanics, for no good reason. He instituted rampant stop and search procedures. Then, when he was sued in court and his program unsurprisingly ruled unconstitutional, like the spoiled child and bully that he is, "Billy threw one of his infamous temper tantrums about the ban on his racial profiling of Hispanics," says Kyle, "and he threatened to renew the racial profiling program in spite of the court’s ruling." This he duly did a few years later, giving the Arkansas state troopers the right to stop and search any car at their discretion. The media mentions neither the racist overtones, nor the duplicity of the drug-taking Governor Clinton's 'war on drugs', nor the herculean hypocrisy of his flip-flop on racial profiling.
All politicians lie and reverse originally-held positions. Realistically, to avoid disappointment, we should expect the same from Trump. But, again, how many avoid close media scrutiny in the process?
By way of explanation and support of Dolly Kyle's testimony and analysis — set out in her impressive 2016 release, Hillary The Other Woman: A Political Memoir — she has been calling Clinton "Billy" since she was an eleven-year-old girl and he a thirteen-year-old boy. Long repentant for her own promiscuity, until he started campaigning for president she was close to him for decades. She has had a ringside seat to observe him lie and scheme together with his wife, for personal gain. Yet despite all, including an eventual threat by the Clintons to "destroy" her if she wrote about her time with Bill (an idea he had always encouraged her to realise before he ran for president), she writes and speaks without a trace of bitterness, somehow retaining genuine affection for "Billy," and an earnest desire to see this "rapist/serial sex abuser" one day cured of all his destructive demons. Her articulate and insightful assessment is an objective one, therefore, based on intimate knowledge and the public record. And she concludes that "The Clintons have waged a subterranean race war while accusing others of racism." Even if Hillary descended to the ultimate racist pandering to retain her vital black vote, it would not surprise her:
As Hillary becomes more desperate to hang on to the undeserved support from African-Americans she will probably talk about making reparations for slavery. Reparations for slavery is a completely degrading notion to black people, 150 years after the War and slavery ended! If Hillary wants to insult African-Americans any more than she already has by talking about them as nothing but votes and implying that they are too pitiful to make it on their own after 150 years of freedom in America, then let her pay those reparations from her own pocket.
In the end, if black voters were told the plain truth often enough — if they could break free from the chains of the media and Big Government Democrats — they would be mortified by their sycophantic attachment to the Clintons. How furious then would they be to see videos of Hillary laughing and joking with black audiences, as they stand and applaud her in rooms adorned with the cynical slogan: "Fighting For Us – hillaryclinton.com".
Some black leaders do their best to point out the disconnect between the reality and the sycophancy. But they must tread very carefully. In a video of one gathering, a well-informed leader pleads with his African American audience: "I don’t blame you for wanting a female president. But that’s a wicked woman."
He lets them know, too, that "Hillary Clinton was the biggest advocate for the destruction of Libya. Now Libya is a failed state. All the refugees fleeing out of Syria, fleeing out of Libya, fleeing out of North Africa, is because of policies of the government of the United States of America. And, her. Specifically." It was the simple truth they rarely hear, but which alone will set them free.
Hillary, George & Jorge : The 'Vast Left-wing Conspiracy'
As for Trump, appealing to African Americans on 19 August, he put it succinctly and well: "Hillary Clinton is a throwback to an ugly past where politicians preyed on our poorer citizens while selling them out for personal gain." Speaking in Mississippi on 24 August, he rightly called Clinton a "bigot who sees people of colour only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future." In an interview with the laughably biased CNN he told a crestfallen interviewer (unused to frank criticism of the channel's patron saint): "Her policies are bigoted. Over the years, a long time, totally bigoted. I think she has been extremely bad for African-Americans, extremely bad for Hispanics. You look at what happens with her policies and the policies of President [Barack] Obama and others. Look at the poverty, the rise in poverty. The rise in violence. …"
Faced with concrete arguments against her, Hillary responded, as ever, not with convincing counter-arguments but by projecting her own sins onto Trump: accusing him of "reinforcing harmful stereotypes," "taking hate groups mainstream," and running a presidential campaign built on "prejudice and paranoia." These charges from a woman known not only for her anti-Jewish tirades, but for seeing sinister plots everywhere: famously attributing criticism of the Clinton mafia to a "vast right-wing conspiracy"! (As we shall now see, the only conspiracy is the one conducted on her behalf: financed by her zillionaire backers, propagated by the extreme-left, and currently assisted by this wretched pontificate.)
As hypocrite Hillary turned up the "RACIST!" volume knob to 11, Donald Trump continued to appeal to blacks to leave the Democrat Plantation they have occupied for generations:
Look how much African-American communities have suffered under Democratic control. To those I say the following: What do you have to lose by trying something new, like Trump? What do you have to lose? You're living in poverty. Your schools are no good. You have no jobs. Fifty-eight percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose? At the end of four years, I guarantee you that I will get over 95 percent of the African-American vote — because I will produce. I will produce for the inner cities and I will produce for the African-Americans. One thing we know for sure is if you keep voting for the same people, you will keep getting the same — exactly the same result. We must do better as a country.
Unable to criticise Trump for not addressing the black community, the media now blames him for doing so from within white communities. But they studiously omit the reason. Earlier, in March, Trump had attempted to deliver his positive message in a speech to a predominantly African-American campus at the University of Chicago. It was cancelled when professional agitators ran riot. This has made entering black bastions a risky venture. Doubtless funded by notorious oligarch George Soros (one of Hillary's top donors and advisers) these 'protesters' disrupt Trump rallies, then blame Trump for inciting hatred. The mainstream press magnifies the lie with inflammatory headlines, allowing the false narrative to take root via the closely controlled news wires that dictate what we read; whether in the Guardian or Daily Telegraph; the Irish Times or Daily Mail.
Given the magnitude of his subversion, very limited publicity, and even less criticism, is devoted to Soros. Aided and abetted by the likes of Mrs Clinton — the candidate of Wall Street and the War Party — he operates under the media radar; acting like a CIA law unto himself while fomenting riotous discontent worldwide. According to Breitbart News he is known to have funded "the orchestrated ‘refugee crisis,’ revolutions across the world, the war on police, Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, globalism, and more." Locally, ongoing anti-Brexit demonstrations also smack of Soros-funded agitation. Lisa Bourne neatly sums him up:
George Soros defines himself as a philanthropist on his website and also a supporter of democratic ideals, yet he is not above using intimidation or even toppling governments and economies to achieve his agenda. Further, his attempts to procure the soul of the Roman Catholic Church, as though it were a commodity by using his wealth like a club, do not represent the principles of democracy or generosity but demonstrate iniquity and elitism. [LifeSiteNews, 1/9/16]
A rare glimpse of his reach and influence was provided by 2,500 internal documents recently leaked from his Open Society Foundation [OSF]. Published in August by DCLeaks, they show the OSF not only working to block American immigration reform and the documenting of illegals (as many as 11 million of whom it wants to legalise), but pursuing the same objectives internationally.
According to The Australian of 22 August, the documents reveal how Soros' transnational network "pressures governments to adopt high immigration targets and porous border policies" to ensure "mass immigration into the West nations from Islamist regions." (At the same time, covering all migration bases, a document from 2011 shows Soros funding the defence of Islam by way of half-a-million dollars in grants to a group looking to conduct opposition research on known critics of radical Islam, like Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and activist Pamela Gellar. The money also helped them fight against and explore organisations that might stir up "anti-Muslim xenophobia.")
According to The Australian, Soros pursues his open borders objective while conducting "overt campaigns against dissenters." Hence the contrived media outrage and demonisation that greets every 'dissident' utterance, however trifling, by the likes of Trump, England's Nigel Farage, Hungary's Viktor Orban, Marine Le Pen of France, and their controlled-immigration counterparts everywhere. Down Under, the documents show Soros funding the group GetUp! to engage in this Trump-like reframing of Australian politics, "by rebranding conservatives as the hard right while recasting the left as moderate or progressive." As elsewhere, they have succeeded. "Many sections of the [Australian] media have uncritically adopted GetUp!’s rhetoric," comments The Australian, "which effectively divides the [current government] by aligning conservatives falsely with a range of hard-Right views that they abhor."
Like Hillary, George holds the same extreme libertine-left views as Margaret Sanger. He is fanatically pro-abortion (following the death of pro-life Supreme Court Justice Scalia, he funded the lobbying effort for President Obama to quickly replace Scalia with an abortion advocate). He is avidly pro-euthanasia (disbursing millions of dollars to one group to "help them influence culture, then pass and implement assisted suicide laws across the nations"). And he defends and funds Planned Parenthood (the leaked August 2016 documents showing how he sought to give $1.5 million to PP to help cover up its trafficking of aborted baby parts, and "transform the [media] narrative" back in PP's favour).
Soros supported Mrs Clinton even before she announced her candidacy, becoming a co-chair of the "Ready for Hillary" Political Action Committee's National Finance Committee. Last July, he also donated $25 million to Clinton and Democratic election campaigns. All things considered, his political influence on Hillary is hardly surprising. Among the leaked documents, one Soros email to then-Secretary of State Clinton advised her on unrest in Albania, insisting that the "EU must take the lead" in negotiations, before providing the names of three people he suggested be appointed as "mediator," one of whom was eventually tapped for the job. [LifeNews, 15/8/16]
Of even more interest to Catholics, however, was Soros' April 2015 allocation of $650,000 to influence Pope Francis’ September 2015 visit to the USA. Made with the stated aim of "shift[ing] national paradigms and priorities in the run-up to the 2016 presidential campaign," the funding was specifically directed to helping alter "the priorities of the US Catholic church" [sic] — by exploiting the social gospel papacy of Francis and his expressed wish to downplay abortion and moral absolutes in favour of issues like race and ecology. All done with a view to getting Mrs Clinton to the White House.
Speaking to LifeSiteNews [23/8/16], Attorney Elizabeth Yore underlined that "Catholics serve as a huge and influential voting block in the U.S. election." Soros, she explained, is "using the head of the Catholic Church to influence this key voting block" with the "bully pulpit of the papacy," to ensure Hilary Clinton’s election.
Emails among those published by DCLeaks reveal two orchestrating Soros groups reporting success in the aftermath of their Soros-funded media propaganda campaign. In their report entitled, Review Of 2015 U.S. Opportunities Fund, they are delighted with the "Buy-in of individual bishops to more publicly voice support of economic and racial justice messages in order to begin to create a critical mass of bishops who are aligned with the Pope." In clear reference to successfully influencing Catholic prelates to demonise Trump, they also state: "The impact of this work and the relationships it has fostered can be seen in the broad range of religious leaders hitting pointedly back at presidential candidates for their use of fearmongering."
Soros' divide-and-conquer stratagem dovetails with the hierarchical conflicts that have burgeoned under Francis. A sulphurous convesrgence, it recalls the prophesy of Akita. On 13 October 1973, Our Lady told Sister Agnes: "The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops." LSN details a specific example of this Francis effect that is being exploited and accentuated by Soros and the libertine-left:
In terms of the Soros goal of shifting the priorities of the Catholic Church away from moral absolutes, two US bishops stand out as champions of the move. San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy has repeatedly stressed changing the Church’s priorities and has had the backing of Pope Francis’ ‘favored son,’ Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich. McElroy created a furor at the U.S. Bishops Conference meeting last November over his attempt to change a document instructing Catholics on how to vote.
McElroy made a pointed argument that the document was out of step with Pope Francis’ priorities — specifically, by putting too much emphasis on abortion and euthanasia, and not enough on poverty and the environment. Cupich later praised McElroy’s intervention as a "real high moment" for the conference and supported the move to put degradation of the environment and global poverty on par with abortion and euthanasia.
Energised by the success of the massive grant to influence the papal visit, the Soros crew concluded their leaked report by noting that their long-term goal of shifting the priorities of the Catholic Bishops in the United States "is now underway." But their subversive brief is only local. Soros, on the other hand, pursues a quantum "shift" across the world; one that requires a pontiff to give it universal moral authority. In Francis, he has found his dream pope. Elizabeth Yore points out the Francis-Soros alignment at many levels:
Both love power and chaos; Francis known for his infamous refrain “make a mess, create chaos,” and Soros for his cryptic “discern the chaos and become rich.” Both men understand that they emerge more powerful when institutions and governments are destabilized. Jorge and George, identical political globalist ideologues: environmentalists, pro-UN, pro-Cuba, pro-Argentina, pro-mass migration, pro-borderless world, anti-death penalty, and, anti-Trump.
The conspiratorial Soros factor puts the Pope's anti-Trump outburst in sinister perspective. A gratuitous political intervention, it reflects the ongoing influence of Soros surrogates freely operating in Rome since March 2013. Cardinal Maradiaga, to name just one, was specifically mentioned as an agent of influence in the leaked Board Minutes from the May 2015 meeting of Soros’ Open Society Foundation in New York. These cronies helped orchestrate the production of Laudato si; the Pope's socialistic/New Age eco-encyclical [see CO, Oct. and Nov. 2015]. As Elizabeth Yore told LifeSiteNews, "this is not the first time that the unholy alliance of Soros and the Vatican successfully collaborated on a political project." Part of a delegation that went to Rome in April 2015 to urge Francis to re-examine his reliance on UN population control proponents who promote climate change, she recalled how
the Soros operatives, embedded in the Vatican, directed Pope Francis’ Environmental Agenda, by delivering for Soros and the UN, an Apostolic Exhortation on Climate Change, and a prized papal endorsement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the Pope’s apostolic blessing on the Paris Climate Treaty.
If there is a "vast conspiracy," as the clinically paranoid Hillary has always charged, this is it: a global, oligarchic propaganda machine pushing politically socialist, socially anarchic, sexually libertine, culturally nihilist agendas. Those conservative souls unwilling to embrace those agendas, whole and entire, are rebranded hateful "extremists" who have forfeited the right to tolerance and a fair hearing. After all, no 'reasonable' person would ever challenge chaotic open borders. Or protest the socialistic stranglehold over black people that keeps them in a state of dependency; reliant on a creature like Hillary, who views them merely as black votes — the means to sate her lust for power, privilege and money — not as human beings.
Make no mistake, it is that ice-cold sociopathic outlook, not legal and Constitutional reasons, that leaves Hillary unmoved by the targeted slaughter of babies with the wrong coloured skin. It is only due to her corporate media protectors that she can hide behind her irrational and contradictory appeal to the "rights" of the born vis-à-vis the disenfranchised unborn. And since the great majority of African American mothers and fathers will never be shown the real Hillary, they will never comprehend the racist/genocidal significance of this eulogy: Hillary's most recent paeans of praise to the founder of the corporation that kills around 330,000 babies every year, more than a third of them black:
I admire Margaret Sanger enormously. Her courage, her tenacity, her vision. … When I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes, and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her. And there are a lot of lessons we can learn from her life. From the cause she launched, and fought for, and sacrificed so greatly.
Hillary identifies with Margaret because she shares the same void and animus: namely, the unbelief that hollowed out Sanger's compassion and empathy, fuelling her supremacist rage against the 'imperfect'. In old black and white film footage, accessible online, Sanger is asked by an interviewer: "Do you believe in sin? When I say believe I don’t mean believe in committing sin. Do you believe there is such a thing as sin?" She responds:
I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world – that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being, practically, delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things, just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin.
Lucifer himself, who loathes and seeks to destroy the bodies and souls of mortal men formed in the image and likeness of God, could not have answered better. Hillary of course would never put it quite that way. Rather, to deflect critics, she has concocted a 'Christian' narrative that her equally godless media lackeys push on her behalf. On 6 August, for instance, The Atlantic ran a piece titled "Hillary Clinton’s Moral Conflicts on Abortion," referring to her alleged Methodist faith as evidence. A week later, on 15 August, the Jesuit journal America also headlined "The Private Faith Life of Hillary Clinton — A lifelong Methodist who has learned to keep her personal beliefs hidden." According to the article:
She is said to read snippets of Scripture each day; she has cited figures from the familiar canon of progressive, modern theologians, including Paul Tillich, Reinhold Niebuhr and Henri Nouwen, as inspirations.....
These gurus alone — promoters of the pseudo-Christian social gospel long peddled by the apostate publishers of America — show up the absurdity of Clinton's Christian pretensions. Perhaps the most cynical and laughable claim repeatedly made in this regard, and again by America, is that "during her husband’s affair with a White House intern [Monica Lewinsky], Mrs. Clinton is said to have leaned especially hard on her faith"! Anyone who has bothered to read beyond this mainstream make-believe understands how it perverts the nauseating reality: namely, Hillary's enabling of Bill's rampant promiscuity, while terrorising his women.
As Camille Paglia once observed: "Forget all her little gold crosses: Hillary’s real god is political expediency." Amen.
Along with ideology, cowardly self-preservation keeps the press from airing the plain truth about Hillary, to include the spiritual truth to which we have just alluded: the dark soul that informs her extreme self-absorption; gratuitous criminal cruelty to others; seething rage; and extraordinarily mean, bitter, and vengeful spirit. Quite simply, like everyone else, the press needs to keep the Clintons onside, or be destroyed by a range of retaliations (to include crippling IRS audits if she's elected). In consequence, when it comes to Hillary's alleged 'faith', there is no discussion of the inner void she shares with her racist heroine. We will return to the narcissism and ruthlessness that reflect this spiritual void (traits shared with her husband, and particularly to the fore in covering over his chronic sexual predations). A couple of anecdotes in this regard are worth briefly recounting in advance, however, since they point to Sangerite depths which our later accounts will fully confirm. (Apologies for expletives***-deleted; kept to a bare minimum, but simply unavoidable in making our case.)
The first incident, small but wholly indicative, attests to Hillary's pitiless heart. Recounted by Dolly Kyle in her memoir, it occurred when Bill was Governor of Arkansas, and Hillary his First Lady.
Each year, Mrs Clinton was "the reluctant" hostess of an Easter egg hunt at the Governor's mansion. This included "a special hunt for the children who were in some way developmentally challenged." Though she spent (misspent!) a lot of time at the mansion with Bill during Hillary's mysterious regular absences over the years, Kyle, a lawyer, was not present at this event herself. She heard the story confirmed by several sources, including an Arkansas friend (Louise) who is a long-time advocate for the state's intellectually handicapped; another lawyer; and "a couple of the troopers who were present for this particular Easter Egg Hunt." She explains that the handicapped children "were naturally slower than the first group":
The day was quite warm, as is common in Arkansas in the spring. Despite the heat, the children were having a wonderful time.
But they were having a v – e – r – y, v – e – r – y, v – e – r – y s – l – o – w time of finding and picking up the Easter eggs.
Hillary had enough. She stomped across the grass up to the shaded veranda on the back of the mansion (this was before the huge addition), and accosted one of the troopers. At this point, the story diverges a bit. Some people said that there was an open microphone; others said that Hillary could be heard across the yard because she was yelling. It’s a toss-up in my mind, although I personally favor the “open mike” version, which is what Louise told me.
At any rate, the frustrated Me-First Lady demanded, “When are they going to get those f***ing ree-tards out of here?”
Far from a distant, isolated incident, this vicious spirit has animated Hillary's entire life and times; shaping the heartless persona the press largely protects from public view. Under pressure, it periodically erupts, as during the Benghazi hearings when she exploded before unanswerable charges of her serial lying, incompetence, and criminal negligence as Secretary of State, which cost the lives of four Americans (including the ambassador) during a terrorist attack in Libya.
In the process of swearing under oath 250 times: "I do not remember", Mrs Clinton actually stated apropos Libya, "We didn't lose a single person"! She similarly lied to the families of the victims about the nature and cause of the attack on the diplomatic compound in Benghazi on the evening of 11 September 2012. Always psychologically and emotionally incapable of accepting responsibility for her actions, in this case she continued to blame the attack on spontaneous "rage and violence" whipped up by an anti-Islamic video, knowing this to be untrue. (Declassified documents revealed that within hours of the Benghazi attack, the Department of Defence had in fact reported to Secretary of State Clinton that the attack was planned and carried out by al-Qaida and Muslim Brotherhood-linked terrorists. Those memos also reveal that the DOD had described details of a plan "to kill as many Americans as possible," 10 days in advance!)
Her fabrications and blame-shifting were finally undone by the documented evidence (her renowned detexerity for destroying such evidence failing her on this occasion). With no cards left to play except her usual perjurious ones, Hillary gesticulated wildly as she railed: “The fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans. What difference at this point does it make?".
Well, knowing what happened, who was responsible for the needless massacre of four people, and who orchestrated the cover up, makes all the difference in the world to the families of the dead. As Dolly Kyle reflected on the episode, "It does make a difference to decent people everywhere." Just not to self-absorbed Hillary, whose contempt and disregard for others is only ever a mood swing and tantrum away.
The Secret Service agents assigned to protect her have always borne the brunt of this dysfunction, and despise her accordingly. Agents rate being on her detail as "the worst duty assignment in the Secret Service. Being assigned to her detail is a form of punishment," writes respected author Ron Kessler in his book The First Family Detail (2014). Described by former agents as "vengeful," Hillary would reply to a polite "Good morning" from an officer with an obscenity. Former Secret Service agent Lloyd Bulman stated: "She was just really rude to almost everybody. She’d act like she didn’t want you around, like you were beneath her." She went years without speaking to some agents. But not if they were driving her and went over a bump: in which case she’d swear at them! Agents "lay down their life for hers," writes Kessler, "and there’s no respect for that." An observation that speaks volumes about her character, or complete lack thereof.
Former Secret Service agent Gary Byrne protected the Clintons for eight years in the White House during the 1990s. Regularly commended and awarded for his service, Byrne knew the Clintons so well he was even subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, as he had intimate details of the president’s sexual encounters with the young intern from his three-year station right outside the Oval Office. In Crisis of Character, written this year to warn the American people against putting her in the White House, he divulges more unhinged behaviour by Hillary, which kicks off as soon as the cameras stop rolling and her fake smiles evaporate.
"In public, she was everyone’s best friend," he writes. "Privately, she was her normal self." Which is to say, off-the-chart abnormal. He even recounts that "She once threw a Bible at an agent on her detail, hitting him in the back of the head." Her screaming, obscenity-laced tantrums worsened the more she felt at home in the White House. She "vented on everyone" and "it got worse" as time went on.
This is the woman who brands Donald Trump a dangerous hothead! Someone, she charged at a rally in Philadelphia, who "loses his cool at the slightest provocation"; "Not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons." Readers might wonder, on the contrary, whether a volcanic warmonger like Hillary is the one to keep far away from the nuclear button! A passage in Byrne's book captures the animus underlying the eruptions:
One day, UD [Uniformed Division] officers met to review events at their respective posts. A bewildered new officer arrived. ‘Hey you’ll never believe it, but I passed the First lady and she told me to go to hell!’ A second young officer responded, ‘You think that’s bad? I passed her on the West Colonnade, and all I said was ‘Good morning, First Lady.’ She told me, ‘Go f— yourself.’ ‘Are you serious?’ ‘Go f— yourself!’ He imitated her, pointing a finger.
To make it even worse, the "new officer" concerned had earned a Purple Heart fighting the Clintons’ war in Somalia. As Kessler said, Hillary "has no respect for that." No respect for that or anything or anyone else, in fact — unless it increases her power, bank balance, or campaign funds.
One particular incident related by Kessler underscores this point; revealing the same inhumanity and extreme self-centredness she displayed at the Easter egg hunt years before. On the road during her Senatorial campaign, they arrived at a club in the dairy country of upstate New York, where she saw cows and people in jeans. That enraged her and she asked a staffer, "What the f*** did we come here for? There's no money here."
Exceeding the boundaries of natural nastiness, these introductory testimonies could be endlessly supplemented with even more shocking episodes (involving even worse blasphemous cursing and profanities!). They reveal the spite and malice of a profoundly warped soul. Beyond familial factors, we will finally arrive at one brief but telling account, ignored even by seasoned Hillary critics, that speaks like no other to the ultimate source of this hatefulness. But for now, let us return to the Clinton-Sanger nexus and its most striking manifestation: Hillary's dogged promotion of Margaret's eugenic spawn; Planned Parenthood.
The grisly embodiment of its foundress, Planned Parenthood plumbs new subterranean depths by the month. Its most recent lucrative sideline is the trafficking of the organs of the babies it butchers; a grotesque enterprise that Sanger's progeny have been filmed laughing, joking and/or boasting about over food and wine (see "Planned Parenthood Uncovered", Dec. 2015). Yet Hillary is undeterred. Referred to as 'Killary' and 'Hitlery' for good reason, she insists: "I would like to see Planned Parenthood even get more funding" (— more, that is, than the near billion tax dollars they receive annually!). Her bloody crusade against the unborn knows no limits because, unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton declares that "The unborn person doesn’t have Constitutional rights."
Since Hillary lies for a living (literally), only a Freudian slip accounts for this truthful admission of life from conception: that the unborn, though having no legal "rights" in her view, is indeed a person. The confession lays bare her genocidal position. For, she logically posits that Constitutional rights acquired upon leaving the womb include the "right" of the born person to kill the unborn person. Furthermore, while promising to "do everything we can to repeal the  Hyde Amendment" that restricts the federal funding of abortions (owing to which at least a million people are alive), she insists that the born person must be free to exercise their murderous "right" gratis: on the taxpayer's dime.
We should not doubt, therefore, that Clinton will undertake at home and abroad, whatever dictatorial social engineering is required to maintain the carnage. "Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper," she argued this year at a Women in The World Summit in New York. "Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will." In a speech full of menace, she declared that in order to achieve this, "deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed". Mouthing these words slowly, with real deliberation and intent, accentuating the imperative, she portended the manic drive we can expect under President Hillary; to wipe out all remaining legislative protection of Christian conscientious objection to anti-life/anti-family policy, legislation, and practice.
Possessed of an Alice-in-Wonderland capacity for self-contradiction and self-deception, Mrs Clinton sees no dissonance whatsoever between these aims — coercing Christians to accept and fund abortions; to include the Little Sisters of the Poor being forced to pay for abortifacient contraceptives in their employee health plans — and her claim to champion religious liberty! In a mid-August article for Utah's Deseret News, she boasted: "I’ve been fighting to defend religious freedom for years." In keeping with the constant projection of her own disorders onto other people — yet another defining psychological trait — she then immediately accused the pro-life Donald Trump of wanting to "undo centuries of American tradition and values"!
She only dares to carry on in this demented way, reversing reality and apportioning her manifest sins to others, because she knows the mainstream media will not challenge her flaming lies and raging incoherence. And so the hoi polloi, though aware of the general charges made against Mrs Clinton, are protected from her workaday lies and behaviour. They simply do not encounter the plain truth as posted by bestselling Christian author and talk show host Eric Metaxas, when he rightly labelled her supposed promotion of religious liberty a "cynical joke." While the likes of America and The Atlantic sprang to her defence, pushing her faux Christian credentials in support of her claim, Mataxas wrote:
I am stunned at the level of cynicism from Hillary Clinton to make a statement like that. It’s ugly. To hear her talk about religious liberty. She is the enemy, if ever there was an enemy of religious liberty in America, it’s Hillary Rodham Clinton and every American should be frightened to death on that issue.
Clinton’s Deseret News op-ed also drew the ire of National Review writer Alexandra Desanctis, who demolished her duplicitous boast of having defended foreign minorities like Buddhists in Tibet:
Such an accomplishment rings hollow given that Clinton has made no effort to defend religious freedom here in the U.S.. In fact, she has actively worked against religious minorities for the sake of her other cherished causes, specifically expansive access to abortion and the supremacy of LGBT rights.
Desanctis is referring to Hillary's opposition to legislation in various states that would give Christians and others the right to act in accordance with their beliefs on marriage and not be coerced into facilitating sodomitic and lesbian 'marriages,' if they feel it violates their faith. Clinton writes off such legislation as discriminatory toward the League of Perverts: aka 'LGBT community' (we will come to her visceral reasons for supporting that depraved minority in due course).
Hillary's Blood Money
No wonder Planned Parenthood is excited. It has pledged a whopping $20 million of its blood money to help elect Hillary. (According to her campaign financial records, she receives 20 times more money from PP than other pro-abortion Democrats.) This is not simply a quid pro quo for her resolute defence of its demonic profit maximisation scheme: the selling of body parts sliced and diced from the unborn babies they kill. At one level, it is classic Clinton payola — for the support and protection provided to PP by the Clinton syndicate throughout that particular scandal. At the same time, it is a far more considered investment.
Speaking at an invite-only "Sex, Politics and Cocktails" party in July, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards marvelled at how Hillary had opened the way "to be on a stage where we can actually now talk openly about how abortion is a right. We have to have it," she said, before concluding: "I cannot wait until this woman is in the White House." In a recent letter to supporters, a PP vice-president also gleefully proclaimed that Hillary is, "hands down, the strongest [pro-abortion] nominee we’ve ever seen."
High wicked praise indeed! Especially in view of Barack Obama's unyielding support for diabolic partial birth abortion — stabbing babies in the back of the head and sucking their brains out as they emerge from the birth canal. Not to mention her husband's presidential veto of a bill that would have banned partial birth abortion (a veto Mrs Clinton fondly recalled and proudly affirmed during an NBC interview in September 2015). As President, Bill Clinton also signed the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act that severely punishes pro-lifers for blocking the entrances to 'babattoirs' (baby abattoirs). It is hard to imagine anyone being "hands down" more pro-abortion than Bill and Barack! Yet Planned Parenthood's unparalleled estimation of Hillary is warranted.
Firstly, because her stated aim of repealing the protective Hyde Amendment will re-open the U.S. abortion floodgates and raise the tide of innocent blood to pre-1990 levels (— the abortion industry estimates the lucrative prospect of 33,000 additional dead babies per year, minimum, in that event). Secondly, because she is aggressively touting the international abortion industry's most fervent desire: a universal right to abortion. Thirdly, because "in the administration of a President Hillary Clinton," as pro-life writer Dave Andrusko puts it, "you can bet a slew of Planned Parenthood's key leaders will not only advise on policy but also be in appointed positions where they can make policy." In which case they will use an international right to abortion "as a battering ram [whereby] the already aggressive campaign against protective abortion laws would take on new urgency and new deadliness against countries in South America, Africa, and elsewhere."
Despite all these hellish anti-life implications of another Clinton presidency, it was The Donald, not Hillary, who took the media headline-hit courtesy of Francis. Though scarcely believable, it is a typical inversion/perversion of Catholic priorities by this papacy of manifestly masonic hue.
A Catholic Pope would make it crystal clear that the essential, non-negotiable life issues alone render Hillary a non-candidate. That no Catholic worthy of the name could possibly vote for her, since it would involve sinful complicity in her belligerent death-dealing. On the other hand, one could vote for Trump; if only in the hope that he will honour his consistent pro-life promises, and further improve and deepen his understanding of the issue (bearing in mind how far he says he has already travelled from the pro-abort views he once held, before the tragic experience of a friend moved him to see past pro-choice clichés).
Beyond this pivotal issue, despite his refreshing candour, the commonsense of many of his positions, and his bare-knuckle defiance of the Washington consensus on everything from immigration to free trade — views that resonate with the thinking and experience of the grassroots — he remains difficult to accurately assess. "For all my life I’ve been a businessman," he proclaims, pointing to his various buildings and projects as proof of his 'can do' attitude. The trouble is that his business interests are so diverse (how many billionaire property developers branch into bottled water and loosed leaf teas?) that it seems like a house of cards ready to collapse at any time. "As a businessman, Trump spent a good deal of his time in bankruptcy court, much of it in Atlantic City," writes E. Michael Jones:
"I made a lot of money in Atlantic City," Donald Trump said in one of the numerous Republican primary debates. "And I’m very proud of it." Be that as it may, there is little to be proud of in Atlantic City. Since 2006, gaming revenue has dropped by half, from a peak of $5.2 billion to $2.7 billion. All but one of the casinos bearing Trump’s name have closed their doors. The Trump Plaza was the fourth Atlantic City casino to close in 2014.
Trump supporters respond that, by American corporate standards, the number of bankruptcies and law suits involving his myriad businesses and projects is relatively low on the scale. Whatever the case, in terms of what he offers and represents socio-politically, at this moment in time — namely, a Brexit-like fly in the ointment of the 'vast left-wing conspiracy' — perhaps it doesn't much matter? In any event, we will know soon enough if he's just one more empty suit. And whether his background has prepared him to do more than simply sell himself: to step beyond New York's corporate world of hard knocks into the mean corridors of Washington. While they might seem comparable, the corporate world, according to Bob Crandall, former President and Chairman of American Airlines, is significantly different to the political world. In New York, he says, the ruthlessness finishes when the deal is finally done. Whereas in Washington, "They’ll give you whatever you want to your face and then, as you leave, shoot you in the back — just because it is so much fun to see you die." (Any wonder the Clintons thrive there!)
Although Trump knows how to cut a deal, which will doubtless stand him in good stead, his reputed 8 billion dollar empire does not even rank him among the top 400 wealthiest Americans. Less rich than the mega-rich, he also seems to possess more substance than the average persona paraded on Lives of the Rich and Famous. And unlike Queen Hillary, whose regal disconnect from the workaday life of ordinary mortals is at once astonishing and comical, the Trump billions do not entirely cut him off from the plebs. According to renowned pundit Dick Morris:
Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton live lives of privilege and luxury surrounded by solicitous staff who tend to their every need. But there’s one key difference: Trump earned his own money to pay for his comfort. Hillary got hers as a government perk, a by-product of her so-called public service. And, unlike Hillary, Trump is always out and about with people. At Mar-a’Largo, Trump’s Florida mansion and club, he is seen every weekend night during the season. Rather than hide away, like Hillary, he talks and listens to the guests, introduces his family, and enjoys himself. He plays golf, drives his car, and mingles with people. So, in every way imaginable, Hillary doesn’t have a clue about life in the real world.
Morris would know. For over 20 years he served as a personal political adviser and trusted confidant to the Clintons. The inept Hillary once hung and acted on his every word. While Bill enjoyed an astonishing electoral comeback in the 90s thanks to his clear and simple political strategies. He possesses intimate knowledge of the power-couple and their criminal ways and means, as well as their weaknesses. That is why he greatly fears a Hillary presidency. But he also believes Trump can go all the way and be a huge success.
"Once he proves he's not dangerous and he's not a psychopath and he's not a maniac, Hillary has no arguments left," he told Newsmax Prime in early September, after Hillary had blown a 10-point lead in the space of a month with her Trump scaremongering. "The question is whether Trump can resist becoming the Trump of old, of flinging accusations all over the place and denouncing everybody and become the new Trump — the more presidential, the more sober, the more reasonable one," he added.
In Armageddon: How Trump can beat Hillary (2016),Morris describes Trump as a "fearless and formidable candidate":
Trump is a natural, the polar opposite of the ultimate insider and highly choreographed Hillary Clinton. Relying on his own impeccable instincts, he never needed political consultants to tell him what to do or what to say. He never needed to poll test issues or talking points to figure out where he should stand. He is the master of his own style and his own message. And that message is that America can be great again— in so many ways. It worked because he fervently believed it and so did the voters. A Pew Foundation survey in mid April 2016 found that 57% of America want “America First” and support solving our own problems before helping other countries. Trump tapped into that growing national feeling and championed what Americans believe in.
Other Morris insights are worthy of note, presenting a picture at complete odds with absurd media caricatures that effectively portray the second coming of Hitler:
If Donald Trump has a precedent in our politics, it is not Ronald Reagan— it is Dwight Eisenhower. Building on a brilliant record of success outside the political system, Ike overturned the choice of the ideologues in his own party— who had favored Senator Bob Taft of Ohio— and then consigned to history the liberal Democratic programs of FDR and Truman. He staked out a different set of priorities— job growth, American economic dominance, reluctance to get involved in foreign wars, a balanced budget, and an emphasis on rebuilding America’s infrastructure to make way for decades of economic growth.
Sound familiar? Those are the exact priorities of Donald Trump. His pragmatic, get-it-done approach will sharply contrast with the straitjacketed liberal dogma of Hillary Clinton and will appeal to Americans of every ideological stripe. Eisenhower was a historic commander and Donald Trump is an innovative CEO. Both had clear visions for America and refused to be mired in endless process, committees, or commissions.
Unlike Hillary, and like Ike, Trump escapes distracting details and focuses on objectives — the big picture— using talented people around him to map out the path to achieving them. He will get things done.
While Hillary will try to govern by achieving consensus among the special interest groups who have bought and paid for her and her party, Trump will barge forward, ignoring their self-interested pleadings, and act for the best interest of the country.
If he wins, Trump will be the first candidate in modern political history who takes office without being beholden to any major donors or corporate puppeteers. The Washington insiders do not understand him, cannot control him, and fear his advent. And because of that, they attack him.
Take or leave that assessment. But it sums up the alternative view altogether missing from the relentlessly negative portrayal offered to the public. "The mainstream media refused to take him seriously and sometimes even ridiculed him," writes Morris, "but the voters [in the primaries] didn’t. He inspired them. They quickly understood what the chattering class — those journalists and political consultants who consider themselves to be the self-appointed arbiters of who should be elected — could not comprehend. Those near-sighted insiders eagerly awaited Trump’s implosion. They were still waiting when it was all over."
Winning the Republican nomination was not only a remarkable feat few thought possible, it flagged once again the distance in ability between the two candidates: since he won, as Morris points out, "without a campaign apparatus, without a PAC [Political Action Committee], without campaign fundraising, and without the backing of the Republican elite."
This has won him unlikely admirers, such as caustic comedienne Roseanne Barr, who dared to inform the Hillary-friendly Hollywood Reporter that she likes Trump "because he financed his own [campaign]. That's the only way he could've gotten that nomination," she said. "Because nobody wants a president who isn't from Yale and Harvard and in the club." Indeed. And that is precisely why Barr (like most people) also thinks he won't go all the way. "Trump probably won’t win though," she subsequently tweeted, "because he doesn’t hang out with Skull and Bones people, like Clinton does."
Her amusing candour won't win her Facebook friends in Hollywood, in the White House, or in the Bush households! But it cuts to the bone in what it implies about the 'insiders': the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, IMF, World Bank and all the rest: the billionaire bankers and businessmen, and their bureaucrats and accountants who run the world at our expense, serving the interests of the technocratic elite, pushing the same old dogmatic mantras of globalisation, privatisation and centralisation.
If, as Roseanne Barr suggests, Trump really isn't part of all that, yet still crashes through to victory, he will outdo Brexit! The fact that he is breathing down Clinton's neck despite unprecedented press hostility, is remarkable in itself.
Warring Against Trump: Covering For Clinton
A former candidate for Republican presidential nominee, the vastly experienced Pat Buchanan was demonised by the press for running 'outsider' campaigns not dissimilar to Trump's. Yet he considers the press coverage of Trump the "Worst ever, worse than Goldwater." (An outspoken Trump-like figure, Republican Senator Barry Goldwater was famously smeared as "extremist" and buried by a media blitzkrieg, and hostile Republican colleagues, during his 1964 presidential bid.)
Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich also considers that the press is waging "all out war" against Trump. Political pundit and best-selling author Anne Coulter says the mainstream media's coverage of Donald Trump is "so over the top, so outrageous.... I wasn't around for Goldwater, but I think this is worse than even that. I've never seen anything like this." While Trump himself, at a campaign rally in Harrisburg, declared that "The New York Times is totally dishonest. Every story that they write is a hit job." (After that paper published a major story that cast aspersions over Trump's interaction with women, for example, every woman mentioned, including one who had dated Trump, repudiated the article, saying the Times lied about what they said.) As for CNN, Trump tweeted: "You know they call it Clinton News Network. CNN will soon be the least trusted name in news if they continue to be the press shop for Hillary Clinton."
Now, from a media perspective, Trump's great wealth, promiscuous past, and a litany of crude comments and endorsements of unsavoury characters over the years (to include defending Bill Clinton himself during his sex scandals in the 1990s!), inevitably make him a big target. Moreover, he is widely viewed as a political opportunist for good reason, since there is plenty in his past to suggest as much. Even impartial commentators see "a complete fake" who has moved from left-leaning Democrat positions on many issues (including abortion) to run "as a hard-core conservative solely because that role happens to be vacant," as one Australian journalist opined. Perfectly reasonable charges and doubts will linger until he proves otherwise, by translating his formidable rhetoric into action.
All that said, we are not speaking here about harsh media commentary and criticism that fall within 'normal' parameters of political argy bargy. The distortions, misrepresentations and lies spewed forth against Trump by the "self-appointed arbiters of who should be elected," go well beyond the usual election dirt-digging (sex scandals and the like). Among the spurious caricatures used to mock and dismiss his every word and plan is the portrayal of a clueless clown. Trump's reality TV ("You're fired!") persona easily lends itself to the charge. But Dick Morris, who knows all about political pretenders — viz., snout-in-trough wannabees like Hillary Clinton — has found otherwise:
Some say Trump is ill-informed. He’s not. We’ve spent many hours with him, discussing a range of complex issues. His knowledge is uncanny, particularly for someone who has never served in government. He has a laser-like ability to distill complicated issues into a profound message. But he sees things differently — and more clearly — than those promoting the status quo. That’s his strength.
While hammering his real faults and failings (when they are not, more commonly, conjuring them up out of thin air), the media hide his strengths because they show up his opponent, whose abysmal track record is well documented: starting with her stint as a junior staffer on the Watergate Committee investigating Nixon (a job she landed despite having failed the Washington DC bar exam). Her boss was so unimpressed with the quality/manner of her work there, that he did not give her a letter of recommendation for another job. From that inglorious beginning, to the infamous train-wreck that constituted her failed and costly attempt at a national healthcare plan (as First Lady under Bill), to the avoidable tragedy of Benghazi and other catastrophes as Secretary of State, her public career is one long testament to her inability to handle, never mind actually master, a political brief. She is defined by failure, and lost and ruined lives. Quite apart from the overriding danger a President Hillary poses to the innocent unborn, Benghazi demonstrated her threat to lives and limbs beyond the womb: everywhere. It screamed ineptitude. Dolly Kyle sums it up:
Difficulty planning and carrying out tasks. ... Hillary was not able to formulate a plan to evacuate or fortify the embassy or otherwise protect American lives and American interests in Benghazi. She failed to plan anything, despite having advanced warning and “intelligence” reports for at least a month before the massacres by terrorists.
Having trouble exercising judgment, such as knowing what to do in any emergency. This is of particular concern for a person who wants to have her finger on the nuclear trigger.
Hillary exercised the worst possible judgment by failing to aid our stranded American ambassador and our three other American citizens who died at the hands of terrorists in Benghazi.
Hillary was unable to formulate an appropriate emergency plan during the Benghazi attacks, despite having at her disposal every resource of the State Department. She didn’t formulate any plan at all; instead, she turned over and went back to sleep [literally - Ed.]. She is not able to handle emergencies.
This is all to say that if the jury is still out on Trump's move to the political right (whether it's genuine or a cynical act), the verdict on Hillary has long been reached: that her entire career, like her marriage, is a demonstrable sham, constructed on the basis of a deal with her degenerate but politically proficient husband, whose coat-tails she has ridden all her life. (In that slavish respect, she is the antithesis of the radical feminism she claims to champion!)
Pat Buchanan points to the damning claims made about Hillary by Trump that are ignored by the press, when the common good demands they be publicised and followed up. During a speech on 22 June, for instance, Trump called Clinton mendacious, corrupt, incompetent, and a hypocrite, effectively making a case for her indictment. Let us consider several of those claims:
1. "Hillary Clinton... is a world class liar."
His case here is open and shut. In 1996, the late New York Times columnist William Safire went over all of the statements Mrs Clinton had made in Whitewater and related scandals of her husband's first term, compared them with subsequently revealed truth, and famously pronounced Hillary a "congenital liar." (Fearful of their media muppets going off-message with the truth, her husband publicly threatened to punch Safire in the nose.) In fact, Hillary has lied so brazenly and so often, not uncommonly "under penalty of perjury," that the public realise nothing she says can be taken at face value. A Quinnipiac poll in late August 2015 asked a sample of 1,000 Americans to describe Mrs Clinton in a single word. The results were brutal. But easily the most frequently mentioned answer was "liar" (sitting atop similar words like dishonest, untrustworthy, crook, and deceitful). Follow up polls have confirmed this public view. "When asked to explain why nearly two-thirds of Americans find her to be dishonest and untrustworthy," writes Dick Morris, "Hillary says it has nothing to do with her and routinely blames it on the Republicans."
The most recent additions to her lifelong litany are the repeated lies from her time as Secretary of State; not just apropos Benghazi but also her use of a private (unsecured) email server to receive top secret information. Condemned in a damning FBI report as "reckless" and "extremely careless" behaviour, even the New York Times admitted it "all but indicted her judgment and competence."
She concocted one of her most notorious fabrications on 17 March 2008, during a foreign policy speech on Iraq. In order to create the charisma and experience she lacks, she recounted being "under sniper fire" at a Bosnian airport in 1996: "we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." Wow! What guts! But it never happened. A video shows her strolling across the tarmac to accept flowers from a young girl on a red carpet.
The lies are so well documented and filmed that only a sick individual would persist in telling them. She says she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary (only he climbed Everest when she was 6 years old). She boasts of being instrumental in the Irish peace process (a claim laughed to scorn by those involved). She complained that she left the White House "dead broke" (despite an $11 million book deal). Gratuitous and sustained, this serial deceit alone confirms the grave danger she would pose as President; since Mrs Clinton is the arbiter of her own truth and reality. In the first place, she determines for herself what is and is not true; what did or did not happen. Then, convinced of her own distortions and unreality, she publicly denies whatever might embarrass or convict her. If this fails, blackmail, favours, or other pressures are employed to ensure the laws of the land are not applied to her. This is why she is never fazed. She not only considers herself above the law, she has the dirty means to ensure she is. ("He wouldn't dare!" she responded to Dick Morris when he phoned her in 1997 to tell her the Special Prosecutor was near to indicting her. He didn't.)
Morris knows from long personal experience that Mrs Clinton is a "compulsive, pathological, and serial liar who cannot be trusted to tell the truth to the American people". He recounts many examples. Once asked by a reporter to confirm an incident in which Bill had physically attacked him, he duly informed Hillary. She replied: "Just tell them it never happened. We'll deny it at our end." When he told her he couldn't do that because he had already told another political consultant about it, right after it happened two years earlier, she wasn't at all worried. "Deny it," she said. "It'll be your word against his." Morris concludes:
It seems that she really can’t help herself. Because, for Hillary, lying is routine. It comes naturally— like breathing. For the last 40 years, she’s been embellishing her credentials and experience, covering up corrupt conduct, erasing unflattering incidents, confirming Bill’s false statements, disseminating disinformation about her enemies and Bill’s women, distorting the truth about her conduct in office, and making up self-congratulatory fake stories about herself. She just can’t stop.
2."Hillary has perfected the politics of personal profit and theft" and"may be the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency."
Buchanan provides a sampling of Trump's epic charge:
Bill Clinton got $750,000 for a speech from a telecom company facing State Department sanctions for providing technology to Iran. The Clintons got the cash; the telecom company got no sanctions.
Hillary Clinton's State Department approved the transfer of 20% of America's uranium holdings to Russia, while 9 investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.
3. "She ran the State Department like her own personal hedge fund — doing favours for oppressive regimes ... for cash."
In fact, together, she and Bill have raked in $153 million since 2001 in speaking fees from lobbyists, CEOs and foreign governments. A staggering figure. Buchanan recalls that Eisenhower's chief of staff had to resign merely "for accepting a vicuna coat" from someone who had problems with federal regulators! "Where are those media regulators today?" he asks. "Rather than condemning the Clintons' greed, their conflicts of interest and their egregious exploitation of their offices, the media are covering for Hillary and digging for dirt on Trump."
To substantiate the additional accusation of incompetence, Buchanan echoes the examples already provided herein:
Trump notes that Clinton as Senator voted for arguably the greatest strategic blunder in U.S. history, the invasion of Iraq. (Trump himself opposed the war.) She pushed the attack that ousted Col. Gadhafi and unleashed terrorists who took over much of Libya and murdered our ambassador [in Benghazi]. She played a leading role in launching the insurrection against Bashar Assad that has left hundreds of thousands dead, uprooted half of Syria and sent millions of refugees to seek asylum in Europe.
Primary beneficiary: ISIS, with its capital in Raqqa.
As for the hypocrisy charge, take your pick! Buchanan chooses a flaming example: "Though Hillary and Bill Clinton profess to be the fighting champions of women's equality and gay rights, they have banked millions in speaking fees and tens of millions in contributions to the Clinton Foundation from Islamic regimes under whose rule women are treated as chattel and homosexuals are flogged, beheaded, and stoned to death."
How do the Clintons get away with such duplicity? "Because," answers Buchanan, "ideologically, politically, socially, morally and culturally, the major media are with them." And so, instead of objective analysis, we get tirades against Trump on Clinton's behalf. The extent to which voters imbibe this false narrative will determine whether Crooked Hillary moves back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue — with the First Crooked Husband in tow!