Third-quarter fundraising totals for 2016 presidential candidates.

The Drive-Bys are livid that Trump has raised so much money. But they’re missing the point about what his donations mean — and Bernie Sanders’ over Hillary Clinton.

Trump saves his own money thanks to $3.8 million in donations. Link
GOP front-runner Donald Trump has promised to pay for his presidential campaign out of his own pockets, but the billionaire is getting off cheap, spending just $100,000 of his own money in the most recent fundraising period, according to his campaign.

Boosted by more network TV coverage than any other candidate, Trump has been able to sit back and let his campaign largely take care of itself.

The billionaire’s campaign says it raised $3.8 million from the general public between July 1 and Sept. 30 and finished the quarter with $255,000 cash on hand.
But Trump’s cash on hand figure is largely meaningless, as the reality TV celebrity, with a fortune estimated by Forbes to be more than $4 billion, can pay for as much media as he decides he needs.

Trump’s campaign says he has not needed to dip much into that fortune.

“Mr. Trump made a contribution of $100,779 during this quarter and has personally spent $1,909,576 since launching his campaign,” the Trump campaign said in an email press release.

While the super-PAC supporting former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has spent more than $24 million so far on pro-Bush commercials, Trump has been able to avoid paid media and rely nearly exclusively on wall-to-wall coverage on cable news channels.

Trump has run his presidential campaign largely from his office in Manhattan’s Trump Tower, doing phone-in interviews for Sunday political shows and holding large rallies across the nation. He has avoided the grinding daily process of shaking hands and introducing himself to individual candidates in small groups that less popular candidates, such as Rick Santorum, have been doing in Iowa.

The Trump campaign press release boasted on Thursday: “Mr. Trump is self-funding his campaign; however there were 73,942 unsolicited donations during this time period with an average contribution of $50.46.

“The Trump Campaign will continue to accept small dollar donations as people across the country proudly invest in Mr. Trump’s vision to Make America Great Again.”



Rush Limbaugh: Are We Being Played Again By The Clintons?

RUSH: Now, this Hillary e-mail story.  Let me just do a brief timeline of this.  Under the umbrella that, how many times have we, over the course of the last 25 years, how many times have we been treated to news stories that the Clintons are precariously balanced on the edge here and they could go over the cliff, this could be it, and each and every time not a thing happens?  I can give you one example, I give you many of those, but one example specifically of how we end up being played.

During the Monica Lewinsky episode, Bill Clinton was required to give testimony before the grand jury.  So he goes up and he gives the testimony, the grand jurors go to the White House.  The testimony occurs in one of the rooms of the White House.  At the end of the day when Clinton’s testimony is over, there’s a leak that the prosecutors asked him something, Ken Starr asked him something, and Clinton just lost it and went berserk.  And so the speculation began.  What was it?  What caused it?  What was the question?  What did Clinton do?  And then little leaks continued to come day by day reinforcing that.

Then some time later, I don’t know if it was days or weeks, they released the video.  And there was nothing.  There was literally nothing.  There was one question about cigars when Clinton raised his eyebrows about a half an inch, and that was it.  And it was immediately apparent that everybody had been setup.  And the purpose of the leak was to make everybody think, “Uh-oh, Clinton is on the verge of losing it.  This is gonna be bad.  We’re on the verge of getting Clinton,” what have you, and then nothing happened. And the uptake on it was the Clintons survive again, whoever was trying to destroy Clinton lied.  It made it look like the Clintons were the ones totally innocent and the people out to get them were the mad, rabid dogs.  And that happened I can’t tell you how many times over how many different events.

Now, you come to the Hillary e-mail story and look at how this has all played out.  Go back to the first day you heard about the fact that she had a server in her basement, wherever, and that she was running a private e-mail system ’cause she didn’t trust the government.  Remember everything you’ve heard about, everything you’ve heard about it was, “Wow, this is a huge violation. Holy cow, classified. Oh, my God, Mrs. Clinton,” and we started hearing the word
“indictment,” we started hearing the word “FBI investigation” and we started hearing Huma and Obama and so forth. And then there was the drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip where every day there was something new that clouded the issue and raised more doubts about Mrs. Clinton.

But nothing ever happened.  Nothing ever happened.  It just kept drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, dripping, and everybody started guessing, “Maybe Obama’s just trying to secure death by a thousand cuts.  Maybe Obama, this is how he’s getting even.”  Remember all the stories, all the explanations for this.  And while it’s all going on, you can’t escape the talk, “Rush, you think they’re gonna get Hillary this time? This is really beside bad. If this was Petraeus, look what they did to Petraeus, Rush. Petraeus did half of this and threatened with jail. You think we’re gonna get Hillary?”

“I doubt it.  I don’t think so,” I always answered.  This is the short version of the timeline, but you get the drift.

Now, let me share with you some headlines today.  The Drudge Report off of a New York Times story: “FBI Fury: Obama Sabotaging Hillary Investigation.”  Wait a minute.  I thought all this time it was Obama running the Hillary investigation, and it was Obama slowing down the Justice Department, standing in the way of this because of what an investigation might reveal about him.  I thought it was Obama in charge of the drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip.

Now the New York Times has a story saying the FBI is livid that Obama is sabotaging the Hillary investigation, which makes it look like Obama is trying to save Hillary.  Really?  Now, over here all of this intense focus on what Biden’s gonna do.  And I talked to a bunch of people today, this morning, who really believe that all of this focus on what Biden is gonna do is proof positive that Hillary’s gonna be indicted.  “That’s all you need to you know, Rush!

“The fact that Biden is looking at it closer and closer every day, the fact that people are pressuring Biden to do it, the fact that there are stories about Biden family wants him to do it. There are stories about Biden not knowing whether he should, but he’s looking at it. You throw in the story about his dead son who said, “Do it, Dad!”  All of this. Now Biden says, “I’m gonna decide in three days.”  The experts I talk to say this just means one thing.  It means Biden’s not gonna do this if Hillary’s gonna hang around.

Not after the way the media is talking about her debate performance the other night, heralding it as the greatest ever.  Why should Biden get in?  But he’s still looking at getting in.  “Rush, I’m telling you, that means there’s something gonna be happening to Hillary.” Now there is a UK Daily Mail story: “Investigation into Hillary’s email server focuses on Espionage Act and could get her 10 years in jail as FBI agent says she could be prosecuted just for failing to tell Obama,” and here are the bullet points:

“Federal law makes it a crime for security clearance holders to fail to tell superiors when ‘gross negligence’ causes a security breach.” Check. That happened. “FBI agent tells about Hillary Clinton: ‘The secretary’s superior is the president of the United States.'” That’s who she should have told.  That’s who she didn’t tell.  That’s a crime.  Bullet point number three: “‘So unless he were aware of what she was doing when she was doing it, it seems there could be a legal problem [for her].'” The final but point the UK Daily Mail story: “Obama was asked Sunday on 60 Minutes if he knew at the time that Clinton was running a home-brew email server; he replied, ‘No.'”

Oh, he did more than that.  He said it probably wasn’t that big a deal, even though he thought she had made a stupid mistake.  Now, when I saw him say that, that she made a stupid mistake, that was Obama saying she did it; we all know she did it.  That was not Obama protecting her.  The New York Times story from which the Drudge headline is culled:  “FBI Fury: Obama Sabotaging Hillary Investigation.” That headline is “Obama’s Comments on Clinton E-mails Collide with FBI Inquiry.”  The New York Times apparently is not sick of this story.

These former law enforcement officials talking to the New York Times don’t seem to realize that Obama has fundamentally transformed America, and things like the FBI being nonpartisan are now quaint, outmoded concepts.  “Federal agents were still cataloging the classified information from Hillary Rodham Clinton’s personal e-mail server last week when President Obama went on television and played down the matter. …

“Those statements angered FBI agents who have been working for months to determine whether Ms. Clinton’s e-mail setup had in fact put any of the nation’s secrets at risk, according to current and former law enforcement officials. Investigators have not reached any conclusions about whether the information on the server had been compromised…” Well, wait.  Okay, that little sentence right here in the midst of all of this headline brouhaha: “Investigators have not reached any conclusions about whether the information on the server had been compromised or whether to recommend charges…”

Well, then what is all of this about?  I have allowed myself to be played by these people way too many times all of these years, and the inconsistencies in this e-mail story from day to day… One day, “There’s nothing to see here. There’s nothing to it. It’s no big deal,” to, “Obama’s shielding her! Obama’s doing it. It’s totally up to Obama what he wants to do. If he wants her to get indicted, she’s gonna be indicted.  If he doesn’t, she won’t be.”  It’s run the gamut.  And it’s largely speculation — informed speculation, granted, but it’s still speculation.

And now we hear that the FBI is investigating violation of the Espionage Act, which would send her to jail for 10 years if she’s indicted and if she’s convicted, and that Obama’s standing in the way of that investigation.  We’ve reached the point where, as far as the low-information voters are concerned, they don’t care anymore.  It’s news about something and nothing ever happens.  It’s a drip, drip, drip.  Someday the news is really big and damaging potentially like this, and other days it’s just no big deal. Nothing to see here.

The server was in a bathroom in Denver and nothing happened. And Mrs. Clinton, she didn’t know if anything was classified, and she’s answered every question about, and all this stuff, and after a while people glaze over because they just can’t keep track of it, don’t want to keep track of it.  It’s a story that’s been out there for months, and nothing has happened.  If it’s a setup, if we’re being played like we always have been played, well, then they’re doing it really well, because this is huge story.

Obama’s sabotaging the Hillary investigation. The FBI is now trying to prove she violated the Espionage Act.  That’s big.  That’s minimum 10 years.  If she escapes all of this, what do you think the headlines are?  What do you think the narrative is?  “Superwoman!  They threw everything they had at Hillary Clinton, but in the end she bested all of them.  In the end she outlasted all of them.  In the end, even if she had violated the law, they couldn’t prove it. They didn’t have the guts to prosecute. They couldn’t do anything with it.

It’s an opportunity to build this woman up as Superwoman — smart — particularly coming off this so-called great and brilliant debate performance.  And I’ve just been played one too many times, many too many times.  I’ve seen this in action before.  And over here, don’t forget the name David Petraeus.  David Petraeus was charged and he was threatened with jail for doing much less than what these allegations against Mrs. Clinton are.  Meaning if they want to go after somebody on this basis, they can and they can do it easily and they’ve got the goods.

You see, that’s the rub: They’ve got the goods.  FBI investigation or not, they’ve got the goods.  She violated the law.  As I said two weeks ago, where the hell is the indictment?  What is going on here?  What is the point of this drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip, drip and it’s to place.  Honestly how many of you got up today, saw this news, and got excited?  “Oh, man! Oh, man! It looks like they’re really getting close.”  See, that’s the purpose.  Yeah, you go back and the real news out of the Bill Clinton grand jury was that he committed perjury.

That was the real news.

But they were able to diminish that because they leaked the fact that he had lost it and gone nuts with some question about Monica Lewinsky and some cigars.  That didn’t happen, but that’s what everybody was looking for when they released the video.  They didn’t notice the lies.  They didn’t register.  And when it was all over, the wind went out of everybody’s sails again and they were disappointed.  “I thought we were gonna get him, man. I thought he blew up! I thought…” We realized we got set up and played again.  The question is: “Is it happening again now with this e-mail caca?


HUGE! Chuck Norris Digs Up Hillary Clinton’s Dirt – Shares It With America!

There is no doubt, if Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were anyone else, they would already be in jail for their crimes.

Instead, Hillary is running for President, and she is ruthless. Beyond being an incompetent Secretary of State during the terrorist attack in Benghazi, she has decades of scandals that younger voters weren’t even alive to live through.

Famous actor and martial arts expert Chuck Norris is tired of Hillary’s corruption, especially the illegal fundraising practices of the Clinton Foundation, which has raised millions of dollars from hostile foreign countries in exchange for political favors in America.

In his latest column, Chuck takes the gloves off about “Hilpocrisy!”

Of course, you know how Hillary clearly discarded the Freedom of Information Act and federal government requirements through the former secretary of state’s use of a private email account for all her official business and then dumping half of her email. Just last week, senior State Department Assistant Secretary of State for Administration Joyce Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Hillary’s email use was “not acceptable”: “I think the message is loud and clear that that is not acceptable.”

And yet, mainstream media and liberal progressives gave her another free pass.

Regarding Benghazi, as Ben Shapiro argued in his book, “The People vs. Barack Obama,” “[T]hose Americans are dead because of Hillary Clinton’s negligence. Clinton may not merely be guilty of negligent homicide – she could also be guilty of violations of the Arms Export Control Act and the Espionage Act for her department’s movement of guns into Libya and Syria without Congressional authorization.”

And this Norman Hsu scandal wasn’t long ago, but how many people remember it? Or the scandals involving her corrupt family? Chuck does!

But do you remember during her first 2007 presidential run, when she acknowledged receiving $850,000 in campaign contributions from convicted criminal Norman Hsu and his intermediaries?

Lowell Ponte explained that, as investigators Edward Timperlake and William Triplett II exposed in their book “Year of the Rat,” during former President Bill Clinton’s presidency, contributors to the Clintons included agents of Chinese organized crime Triad gangs that closely work with China’s Communist government. They would visit the White House, periodically carrying large brown paper bags stuffed with $100 bills.[…]

Remember when Hillary muscled a law firm coordinating lawsuits against the tobacco industry to allow her brother reap some of the benefits – to the tune of $7,000 per hour for his legal work?

And yet, mainstream media and liberal progressives gave her another free pass.

And let’s not forget Hillary’s “miraculous $100,000 from a $1,000 investment in cattle futures through a political favor-seeker in Arkansas” or her “feigned surprise that subpoenaed missing Rose Law Firm billing records were found next to her living quarters in the White House,” again as Ponte noted.

Boom! That will leave a mark. Chuck Norris cuts right to the core about how seriously corrupt Hillary Clinton is.

She hasn’t taken questions from the media in almost a month, but she is given a pass. The last time we heard from her, she was driving around in a van and eating at Chipotle… In the mean time, the liberal media is avoiding asking the tough questions about what seems to be a criminal enterprise: Clinton Inc!

Do you stand with Chuck Norris and oppose Hillary Clinton in 2016? Please leave us a comment and tell us what you think.


Gross Negligence? Report Suggests Hillary Clinton Violated The Espionage Act

Evidence may be mounting that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton violated a provision in the federal Espionage Act.

The penalty for such a violation under the Espionage Act of 1913: a fine, a prison term of up to ten years, or “both.”

Fox reports the FBI and Department of Justice investigation into Clinton’s emails now focuses on a single provision in the Espionage Act. Did Clinton allow an unauthorized person access to the national defense information in her email inbox? The investigation is focusing on the provision pertaining to “gross negligence.”

The law (18 U.S. Code & 793 subsection f) is very clear.

The law applies to “Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense,” which obviously includes Clinton. Classified information appeared throughout her emails recovered by investigators.

The law is broken if that person “through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed.”

The law could also be broken if the person “having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—”

With that in mind, here are some trouble spots for Clinton as the investigation plays out:

Hackers Got Into Her Email Inbox

On the morning of August 3, 2011, Clinton received a fake speeding ticket in her email inbox with the subject line “Uniform traffic ticket.” If Clinton clicked on the email to see if she actually got a speeding ticket, then the hackers would have been able to steal all of her information.

This was one of at least five times that Clinton received messages from hackers, who might have been Russian.

The problem was bad enough that security experts were called in to look at the infected messages the next month, in September 2011. The experts concluded that as part of this scheme, victims’ information was forwarded to overseas computers, including at least one in Russia.

Her Server Was Completely Insecure

As Breitbart News reported, Clinton’s email server had a webmail subdomain that gave hackers unrestricted access to her inbox. had a subdomain called, according to the account’s encryption certificate. That subdomain is a web-based email portal that considerably weakened the server’s defenses and invited attack.

A webmail portal allows web traffic to bypass hardware and software firewalls to easily access the server’s mail “interface.”

Platte River Networks Handled Her Private Server

Clinton’s Denver-based email storage firm Platte River Networks never had a security clearance to handle classified information.

Platte River told Breitbart News that it picked Clinton’s server up from her home in Chappaqua, New York, where the server was stored in a basement. But the IP addresses for Clinton’s server show that it shared physical space with Clinton Foundation servers, and it traced to New York City. The Clintons could have moved the device to Chappaqua before Platte River got there.

She Didn’t Tell Her Own Department She Had A Private Email Account

When it comes to “gross negligence,” this one is a doozy. If Clinton’s email account HAD been hacked, the State Department IT Help Desk wouldn’t have been able to help her. They didn’t even know she had a private account.

When Clinton’s server went down in February 2010, her top aide Huma Abedin told her what happened:

“Ur email must be back up!!,” Abedin said. “What happened is judith sent you an email. It bounced back. She called the email help desk at state (I guess assuming u had state email) and told them that. They had no idea it was YOU, just some random address so they emailed. Sorry about that. But regardless, means ur email must be back! R u getting other messages?”

The White House Told Her To Use Government Email

Hillary Clinton ignored White House guidance on official email use.

Top White House adviser Valerie Jarrett recently threw Clinton under the bus, saying that the White House wanted Clinton to use government email.

“Yes, there were. Yeah, absolutely,” Jarrett said when asked if the White House sent guidance to Cabinet secretaries about not using private email. “Obviously we want to make sure that we preserve all government records, and so there was guidance given that government business should be done on government emails and that if you did use a private email that it should be turned over.”


Obama’s comments about Hillary Clinton’s email left ‘a foul taste in the FBI’s mouth’

The FBI is mad at its president.

In an interview with “60 Minutes” last Sunday, President Barack Obama said that though it was probably a “mistake” for Hillary Clinton to use a private email server during her time as secretary of state, it “is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

His comments have reportedly angered the FBI, which has been investigating Clinton’s server out of its DC headquarters since August to determine whether any classified national-security information was mishandled.

“Injecting politics into what is supposed to be a fact-finding inquiry leaves a foul taste in the F.B.I.’s mouth and makes them fear that no matter what they find, the Justice Department will take the president’s signal and not bring a case,” Ron Hosko, a former senior FBI official who retired in 2014, told The New York Times in a story published Friday.

Hosko added that it was inappropriate for the president to “suggest what side of the investigation he is on” during an ongoing investigation.

Though Clinton’s use of a private email address was not illegal and was permitted by State Department rules, the federal government has standards for how servers are built, how they are secured, and how their data is stored.

The FBI is looking into the configuration of the server that Clinton handed over to authorities, as well as whether classified information passed over the remarkably unsecured server.

In August, the intelligence community’s inspector general, Charles McCullough III, told Congress that he discovered two emails sent to Clinton that contained information classified as “Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information,” which is the government’s highest levels of classification. Those emails were discovered in a sample of only about 40 emails.

And an email sent to Clinton reportedly contained the name of a CIA asset in Libya.

Agents perceived Obama’s comments as an attempt to influence the outcome of their investigation, according to The Times. And they are annoyed that the president would pass judgment about whether Clinton’s email setup endangered national security when officials have yet to determine whether her server — which contained information retroactively marked top secret and classified — was compromised by foreign adversaries.

“If you know my folks,” FBI Director James Comey said earlier this month, “you know they don’t give a rip about politics.”

The administration has since backed off Obama’s comments: White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that Obama was not trying to undermine the investigation after he was grilled by reporters during Tuesday’s daily briefing.

“The president has a healthy respect for the kinds of independent investigations that are conducted by inspectors general and, where necessary, by the FBI,” he said.

Clinton’s unusual email system was originally set up by a staffer during Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign, replacing a server used by her husband, former President Bill Clinton.

Facing criticism earlier this year for her use of the server, Clinton handed over about 30,000 work-related emails for the State Department to make public. She also deleted about 31,000 emails she says were personal. She handed over the entire server to the FBI in August.

Over the past three months, officials examining Clinton’s emails have determined that some of the information that passed through her inbox is now considered either classified or top secret and should not have been discussed over such an unsecured platform.

Indeed, according to a lengthy Reuters investigation, much of the information Clinton sent and received was inherently classified even if it was not marked as such at the time.

And reports that hackers in China, South Korea, Germany, and Russia tried to break into her server have raised questions about the kind of security precautions she took to safeguard this sensitive information.

It is unlikely that the foreign attacks on Clinton’s server were targeted at her directly: The attempts discovered were basic phishing scams disguised as speeding tickets, The Associated Press reported, and rather unsophisticated.

But the malicious emails highlight the fact that Clinton’s server was a target.

And according to a new AP investigation, the way Clinton’s server was connected to the internet — via a Microsoft remote-desktop service that permitted remote-access connections without additional protective measures — made it particularly vulnerable to hackers, which is something experts say her own security experts should have known.

If malicious state actors did know that Clinton was running a private email server and they tried to hack it, “then it’s almost a sure thing that they were successful,” Michael Borohovski, CTO of Tinfoil Security, told Business Insider.

“It’s possible Clinton’s server was breached before she even sent her first email,” Borohovski added. “She probably didn’t mean to put government at risk, but she ended up doing it by running an external mail server that was secured with questionable resources.”

Clinton defended herself on “Meet the Press” earlier this month by saying that she was unfamiliar with the technical aspects of the server, which she left in the hands of experts.

But because Clinton made a conscious decision to bypass the State Department’s server — and the millions of dollars the government has spent to protect it — in favor of her own risky setup, her ignorance of the technological particulars is a poor excuse, Joe Loomis, CEO of CyberSponse, told Business Insider last week.

“The fact that Clinton chose to use her personal email instead of a .gov account shows that she obviously doesn’t understand security,” Loomis said. “What she did is like inviting spies over to dinner — every device connected to the internet is an opportunity for them to collect intelligence.

“This world is full of cyberwarfare, and your computer is a part of that war zone.”

As The Times pointed out, the president and the FBI also sparred in 2012 when he commented on reports that David Petraeus had passed classified information to his mistress.

“I have no evidence at this point, from what I’ve seen, that classified information was disclosed that in any way would have had a negative impact on our national security,” Obama said at the time.

FBI officials reportedly believe that their recommendation for Petraeus — felony charges and a prison sentence — was overruled by the Justice Department at least in part because Obama had prejudiced the outcome.



Donald Trump, Ben Carson threaten to boycott next GOP debate

Donald Trump and Ben Carson say they do not like the format of CNBC’s upcoming debate. (Photos: Darren McCollester/Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Donald Trump and Ben Carson are threatening to boycott the next Republican presidential debate if the event’s hosts do not cave to their demands.

The candidates want CNBC and the Republican National Committee to shorten the Oct. 28 debate in Boulder, Colo., so it does not exceed 120 minutes. They also insist that it must include opening and closing statements from all of the candidates.

In a letter to CNBC Washington bureau chief Matthew Cuddy, obtained exclusively by NBC News, Trump and Carson protested the debate agenda shared with their campaigns and reiterated their concerns on a phone call: over-long debate time plus four commercial breaks, as well as an absence of opening and closing statements.


October 15, 2015
Mr. Matthew Cuddy
Washington Bureau Chief
1025 Connecticut Avenue
Washington, DC 20036

Dear Mr. Cuddy:

While we appreciate you taking time to talk with to the 2016 Republican Presidential campaigns, you included terms for the debate to which Donald Trump and Trump for President, Inc. and Dr. Ben Carson and Carson America, Inc., do not agree.

Mr. Trump and Dr. Carson do agree to a 120 minute debate that includes commercial breaks and opening and closing statements. Mr. Trump and Dr. Carson do not, and will not, agree to appear at a debate that is more than 120 minutes long including commercialsbreaks. Further, the debate must include opening and closing statements from all the candidates.

Specifically, we write because the Agenda sent to the campaigns recently by CNBC in partnership with the Republican National Committee (RNC), and reiterated on yesterday’s call, indicated that there would be “two hours of debate time” plus four commercial breaks lasting between 2 and 4 minutes each. In addition, your Agenda stated there would not be any opening or closing statements and included a statement that the campaigns had agreed.

To be clear, neither of our campaigns agreed to either the length you propose or your ban on opening or closing statements. In fact, neither of our campaigns were even consulted.

Neither of those conditions are acceptable. Neither Mr. Trump or Dr. Carson will participate in your debate if it is longer than 120 minutes including commercials and does not include opening and closing statements.

Both our campaigns hope that you will agree with these very reasonable format changes so that CNBC may present all the Republican candidates to your audience.

Please inform Michael Glassner( of Mr. Trump’s campaign and Ed Brookover( of Dr. Carson’s of your decision.


Mr. Donald J. Trump Dr.                                           Benjamin Carson
Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.                       Carson America, Inc.


“Neither of those conditions are acceptable,” the letter reads. “Neither Mr. Trump or Dr. Carson will participate in your debate if it is longer than 120 minutes including commercials and does not include opening and closing statements.”

Trump, the GOP frontrunner, has attracted an unprecedented level of attention for the party’s primary since declaring his candidacy this summer, almost single-handedly turning the first two debates into ratings behemoths. To put it bluntly, Trump equals greater viewership — something CNBC surely wants.

Carson, too, has garnered a considerable amount of attention. The retired neurosurgeon became one of the party’s breakout stars when he surged in the polls late this past summer.

Bernie Sanders Wants To Tax Americans At 90%. His Reasoning Is Priceless…

Bernie Sanders Questions Morality of US Economy _ Speakeasy _ CNBC - YouTube (1080p).mp4_snapshot_02.36_[2015.10.15_12.36.36]

Yes this is a real thing. No Bernie Sanders didn’t have a public meltdown of epic, Charlie-Sheen proportions. This is what he believes. It’s what he’s always believed.

Remember this when you leftist friends talk about how “radical” the “far right” has become in this country. Please, remember this.

In an interview with NBC News, Bernie Sanders stated:

“When radical, socialist Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, I think the highest marginal tax rate was something like 90 percent.”

The interviewer followed up by asking, “When you think about something like 90 percent, you don’t think that’s obviously too high?” Sanders replied:

“No. What I think is obscene, when you have the top one-tenth of one percent owning almost as much as the bottom 90.”

What I find particularly hilarious is that Bernie Sanders goes on to say that Conservatives are “so greedy, so out of touch with reality”… as he dines in what appears to be an expensive restaurant in the most expensive city in the country. What’s okay for him is not okay for you!
Also it’s important to note that the rich not only pay most taxes in this country, they pay all the taxes, according to one of NBC’s own (albeit buried) reports. When it comes to individual income taxes, the top 40 percent of wage earners in America pay 106 percent of the taxes. The bottom 40 percent…pay negative 9 percent.
And I’m no economist, but if I knew that I’d be working for 90 percent of the year for free… I may consider retirement. Which would result in forced retirement for all of my employees as well. Again, just little ol’ dumb Crowder using his thinky-think ability.

Again, remember that media narrative that Conservatives are becoming “too radical”? Well allow me to compare the two factions through this scientifically calibrated, internet meme below.

Can you spot the “extremist”?


Rush Limbaugh: Democrats Promise Free Everything

RUSH: First up is a montage here from the debate last night.  Bernie Sanders, Hillary, Lincoln Chafee, and they’re all talking about all the free stuff.  College and health care and whatever you want. If you’re an illegal immigrant, it’s all yours.  All you have to do is show up.

SANDERS:  Make every public college and university in this country tuition-free.

HILLARY:  Anyone to go to a public college or university tuition-free.

SANDERS:  We’re all gonna have medical and family paid leave.

HILLARY:  Make sure every child gets health care, including undocumented children and others.

CHAFEE:  Funding education, funding infrastructure, funding health care.

HILLARY:  Enhance the benefits for the poorest recipients of Social Security.

SANDERS:  We should be putting money into education.  I want Wall Street now to help kids in this country go to college, public colleges and universities.

HILLARY:  I know we can afford it because we’re gonna make the wealthy pay for it.

RUSH:  (laughing)  We can afford it ’cause we’re gonna make the wealthy pay. We are $18 trillion in debt.  Now, you can afford anything if you ignore that, and if you don’t think that’s a problem and if that number is irrelevant, the money never has to even be serviced or paid back, then of course you can afford anything.  But the truth is, we can’t afford anything.  We can afford maybe, what, what’s the number that we drag in by tax revenue every year?  The numbers are confusing, but $3 trillion whatever we can afford every year, but we so exceed that.  We have exceeded it for so long. We’re already paying for things we can’t afford.  And these people just want to lap more and more on top of it.

You know, one of the biggest misdirections in public dialogue and politics is?  The taxpayers’ expense.  Taxpayers have to pay. The taxpayers don’t pay anything.  The reason is they’re not conscious of it.  Everybody’s taxes are withheld from their paychecks, those who work.  Very few people are independent contractors that actually pay their taxes themselves.  The vast majority of people never see the money they pay in taxes, any kind.  Property tax is part of the homeowners, the mortgage payment every month, very little tax do you ever see, particularly income and payroll taxes.

So people come along, “This is gonna cost the taxpayers X, and that’s gonna cost the taxpayer Y.” It doesn’t cost you anything.  We build a battleship, you don’t think it’s cost you anything.  What’s your share of it?  Whoever sent you a bill for your portion of a B-2 bomber?  So the idea of a taxpayers expense doesn’t mean anything because it has no basis in relatability.  So you can run around and talk about we’re gonna pay for this, we’re gonna do this, we can afford this, and the taxpayers are not gonna worry about it.  They’ve never gotten a bill for anything.  So the idea that it’s costing them something is totally over their head, totally escapes them without any consciousness or any awareness of an annual deficit and an accumulating national debt and what it actually means.  And I venture to say 90% of the population doesn’t have the slightest clue what it means. It can’t be a negative used against the Democrats.

For 50 years people on our side have been trying to prove and establish that the Democrats can be beaten by talking about all the excessive spending. But the fact is it doesn’t work, it doesn’t persuade anybody to not support or vote Democrat because they’re never aware of having to pay for any of it, be they taxpayers or recipients.  They’re not aware of having to pay for any of it.  They never see the tax revenue that’s collected from them in the first place, and they certainly aren’t aware how it’s allocated.

RUSH: Here’s Lee in Gilroy, California.  Great to have you on the program, Lee.  I’m glad you waited.  Hello.

CALLER:  Hey, Rush.  Longtime listener.  Last night when I was watching the debate last night, was watching all the clowns debate each other, when they got to especially Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, when they got to the part where they promised all the free handouts, you know, I sat there and I really contemplated that. And I felt, just in my gut, I’m like, wow, you know, Republicans are really in trouble here.

RUSH:  Well, is your question, how do you compete with that?

CALLER:  Exactly.  How do you compete with all those handouts, especially —

RUSH:  See, that’s the scary thing.  This is the scary thing from the standpoint of whatever percentage you want to say supports this stuff, that we have to conclude we’ve lost that percentage of the country.  When you have what was on that stage last night, all these promises for a much bigger warfare state, free this, free that, you have to realize that there’s a portion of the population that does applaud it, think it’s great, think it’s cool, thinks that is the purpose of government, is to take care of people and to help people.

And what’s wrong with it, they will say?  What’s wrong with free college?  What’s wrong with food stamps?  What’s wrong with helping people?  What’s wrong with bringing illegals in so they can make something of themselves?  And that begins an entire education process of trying to explain to people how it’s hurting the people you’re trying to help.  It’s denying them their dignity.  It’s denying them their opportunity to be totally self-sufficient and to find out how good and capable they are.  And sometimes people look at that whole effort as a lost cause waste of time.  So, yeah, I mean, it’s my assessment following the 2004 election.  American people voted for Santa Claus.  Other 2008, I’m sorry.


error: Content is protected !!