Trump readies early-state ad blitz

Billionaire Donald Trump is set to launch a long-awaited television advertising blitz in early-voting states.
The Republican presidential front-runner, whose campaign has spent very little on advertising so far, will soon run an ad campaign that could cost at least $2 million a week — and potentially much more than that — according to unnamed sources cited in the report.
The first round of ads will reportedly be positive, communicating Trump’s policy positions and overall vision, but the source told Fox News that the ads could quickly shift to attack spots if Trump feels he is being unfairly targeted by his opponents.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Ohio Gov. John Kasich are the two Republican candidates going most aggressively after Trump, and he could single them out if he deems them threatening enough, particularly in New Hampshire, to warrant a response.
So far, Trump has used social media and frequent cable TV to lambast his opponents, including Kasich and Bush.
Trump has long promised to self-fund his campaign but has had to spend very little of his own money so far due to near-constant media coverage and significant small donations into his campaign.
Like Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders, Trump rejects super-PACs, saying he does not want to be compromised by favors owed to billionaires and lobbyists.
Trump leads national polls by nearly 20 percentage points, but Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has recently drawn ahead in Iowa, which holds the first caucuses of 2016 on Feb. 1.
Trump has marshaled most of his ground forces in Iowa in an effort to combat Cruz’s advantage.

Minorities line up behind … Donald Trump

Pundits might point to billionaire Donald Trump’s huge lead in the GOP presidential primary race as being the result of his generally anti-Washington, anti-government, anti-establishment, anti-politically correct attitude.

If so, it’s not just whites who are ticked at the bureaucracy, but minorities too.

Because a new poll, which still has Trump leading the race, shows 40 percent of blacks are lining up behind Trump, as are 45 percent of Hispanics, and even nearly 19 percent of Asians.

Blacks and Hispanics, in fact, even support Trump at a higher level than whites.

The results are from a new WND/Clout poll by Clout Research, a national opinion research firm in Columbus, Ohio. The telephone survey of registered voters was taken Dec. 18-27, except for the holiday, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.35 percentage points.

Only Dr. Ben Carson pulled more support from the black community than Trump, at 50 percent, and no one had more support from Hispanics than Trump. Among Asians, 37.5 percent supported Sen. Marco Rubio, with Sen. Ted Cruz matching Trump’s 18.8 percent.

Among whites, Trump was far and away the leader, with 37.7 percent of the respondents. Cruz was second at 25.1 percent.

The rankings put Trump in the No. 1 slot, Cruz second at 23.3 percent, Rubio third at 10.1, Carson fourth at 9.4 percent, and Jeb Bush fifth at six percent.

Will Bill and Hillary Clinton ever be held accountable? Help make sure they are by supporting the Hillary Clinton Investigative Justice Project, an effort targeting the racketeering enterprise known as the Clinton Family Foundation

Explained Fritz Wenzel, chief of Clout Polling, “The Republican presidential primary preference nationally remains unchanged through the Christmas holiday and heading into the New Year, as Donald Trump continues to lead by double digits.

“The newish development of Sen. Ted Cruz rising and now solidifying his top-tier stature is likely going to remain for the coming weeks before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. But the rise of Cruz signals nothing new in this race, as voters continue to voice their complete dissatisfaction with the GOP establishment. Cruz merely supplanted Carson as a more conservative outsider alternative to Trump.”

He said a key will be whether Republicans, whose divisions have been opened by Trump’s brash criticism of the establishment and refusal to go along, can come together.

“There really is just one more act to come and question to be answered before the nomination is sealed: ‘Will the establishment coalesce behind one moderate candidate and mount a serious challenge, or will they remain divided and be conquered?’” Wenzel said.

“For this challenge to develop, three of four candidates – Bush, Rubio, Kasich and Christie – would have to step aside, and given the stakes involved, it is hard to imagine that happening in time to make a difference. The clock has now become a serious factor in this race.”

He said moderates like Trump, with a sizable chunk also favoring Marco Rubio, while conservatives favor Cruz.

“Cruz does so badly among moderates that it is hard to make a case for him as the consensus candidate. Trump’s ability at this stage of the game to gain solid support among all demographic groups makes him a significant favorite to win the nomination. It is interesting to note that there is a significant gender gap inside the race for the GOP nomination – as Trump wins only 29 percent support among men but wins 47 percent support among women who will be voting in the GOP primary elections. Among conservative women voting in the GOP primaries, Trump wins 53 percent support,” Wenzel reported.

The survey shows Trump collecting nearly 40 percent of the GOP support, but also 31 percent of the independents and even 26-plus percent of the Democrats.

While Ohio Gov. John Kasich gets 31 percent of the Democrats who responded to the poll, most other candidates share tiny fractions. Only Cruz was event close to Trump, with 21 percent of the Democrats, 24 percent of the GOP and 21 percent of the independents.

It showed Trump dominates among those voters who think of themselves as very liberal or liberal, with 60 percent and 40 percent support, respectively. But he’s no slouch among the moderate and conservatives either, with support higher than 41 percent in each group.

The rest of the support was splintered among the candidates.

The question: “If you were voting today in your state’s primary or caucus election for the Republican nomination for president, and the candidates were, in alphabetical order, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, John Kasich, Marco Rubio and Donald Trump, for whom would you vote?”

Among men and women, Trump also had far and away leads, with 30 percent of the men and more than 46 percent of the women. Only Cruz was within sight, with about 23 percent of support from each group.

Trump dominated, too, among the religious categories, getting 40 percent support from Protestants, 30 percent from Catholics, 40 percent of Jews and more. Trump also dominated among the age groups as well as across all geographic regions in the country.


Diana West: It’s Time to Rally Around Donald Trump

Brent Bozell has called on conservatives to rally around Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for the Republican presidential nomination. Ted Cruz is a good man and a fine candidate — my own second choice — but I believe GOP frontrunner Donald Trump is the candidate for American patriots to rally around.

Bozell states that Cruz is the one candidate who will return the United States to “her Constitutional foundations and Judeo-Christian values,” explaining:

  • On every issue of crucial importance to conservatives—defunding Planned Parenthood, ending the Obamacare nightmare, reducing the size of government, opposing amnesty—Cruz is not only with conservatives, he’s led the fight for conservatives.

To be honest, if these were the only issues under discussion in this GOP presidential primary season I would hardly be able to make myself pay attention. It’s not that they are unimportant issues. Personally, I support every one of them. But they are not existential issues. They are not the issues on which the very future of the Republic hangs. They are issues that a responsible Republican House and Senate, if they were loyal to their oath and to their constituents, could today begin to rectify all by themselves.

If they did — or if, say, a President Cruz were to ensure that Planned Parenthood was defunded, Obamacare ended, government trimmed, and amnesty once again staved off for another election cycle — we would all rejoice. However, the Constitution, the Republic, would be no more secure. On the contrary, they would still teeter on the edge of extinction, lost in a demographic, political, and cultural transformation that our fathers, founding and otherwise, would find inconceivable — and particularly if they ever found out that the crisis took hold when We the People lost our nerve even to talk about immigration and Islam.

It is in this danger zone of lost nerve and the vanishing nation-state where the extraordinary presidential candidacy of Donald Trump began. Like the nation-state itself, it started with the concept of a border, when Donald Trump told us he wanted to build a wall. Circa 21st-century-America, that took a lot of nerve.

After all, Americans don’t have walls. We don’t even have a border. We have “border surges,” and “unaccompanied alien minors.” We have “sanctuary cities,” and a continuous government raid on our own pocketbooks to pay for what amounts to our own invasion. That’s not even counting the attendant pathologies, burdens, and immeasurable cultural dislocation that comes about when “no one speaks English anymore.” A wall, the man says?

The enthusiasm real people (as opposed to media and #GOPSmartSet) have shown for Trump and his paradigm-shattering wall is something new and exciting on the political scene. So is the “yuge” sigh of relief. Someone sees the nation bleeding out and wants to stanch the flow. Yes, we can (build a wall). From that day forward, it has been Trump, dominating the GOP primary process and setting all of the potentially restorative points of the agenda, compelling the other candidates to address them, and the MSM, too. Blasting through hard, dense layers of “political correctness” with plain talk that shocks, Trump has set in motion very rusty wheels of reality-based thinking, beginning a long-overdue honest-to-goodness public debate about the future of America — or, better, whether there will be a future for America. That debate starts at the border, too.

A well-defended border is an obvious requisite for any nation-state. It bears noting, however, that before Donald Trump, not one commander in chief, and (aside from former Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-CO), not one figure of national fame and repute I can think of had ever put it to the people of this land that a wall was a way to stop our border crisis: the unceasing flow into the nation of illegal masses of mainly Spanish-speaking aliens, among them terrorists, criminals (yes, including rapists and murderers) and transnational gangs. On the contrary, crime and chaos at the U.S. non-border are what every branch and bureaucracy of our government expect We, the People to accept as normal — and pay for as good citizens.

But good citizens of what — the world?

For many decades, the unspoken answer  to this inconceivable question (inconceivable, that is, before Trump) has been yes. “We Are the World” has been the USA’s unofficial anthem, the political muzak of our times that we either hum along to, or accept in teeth-gritted silence for fear of censure (or cancelled party invitations). “Openness,” “multiculturalism,” “globalism” — all have been pounded into us for so long that I think Americans despaired of ever hearing anyone give voice again to a patriotic vision of American interests. Then Trump came along and changed the tune. Americans perked up their ears. Maybe a wall — which is just the beginning of Trump’s detailed immigration policy, which Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) calls “exactly the plan America needs” — would make America possible again. That would be great, indeed.

Does Trump see it all this way, or is he going on “feel”? I don’t claim to know, although by this time in the political season, I think I am beginning to get a sense of Trump. When it comes to what is important, beginning with immigration, Trump’s instincts are as formidable as his courage. Notwithstanding Cruz and his consistent conservatism (in which Bozell places great stock), immigration wouldn’t even be a campaign issue without Donald Trump. In my opinion, the Trump plan is absoutely essential to any possible return, as Bozell puts it, to America’s constitutional foundations and Judeo-Christian principles. I actually think of it as our last shot.

In the meantime, Trump continues to catapult issues, one after another, into the heart of the multicultural/universalist narrative that long ago marginalized the very idea of American interests. His judiciously sensible, also unprecedented, call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration following the San Bernardino jihad attacks is a perfect example. Citing polling commissioned by the Center for Security Policy that reveals shockingly high support among Muslims in America for 1) violent jihad in America — 25 percent believe it is justified, and 2) sharia law in America — 51 percent believe they should have the choice of being governed here by Islamic law (sharia), Trump called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

As Trump makes clear, our country’s representatives have no clue. Worse, they seem content to remain in ignorance no matter how many Americans die, no matter how far sharia spreads. Not Trump. When you think about it, his call for a Muslim immigration moratorium is really a no-brainer — but whose “politically correct” brain is capable even of thinking of it, let alone calling for it out loud? I regret to say that Sen. Cruz does not support Trump’s moratorium, deferring instead to a rosier vision of Islam and immigration screening both in order, politely, to reject it.

That’s too bad, but so it goes, further testament to the fearless, agenda-setting powers of Trump. It’s really quite incredible: soon, maybe even before it’s too late, GOP primary voters will have a clear choice on walls, borders, immigration, even Islamic immigration (and, I would hope, the related issue of Islamic law), all because Donald Trump plucked these crucial issues from the void where the politicians, including good conservatives, have been eager to leave them.

Go Trump!


That time when Donald Trump saved a Georgia farm

Donald Trump and Annabel Hill of Georgia in 1986. They are burning her farm mortage after she received help for Trump.

One narrative emerging around the surprisingly resilient Donald Trump portrays the brash billionaire as a final card laid down by Republican blue-collar voters who see their way of life — and their political clout — draining away in a bathtub spiral.

Trump has been a man of last resort before. Right here in Georgia, in fact. And if his Republican presidential machine doesn’t seize upon the tale in the next few weeks, as he and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas battle for Southern votes, then someone in the Trump campaign will be guilty of gross incompetence.

It happened in 1986, in the midst of the worst farm crisis since the Great Depression. In Burke County, on Georgia’s eastern border, farm after farm was folding.

On Feb. 4, Lenard Dozier Hill III, a third-generation occupant of his cotton-and-soybean acreage, was about to have his land sold out from under him. ”That morning, it was going to be auctioned off at the courthouse steps, so he committed suicide,” said Betsy Sharp, his daughter.

In the bedroom of the Hill home, along with the .22-caliber rifle that did the work, was a neat stack of life insurance policies and other papers on the nightstand. Hill had intended for the life insurance payout to cover most of his $300,000 debt and so save the family farm for another generation.

It was a grievous miscalculation. Most, if not all, life insurance policies include a clause that prohibits payment in cases of suicide. “He didn’t realize all that,” Sharp said.

Hill’s desperate act struck a chord. Reporters and TV crews descended on the Waynesboro church where the funeral was held. Vandals painted “farmer killer” on the door of the local bank.

Once the family realized the financial futility of Hill’s suicide, the burden of saving the farm fell on his widow, Annabel Hill, a 66-year-old teacher and social worker with gray hair and large glasses.

The widow was already familiar with Frank Argenbright, a wealthy and white Atlanta businessman who had made a name for himself by organizing the successful effort to save the farm of a black farmer in Cochran named Oscar Lorick.

(Argenbright initially tried to do this anonymously, as a masked benefactor who called himself “A.N. American.” But he was the head of a growing security firm, and his cop friends recognized his voice.)

Argenbright arranged a press conference for Annabel Hill in Atlanta. “It went national,” he said. Today, in the age of the Internet, we use the term “viral.”

Then, as now, clowns came out of the woodwork. In an interview, Argenbright said one of the first calls he received was from a Texas oilman who wanted to come to Atlanta to help. “For some reason I had to pay the ticket,” Argenbright said. First class.

The “oilman” turned out to be a soused escapee from a rehab unit for alcoholics. Argenbright put him on the next flight back to Texas. In coach.

Above is a video, featuring Betsy Sharp, daughter of Lenard and Annabel Hill, put together by Chad Etheridge of Growing America, a news service for farmers.


Argenbright was still at the airport when his assistant called. Someone claiming to be Donald Trump had just rang, offering to help Annabel Hill.

A suspicious Argenbright called the number and demanded proof of identity from the man who answered.

“Herschel Walker works for me,” the voice said. The former University of Georgia running back was the star of the New Jersey Generals, a United States Football League team owned by Trump. That was good enough.

“Well, Mr. Trump, I apologize,” Argenbright said.

Trump told the Atlanta businessman that his wife, Ivana, had seen the report on the Hill family’s plight on the network news, and she suggested that he get involved. The magnate summoned Argenbright and the Hills to New York. After a brief interview, Trump signed onto the cause.

Accounts of what followed differ. In his book “The Art of the Deal,” Trump wrote that, in a phone call, he twisted the arm of a vice president of the Georgia bank that held the Hill mortgage.

“I said to the guy, ‘You listen to me. If you do foreclose, I’ll bring a lawsuit for murder against you and your bank, on the grounds that you harassed Mrs. Hill’s husband to his death.’ All of a sudden, the banker sounded very nervous and said he’d get right back to me. Sometimes it pays to be a little wild,” Trump wrote.

Problem solved.

Argenbright, a Trump admirer who would go on to provide security at many of the billionaire’s properties, describes a Trump who was far less sure of himself — and of the public reaction that would follow. And quieter, too. ”It wasn’t the Donald that you see now,” Argenbright said. “He wasn’t sure that people would respond to him. He didn’t want to be embarrassed.”

Trump provided $20,000 to stave off foreclosure of the Hill farm, but his name was initially kept out of the picture. During a press conference on the courthouse steps in Waynesboro announcing the delay, Argenbright said he spoke only of support from “a New York developer.”

But Trump’s identity was easily and quickly guessed. The billionaire and the Georgia farm wife made the rounds of the morning TV shows. Viewers were asked to send their dollars to the “Annabel Hill Fund, Trump Towers, New York, 10022.”

Money poured in, but Trump and a Texas oilman — a real one, this time — provided the last $78,000. A “mortgage-burning” ceremony was scheduled for two days before Christmas. The Hill family was again flown to New York, at Trump’s expense.

“I had just graduated from high school. He flew us to New York, and we went to Trump Towers and had breakfast with him,” said Betsy Sharp, who is now 49 and lives in Augusta.

“We saw a whole different side of him that was kindhearted, to reach out to us, to help us,” the daughter said. “Most people don’t know and see that side. All they see is just the ‘blurt’ that people put on the TV. They don’t see the other side of him, and that’s what my family got to experience.”

Argenbright feels likewise. “He couldn’t have been nicer. He took care of them and stayed in touch with them after that,” Argenbright said. “He had no ulterior motive.”

But Argenbright said that, in advance of that mortgage-burning ceremony in 1986, he did catch a glimpse of the media-savvy presidential candidate that we are watching now.

Trump ordered the waterfalls in his towers turned off, to make it easier for the TV sound technicians. He made sure that at least three tested cigarette lighters were on hand to spark the fire. The mortgage papers were fake, but Trump ordered an assistant to light one up to make sure they would burn quickly and dramatically, said Argenbright, who supplied an engraved tray from Tiffany’s for the ashes.

“Just to watch how detailed he was in understanding the perception of the moment and how significant it was — it was a special time,” Argenbright said. “He was an honorable guy who wanted to do the right thing. If it wasn’t for him, that farm wouldn’t have been saved.”

The Annabel Hill episode was just a small piece of the farm crisis. In the two months that followed, 85 other farms in Burke County alone were scheduled for foreclosure. Other celebrities attempted rescues as well — Willie Nelson’s series of Farm Aid concerts had begun the year before.

But this was the moment that Donald Trump, who had already put his name on the New York City skyline, introduced himself to rural America.

The billionaire’s involvement didn’t spark a revolution. Not then. An off-Broadway play, loosely based on Lenard and Annabel Hill, flared briefly. Annabel Hill, who died in 2011 at age 91, wrote a book about her experience with her pastor. It has never been published.

But for Trump, there is a legacy to be tapped. This week, The Wall Street Journal noted that an analysis of its own polling found that much of Trump’s Southern support comes from “Republican primary voters who live in counties with large African American and Hispanic populations.”

In Georgia, that means farm country — the same rural areas that fueled the Eugene and Herman Talmadge dynasty of the 20th century.

Betsy Sharp, now the manager of a surgery center in Columbia County, attended a Trump rally in Bluffton, S.C., this summer. But the candidate was rushed, and the two only had time to quickly shake hands. If asked, Sharp said she would be happy to campaign with him.

Her brother, by the way, is Leonard Dozier Hill IV. He still lives on the farm that Donald Trump saved.


Phyllis Schlafly: Trump is ‘last hope for America’

Phyllis Schlafly, an icon of the conservative movement who has been active for half a century, is warning the nation: Donald Trump is the last hope for America.


Schlafly unloaded on Republicans in Congress for passing the $1.1 trillion omnibus bill last week, a move she called a “betrayal.”

“This is a betrayal of the grassroots and of the Republican Party,” Schlafly said in an exclusive interview with WND. “We thought we were electing a different crowd to stand up for America, and they didn’t. We’re extremely outraged by what Congress has done. Nancy Pelosi couldn’t have engineered it any better. I think the people are going to react by electing Donald Trump.”

Trump put out a statement Friday to ABC News saying, “If anyone needs more evidence of why the American people are suffering at the hands of their own government, look no further than the budget deal announced by Speaker Ryan. In order to avoid a government shutdown, a cowardly threat from an incompetent president, the elected Republicans in Congress threw in the towel and showed absolutely no budget discipline.”

Trump continued, “Congress cannot seem to help itself in bending to every whim of special interests. How can they face their constituents when they continue to burden our children and grandchildren with debts they will never be able to repay? Our government is failing us, so we must do something about it. Who knows how bad things will be when the next administration comes in and has to pick up the pieces?”

Schlafly applauded the GOP front-runner’s fighting spirit.

“It sounds like Donald Trump is the only one who has any fight in him,” she said. “He will fight for the issues that we really care about and are very hot at the present time, such as the immigration issue. I don’t see anyone else who’s eager to fight.”

The Republican-controlled Congress just sold America down in river in the “worst kind of betrayal,” Schlafly told WND.

“It’s the worst kind of a betrayal because we thought we elected a bunch of good guys who would shape up the party,” she said. “We had a lot of fancy promises that the Republicans were going to shape up and change course. And they disappointed us. Betrayal is an appropriate word to describe it.”

WND asked Schlafly if she believes Donald Trump is the last hope for America.

“He does look like he’s the last hope [for America],” Schlafly said. “We don’t hear anybody saying what he’s saying. In fact, most of the people who ought to be lining up with him are attacking him. They’re probably jealous of the amount of press coverage he gets. But the reason he gets so much press coverage is the grassroots are fed up with people who are running things, and they do want a change. They do want people to stand up for America. It really resonates when he says he wants to ‘Make America Great Again.’”

Schlafly said it’s not only Republicans who feel betrayed, but Democrats, too.

“They are betrayed,” she said. “There’s no doubt about it. The working man and woman have been betrayed by both parties. They’re ready for a change … anything they think would be better.”

The conservative superstar also blasted leaders of both parties who advocate lax immigration policies while American workers continue to struggle in a tepid economy.

“The rich guys are putting the money in. They want to bring in the low-wage people. That’s the way they think they’ll make money,” she said. “But that’s not the way America will prosper. America was built because we had a great growing and prosperous middle class. We need to rebuild that again. I’m willing to give a new try to somebody else.”


One More Year of Obama, the President Out of Sync with America

Twelve months to go.

Americans wonder how much more damage President Obama can do. Evidently peeved that his “accomplishments” are not getting enough attention, Obama recently called for backup, inviting several friendly columnists to a Christmas pep rally in the White House, behind closed doors. Promises of transparency having long-since been abandoned, the president’s chat was off the record, but the leavings of it surfaced in stories like that posted by The New York Times, which noted that Mr. Obama is ending 2015 “with a series of accomplishments,” but that those victories have been overshadowed by ISIS.

The message: Americans are too scared and stupid to appreciate what a terrific job President Obama is doing.

Another view: President Obama has never, not once in 7 years, shared the priorities of the nation. In 2009, voters worried about jobs; Obama was focused on cramming his unpopular “legacy” healthcare bill down the country’s throat, no matter the harm done to job creation, no matter the political divide it caused, no matter the potential upheaval wreaked upon our healthcare industries.

Today, Americans are concerned about terrorism, as they bury 14 in San Bernardino and witness the frightening expansion by ISIS to fifteen nations. Obama, always the odd man out, is focused on climate change.

It is always about the legacy. Going forward, he will evidently try to check two more legacy boxes: closing Guantanamo Bay and posting new rules for gun purchasers. Both pursuits are deeply unpopular with Americans and yet, the president wonders why his approval ratings are so low.

On January 22, 2009, just a few days after taking office, President Obama signed an executive order to close Guantanamo. He is still pushing to do so. To that end, he plans very soon to release 17 more “low-level” detainees. Here’s the problem: there are no more “low-level” detainees being held at Gitmo. They were sent packing long ago; some 530 were released during George W. Bush’s presidency. Those remaining in custody are the bad guys – the ones that will more than likely suit up to rejoin the fight the minute they are on home turf.

Paul Sperry, a Hoover Institution fellow, recently wrote about the current review process for sending inmates home. It is a joke. He details the release of al-Qaeda member Ibrahim al-Qosi, a member of Osama bin Laden’s retinue, who knew about the 9/11 attacks and who fought against the U.S. in Afghanistan. He was sent home to Sudan, and almost immediately became a chieftain in a Yemeni al-Qaeda outfit, promising on video to attack Americans. As Sperry points out, almost 200 Gitmo graduates have signed up with terror groups – about one third of those released.

 Other notable returnees include the Taliban Five, exchanged for accused deserter Bowe Bergdahl. According to a report from the House Committee on Armed Services, the president’s own internal review “determined that the Taliban Five were sufficiently dangerous to require them to remain in

detention.” The release was found to be illegal, and carried out without the participation of “senior officials within the Department of Defense best equipped to assess national security risks….” Three of the five have apparently re-engaged in terror activities.

President Obama maintained in his recent press conference that Guantanamo is a “key magnet for jihadi recruitment.” Many have pointed out that the prolific propaganda that ISIS thugs spew online almost never mentions Gitmo. Al-Qaeda used to publicize the detention facility but ISIS is too busy broadcasting beheadings and recruiting terrorists from the West. This is one of many false narratives spun by the White House. Much more common in ISIS materials is invoking the Crusades, something that Obama actually parroted at last year’s prayer breakfast.

Note that once again President Obama is bucking public opinion. Polling shows that more than half the country thinks we should continue to operate the Guantanamo facility; only 28 percent thinks it should be closed.

Equally unpopular is the president’s push for new gun control laws. Bruised by a recalcitrant Congress in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, Obama will seek to issue executive actions on prohibiting the sale of firearms to people on the “no-fly” list, and to expand background checks. Those measures would not have prevented Sandy Hook or the recent killings in San Bernardino, but President Obama considers some action better than no action and is determined to cook up a plan that can withstand court challenges.

His timing is unfortunate. In the wake of the recent terror assault, Americans, for the first time in over twenty years, now oppose a ban on assault weapons – 53 percent to 45 percent, according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll. That same survey found that 47 percent of the country wants easier access to guns rather than more gun control laws. At the same time, on Black Friday (November 27) the FBI processed a record 185,345 background checks for gun sales; that’s called voting with your feet.

The New York Times recently quoted White House aide Phil Schiliro as saying that Mr. Obama “doesn’t worry about polls and the news cycle.” That assertion is laughable, given his recent confab with opinion-makers. A more likely conclusion is that Obama thinks he knows best, and the public be damned. Only one more year.


Hillary Clinton Campaign Funding the Democratic National Committee

The Hillary Clinton campaign is quietly making cash transfers to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to fund state party efforts in the South.

Breitbart News has obtained an email sent by Hillary Clinton deputy national political director Brynne Craig, 30, to a state party chairman. Craig assures the chairman that the Clinton campaign will be making another “transfer” to the DNC. Then Craig said she would “follow up to let you know the amount that is transferred.”

The email sheds new light on the relationship between the financially insolvent DNC, led by

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), and the Clinton campaign. The Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

camp is suing the DNC in federal court ahead of Saturday night’s debate in Goffstown, New Hampshire after the DNC banned the Sanders camp from its voter targeting data after it accessed data on Hillary Clinton voters, which was originally supposed to be shared over all of the Democratic campaigns.

The Clinton campaign is clearly gearing up for the Southern Democratic Party’s vaunted “SEC primary” in March, where Hillary Clinton lost her lead for the nomination in 2008 to then-Senator Barack Obama.

Asked to comment, the Clinton campaign did not immediately respond with an answer that provides information about how much money the Clinton campaign transfers to the DNC. The DNC also did not immediately provide that financial information.

From: Brynne Craig <******>
Date: November [], 2015 at **** PM CST
(To: []
Cc: Richard McDaniel <*********>, Charles Olivier <********>
Subject: Next Week
{} –
I hope this email finds you well. Happy early Thanksgiving! I wanted to check in since December is quickly approaching. We are planning to do another transfer to the DNC on December 1st. We will follow up to let you know the amount that is transferred.
Please let us know if you have any questions.


error: Content is protected !!