RUTHFULLY YOURS

If Hillary Clinton is elected president, she will seek to move the country in the same hard-left direction as Barack Obama. This article focuses on seven Clinton policy priorities that will have the most devastating impact on the American people.

1. Importing 65,000 Syrian “Refugees”

In order to address “the worst refugee crisis since the end of World War II,” Mrs. Clinton has explicitly called for bringing some 65,000 refugees from Syria into the United States as quickly as possible. This represents a 550% increase over Barack Obama’s 2016 goal of 10,000 Syrian refugees, which Clinton describes as merely a “good start.”

Clinton is committed to this reckless policy even though ISIS has vowed to infiltrate the flow of Syrian refugees with its own bloodthirsty operatives; even though more than 30,000 illegal immigrants from “countries of terrorist concern” entered the United States through America’s Southwestern border with Mexico in 2015 alone; and even though high-ranking officials like FBI Director James Comey, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, CIA Director John Brennan, and FBI Deputy Assistant Director Michael Steinbach have all made it clear that it is impossible to reliably screen out terrorists who could be posing as refugees.

2. Amnesty & Open Borders

Mrs. Clinton vows to “introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship” within her first 100 days in office, and pledges to “go even further” than the two unconstitutional executive orders (DACA and DAPA) by which President Obama has already protected millions of illegal aliens from deportation. It is all part of the Democrats’ long-term master plan to transform the American electorate into a permanent Democrat voting bloc by importing massive numbers of people who can be counted upon to support the political party that offers them the largest number of welfare-state benefits. Clinton also supports what she terms “a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.” And she smears those people who wish to enforce immigration law as “obstructionists” whose “backward-looking” mindset is “fundamentally un-American.”

3. Sanctuary Cities

Clinton unequivocally supports the “sanctuary” policies that bar police officers and other public-sector employees in some 340 U.S. cities from notifying the federal government about the presence of illegal aliens residing in their communities. Though sanctuary policies have turned hundreds of U.S. cities into very dangerous places, Clinton explains that without such arrangements, “people from the immigrant community … may not talk” to police who are trying to solve crimes there because “they think you’re also going to be enforcing the immigration laws.” As Xochitl Hinojosa, a Clinton presidential campaign director, puts it: “Hillary Clinton believes that sanctuary cities can help further public safety, and she has defended those policies going back years.”

A new Project Veritas investigation confirms our worst suspicions about the DNC/Clinton campaign collusion behind violent protests that have been “bird-dogging” Trump at so many of his rallies. “Bird-dogging” is a practice where trained left-wing activists infiltrate Republican rallies and try to provoke violence. WikiLeaks in July published DNC emails that showed DNC involvement with these anti-Donald Trump protests. The extent of the DNC and Clinton campaign’s involvement and the dark money funding the anti-Trump violence has not been made plain until now.

A shady coordinated communications chain between the DNC, Clinton Campaign, Hillary Clinton’s Super PAC (Priorities) and other organizations are revealed. A key Clinton operative is on camera saying, “It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherf*cker.”

In James O’Keefe’s explosive undercover video, you hear a Democrat operative describe a text-messaging chain of communications about the protests between the Clinton campaign, Democracy Partners and other super PACs that they call “the Pony Express.” These communications may be illegal or even criminal, legal experts say.

The video features one of the most nefarious creatures of the organized left — convicted felon Bob Creamer, the Alinskyite agitator husband of Illinois Socialist Democrat Rep. Jan Schakowsky. Creamer has been a frequent visitor to the Obama White House.

He now heads up an organization called Democracy Partners, a group with deep ties to the Clinton campaign as well as to Barack Obama’s White House and the DNC. “Wherever Trump and Pence are, we are going to have events, and we have a whole team across the country that does that,” Creamer said. “Both consultants, and people from the Democratic party and the Democratic party apparatus and people from the campaign — the Clinton campaign” are involved with the effort, he added.

The narrative that they have endeavored to project — which has been picked up and disseminated by the mainstream media — is that the people at Trump rallies are violent crazies. The truth is — and has always been — that left-wing agitators protesting Trump are the violent crazies. And I mean that quite literally.

Scott Foval, another nefarious actor, actually said on tape, “We have mentally ill people that we pay to do sh*t — make no mistake.”

No crowds, no sales, no signs, no inspiration. Something doesn’t add up.

Hillary Clinton is all but measuring the drapes for the Oval Office, but some things in this campaign don’t add up:

Trump supporter Wayne Allen Root paints Hillary Clinton as the political equivalent of the “ghost cities” of China that no one lives in:

This reminds me of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. She exists, but are there any real people behind her? Are you certain anyone is voting for her?

While Trump rallies are “once-in-a-lifetime experiences … like Woodstock for working-class conservatives,” Hillary is lucky to draw 200 people.

No one buys Hillary’s books or campaign gear, either. Root tells of a friend who found only Hillary gear at the airport gift shop and, on inquiring, was told that the Trump hats and shirts that come in twice a week are sold out “within hours.”

Hillary’s gear? They can’t give it away.

… This doesn’t appear odd to you? Hillary is leading in the polls, but no one attends her rallies, no one buys her books and no one buys her merchandise[.] … She is a candidate whose own supporters don’t like her.

… Hillary is the “Ghost Candidate.”

V.P. candidate Tim Kaine is equally uninspiring, drawing just fifty people to a rally last Friday in Miami. Mr. Kaine spoke from the back of a pickup truck with a street-art poster for a back drop, and the estimate of fifty attendees appears to include organizers, a few photographers, and at least two children well under voting age.

Yet Mr. Kaine may be one dizzy spell from the Oval Office.

Ed Klein, author of several books on the Obamas and the Clintons, has a column out on Mrs. Clinton’s maladies.

Mr. Klein reveals that President Obama and his senior adviser, Valerie Jarrett, “have been so worried about Hillary’s health that they recently offered to arrange a secret medical checkup for her.” Mrs. Clinton refused the offer, fearing that “a leak to the media would prove fatal to her presidential campaign.”

When Hillary Clinton’s media tried to make Trump’s crude sexual banter the centerpiece of the last debate, Trump pivoted to national security and once again said how proud he is to be backed by 200 generals and admirals.

These are among America’s finest, bravest, most admirable men. Seventeen medal of honor winners endorsed Trump. So did fifteen brigadier generals, thirty-four major generals, eighteen lieutenant generals, forty-one rear admirals, six vice-admirals, and three 4 star generals and admirals.

Such men do not put their names down for a candidate and a cause without serious thought.

This is what they signed their names to on the choice between Hillary and Trump:

The 2016 election affords the American people an urgently needed opportunity to make a long-overdue course correction in our national security posture and policy. As retired senior leaders of America’s military, we believe that such a change can only be made by someone who has not been deeply involved with, and substantially responsible for, the hollowing out of our military and the burgeoning threats facing our country around the world.

For this reason, we support Donald Trump’s candidacy to be our next Commander-in-Chief.

For the past eight years, America’s armed forces have been subjected to a series of ill-considered and debilitating budget cuts, policy choices and combat operations that have left the superb men and women in uniform less capable of performing their vital missions in the future than we require them to be.

Simultaneously, enemies of this country have been emboldened, sensing weakness and irresolution in Washington and opportunities for aggression at our expense and that of other freedom-loving nations.

In our professional judgment, the combined effect is potentially extremely perilous. That is especially the case if our government persists in the practices that have brought us to this present pass.

For this reason, we support Donald Trump and his commitment to rebuild our military, to secure our borders, to defeat our Islamic supremacist adversaries and restore law and order domestically. We urge our fellow Americans to do the same.

This letter from our military leaders to the voting public was organized by Major General Shachnow.

A State Department official in 2015 tried to keep the Federal Bureau of Investigation from marking a Hillary Clinton email as classified, according to documents that reveal the extent to which officials sought to reduce the number of messages judged to contain national secrets.

The move by the State Department, which came after questions were raised about Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, focused on a single email about the probe into the 2012 attacks on U.S. outposts in Benghazi, Libya. The newly released summaries of FBI interviews show one State official pressed the FBI not to mark one message classified, and that senior State officials exerted similar pressure within their own agency as it studied the Clinton emails.

Each email judged to be classified, even more than two years after Mrs. Clinton left the State Department, represented another potential mark against not just the State Department, but also Mrs. Clinton’s claims she did nothing wrong and didn’t compromise national secrets.

The FBI announced in July, after an investigation, that while it had found “extremely careless” conduct in Mrs. Clinton’s email use, evidence didn’t merit filing criminal charges.

Mrs. Clinton, now the Democratic presidential nominee, has said her use of a private server was a mistake, and her aides have argued the email scandal was fueled by government officials aggressively overclassifying documents retroactively. Some Republicans have called for her to be further investigated.

Other emails, hacked by the WikiLeaks organization and involving Clinton campaign officials, continue to be released daily. A new batch Monday showed top advisers speculating about whether Vice President Joe Biden would launch a White House bid and mulling questions about how to address Mrs. Clinton’s weaknesses as a candidate.

The FBI began reviewing Mrs. Clinton’s State Department emails for possible classified material in 2015, after an inspector general raised concerns about her use of a private server to conduct government business. She left the agency in early 2013.

According to the newly released documents, Patrick Kennedy, a senior official at the State Department, repeatedly reached out to senior FBI officials seeking to get them to reverse their opinion that an email about the Benghazi attacks, which had no classification markings on it, should be classified.

FBI officials weren’t convinced the email should be unclassified, according to the written summaries of interviews. One official’s account said Mr. Kennedy suggested that in exchange for marking the email unclassified, “State would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more agents in countries where they are presently forbidden,” according to a summary of the FBI interview of the unidentified witness.

Another FBI employee recounted it differently, saying a senior agency official suggested to Mr. Kennedy that he would look into the email matter if the State official “would provide authority concerning the FBI’s request to increase its personnel in Iraq.” That suggestion was ultimately rejected by others at the FBI, according to officials and the documents. CONTINUE AT SITE

http://jamieglazov.com/2016/10/18/ex-muslim-sarah-torrent-takes-a-stand-on-trump-and-hillary-on-the-glazov-gang/This new special episode of The Glazov Gang was joined by Sarah Torrent, an ex-Muslim who came on the show to discuss her thoughts on Trump and Hillary, her suffering under and journey out of Islam, the importance of America’s closed borders, her goals in her activism and much, much more.http://jamieglazov.com/2016/10/18/ex-muslim-sarah-torrent-takes-a-stand-on-trump-and-hillary-on-the-glazov-gang/

Don’t miss it!

And make sure to watch the special Jamie Glazov Moment in which Jamie discussed The Question No One Dares to Ask Hillary and he wondered: Does it really not matter if her Chief of Staff will be connected to the Muslim Brotherhood?

The Plot Against America Donald Trump alights on the Compleat Conspiracy. Anti-Semites are thrilled. Bret Stephens (huh?????)

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-plot-against-america-1476745874

They meet in secret. Men of immense wealth; a woman of limitless ambition. Their passports are American but their loyalties are not. Through their control of international banks and the media they manipulate public opinion and finance political deceit. Their aim is nothing less than the annihilation of America’s political independence, and they will stop at nothing—including rigging a presidential election—to achieve it.

Call it for what it is: “A conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous venture in the history of man.”

Astute readers will note the quotation of a speech delivered in the U.S. Senate in June 1951 by the then-junior senator from Wisconsin. We’re in historically familiar territory. Joe McCarthy inveighed against Communists in control of the State Department. For Charles Lindbergh it was “war agitators,” notably those of “the Jewish race.”

And now we have Donald Trump versus what Laura Ingraham calls “the globalist cabal”—the latest enemy from without, within. In a speech Thursday in West Palm Beach the GOP presidential nominee painted a picture of a “global power structure” centered around Hillary Clinton that aims to “plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty” while stepping on the necks of American workers with open borders and ruinous trade deals.

“There is nothing the political establishment will not do,” Mr. Trump thundered. “No lie they won’t tell, to hold their prestige and power at your expense, and that’s what’s been happening.”
More Global View

In claiming earlier this year that the current U.S. health-care system “was HillaryCare before it was called ObamaCare,” Hillary Clinton was telling the truth—but not the whole truth. In 1993, while first lady, Mrs. Clinton led a task force to deliver universal health care to the voters who elected her husband. She failed. After many revisions, the final bill stalled in the Senate for lack of Democratic votes.

HillaryCare was a comprehensive plan for the government to take over the health-care system, with program details and cost-control measures precisely defined. Having learned from that defeat, the Obama administration left as many details as possible to be written during implementation after ObamaCare became law. With few details to defend and the clear falsehood that “if you like your health-care plan you can keep it,” President Obama pushed through his “signature” legislation.

While Bill Clinton recently denounced the Affordable Care Act’s effect on the health-care market as “the craziest thing in the world,” ObamaCare was never anything more than a politically achievable steppingstone. As with HillaryCare, a single payer, national health-care system has always been the goal.

Hillary Clinton’s Health Security Act of 1993 would have broken the nation’s health-care system into regional Healthcare Purchasing Cooperatives, which would have collectively set treatment guidelines and implemented cost-control measures. In the abstract, HillaryCare was just as popular as ObamaCare would be 16 years later, with some 20 Republican senators initially supporting an alternative plan that would have largely implemented HillaryCare.

That’s when Sen. John McCain, the late Sen. Paul Coverdell and I took our fight against the bill to regional media markets. When we attacked HillaryCare as inefficient, people yawned. When we showed that the program was unaffordable, people checked their watches. But when we focused on the extraordinary loss of freedom that HillaryCare entailed, where the federal government decided the doctor you could see and the services that could be provided, our rear-guard action became a crusade.

The stone that slew the HillaryCare Goliath was freedom. Even the Democrat-appointed head of the Congressional Budget Office was forced to conclude that under HillaryCare health-insurance premiums were federal revenues and all health-cooperative expenditures were federal outlays.