RUTHFULLY YOURS

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.

Early in November 2015, when the 2016 election was still an over-populated free-for-all, I had lunch with a friend who is a member of an endangered species: the conservative, “Scoop Jackson” Democrats. They are very thin on the ground these days, and are vanishingly rare in public life. But once upon a time these patriotic, unashamedly pro-American Democrats provided a life-giving current of realism and sanity to their party. They were strong on defense, pro-labor but also pro-prosperity, and they tended to regard their Republican counterparts not as enemies but as colleagues with whom they had differences of opinion or strategy.

As I say, such Democrats are all but extinct today, especially in the corridors of power. My well-connected friend is almost as aghast as I am at the Democrats’ lurch to the hard, identity-politics Left. He could not muster any enthusiasm for my candidate — Ted Cruz — but he was not flattering about the two Democratic contenders, either. Bernie Sanders he regarded as insane and Hillary Clinton — whom he knows well — he regarded with that visceral distaste that only close personal acquaintance can impart.

At the time, Ted Cruz seemed to be doing well — my how appearances can be deceiving! — and already there were troubling stories about Hillary Clinton’s health. I said that I doubted she would be up to the rigors of the campaign, but he replied: she won’t need to campaign. She will win the primary and then the election by acclamation.

“Er, ah,” I said, or words to that effect. I didn’t believe a word of it. Now I am not so sure.

A year ago, I thought that a growing, cross-party impatience with the self-serving Washington establishment would usher in a candidate of change. I favored Ted Cruz, but I understood those making the case for Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, and even, on the other side, those making the case for Bernie Sanders. Yes, he was insane and his policies were (in my view) preposterous, but he was the understandable mouthpiece for a certain species of populist revulsion. Why, just to take one issue, should the presidency of the United States be a prize that rotated among the Bushes and the Clintons?

I will come right out and say it: I could give a damn what Donald Trump says in private. What this signals to me is that the false piety on display by so many Republicans and conservatives is nothing more than a symptom of the wussification of America and the American male and the selling out of our liberty. Yes, what he said is crude and immature; in fact, I can’t even get my mind around the actual particulars of what he was saying. But again, I don’t care. This country stands on the precipice between tyranny and liberty and I am to be a self-appointed judge of a man’s private conversations and the thoughts in his head? Who among us is so arrogant?

The quislings are all running for the hills. After all, the GOP cannot be led by such a rogue, a womanizer, a brute! But let’s pull back. As conservatives, we love to think of America being founded, and for 240 years, run by nothing but pious Christian pilgrims. But, this is just fantasy. We have had very pious men in our history, but also very many rogues, drunks, gamblers, womanizers, etc., lead our country, fight our wars, and create our industries. We may not want to admit it, but the very same traits required to take risks, to lead men, to create and build, often coalesce with some of the traits that we find so morally repugnant.

George Patton, Ulysses S. Grant, Sam Houston, Andrew Jackson and so many others were hardly saints. Sam Houston’s bio reads like a rap sheet of drunkenness, criminal assault, cuckolding, and misery. And then…. he went on to found the Republic of Texas. George Patton wouldn’t last five minutes in today’s Army of political correctness. He almost didn’t last past Sicily and the slapping of a soldier, not to mention his many “insults.” But how many American lives and the lives in the German camps did he save by steamrolling into Germany months ahead of schedule?

We are not electing a pope — we need a leader. Conservatives fall into the trap of thinking that with a pious perfect Christian who is a moral saint, we are guaranteed the traits necessary to lead our country in a time of crises. I am sorry — they are not one and the same. Sometimes you get a deadbeat drunken failure like Ulysses S. Grant to take you to victory at Vicksburg. So, save the piety, conservatives, the man who leads us in battle or who leads our country through crisis is not the man you confess to on Sundays or the man who marries your daughter.