Tag Archives: Hillary

Could YOU survive what liberal, unthinking Americans are trying to do to Donald Trump?

President Donald Trump

President Donald Trump is apparently not a figure many of us feel empathy for.  Nearly half the country hates him.  Hate may even be too mild a word.  They despise him and equate him with the worst of human history, Hitler and the Nazis.  They want him destroyed, literally and politically, along with his family.  This includes Democrats, the media, and many Republicans.

His resignation or impeachment wouldn’t be enough.  He needs to face treason charges and punishment at the end of a rope or in front of a firing squad, along with his family.  His supporters are guilty by association and must face similar justice.

But in To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus Finch told Scout, “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view, until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it.”  This is the essence of empathy.  You can’t understand someone until you’ve “walked a mile in his shoes.”

Let’s for a moment climb inside Donald Trump’s skin and walk around in it.

Trump was a successful businessman, a billionaire who owns properties, resorts, golf courses, and hotels around the world.  He owned a huge private jet, only a half-step down from the one he currently uses.  He has a beautiful wife and family; his children are smart and following in his business footsteps.  He hosted a wildly successful television show, was a household name and a darling of the media before he decided to run for president.

Yet he gave that up.  Why would he do that?  As a septuagenarian, did his ego demand one more even bigger prize?  Or, as some have speculated, was he approached by a group of patriots several years ago and told in no uncertain terms about the Deep State and America’s trajectory into the abyss?  Perhaps he was told that he was the only one who could run for president, have a chance of winning, then slow or stop America’s decline.

Did he, as a consummate patriot, take up the challenge?  Someday we may learn why he gave up a comfortable and successful life in exchange for endless scorn and derision.

In Hillary Clinton he fought a political opponent who was challenging, not personally, but for what and whom she represented: the establishments of both parties, the donor classes, the media, Hollywood, academia, and the Clinton machine that has been active since the Clintons’ days in Arkansas.

Donald Trump worked his butt off, campaigning around the clock.  From his tweets at 4 A.M. to his campaign rallies in multiple states in a single day, he worked harder than any candidate in recent memory.  His opponent did the opposite.  Sipping chardonnay and napping, she listened to her cheerleaders in the media as they fawned over her every utterance, telling her repeatedly that she would win the election easily.

Media coverage of Trump was and still is over 90 percent negative.  His own party worked against his election, the party he represented and brought victory to.  The big names in the GOP tried to undermine him – McCain, Romney, Bush, Ryan – all past presidents or candidates, the heavy hitters in the GOP, not to mention the Republican NeverTrump whiners and wimps.

Then there was the Deep State led by a treasonous ex-president and his no-ethics, no-honor Democrats — the unelected and unaccountable three-letter agencies, conspiring and working against Donald Trump not only as a candidate but also after he became president.  They spied on his campaign, creating fictional dossiers used to justify FBI surveillance of Trump, his family, and his entire campaign staff.  It was a concerted effort by the leadership of these agencies to prevent his election, and then to destroy his presidency as a Plan B.

Phony accusations of Russian collusion tainted his presidency and provided a cloud over his election, much like a successful athlete winning a championship fair and square and against all odds, then having his victory tainted with the accusation of rigging or cheating.  How would such a winner react to claims that he didn’t really win…especially when he had worked so hard for victory and had so little help in the process?

The Russian collusion story taints Trump’s successful campaign and election.  The Mueller investigation and drumbeat from the media share the common refrain that Trump is an illegitimate president, that he cheated to win, conspiring with an enemy country.  This is the same country, ironically, that so many of Trump’s critics were in love with only a few years ago.

Trump has been working hard as president, accomplishing more in his first 500 days than any of his predecessors – tax cuts, a roaring economy, record unemployment, a reversal of 50 years of failed policy toward North Korea, strong judicial picks, rebuilding the American relationship with Israel, and so on.  Does he get any credit from the media or his own party?  Hardly.  Instead, scorn and insults continue to rain down on him.  Wouldn’t you be frustrated and bitter standing in his shoes?  Absolutely you would.

Last is the Mueller indictment of 12 phantom Russians over supposedly hacking the DNC computers – computers the FBI did not even examine.  Indictments are simply accusations, not verdicts in a court of law, and were announced the last business day before Trump’s Russia summit.  What a coincidence of timing, putting Trump in a box where he had to either validate the Russian collusion narrative or question the veracity of the U.S. intelligence community.  Always the pragmatic contrarian, he chose the latter option during his press conference with Putin.

Does Trump fully trust the intelligence services, the same ones that conspired to spy on his campaign and undermine his election, then tried to overturn his presidency?  Would you trust these agencies if you were subjected to all the lies and the duplicity they have heaped upon our duly elected president? Of course you wouldn’t trust them. All this is based on the nonsensical assertion that Russia hacked the election, an absurd concept that even Obama said was impossible: “There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could ever rig America’s elections.”

This is the same intelligence community that exonerated Hillary Clinton for crimes proven but never investigated, yet indicted Donald Trump for crimes investigated ad nauseam but never proven.  The same Intelligence Community that told the world that Saddam had WMDs and then dragged the U.S. and other countries into a costly and counterproductive war.

Put yourself in Trump’s shoes: a highly successful businessman, in the latter years of his life, taking on the Herculean task of running for and winning the U.S. presidency.  In victory he finds nothing but abuse, scorn, and betrayal by friend and foe alike.  He is surrounded by landmines, and the US intelligence agencies do all they can to make sure he steps on one landmine after another.  This is a journey few mortals would undertake, much less survive.

Is it any wonder he is pushing back against those trying to destroy him and his presidency, including the FBI, DOJ, and CIA, all in the thick of seditious activity against our duly elected president?  He has few friends in Washington, D.C.; many who should have his back seem only eager to bury a knife in it instead.

Donald Trump is a man chosen by ordinary people, a man trying to make America great again despite only scorn and opposition coming back from those he wants to help.

[From an article by Brian C. Joondeph, a Denver-based physician and writer]


NORM ‘n’ AL Note: All those Americans who can never find anything good to say about Mr. Trump should try to reflect honestly on what this country might now be like had Horrible Hillary won the election…a woman who proved, just like Obama did, that the primary qualifications in a Democrat candidate for political office are a complete lack of honor, a lack of any sense of ethics, and a willingness to lie in any situation.  There are lots of countries around the world where you can find precisely this kind of person occupying the top office.  Thank God the USA isn’t one of them anymore.




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis





Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Hillary starts “dark money” effort to mess things up in Washington a little more

Hillary seeks "dark money"

Failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announces the formation of a nonprofit organization which aims to encourage citizens to “Resist, insist, persist, enlist.”

The former secretary of state unveiled her Onward Together 501(c)(4) non-profit via Twitter, claiming she’s spent the last few months reflecting on her defeat.

On the Onward website, the group claims its mission is to advance “the vision that earned nearly 66 million votes in the last election.”

“By encouraging people to organize, get involved, and run for office, Onward Together will advance progressive values and work to build a brighter future for generations to come,” the site states.

“The challenges we face as a country are real. But there’s no telling what we can achieve if we approach the fights ahead with the passion and determination we feel today, and bring that energy into 2017, 2018, 2020, and beyond.”

By registering as a 501(c)(4), Clinton’s new organization can accept unlimited amounts of money from donors whose names are not required to be disclosed, notes NTKnetwork.com.

501(c)(4)s differ from Super PACs in that the latter must disclose donors.

“If you are a donor looking to influence election but do not want to reveal your identity, the 501(c)(4) is an attractive option through which to send your cash,” writes the Washington Post.

Also, contributions to Onward “are not tax deductible as charitable contributions or as business deductions” as a result of the 501(c)(4) status.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary campaigned against “dark money” being permitted to influence politics.  NTKNetwork notes: “In October 2015, during a town hall meeting in Iowa, Clinton called 501(c)(4) groups ‘unaccountable dark money,’ and even used the left’s favorite boogey-men, the Koch brothers, as an example of a group that operates this kind of organization.”   Now she apparently thinks the more “dark money,” the better.


[From an article published by INFO WARS]


NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  Here’s another perfect example of what’s wrong with the Democrat approach to politics, and why Hillary Clinton lost the election to Donald Trump.  People were sick to death of hearing Mrs. Clinton speak out of both sides of her mouth.  She has always had a real problem with truth-telling and consistency.  Before the election she didn’t like “dark money” at all, but after losing the election, she thinks there is absolutely no reason not to pursue it.  Bill Clinton started a foundation to provide assistance to worthy causes, but almost immediately discovered the worthiest cause was himself.  (And now that he can’t peddle his connection to a sitting secretary of state any longer, not to mention to a new president, he’s trying to peddle himself as an author of third-rate novels to keep the cash flowing.  The Clintons have no idea what it means to live a life of honor and integrity.  To extend an offer of help to the Trump White House is the farthest thing from their minds; all they can think of is how to impede and destroy anything Mr. Trump wants to do. Of course, Hillary calls it “building a brighter future for generations to come,” but that’s just another example of her inability to distinguish truth from lies.)




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Obama thinks you’re too stupid to know truth from lies. Here’s one of his biggest whoppers: “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.”

As I looked through my social media feeds last Thursday night, the horrific, blood-bathed images of 84-plus slaughtered innocents on the streets of Nice, France (at the hands of yet another Muslim named Mohamed), I was reminded of a quote by the great Winston Churchill: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last.”

I was also reminded of a statement by Hillary Clinton: “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

At best, this woman is an appeaser. Apart from Barack Obama, she has proven chief chumming chump to the crocs of the caliphate. This level of willful self-delusion requires suspension of disbelief stimulated by strong medicine indeed. That medicine is multiculturalism – the global “progressive” left’s pet project, save cultural Marxism, in a disastrously failed globalist public policy.

While Hillary is an appeaser, an apologist for Islam (or “dhimmi”), Obama is something far worse.

Tears welled in my eyes as I viewed the now viral image of a child sprawled lifeless on the streets of Nice, covered by a body blanket and flanked by her doll. As I stared at this image, a ghastly metaphor for modern multiculturalism, an ember of rage burst alive within me. I reflected upon how Obama once described the Muslim call to prayer as, “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

And I felt disgust for the man.

That call to prayer asserts, among other things:

Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that Muhammad is his prophet

Standing before the United Nations General Assembly in 2012, Obama uttered these chilling words: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Indeed. The dead of Nice have no future at all.

Will we?

We know where Barack Obama’s sympathies, if not his loyalties, lie. But what of his would-be successor, Hillary Clinton?

The answer requires little speculation. Ms. Clinton has indicated her intention to resettle at least one million Muslim refugees in the U.S during her first term alone.

She wants to house the hounds in the hen house, and many hounds there will be.

Consider, for instance, that according to a 2015 Center for Security Policy poll, 51 percent of American Muslims desire that Islamic Shariah law be made the law of the land. Moreover, nearly 30 percent say that violence is appropriate against Americans who “insult” Islam or its “prophet” Muhammad.

Both Islam and the Quran, among many other such atrocities, explicitly require worldwide caliphate (global domination and the violent imposition of Islamic Shariah law). Islam treats women as chattel, stones them to death if they are raped (or not properly attired) and, in even the most “civilized” Islamic nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, Islam executes practitioners of homosexuality as a matter of law.

These facts are not open for serious debate and are available for all to read, hear, see and, tragically, experience. Islam, therefore, is inherently at odds with freedom, democracy, and the United States Constitution. While devout followers of Muhammad readily admit this reality, the suicidal left yet remains hellbent, head in the sand, on “tolerating” itself, and the rest of us, to death.

Writing last year in Investor’s Business Daily, investigative journalist Paul Sperry noted that “60 percent of Muslim-Americans under 30 … told Pew Research they’re more loyal to Islam than America.”  (NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  Please read that last sentence again. And again. Make sure it sinks in. Sixty percent of Muslim AMERICANS are more loyal to Islam than they are to America. To Christianity, which birthed our country. To our Constitution, which presumably many swore allegiance to in order to become Americans. And to our system of laws, law enforcement, and justice. When you find an American Muslim, be sure to bring up this subject. And be sure to ask why Muslims who live here but don’t like it here are still here.)

A treasonous heart leads to treasonous acts.

And that’s just the tip of the scimitar. Consider these terrifying numbers:

  • 83 percent of Palestinian Muslims, 62 percent of Jordanians and 61 percent of Egyptians approve of jihadist attacks on Americans. World Public Opinion Poll  (2009).
  • 1.5 million British Muslims support the Islamic State, about half their total population. ICM (Mirror) Poll 2015.
  • Two-thirds of Palestinians support the stabbing of Israeli civilians. Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (2015).
  • 45 percent of British Muslims agree that clerics preaching violence against the West represent “mainstream Islam.” BBC Radio (2015).
  • 38 percent of Muslim-Americans say Islamic State (ISIS) beliefs are Islamic or correct. The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
  • One-third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam. Center for Social Cohesion (Wikileaks cable).
  • 78 percent of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons. NOP Research.
  • 80 percent of young Dutch Muslims see nothing wrong with holy war against non-believers. Most verbalized support for pro-Islamic State fighters. Motivaction Survey (2014).
  • 68 percent of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam. NOP Research.
  • 81 percent of Muslim respondents support the Islamic State (ISIS). Al-Jazeera poll (2015).

Muhammad taught, and the Quran stresses, that a central tenet of Islam is to convert, enslave or kill the infidel. An infidel is anyone who is not Muslim or, depending on who’s doing the killing, belongs to a different sect of Islam. Those who fall into that elusive, perpetually mute category tagged “moderate Muslim” are also infidels or “idolaters.” They’re bad Muslims and, so, according to the Quran, not Muslims at all. “When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them,” commands Surah 9:5. “Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” Faithful Muslims, true followers of Muhammad, “slay the idolaters wherever [they] find them.”

Brigitte Gabriel is a world-renown national security expert. Her concentration is on the – ahem – explosive rise in Islamic terrorism. She notes that there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Of them, intelligence agencies estimate that 15-25 percent are orthodox Muslims, meaning they actually follow the teachings of the Quran.

“That leaves 75 percent of [Muslims being] peaceful people,” observes Gabriel. “But when you look at 15-25 percent of the world’s Muslim population, you’re looking at 180 million to 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization. That is as big as the United States,” she concludes.

Hillary Clinton’s delusional, PC-poisoned and bat-guano-crazy words here bear repeating: “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

Some do and some don’t.  Yet hundreds of millions support Islam from the first page of the Quran to the last. They would rather kill you than shake your hand, even though many of these terrorists live right here in the USA.

The best thing Donald Trump has going for him is that he’s not Hillary Clinton.  (NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  Hillary’s finest wish is to give you four more years of Obama-like lies and deception…and she is better at lying and deceiving than he is.  Like Obama, she cares absolutely nothing for you, your family, and your rights. Hillary wants only to press forward with her own agenda. Can you honestly vote for a candidate for president who says “Muslims have nothing whatever to do with terrorism”?  We should be sending Hillary on an all-expenses-paid vacation, a LONG vacation, to Iran, not to the Oval Office.)


From an article by Matt Barber, written for Eagle Rising.




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Hillary says “our friends in Europe are not forthcoming in sharing intelligence information.” Let’s see if you can guess the reason for that…

On Thursday night, July 14, 2016, Bill O’Reilly (FOX News, O’Reilly Factor) conducted a phone interview with Hillary Clinton during which they discussed the terrorist massacre in Nice, France.

During that interview, O’Reilly and Clinton had the following conversation about what steps were needed to deal with the rapidly growing worldwide ISIS threat:

Clinton: “One of my priorities is to launch an intelligence surge. We still do not have enough, ah, intelligence cooperation between our agencies and those in other countries, including, ah, in Europe and we need to have a, a focal point…”

O’Reilly: “… Why, why is that? I didn’t know that. Why is that happening? Why aren’t… why don’t we have the intelligence?”

Clinton: “Well, I’ll tell ya, in part, because there has been, ah, a reluctance on the part of some of our, ah, friends in Europe to be as forthcoming in sharing information…”

What a surprise. Our friends in Europe are not “forthcoming in sharing information”!

Now, why might that be?

In a column (Clinton Guilty, But We’re Not Recommending Prosecution) on July 6, I wrote:

“It is disturbing to contemplate that there may be sufficient American voters who would jeopardize their own safety and security by helping elect someone who

  • Has demonstrated she is incapable of being trusted with national security information,
  • Has a well-documented history of bold serial lying to deceive the American public,
  • Would not be granted a security clearance if applied for today,
  • May well have been responsible for five deaths already (four at Benghazi, one in Afghanistan) as a consequence of her lax handling of pertinent national security documents,
  • Is likely to have a dossier on her national security violations held by our chief global adversaries (Russia, China, Iran), and,
  • Could not rely on our allies to share sensitive information with her for fear it would end in the wrong hands.”

I’ve emphasized that last bullet.

This is not rocket science, folks.

The reluctance of our allies to share intelligence is clear evidence that every intelligence agency on the planet is well aware of the massive security hole in US intelligence created by Hillary Clinton’s use of personal non-secure email servers to conduct business as Secretary of State.

When you combine Clinton’s massive abuse of FOIA law (that the FBI never investigated but about which they had abundant knowledge) with the Obama administration’s clear knowledge that this breach was ongoing and the subsequent special deference given her by not prosecuting her many breaches of national security at the highest level, it should be abundantly clear why in Hillary’s own words “there has been, ah, a reluctance on the part of some of our, ah, friends in Europe to be as forthcoming in sharing information…“.


[by Bob Webster, writing for iPatriot.com]


NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  Nice of Hillary to be so forthcoming as to tell Bill O’Reilly why she is not qualified to hold our highest elected office…but the problem is she does not realize WHY our “friends in Europe” are not forthcoming. Just like she does not realize why she is so mistrusted and disliked by at least half the US electorate.  Hillary undoubtedly thinks she’s going to be the most effective and revered president this poor ol’ republic has ever had. Remember, she and Obama are of the same stripe. Obama was the one who said upon entering the White House that the US was about to see the most transparent administration ever elected. We all know how that turned out…Obama deliberately became the most disliked and ridiculed president this country ever elected, because he never tells the truth. He wanted to embark upon a presidency of radical change, giving us changes we didn’t need, didn’t want, and didn’t ask for.  How could Obama say one thing and do the opposite? Because he DOESN’T CARE about American citizens or America itself. No one who cares about this country would do the things Obama has done to harm it. To deliberately harm it. Please remember: Hillary and Obama are the same. Neither one cares about America. They care only about themselves, their egos, and their bank accounts.  Both Hillary and Obama are godless people, practiced liars, and uncaring, cold, calculating politicians. Neither one cares at all what happens to you, your family, or your country.




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Democrats exploit murdered Dallas cops to federalize local police forces

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are exploiting the killing of five police officers in Dallas to push a range of assaults on the U.S. Constitution, including a decades-old plot to federalize America’s local police departments without any semblance of constitutional authority. In between subtly demonizing law-enforcement officers as racists and touting the controversial Black Lives Matter movement, the two Democrat Party standard-bearers also seized on the Dallas police shootings to promote further infringements on the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Critics, though, including America’s police forces, blasted the Obama administration and its allies for fueling a “war” on law enforcement.

The establishment plan to federalize and militarize America’s state and local police forces has been underway for decades. In recent years, though, the Obama administration has pushed the agenda further and faster than ever. Among other schemes, the White House has used “executive actions,” as well as bribe money provided by Congress and threats of lawsuits, to impose a wide range of unconstitutional federal “guidelines” and controls on law enforcement. Some critics referred to the schemes as “Common Core for police,” a reference to the administration’s abuse of federal bribes to impose dumbed-down national “standards” on America’s local school systems. The United Nations has even called on American police to obey what UN boss Ban Ki-moon called “international standards.”

Under the U.S. Constitution, though, police powers were not delegated to the federal government. That means those powers are reserved to the states, communities, or the people, as made explicit in the 10th Amendment. As such, American law-enforcement functions have generally been the responsibility of state, county, and local government, hence the close to 18,000 state and local law-enforcement agencies across America. Under the American federalist system of self-government, those police forces have traditionally been funded and controlled by the local communities they are supposed to protect and serve, making them accountable to the elected leaders of those communities rather than Obama. This system has served as a powerful check against centralized power, making any bid for full-blown national tyranny extremely difficult to impose.

But the establishment wants to change all that and shackle Americans under a national police force that serves not local communities, but the out-of-control executive branch of the federal government. And with the latest incidents to exploit, including two recent fatal shootings of citizens by police and the massacre of Dallas police officers, Obama and other federal supremacists are once again standing on dead bodies working fiendishly to federalize American police departments — a plot Obama and his minions have been working on, with limited success so far, for years. Now, with presumed Democrat presidential contender Hillary Clinton fully on board with the scheme, Obama is doubling down on his previous efforts.

Speaking on July 9 in Poland after a recent NATO summit there, Obama touted his lawless “task force” on so-called “21st century policing,” which was created via executive order last year in the wake of the Ferguson chaos fueled by billionaire Obama ally and Rothschild protege George Soros. “I want to start moving on constructive actions that are actually going to make a difference, because that is what all Americans want,” Obama declared, falsely suggesting that “all” Americans agree with his extremist agenda to usurp control over local police forces. The “actions” he referred to involve imposing the illegal “recommendations” offered by his illegal “task force,” including national standards for police.

Presumed Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton has been pushing the same agenda. In an interview on ABC, for example, Clinton argued that “we” need to “put in place guidelines to ensure that every police officer understands what is expected of him or her.” “A routine traffic stop, a routine arrest, escalating to the point where a gun is drawn and a life is lost,” Clinton rambled. “That’s why I am absolutely calling for national guidelines about the use of force. Every single one of our police officers should be trained and retrained in understanding how to avoid force.” Of course, in the real world, police officers are already trained and re-trained in how to avoid using force if and when it is possible. The Obama administration’s legions of armed federal bureaucrats, however, have been caught openly training to shoot elderly Americans, children, and pregnant women, even while officially demonizing hundreds of millions of mainstream Americans as extremists and even potential terrorists.

In a separate interview with CNN, Clinton reiterated the call for federalizing police. “As I said, we need national guidelines to really set out when force should be used and especially when deadly force should be used,” she said, without citing any provision in the Constitution that would authorize such training or explaining why more federal training and guidelines would be superior to the training and guidelines communities and states already provide. “Some police departments have really taken that to heart.” Clinton did not specify which local or state police departments she believed were eager to become vassals of a potential Hillary Clinton administration, but it is unlikely that many officers or police chiefs want to be placed under the thumb of federal bureaucrats rather than serving and being accountable to their communities. The feds have already been caught teaching local police to view political bumper stickers as indicators of extremism and terrorism.

Between fomenting hatred of the police and traditional America, the radical establishment-backed allies of Clinton and Obama have been pushing the same agenda to federalize law enforcement. Discredited race hustler Al Sharpton, for example, who in a 1992 videotaped speech called for his supporters to start “offing the pigs” and slaughtering “crackers,” said last year that the Justice Department should “take over policing in this country.” The controversial figure, who owes millions in taxes but regularly visits the Obama White House, acknowledged that “we’re going to have to fight states’ rights.” Ironically, perhaps, grants from the out-of-control Obama Justice Department were linked in 2014 to a rap video promoting the murder of police officers. Obama himself famously launched his political career at the home of a Castro-backed communist terror leader, Bill Ayers, whose terrorist group murdered multiple American police officers and was plotting to murder millions of Americans with help from foreign governments, according to the FBI agent who infiltrated the group.

The UN, meanwhile, known to critics as the “dictators club,” has made a similar push to centralize American law enforcement. From constantly demonizing local American police forces as trigger-happy racists to urging the federal government to trample on the Constitution and usurp control over law enforcement, the UN has become increasingly bold in recent years. After the killing of Dallas officers, the UN released a press release blasting an alleged “high level of structural and institutional racism” among American peace officers. The bizarre screed also called on the U.S. government to promote “Black lives matter,” a term associated with a UN-linked racist movement that even leading black American police chiefs have blasted as a “radical hate group.”

The scandal-plagued UN chief, who now claims to lead the “Parliament of Humanity,” also demanded last year that American police adhere to what he called “national and international standards.” His own police and “peace” troops, though, have become infamous around the world and especially in Africa for raping and sexually exploiting children, murdering protesters and civilians, supporting Islamic militias engaged in the mass slaughter of Christians, and much more. It was not clear whose “international standards” the UN chief wanted to impose on American police.

SYLP banner

Critics, though, are sounding the alarm about the push to federalize America’s police departments. “Americans everywhere should be very concerned about oversight of local police agencies,” explained former police detective Jim Fitzgerald, the national field director for The John Birch Society, the parent organization of this magazine. The constitutionalist group, which has chapters in all 50 states, has been running a campaign for decades called “Support Your Local Police — and Keep Them Independent.” The effort is meant to, among other goals, build support for local police while protecting local communities from having their police departments turned into tentacles of an all-powerful federal government.

“These steps to exercise and take control over police departments should raise a red flag among police officials and give deep concern to anyone who understands the history of national police forces,” continued Fitzgerald. “Have we so soon forgotten the Gestapo and the KGB, both national police agencies, that terrorized the citizens of Germany and Russia and led to the imprisonment and deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men and women? Has there ever been a national police force that benefited the citizens who live under it? Never!” Fitzgerald is currently traveling the country speaking about these issues and working to educate citizens and build support for local law enforcement.

Americans must resist the anti-constitutional effort to strip local communities’ ability to govern themselves and control their own police departments. The federal government has no legal authority to nationalize or federalize law enforcement. And even if it did, it would be a terrible idea, as even recent history has shown. Indeed, the agenda to impose a national police force on America is extremely dangerous. In addition to protecting and serving their communities, America’s local law-enforcement agencies represent a powerful bulwark against any potential future effort to impose tyranny on the American people. And so, the establishment’s agenda to undermine that bulwark must be strongly opposed.


[by Alex Newman, writing for NEW AMERICAN]




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

You saw it here first, folks: The Official T-Shirt of the Hillary Campaign

Official Hillary campaign T-shirt

It’s really pretty pathetic, isn’t it?

Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye for decades, she is desperately trying to salvage a run for the Oval Office, and the simple T-shirt above is expressing exactly what a majority of both US and world citizens think of her.

How would you like it if you had worked and worked and worked, reaching the age of your late sixties or early seventies, only to discover that almost everyone you meet thinks you are not qualified to be on the janitorial staff of the White House, let alone to be its primary occupant?

Hillary is just that pathetic.

What’s even more pathetic is that she thinks she’s rock-star material, when the public sees she doesn’t have the good sense to simply pack up and go home.


As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

A smart and gracious former candidate offers a response to America in light of FBI refusal to do its duty

News broke Tuesday morning revealing that the rule of law in the United States of America has been perhaps mortally wounded, an injury made clear by the FBI announcement that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will not face criminal charges related to her private email server scandal.

Such was the view of former Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, who took to her Facebook page immediately after the shocking announcement to share her thoughts on the subject.

Fiorina outlined no less than seven glaring admissions made by FBI Director James Comey in his statement announcing the non-indictment of the presumptive Democrat presidential nominee, admissions that signified Clinton’s apparent guilt in the matter.

First and foremost, Fiorina noted that the FBI admitted what most Americans already knew — that Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct official government business endangered the lives of the American people.

The FBI Director also made clear that Hillary Clinton was “extremely careless” in handling our nation’s top secrets. He also noted that “no reasonable person” would believe it to be “appropriate or acceptable” to place emails containing said secrets on a private server.

Furthermore, Comey made clear that Hillary Clinton lied to the American people about the classified nature of the emails, as he admitted that at least 110 emails were classified at the time they originated, not after the fact, as the Clinton camp has repeatedly claimed.

On top of that, he also revealed that Clinton had deleted work-related emails from her private server before turning it over to the FBI, again in direct contradiction of claims her campaign has made to the contrary.

As if that weren’t enough, Comey also confirmed the likely possibility that Clinton’s private email server had been hacked by foreign government intelligence services, meaning our nation’s rivals are likely in possession of critical state secrets that could potentially be used against our interests.

Lastly, but certainly not least, Comey also admitted that anyone else caught in a similar situation and circumstances would most likely be punished to the full extent of the law.

“It’s not just a miscarriage of justice, but a blow to the very heart of our democracy,” Fiorina wrote. “This is a shameful day for the rule of law and the security of our nation, no matter what your political beliefs may be.”

“The Obama administration might be circling the wagons, and doing all they can to prop up their corrupt, incompetent, untrustworthy Democratic nominee — but the American people know better,” she concluded. “And if our government won’t make her face consequences, voters will.”

Carly Fiorina is absolutely correct in her summation of this day’s miscarriage of justice. Her listing of Comey’s own admissions of Hillary Clinton’s guilt should provide ample fodder for those critical of our nation’s seeming descent into the realm of a banana republic, where the rules and laws do not apply to the politically connected elite.


[published by the Conservative Tribune]


NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  We suspected all along, as the FBI needed more and more time to complete its ever-so-thorough investigation of the Hillary hijinks caper, that the FBI was not going to apply the same standards of justice to Hillary as it might apply to other Americans.  Perhaps you suspected the same thing.  Obviously Carly Fiorina also suspected the same, and had her response to it ready and loaded.  Here is the bottom line, folks.  If Hillary is nominated by the Dems to run in November, and if you vote for her, you are telling her (1) you approve of her criminal behavior; (2) you are willing to overlook that behavior in sending her to the Oval Office; (3) you will no longer expect the USA to be a nation of justice, since justice is not evenly applied to all citizens; and (4) that whatever she does when she gets to the Oval Office has your blind and thoughtless approval.  Hillary will thank you by taking the reins firmly in hand and driving this country completely off the cliff, hoping you are in the entourage that is following her all the way to the bottom.  Welcome to the USABR  (Banana Republic).  As for the FBI, since it can no longer be called a true bureau of investigation, we suspect the letters must only stand for Fat Boys Institute.




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis




Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized


Some of our editorial cartoonists have the clearest vision, and a great way of showing us that ability…


I can see clearly now...


How Iran got to be a nuclear power...


How the US stopped being a nuclear power...




Hillary's race...


As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

CNN poll says Hillary Clinton is most dishonest candidate in presidential race…

Hillary Clinton is vehemently disputing new charges that she sent top-secret information from a nonsecure email account while at the State Department, but analysts say the scandal has already damaged her so deeply that her presidential ambitions are at risk.

Mrs. Clinton’s messages contained some information classified above “top secret,” the intelligence community’s inspector general said in a letter to Congress this week. Fox News reported Thursday that the information is so sensitive that even senators, who already have clearance, must go through additional hoops if they want to see some of what she was sending.

The Clinton campaign responded by accusing the inspector general, I. Charles McCullough, appointed by President Obama, of politically motivated leaks to sabotage her campaign.

But she is suffering from the slow drip of the email scandal. Surveys show voters see her chief primary challenger, Sen. Bernard Sanders, as much more honest and trustworthy.

“Trustworthiness is not a problem by itself for Clinton, but combined with other past and present scandals weighing her down, alternative candidates like Sanders begin to look more appealing,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston who specializes in political leadership. “For a candidate with enough negative stories and rumors about them as Hillary Clinton, her campaign can refute individual charges to win a daily news battle but lose the larger perception war.”

There is ample evidence that the war already has been lost.

A recent Quinnipiac University Poll found that 93 percent of Democratic primary voters consider Mr. Sanders honest and trustworthy, while just 66 percent said the same of Mrs. Clinton.

A CNN survey conducted this month found that 55 percent of Democratic voters consider Mrs. Clinton to be the “least honest” candidate in the race.

Against that backdrop, reports surfaced this week that Mrs. Clinton’s private email server contained several dozen more classified emails than previously thought, including some from “special access programs,” or SAP.

Even top members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations are unable to view such messages without additional security steps, including signing new nondisclosure agreements, Fox News reported.

“These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined to be at the confidential, secret and top secret/sap levels,” Mr. McCullough said in a letter to lawmakers obtained by The Associated Press.

Mrs. Clinton pushed back against the reports in an interview with NPR Wednesday, sticking to the story that she never knowingly sent or received classified email on her private server, which was housed outside the formal State.gov domain.

“As the State Department has confirmed, I never sent or received any material marked classified, and that hasn’t changed in all of these months,” she said, blaming congressional Republicans for the continued focus on her emails. “This seems to me to be, you know, another effort to inject this into the campaign. It’s another leak.”

Her campaign argued that the emails appear to have been forwards of a New York Times article on a classified drone program, and say the messages seem to have been retroactively classified.

 Unfortunately for Mrs. C, her lies are now so numerous and so brazen that she is “The Alphabet Candidate,” as in “ABC.”  The ABC now means “Anybody But Clinton.” Hillary cannot tell the truth at this point, because the hole she continues to dig by lying is very deep and very wide. She wants America to believe all she did was forward a newspaper article to somebody, when the FBI is about to dump a truckload of evidence on us that shows she is up to her old tricks…lying, covering up, and pretending she cares about somebody other than herself. If America is stupid enough to elect her, she will give us more, LOTS more, of what OOOObama has been shoveling at us for two terms, treating us like mushrooms.  At this point even the Democrats like Bernie Sanders much more than Hillary.  It’s people like OOOObama and Clinton (BOTH Clintons) who give the 2% of honest and effective politicians a bad name….  (NORM ‘n’ AL Note)

“How a New York Times public article that goes around the world could be in any way viewed as classified, or the fact that it would be sent to other people off of The New York Times site, I think, is one of the difficulties that people have in understanding what this is about,” Mrs. Clinton told NPR.

The State Department is under a court order to produce about 55,000 emails from Mrs. Clinton’s home server. Most have been released, with the last of them expected on Jan. 29 — just days before the Iowa caucuses on Feb. 1.

Mrs. Clinton’s use of private email has dogged her since it was first revealed publicly in March 2015. She began returning her emails to the State Department after the Obama administration, prodded by a House investigation into the Benghazi affair, discovered Mrs. Clinton had taken all of her messages with her when she left the State Department at the end of Mr. Obama’s first term.

The administration then said that Mrs. Clinton had refused to use a regular email account on the State.gov email server and instead used a private server that she kept in her home in New York.

Mrs. Clinton has since said she regrets using the private server, but has steadfastly maintained that she did not use the private account to send or receive classified information.

Investigations also have found that the State Department routinely has botched open records requests for Mrs. Clinton’s emails. As of Jan. 7, 177 requests for documents from Mrs. Clinton were still pending, according to the State Department inspector general.

Specialists say that voters on the fence in the Democratic primary election may very well take the email scandal — and the larger questions about Mrs. Clinton’s honesty — into account when picking a candidate.

“The problem for Hillary Clinton is that there are alternatives to her candidacy in Bernie Sanders. This is why polls of Democrats don’t think Sanders can win [the general election] but are willing to vote for him anyway,” Mr. Rottinghaus said.


[by Ben Wolfgang, writing for THE WASHINGTON TIMES]




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

FBI’s Clinton investigation still expanding, now looking at violations of public corruption laws

Will the real Hillary please stand up?

The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible “intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws, three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News.

This new investigative track is in addition to the focus on classified material found on Clinton’s personal server.

“The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed,” one source said.

Clinton, speaking to the Des Moines Register, on Monday pushed back on the details of a second investigative track. According to reporter Jennifer Jacobs, Clinton said Monday she has heard nothing from the FBI.

“No, there’s nothing like that that is happening,” Clinton said, according to a tweet from Jacobs. Experts including a former senior FBI agent said the bureau does not have to notify the subject of an investigation.

The development follows press reports over the past year about the potential overlap of State Department and Clinton Foundation work, and questions over whether donors benefited from their contacts inside the administration.

The Clinton Foundation is a public charity, known as a 501(c)(3). It had grants and contributions in excess of $144 million in 2013, the most current available data.

Inside the FBI, pressure is growing to pursue the case.

One intelligence source told Fox News that FBI agents would be “screaming” if a prosecution is not pursued because “many previous public corruption cases have been made and successfully prosecuted with much less evidence than what is emerging in this investigation.”

The FBI is particularly on edge in the wake of how the case of former CIA Director David Petraeus was handled.

One of the three sources said some FBI agents felt Petraeus was given a slap on the wrist for sharing highly classified information with his mistress and biographer Paula Broadwell, as well as lying to FBI agents about his actions. Petraeus pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor in March 2015 after a two-plus-year federal investigation in which Attorney General Eric Holder initially declined to prosecute.

In the Petraeus case, the exposure of classified information was assessed to be limited.

By contrast, in the Clinton case, the number of classified emails has risen to at least 1,340. A 2015 appeal by the State Department to challenge the “Top Secret” classification of at least two emails failed and, as Fox News first reported, is now considered a settled matter.

It is unclear which of the two lines of inquiry was opened first by the FBI and whether they eventually will be combined and presented before a special grand jury. One intelligence source said the public corruption angle dates back to at least April 2015.  On their official website, the FBI lists “public corruption as the FBI’s top criminal priority.”

Fox News is told that about 100 special agents assigned to the investigations also were asked to sign non-disclosure agreements, with as many as 50 additional agents on “temporary duty assignment,” or TDY. The request to sign a new NDA could reflect that agents are handling the highly classified material in the emails, or serve as a reminder not to leak about the case, or both.

“The pressure on the lead agents is brutal,” a second source said. “Think of it like a military operation, you might need tanks called in along with infantry.”

Separately, a former high-ranking State Department official emphasized to Fox News that Clinton’s deliberate non-use of her government email address may be increasingly “significant.”

“It is virtually automatic when one comes on board at the State Department to be assigned an email address,” the source said.

“It would have taken an affirmative act not to have one assigned … and it would also mean it was all planned out before she took office. This certainly raises questions about the so-called legal advice she claimed to have received from inside the State Department that what she was doing was proper.”


[by Catherine Herridge, writing for FOX NEWS]




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis




Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized