Monday, June 27, 2016

Ice Cube: Hillary Clinton Helped ‘Justify’ a War on Black People

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

John Salangsang/Invision/AP

by JEROME HUDSON13 Apr 20161,005

In an interview with Bloombergfilmmaker and newly-minted Rock and Roll Hall of Fame member Ice Cube said Hillary Clinton’s “superpredators” comments in 1996 helped “justify” the police brutality that gave rise to the Black Lives Matter movement.

“To call your own citizens ‘superpredators’ is pretty harsh and a pretty big indictment,” Ice Cube said. “It’s really not solving the problem, it’s just making it worse. Now the authorities feel like their justified in how they treat these so-called ‘superpredators.'”

Ice Cube was referring to Hillary Clinton’s1996 comments where she said America needs to bring “no conscience, no empathy, superpredator gangs of kids to their heels.” Hillary was rallying support for President Bill Clinton’s violent crime legislation, laws that Ice Cube says caused more harm than good.

“The L.A.P.D. did a war on gangs,” Cube said. “But if I’m a black kid that’s not in a gang but I look like a gang member to this white officer, than it’s a war on me.”

“That’s the problem with a term like superpredators,” he said.

“And for some reason, the Democrats feel they’re exempt from these [Black Lives Matter] protests like ‘we’re Democrats, why are you talking to us like this, go talk to the Republicans,'” Ice Cube added. “No, no. Everybody’s a little guilty of turning their back or passing bad legislation and everyone should be called out on it.”

Ice Cube believes that Hillary’s comments from the 90s are still relevant to today.

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

If Hillary Clinton “becomes the president of the United States, we need to know what she’s thinking, how does she think, how she’s going to handle, how she’s going to fix this. She helped create it, in a way,” Ice Cube.

On Donald Trump, Ice Cube says he doesn’t think the Republican presidential candidate is “going to do anything to help poor people or people that’s struggling” because Trump is a “rich white guy. How can he relate?”

On Bernie Sanders, Ice Cube says “To me, it’s like he’s been in there [Congress] 30 years and you know, what have you done? You been up in there. What are you gonna do different from outside Congress? All of ’em to me have work to do to get my vote.”

Barbershop: The Next Cut, Ice Cube’s latest in the successful comedy series, opens in theaters April 15.

Follow Jerome Hudson on Twitter: @jeromeehudson

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Read More Stories About:

Big HollywoodHillary ClintonSocial JusticebarbershopBernie SandersBill ClintonBlack Lives MatterBloomberg,criminal justice reformDonald Trump,gangsIce CuberacismViolent Crime

Trump: Elizabeth Warren ‘Sellout,’ ‘Turncoat’ for Backing Hillary

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

by ALEX SWOYER27 Jun 2016Washington, DC1,584

iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump slammed Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who appeared at a campaign rally with presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton to rally voters in Ohio on Monday.

In a press release titled “Sellout Warren,” Trump exposed Clinton’s differing positions on several policies Warren supports.

“As Clinton tries to salvage support among the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democrat Party, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has become a turncoat for the causes she supposedly supports,” Trump stated in the press release, pointing out Clinton and Warren’s differences on Wall Street, special interests and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Trump’s statement continues:

While Warren claims that Wall Street businesses have too much influence in D.C., by paying “barely disguised bribes,” through campaign contributions. The Clinton campaign has accepted over $41 million this cycle from Wall Street interests. Warren is also campaigning for the author of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a deal she has routinely slammed. This is a trade deal that Clinton has expressed support for in over 45 public speeches. Warren’s campaigning for Clinton stands in stark contrast to the liberal ideals she once practiced. This sad attempt at pandering to the Sanders wing is another example of a typical political calculation by D.C. insiders. Mr. Trump has been against TPP from the start of his campaign because he understands how detrimental it would be to American workers. He will continue to fight for the American people and serve them over the special interests in Washington, D.C.


During the rally, Warren blasted Trump.

“Here’s what it boils down to,” Warrenstated during the rally. “Hillary has brains, she has guts, she has thick skin and steady hands, but most of all, she has a good heart and that’s what America needs, and that’s why I’m with her.”

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential RaceBig Government,Donald TrumpElizabeth Warren

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Brexit: Britain Votes with Trump, against Hillary, Obama

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

AP

by JOEL B. POLLAK23 Jun 20162,779

British voters chose to “leave” the European Union on Thursday, defying the polls — and President Barack Obama, who had urged Britain to “remain” in the EU. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had also urged Britain to stay in the EU. Only Donald Trump had backed the campaign to leave.

Republican strategists had panned Trump’s decision to travel to the UK in the midst of campaign turmoil, and in the wake of his blistering attack on Hillary Clinton earlier this week.

Now, however, it looks like a risk that paid off handsomely, in the currency of foreign policy credibility.

Obama’s advice may have pushed some voters to “leave.” In April, he warned British voters they would be at the “back of the queue” in trade with the U.S. if they left the EU. Some, like Andrew Roberts, took offense, writing in the Wall Street Journal:

Surely—surely—this is an issue on which the British people, and they alone, have the right to decide, without the intervention of President Obama, who adopted his haughtiest professorial manner when lecturing us to stay in the EU, before making the naked threat that we would be sent “to the back of the queue” (i.e., the back of the line) in any future trade deals if we had the temerity to vote to leave.

Was my country at the back of the line when Winston Churchill promised in 1941 that in the event of a Japanese attack on the U.S., a British declaration of war on Japan would be made within the hour?

Were we at the back of the line on 9/11, or did we step forward immediately and instinctively as the very first of your allies to contribute troops to join you in the expulsion of the Taliban, al Qaeda’s hosts, from power in Afghanistan?

Or in Iraq two years later, was it the French or the Germans or the Belgians who stood and fought and bled beside you? Whatever views you might have over the rights or wrongs of that war, no one can deny that Britain was in its accustomed place: at the front of the line, in the firing line. So it is not right for President Obama now to threaten to send us to the back of the line.


Hillary Clinton also backed a “remain” vote in April, with a senior policy adviser issuing a statement on her behalf:

Hillary Clinton believes that transatlantic cooperation is essential, and that cooperation is strongest when Europe is united. She has always valued a strong United Kingdom in a strong EU. And she values a strong British voice in the EU.


Trump, who happens to be in Scotland toopen a golf resortpromised in May that leaving the EU would not put Britain at the “back of the queue,” and said: “I think if I were from Britain I would probably want to go back to a different system.” He reiterated that support last week, telling the Sunday Times: “I would personally be more inclined to leave, for a lot of reasons like having a lot less bureaucracy. … But I am not a British citizen. This is just my opinion.”

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. His new book, See No Evil: 19 Hard Truths the Left Can’t Handle, will be published by Regnery on July 25 and is available for pre-order through Amazon. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential RaceBig Government,National Securitybarack obamaBrexit,Donald TrumpEuropean UnionHillary ClintonLeaveRemain

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Clinton Foundation Said to Be Breached by Russian Hackers

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

www.bloomberg.com

The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation was among the organizations breached by suspected Russian hackers in a dragnet of the U.S. political apparatus ahead of the November election, according to three people familiar with the matter.

The attacks on the foundation’s network, as well as those of the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, compound concerns about her digital security even as the FBI continues to investigate her use of a personal e-mail server while she was secretary of state.

A spokesman for the foundation, Brian Cookstra, said he wasn’t aware of any breach. The compromise of the foundation’s computers was first identified by government investigators as recently as last week, the people familiar with the matter said. Agents monitor servers used by hackers to communicate with their targets, giving them a back channel view of attacks, often even before the victims detect them.

For a primer on recent cyber intrusions, click here.

Before the Democratic National Committee disclosed a major computer breach last week, U.S. officials informed both political parties and the presidential campaigns of Clinton, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders that sophisticated hackers were attempting to penetrate their computers, according to a person familiar with the government investigation into the attacks.

The hackers in fact sought data from at least 4,000 individuals associated with U.S. politics -- party aides, advisers, lawyers and foundations -- for about seven months through mid-May, according to another person familiar with the investigations.

Thousands of Documents

The thefts set the stage for what could be a Washington remake of the public shaming that shook Sony in 2014, when thousands of inflammatory internal e-mails filled with gossip about world leaders and Hollywood stars were made public. Donor information and opposition research on Trump purportedly stolen from the Democratic Party has surfaced online, and the culprit has threatened to publish thousands more documents.

A hacker or group of hackers calling themselves Guccifer 2.0 posted anothertrove of documents purportedly from the DNC on Tuesday, including what they said was a list of donors who had made large contributions to the Clinton Foundation.

The Republican Party and the Trump campaign have been mostly silent on the computer attacks. In an earlier statement, Trump said the hack was a political ploy concocted by the Democrats.

Information about the scope of the attacks and the government warnings raises new questions about how long the campaigns have known about the threats and whether they have done enough to protect their systems.

The Clinton campaign was aware as early as April that it had been targeted by hackers with links to the Russian government on at least four recent occasions, according to a person familiar with the campaign’s computer security.

U.S. Inquiries

The U.S. Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Security Agency are all involved in the investigation of the theft of data from the political parties and individuals over the last several months, one of the people familiar with the investigation said. The agencies have made no public statements about their inquiry.

The FBI has been careful to keep that investigation separate from the review of Clinton’s use of private e-mail, using separate investigators, according to the person briefed on the matter. The agencies didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Clinton spokesman Glen Caplin said that he couldn’t comment on government briefings about cyber security and that the campaign had no evidence that its systems were compromised.

“We routinely communicate and cooperate with government agencies on security-related matters,” he said. “What appears evident is that the Russian groups responsible for the DNC hack are intent on attempting to influence the outcome of this election.”

The DNC wouldn’t directly address the attacks but said in a written statement that it believes the leaks are “part of a disinformation campaign by the Russians.”

Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks didn’t respond to e-mails seeking comment about the government warnings. The Republican National Committee didn’t respond to e-mail messages. A Sanders spokesman, Michael Briggs, said he wasn’t aware of the warnings.

IDing the Hackers

The government’s investigation is following a similar path as the DNC’s, including trying to precisely identify the hackers and their possible motives, according to people familiar with the investigations. The hackers’ link to the Russian government was first identified by CrowdStrike Inc., working for the Democratic Party.

A law firm reviewing the DNC’s initial findings, Baker & McKenzie, has begun working with three additional security firms -- FireEye Inc., Palo Alto Networks Inc. and Fidelis Cybersecurity -- to confirm the link, according to two people familiar with the matter, underscoring Democrats’ concerns that the stolen information could be used to try to influence the outcome of the November election.

A spokesman for Baker & McKenzie didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. DNC spokesman Luis Miranda said the party worked only with CrowdStrike.

If the Democrats can show the hidden hand of Russian intelligence agencies, they believe that voter outrage will probably outweigh any embarrassing revelations, a person familiar with the party’s thinking said.

So far the released documents have revealed little that is new or explosive, but that could change. Guccifer 2.0 has threatened to eventually release thousands of internal memos and other documents.

Line of Attack

Sensitive documents from the Clinton Foundation could have the most damaging potential. The Trump camp has said it plans to make the foundation’s activities a subject of attacks against Clinton; the sort of confidential data contained in e-mails, databases and other digital archives could aid that effort.

An analysis by Fidelis confirmed that groups linked to Russian intelligence agencies were behind the DNC hack, according to a published report.

The government fills a crucial gap in flagging attacks that organizations can’t detect themselves, said Tony Lawrence, a former U.S. Army cyber specialist and now chief executive officer of VOR Technology, a computer security company in Hanover, Maryland.

“These state actors spend billions of dollars on exploits to gather information on candidates, and nine times out of ten [victims] won’t be able to identify or attribute them,” he said.

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

Google accounts

Bloomberg News reported Friday that the hackers who hit the DNC and Clinton’s campaign burrowed much further into the U.S. political system than initially thought, sweeping in law firms, lobbyists, consultants, foundations and policy groups in a campaign that targeted thousands of Google e-mail accounts and lasted from October through mid-May.

Data from the attacks have led some security researchers to conclude that the hackers were linked to Russian intelligence services and were broadly successful in stealing reports, policy papers, correspondence and other information. Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for President Vladimir Putin, denied that the Russian government was involved.

Russia uses sophisticated “information operations” to advance foreign policy, and the target audience for this kind of mission wouldn’t be U.S. voters or even U.S. politicians, said Brendan Conlon, who once led a National Security Agency hacking unit.

“Why would Russia go to this trouble? Simple answer -- because it met their foreign policy objectives, to weaken the U.S. in the eyes of our allies and adversaries,” said Conlon, now CEO of Vahna Inc., a cyber security firm in Washington. Publishing the DNC report on Trump “weakens both candidates -- lists out all the weaknesses of Trump specifically while highlighting weaknesses of Clinton’s security issues. The end result is a weaker president once elected.”

Russia Link

Russia has an expansive cyber force that it has deployed in complex disinformation campaigns throughout Europe, according to intelligence officials.

BfV, the German intelligence agency, has concluded that Russia was responsible for a 2015 hack against the Bundestag that forced shutdown of its computer systems for several days. Germany is under “permanent threat” from Russian hackers, said BfV chief Hans-Georeg Maassen.

Security software maker Trend Micro said in May that Russian hackers had been trying for several weeks to steal data from Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union party, and that they also tried to hack the Dutch Safety Board computer systems to obtain an advance copy of a report on the downing of a Malaysian aircraft over Ukraine in July 2014. The report said the plane was brought down by a Russian-made Buk surface-to-air missile.

The cyber attacks are part of a broader pattern of state-sponsored hacking by Russia focused on political targets, with a goal of giving Russia the upper hand in dealing with other governments, said Pasi Eronen, a Helsinki-based cyber warfare researcher who has advised Finland’s Defense Ministry.

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal. LEARN MORE

COMMENTS

Why did the White House just humiliate Loretta Lynch?

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

nypost.com

Idiotic: That’s the only word for the Obama administration’s move to scrub references to Islam or ISIS from the transcripts of Orlando terrorist Omar Mateen’s calls.

Under an avalanche of ridicule, the Justice Department on Mondayrelented and released the full transcripts. But what was the point? Everyone already knew that he’d pledged allegiance to ISIS and its “caliph.”

Fine: President Obama wants to make this about gun control, not terrorism — but ham-handed editing only calls attention to what you’re deleting, and to Obama’s peevish rules against uttering terms like “radical Islam.”

Just look at the redactions:

Mateen: “I pledge of allegiance to [omitted]. “I pledge allegiance to [omitted] may God protect him [in Arabic], on behalf of [omitted].”

All the omissions did was make Team Obama look determined to keep its head in the sand about the nature of the enemy.

Even the “explanations” sounded dumb. Here’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch on ABC’s “This Week”: “What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda.”

Further his propaganda? Seriously? The answer to Islamist jihad is to black out the words?

Lynch never did anything this absurd in all her years as US Attorney here in New York, so you know the order came down from above.

It’s also idiocy déjà vu: Four years ago, Team Obama made then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice tour all the Sunday shows to blame the deadly Benghazi attack on an Internet video, rather than on the terrorist plot they all knew it was. She looked a fool once the administration finally admitted the truth, just as Loretta Lynch does now.

It makes you wonder: Who at the White House feels compelled to send women of color out to humiliate themselves on national TV?

COMMENTS

China builds world’s fastest supercomputer without U.S. chips

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

www.computerworld.com

China on Monday revealed its latest supercomputer, a monolithic system with 10.65 million compute cores built entirely with Chinese microprocessors. This follows a U.S. government decision last year to deny China access to Intel's fastest microprocessors.

There is no U.S.-made system that comes close to the performance of China's new system, the Sunway TaihuLight. Its theoretical peak performance is 124.5 petaflops, according to the latest biannual release today of the world's Top500supercomputers. It is the first system to exceed 100 petaflops. A petaflop equals one thousand trillion (one quadrillion) sustained floating-point operations per second.

The most important thing about Sunway TaihuLight may be its microprocessors. In the past, China has relied heavily on U.S. microprocessors in building its supercomputing capacity. The world's next fastest system, China's Tianhe-2, which has a peak performance of 54.9 petaflops, uses Intel Xeon processors.

TaihuLight, which is installed at China'sNational Supercomputing Center in Wuxi, uses ShenWei CPUs developed by Jiangnan Computing Research Lab in Wuxi. The operating system is a Linux-based Chinese system called Sunway Raise.

The TaihuLight is "very impressive," said Jack Dongarra, a professor of computer science at the University of Tennessee and one of the academic leaders of the Top500 supercomputing list, in a report about the new system.

TaihuLight is running "sizeable applications," which include advanced manufacturing, earth systems modeling, life science and big data applications, said Dongarra. This "shows that the system is capable of running real applications and [is] not just a stunt machine," Dongarra said.

It has been long known that China was developing a 100-plus petaflop system, and it was believed that China would turn to U.S. chip technology to reach this performance level. But just over a year ago, in a surprising move, the U.S. banned Intel from supplying Xeon chips to four of China's top supercomputing research centers.

The U.S. initiated this ban because China, it claimed, was using its Tianhe-2 system for nuclear explosive testing activities. The U.S. stopped live nuclear testing in 1992 and now relies on computer simulations. Critics in China suspected the U.S. was acting to slow that nation's supercomputing development efforts.

Four months after the Intel ban, in July 2015, the White House issued an executive order creating a "national strategic computing initiative" with the goal of maintaining an "economic leadership position" in high-performance computing research.

The U.S. order seemed late. China has been steadily building its supercomputing capacity, which included efforts to develop its own microprocessors. It produced a relatively small supercomputer in 2011 that relied on homegrown processors, but its big systems continued to rely on U.S. processors.

There has been nothing secretive about China's intentions. Researchers and analysts have been warning all alongthat U.S. exascale (an exascale is 1,000 petaflops) development, supercomputing's next big milestone, was lagging.

It's not just China that is racing ahead. Japan and Russia have their own development efforts. Europe is building supercomputers using ARM processors, and, similar to China, wants to decrease its dependency on U.S.-made chips.

China's government last week said it plans to build an exascale system by 2020. The U.S. has targeted 2023.

China now has more supercomputers in the Top500 list than the U.S., said Dongarra. "China has 167 systems on the June 2016 Top500 list compared to 165 systems in the U.S," he said, in an email. Ten years ago, China had 10 systems on the list.

Of all the supercomputers represented on the global list, the sum of the China supercomputers performance (211 petaflops) has exceeded the performance of the supercomputers in the U.S., (173 petaflops) represented on this list. The list doesn't represent the universe of all supercomputers in the U.S. None of the supercomputers used by intelligence agencies, for instance, are represented on this list.

"This is the first time the U.S. has lost the lead," said Dongarra, in the total number of systems on the Top500 list.

China's work is also winning global peer recognition. It's work on TaihuLight has resulted in three submissions selected as finalists for supercomputing's prestigious Gordon Bell Award, named for a pioneer in high-performance computing.

The fastest U.S. supercomputer, number 3 on the Top500 list, is the Titan, a Cray supercomputer at U.S. Dept. of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory with a theoretical peak of about 27 petaflops.

Whether the U.S. chip ban accelerated China's resolve to develop its own microprocessor technology is a question certain to get debate. But what is clear is China's longstanding goal to end reliance on U.S. technology.

"The Chinese were already determined over time to move to an indigenous processor," said Steve Conway, a high performance computing analyst at IDC. "I think the ban accelerates that -- it increases that determination," he said.

HPC has become increasingly important in the economy. Once primarily the domain of big science research, national security and high-end manufacturing such as airplane design, HPC's virtualization and big data analysis capabilities have made it critical in almost every industry. Manufacturers of all sizes, increasingly, are using supercomputers to design products virtually instead of building prototypes. Supercomputer are also used in applications such as fraud detection and big data analysis.

HPC has is now "so strategic that you really don't want to rely on foreign sources for it," said Conway.

COMMENTS

Monday, June 20, 2016

Hillary Clinton’s Policies Created Conditions for Rise of Islamic State

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

White House Photo / Pete Souza

by LEE STRANAHAN20 Jun 201633

Americans are once again forced to face the threat of ISIS-inspired terrorism, and now it’s up to Donald Trump and the Republican leadership to make damn sure everyone knows how Hillary Clinton caused this mess.

One key to stopping this long international nightmare of Islamic terrorism will be reminding American voters every single day between now and November that the foreign policy decisions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton caused the rise of ISIS.

The history is very clear. When Barack Obama took office in 2008 with Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, one of his first moves on foreign policy was his New Beginning speech in Cairo, Egypt. With members of the Muslim Brotherhood in attendance, Pres. Obama claimed a new era had begun in America’s attitude toward Islam.

What followed was the “Arab Spring” uprisings throughout the region. Even though people initially hailed these as bold moves by people desperate for freedom, the “Arab Spring” was, in fact, a way for Islamists to dethrone the region’s more secular military dictators. Cairo itself made this clear: just months after Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton declared a new beginning, rebels removed Hosni Mubarak from office, and the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood came to power and installed brutal sharia law.

The single biggest factor that led to the rise of ISIS was the failed attempt to overthrow Syrian Pres. Bashar al-Assad. The United States openly called for the overthrow of Assad, even though it was clear that the result of that overthrow would be Islamist groups taking over.

Syria proved to be resistant to the Obama/Clinton calls for regime change. Instead of the quick overthrow that happened in Egypt, Assad, aided by the Russians and opposed by the U.S., held on – even as the United States was giving weapons to the so-called “rebels” that would eventually find their way into the hands of Islamist groups.

This power vacuum in Syria created the conditions for ISIS to rise. In Iraq, the continued withdrawals that happened under Hillary Clinton’s watch created another power vacuum that led to ISIS gaining more land and resources.

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

This interview, which I did with Clare Lopez from the Center for Security Policy, gives even more detail — in just five minutes.

The mainstream media has done nothing to explain this to the American people.

However, simply complaining about the mainstream media is not enough. The stakes are too high to let mere grumbling suffice.

No, what needs to happen is that the Donald Trump campaign and the Republican Party need to realize that the ball is in their court when it comes to bringing Americans the truth. Trump, his surrogates, his supporters, and every single Republican politician needs to take this responsibility seriously and lay out a factual case for the American people, as often as possible.

The real danger here is that Republicans are so used to losing the public relations battle that they give it up before it even starts. After years of being battered by the institutional left media complex, Republicans are too used to cowering and surrendering.

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio
iHeart.SmythRadio.com
Facebook.com/SmythRadio

There needs to be an immediate commitment to clear-eyed truth-telling by the GOP… otherwise, America is in for four years of Clinton once again setting foreign policy.

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential RaceBig Government,JihadArab SpringBill and Hillary Clinton,Donald Trump 2016Hillary Clinton 2016,ISISSyria