Tuesday, June 7, 2016

Trump to Give Major Hillary Speech Monday

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio


www.weeklystandard.com



Donald Trump announced tonight that he's giving a major speech on Hillary Clinton on Monday.
"I am going to give a major speech on probably Monday of next week and we're going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons," Trump said tonight.



"I think you're going to find it very informative and very, very interesting. I wonder if the press will want to attend. Who knows? Hillary Clinton turned the State Department into her private hedge fund. 



The Russians, the Saudis, the Chinese all gave money to Bill and Hillary and got favorable treatment in return. It's a sad day in america when foreign governments with deep pockets have more influence in our own country than our great citizens


BOOM! Hillary Clinton CAUGHT COLLUDING With AP to Announce Delegate Win Before California! GP

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

THE GATEWAY PUNDIT

Jim Hoft Jun 7th, 2016 2:20 pm 712 Comments

On Monday night – the day before California’s primary election – the Associated Press announced Hillary Clinton had finally secured enough delegates to win the Democratic Party nomination.

The Associated Press reported Hillary gained enough extra super-delegates to give her the 2383 delegates to secure the nomination.

But now there is evidence that this announcement the night before the nation’s largest primary was planned days in advance.

Via Mike Cernovich:

The graphic titled “Secret Win Version 2” was created days ago on June 4, 2016.

It looks like this was pre-planned days ago.
Hat Tip Danger and Play

 4620  2500  21

Get news like this in your Facebook News Feed, 

 Gateway Pundit

Donald Trump: ‘Crooked Hillary’ Wants to Take Your Guns–and Keep Her ‘Fully Armed’ Security

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio

iHeart.SmythRadio.com

Facebook.com/SmythRadio

AP Photo/Mark Humphrey

by AWR HAWKINS21 May 2016994

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump tweeted that Hillary Clinton wants to disarm average Americans–while living her life surrounded by security who are “fully armed.”

Trump tweeted, “Crooked Hillary wants to get rid of all guns, and yet she is surrounded by bodyguards who are fully armed.” He suggested Clinton needs to apply the same rule to herself that she seeks to apply to everyday Americans and proclaimed, “No more guns to protect Hillary!”

Trump’s tweet comes the day after he stood in front of thousands at the NRA Leadership Forum in Louisville, Kentucky, where he described Clinton as “the most anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment candidate ever to run for office.”

He added, “And as I’ve said before, she wants to abolish the Second Amendment. She wants to take your guns away.”

Trump said:

Hillary wants to disarm vulnerable Americans in high crime neighborhoods. Whether it’s a young single mom in Florida or a grandma in Ohio, Hillary wants them to be defenseless, wants to take away any chance they have of survival. And by the way, you have men and you have women sitting in an apartment, and outside is tremendous crime–tremendous crime of all kinds–and they need to be protected. And you know, the only way they are going to be able to protect themselves, and if you take that gun away from them, it’s going to be a very unfair situation. And that’s why we are going to call her “Heartless Hillary.”


Trump went on to call for Clinton’s body guards to “immediately disarm” so she can feel the way the defenseless single mom in Florida has to feel on any given night.

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

AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.

Read More Stories About:

2nd AmendmentBig GovernmentHillary ClintonDonald TrumpGun Rights,Heartless HillaryHillary ClintonSecond AmendmentSelf-Defense

Daily Mail: ‘Clinton Cash’ a ‘Blistering Indictment’ of How the Clintons Got Rich from Corruption

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

'Follow the money': Movie exposing secrets of how Clintons became rich after quitting the White House to be shown on eve of Hillary getting her party's nomination

By Nikki Schwab, U.s. Political Reporter For Dailymail.com17:32 20 May 2016, updated 17:45 20 May 2016

Clinton Cash' documentary is being screened at CannesProducers plan to air the blistering indictment on the eve of the Democratic National Convention - when she will be installed as candidateBased on the book by the same name, the film links money given to Bill Clinton for paid speeches to decisions Hillary Clinton made at StateIt also suggests all those contributions to the Clinton Foundation weren't pure altruism They and were meant to get the Clintons to overlook human rights violations by unsavory world leaders, movie suggests

Audiences in Cannes are getting a taste of the searing new documentary 'Clinton Cash,' which offers a harsh indictment of the paid speeches, personal favors, and personal enrichment that have accompanied Bill and Hillary Clinton through their decades in politics.

And if the movie-maker's wishes come true, so will Americans - the night before Clinton is formally named her party's White House candidate

The hour-long movie attempts to follow the money that has flowed toward Bill and Hillary Clinton since the former president left the White House, and suggests that much of it came from a cast of companies and countries seeking favorable treatment from the powerful pair.

Among the more damaging revelations in the film: out of 13 speeches ex-president Bill Clinton gave that earned more than $500,000 on the speaking circuit, 11 of them were during his wife's reign as secretary of state.

The film also probes the $1.4 million Bill Clinton got from a Nigerian newspaper to deliver two speeches in 2011 and 212, notwithstanding Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan's human rights record. 

SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO 

+7

'Clinton Cash' author Peter Schweizer narrates the new hour-long documentary of the same name, which explores foreign influence on Hillary Clinton at the State Department through donations 

+7

The New York Times called 'Clinton Cash' 'the most anticipated and feared book' of the presidential election cycle - and the movie will only make it bigger  

It also also lays out unsavory dealings in South Sudan, the Democratic of the Congo, and Haiti, as it constructs at thesis that regimes and companies ingratiated themselves with the Clintons through charitable contributions to the Clinton Foundation and by offering hefty speaking fees to the Clintons.

Then it looks at who among the Clintons' employers had something to gain, like TD Bank, a company that backed the Keystone XL pipeline and payed $2 million for Bill Clinton speeches.

The film doesn't present hard evidence of an illegal quid pro quo, but it lays out a torrent of information for viewers to consider, and throws in images of blood-stained cash to drive the point home.

As if on cue, Hillary Clinton released a personal financial disclosure form this week that reveals she got $5 million in royalties from her 2014 book and $1.5 million in speaking fees in 2015 as she was gearing up to run for president.

Based on the book by Hoover Institution fellow Peter Schweizer, the film connects the dots between donations to the Clinton Foundation or given to the ex-president for paid speeches and decisions Hillary Clinton made while being secretary of state. 

'Cronyism and self-enrichment are a bipartisan affair, and Hillary and Bill Clinton have perfected them on a global scale,' Schweizer says in the film.  

+7

Peter Schweizer's book and documentary links donations coming into the Clinton Foundation, along with money given to Bill Clinton for paid speeches, into policy moves Hillary Clinton made at the State Department

Loaded: 0%

Progress: 0%

0:00

Play

Mute

Current Time0:00

/

Duration Time1:38

Fullscreen

The film is being shopped around at Cannes for a distributor, while the creators are looking toward a television deal too.

The plan is to air the documentary the night before this summer's Democratic National convention – at precisely the time Hillary will be trying to recover from persistent attacks by rival Bernie Sanders that she is beholden to corporate interests.

 The film follows the same storylines as Schweizer's 'Clinton Cash' book, which was released right as Hillary Clinton was getting on the campaign trail last year.

At the time Republicans like Sen. Rand Paul, who was also seeking the highest office, called it 'big news' that will 'shock people.' 

The New York Times said it was 'proving to be the most anticipated and feared book' of the presidential cycle thus far. 

Schweizer narrates the hour-long documentary and says his investigation of the Clintons basically followed what he called the 'oldest adage in American politics.' 

'Follow the money,' he noted. 

While the Clintons were 'dead broke' upon leaving the White House, as Hillary Clinton once said, the couple brought in at least $136.5 million between 2001 and 2012. 

Speaking fees helped pay the bills, but what was notable, Schweizer pointed out, was that while Bill Clinton had been out of office for nearly a decade, all of the sudden his speaking fees skyrocketed.   

The issue that's most familiar to Americans is that of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which Hillary Clinton signed off on after one of the pipeline's major stakeholders paid her husband $2 million for speeches 

Share this articleFacebookTwittere-mailSMSWhatsApp

RELATED ARTICLES

'The calendar is the calendar': Benghazi chair says investigation will conclude when all the facts are in - and he doesn't care if timing makes it seem like a hit job on Hillary 13-minute video of Hillary Clinton 'lying' over and over goes viral ¿ but YouTube wizard behind it says 'Don't worry' ¿ Trump is next! Trump's 'rape' attack on Bill Clinton: Republican says sex crime is among list of charges leveled against ex-president over conduct towards women'There are probably more ugly women in America than attractive women.' The reason Hillary campaigner claims Trump's comments on women will haunt Republican candidate 

+7

The documentary Clinton Cash connects the dots between Hillary Clinton's 'shocking' approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline and money given to her husband by a major stakeholder to speak 

The reason? Hillary Clinton was just announced as President-elect Barack Obama's secretary of state. 

The author noted that of the 13 speeches in his career that fetched the ex-president more than $500,000, 11 of them were during his wife's reign as secretary of state.

Politifact, for the record, rated this accounting as true. 

From there, Schweizer looked at who was giving money to Bill Clinton, either for paid speeches or to the Clinton Foundation, and then whether those donors ever got anything in return from Hillary Clinton's State Department. 

The example that's likely the most familiar to Americans revolves around the Keystone XL Pipeline project. 

TD Bank, which had a stake in the pipeline project going through, had never sponsored a Bill Clinton speech before, but then suddenly moved $2 million his way.  

At the same time, Schweizer pointed out, the State Department had to approve the project. 

+7

The documentary also looks at some of the unsavory allies the Clintons have made  around the globe, in part because those people are enriching the Clinton Foundation 

Hillary Clinton soon decided to support the pipeline delaying the Obama's rejection of it. 

'It was shocking,' Schweizer noted in the film. 'Organizations like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth were stunned, they wanted investigations, but everybody was mystified.' 

'Nobody could understand why Hillary Clinton would sign off on this deal, particularly when she had been in favor of dealing with climate change and her boss, Barack Obama, by all indications, seemed to be opposed to this deal as well,' the writer added. 

In another instance, Bill Clinton is paid $750,000 by the Swedish telecom company Ericsson, which was in trouble by the U.S. for selling equipment to Iran. 

A week later, the documentary points out, the State Department ruled that Ericsson and other companies were off the hook and could provide oversight to themselves. 

Beyond those cases, Clinton Cash explores some of the Clintons unsavory alliances in Africa, especially in countries where the leaders are known for civil rights abuses and corruption. 

It also details the Clintons dealings in Haiti after the country's disastrous 2010 earthquake, calling what occurred 'disaster capitalism.'  

READ MORE

www.politifact.c...First look at explosive Hillary documentary, ¿Clinton Cash¿ | New York Post

Donald Trump Is Correct To Hit ‘La Raza’ Judge For Latino Identity Politics

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

Getty Images

by JOSEPH MURRAY6 Jun 20162062

“This is one of the worst mistakes Trump has made. I think it’s inexcusable.”

Those words were spoken by Newt Gingrich – a man believed to be on Donald Trump’s Vice Presidential shortlist – during an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

What mistake had the presumptive Republican nominee made that he earned the rebuke of an ally?

Trump had questioned the impartiality of a federal judge.

The controversy erupted when Trump told CNN’s Jake Tapper that Gonzalo Curiel – the judge in the Trump University class action lawsuit – might not give him a fair shake because of the judge’s connection to Mexican political activism. After critics bemoaned such an accusation as racism, Trump doubled down on “Face the Nation.”

“[Judge Curiel] is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine,” Trump told CBS’s John Dickerson. “But I say he’s got bias.” The club Trump was referring to was La Raza Lawyers; an organization with the stated mission “to promote the interests of the Latino communities throughout the state.”

Translated, “la raza” means “the race.” Imagine the outcry if white attorneys from Mississippi, such as this author, started a a legal association called “The Race” with the stated mission to promote the interest of white, Southern communities. Hollywood stars and entertainers, such as Bryan Adams, would boycott the state in perpetuity.

advertisement

Trump’s suggestion that a Hispanic judge may treat him unfairly because of Trump’s border security proposals, such as the wall, challenges the claim that liberal judges engaged in identity politics are never biased against non-liberals. And while Democrats were enraged by Trump’s challenge, Trump struck fear into the hearts of establishment Republicans not accustomed to challenging the politically correct code to which they have previously surrendered.

Hillary Clinton immediately launched a political advertisement. The ad claimed that Trump’s questioning of Judge Curiel’s impartiality was “the definition of racism.” It also incorporated the growing list of Republicans condemning Trump’s Curiel criticism.

“I don’t condone the comments,” Sen. Bob Corker, another potential Trump VP, said on ABC’s “This Week,” adding Trump is “going to have to change.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell stated that he hoped Trump “will change direction” in dealing with Latinos.

But what exactly had Trump done wrong? How was it unreasonable to suggest that a judge belonging to a group pledging to advance Latino interests might be biased against the man who wants to build the wall that hinders the interests of Latino politicians?

Had we not just witnessed Latinos in San Jose throw eggs and sucker punches at Trump supporters, and wave the Mexican flag? Had not McConnell himself, by hoping Trump would change his standard rhetoric, conceded that liberal Latinos – of which Curiel belongs – viewed Trump’s proposals with animus?

If one listened to Hillary and her cabal of Republicans, Trump is a modern day version of Orval Faubus – the Arkansas governor who resisted court ordered integration of schools. But that conclusion is based on left-wing fan fiction that holds any time a white male questions a protected minority the motivation must be rooted in discriminatory animus.

advertisement

Judge Curiel’s integrity is not being questioned by Trump just because of his Hispanic heritage. Trump is merely asserting that a person’s heritage does not foreclose a proper inquiry into their political activism and potential biases; he is suggesting that Curiel – a man who supports awarding an illegal alien a scholarship – might not view favorably a man who wants to deport the said scholarship recipient.

Recusal is a common theme when pro-choice advocates run up against pro-life judges. Recently, some scholars wantedJustice Antonin Scalia to recuse himself from McCullen v. Coakley; a case concerning abortion clinic buffer zones. But such requests are rarely viewed in a negative light.

The fact is seeking recusal – even if just discussing it – is a great way to preserve the integrity of the bench. Federal judges are appointed for life, unelected, and reviewed by other unelected judges. It is why Thomas Jefferson warned the federal bench could easily become a “despotism of an oligarchy.”

So why blast Trump for his Jeffersonian view of the judiciary? Democrats know Hillary is in trouble. They know the economic outlook is bleak and for almost 8 years the party has had no answers. It is why Hillary is making much ado about nothing and, frankly, the voters don’t care about the judicial politics of one class action lawsuit.

But this debate is not just about Trump or Trump University; it is about a politically correct double standard that permits liberals to use the faith of pro-life judges to boot them from a case, but calls questioning the ethnicity based activism of a liberal judge racism. And this is a concept the voters understand.

Liberals made Trump’s comments about race because they know a reasonable person might conclude Curiel’s activism creates the appearance of impropriety. The sad thing is Republicans, much like a battered spouse, are so accustomed to the politically correct abuse they accept it as the new normal.

advertisement

By validating Hillary’s race card, Republican leaders have exhibited one of the worst examples of Stockholm syndrome. And when the dust settles, Newt will see that he and his fellow Republicans are the ones who made the “inexcusable” mistake.

Joseph R. Murray, II, is a civil rights attorney, former campaign official for Pat Buchanan, and author of “Odd Man Out”. He can be reached at jrm@joemurrayenterprises.com.

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential RaceImmigration2016 campaignDonald Trumpfederal judiciary,immigration

Monday, June 6, 2016

State Dept.: 75-year wait for Clinton aide emails

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

www.cnn.com

Washington (CNN)The Republican National Committee would have to wait 75 years for the State Department to release emails from top aides to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to a recent court filing.

State Department lawyers argue in a filing made last Wednesday that gathering 450,000 pages of records requested for former Clinton aides Cheryl Mills and Jacob Sullivan and top State Department official Patrick Kennedy would take three quarters of a century.

"Given the Department's current FOIA workload and the complexity of these documents, it can process about 500 pages a month, meaning it would take approximately 16-and-2/3 years to complete the review of the Mills documents, 33-and-1/3 years to finish the review of the Sullivan documents, and 25 years to wrap up the review of the Kennedy documents -- or 75 years in total," the State Department argued in the filing.

State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau declined Monday to comment on the RNC lawsuit specifically, but said that requests have tripled since 2008 and staff has been spread thin.

"The volume of FOIA requests received by the Department has tripled since 2008. In fiscal year 2015 alone we received approximately 22,000 FOIA requests," Trudeau said. "The requests are also frequently more complex and seek larger volumes of documents, requiring significantly more time, resources, and interagency coordination. While we have increased staffing for our FOIA office, our available resources are still nonetheless constrained."

The RNC filed suit against the State Department in March, saying it was stalling releasing records in response to a December FOIA request.

COMMENTS

Mitch McConnell Defends Pro-Illegal Immigration Judge in Trump Case: ‘All of Us Came Here from Somewhere Else’

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

AP/Manuel Balce Ceneta

by JULIA HAHN6 Jun 2016Washington D.C.1,312

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is defending Trump University Judge Gonzalo Curiel from Donald Trump’s recent criticism. In particular, Trump has expressed concern that Curiel is biased against him because of Trump’s pledge to enforce U.S. immigration law, build a wall along the Southern border, and keep American jobs from going to Mexico.

“This is a man who was born in Indiana,” McConnell said while defending Judge Curiel on Meet The Press. “All of us came here from somewhere else. Almost all Americans are either near term immigrants like my wife, who came here at age eight… or the rest of us whose ancestors were risk takers who got up from wherever they were, and came here and made this country great. That’s an important part of what makes America work.”

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

McConnell’s comments come in the wake of recent attempts to ramp up the narrative that Trump is allegedly anti-Latino.

For instance, during her recent foreign policy speech, Hillary Clinton reprised the attack that Trump “calls Mexican immigrants ‘rapists and murderers.’” However, what Trump actually said is that Mexico sends rapists and criminals across the border—which government data suggests is quite literally true.

A 2011 government report found approximately three million arrest offenses attached to the incarcerated criminal alien population—which the report defined as an immigrant who has not been naturalized. Of these offenses, 70,000 were sexual offenses, 213,000 were for assault, and 25,000 were for homicides. The report notes that the majority of the 296,000 SCAAP [State Criminal Alien Assistance Program] criminal alien incarcerations in state and local jails were from Mexico.

Yet most recently, the narrative that Trump is “anti-Latino” has tended to focus on two main stories: Trump’s criticism of the judge presiding over the Trump University case, and Trump’s criticism of New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez.

However, just as the media failed to reporton alien crime rates when discussing Trump’s comments about illegal alien crime last summer, so too is the media now leaving out critical facts about these stories.

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

For instance, while Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, and members of corporate media have attacked Trump for his criticism of Judge Curiel, they did not mention Curiel’s status as a member of the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego. La Raza literally translates to mean “the race.” Nor did they mention that Curiel “oversaw the gift of a law school scholarship to an illegal alien,” as the Daily Caller reported. Separately, the media rarely reports that the legal firm behind the lawsuit gave money to the Clintons.

The Daily Caller notes that the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego is not a local chapter of the National Council of La Raza, and the San Diego group claims to protest the literal translation of its organization’s name— arguing that they are made up of different races.

While it’s gone largely ignored by corporate media, Ann Coulter has pointed out the implications of Curiel’s decision to join a group that views his profession through the prism of his ethnicity— and joined, not just a Hispanic association, but a group that seems to have more explicitly racial connotations. Coulter tweeted, “Re: Trump University — Would liberals accept a white judge — under any circumstances — who was a member of a White Race organization?” Indeed, if the judge had been Caucasian and was a member of a Caucasian advancement group, one could imagine that anything the judge had ever said or written would be completely parsed out by the public.

The significance of this is underscored by the fact that as a judge sworn to “faithfully and impartially” perform the duties incumbent upon him under the Constitution and laws of the United States, Curiel has been involved in subsidizing illegal activity by partially funding the college admissions of an illegal immigrant.

The judge’s decision to involve himself in the furtherance of an illegal act, which comes at the direct expense of American citizens who need financial assistance, seems to suggest that on matters pertaining to immigration, the judge may perhaps be willing to place political and personal ends above legal ends. This fact could lend credence to the argument that in Trump’s case, Curiel is perhaps placing his political considerations above legal considerations.

Similarly, McConnell, Gingrich and members of the corporate media have attacked Trump for saying that Gov. Martinez has “got to do a better job”.

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

Gingrich went so far as to accuse Trump of going “off the deep end” for criticizing Martinez. However, both McConnell and Gingrich failed to mention that Martinez attacked Trump first—and not the other way around.

As the Washington Examiner’s Byron Yorkreported:

The story was really very simple: Martinez hit Trump, so Trump hit back… In mid-April, the New Mexico governor issued a ‘remarkably strong rebuke’ to Trump, in the words of aWashington Post report, when Martinez spoke to a GOP fundraiser at the home of David Koch in Palm Beach, Florida. Martinez, according to the Post, ‘did not mince words.’ She told the crowd of about 60 wealthy GOP backers that, as a Latina, she was offended by Trump’s language about immigrants… Team Trump believes Martinez has continued to criticize him in private since those remarks. And when Trump traveled to Albuquerque, after having clinched the Republican nomination, Martinez told reporters she was ‘really busy’ and did not have time to attend.


Last year, Martinez publicly questioned Trump’s integrity and implicitly called him racist. Martinez described Trump’s factually correct statement about illegal alien crime as “completely and unequivocally wrong.”

“Those are horrible things to say about anyone, or any culture, anyone of any ethnicity. I mean, that is uncalled for completely,” Martinez said.

Trump’s declaration that Martinez has “got to do a better job” seems mild by comparison. Moreover, objective metrics would suggest that his criticism is, in fact, true. For instance, under Gov. Martinez, violent crime—which is mostly a state issue— has surged in New Mexico. As USA Todayreported, New Mexico is one of the most dangerous states in America today:

New Mexico’s violent crime rate rose 6.6% between 2012 and 2013 — the most in the nation — to nearly 597 per 100,000 residents. The increase in violent crime came despite Governor Susana Martinez’s avowal in 2011 to be tough on crime.


Yet Gingrich, McConnell, and the media’s failure to emphasize that Martinez attacked Trump first has allowed his political opponents to falsely characterize his criticism.

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

For instance, Hillary Clinton recently seemed to suggest that Trump’s attack was “gratuitous” and without prompting. “He insulted the Republican Governor Martinez of New Mexico, just gratuitously,” Clintonsaid.

Some have argued that a consistent theme of this election is that the Republican establishment is more upset by Mr. Trump’s tone than they are by the dismantling of our nation’s immigration laws and the victimization of Americans that has accompanied it.

For instance, when McConnell was asked about Trump’s tone with respect to Hispanics, McConnell could have just as easily said that Trump’s policy to stem the flow of illegals and reduce the overall rate of migration would benefit low-income minorities, while Clinton’s plan would economically devastate poor American minorities. However, McConnell once again missed an opportunity to attack Clinton to instead seemingly signal to the media that his endorsement of Trump is merely perfunctory.

Under Sen. McConnell’s leadership, there has been no serious effort to dismantle sanctuary cities, crack down on migrant benefits, ensure deportations of criminal aliens, or halt the influx of refugees.

While Democrats have waged months-long campaigns over equal pay or other pet Democrat issues, no similar effort has been waged by Majority Leader McConnell to defend the integrity of the U.S. immigration system.

When Kate Steinle was murdered, Senate leadership failed to even address the issue. In fact, at the height of national focus and public outrage about the issue, the Senate adjourned for its August recess without taking any meaningful action against sanctuary cities.

By contrast, when the GOP wanted to push the passage of the Keystone pipeline, an issue their donors supported, “GOP’s Senate leadership mounted a long and emotional election-style campaign to win nine Democratic votes for their legislation to approve the Keystone pipeline,” the Daily Caller reported at the time.

Moreover, on a factual note, McConnell’s declaration that “all of us came here from somewhere else,” suggests that he holds a starkly different understanding of Americanization than the one held by our founders. America was not founded upon an equal sampling of ideas from all different countries, but rather was founded on the ideas of one nation in particular, as well as a few Western nations that contributed to Enlightenment and Western thinking.

Moreover, although McConnell believes “all of us came here from somewhere else,” today a lot more people are coming from certain places as opposed to others. Almost 90% of current green card allotments come from outside the normally recognized boundaries of the Western world.

Read More Stories About:

2016 Presidential RaceImmigration,RacismDavid Kochkate steinleKeystone PipelineLa RazaNewt GingrichSusana Martineztrump university