Daily Archives: September 24, 2026

Rick Perry Gone, Dis-Invite of Trump

By Jim Sumpter

Rick Perry bows out; Good riddance

Rick Perry dropping out of contention for the GOP presidential nomination is both good news for the country and long overdue. Perry was a complete Bush-bot during W’s administration and was involved in all manner of surreptitious dealings that played a role in the influx of illegals who swarmed into our country during those years. He was a low-profile but big-time player in working to acquire land for the NAFTA Super Highway that so many thought was some kind of ‘kook’-oriented conspiracy theory, yet was absolutely part of Bush’s strategy that began the erasing of our border integrity. He was, in the end, just another go-along-to-get-along politician who really made no positive difference in the country. Good riddance.

Now, let the pretenders to constitutional eligibility - to wit, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal (we should always be wary of grown men who carry the ‘y’ suffix to their names - yes, even in the South) follow Mr. Perry’s lead and the Republican Party, and most especially, the country will be better for their absence. These men are political punks and phonies and it is only through the ignorance of the masses and the bought and compromised voices of talk radio championing their faux ‘conservatism’ that they’re hanging on.

They’re not constitutionally eligible and because of their promotion of their fraud, they’re hardly patriots - exactly the kind of candidates we don’t need.

Glad Mr. Perry did the right thing. Hope it’s followed by his simply fading from political view. He had the opportunity to make a difference, but instead was just one more phony in a well-tailored suit.

The ‘Dis-invitation’ of Donald Trump

Erick Erickson’s ‘disinvitation’ to Donald Trump during his allegedly (and most definitely not) Constitution-supporting Red State confab appears to bring to the forefront two aspects of Erick Erickson: (1) he’s a little weenie whiney wussie boy who caves for the establishment Republicans; and (2) he’s hardly a ‘conservative’ (whatever that is these days).

Did he feel an equal amount of outrage over the three people who are seeking the Republican nomination WHO AREN’T EVEN NATURAL BORN CITIZENS?

I understand that we’ve all gotta make a buck, but these dime store patriots wear thin. After some of the dumb social media postings of Mr. Erickson that were seriously critical of women, for him to jump on Trump is nothing more than playing to the establishment power base of the Republican Party, which puts him in good stead with Limbaugh, Beck, Levin, and Hannity - all of whom are too owned to be able to ask any questions of real accountability of the elected elite - but, of course, doing it while sanctimoniously touting their honesty, integrity, and high moral standing.

These guys all do nothing more than run to the end of their leashes and bark - but they never bite the hand (the establishment elites) that feeds them.

Disinvite Trump?

It would have been a much more effective demonstration of commitment on the part of Mr. Erickson to ‘disinvite’ (is that even a word?) every elected Republican - any one of whom is individually empowered to either stop Obama’s unconstitutional transformation of our country or orchestrating his removal from office - but instead choose to look the other way as they amble to the podium of faux conservative gatherings of the collected naive - orchestrated by phonies like Erick Erickson.

Trump is viciously attacked from left and right: raped, murdered, “cut off his balls”

Fellowship of the Minds

On June 16, 2015, when Donald Trump announced he’s a candidate for the Republican Party’s nomination in the 2016 presidential election, he said this about the illegals whom the Obama administration is allowing to pour across our border:

“They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they’re telling us what we’re getting.”

For correctly saying that there are drug-traffickers and rapists among illegal “immigrants,” Trump is reviled and condemned. Univision and NBC Universal have cut ties with Trump, refusing to air the “Miss Universe” pageant he partially owns; Macy’s has discontinued his clothing line.

If you thought the media pile-on attacking Trump for his comment about “illegal aliens” (a term that is now banned by California governor Jerry Brown) is extreme, you ain’t…

View original post 207 more words

Trump Just Announced His Gun Plan, And It Includes 3 Huge National Changes

BY RANDY DESOTO FOR WESTERNJOURNALISM.COM

Image Credit: Facebook/Donald J. Trump

“We need real solutions to address real problems. Not grandstanding or political agendas,”

In his second policy position paper, presidential candidate Donald Trump called for an expansion of gun rights in America.

In the document published on his campaign website, Trump stated: “The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.”

He added: “It’s been said that the Second Amendment is America’s first freedom. That’s because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protects all our other rights.”

In that light, the candidate called for at least three major changes:

National Right to Carry: “The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.”

Military Bases and Recruitment Centers: “Banning our military from carrying firearms on bases and at recruiting centers is ridiculous. We train our military how to safely and responsibly use firearms, but our current policies leave them defenseless. To make America great again, we need a strong military. To have a strong military, we need to allow them to defend themselves.”

Background Checks: Update the national background check system. “There has been a national background check system in place since 1998. Every time a person buys a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer – which is the overwhelming majority of all gun purchases – they go through a federal background check…

“Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system – and it should go without saying that a system’s only going to be as effective as the records that are put into it. What we need to do is fix the system we have and make it work as intended. What we don’t need to do is expand a broken system.”

Trump also stated his opposition to gun and high capacity magazine bans. “Gun and magazine bans are a total failure. That’s been proven every time it’s been tried. Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like ‘assault weapons,’ ‘military-style weapons’ and ‘high capacity magazines’ to confuse people…The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own,” according to the plan.

Additionally, the candidate advocates reforming the nation’s mental healthcare system. “All of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored…We need to expand treatment programs, because most people with mental health problems aren’t violent, they just need help.”

“We need real solutions to address real problems. Not grandstanding or political agendas,” according to Trump.

Read the entire plan here.

What an Airline Did to a Wounded Veteran and His Service Dog Will Make Your BLOOD BOIL!

REPOSTED FROM THEPOLITICALINSIDER.COM

American Airlines is investigating an incident where an employee reportedly refused to believe that a wounded vet’s service dog was really a service dog, and forced them to miss their airline flight. And this happened after they had already flown with that exact same airline on the first leg of their trip!

The Washington Free Beacon describes the shameful event:

The airline employees did not believe that Axel was a service dog though Haag provided an animal identification card. Axel was also wearing a harness identifying him as a service dog.

The denial appears to be in violation of American Airlines policy, which requires only one of those forms of identification to allow a service dog on one of their flights.

The denial came as a complete surprise to Haag. “We got to LAX and everything was fine,” he told the Washington Free Beacon. “I checked into the ticket counter with Axel with no problems at all. They knew he was a service dog. Didn’t have any problems. We were issued our ticket. We got through security and checked our bags. We ate lunch and then went and sat down right at our gate.”

“We were there probably an hour and a half before we were supposed to board.”

Haag said he and Axel, who was wearing his service harness, were within full view of the employees at the ticket counter while they waited for their flight to arrive.

“Then about five minutes before we were supposed to board I got pulled out of line,” he said. “[The agent] called me up to the ticket counter and the first thing out of his mouth was, ‘Is that a real service dog?’”

When Haag affirmed that the dog was a service animal, the employee then informed him that Axel was not in the system.

Haag said he had called American Airlines days before to tell them about Axel and had flown to Los Angeles three days earlier with him on the airline without issue.

The employee then began asking Haag personal questions.

“He’s like, ‘Well, what’s your disability?’ and I was like, ‘Excuse me?’ because that’s not a question you’re allowed to ask under the rules and regulations,” Haag said. “Then he started firing off questions in rapid succession.”

Haag was diagnosed with a traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after returning from two tours of duty in the Middle East five years ago.

This idiot employee actually forced them to miss their flight back home so that Jason and his wife could return back to their kids. Further, the Airline didn’t pull their luggage, so they were left with whatever they were carrying with them. Just pathetic.

It’s clear that Haag did everything that he was supposed to do to in order to prove Axel was a service dog, and he was STILL denied the flight he paid for.

I hope that moron gets fired. American Airlines has already apologized to Jason, but that’s not enough. They need to pick up all the costs and refund his money for the flight, at least. And they better train their employees how not to be a bunch of disrespectful idiots.

Feel free to let American Airlines know how you feel about this shameful event on Twitter:

Axel

Here’s a short video about Jason Haag and how his service dog saved his life:

 

FBI accused of protecting Hillary Clinton over Clintonemail

BY TAYLOR MILLARD FOR HOTAIR.COM

The FBI is being accused of forming a wall around Hillary Clinton over the Clintonemail server. The latest battle happened in court yesterday when the FBI flat-out said no to the State Department on what information could be found on the email server, citing federal policy.

“At this time, consistent with long-standing Department of Justice and FBI policy, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any ongoing investigation, nor are we in a position to provide additional information at this time.”

This shouldn’t be surprising because law enforcement tends to be pretty protective into what they’re investigating. The FBI wouldn’t comment on their probe into Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price for about three years before federal prosecutors finally indicted him last year. The problem is they’re being ordered by a federal judge to talk to the State Department. This has caused Judicial Watch to raise legitimate concerns to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on how, and if, the FBI is conducting their investigation into Clinton (emphasis mine).

“We still do not know whether the FBI — or any other government agency for that matter — has possession of the email server that was used by Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin to conduct official government business during their four years of employment at the State Department. We also do not know whether the server purportedly in the possession of the FBI — an assumption based on unsworn statements by third parties — is the actual email server that was used by Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Abedin to conduct official government business during their four years of employment at the State Department or whether it is a copy of such an email server. Nor do we know whether any copies of the email server or copies of the records from the email server exist.”

Boy wouldn’t THAT be interesting if the server the FBI has isn’t even the real server. That would turn this entire Clintonemail case into a conspiracy straight from a Robert Ludlum or Garth Ennis book. Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton went as far as to tell POLITICO the FBI and State Department might as well be in cahoots.

“The FBI has evidently decided to stonewall the court’s legitimate inquiry here and the State Department is going along with it. We’re seeking quick court action to find out where these records might be.”

Sullivan has been sympathetic towards Judicial Watch’s probe and ordered the State Department to pony up information before. But the latest moves by the FBI and State Department are getting under the skin of Republicans. Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley thinks the FBI is just ignoring the laws they’re supposed to uphold.

“The FBI is behaving like it’s above the law. Simply refusing to cooperate with a court-ordered request is not an appropriate course of action. This entire case, from Secretary Clinton’s ill-advised decision to use a non-government email server, to the FBI’s investigation about classified information, needs some transparency in order to assure the American people that getting to the bottom of this controversy is a priority.”

One might ask if the Justice Department would be more willing to work with the court if Vice President Joe Biden was going to run for president. Clinton has her backers, but there are people out there who truly believe Biden’s moment has come. Of course a new story seems to hit the Interwebz every day on whether Biden will or won’t hope third time’s a charm on the Democratic presidential nod. So the Justice Department, and by proxy the Obama Administration, may be waiting to find out what Biden will do before moving forward. Who knows, maybe the Justice Department is worried about what documents Clinton may or may not have and would just rather protect themselves from getting egg on their faces. That is a little conspiracy theorist, but with this Clintonemail case what isn’t? It’s right out of a conspiracy novel to have a sitting Secretary of State use her own server, let alone her own email, to do federal government business. It’s also right out of a book for her to make sure her top aides have their own private emails to do business as well. Then to have the server wiped? Well that’s just plain normal for people, right? Right?

The bigger question is how long will this keep playing out? Federal courts can take a long time to get things done so unless Sullivan decides to just toss the case out (and who wouldn’t be surprised if that happened) then it could keep going through the 2016 campaign. There are also at least four other lawsuits going on regarding Clinton’s dealings in the State Department and they’re so convoluted there’s no way to consolidate them all into one without making even more of a mess. So the legal drama will keep playing out and whatever happens will happen. It’s pure entertainment that’s for sure, but whether it affects the 2016 campaign is anyone’s guess. Not to be an Eeyore here, but it probably won’t.

Poll: Half of Floridians say Bush, Rubio should drop out

rubio

BY JESSE BYRNES FOR THEHILL.COM

Almost 50 percent of Florida voters say that former Gov. Jeb Bush and Sen. Marco Rubio should end their respective bids for the Republican presidential nomination, according to a new poll.

A survey from the left-leaning Public Policy Polling (PPP) finds that 47 percent of voters in the Sunshine State say Bush should drop out, while 40 percent say he should stick with it.

Forty-eight percent also say Rubio should drop out, while 42 percent say the senator, who has opted to run for president instead of seeking a second term in the Senate, should not drop out of the race.

A similar survey from the polling outfit released last week found that 78 percent of Republicans in South Carolina thought Sen. Lindsey Graham should end his 2016 GOP bid.

Bush and Rubio are thought to be top contenders for the GOP nomination, but are polling in single digits nationally behind billionaire businessman Donald Trump and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson.

In the latest poll of Florida, which holds its primaries in mid-March, Trump is supported by 28 percent of GOP primary voters, followed by Carson (17 percent), Bush (13 percent) and Rubio (10 percent).

On the Democratic side, the latest PPP poll finds continued support for front-runner Hillary Clinton, who takes 55 percent support in the state despite struggling in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Clinton is followed in Florida by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at 18 percent and Vice President Joe Biden, who is still considering jumping into the presidential race, at 17 percent.

Trump and Clinton’s front-runner statuses were also seen in a Gravis Marketing poll also released on Monday.

The PPP survey of 814 Florida voters was conducted Sept. 11 to Sept. 13 via phone and the Internet with a margin of error of 3.4 points, while the margin of error for the 377 GOP and 368 Democratic primary voters is 5.1 points.

 

Full video: Donald Trump hammers ‘sanctuary cities crap’

BY JOE NEWBY FOR CONSERVATIVEFIRINGLINE.COM

On Monday, thousands filled American Airlines Center in Dallas, Texas, to see Donald Trump. And they weren’t disappointed.

He spoke of a number of things, including sanctuary cities, which he called “crap,” to the crowd’s delight. He also chided Obama for not knowing what he’s doing. Here’s video of the full speech:

The Daily Mail added:

Donald Trump spoke for 90 minutes to a crowd estimated at 20,000 on Monday night in Dallas, railing against ‘this sanctuary cities crap’ and joking that after he presided over the demise of Obamacare, the insurance scheme’s replacement might bear his name.

‘We’ll go with “DonaldCare”,’ he said near the end of what became the longest single campaign speech of any candidate vying for the presidency in 2016, after a man in a raucous and riled-up audience called out the imaginary name for an as-yet imaginary new national health care initiative.

‘We’ve got a president who doesn’t know what the hell he’s doing!’ Trump trumpeted, later mocking President Barack Obama for claiming this year in his State of the Union address that ‘no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.’

‘The biggest threat we have is nuclear global warming, not global warming,’ Trump quipped, referring to the potential for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East as a consequence of a deal Obama cut this summer with the belligerent Islamist nation of Iran.

He even got the crowd to boo the media.

 

Green Beret Who Beat Afghan Man Over Child’s Rape Faces Army Discharge

REPOSTED FROM MILITARY.COM
Beret
Sgt. 1st Class Charles Martland

A Green Beret and his allies say the fact that he “stood up to a child rapist” while serving in Afghanistan with an elite Joint Base Lewis-McChord unit shouldn’t be grounds for kicking him out of the Army.

Sgt. 1st Class Charles Martland says he beat up an Afghan police commander he was supposed to be mentoring because he was fed up with the commander’s “brutal” sexual abuse of a village boy.

Now Martland’s case is being championed by a California congressman and several veteran Green Berets who contend he shouldn’t be punished further.

Martland, 33, was awarded two Bronze Star medals, including one for valor, during his time at JBLM. He likely will be discharged in November because the discipline handed to him for assaulting the Afghan made him a target for Army downsizing. Veteran soldiers with negative performance reviews in their service records are being culled from the ranks as part of the post-Iraq War drawdown.

The case sheds light on the tensions that can build when U.S. soldiers are told to tolerate foreign customs that are repugnant to them.

A one-star general reprimanded Martland after the September 2011 incident for a “flagrant departure from the integrity, professionalism and even-tempered leadership I expect from all soldiers of this command, but especially a Special Forces professional.”

But Martland’s supporters say he has grown into a respected Special Operations trainer in Florida and has won accolades from other highly regarded Green Berets. They’re appealing to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter to intervene.

“The fact that this one incident — an incident that was seriously misinterpreted by Army leadership, without even taking into consideration the moral necessity to intervene — is now the determining factor in SFC Martland’s career is a black mark for the U.S. Army,” California Rep. Duncan Hunter, a former Marine, wrote to Carter last week.

Martland was part of a team from JBLM’s 1st Special Forces Group at the time of the incident. The Green Berets were given a challenging assignment to build a new local police force by cultivating the support of Afghan tribal leaders.

In some cases, that meant working closely with leaders who had past ties to insurgents in the interest of bringing them over to support Western forces.

Afghan local police “are straddling the fence” between joining insurgents or backing the official government, said Col. Steve Johnson in an interview with The News Tribune. Johnson commanded Martland prior to the 2011 deployment; he was a battalion commander in the 1st Special Forces Group and was in Afghanistan at the time of the incident.

U.S. soldiers were put in the position of tolerating customs that Westerners reject. One of those is the illegal but common Afghan practice of influential men using underage boys as sexual partners.

In 2011, Martland was nearing the end of his yearlong deployment in northern Afghanistan’s Kunduz province when he and an officer became outraged with the behavior of some local leaders they were responsible for developing as police commanders.

Martland and his detachment commander, Capt. Daniel Quinn, lost their tempers when one leader near their base kidnapped a boy for more than a week, chained him to a bed, raped the child and then assaulted the boy’s mother, Quinn said.

The mother appealed to the Green Berets to help her son. Quinn said the soldiers brought the Afghan commander to their base and confronted him.

Quinn told The News Tribune that the Afghan admitted he had raped the boy. He angered the American soldiers by showing disregard for their concerns.

“He started laughing when we talked about what a big deal this was,” Quinn said.

Martland and Quinn proceeded to assault the Afghan. Accounts vary on how badly they hurt him.

Johnson told The News Tribune he was convinced based on discussions with the Green Berets and Afghan leaders that the beating took the Afghan commander “within an inch of his life.”

But Quinn said that he and Martland shoved the Afghan to the ground several times. They told the Afghan commander to leave their compound, and Quinn said he was able to run away from the soldiers on his own.

Quinn said he and Martland never gave official statements to Army investigators, and they were not punished in the military justice system, which makes it difficult to reconcile the differences between his and Johnson’s statements.

Martland wrote in a January letter to the Army Human Resources Command that the incident was the third time during his deployment that he knew an Afghan police commander had done something morally repugnant.

The other two incidents were a police commander’s rape of a teenage girl and another commander’s decision to allow the honor killing of a 12-year-old girl after she kissed a boy.

Quinn and Martland “felt that morally we could no longer stand by and allow our (Afghan local police) to commit atrocities,” Martland wrote.

That confrontation led the Army to remove Martland and Quinn immediately from their team. Their actions clearly violated rules of engagement that govern how soldiers operated in Afghanistan, said Johnson, who said he visited the Green Berets the day after incident and talked about it with them.

Army leaders also were disturbed by Quinn and Martland’s apparent premeditated decision to attack the Afghan a day or more after the rape happened.

The incident ran counter to training Green Berets receive before they embed in small Afghan communities. They’re taught to attempt to motivate Afghans by using encouragement, not force.

“You cannot try to impose American values and American norms onto the Afghan culture because they’re completely different,” Johnson said. “We can report and we can encourage them. We do not have any power or the ability to use our hands to compel them to be what we see as morally better.”

Quinn said he understood that training, but could not look the other way when the mother of the rape victim came to him.

“I’d rather stand up and do what we felt was the right thing than be praised for restraint,” Quinn said.

Quinn and Martland both received reprimands that generally would prevent them being promoted in the Army. Quinn left the Army and has moved on to a civilian career in New York.

Martland, a Massachusetts native, had enough rank as an enlisted soldier to continue serving in the Army until retirement.

In 2012, the Army made him an instructor at an underwater Special Operations training program in Key West, Florida. He continues to work there and has received stellar performance reviews.

His situation changed last year when he learned he was selected for an involuntary discharge through an Army force reduction program. It’s one of the ways the Army is moving to cut its active-duty headcount from a peak of some 570,000 soldiers to about 450,000 troops.

Martland’s supporters have created an online petition, ipetitions. com/petition/sfc-charles-martland, asking the Pentagon to reconsider its decision.

His high-ranking backers include a former command sergeant major of the 1st Special Forces Group and two majors who have supervised him recently in Florida.

“Losing him from the force would be an injustice and a detriment to the Army,” wrote Command Sgt. Major Frank Gilliand, who has supervised Martland in the 1st Special Forces Group in the past. Gilliand is one of the highest-ranking enlisted soldiers in Army Special Operations.

Hunter’s staff has interviewed several soldiers who know Martland and obtained a statement from an Afghan interpreter that all indicate the beating Martland and Quinn delivered was less severe than Army leaders believe.