You think that you’re such a smart girl, and I’ll believe what you say, but who do you think you are, girl, to lead me on this way?
Like schoolyard bullies — mouthing off, full of swagger till a grownup hies into view — the Politically Correct Democrats (from Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid down to the ill-read hairstyle peacocks strutting for the cameras at CNN and NBC) have been jeering at, ridiculing, and taking exception to Everything Trump for two months now.
The predictable result? Donald Trump’s popularity and the confidence of the markets that he has a good chance of turning things around have soared. The popularity and profitability of the “legacy media”? Not so much.
Analyzing where they went so wrong that they’ve lost both House of Congress, most of America’s governor’s mansions, and the presidency . . . to a complete political amateur who they themselves CHOSE as the most likely loser from the Republican field?
Wondering if maybe a “stay the course” agenda of high taxes, job-destroying “Green” regulations, Open Borders, Gun Control, rolling out the red carpet for jihadi terrorists, and who cares about full-time jobs with benefits as long as our Saudi donors and Marxist-globalist pals in Davos are happy . . . might need some “tweaking”? Not so much.
Does anybody remember all the American conservatives and smaller-government libertarians rioting in the streets, throwing bottles and setting things on fire, chanting “Not My President” when a comically underqualified “community organizer,” friend of police-station bombers, child of two unmarried Communists, who attended a church where the pastor preached “God Damn America,” was elected by the Left, eight years ago?
I didn’t think so.
I suspect by early February they’re going to wonder what hit ’em.
Mind you, they’ll still be shrieking that the “racist, sexist, misogynist, Global-Warming-Denying” Storm Troopers are coming. But that’s what’s so interesting about their current “Boy Crying Wolf” routine. Wouldn’t you think they’d want to hold back on using their sharply limited number of sirens and whistles till they can figure out where best to commit their limited defense?
For now, neither time nor space being limitless, let’s deal with just two examples: Donald Trump’s “private security guards” (many of whom are ex-New York Police and ex-FBI, already with substantial security clearances) . . . and that old standby, “grabbing pussy.”
Merrill Hope wrote for Brietbart News on Jan. 4:
“The Texas State University Strutters made the Dec. 21 announcement on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram: ‘The Strutters cannot wait for this once in a lifetime performance opportunity coming up in the next few weeks.’”
The Jan. 20 Trump inaugural parade marks the group’s third performance at a U.S. presidential inauguration, following those of presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.
The Houston Chronicle reported the Strutters applied for consideration to perform in the inaugural parade in early 2016 — before Trump was even the Republican presidential nominee.
Yet instead of congratulations, the news triggered a frenzy of criticism. On Facebook, one woman whined: “The university is showing support to a racist and misogynistic man who was elected to be our president. He has proven that he has no respect for women, people of color, people with disabilities, and people of the LGBTQ community.” This remark received at least 216 likes out of 644 reactions on the thread, Merrill Hope reported.
“It’s sickening and unAmerican [sic] to support ‘its’ inauguration in any way, shape or form,” wrote an out-of-state Facebooker, while a north Texas woman warned: “Try not to get grabbed by the p*ssy while showing your asses for the Sexual Predator in Chief.”
The notion that Donald Trump has no respect for ANY “person of color” — black soldiers and Marines and police and firefighters who have risked or sacrificed their lives to keep us safe, just for starters — goes against a lot of what we’ve learned about him. It’s a careless lie, and it’s hard to imagine it’s born of “love, not hate” — the superior attributes which the Left seems to feel it can attribute to itself without any actual work, merit, or evidence.
But since this single, endlessly repeated “pussy” mantra appears to be all this gang of anonymous schoolyard bullies have, let’s stretch it out in the sunlight and examine it one more time:
People Magazine, in its post-election Nov. 11 edition, also contended the 11-year-old private conversation secretly recorded by Billy Bush — the now-45-year-old nephew of former president George H.W. Bush, member of the same Bush family which is heavily paid off by the Saudi royal family and makes no secret of the fact they’d rather see their fellow Saudi agents Bill and Hillary and Huma Abedin back in the White House -– featured Donald Trump (long before he considered running for any public office) talking about “grabbing the genitalia” of unwilling women victims.
Unwilling. “People” magazine summarized the tape by saying Trump spoke of forcibly grabbing the “genitalia” of unwilling women.
It’s less than 250 words. It’s admittedly tasteless, but you won’t encounter any terminology a normal American 12-year-old hasn’t heard. Please read along:
‘WHEN YOU’RE A STAR, THEY LET YOU DO IT’
Billy Bush: Sheesh, your girl’s hot as shit. In the purple.
Trump: Whoa! Whoa!
Bush: Yes! The Donald has scored. Whoa, my man!
Trump: Look at you, you are a pussy.
Trump: All right, you and I will walk out.
Trump: Maybe it’s a different one.
Bush: It better not be the publicist. No, it’s, it’s her, it’s —
Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.
Bush: Whatever you want.
Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.
Bush: Uh, yeah, those legs, all I can see is the legs.
Trump: Oh, it looks good.
Bush: Come on, shorty.
Trump: Ooh, nice legs, huh?
Bush: Oof, get out of the way, honey. Oh, that’s good legs. Go ahead.
Trump: It’s always good if you don’t fall out of the bus. Like Ford, Gerald Ford, remember?
Bush: Down below, pull the handle.
Trump: Hello, how are you? Hi!
Arianne Zucker: Hi, Mr. Trump. How are you? Pleasure to meet you.
Trump: Nice seeing you. Terrific, terrific. You know Billy Bush?
Bush: Hello, nice to see you. How you doing, Arianne?
Zucker: Doing very well, thank you. Are you ready to be a soap star?
Trump: We’re ready, let’s go. Make me a soap star. . . .
Now, I should probably reiterate once more: I’ve never held up Donald Trump as my ideal man or even my ideal politician. He favors continuing the hideous, counterproductive and unconstitutional War on Drugs. He talks quite blithely about jacking up import tariffs as a political tool — a scheme that helped stretch what should have been America’s 1930 deflationary correction into a decade-long, world-wide Great Depression. And (as made obvious here), he’s not always a careful, deliberative, statesmanlike kind of guy.
(Though, again, his may be the only kind of personality that could have “walked right through” the “He’s a groper” narrative orchestrated for him last fall by the sneering, bribe-hustling, mind-bogglingly hypocritical Hillary-Podesta scum, and their ass-licking media cronies, a made-for-TV script featuring such estimable moral paragons as sex performer/getaway driver Alicia Machado.)
(See http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-curious-case-of-alicia-machado/ or http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-debate-beauty-queen-alicia-machado-miss-universe-shady-past/ .)
But, reviewing, Donald Trump — in a private conversation, secretly recorded 11 years ago — says: “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. . . . Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.”
Not true for ALL women, or even MOST women, obviously. But does anyone really want to deny that athletes and musicians and other performers who become TV “celebrities” have an easier time, um . . . “getting dates” than short, bald accountants and stuttering stamp collectors?
Meantime, please note the verb “let.” Trump says “They let you do it.” If a woman CONSENTS to a man “grabbing her pussy” — even while we acknowledge this whole, secretly taped, “locker-room” discussion is oafish and unsavory — has Donald Trump here admitted any criminal sexual assault? No. Has he stated that he INTENDS to grab the pussy of any woman who has not indicated a willingness to “let” him do that? No. Has he indicated that in his wildest dreams, he IMAGINES himself ever grabbing the pussy of any woman who has not indicated a willingness to “let” him do that? No.
So from whence do these shrieking harridans derive their endlessly repeated, one-answer-for-everything narrative that any unwilling American woman is at risk of having her “pussy grabbed” by the now-70-year-old man who was just overwhelmingly elected President of the United States (not even close enough that the Democrats could fly their Tactical Litigation Squad to Florida or Ohio or Pennsylvania or Michigan to try and reverse the result by counting “hanging chads,” as you know full well they would have, as you know full well they were PLANNING to do, had it come down to just a single state) . . . a man who appears to be happily married and a doting father?
YET BILL CLINTON IS JUST FINE?
What’s that? The parade of middle-aged Hillary supporters — most of them represented by the, um . . . “high-profile” far-left attorney Gloria Allred — who Hillary and John Podesta lined up for us last October, claiming (without benefit of a single police report, no sworn affidavits, not a single corroborating witness) that Donald Trump “bumped” or “touched” them, as much as 31 years earlier? Oh, please. We await their civil actions, subject to deposition and cross examination under oath, on penalty of perjury. Waiting . . . waiting . . .
(In fact, please note that an independent witness DID surface to comment on the “groped me below the waist on an airliner” charge -– a British man who is a stranger to Trump with nothing to gain but who insists it was the WOMAN who was the instigator in that episode, that she actually confided to this across-the-aisle passenger that she hoped to get Trump to marry her. ( http://nypost.com/2016/10/14/trump-camp-puts-forward-witness-to-refute-sex-assault-claim/ ) Sound like an outraged assault victim?)
And just for the record, in case you thought the timing of the release of “the pussy tape” was “merely some coincidence,” recall it was McClatchy News Political Columnist Andrew Malcolm who pointed out, way back on Oct. 17, that “NBC, which employed Clinton’s daughter at a salary far beyond her experience or talents, has possessed this terrible tape since 2005. It was suppressed throughout Trump’s highly successful run hosting 186 episodes of “The Apprentice,” which was on -– Oh, look! -– NBC.” ( http://www.mcclatchydc.com/opinion/article108682032.html .)
But you thought the Fake News Media (like NBC) weren’t (aren’t) a carefully coordinated arm of Campaign Hillary?
On the other hand, who was it who these simpering totalitarian leftists WANTED to put back in the White House?
When Bill Clinton imposed himself on women, “grabbing the pussy” of a waitress in a restaurant (see my column at https://www.vinsuprynowicz.com/?p=3710 ; scroll about half-way down and search for the phrase “She’s got the sweetest little cunt in Arkansas”) or demanding other sexual favors, he generally chose victims who might lose their jobs if they spoke out to complain about the behavior of the Attorney General of Arkansas, or the Governor of Arkansas, or the President of the United States (all of whom being him.) In THOSE cases there would have been and was an element of coercion, and thus a crime.
Paula Jones said Bill Clinton COERCED sexual favors from her. He denied it. SHE filed her lawsuit. SHE found and deposed corroborating witnesses (some of whom even managed to not die prematurely before testifying.) SHE swore under oath. The courts determined HE was lying. He had to pay a settlement of $800,000 and give up his law license (though it appears he later got it back, largely because of who he knows.)
Monica Lewinsky, a student intern, said she had a sexual relationship with President Bill Clinton. (Oh, I’m sorry. Was I falling back into polite double-talk again? He pleasured her with a cigar. She reciprocated by giving him blowjobs.) He denied it. Hillary and her “Bimbo Eruption Team” went to work, assassinating the young intern’s character, asserting she had bragged upon departing college for Washington that she intended to get her “presidential kneepads” (as though the willingness of a naïve young woman whose parents trusted the Clintons to safeguard her would have been any excuse for Bill Clinton’s actions.) Then it turned out she had kept, unwashed, a blue dress with the married Bill Clinton’s semen on it. Suddenly all of Hillary’s “Bimbo Eruption” efforts ground to a halt. Guess who turned out to be lying? Bill Clinton was IMPEACHED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES for lying about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
Juanita Broaddrick? She says — quite credibly — that Bill Clinton just plain raped her, telling her “You’d better put some ice” on her bloody, swollen lip as he left the room. Kathleen Willey? A former White House volunteer stalked and threatened for reporting Bill Clinton groped her IN THE OVAL OFFICE when she went to him in a time of need, on the day her husband committed suicide, asking for a paying job.
It’s the CLINTONS (both) -– not Donald Trump -– who we know traveled many times, in recent years, to Jeffrey Epstein’s “Sex Slave Island” in the Caribbean.
Compare the significance of Bill Clinton’s PROVEN ACTIONS in assaulting ACTUAL, NAMED women -– and the likelihood he might try again — to the significance of a secretly taped 11-year-old conversation with a 60-ish man who had at the time never held public office or considered running for public office, showing bad taste by bragging to a single acquaintance (so far as he knew) about his sexual prowess.
Yet the “feminists” still insist Bill Clinton and his “Bimbo Eruption silencer” were the “better choice” for the White House? Based on Donald Trump having once used the word “pussy”?
These people shouldn’t be trusted with sharp objects.
Donald Trump’s wealth has made him a public figure for 40 years. If he had ever actively ordered (or even passively tolerated) women being paid less than men for the same work, or blacks or women or gays being blocked from promotion to management positions in his businesses, or Jewish or black or Asian patrons being barred from his properties or made to use the service entrance — if, in fact, there were ANY concrete evidence that this former NEW YORK DEMOCRAT is in any consequential way a racist, a sexist, a misogynist, etc. etc. — there should be a paper trail and a parade of whistle-blowers a mile wide. Where is it? Does the Left now feel it can stick these labels on anyone whose political stances they don’t like, with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER?
If Trump is a “racist” solely because he vows to enforce our existing immigration laws, what about the congressmen and senators (including lots of Democrats) who ENACTED those laws? Why don’t the Democrats introduce an “Open Borders” bill to repeal ALL our immigration and passport laws, and see how many votes it gets? Do they mean that 90 PERCENT of Americans deserve all these “Deplorable” labels? It appears they do.
Yet those who call Trump a misogynist — a “woman-hater” — just VOTED for the Obama-Hillary-Clinton policy of encouraging unlimited immigration here of non-assimilating jihadist Muslims who want to impose Sharia Law, under which women are treated no better than slaves or cattle -– under which women not swaddled like mummies can be raped with impunity. In fact, they shriek in horror that Trump might enforce existing immigration laws to keep such murderous Sharia militants with their long-established “female genital mutilation” practices OUT.
Those who claim Trump is a “homophobe” are IN FAVOR of the Obama-Hillary-Clinton policy of unlimited immigration here by non-assimilating jihadi Muslims who want to impose Sharia Law (Yay! More “diversity”!), under which homosexuals are EXECUTED for those behaviors. Not just according to some “outdated” passage in the Koran: That’s the CURRENT PRACTICE in Islamic states under Sharia law. And Barack Obama just sped up the admission of tens of thousands more of these characters, with virtually no screening, dumping them in small towns all over America.
(See https://www.onenewsnow.com/national-security/2016/12/22/obama-speeds-up-influx-of-refugees-before-trump , or http://www.wnd.com/2016/12/refugee-resettlement-accelerates-in-obamas-final-months/ .)
And it would have been worse — much worse — under Hillary.
Yet Trump — who wants to bar such crap from America — is a “homophobe”? It’s Orwellian.
Current polling shows 73 percent of the American public want Donald Trump to succeed. That’s a lot better than the 51 percent who voted for him. (I discount the ballots of several million illegal aliens who were allowed to vote Democratic in California, Arizona and Las Vegas. Let’s hope they may find it considerably harder to vote here in future.)
It appears this worn-out “pussy” stuff still ain’t working, ladies. Maybe it’s time to go to plan B, and try attacking . . .
HIS PRIVATE BODYGUARDS
Tuesday Jan. 3 on ABC’s “The View,” co-host Whoopi Goldberg said President-elect Donald Trump’s plans to continue employing some private security will lead to German-like specialist soldiers known as storm troopers, who she said “came to get people.”
Goldberg said, “Listen to what he says, when he says ‘I don’t want to take the Secret Service. I think I want my own guys.’ You know, that’s not a good idea, OK? Because that’s how you get the storm troopers. I don’t mean the storm troopers from ‘Star Wars.’ I mean the storm troopers who came to get people.”
I could never figure out why they handed Whoopi Goldberg a funny hat and put her in the middle of several episodes of “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” mouthing platitudes to poor Patrick Stewart as they sat at her bar. (Bar?)
Just filler? Needed a black face? She had something on the producers? But this is even weirder. Ted Kennedy always had private bodyguards. Did any of them “come and take people away”? Under the Communist-trained Muslim President Barack Obama (check his school registration forms) — and all his predecessors going back decades — the agents of America’s “War on Drugs” have actually, really “come to get” millions of non-violent Americans (spying on them in secret, breaking down their doors in the middle of the night, all that Sturm Abteilung stuff) and locked them away in prison camps for decades. Yet Whoopi has no problem with the REAL storm troopers of the DEA?
The Jeff-Bezos-owned Washington Post — along with the Boston Globe and the leftist Web site “Politico” — which have been expressing their hatred for Donald Trump (and panicking over the possibility that he might actually enforce this nation’s duly enacted immigration laws) for most of a year, are now whining that he shouldn’t be allowed to retain his private bodyguards since it “will mess everything up” . . . even dragging out the argument that allowing him to spend his own money this way negates the power of Congress to “control the purse strings.”
Hey, good one, guys! The EPA and the BLM, just for starters, have been exceeding their congressionally authorized mandates in order to cripple America’s economy for decades. The Endangered Species Act EXPIRED in 1992 (you can look it up), and has never been re-authorized! How many job-creating legal land uses have these outfits blocked in the past 25 years, supposedly to “protect” some weed or minnow or bug no one had ever previously heard of, based on an EXPIRED LAW? Wow, I’m sure glad congressional control of the “purse strings’ put a stop to that nonsense! . . . not.
(At http://aquadoc.typepad.com/files/crs_esa_primer_8sept2016.pdf , in the introductory summary, note the sentences “ESA retains its authorities even though its authorization for funding expired in 1992. . . .” and “ESA prohibitions and penalties remain in effect regardless of appropriations.”)
For that matter, the Internal Revenue Service admits, in writing, in its own handbooks, that it can find no record that Congress ever AUTHORIZED ITS EXISTENCE, AT ALL. Show us your editorials calling those agencies to task for refusing to allow Congress to control their behaviors through “the power of the purse strings,” guys. Come on. You’re upset about a handful of bodyguards, but not about the ENTIRE STAFF OF THE IRS, working for an agency that ADMITS CONGRESS NEVER AUTHORIZED IT TO EXIST? (At footnote 23 in the case Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that no organic Act establishing the IRS could be found.)
Instead, these desperate improvisers demand that Donald Trump depend on the same magnificent Homeland Security mediocrities who recently allowed an unauthorized person to climb the White House fence, overpower the SINGLE guard who stood in his way at the North Portico, and make it as far as the East Room.
(Good thing he wasn’t smart enough to explain he was delivering fake voter registration forms for ACORN, or running guns for Mr. Holder and his “Project Fast & Furious” — he probably would have been invited to spend the night in the Lincoln Bedroom, ordering room service from the White House kitchen.)
I’m sure many individual employees of the Secret Service are dedicated and reasonably competent. But it’s also a federal bureaucracy, required to meet racial and gender hiring quotas. Until recently, physical-fitness requirements in the Secret Service, according to Ronald Kessler in his 2009 book “In the President’s Secret Service,” were “a matter of filling out forms.”
WHY DO WE STILL TOLERATE THE ASSASSINATION BUREAU KNOWN AS THE CIA?
Questions about the efficacy of the Secret Service are nothing new.
The Vanity Fair of October, 2014, asks some questions of the performance of this crack team in Dallas in November of 1963:
“Why were the running boards of the president’s car retracted (and therefore unable to accommodate Secret Service agents who might otherwise have been poised on the outside of the vehicle)? Why were there only four motorcycle policemen riding alongside the motorcade?
“Nine of the 28 Secret Service men who were in Dallas with the president the day he died had been out until the early hours of the morning. A few of them were sleep deprived and had been drinking while traveling with the president, an activity that was clearly prohibited in the Secret Service rule book. As agent John Norris explained in Bill Sloan’s book ‘J.F.K.: Breaking the Silence’ and in an interview for Vincent Michael Palamara’s book ‘Survivor’s Guilt: The Secret Service and the Failure to Protect President Kennedy’: “Except for George Hickey and Clint Hill, [many of the others] just basically sat there with their thumbs up their butts while the president was gunned down in front of them.”
That probably doesn’t go far enough. Did the Secret Service allow — or participate in — the removal of Kennedy’s body from Dallas before an autopsy could be performed in Texas as REQUIRED BY LAW, so it could be flown to Bethesda Naval Hospital for an autopsy conducted under the supervision of a Navy admiral (Calvin Galloway, 1903-1992) who told his flunkies to “ignore the throat wound,” signing off on an autopsy which curiously failed to find a big chunk of the back of Kennedy’s skull missing, something noted by all the doctors in Dallas, something characteristic of a bullet entering FROM THE FRONT, and a fairly hard detail to miss?
Why did Secret Service agent Elmer Moore later admit badgering Dr. Malcolm Perry of Dallas to change his testimony about the wounds, “acting on orders from Mr. Kelly of Secret Service headquarters” (per James Douglass’ book “JFK and the Unspeakable”)?
Was the Secret Service in on the Dulles/CIA plan to make Johnson president, continue the “Cold War,” and keep our boys in Vietnam? (Then Assassin-master Allen Dulles, who Kennedy had FIRED as chief of the CIA, was appointed by Johnson to essentially run the Warren Commission — otherwise staffed with nodding go-alongs like Gerald Ford — where he could badger witnesses and decide which forensic evidence was “admissable” in the investigation of Kennedy’s death! Give LBJ credit for one thing — he had balls.)
Who chose and handed down this “private security guards” talking point? To what conceivable plan could Trump’s private bodyguards prove an obstacle? The CIA was “blaming everything on Russia,” in 1963. The CIA is “blaming everything on Russia” — including Trump’s election — today. Sound familiar?
Today’s CIA are willing partners with the Saudi royal family, whose current main goal is to overthrow the government of Syria and create a Sunni hegemony in the Middle East. The Saudi royals plowed tens of millions of dollars (probably more) into the campaign of the person they were assured would be the next POTUS, Miss Hillary, to guarantee arms would continue to flow to their ISIS surrogates (as they have under the closet Muslim B. Hussein Obama, from Benghazi and elsewhere — see http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/04/real-benghazi-story.html .)
It stands to reason they’re now more than a little upset to face an American president-elect who appears ready to make America energy-independent again, to establish friendly relations with Russia (a competing oil producer) as well as Israel, and who sees no reason on earth to send arms and money to Muslim terrorists just because they promise to overthrow ophthalmologist Bashir al-Assad and install in Syria an Eighth-Century, fundamentalist jihadi regime that could be lots worse.
As Abe Vigoda’s character Sal Tessio says near the end of “The Godfather”, “Hell, he can’t do that, it screws up all my arrangements.”
(See Justin Raimondo at http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/12/11/stop-cia-coup/ .)
A year from now, either Trump will be dead and the CIA will still be fronting for their Saudi pals, or Trump will still be president and a bunch of CIA shooters will be found floating face down in the Anacostia, victims of a “freak canoeing accident.” I’m not sure I’d bet on the CIA’s imported Frenchmen with their Swedish rifles, this time. Assuming Trump isn’t dumb enough to give up his best trained shooters, that is . . . including a few whose lucky number is .308.
It could be America’s police and military don’t WANT to work for the CIA and their bosses in Riyadh. It could be they’d rather work for, um . . . the duly elected President of the United States. Even if every decade or so he says the word “pussy.”
“In spite of reforms, the Secret Service record with regard to presidential security has been tarnished by glaring, public mishaps,” Vanity Fair continued, two years ago. “In November of 2011, a man with an assault rifle was able to park close enough to the White House to shoot out windows — something the Secret Service did not discover until a few days later. Then, last month, a man climbed over the fence, sprinted across the lawn, overpowered an agent inside the North Portico, which is the White House front door, and made it into the East Room before he was stopped. In the storm of controversy that ensued, the head of the agency, Julia Pierson, summarily resigned.”
That was 2014. Months later, in March 2015, CNN reported: “The Department of Homeland Security is investigating another incident of misconduct by senior Secret Service agents. Two senior Secret Service agents, including a top member of President Barack Obama’s protective detail, crashed a car into a White House barricade following a late-night party for retiring spokesman Ed Donovan and it’s suspected they had been drinking, sources confirmed.”
The “officers” were allowed to go home “after a supervisor on duty overruled on-duty law enforcement who wanted to arrest the agents and conduct sobriety tests, a U.S. law enforcement official confirmed to CNN.”
When Hillary Clinton collapsed at that outdoor memorial service in New York City last Sept. 11 — when they had to pick her up and throw her bodily into her ambulance/van — Secret Service standing orders were that a candidate collapsing so unexpectedly should be immediately rushed to the nearest Class A Emergency Room and Trauma Center.
Instead, a presidential candidate who could have been in the process of being assassinated by poison was driven to her DAUGHTER’S APARTMENT, where a small grandchild could have been exposed to her pneumonia (if she really had pneumonia), almost certainly on orders from her close personal aide Huma Abedin, who has long been paid by the Saudi government via her mother’s magazine, which is in turn closely associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
Why? Because it was more important to the Secret Service to keep secret what was really wrong with candidate Clinton? Who do they really work for?
THEY WANT HIM SHOT
Remember, those now calling for President Trump to be stripped of the bodyguards he knows and trusts are the same “mainstream press” that absolutely refused to acknowledge Donald Trump’s point when -– after Hillary Clinton said we’d be safer if all Americans were disarmed -– Trump suggested maybe she should start by having her Secret Service detail give up THEIR guns. “He wants Hillary to be killed!” they screamed . . . in effect admitting what would be likely to happen if they, she, and the rest of the gun-control gang had to live under the same restrictions they propose for us peasants — the same victim-disarmament restrictions that have made Chicago such a world center of peace, love, and non-violence.
They have NEVER acknowledged that the point behind Trump’s joke was 100 percent correct — and that the “how can we turn this against him?” response of the (irony-deprived, universally gun-grabbing) mainstream press only confirmed it.
Yet now they want him to give up his most effective personal security, in favor of a bunch of drunken (or hung-over) government shift workers?
Come on, Jeff Bezos. You think we don’t know about Amazon’s $600 million “Cloud” contract with the CIA — more than twice what you paid for the pathetic remnants of the once-proud Washington Post? ( http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/07/the-details-about-the-cias-deal-with-amazon/374632/ .) Come out and say it: You want Trump shot and killed, as early as possible, while a bunch of Homeland Security drunks stand around with their blue-gloved thumbs up their butts, bragging about how much toothpaste and how many nail files they’ve seized this month . . . right?
In order of priority, Trump should probably trust 1) the loyalty of the U.S. Marines (though their mission is different -– they’re not trained to spot assassins in crowds); 2) his hand-picked private bodyguards, who can easily be enrolled as Secret Service agents if necessary to clarify legal liability issues (like, should they shoot some would-be assassin who turns out to be a poor, deprived, Obama-imported “Syrian refugee” or a ululating UC Berkeley Professor of White Oppression Studies), followed by 3) the shuffling, overweight bureaucrats of Homeland Security, who are great at seizing scissors and shampoo and putting on blue gloves and groping children and grandmas in wheelchairs, but at spotting actual bombs or fighting off trained shooters who might get smart enough to work in teams? . . .
Not so much.