We are doing our part; its time for Donald Trump to validate our support with a dominant performance in Wednesday's debate.

The events of the last few days have breathed life back into the Trump Campaign.  Once the media was obliged to take a break from the non-stop personal attacks on Donald Trump, the American people were reminded why Hillary Clinton is not qualified to be President.  A cursory examination of the seventeen thousand-plus emails that have been released by Wikileaks boss Julian Assange detail a system of corruption within the Clinton machine that seeks to control everything.  The Clinton Campaign has no respect for our political process or our system of government.  One email after another contains disrespectful comments regarding not just Republicans, but any Democrats that have had the nerve to oppose the Hillary machine.  Also, a review of the emails demonstrate a willingness on the part of Clinton to bargain and barter her way around rules and regulations, regardless of security protocols.  But we haven't seen the good stuff yet.  Assange is a showman, and he is determined to have a dramatic climax to the release of these emails.  There is no doubt that something huge is on the way, otherwise why would the Obama Administration jump through hoops to get Assange's internet connection terminated?  True, the Administration denied having anything to do with the Ecuadorian government's decision to shut down Assange's internet access, but that denial isn't worth the paper its printed on.  Don't act indignant, President Obama- the American people are well aware that you are not to be trusted.  It tears me up to say it, but sadly, we've reached that point, folks.

Today, Conservative Producer James O'Keefe released the second in a series of documentaries that detail the endemic corruption that acts as glue to the Clinton machine.  Yesterday we learned that Clinton Campaign officials were guilty of inserting drunks, drug addicts, and mentally ill homeless people into Trump Campaign appearances, with the intention of creating havoc and inciting violence. Today's documentary short was even more disturbing, but probably not surprising.  As I announced in yesterday's blog post, the Clinton Campaign is training its operatives to commit electoral fraud.  Specifically, they are being instructed on ways to register dead people, manipulate the lack of an identification requirement, and use the accusation of racism to avoid any and all accountability.  Its business as usual, according to one of the Campaign bosses that they caught on video tape.  I guess the Acorn scandal from the previous presidential election didn't go very far in encouraging integrity with the Democrats.

Earlier today a friend reminded me just how unreliable most of today's polling methodologies have become.  Be that as it may, the polls have been tightening, especially in Ohio and Florida (don't worry abour North Carolina.....there is no way that the Tarheel State will vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump).  After the temporary smoke left by the slander and lies faded away, the American people remembered the true equities involved with this election.  Hillary Clinton can't be allowed to chose the next four Supreme Court Justices- our nation would be altered in ways that I'm too disturbed to point out.  I'm convinced that come election day, a silent majority is going to rise up in this country, and exclaim to the world, "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!"  We need to return to the America of my youth, when it was shameful to disrespect the flag and the National Anthem.  Donald Trump must also do his part in Wednesday's debate.  He must strike the perfect balance of explaining his policies and vision for the future, and at the same time, reminding the American people why they can't trust Hillary Clinton.  Trump has plenty evidence to share, but he must not fall into that trap of smugness and conceit that seems to pop up a bit too often.  He should not waste even one second of airtime- fill it with one example after another, and leave the viewers petrified at the thought of a President Hillary Clinton.

Regardless of the debate, I will continue to encourage people to vote for Donald Trump.  I will be blogging up until the day of the election, because it really is that important.  We have just experienced two terms of an Administration that maxed out your grandchildren's credit cards, and Hillary Clinton was part and parcel of that Administration.  I hope Trump remembers to mention the twenty trillion dollars of national debt, but with so much to chose from, he might just pass it up.

More evidence that efforts are underway to impact the presidential election above and beyond simple campaigning.

I had planned on taking a day off from the blog, but developments with the Wikileaks email dump obliged me to stay on the job.  Late last night a friend informed me that Julian Assange's internet access had been disrupted.  Let me give you a bit of background on Assange and Wikileaks.  Julian Assange is an Australian citizen, computer programmer by occupation, who created the organization known as Wikileaks.  Since its inception over ten years ago, Wikileaks has been dedicated to hacking into private government and business computer systems, and releasing to the public confidential information.  The organization claims no political bias, and only releases information that it decides is in the public interest.  You may recall that former U.S. Army soldier Bradley Manning was Court-Martialed for sharing Top Secret military intelligence with Assange and Wikileaks.  While Wikileaks was making a name for itself in the Bradley Manning affair, Assange found himself in "unrelated" difficulty with the Swedish police.  Two women accuse Assange of sexual assault, relating to the time period that Assange was living in Sweden.  Assange, who was in England when the accusations became public, has been hiding out at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London in order to avoid extradition to Sweden to face trial.  While he has been holed up in the Embassy of Ecuador, Assange has continued to control Wikileaks.  In fact, Assange claimed that Wikileaks had hacked into Hillary Clinton's server when she was Secretary of State, and that Wikileaks intended to release these emails in October, just prior to the U.S. presidential election.

When October rolled around, and Wikileaks started releasing Clinton emails, the U.S. media was busy giving airtime and legitimacy to a string of slanderous, false stories about Donald Trump.  A number of us noted with anger the "coincidental" timing of the stories about Trump, but we also realized that the media could not distract the American public forever.  The Wikileaks emails would eventually be disseminated, and barring any unforeseen developments, the release would take place before the November election.  Imagine my surprise when I discovered Sunday night, that Assange's email access had been disconnected, just prior to the release of another batch of emails.  Wikileaks, which claims to have other methods of sharing the emails, announced that Assange's access was terminated by the government of Ecuador.  I have also read that the CIA was involved, but I doubt the varacity of that particular accusation.  I am convinced that the Obama Administration put the heat on the Ecuadorians, strongly advising them to shut down Assange's access in order to avoid an incident with the U.S. government.  We all know just how popular Barack Obama is internationally, so I doubt the effort required much arm-twisting.

You see, folks, the emails are beginning to bear fruit.  Sunday and Monday were the first two days in weeks during which I did not hear personal attacks against Donald Trump.  Instead, the news channels were unable to avoid airing details of a Wikileaks email from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's office to the FBI.  In this particular email, Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy offered to make a deal with the Bureau.  According to the email, if the FBI would CHANGE the classification on some of Hillary Clinton's emails, then, quid quo pro, the State Department would lift restrictions it had placed on the presence of FBI Agents in certain sensitive countries.  First and foremost, what was offered is illegal.  Only the originator of intelligence can change its classification, and it has to be done on the actual document, not a subsequent email that may contain only a snippet of the sensitive material.  Secondly, the State Department has rules based on National Security and Diplomacy that dictates which U.S. government employees should be allowed in what country.  I can guarantee you that none of these rules includes a "quid quo pro" agreement with another government agency.

This attempt to change to classification on emails was a blatant attempt to assist Clinton in covering her tracks "after the fact".  I'm thoroughly disgusted to see State Department protocol manipulated for Clinton's personal benefit, but after what has happened with the FBI's Clinton email server investigation, I am not in the least bit surprised.  For the moment, though, I'm more concerned about the attack on Wikileaks and the interruption of Julian Assange's ability to disseminate emails.  I am keeping my fingers crossed that all this talk about a secondary and tertiary ability to disseminate isn't just bravado.  The Clinton Campaign and the Obama Administration have jumped through hoops to keep the American people from seeing these emails.  Is it possible that Wikileaks was able to download some of the missing thirty-three thousand emails before Clinton's cronies were able to have them erased?

Just in the last forty-eight hours the Trump Campaign seems to have re-energized and re-prioritized itself.  I'm confident that moderator Chris Wallace will not turn the debate into a personal attack on Trump.  I believe Wallace will keep the debate focused on the issues, which absolutely should include any new revelations derived from the Wikileaks emails.  Do not let the Democrats distract you with accusations that the Clinton server issue is a personal attack.  Hillary Clinton was a government employee when she ordered the server to be installed, and a government employee when she knowingly trafficked classified intelligence on her unclassified system.  As a government employee, she is supposed to be accountable to us.  Everytime Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was involved in a controversy, she publicly announced that as Secretary of State, she was ultimately responsible.  Then, just as soon as the press cleared out, she would put in motion efforts to blame everyone and everything, so long as she wasn't accountable.  I'm a student of U.S. political history.  I love reading about the various past presidential elections, and learning about some of the controversies that occurred.  I am beginning to believe, that when one takes into account the influence peddling between her State Department and the Clinton Foundation, the lies of the Benghazi tragedy, and the outright "priveleged" gall of the email server issue, that Hillary Clinton is the most corrupt nominee to ever get this close to the White House.

Review Of The Fight Against Islamic Extremism since 2009

Link: A. What Is Our Strategy To Defeat Terrorism?
          B. After Paris, Will Obama Administration Move Against Terrorism?

Barrack Obama has been in office since January 2009.  In 2008, his campaign for the White House targeted the Bush Administration's Foreign Policy, as opposed to the ideas and platform of his opponent, Senator John McCain.  Obama had a field day going after Bush, who was an easy target.  What is it about the Bushes, that they seem so incompetent when it comes to self-defense?  I remember when Bush Senior, while expressing indignation at the Clinton Campaign in 1992, could find nothing harsher than "Bozos" to call his detractors.  Ouch?  Obama criticized the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, and openly hypothesized that Bush's "personal" obsession with Saddam Hussein was the reason we had yet to catch Osama Bin-Laden.  The Democrats were energized, and were absolutely focused and driven in recruiting new voters and getting them to the polls.  I can recall Obama's criticism of Bush quite clearly; what I can't remember is an Obama anti-terrorism plan.  Was he planning on pulling the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and using the resources to exclusively search for Bin Laden?  Can anyone help me out here?  In 2008, during the election, what were Obama's intentions regarding Al-Qaeda?  It must have been in the Party Platform that was agreed upon at the convention.  I am anxious to determine just how closely Obama followed his own plan.

The truth is, there wasn't a plan.  What was important was getting the troops out of Iraq.  I can't fault the Administration there; the American people were more than ready to turn the page on that chapter as well.  But if my memory serves me correctly, the Democrats and the left never really separated Afghanistan and Iraq.  The plan was to disengage from both countries at the earliest opportunity.  Once Obama was in office, he realized that Afghanistan was going to be a bit trickier than Iraq, which explains why we are still there.  Another issue that was important to Obama (and something he openly intended to do all along) was the closing of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay.  You can bet your last Cuban peso that Guantanamo will be closed before he leaves office.  But aside from the departure from Iraq and Afghanistan, and the closing of Guantanamo, what policy or

Barak Obama at Cairo Univ. 6/4/2009
Source: The Official White
House Photostream-Flickr

plan did Obama have for dealing with Al-Qaeda and the like? The apology-tour must have been part of someone's plan, because something like that doesn't get decided over night.  Strange that during the campaign, he didn't announce his intention to travel to the Middle East, apologizing about the brutish behavior and U.S. history of bullying, to anyone who would listen.  And no doubt, behind closed doors, he also announced that Israel would no longer be getting a "free ride", and that the Arabs and Palestinians finally had a friend in the White House.  I'm positive this message was shared, if not by Obama directly, then by Hillary and her team of State Department apologists.  The coup de grace was Obama's speech in Cairo.  Obama certainly has some strong feelings about the history of U.S. involvement in the Middle East, but did he mention any of this during the campaign?  I don't think the American people would have taken well to our president groveling in front of this particular group of people.  Did I say grovel?  Remember, this is only my opinion.  I saw his attitude as an effort to make the United States appear as a racist, guilty, internally-broken country.

Instead of over-analyzing President Obama, let's get back to the review of terrorism in the world since he took office.  Let's do this by continent, shall we?

• North America: The attack at the Boston Marathon was handled brilliantly by local authorities and because of this, the casualty rate was low.  The FBI has disrupted a number of planned domestic attacks; remember, the news media doesn't always know what's happening behind the scenes.
• South America: The Islamic Extremist community has been involved in criminal activity in South America for sometime.  Both Hamas and Hezbollah have a history of operating in the Tri-Border Region (Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina), and recently Al-Qaeda has arrived.  Since the 1994 terrorist attack at the Jewish community office in Buenos Aires, the majority of the Jewish population has emigrated from Argentina.  And let's not ignore the fact that a number of South American governments are openly Socialist, and hostile to the United States (Bolivia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina).
• Africa:  Al-Qaeda is having a field day in Africa.  The organization is growing in size and influence in West Africa, and its surrogate Boko Haram has repeatedly embarrassed the Nigerian Army. In the East, Al-Shabaab has become more active in Kenya, taking advantage of the endemic poverty and lack of jobs, to recruit in the townships.  In the last few years, Al-Shabaab has successfully conducted a number of high-casualty terrorist operations.  They have no fear of operating in Mombasa, and enjoy shooting up the wealthier suburbs of Nairobi.  The South African anti-terrorism unit of the SAP had better be keeping a close eye on its townships, especially the ones with high-immigrant populations.  Al-Qaeda and ISIS are there as we speak, recruiting jobless, disaffected young men — especially those with military experience.
• Europe:  Besides the highly-publicized recent episodes in Paris, the UK has also suffered through a number of terrorist-related attacks.  No doubt the governments and police of Italy, Spain, Germany, Netherlands, etc., are keeping tight-lipped about the number of operations they have disrupted.
• Australia:  Late last year, Australia suffered is own horrific pro-ISIS attack in a cafe in Sydney.
• Asia, which includes Iraq, Syria, Iran, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and is just too much for me to tackle in this post.  Thank goodness the terrorists haven't reached Greenland…yet.

It's safe to say that Islamic Extremism has advanced on all continents with barely a whisper from the world's most powerful nations.  No doubt, the Europeans were waiting for leadership from the United States.  Since 2009, the message has been one of confusion at best.  We went after, and got, Bin-Laden— but his organization has been allowed to aggressively influence policy in two nations (Pakistan and Yemen), and to expand its operations internationally.  Our policy in Syria seems to be a bit confused as well.  Where is the Free Syrian Army?  We are pursuing an important treaty with Iran, but are we at all interested in their military activity in Iraq?  I'm hoping that one day we will look back at February 2015 as the high-water mark for Islamic Extremism.