Muslim Ban is Not Unconstitutional

They are not citizens.

Is there a backstory about Khizr Khan and Donald Trump? By Eileen F. Toplansky, 8/1/16

What is one to make of the Democratic Convention speech of Khizr Khan, a Pakistani-born Virginia lawyer whose son Humayun was killed in action in Iraq in 2004? 

According to Byron York: Khan's brief speech wasn't a finely-detailed case. But he suggested that Trump's Muslim ban and Mexican border wall proposals are unconstitutional. Specifically, Khan cited the words 'liberty' and 'equal protection of the law' in suggesting that Trump's policies violate the Constitution. But, in fact, "there's simply no sense in which a border wall violates the Constitution."  There is also "nothing unconstitutional about deporting people who are in the United States illegally."

York emphasizes that "[a]s far as a Muslim ban is concerned, Trump ... amended his proposal to focus on immigration from countries 'compromised by terrorism.' But assume that Khan was addressing Trump's original, more extensive, proposal: a temporary ban on foreign Muslims from entering the United States."

In fact, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution applies to "all persons born or naturalized" in the United States.  It does not refer to foreign persons in foreign countries.  Trump made it clear that this ban "would not apply to U.S. citizens, members of the U.S. military and others with a legal right to be in the United States."  Whether one approves or disapproves of Trump's building a wall, deporting illegal immigrants, and temporarily banning the entry of foreign Muslims, the fact is that Trump's proposals are not unconstitutional.

In an effort toward clarification, Donald Trump released a statement: Captain Humayun Khan was a hero to our country and we should honor all who have made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country safe. The real problem here are the radical Islamic terrorists who killed him, and the efforts of these radicals to enter our country to do us further harm. Given the state of the world today, we have to know everything about those looking to enter our country, and given the state of chaos in some of these countries, that is impossible.

Moreover, Trump reiterated that "Captain Khan, killed 12 years ago, was a hero, but this is about RADICAL ISLAMIC TERROR and the weakness of our 'leaders' to eradicate it!"

But is there even more to the story about Khizr Khan?  According to Theodore Shoebat and Walid Shoebat, Mr. Khizr Muazzam Khan is a promoter of Islamic sharia law and a co-founder of the Journal of Contemporary Issues in Muslim Law (sharia).  In fact, in the past, Khizr Khan has shown "his appreciation for an icon of the Muslim Brotherhood" by the name of Said Ramadan, who "wrote material for the Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia, an organization that has been promoting Islamic revivalism and indoctrination to recruit young people in Malaysia to jihadism."  Mr. Said Ramadan was the son-in-law of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood including Ahmad Bahefzallah, the boss of Huma Abedin (Hillary Clinton's aide)". Should this connection give us pause? Shoebat writes that "Khizr Khan currently runs a law firm in New York called KM Khan Law Office, a firm that specializes in 'immigration services.'" 

According to Shoebat, "to understand the inception of Muslim immigration one must study the Muslim Minority Affairs, a paradigm created by Saudi jurisprudence which sparked during the times Khan lived in Saudi Arabia while collaborating with the Saudi kingdom. It is likely that Khan is a Muslim plant working with the Hillary Clinton campaign, probably for the interest of Muslim oil companies as well as Muslim immigration into the U.S."

Khizr M. Khan used to work for Hogan & Hartson and Lovells, which has ties to the Clinton Foundation.  Accordingly, "Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm hired by the Saudis, is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show. Robert Kyle, a lobbyist from the firm, has bundled $50,850 for Clinton’s campaign."

In fact, Shoebat relates how "[m]any lawyers at Hogan Lovells remember the week in 2004 when U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan lost his life to a suicide bomber. Then-Hogan & Hartson attorneys mourned the death because the soldier’s father, Khizr Khan, a Muslim American immigrant, was among their beloved colleagues."

Shoebat emphasizes that "Saudi interests with using Khan to advance Muslim immigration and advance Muslim Sharia is a lengthy subject [.]"  "Then there are the ... ties to Hillary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin as well.  The House of Saud had used Huma’s father Sayed Zaynul Abedin’s work regarding the Muslim Minority Affairs in the West, published in 1998 as part of 29 works to construct a plan to conquer the U.S. with Islam."

Shoebat maintains that "[i]t is obvious that Khan is upset, that a Trump victory will eliminate and destroy decades of hard work to bring in Islamic immigration into the United States which was spearheaded by agents in Saudi Arabia like Khan and Huma Abedin’s father (Sayed Z. Abedin)."

Huma Abedin has never been properly vetted, and this takes on even greater urgency now that Clinton is running for the presidency.  The mainstream media continues to cover up the Muslim Brotherhood's enormous clout in the Obama administration.  Each day brings new revelations about the financial influence and "access" the Saudis have exerted on the Clinton team.  Patrick Poole, a national security analyst, asserts that "[t]here are massive conflicts of interest. It's beyond comprehension."   

So is it wrong to impugn Khan's motives?  He appears to be a man in mourning for his son.  Was Mr. Khan merely being used by the Clinton campaign to advance Clinton's agenda?  Or is there an even larger issue concerning the influence such people as Abedin and Khan exert concerning Clinton's bid for the highest office in the land? 

What is one to make of the Democratic Convention speech of Khizr Khan, a Pakistani-born Virginia lawyer whose son Humayun was killed in action in Iraq in 2004? 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/08/is_there_a_backstory_about_khizr_khan_and_donald_trump.html

Clinton Cash & Kahn

Khizr Khan’s Deep Legal, Financial Connections to Saudi Arabia, Hillary’s Clinton Foundation Tie Terror, Immigration, Email Scandals Together by Matthew Boyle, 8/1/16

Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that the mainstream media and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been using to criticize Donald J. Trump, has deep ties to the government of Saudi Arabia—and to international Islamist investors through his own law firm. In addition to those ties to the wealthy Islamist nation, Khan also has ties to controversial immigration programs that wealthy foreigners can use to essentially buy their way into the United States—and has deep ties to the “Clinton Cash” narrative through the Clinton Foundation.

Khan and his wife Ghazala Khan both appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention to attack, on Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s behalf, Donald Trump—the Republican nominee for president. Their son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, was killed in Iraq in 2004. Khizr Khan, in his speech to the DNC, lambasted Donald Trump for wanting to temporarily halt Islamic migration to America from countries with a proven history of exporting terrorists.

Since then, Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos—who served as a senior adviser to the president in Bill Clinton’s White House and is a Clinton Foundation donor as well as a host on the ABC network—pushed Trump on the matter in an interview. Trump’s comments in that interview have sparked the same mini-rebellion inside his party, in the media and across the aisle that has happened many times before. The usual suspects inside the GOP, from former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to House Speaker Paul Ryan to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to Ohio Gov. John Kasich, have condemned Trump in one way or another. The media condemnation has been swift and Democrats, as well their friends throughout media, are driving the train as fast as they can.

Video: FBI interviews Clinton in email probe: campaign

But until now, it looked like the Khans were just Gold Star parents who the big bad Donald Trump attacked. It turns out, however, in addition to being Gold Star parents, the Khans are financially and legally tied deeply to the industry of Muslim migration–and to the government of Saudi Arabia and to the Clintons themselves.

Khan, according to Intelius as also reported by Walid Shoebat, used to work at the law firm Hogan Lovells, LLP, a major D.C. law firm that has been on retainer as the law firm representing the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States for years. Citing federal government disclosure forms, the Washington Free Beacon reported the connection between Saudi Arabia and Hogan Lovells a couple weeks ago.

“Hogan Lovells LLP, another U.S. firm hired by the Saudis, is registered to work for the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia through 2016, disclosures show,” Joe Schoffstall of the Free Beacon reported.

The federal form filed with the Department of Justice is a requirement under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, which makes lobbyists and lawyers working on behalf of foreign governments and other agents from abroad with interests in the United States register with the federal government.

The government of Saudi Arabia, of course, has donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation. “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has given between $10 and $25 million to the foundation while Friends of Saudi Arabia has contributed between $1 and $5 million,” Schoffstall wrote.

Trump, of course, has called on Hillary Clinton to have the Clinton Foundation return the money. “Saudi Arabia and many of the countries that gave vast amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation want women as slaves and to kill gays,” Trump wrote in a Facebook post back in June, according to Politico. “Hillary must return all money from such countries!”

“Crooked Hillary says we must call on Saudi Arabia and other countries to stop funding hate,” Trump posted in a separate Facebook posting at the time. “I am calling on her to immediately return the $25 million plus she got from them for the Clinton Foundation!” Of course, to this day, Hillary Clinton and her Clinton Foundation has kept the money from the Saudi Arabian government.

Schoffstall’s piece in the Washington Free Beacon also notes how Hogan Lovells lobbyist Robert Kyle, per Federal Election Commission (FEC) records, has bundled more than $50,000 in donations for Clinton’s campaign this year.

Khan’s connections with the Hogan Lovells firm run deep, according to a report from Law.com written by Katelyn Polantz. “Many lawyers at Hogan Lovells remember the week in 2004 when U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan lost his life to a suicide bomber,” Polantz wrote. “Then-Hogan & Hartson attorneys mourned the death because the soldier’s father, Khizr Khan, a Muslim American immigrant, was among their beloved colleagues.”

Polantz wrote that Khan worked at the mega-D.C. law firm for years. “Khan spent seven years, from 2000 to 2007, in the Washington, D.C., office of then-Hogan & Hartson,” Polantz wrote. “He served as the firm’s manager of litigation technology. Although he did not practice law while at Hogan, Khan was well versed in understanding the American courts system. On Thursday night, he described his late son dreaming of becoming a military lawyer.”

But representing the Clinton Foundation backing Saudi Arabian government and having one of its lobbyists bundle $50,000-plus for Clinton’s campaign are hardly the only places where the Khan-connected Hogan Lovells D.C. mega-firm brush elbows with Clinton Cash. 

The firm also handles Hillary Clinton’s taxes and is deeply connected with the email scandal whereby when she was Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton set up a home-brew email server system that jeopardized classified information handling and was “extremely careless” according to FBI director James Comey.

“A lawyer at Hogan & Hartson [Howard Topaz] has been Bill and Hillary Clinton’s go-to guy for tax advice since 2004, according to documents released Friday by Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” The American Lawyer’s Nate Raymond wrote in 2008, as Hillary Clinton ran for president that year. “The Clintons’ tax returns for 2000-07 show combined earnings of $109 million, on which they paid $33 million in taxes. New York-based tax partner Howard Topaz has a broad tax practice, and also regularly advises corporations on M&A and executive compensation.”

Breitbart News’ Patrick Howley, in a deep investigative piece on Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, late last year uncovered how Topaz’s firm—which employed Khan while Topaz did Hillary Clinton’s taxes—is also connected to the email scandal. “Topaz was a partner at Hogan & Hartson, which later merged to become known as Hogan Lovells, where Topaz continues to practice. The firm’s lawyers were major donors to Hillary Clinton’s first presidential campaign,” Howley wrote.

For her private email system, Clinton used a spam filtering program MX Logic. “Hogan & Hartson handled the patent for MX Logic’s email-filtering program, which McAfee bought the small company for $140 million in 2009 in order to acquire,” Howley wrote. “The MX Logic company’s application for a trademark for its SPAMTRAQ program was filed in 2004 on Hogan & Hartson stationery and signed by a Hogan & Hartson attorney. Hogan & Hartson has been responsible for MX Logic annual reports. The email company’s Clinton links present more evidence that Clinton’s political and legal establishment was monitoring her private email use.”

If that all isn’t enough, that same Hogan & Hartson law firm—now Hogan Lovells—employed Loretta Lynch, the current Attorney General of the United States. Lynch infamously just a few weeks ago met with Bill Clinton, Hillary’s husband and the former president, on her private jet in Phoenix just before clearing Hillary Clinton of any wrongdoing when it came to her illicit private email server system.

Khan’s own website for his own personal law firm KM Khan Law Office shows he represents clients in the business of buying visas to enter the United States. One of his specific areas of practice, according to the website, is “E2 Treaty Investors, EB5 Investments & Related Immigration Services.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the chairman of the U.S. Senate’s Judiciary Committee, has detailed how the EB5 immigration program is “riddled with flaws and corruption.” “Maybe it is only here on Capitol Hill—on this island surrounded by reality—that we can choose to plug our ears and refuse to listen to commonly accepted facts,” Grassley said in a statement earlier this year. “The Government Accountability Office, the media, industry experts, members of congress, and federal agency officials, have concurred that the program is a serious problem with serious vulnerabilities. Allow me to mention a few of the flaws.”

From there, Sen. Grassley listed out several of the “flaws” with the EB5 immigration program that Khan works in:

– Investments can be spent before business plans are approved. 

– Regional Center operators can charge exorbitant fees of foreign nationals in addition to their required investments.  

– Jobs created are not “direct” or verifiable jobs but rather are “indirect” and based on estimates and economic modeling.

– Jobs created by U.S. investors are counted by the foreign national when obtaining a green card, even if EB-5 money is only a fraction of the total invested.

– Investment funds are not adequately vetted. 

– Gifts and loans are acceptable sources of funds from foreign nationals.

– The investment level has been stagnant for nearly 25 years.

– There’s no prohibition against foreign governments owning or operating regional centers or projects.

– Regional centers can be rented or sold without government oversight or approval.

– Regional centers don’t have to certify that they comply with securities laws.  

– There’s no oversight of promoters who work overseas for the regional centers.

– There’s no set of sanctions for violations, no recourse for bad actors.

– There are no required background checks on anyone associated with a regional center.

– Regional centers draw Targeted Employment Area boundaries around poor areas in order to come in at a lower investment level, yet the jobs created are not actually created in those areas.

– Every Targeted Employment Area designation is rubberstamped by the agency.

– Adjudicators are pressured to get to a yes, especially for those politically connected. 

– Visas are not properly scrutinized. 

– Visas are pushed through despite security warnings.

– Files and applications lack basic and necessary information to monitor compliance.

– The agency does not do site visits for each and every project.

– There’s no transparency on how funds are spent, who is paid, and what investors are told about the projects they invest in.

That’s not to mention the fact that, according to Sen. Grassley, there have been serious national security violations in connection with the EB5 program that Khan works in and around already. In fact, the program—according to Grassley—was used by Middle Eastern operatives from Iran to attempt to illicitly enter the United States.

“There are also classified reports that detail the national security, fraud and abuse. Our committee has received numerous briefings and classified documents to show this side of the story,” Grassley said in the early February 2016 statement. “The enforcement arm of the Department of Homeland Security wrote an internal memo that raises significant concerns about the program. One section of the memo outlines concerns that it could be used by Iranian operatives to infiltrate the United States. The memo identifies seven main areas of program vulnerability, including the export of sensitive technology, economic espionage, use by foreign government agents and terrorists, investment fraud, illicit finance and money laundering.”

Maybe all of this is why–as Breitbart News has previously noted–the Democratic National Convention made absolutely no mention of the Clinton Foundation or Clinton Global Initiative. Hillary Clinton’s coronation ceremony spent exactly zero minutes of the four nights of official DNC programming talking about anything to do with perhaps one of the biggest parts of her biography. 

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/01/clinton-cash-khizr-khans-deep-legal-financial-connections-saudi-arabia-hillarys-clinton-foundation-connect-terror-immigration-email-scandals/

GOP Hillary Voter

GOP Congressman Says He Will Vote For Hillary Clinton, Calls Trump ‘National Embarrassment’ "... cannot lead this country ..." by F. Peter Brown, 8/ 2/16.

U.S. Rep. Richard Hanna, R-N.Y., has become the first Republican in Congress to cross party lines with plans to vote for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in November.

Hanna gave an interview with and wrote an op-ed for Syracuse.com in which he heavily criticized GOP nominee Donald Trump and announced his plans to vote for Clinton.

Wrote Hanna: “In his latest foray of insults, Mr. Trump has attacked the parents of a slain U.S. soldier. Where do we draw the line? I thought it would have been when he alleged that U.S. Sen. John McCain was not a war hero because he was caught. Or the countless other insults he’s proudly lobbed from behind the Republican presidential podium. For me, it is not enough to simply denounce his comments: He is unfit to serve our party and cannot lead this country.”

http://www.westernjournalism.com/gop-congressman-says-he-will-vote-for-hillary-clinton-calls-trump-national-embarrassment/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Western Journalism&utm_content=2016-08-02&utm_campaign=manualpost

Comments

Rep. Richard Hanna, R-NY has a Conservative Review Scorecard score of 27%.  That means he is a “Constitution Trasher” and a RINO who votes with the Democrats.  The lowest score for House Republicans is 26%, so Richard Hanna is at the bottom.  80% of the House and Senate Republicans score an F Grade with voting scores under 70%. 

There are 66 Republicans in the House who score 70% and above.  These are the real Republicans and they do support Trump. There are only 14 Republicans in the Senate with scores above 70%.

Trump will bring the US much closer to Constitutional Compliance without damaging our fragile standard of living. Trump will restore the rule of law and bring manufacturing back to the US by lowering the corporate tax from 35% to 15% and reducing immigration of welfare recipients.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Dump Paul Ryan

The most important thing you can do this week! Defeat Paul Ryan! by Ann Corcoran 8/1/16

Paul Nehlen understands our concerns about immigration/refugees. Here I met with him on July 20th. Update: See new ad campaign—Ryan supports Syrian Muslim resettlement for your towns! Hohmann at WND. Everywhere I travel in my listening tour through the heartland, people want to know what can they do?

There is only one thing to do in the next 7 days and that is to help Paul Nehlen defeat Speaker Paul Ryan in the first district of Wisconsin. The Republican primary is on August 9th. First, read the latest news from Julia Hahn at Breitbart where once again Ryan is undercutting the Trump campaign and don’t forget this astounding news from a few days ago: Ryan will help Hillary get amnesty through in her first 100 days (if she becomes President).

Now go to the Nehlen campaign website, contact them, and see what you can do to help (travel to the district to campaign? make phone calls? or donate!). Paul Ryan has not lifted a finger to help rein-in or reform the Refugee Admissions Program.  It will be a disaster if he and Hillary team up to open the flood gates. See my report on my visit to Janesville, Wisconsin last month.

https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/the-most-important-thing-you-can-do-this-week-defeat-paul-ryan/

Black Lives Matter’s real agenda

The movement is at war with black husbands and fathers, By Roland C. Warren, July 28, 2016

---

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

Unless you have been “off the grid” for a while, you have heard a lot in the news about Black Lives Matter. This “movement” has gotten a lot of press and some notable praise from celebrities and politicians, including positive mentions from President Obama. But I suspect that most people, including many who have tweeted #blacklivesmatter, have not visited its website.

I have, and I was a shocked, especially as a black man. You see, Black Lives Matter boasts that it was launched as a response to the deaths of black males, most notably Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. You would expect that when you review its website, it would be chock-full of references to helping black men and boys. But you would be wrong. Dead wrong.

Let me explain. Prominent on Black Lives Matter’s website is a list of its 12 “Guiding Principles.” These principles serve as a vision statement for what the group hopes to accomplish. So, if Black Lives Matter had the ability to wave a proverbial “magic wand” to create its reality in the black community, these principles would be it. However, if you objectively read these principles, you will quickly notice that most of them have nothing to do with the issues facing the black community and, certainly, not the black men and boys that the group has used as “martyrs” to gain a national voice. Moreover, as you read the principles, you will not find a single reference to black men and boys, except for “trans brothers,” which are men who want to be considered women.

Also, it is clear that the Black Lives Matter ideology sees no role for black men, especially not as husbands and fathers. For example, consider the guiding principle titled, “Black Villages”: “We are committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, and especially ‘our’ children to the degree that mothers, parents and children are comfortable.”

This principle starts with the goal of “disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure.” The irony is that this has already happened to a great degree in the black community. Today, only 34 percent of black children — down from 67 percent in 1960 — are raised in homes with married fathers and mothers. Moreover, nearly 50 percent of black children live in single mother homes. In 1960, only 20 percent of black children did. From Black Lives Matter’s perspective, we are making great progress. Using this logic, we should actively work to increase the number of black kids living in single mother homes, absent their fathers, right?

But how is that working out for the black community? Not so great. Father absence is linked to nearly all the most intractable social ills affecting children, such as low academic performance, behavior problems and risks for incarceration. Moreover, the negative outcomes correlated to father absence disproportionately affect the black boys and men who Black Lives Matter says it wants to protect. In fact, the 2013 FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that black offenders killed 90 percent of black victims. The vast majority of victims and offenders are black men. Indeed, it’s the fatherless killing the fatherless.

But these facts and deaths don’t trouble the Black Lives Matter folks, who desire to create a utopian “village” where there are only “mothers” and “parents.” Indeed, the reality that children don’t come into the world with “mothers and parents” matters little to this movement. Children come into the world with mothers and fathers, but Black Lives Matter wants us to ignore this reality.

In Black Lives Matter’s worldview, it takes a fatherless village to raise a child, despite the fact that reams and decades of social science research strongly assert that children do better across every psychological, social, educational and economic measure of child well-being when they are raised with involved, responsible and committed fathers. Moreover, these outcomes get even better when a father is married to their child’s mother.

If you think that making black men merely “sperm donors” in the black village was an oversight, then consider the group’s guiding principle for “Black Families.” Of note, this principle’s graphic icon depicts one adult with two children. And the narrative mentions mothers but not fathers. Again, from its website:

“We are committed to making our spaces family-friendly and enable parents to fully participate with their children. We are committed to dismantling the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” that require them to mother in private even as they participate in justice work.”

And you will also note that there is a guiding principle for black women, but not black men.

The bottom line is that the Black Lives Matter movement sees no role for black men other than media-hyped props to promote an agenda that excludes and undermines them. As a black man, I find being used this way destructive, offensive and familiar.

You see, for centuries the blood of black men has been used to advance the agenda and fortunes of others. And sadly, the founders of the Black Lives Matter movement are the latest to adopt this pernicious strategy. They seek to deny black men the right and honor that so many have died for — to be good husbands to their wives and good fathers to their children.

For a movement that is known for aggressively shouting down anyone who dares utter, “All Lives Matter,” it is guilty of the very thing that it protests when in comes to including black men in its vision of families and communities. Anyone who really cares about all black lives ought to think twice before they get on this movement’s bus. It’s heading in the wrong direction. And that matters a lot.

Roland C. Warren is president and CEO of Care Net.
Copyright © 2016 The Washington Times, LLC.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/28/black-lives-matters-real-agenda/

Sheriff denounces DNC

He’s not the only one, but outspoken Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke believes the DNC Convention is more about embracing criminality than it is about bringing people together. The Sheriff made the comments to Megyn Kelly during a recent interview.

According to The Blaze: Clarke’s comments were in reference to the fact that Tuesday night’s event will host a “Mothers of the Movement” segment, which features speeches from several mothers of unarmed black men who died in officer-related shootings.

“Donald Trump is the law and order candidate, and this DNC seems to be about embracing criminality and criminal behavior, trying to mainstream criminal behavior, hold these individuals up as if they’re martyrs of the civil rights movement,” Clarke, who at the Republican National Convention declared, “Blue lives matter,” told Fox News host Megyn Kelly.

Kelly mentioned that the mother of Michael Brown, who was fatally shot by police in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, will be speaking at the convention, which is controversial because the Justice Department concluded that Brown died as a result of aggression toward former police officer Darren Wilson.

However, Clarke took issue with all the mothers, asserting all those shot by police were resisting arrest. The sheriff also found it troubling that none of the fathers of these black men were speaking.

“When there are no fathers around to shape the behavior of young boys growing up, they grow up to be unmanageable misfits that the police then have to deal with aggressively,” he told Kelly.

It’s interesting that the DNC is allowing victims of police actions to speak at their event – justified or not – but not inviting any family members of slain police officers to speak.

This DNC convention is the most blatant in our lifetime of the obvious hatred of all things American by the Democrats – except the money from a prosperous society needed to fuel their hate.

It’s the epitome of hypocrisy and ignorance…and Hillary Clinton is at the peak of that effort. Go ahead and watch Sheriff Clarke’s comments below:

http://liberty247.net/watch-outspoken-milwaukee-sheriff-summarize-dnc-convention-really-not-good/

Trump’s Anti-Hillary Ad

WATCH: Trump’s New Anti-Hillary Ad Totally Destroys Her In 59 EPIC Seconds

GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump released a new ad that exposed just how corrupt Democrat rival Hillary Clinton really is. In less than 60 seconds, the video highlighted some of Clinton’s biggest lies and most embarrassing remarks.

The ad began with Clinton speaking during an interview talking about the “Hillary standard” and the “standard for everyone else” — an obvious reference to FBI’s decision not to recommend charges be brought against the former secretary of state’s mishandling of classified information.

The video also showed a clip from Clinton’s testimony during the Benghazi investigation where she so famously asked what difference it made how the four Americans died in the terror attack at the American compound on Sept. 11, 2012.

The ad then moved on to another interview clip in which Clinton maintained (with a straight face) that she had been honest and straightforward, followed by another clip from another interview in which she claimed she had not sent or received any emails marked classified “at the time.”

Of course, that little nugget was followed by FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that the agency found 110 emails that did contain classified information.

The ad concluded with CNN host Anderson Cooper asking Clinton if she would say anything to get elected.

We all know the answer to that question, and Trump’s ad reminded us of just how corrupt Clinton actually is, and will no doubt continue to be if she is elected president in November.

Take a look at Trump’s ad below:

http://conservativetribune.com/trumps-anti-hillary-ad-destroys/