Jill Stein: “On the issue of war and nuclear weapons, it is actually Hillary’s policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump”
The following was recently said by Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein:
It’s important to look at where we are going. It’s not just a moment in time, but where has the strategy of voting for the lesser evil taken us?
All these times you have been told to vote for the lesser evil because you didn’t want the wars, or the meltdown of the climate, or the offshoring of our jobs, or the attack on immigrants, or the massive bailout for Wall Street, but that is actually what we have gotten. By the droves.
Because we with public interest allow ourselves to be silent, and voted for the lesser evil. But the lesser evil doesn’t solve the problem.
The Obama administration, even with both houses of Congress, actually did all of these fossil fuel emissions. “All of the above” gave us some renewable energy but it completely amplified and intensified our carbon production, which has been incredibly destructive to the climate.
The wars have gotten bigger, we are now bombing seven countries.
It is important to not just look at the rhetoric but also look at the track record and the reality is the lesser people and greater people is a race to the bottom, and even Donald Trump in the right wing extremism grows out of the policies of the Clintons, in particular Nafta, which sent our jobs overseas and Wall Street deregulation, which blew 9 million jobs up into smoke.
That is what is creating this right wing extremism. A vote for Hillary Clinton isn’t going to fix it…
It is now Hillary Clinton that wants to start an air war with Russia over Syria by calling for a no fly zone.
We have 2000 nuclear missiles on hairtrigger alert. They are saying we are closer to a nuclear war than we have ever been.
Under Hillary Clinton, we could slide into nuclear war very quickly from her declared policy in Syria.
I sure won’t sleep well at night if Donald Trump is elected, but I sure won’t sleep well at night if Hillary Clinton elected. We have another choice other than these two candidates who are both promoting lethal policies.
On the issue of war and nuclear weapons, it is actually Hillary’s policies which are much scarier than Donald Trump who does not want to go to war with Russia.
He wants to seek modes of working together, which is the route that we need to follow not to go into confrontation and nuclear war with Russia.
In 2005, consenting adult Alicia Machado had sex when she knew that she was being recorded for a Spanish reality TV show called “La Granja VIP.” The recording of her having sex was later broadcast on that show.
Now, the New York Times claims that the tape of Machado having sex is not a sex tape:
Donald Trump Bashes Alicia Machado Again, Alleging a ‘Sex Tape’ (Without Evidence)
September 30, 2016
Donald J. Trump went on a morning Twitter tirade on Friday, denouncing the former Miss Universe winner he once shamed for gaining weight and directing the American public to seek out a sex tape that he said she participated in as evidence of her sordid past.
The attack, in a flurry of tweets on the topic posted from 5:14 to 5:30 a.m. Eastern time, was the latest effort by Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, to discredit the beauty queen, Alicia Machado, after Hillary Clinton used her as an example of his sexism during the debate on Monday night. Fact-checkers have found no evidence that Ms. Machado, who was featured in Playboy, appeared in a sex tape. Her critics may be referring to a risqué scene that she appeared in on a reality television show.
Mr. Trump maintained this week that Ms. Machado’s weight and attitude were problematic after she won the 1996 pageant and his campaign circulated information about her previous brushes with the law.
On Friday, Mr. Trump suggested that there was more to be revealed about Ms. Machado and offered the theory that Mrs. Clinton, his Democratic opponent, helped her attain American citizenship.
Donald Trump tweet: “Did Crooked Hillary help disgusting (check out sex tape and past) Alicia M become a U.S. citizen so she could use her in the debate?”
Mr. Trump had been modulating his tone in the weeks before the debate, but his uneven performance appears to have caused him to lash out. He has increasingly flirted with leveling more personal attacks on Mrs. Clinton’s history of marital problems and he has doubled-down on his charges that the news media is rigging the election.
While Mr. Trump had little to say when Mrs. Clinton brought up Ms. Machado on the debate stage, he said in his Friday tweets that she “duped” Mrs. Clinton. He called this a sign of bad judgment.
“Wow, Crooked Hillary was duped and used by my worst Miss U. Hillary floated her as an ‘angel’ without checking her past, which is terrible!” Mr. Trump wrote.
Ms. Machado, who told CNN this week that she is “not a saint girl,” was also accused in the late 1990s of abetting an attempted murder committed by her then-boyfriend, who shot a family member in Caracas, Venezuela.
She was said to have been seen driving a getaway car, but did not face charges.
Since he reshuffled his campaign’s leadership in August, Mr. Trump’s team has tried to instill a more disciplined approach that has been heavier on scripted speeches and policy. Twitter, however, has continued to be an outlet for Mr. Trump to vent without a filter, and rants such as the one unleashed on Friday undermine his efforts to appear presidential.
Backers of Mrs. Clinton seized on Twitter storm as more evidence that Mr. Trump is unfit to be president.
Correct the Record, a “super PAC” that supports the Democratic nominee, suggested that Mr. Trump was showing frustration about a recent batch of weak polls.
And John Podesta, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, advised that Mr. Trump might want to resist the urge to grab his phone when he wakes up “in the middle of the night.”
Mrs. Clinton responded later in the morning on Twitter by calling Mr. Trump “unhinged” and said his treatment of Ms. Machado was unwarranted.
Editorial: A principled option for U.S. president: Endorsing Gary Johnson, Libertarian
By Editorial Board
September 30, 2016
As Nov. 8 looms, a dismayed, disconsolate America waits and wonders: What is it about 2016?
How has our country fallen so inescapably into political and policy gridlock? How did pandering to aggrieved niche groups and seducing blocs of angry voters replace working toward solutions as the coin of our governing class? How could the Democratic and Republican parties stagger so far from this nation’s political mainstream?
And the most pressing question: What should tens of millions of voters who yearn for answers do with two major-party candidates they disdain? Polls show an unprecedented number of people saying they wish they had another choice.
This is the moment to look at the candidates on this year’s ballot. This is the moment to see this election as not so much about them as about the American people and where their country is heading. And this is the moment to rebuke the Republican and Democratic parties.
The Republicans have nominated Donald Trump, a man not fit to be president of the United States. We first wrote on March 10 that we would not, could not, endorse him. And in the intervening six-plus months he has splendidly reinforced our verdict: Trump has gone out of his way to anger world leaders, giant swaths of the American public, and people of other lands who aspire to immigrate here legally. He has neither the character nor the prudent disposition for the job.
The mystery and shame of Trump’s rise — we have red, white and blue coffee mugs that are more genuinely Republican — is the party’s inability or unwillingness to repulse his hostile takeover. We appreciate the disgust for failed career politicians that Trump’s supporters invoke; many of those voters are doubly victimized — by economic forces beyond their control, and by the scorn of mocking elitists who look down their noses to see them. He has ridden to the White House gate on the backs of Americans who believe they’ve been robbed of opportunity and respect. But inaugurating a bombastic and self-aggrandizing President Donald Trump isn’t the cure.
The Democrats have nominated Hillary Clinton, who, by contrast, is undeniably capable of leading the United States. Electing her the first woman president would break a barrier that has no reason to be. We see no rough equivalence between Trump and Clinton. Any American who lists their respective shortcomings should be more apoplectic about the litany under his name than the one under hers. He couldn’t do this job. She could.
But for reasons we’ll explain — her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust — we cannot endorse her.
Clinton’s vision of ever-expanding government is in such denial of our national debt crisis as to be fanciful. Rather than run as a practical-minded Democrat as in 2008, this year she lurched left, pandering to match the Free Stuff agenda of then-rival Bernie Sanders. She has positioned herself so far to the left on spending that her presidency would extend the political schism that has divided America for some 24 years. That is, since the middle of a relatively moderate Clinton presidency. Today’s Hillary Clinton, unlike yesteryear’s, renounces many of Bill Clinton’s priorities — freer trade, spending discipline, light regulation and private sector growth to generate jobs and tax revenues.
Hillary Clinton calls for a vast expansion of federal spending, supported by the kinds of tax hikes that were comically impossible even in the years when President Barack Obama’s fellow Democrats dominated both houses of Congress. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calculates that Clinton’s plan would increase spending by $1.65 trillion over a decade, mostly for college education, paid family leave, infrastructure and health-related expenditures. Spending just on debt interest would rise by $50 billion. Personal and business taxation would rise by $1.5 trillion. Sort through all the details and her plan would raise the national debt by $200 billion.
Now as in the primary season, Clinton knows she is proposing orgies of spending, and taxing, that simply will … not … happen. She is promising Americans all manner of things she cannot deliver.
That is but one of the reasons why so many Americans reject Clinton: They don’t trust what she says, how she makes decisions, and her up-to-the-present history of egregiously erasing the truth:
In the wake of a deadly attack on American personnel in Libya, she steered the American public away from the real cause — an inconvenient terror attack right before the 2012 election — after privately emailing the truth to her daughter. The head of the FBI, while delivering an indictment minus the grand jury paperwork, labeled her “extremely careless” for mishandling emails sensitive to national security. In public she stonewalled, dissembled and repeatedly lied — several were astonishing whoppers — about her private communications system (“There is no classified material,” “Everything I did was permitted,” and on and on). Her negligence in enforcing conflict-of-interest boundaries allowed her family’s foundation to exploit the U.S. Department of State as a favor factory. Even her command and control of a routine medical issue devolved into a secretive, misleading mission to hide information from Americans.
Time upon time, Clinton’s behavior affirms the perception that she’s a corner-cutter whose ambitions drive her decisions. One telling episode among the countless: Asked by a voter if she was for or against the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, she replied, “If it’s undecided when I become president, I will answer your question.” As we’ve asked here before, will Hillary Clinton ever get over her consuming fear of straight talk?
Taken together, Trump and Clinton have serious flaws that prevent us from offering our support to either of them. Still, come Nov. 8, tens of millions of Americans with make a draw that they consider beyond distasteful.
We choose not to do that. We would rather recommend a principled candidate for president — regardless of his or her prospects for victory — than suggest that voters cast ballots for such disappointing major-party candidates.
With that demand for a principled president paramount, we turn to the candidate we can recommend. One party has two moderate Republicans — veteran governors who successfully led Democratic states — atop its ticket. Libertarians Gary Johnson of New Mexico and running mate William Weld of Massachusetts are agile, practical and, unlike the major-party candidates, experienced at managing governments. They offer an agenda that appeals not only to the Tribune’s principles but to those of the many Americans who say they are socially tolerant but fiscally responsible. “Most people are Libertarian,” Johnson told the Tribune Editorial Board when he and Weld met with us in July. “It’s just that they don’t know it.”
Theirs is small-L libertarianism, built on individual freedom and convinced that, at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, official Washington is clumsy, expensive and demonstrably unable to solve this nation’s problems. They speak of reunifying an America now balkanized into identity and economic groups — and of avoiding their opponents’ bullying behavior and sanctimonious lectures. Johnson and Weld are even-keeled — provided they aren’t discussing the injustice of trapping young black children in this nation’s worst-performing schools. On that and other galling injustices, they’re animated.
We reject the cliche that a citizen who chooses a principled third-party candidate is squandering his or her vote. Look at the number of fed-up Americans telling pollsters they clamor for alternatives to Trump and Clinton. What we’re recommending will appeal less to people who think tactically than to conscientious Americans so infuriated that they want to send a message about the failings of the major parties and their candidates. Put short:
We offer this endorsement to encourage voters who want to feel comfortable with their choice. Who want to vote for someone they can admire.
Johnson, who built a construction business before entering politics, speaks in terms that appeal to many among us: Expanded global trade and resulting job expansion. Robust economic growth, rather than ever-higher taxation, to raise government revenue. A smaller, and less costly, federal government. Faith in Americans’ ability to parlay economic opportunity into success. While many Democrats and Republicans outdo one another in opposing the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, or TPP, we’re amused by this oddity: Today the nation’s two most ardent free-traders arguably are Barack Obama and Gary Johnson.
That said, Obama and Johnson are but two of the many candidates we’ve endorsed yet with whom we also can disagree. Johnson’s foreign policy stance approaches isolationism. He is too reluctant to support what we view as necessary interventions overseas. He likely wouldn’t dispatch U.S. forces in situations where Clinton would do so and where Trump … who can reliably predict?
But unless the United States tames a national debt that’s rapidly approaching $20 trillion-with-a-T, Americans face ever tighter constrictions on what this country can afford, at home or overseas. Clinton and Trump are too cowardly even to whisper about entitlement reforms that each of them knows are imperative. Johnson? He wants to raise the retirement age and apply a means test on benefits to the wealthiest.
What’s more, principled third-party candidates can make big contributions even when they lose. In 1992 businessman H. Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote on a thin but sensible platform, much of it constructed around reducing federal deficits. That strong showing by Perot the relative centrist influenced how President Bill Clinton would govern.
We wish the two major parties had not run away from today’s centrist Americans. Just as we wish either of their candidates evoked the principles that a Chicago Tribune now in its 170th year espouses, among them high integrity, free markets, personal responsibility and a limited role for government in the lives of the governed. We hope Johnson does well enough that Republicans and Democrats get the message — and that his ideas make progress over time.
This year neither major party presents a good option. So the Chicago Tribune today endorses Libertarian Gary Johnson for president of the United States. Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles — and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016.
Yesterday, I made this post about how debate “moderator” Lester Holt was biased against Donald Trump.
Now we have some more interesting news along the same issue of bias. The Commission on Presidential Debates had just made the following admission:
“Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump’s audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall.”
This is completely in line with the following comment that Trump had made right after the debate:
“And they also had, gave me a defective mic. Did you notice that? My mic was defective within the room… No, but I wonder, was that on purpose? Was that on purpose? But I had a mic that wasn’t worked properly, with, working properly within the room.”
Lester Holt asked Trump 15 questions, Clinton 2 questions
September 27, 2016
A close analysis of the transcript of the first presidential debate on Monday night shows that moderator Lester Holt of NBC News asked 15 questions exclusively of Republican nominee Donald Trump, and only 2 questions exclusively of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. The analysis, posted on social media and drawing intense attention on Reddit, walks through the entire 90-minute exchange and notes Holt asked six questions of both candidates, in addition to Trump’s 15 and Clinton’s two.
Holt, a newcomer to presidential debate moderation, faced intense pressure from the Clinton campaign and the mainstream media to be tough on Trump. Some explicitly called for Holt to “fact-check” Trump — the implication being that Trump is more ignorant or dishonest — and implied that he would face the same fate as NBC’s Matt Lauer and Tonight Show host Jimmy Fallon, both of whom were slammed by liberal media critics for the crime of treating both candidates fairly.
Moreover, most of Holt’s questions prompts were overly friendly to Clinton’s point of view, while hostile to Trump. In one of the last exchanges of the debate, for example, Holt strongly implied Trump was a sexist when asking about a past criticism he had made about Clinton lacking a “presidential look.” He also introduced the opening topic of the debate by praising Obama’s economic performance, ignoring the fact that growth never reached 3% under Obama and labor force participation has fallen.
Breitbart News noted that Holt intervened several times to “fact-check” Trump — often erroneously — while never checking Clinton’s facts, even when she was completely wrong, as in her claim that she had never flip-flopped on the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In addition, the Washington Examiner‘s Eddie Scarry notes Holt asked Trump six follow-up questions, and none of Clinton, leaving Trump “having to debate the highly anticipated event’s moderator as well as his Democratic opponent.”
Holt Interrupted Trump WAY More Than Clinton In Debate
September 27, 2016
Moderator Lester Holt was much harsher on Republican nominee Donald Trump than he was on Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton during the debate Monday evening.
Holt interrupted Trump a whopping 41 times, either to “fact-check” the Republican nominee, or to ask a follow-up question. Clinton was only interrupted seven times during the course of the 90-minute debate.
Holt interrupted Trump the most during a particularly heated exchange about Trump’s stance on the Iraq war. Both candidates attempted to dodge their former stances. Holt challenged Trump in particular, cutting him off several times to assert the business mogul did indeed support the war in Iraq when it was popular.
Holt interrupted Trump 10 times during the exchange, and demanded at least five times why Trump thought that he had better judgement than Clinton.
CNN adds the word “racial” to Trump’s quote.
Reuters orders its cameraman to stop filming during live feed as Donald Trump is being blessed by Bishop at black church in Detroit
Media bias at its worst.
As Donald Trump was being blessed by a Bishop at a black church in Detroit, Reuters ordered its cameraman to stop filming during a live feed. The brave cameraman defied this order, and even said he would be willing to face any disciplinary action from Reuters, and continued filming until Reuters cut off the feed.
September 1, 2016
A heroic man captured national attention for his action rescuing a baby from a hot car in New Jersey. But it was the way his interview on CNN-owned Headline News went down that has truly gone viral.
The man at the center of the story is Steve Eckel, a retired police officer who used a sledgehammer to break into a parked car that at New Jersey Kohl’s, as reported by CBS News on Wednesday. The baby was taken from the vehicle, which Eckel said had reached a temperature of over 120 degrees.
HLN had Eckel on to get his story about the rescue, but apparently was not interested in getting all of his free speech. The network aired the interview… while blurring his T-shirt out:
What was on the retired police officer’s shirt that was so controversial? An expletive-laded shirt? An image containing nudity? No. All Lives Matter? Support America’s Police Officers? Nope, it was a “2016 Trump” T-shirt. An interview version that arose after the segment originally aired shows exactly what was on the man’s shirt. It was too late, however, the bias of the network had already been shown:
Houston New Black Panther head Quannel X praises Donald Trump, criticizes Barack Obama and the Democratic party (three minute video)
Poll: Libertarian Johnson beating Trump, Clinton among active troops
July 20, 2016
Military troops favor Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson for president over Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, according to a new survey.
Johnson garnered 38.7 percent of the active duty vote, versus 30.9 for Trump, and 14.1 for Clinton, according to the survey, which was conducted via the popular military personality Doctrine Man.
Although the survey was not a scientific poll with a margin of error, it provides a snapshot of the preferences of about 3,500 active duty, reservists, retired and former members of the military and their family members, 95.7 percent of which were registered voters.
Among all services except for the Navy, Johnson performed better than Trump and Clinton.
Current, reserve and former members of the Army preferred Johnson at 35.4 percent. Trump, the Republican nominee, came in second at 31.4 percent, and Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee, at 15.3 percent.
Among the Marine community, an overwhelming 44.1 percent chose Johnson, while 27.1 percent chose Trump, and 12.7 percent chose Clinton.
The majority of the Air Force respondents chose Johnson at 39 percent, but Trump next at 29.9 percent and Clinton at 12.9 percent.
Trump ranked the top choice for the Navy community, at 32.4 percent, versus 31.7 percent for Johnson and 22.9 percent for Clinton.
Despite Clinton’s underwhelming performance among active duty troops in the poll, their family members preferred Clinton at 29.4 percent to 27.5 percent for Trump. Johnson came in third, at 24.5 percent.
Trump came out on top among members of the military who retired after serving at least 20 years.
Retirees preferred Trump at 37.4 percent, compared to 32.2 percent for Johnson and only 11 percent for Hillary Clinton.
However, when former members of the military who served fewer than 20 years were included, Johnson came in first, at 36.1 percent, while Hillary Clinton garnered 12.6 percent.
The new survey underscores the unpopularity of both Trump and Clinton, something that was also reflected in a recent Military Times survey.
Troops have found themselves at the center of several heated campaign debates, many of them sparked by Trump.
Trump has said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who was held captive during the Vietnam War, is “not a war hero” and has said that if he ordered troops to re-institute waterboarding, they would do it. Trump has also called for killing terrorists’ families.
Trump has also railed against the Department of Veteran Affairs and suggested Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl should be executed for leaving his post.
The attention to troops this campaign cycle has prompted the nation’s top military officer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, to remind troops not to politicize the military during the elections.
“What we must collectively guard against is allowing our institution to become politicized, or even perceived as being politicized, by how we conduct ourselves during engagements with the media, the public, or in open or social forums,” he wrote in the July issue of Joint Force Quarterly, a military academic journal.
Donald Trump Could Be the Military-Industrial Complex’s Worst Nightmare
The Republican front-runner is against nation building. Imagine that.
By William Greider
March 23, 2016
Let’s admit it. As political provocateur, Donald Trump has a dizzy kind of genius. He feints to the right, then he spins to the left. Either way, the hot subject for political chatter becomes Donald Trump.
This week, while people everywhere were fretting over his violent talk, the candidate came to Washington and dropped a peace bomb on the neocon editorial writers at The Washington Post and the war lobby. Trump wants to get the United States out of fighting other people’s wars. He thinks maybe NATO has outlived its usefulness. He asks why Americans are still paying for South Korea’s national defense. Or Germany’s or Saudi Arabia’s.
“I do think it’s a different world today and I don’t think we should be nation-building anymore,” Trump said. “I think it’s proven not to work. And we have a different country than we did then. You know we have $19 trillion in debt. We’re sitting probably on a bubble, and, you know, it’s a bubble that if it breaks is going to be very nasty. And I just think we have to rebuild our country.”
Will anybody give him an amen? Yes, lots of folks. People who read The Nation (myself included) have been saying something similar for a long time. So have libertarian Republicans on the right. But this sort of thinking is mega-heresy among the political establishment of both parties. The foreign-policy operators consider themselves in charge of the “indispensable nation.”
This new Trump talk is definitely career-threatening for the military-industrial complex. It was particularly playful of Trump to choose The Washington Post as the place to drop his bomb; after all, it’s the Post that has made itself such a righteous preacher for endless war-making.
The Donald, usually bellicose in style and substance, is singing, “Give peace a chance.” What does his detour portend for national policy? We can’t know for sure, since Trump also has a tendency to casually contradict himself before different audiences. Later on the same day, he addressed AIPAC’s convention and sounded like a warrior for Zion. He got thunderous applause after making the ritual promises that candidates from both parties always make at AIPAC meetings.
But Trump has, in his usual unvarnished manner, kicked open the door to an important and fundamental foreign-policy debate. It is far more profound than the disputes we usually hear between hawks and doves. He’s proposing a radical standard for testing US policy abroad, both in war and peace: Is it actually in America’s interest? Or has US global strategy become a dangerous hangover from the glory years, when Washington armed and organized nations for the Cold War?
Whatever happened in past decades, Trump insists that this US ambition always to be in charge is now actively damaging our country, wasting scarce treasure and drawing us into other people’s conflicts. The Post opinionators must have choked on his words.
“I watched as we built schools in Iraq and they’d be blown up,” Trump told the editors. “And we’d build another one and it would get blown up. And we would rebuild it three times. And yet we can’t build a school in Brooklyn.… at what point do you say hey, we have to take care of ourselves. So, you know, I know the outer world exists and I’ll be very cognizant of that but at the same time, our country is disintegrating, large sections of it, especially in the inner cities.”
Trump has thus shrewdly articulated what ought to be a vital subject for debate in 2016. Instead, I suspect, he will be inundated with lordly rebukes by the policy elites. And the editorial writers will explain how half-baked and dangerous his ideas are to the future of mankind.
We can imagine the labels they’ll haul out from history: Protectionist. Nationalist. Isolationist. America Firster. His challenging proposition reminds me of my childhood, because I grew up in idyllic small-town Ohio, where those skeptical views of “foreign entanglements” defined the Republican Party (there weren’t many Democrats in my home town, and they mostly kept quiet).
As teenagers, we grew up as Robert A. Taft Republicans and deeply suspicious of the “Eastern Establishment,” who looked down on us as Midwestern bumpkins. The decisive election was 1952, when Taft lost the GOP nomination to a genuine national hero, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower. We were heartbroken. In the Midwest we lived in the middle of a great big country and could reasonably feel that we should stay out of other people’s troubles. The Cold War pretty much destroyed that common sense.
Ike’s victory ratified America’s commitment to developing a new world order of global alliances and foreign military deployments. That order seemed like the right thing to do 60 years ago, but now it falls to an outsider named Trump to demand fundamental reconsideration.
I suspect most Americans would agree with Trump’s tough questions, but are not sure of the answers (neither, perhaps, is he). Plus, in these insecure times, people do not wish to sound unpatriotic. In my hometown, we quickly fell in love with Eisenhower the moderate Republican, who resisted the party’s hard right (who thought Ike was a commie).
At the end of his second presidential term, Eisenhower, the general who won World War II in Europe, was warning us about the dangers of something he called the “military-industrial complex.” I wonder what he would tell us today.
Skip to 2:48 to hear a legal immigrant from Ecuador, who supports Donald Trump, explain why socialism is horrible, and why the U.S. is the best country in the world.
We need millions more legal immigrants like this one.
Shame on Donald Trump for scaring this little girl!
Hooray for these members of the U.S. military for protecting her!
Armed Forces Members, Veterans Use #iwillprotectyou After Muslim Child Says She’s Afraid
December 20, 2015
Veterans and current service members are using social media to reassure Muslim Americans that they will fight for their rights as citizens.
On Facebook and Twitter, military service members and veterans have started using the hashtag #iwillprotectyou after one mother’s post went viral about her daughter’s fear of being kicked out of the country.
Melissa Chance Yassini posted about her daughter’s reaction to hearing proposals by Donald Trump to ban Muslims from entering the country.
“She had began collecting all her favorite things in a bag in case the army came to remove us from our homes,” Yassini wrote on Facebook about her daughter Sofia. “She checked the locks on the door 3-4 times. This is terrorism. No child in America deserves to feel that way.”
Yassini’s post went viral and was shared more than 20,000 times. Eventually she and her daughter told their story to The Associated Press. Kerri Peek, an Army veteran saw the story on social media and was horrified.
“I was up all night, it bothered me,” Peek told ABC News. “I’m a mom, for mother to mother … I know you want to protect your children from everything.”
Peek said she was especially upset that Sofia was worried about soldiers coming to take her away.
“What’s a way [for her] to know that soldiers are not going to come to her door,” Peek told ABC News, who eventually sent her a picture of herself in her Army uniform.
Included with the photo was a message, she said: “Here’s a picture of me as a mom and soldier and I’ll come to protect you.”
But Peek didn’t stop there, she asked her friends to continue to send Sofia messages of support. She started a hashtag, #iwillprotectyou, last Wednesday and implored other military service members and veterans on social media to pledge to protect Muslim children like Sofia from being discriminated against.
“Post a picture of you in uniform with the hashtag ‘#WillProtectYou’ to let these children know that we will not hurt them. That they are safe here in America,” she wrote on Facebook.
I need your help my friends. Will you help me please?? I am asking all my friends in the Armed Forces, Active or…
Posted by Kerri Peek on Thursday, December 17, 2015
Peek said she has now received hundreds of messages from people who shared their fears over discrimination or who pledged to support others’ freedom of religion.
The hashtag has quickly gone viral with veterans and service members posting pictures of themselves on social media offering words of support and comfort to Sofia and other children who are Muslim.
Sofia, u r the reason I serve. I don’t ask what religion ppl r b4 I help them: I just do. #iwillprotectyou pic.twitter.com/CDHAAYIjnw
— Elizabeth April (@Cinders09051984) December 19, 2015
Peek said she has even heard from Yassini about Sofia’s reaction to the new viral hashtag.
“She said she’s been reading the posts to her daughter and her daughter feels so much better knowing that she’s a part of America,” Peek said.
Peek says she has now set up a Facebook page for people to voice their support and hopes the group will continue to grow.
Sofia, #Iwillprotectyou, too, with voice, pen, name, sweat, and blood. I meant my oath when commissioned. I mean it now. USAR ’90-’01.
— Graham R. Scott (@graythebruce) December 19, 2015
Sophia, still serving and #IWillProtectYou pic.twitter.com/eUPP3EnlRY
— katie lewis (@laylamedic) December 20, 2015
Donald Trump offers to donate $5 million to charity of Barack Obama’s choice if Obama releases his college and passport records within the next week
I think this is a brilliant move on Trump’s part: