It’s time to ask the question: Is Obama a Muslim?

Share Button

Hello, I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty®. First, Happy Thanksgiving and a wonderful holiday season to you and your family. Now, on to the very serious news about the madman running our country. You know, the guy who has made us all feel like foreigners in our own country. Or haven’t you seen the latest poll that proves a majority of Americans don’t even recognize or feel comfortable in America anymore?

Today’s column is all about the reason why. It’s a five-letter word: O-B-A-M-A. The news involving Obama and what he’s doing to his country gets stranger every day. And more dangerous.

Obama says, “ISIS is contained.” The next day, 130 people are dead in a massive, frightening ISIS attack in Paris.

Within days, there is another terrible radical Islamic terrorist attack in Mali.

But Obama refuses to back down. He asks for even more Syrian refugees.

At the same time Obama is demanding we import dangerous Muslim refugees, he is sending back Iraqi Christians. He talks about compassion for Muslim refugees, but deports Christians.

During the same one-week period, Russia reports Obama’s policies actuallyhelped ISIS.

What American president would do these things … or say these things? It’s all so strange and unsettling. It sure feels like something is very wrong. It sure feels like we’re being sold down the river.

So it’s time to ask loudly, publicly: Is Obama a Muslim, and is he capable of leading this country or our military at a time of war versus radical Islam?

In the past few days, I’ve heard from dozens of friends and associates telling me they fear we have a Muslim in the White House. They are panicked. They are frightened. They are in shock (many for the first time) about the danger our country is in.

Bill O’Reilly came out the other night and suggested mental illness. He asked if Obama is “delusional.”

If you don’t believe he is delusional or mentally ill, what other plausible answer is there for his strange behavior? Before we come to any conclusions, let’s first look at a few of Obama’s statements and actions.

He can’t even say the words “Islamic” and “terrorist” in the same sentence.

He won’t join France and Russia in a serious war against ISIS.

Our own pilots report that Obama’s policies block 75 percent of airstrikes. So Obama’s tough talk about bombing ISIS is just like his famous quote, “If you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance.” It’s just another lie.

He’s left our borders wide open. Eight illegals from Syria were just caughtat the Texas border.

An unusual number of Middle Eastern military males have been caught at the San Diego border.

For every one caught, how many have already sneaked in?

Ironically, they don’t really need to sneak in. Obama is inviting them in. He’s already brought hundreds of thousands of Muslim immigrants into this country during his presidency.

He wants tens of thousands of Syrian refugees resettled here.

Syrian. Say that word slowly. Understand its meaning. Terrorists from ISIS lurk among these strangers coming into our country, forced down our throats. Keep in mind it was an Islamic terrorist leader who recently bragged that more than 4,000 terrorists have been smuggled into Europedisguised as refugees.

Obama’s own Department of Homeland Security and FBI have publicly admitted we cannot vet the incoming Muslim refugees. The FBI directorsays we have no records and, therefore, no way to distinguish between moderates and extremists.

But Obama doesn’t care what his citizens think. He doesn’t care what governors think. Obama’s State Department says governors have no say on whom he dumps in their states.

Obama announced he will veto Congress if it dares to require closer screening of Syrian immigrants.

But Obama is so extreme is his thinking about Syrian refugees that the House ignored his threat and voted with a veto-proof majority. An unheard-of 47 Democrats voted against Obama.

Even Democrats now understand on the topic of fighting radical Islam our president has gone off the rails. Something is very wrong.

More signs of Obama’s Islam problem

He agreed to the worst, most lopsided treaty in world history with Iran. That treaty makes it a certainty that extreme radical Iranian mullahs will have a nuclear bomb.

As a bonus, Obama gave this terrorist regime $150 billion, funds that will undoubtedly be used to fund terrorism all over the world.

And amazingly, Obama promised that the U.S. would protect Iran’s nuclear facilities from Israeli attacks.

Obama’s own former adviser admits he purposely alienated and distanced the U.S. from Israel to win the trust of Iran. But what other world leader would want to win the trust and support of a terrorist regime?

Obama leaped at the chance to bring a Muslim boy to the White House who was accused of building a bomb. Yet he has never once thought to bring the young child of a Marine, or Navy Seal, or police officer killed in action to the White House.

Obama ordered his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to take the side of Muslim delivery truck drivers who refused to deliver beer. Our own government forced companies to pay a $240,000 reward to Muslims in our country, hired to do a job and refusing to do it based on their laws, not ours.

Obama took their side. Think about that for a minute.

Obama even recently proposed banning pork at federal prisons. I’m not joking.

What president would get involved in a decision about pork? Obama is paralyzed with indecision about how to stop ISIS; he refuses to ban refugees from Middle Eastern war zones; but he’s more than happy to ban pork! Isn’t this all bizarre behavior?

Something is very wrong.

In his book Obama said the sweetest sound he knows is the Muslim call to prayer; and in a speech at the U.N. he said, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Obama may be playing a gotcha game of “Is he a Muslim, or not?” — but increasingly, for the rest of us, it’s become a game of life and death.

So I’m going to ask the question out loud what tens of millions of common-sense Americans are whispering in private: Is Obama a Muslim?

My answer is: I don’t know, and I don’t care. Obama’s religion doesn’t matter. What matters is he’s so in love with the Muslim religion, the Muslim culture and the Muslim people that he’s incapable of leading our country or commanding our military at a time of war against radical Islam. He is not capable of making a move. He’s not capable of drawing up a plan. Heck, he’s not even capable of saying the name of our enemy (radical Islam) out loud.

Mr. Obama, I don’t know if you truly consider yourself a Muslim. But I know you don’t think or act like a normal American. I know your life is about defending Islam, yet the murder or persecution of Christians all over the world at the hands of Muslims doesn’t interest you. I know your plans to defeat ISIS appear to have helped them grow stronger. I know your response to ISIS and Islamic terrorism is not normal or rational. Russia’s Vladimir Putin and France’s Francois Hollande both respond like leaders. Can you imagine? I’m proud of Putin and ashamed of my president.

I know you respond like a man too conflicted and compromised to lead the fight against our radical Muslim enemies. You can’t bring yourself to stand against Muslim extremism, even as Muslim crowds in “moderate” Turkey boo and chant “Allahu Akbar” during a moment of silence for the victims of the Paris attack by ISIS.

I don’t know if you’re a Muslim, Mr. President. But that doesn’t matter. What I know is that you’re not on our side. I know you are compromised and corrupted. I know you are a biased Muslim sympathizer. I know you’ve lost the credibility to lead our country or command our armed forces. I know you must go.

And I know it’s time to demand Obama resign or be impeached because our country will not survive his last 14 months. I know removing Obama from office is a matter of grave national security.

I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty®. See you next week. God bless America.

Americans feel like strangers in their own country, so it must be Trump’s fault

Share Button

sad man with American flag face paintA majority of Americans, undoubtedly all xenophobes and bigots in the eyes of the mainstream press, say they now feel like a stranger living in their own country.

Fifty-three percent of Americans surveyed for a recent poll said they feel like “a stranger” living in the U.S., and even more — 58 percent — said they don’t identify with America as they recognize it today.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll that arrived at these findings frames the results in unequivocally progressive terms. The title — “The rise of Neo-Nativism: Putting Trump into Proper Context” — says it all. There’s something bad afoot (“neo-nativism”), it has something to do with Donald Trump (extra-bad) and it can’t be understood unless it’s been tamed by a “context” that allows progressives to dismiss it as a moral failing on the part of conservatives.

“Independent of the polls, there is a method to Trump’s madness,” Ipsos public affairs vice president Chris Jackson helpfully explains:

Simply put, Trump’s candidacy taps into a deep, visceral fear among many that America’s best days are behind it. That the land of freedom, baseball and apple pie is no longer recognizable; and that ‘the  other’ — sometimes the immigrant, sometimes the Non-American, and almost always the  nonwhite — is to blame for these circumstances. This pure unabashed nativism … is Trump’s brand of populism and is fit for purpose in 2015. It both gives him electoral strength and popular appeal.

Terrible, just terrible.

For progressives, what’s so terrible isn’t the fact that a majority doesn’t feel at home in their own land. Rather, it’s the fact that Trump understands why they feel that way, and that understanding might place him in the White House.

“Trump performs well with all Republicans, but he certainly is strongest with people who are nativist leaning,” the poll surmises, before later adding this:

So who are these nativist voters who might be kingmakers in 2016? They look something like the Republican party in general. They tend to be whiter than the rest of the population, older, less likely to have a 4-year college degree and live in the South.

Rubes, then, the lot of them.

Part of the problem, writes Jackson (who apparently views it as a problem) is that “many people no longer recognize the America of their grandparents — an increasingly nonwhite and correspondingly more liberal country.”

Ipsos provides links to back up the idea that the country is more liberal — and so it may be, in some respects.

Then again, it may not be “nativism” that’s nourishing the appeal of anti-establishment Republicans like Trump and Ben Carson. It may be seven years of Barack Obama’s progressivism and the recent (and related) surge in concerns over immigration, depressed wages and the threat of terrorism on American soil.

And it’s not as though conservative values were politically passé before Trump started fomenting all the nation’s bitter white clingers into a bigoted lather. Following the GOP wave election of 2014 — back when ISIS was still sitting on Obama’s imaginary jayvee bench and illegal immigration was regarded primarily as only an economic problem — Republicans enjoy full control of both the governorships and the legislatures of 24 states.

Democrats, meanwhile, have been reduced to controlling just seven. At least they know how to put their failures into the proper context.

Report: Canada to bar entry to single male refugees from Syria

Share Button

Report: Canada to bar entry to single male refugees from Syria

Sources tell CBC move taken to deal with security concerns.

Canada will limit refugees accepted into the country to women, children and families only, according to a CBC report.

Sources told the Canadian news network that “to deal with some ongoing concerns around security, unaccompanied men seeking asylum will not be part of the program.”

According to the report, in the last six weeks alone, Canadian authorities have managed to screen about 100 people a day in Lebanon and the Canadian government has been silent about the security screening it is doing

Canada was set to release details this week concerning its pledge to take in 25,000 refugees from Syria by the end of the year, Immigration Minister John McCallum said on Friday.

The promise became a significant component of the new Liberal government’s election campaign, but since the attacks in Paris last week, questions have been raised as to whether the government will be able to bring that number of refugees to Canada quickly and safely.

Young French People Are Flocking to Enlist in the Wake of Paris Attacks

Share Button

By VICE News

The number of young French people hoping to enlist in the armed forces has tripled since the November 13 terror attacks that killed 129 people in the French capital, army officials have said.

Colonel Eric de Lapresle, head of marketing and communications for the army’s recruitment arm, told French daily Le Monde that he was “floored” by the surge in applications.

According to de Lapresle, the army’s recruitment website –, which translates as “enlisting” – is currently fielding an average 1,500 applications a day versus 500 a day before the attacks. France’s Armed Forces Information and Recruitment Centers are also facing an influx of candidates, although exact figures have yet to be released.

On the “why enlist” page of its website, the army’s recruitment service lists several arguments for joining the military, including the chance to “defend the French, France and its values” and to “experience a brotherhood of arms.” The site offers recruitment option to candidates who have dropped out of high school, candidates with a degree, and those with up to five years of secondary education.

The rise in enlistments comes just three days after President François Hollande opened his extraordinary address to both houses of parliament with the statement, “France is at war.”

In a speech that indeed had all the tones of a call to arms, the president compared Friday’s tragic attacks to “acts of war.”

“I know I can count on the devotion of police officers, gendarmes, soldiers and you, representatives of the nation,” Hollande said in the televised speech. “You know the meaning of duty and, when the circumstances require it, the spirit of sacrifice.”

Hollande also announced he would freeze planned military personnel cuts through 2019, and suggested using the country’s reservists to form a home guard.

The government had already reviewed proposed defense cuts in the wake of the January 2015 attacks that left 17 people dead in and around Paris, when radical Islamic militants attacked satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo and a Jewish supermarket.

According to Le Monde, the French army will have 15,000 new recruits by the end of 2015 – 5,000 more enlistments than in 2014. The estimated number of new recruits for 2016 is 16,000.

The 15,000 who join the army in 2015 will be recruited from a pool of 160,000 applicants, with only 60,000 candidates submitting to the various physical, medical and psychological evaluations and tests required to join. Still, the number of people considering a career in the military is significantly up from 2014, when 120,000 people filed their initial application.

This can partly be explained by the army boosting its recruitment efforts following the January attacks, and raising the number of annual recruitment drives from three to five. But according to de Lapresle, “Even when we stopped advertising, numbers did not go down or went down very little.” In 2014, he told Le Monde, the army’s website was fielding an average 130 requests a day through its website (up to 300 or 400 during an advertising campaign), with those numbers soaring to 500 in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks (up to 800 during an advertising campaign).

In the United States after September 11, 2001, the military exceeded its recruiting goals in the year following the attacks, and the army’s financial statement for 2002 shows that 79,585 joined that year, versus 75,855 the previous year. Other factors, such as the country’s weak economy at the time and the introduction of the GI bill that provides free college education for soldiers, are also believed to have boosted 2002 enlistment figures.

But while enlistments did rise in the wake of the attacks, the modest surge was short-lived, with “less than 1 percent of the nation deploying in Iraq or Afghanistan between 2001 and 2011,” according to the New York Times.

Cancel the Debate! CNN Caught Selectively-Editing Trump’s ‘Muslim’ Comments

Share Button

Left-wing cable news network CNN has been caught red-handed selectively editing Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump’s comments about a “Muslim registry,” and doing so in order to make it sound as though he is agreeing to this registry. He is not.

The edited video is yet another lying log on the left-wing garbage fire that is CNN, and yet in just three weeks, this very same garbage fire is hosting the next Republican presidential debate!

What exactly does CNN have to do in order to lose its right to depose these candidates for two hours in front of the whole world? If CNN is already maliciously editing video to “take out” out the frontrunner, I don’t even want to speculate.

Courtesy of Gateway Pundit, watch the CNN video. Pay special attention to the sneaky edit just before Trump says “absolutely”:

The left-wing liars at CNN have intentionally edited the video to make it look as though Trump said “absolutely” to a Muslim registry. What CNN edited out is in bold:

Reporter: Should there be a database system that tracks Muslims who are in this country?

Trump: There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases. We should have a lot of systems, and today you can do it. But right now we need to have a border, we have to have strength, we have to have a wall, and we cannot let what’s happening to this country happen any longer.

Reporter: Is that something your White House would like to implement?

Donald Trump: I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.

Trump’s “absolutely” is clearly in reference to strengthening the border. Look at the whole transcript. When the NBC News reporter asks, “Is that something your White House would like to implement?,” Trump has just talked about fortifying the border and obviously believes that is what the NBC reporter is referring to.

CNN edited that out!

It is time for Reince Priebus and the Republican Party to stand up these left-wing hit squads disguising themselves as journalists.

CNN should not be allowed within a country mile of a GOP debate.

How many more warning signs does the Republican Party need to realize that this is a suicide mission?

Do we want to win in 2016, or not?

Once again lame stream media lies like a rug in quest to destroy Trump

Share Button

Drive-Bys Lie and Claim Donald Trump Said Register All Muslims


RUSH: The Drive-Bys are trying to destroy the two leading Republicans again today, Donald Trump and Ben Carson.  They are doing a terrific job of taking Trump out of context.  He was leaving the stage, I guess it was last night, he was doing a personal appearance somewhere, he was leaving the stage, he’s finished, and a Drive-By gets amongst the autograph speakers and starts peppering him with questions.  He answered a question and it’s how the reporter is purposely misinterpreting it to say that Donald Trump last night said that he’s in favor of a registration database of all Muslims in the US, and everybody in the Drive-Bys has run with it, and he didn’t say it.  We have the audio sound bite coming up to illustrate it.


RUSH:  Now, I don’t know if you have seen it yet today.  There are stories all over the Drive-By Media — the Associated Press, Yahoo News, I mean, it’s everywhere — that Donald Trump supposedly is calling for the registration of all Muslims in America. Trump is demanding that they all be registered and that a massive database be collected.  CNN is all over reporting this. Even the Wall Street Journal has picked up on it.  There’s a problem, though:  Trump didn’t say it.  I’m gonna tell you what happened.  At a recent public appearance Trump’s coming off the stage after one of his usual one hour to 90-minute appearances.

He’s probably worn out and spent, and there’s the usual crowd of autograph seekers and supporters and fans, and amongst them is a Drive-By Media reporter who says to Trump, “Should there be a database system that tracks the Muslims that are in this country?”  Trump says, “There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases.  We should have a lot of systems, and today you can do it. But right now we have to have a border.  We have to have strength, we have to have a wall, and we cannot let what’s happening to this country happen again.”  Reporter:  “Is that something your White House would like to implement?”

There’s no specificity there.  The question is just, “Is that something your White House would like to implement?”  Trump has given a multifaceted answer.  She says, “Is that something,” without specifying what she’s asking about.  Trump said, “Oh, I would certainly implement that, absolutely,” and that’s how they report that Trump “demands a database and registration for all Muslims,” when he didn’t say it! He never said it.  It’s a Journalism 101 trick.  It’s right out of the manual they teach you at the first year of journalism school in how to destroy political opponents or powerful people you don’t like.  It’s that common a technique.


RUSH:  Now, I’m not sure, but I think that the reporter that asked Trump the question and has totally, totally twisted this purposefully to convey something that did not happen, I think the reporter works for Business Insider.  I think the reporter is Hunter Walker.  If that’s who it is, you need to know that this guy is a major backer of Hillary Clinton, as most in the Drive-By Media are.  He has written endless articles championing her, and now I think he writes for Yahoo News and is the Business Insider politics editor.

So here is how this happened.  This is in Newton, Iowa, yesterday after a campaign event. Trump’s leaving the stage, and a reporter says, “Should there be a database system to track Muslims in this country?”  Now, nobody has suggested that, keep in mind. Trump has not suggested it.  So the reporter’s not asking a question bouncing off anything Trump has said.  It’s just a question thrown at Trump, and it comes to him in the midst of autograph seekers and fans and supporters wanting to meet him after his performance is finished.

TRUMP:  There should be a lot of systems beyond database.  We should have a lot of systems.  And today you can do it.  But right now we have to have a border.  We have to have strength.  We have to have a wall.  And we cannot let what’s happening to this country happen.

REPORTER:  But is it something your White House would like to implement?

TRUMP:  Oh, I would certainly implement that, absolutely.

REPORTER:  What do you think the effect of that would be?  How would that work?

TRUMP:  It would stop people from coming in illegally.  We have to stop people from coming into our country illegally.

REPORTER:  Muslims specifically, how do you actually get them registered into a database?

TRUMP:  It would be just good management.  What you have to do is good management procedures.  And we can do that.

REPORTER:  Would you go to mosques and sign these people up into the system?

TRUMP:  Different places.  You sign ’em up at different — but it’s all about management.  Our country has no management.

RUSH:  Okay.  Now, two things about this.  The first is, as I said, everybody in the Drive-By Media is running with this because they think they’ve got Trump again.  They’re salivating out there, folks, they are hoping, they’ve got their fingers crossed, they’ve doubled down, they’re putting this story everywhere: Trump sexist, Trump bigoted, Trump anti-Muslim, wants a database; wants to go to their mosques to sign ’em up; wants to have them carry around symbols on their clothes to tell everybody who they are. And he never said it.

This reporter, Hunter Walker, retweeted the headline from the AP.  The AP headline:  “Trump Says He Would Absolutely Implement Muslim Database.”  This little know-nothing reporter is so proud of his work today.  This, as I say, journalism 101.  This is what they teach you when you want to take out a political opponent or a powerful person you don’t like, this is how you do it, with innuendo.

Again, here’s what happened.  Trump comes offstage, “Should there be a database system that tracks Muslims that are in this country?”  It’s a setup question from the get-go.  Nobody has suggested it.  Trump said there should be a lot of systems beyond databases. We should have a lot of systems. And today you can do it, but right now we have to have a border. We have to have strength. We have to have a wall, and we can’t let what’s happening to this country happen again.

He has not confirmed a database.  He has not confirmed registration of Muslims.  He’s changed the question to his favorite subject, the wall and the border and keeping illegal immigrants out.  The reporter says, “Is that something your White House would like to implement?”  Not specifying.  If anything, the guy’s talking about the border.  The last thing Trump said in his answer was talking about the border, strength, a wall.  The reporter says, “Is that something your White House would like to implement?”  There is nothing specified.  The use of the word “that,” the reporter then can say, “Well, I meant Muslim registration, look what Trump said, Trump knew what I was talking about.”

But Trump’s answer was, “Oh, I would certainly implement that, absolutely.”

Reporter:  “What do you think the effect of that would be?”

“It would stop people from coming in illegally.”  Trump’s still talking about the border.  He’s still talking about the wall.  He says, “We have to stop people from coming into this country illegally.”  So how in the world can Trump be talking about the registration of Muslims or anybody when he’s still talking about keeping people out of the country?  Muslims are here.  This is a good, old-fashioned hatchet job by this low-rent reporter named Hunter Walker who’s got everybody in the media reporting it the way he wants because this is what they want people to believe about Trump. This is what they believe about all Republicans. We’re bigots, we’re racists, sexists and so forth, and Trump’s just come along and confirmed it. And I guarantee you there’s a contest inside the Drive-By Media to see who can be the one to take Trump out.

Here is what they are forgetting. This isn’t gonna hurt Trump.  Even their journalistic malpractice is not gonna hurt Trump.  They haven’t figured that out.  They keep applying standard, ordinary, everyday tactics on hit pieces to Donald Trump, and all that happens as a result is that Trump increases his support.  Trump’s support gets stronger. It gets deeper every time they try something like this because Trump is dead serious about protecting this country and its borders and keeping terrorists and so forth out of the country.  He makes no bones about it.  He’s one of the only candidates that’s unwavering on it.  It’s the number one issue.

And you combine what’s happening with ISIS in Paris and border security, national security, protecting and defending the country and the people who live here is far and away the number one most important issue because everything descends from it.  The economy descends from it.  Jobs descend from it.  Everything that matters descends from this country remaining a country.  It has to have a border.  That border has to be enforced.  Trump’s the only guy talking about.  They think they’ve got him. They’re gonna be crying in whatever it is they drink.  This is not going to rip the bottom out of Trump’s campaign.  It’s not gonna destroy Trump’s campaign no matter how much they’re lying, no matter how they try to distort this, because Trump did not say he’s in favor of registration or a database of all Muslims in America.

And once again, what’s gonna happen here is an ever increasingly aware and sophisticated public is gonna just get angrier and angrier at the usual childish tactics of the very unrespected Drive-By Media.  Once the public learns what’s happened here, the anger is not gonna be at Trump.  There wouldn’t have been that much anger at Trump anyway among his supporters.  That’s what they don’t understand.  You people in the media have got to understand something.  You’re gonna have to go about this a different way.  You didn’t make Trump; you can’t destroy him.  There’s nothing you can do.  And look at the lengths they’re now going to try.  Exactly what they did to Romney, by the way.  This is no different than Harry Reid saying, “Mitt Romney hasn’t paid his taxes in ten years.”  “Hey, look at Mitt Romney putting the family dog on top of the station wagon.”  “Hey, Mitt Romney, one of his employees’ wives died of cancer, Romney didn’t care, went ahead and canceled the health care plan, didn’t care.”

I don’t think this guy’s questions were even registering with Trump.  I think Trump continued to talk with his own framework in mind, meaning his focus on the wall.  Because if you continue on with the sound bite — keep in mind here that Trump’s never talked about registering or having a database of Muslims.  The reporter asks a fake question:  “Is that something your White House would do, like to implement?”  Trump answers, “Yeah.”  He keeps talking about the wall. He keeps talking about the border.  “Oh, I would certainly implement that, absolutely.”  Trump’s still talking about the border.

The reporter says, “What do you think the effect of that would be?  How would that work?”

Trump:  “It would stop people from coming in illegally.”  He’s still talking about the border.  He’s still talking about his wall.  “We have to stop people from coming in illegally.”

Reporter:  “For Muslims specifically, how do you actually get them registered in your database?”  Trump has never said that he wants to register them in his database. He’s talking about the wall. He’s talking about the border.  This idiot, talentless reporter says, “Well, for Muslims specifically, how do you actually get them registered in your database?”  Trump says, “It would be good management.  What you have to do is good management procedures, and we can do that.”  He’s still talking about the wall.  He’s not even listening to this kid.  He’s walking out of there, he’s answering the question, he’s got it answered, he’s on the wall, he’s on the border, that’s what he’s talking about.

When it’s all over the reporter makes it up that Trump’s talking about registration of Muslims and a database.  Totally makes it up.  Anyway, I gotta take a break here.  I just wanted you to see this. I wanted you to hear it, the reporter’s own words, Trump’s own words because it’s been picked up everywhere, and, mark my words, the next poll that comes out, Trump’s just gonna jump even higher and they’re not gonna know what to do with themselves in the Drive-Bys.  But you people in the media are gonna have to learn something.  When you don’t make somebody, you can’t destroy him.  And you haven’t made Trump.  The media has nothing to do with why Trump’s where he is, and therefore you can’t take him out.  You can try, you may think you can, but he’s got a bond, a connection with his supporters and his audience that you people are not gonna be able to break no matter how hard you try.


RUSH:  So you know how this works? I just got an e-mail from a friend of mine who plays around on Facebook, and he sent me a screenshot of his Facebook post that he sent out, and he wants me to know that he’s on top things.  He says, “Yeah, Trump wants to register all Muslims.  The last guy that wanted to do that was Hitler with the Jews!  Come on, folks! We’re going backwards.”  So I just had to write him back: “Hey, buddy, you’ve got it 180 degrees wrong.  Trump didn’t say it!”  This is a guy that reads the news all day.  This is exactly how this happens.  You’ve got every Drive-By news source now reporting this.

originalI’m not sure who the reporter was that actually got this whole thing started, but there are the suspects who have taken what that kid did and expanded it are all over the place.  You could mention any Drive-By name out there and you’d be pretty close to being accurate about who did this.  I’m not exactly sure who the reporter was at the Trump event.  I was told one thing and now I’m told that that’s not necessarily true.  But the guy’s name I gave you is still responsible for expanding, amplifying, and leading this. That Hunter Walker is who kicked it all off.  Doesn’t really matter.

I mean, they’re all the same stripe, and they’ve all got the same objective here.  And this e-mail I just got from a friend of mine — who’s not an idiot, and you know, he’s not a casual consumer of news. It’s in the Wall Street Journal. This guy’s a financial guy. He read it in the Wall Street Journal, and the Wall Street Journal to these guys is gospel.  I have tried to tell every friend of mine, and it’s probably gone for naught.  I’ve tried to tell them just based on the way I get covered, and they know me and they know what’s written about me is all bogus.  I said, “Could you not apply that to every story you hear, particularly about people you support?

“Could you just learn to not believe anything you read if it’s defaming Republicans in the Drive-By Media?  Could you just learn to be suspicious of it and try to confirm it on your own? (sigh) But it doesn’t work that way.  People believe it.  “There it is!  It’s in print. It’s right there,” or, “It’s on my screen, Rush! I mean, they can’t write stuff that isn’t true!” I can’t tell you how often I hear that.  So Trump’s gonna… I don’t know how he’s gonna deal with this. He will, but… (sigh) Let me… I’m gonna go ahead and get in trouble myself here.  Can I give you what I think might have happened with a lot of people when they first saw this BS story?

What do you think? You’re driving around or you’re reading or whatever and you hear, “Trump wants to register all Muslims!” (interruption) Yeah. (chuckles) Get my drift?  So I’m just marveling here. I’m thankful for the opportunity. I’m thankful I haven’t retired. I’m thankful I’ve still got this program and a chance to come here every day and illustrate the dishonest, the reprehensible, the just scummy way these people work.  And each time I see something like this, I focus even more on, “They’re not media!”  This isn’t media!  This isn’t the news.  The media is the Democrat Party.  The media is all part of the left-wing establishment that’s trying to advance the Democrat Party agenda.

Every time I see a story like, “Trump has to fight media here or overcome media,” I ask: Why would you have to overcome the media?  The media’s just a bunch of journalists telling people what happened who weren’t there. (thumps table) Of course, this is the exact opposite.  Everybody knows now, or many people. And even people who know what the media is, still get sucked in and believe this stuff.  But when you read the transcript of what Trump said, when you actually read it or hear it and then compare it to the news being reported, you can’t escape the fact that the media’s making it up; that Trump never said it.

originalLet me grab a phone call.  We always try to get one in in the first hour on Open Line Friday.  It’s Leo in Northern Virginia.  Hey, Leo, I’m glad you called.  Hello.

CALLER:  Hey, Rush.  Hey.  You know, this whole database thing, you could take it one of two ways. Either it could be good for us, and we should all be in some sort of database.  I know my wife and I… She doesn’t even have a clearance, because I do. Her records got breached through OPM. So who’s gonna keep these records and keep ’em safe?  These guys have already proven that they can hack into wherever they need to.  They can forge any kind of document they want. (coughs) Excuse me.  So what’s to say they don’t go in there and maybe delete their names out of the database, or add it in if it’s the safe, y’know, Muslims, however they label it?

RUSH:  Wait a minute.  You’re accepting the premise here.  You know it isn’t true, and yet you’re accepting the premise.

CALLER:  No, no, no, no, no! Quite the contrary.  I think it would be a big mistake to create a database.

RUSH:  Because the bad guys can hack it?

CALLER:  Absolutely.

RUSH:  Well, let me ask: “Do you think there aren’t such databases in this country?” Who the hell do you think has them?  If you think there are databases of people — and we know damn well there are! It’s called metadata from your phone calls.  It’s a database!  Now, whether it’s a database by virtue of your religion or your conservatism or liberalism or whatever, there are databases all over, and who’s got them?  The Obama administration has them! Not Trump.  And Trump hasn’t even suggested it.  Remember Maxine Waters, “Obama’s gonna have the biggest database anybody’s ever seen! We’re gonna know everything about everyone!  Nobody knows about it but we’re working on it. It’s gonna be the best thing.”

They already exist, folks, and Barack Hussein O has ’em.

Wake up!


RUSH:  Even Ted Cruz has gotten in on this.  “Ted Cruz Disagrees with Trump on Muslim Registry.” He says, “I’m a big fan of Donald Trump, but not a fan of big government registries of American citizens.” Even Cruz fell for it!  The Republican Party, the establishment, may not let go of this.  They may think they’ve got him, I’m sure.



States versus Feds on Syrian refugees

Share Button

immigrant, refugees, migrants, syria conceptWith the mainstream media consistently reporting that governors are planning to block the president’s Syrian refugee resettlement plans, two main camps have emerged in recent days. Unsurprisingly, they’re both missing the most important point.

On the one hand, there are people who say that states can’t do anything about the president’s plan. On the other hand are people who say that states not only can do something about it, but must.

There are other variations of these two, and even a mix of them. But all of them have missed something essential. What states “can” and “can’t” do might not even matter. And that’s how the “father of the Constitution” expected things like this to play out.

I’ve been watching this develop, especially with the 10th Amendment being referenced so often. In a nutshell, here are answers to some important questions:

How does the refugee resettlement plan work?

If you don’t understand how things work, there’s no way to formulate a strategic response to them. So here’s the short version.

In general, the federal Department of Homeland Security starts the process with its own screening (or lack thereof, depending on who’s talking about it). Then the Federal State Department coordinates resettlement of those admitted. In most situations, a nongovernmental organization (NGO) working under agreement with the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (never heard of it before? You’re not alone, but it does have aFacebook page) then agrees to be the refugee’s sponsor. Once details are worked out, PRM arranges travel and the NGO meets them at the local airport. In most situations, state and local governments aren’t involved.

I hear some states are going to put a stop to this; is that true?

Georgia Gov. Deal issued an executive order “directing state agency heads to prevent the resettlement of Syrian refugees in Georgia.”

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley said he “will oppose any attempt to relocate Syrian refugees to Alabama through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.”

Arizona Gov. Ducey is claiming his state’s “rights under federal law” to “consult” with federal officials over refugee placement.

Tennessee State House GOP Caucus Chairman Glen Casada (R-Franklin) wants to ramp things up. “We need to activate the Tennessee National Guard and stop them from coming into the state by whatever means we can,” he said.

In most situations, action has been limited to public statements, so far. It remains to be seen if this is mostly just political grandstanding, or the beginning of a true states-versus-Feds standoff.

Is the media telling the truth about what governors are saying?

While the mainstream media have generally primed the pump about states refusing refugees, in many situations they’ve either misreported what’s going on or simply hyped it up. Take New Jersey Gov. and former federal employee Chris Christie, for example.

On Monday, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that Christie “won’t accept Syrian refugees in NJ.” The Associated Press repeated the claim, saying that “New Jersey will no longer accept Syrian refugees in the wake of last week’s Paris attacks.” Salon claimed that Christie joined a “growing list of Republican governors who have declared their states Syrian refugee free zones.”

Now don’t be surprised, but the media isn’t all that honest. While it’s harder to be much worse on the Constitution than Christie (his hatred for both the 4th and 10th Amendments, for example), his letter to President Obama tells a far different story than what the media has told you.

“I cannot allow New Jersey to participate in any program that will result in Syrian refugees — any one of whom could be connected to terrorism — being placed in our state,” he wrote [emphasis added].

Christie also said he would direct the New Jersey Department of Human Services not to participate in resettlement activities. And he requested that nongovernmental organizations assisting with resettlements notify state authorities if they resettle anyone from the country.

This is a far cry from a “refugee free zone.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott did say in his letter to the president that Texas “will not accept any refugees from Syria,” but couched that in terms of noting that the Texas Health and Human Services Commission’s Refugee Resettlement Program would “not participate in the resettlement of any Syrian refugees in the State of Texas.”

The situation isn’t much different with Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, and most other reports. In general, the media has it mostly wrong.

Isn’t the federal government fully in charge of immigration policy anyway?

Some people, like the rabid partisan nationalists Ian Millhiser of ThinkProgress have insisted that immigration is 100 percent a federal issue, which is interesting in light of reports from ThinkProgress that give support to so-called “sanctuary cities” acting to partially thwart some federal immigration policies.

Others, like Judge Andrew Napolitano of Fox News have said that states “can’t really interfere with what the federal government does” with Syrian refugees.

At Fortune, Steven Dennis writes that the “power over immigration under the Constitution rests with the federal government.”

Louisiana Sen. and gubernatorial candidate David Vitter said in a recent campaign ad that “as governor, no Syrian refugees will enter Louisiana.” While it’s possible that Vitter has a plan to seal the state borders, it is odd to see a politician claim his state has authority over immigration laws in his state, when in recent months he has been pushing federal legislation to stop states and “sanctuary cities” from “ignoring our nation’s immigration laws.”

Like Millhiser and ThinkProgress from the left, Vitter and others from the right are not the most reliable sources of constitutional education, as their views over who can do what on immigration change based on political circumstances.

In 2010, I wrote an article which noted that while “naturalization” is a power expressly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, “immigration” was not, suggesting that states do have a constitutional role over who migrates into their territory. In response, a leading constitutional scholar admitted that previous attempts to claim immigration was a federal power under the Commerce Clause were wrong. He determined instead that “Congress’s power to define and punish … Offenses against the Law of Nations included authority to define immigration rules and punish those who violated them.”

What about the 10th Amendment?

As a reminder, the 10th Amendment is a legal “rule of construction” which Thomas Jefferson considered the bedrock of the Constitution. It reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In short, it simply means that the federal government can do only what has been delegated to it in the Constitution and nothing more.

That goes for immigration, too.

OK, but that’s still not clear. Can states actually do something?

The question is really less about whether or not states “can” or “can’t” take action on this issue (and many others, actually), but more about whether or not they will.

In fact, that’s just how James Madison expected things to play out.

In “Federalist No. 46,” he gave us a blueprint for how to end federal programs through actions by individuals and states. This included four main responses.

  • Protest by the people: to show their opposition to the federal act.
  • Outspoken governors: to bring attention to the issue.
  • Noncompliance: Madison recommended a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union.”
  • State law: He expected “legislative devices” to be used to strategically counter and thwart federal acts.

Used in various states simultaneously, Madison said that this would be an extremely effective method to bring down federal acts. And this was at a time when the federal government relied on just the federal government to implement federal programs.

He also noted that this strategy could be used for federal acts that were “unwarrantable” or “warrantable,” but unpopular. That is, constitutional or not, federal acts can be brought down without waiting for the federal government to end them.

Additionally, even the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld Madison’s approach by validating the principle that the federal government cannot require the states to help them enact or enforce federal acts or regulatory programs.

This is something with which almost everyone, from left to right (including Millhiser) agrees.

So how does this play out in practice?

If Georgia state agencies really do stop Syrian refugees from entering the state, they’ll likely face a quick lawsuit from the federal government, and an almost certain injunction from a federal judge demanding that they stop the practice immediately.

Would Gov. Deal, a former federal representative, flat out defy a federal court order?

Will Tennessee State Rep. Casada convince Gov. Bill Haslam to defy his friends in Washington, D.C., and activate National Guard troops to keep out Syrian refugees?

“Tennessee is a sovereign state. If the federal government is forsaking the obligation to protect our citizens, we need to act,” Casada said during a phone interview with The Tennessean on Tuesday.

His colleague, Tennessee state rep. Rick Womick, is considering legislation to take back control of the state’s refugee resettlement program from Catholic Charities of Tennessee. The state ran the program until 2008.

If they pass such a law, Tennessee could certainly rely on Madison’s advice, along with the Supreme Court’s “anti-commandeering doctrine,” to simply refuse participation with the refugee resettlement program.


If you’ve read this far, you know there’s no quick and easy answer. It’s unlikely that Congress is going to be able to stop Obama’s plan. And federal agencies aren’t going to stop it either.

In the states, it’s possible, even if unlikely, that governments will physically impede the resettlement program or activate National Guard troops to round up people placed by the Feds. And if they do, it’s most likely that the federal Supreme Court will agree with the federal government that the federal president has sole authority over this issue.

On the other hand, states can, without question, refuse to participate without any real threat of a serious legal challenge (Still, do not trust the federal courts here either). But the logistics of this program, unlike most other federal programs, is that state governments are not an essential part of it all.

But if multiple states take action like Womick has suggested, this would be far more likely to have a serious impact on the federal government’s ability to resettle refugees within the United States.

In response, even if the unlikely happened, and these acts were challenged — and defeated — in federal court, the interim period would see a complete cessation of resettlement in states that took this course.

What’s more important to how this will play out is now what states “can” or “can’t” do in theory. But what they’re willing to do in practice.

An additional thought

If what appear to be all four steps in James Madison’s plan are actually being put into effect, it’s my personal view that the federal government doesn’t stand a chance.

I don’t think that’s likely. But, either way, it’s pretty easy to see today how just the possibility of that happening is causing serious issues for those in power.

One might be inclined to ask why governors haven’t been doing this for years in response to federal gun control or National Security Agency spying. Right or wrong as a policy matter, effective or not, maybe this episode will teach a few of them that saying “no” to federal programs is an extremely popular platform.

–Michael Boldin

Obama, ISIS and you

Share Button


contained111915Last Thursday, President Barack Obama fixed a global audience with either grim determination or intestinal discomfort and declared the islamofascist terrorist cabal known as ISIS had been “contained.” The announcement put him at odds with ISIS itself, which replied to Obama’s profession of progress by launching the worst attack on the city of Paris since the Nazis marched down the Champs-Élysées.

The complete annihilation of a man’s greatest foreign policy “achievement” at the hands of a group that he has repeatedly dismissed as “jayvee” might drive an ordinary man to at least re-evaluate his goals, if not his rhetoric. But our man Barry put “ordinary” in the rearview mirror somewhere between Bill Ayers’ living room and the back nine at Congressional Country Club. Obama responded to the blood-soaked repudiation of virtually every statement he has ever made about ISIS by bringing down the rhetorical hammer — on you.

Much as he has loudly blamed the wave of violent crime that has gripped Democrat-owned American cities on white people who own firearms and/or “racism,” Obama blames ISIS’s refusal to abide by his commands on you, you bigoted xenophobe. Actually, he claimed during an event in the Philippines that growing resistance to his program to fill American cities with unvetted Syrian “refugees” is the real cause of all this ISIS misbehavior.

“I cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIL than some of the rhetoric that’s coming out of here during the course of this debate,” Obama said.

See, you racist “islamophobe?” If we would simply throw open our doors to every Tariq, Daesh and Hassan, then the whole world would instantly transform into one happy halal party. And who could argue with him? Certainly not the people of Paris, who … nevermind.

In fact, Obama doesn’t even want to discuss the fact that his obituary for ISIS was as premature as any of the promises he made about Obamacare. He has moved on to more pressing matters, such as acting like a spoiled 9-year-old. During a press conference with President Benigno Aquino III, Obama responded to millions of Americans’ concerns over the immediate influx of dozens, if not hundreds, of thousands of the same people who produced the masterminds of the Paris attacks by mocking them:

Apparently, they’re scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America as part of our tradition of compassion. First, they were worried about the press being too tough on them during debates. Now they’re worried about 3-year-old orphans. That doesn’t sound very tough to me.

Take that, you conservative pansies! So what if somewhere in the neighborhood of 75 percent of the “refugees” who are making Europe such a hoedown are neither grief-stricken widows nor Arabic Tiny Tim Cratchits, but men between the ages of jihadi and jihadi? What’s important is that Republicans are big ol’ meanies who hate women and children almost as much as Planned Parenthood hates giving up that sweet dead baby parts swag. And quit picking on the CNBC kids, you bullies!

And don’t think Obama’s letting you get away with denying anyone the chance to take up residence in the cozy confines of the nation ISIS has sworn to burn to the ground. Wednesday afternoon, Obama promised to veto Republican-sponsored legislation that would add an FBI background check to the entry requirements for Syrian refugees. While the bill would neither halt immigration nor even impose any religious requirements, Obama called the measures “unnecessary and impractical.” And God Allahknows that anyone who would willingly attack his own citizens with IRS goons is an expert on unnecessary and impractical. If you need further proof, ask refugee Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

In what has become a wearily familiar pattern for Obama’s seven-year foreign policy face-plant, ISIS took less than 24 hours to debunk Obama’s pronunciations. Even as we learned that one of the suicide bombers in Wednesday’s raid in Saint-Denis, France, was one of the “widows” about whom Obama is so worried, ISIS supporters were stabbing a schoolteacher in Marseilles. Within hours of Obama’s juvenile dig at Americans, ISIS released a new video, this one promising attacks on Times Square. As Obama accused Americans of child abuse, footage surfaced of ISIS training kiddies in the fine art of waging jihad against the crusader infidels.

Of course, Obama’s minions have slavishly fallen in line behind their dear leader. Secretary of State John Kerry, whose haplessness has generally been relegated to a supporting role in the Obama circus, declared on Tuesday that the islamofascists who lit up the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris had a “rationale” for their barbarism. Kerry tried to draw a distinction between the animals who murder people over pictures of their “prophet” and animals who murder people over general refusal to worship their prophet. I know I’m always humbled when the guy who married Sen. John Heinz’s widow reminds me to see things from the islamofascist point of view.

Meanwhile, sheep have been bleating from farther back in the herd. The left has resurrected the rubric that blames islamofascism on President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. In doing so, they’ve managed to sidestep at least a half-century filled with fun guys from like Abu Nidal, Yasser Arafat and Ayatollah Khomeini. But that’s only when they’re not parroting the claim that ISIS is somehow the bastard child of so-called “global warming” — and you.

–Ben Crystal

Paris terror attack proves Trump was right

Share Button

Hello. I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. I’m here today to talk about two controversial, high-profile, bigger-than-life subjects: the ISIS terrorist attack in Paris and Donald Trump.

Let’s start with Donald.

Donald Trump is brilliant. Trump is a chess master. His instincts about immigration and the border were 100 percent on the money. Unfortunately, it took a terrible ISIS terrorist attack to prove it.

Because of the events from last week in Paris, immigration and our open border with Mexico just became the No. 1 issue in America. All the presidential candidates are now playing on Trump’s home turf. Trump is in command of the most important issue in America. This is what keeps mothers up at night.

And ironically, all the negatives that Trump’s critics and enemies say about him make him perfect to lead the fight against ISIS and other radical Islamic terrorist groups. They say that Trump’s mean, vicious, combative, offensive and bombastic; that he doesn’t care about political correctness; that he doesn’t care about hurting people’s feelings; that he takes no prisoners. Great! We’ve found the right man for the job. That’s who I want leading the fight versus ISIS.

Most importantly, I want someone who:

  • Doesn’t worry about offending anyone by saying the words “terrorism” and “radical Muslim” in the same sentence. Poor babies.
  • Doesn’t worry about offending anyone by saying we need to investigate mosques and, if proven to have ties to radical Islam, close them.
  • Doesn’t worry about offending anyone by saying we cannot take Syrian refugees into our country because some of them are ticking time bombs.
  • And doesn’t worry about offending anyone when he says we must deport all illegal aliens out of this country.

Always remember Trump wrote the book on negotiation. It’s called “The Art of the Deal.” His new book should be called “The Art of the Immigration Deal.” Will Trump ever get the chance to deport 12 million to 15 million illegal aliens? Maybe not. But Trump understands this is all a negotiation. Just the threat of deporting millions of illegal aliens puts Trump in the driver’s seat to get what he really wants.

So what does he really want? What’s realistic for a conservative president with a Republican Senate and House? My educated guess is Trump wants the following four things. And with the threat of deportation of millions hanging in the air, he’ll negotiate to get what he really wants.

First and foremost, Trump wants to build a wall. We must gain control of our own border. What was the first thing the Socialist president of France did after a terrorist attack? He closed the borders. Even a Socialist just proved how important it is to control your borders. It’s how you keep your citizens safe from terror. It’s literally the difference between life and death.

Walls work. Ask Israel. After it built its wall, terrorist attacks were stopped cold in their tracks. If America wants to keep ISIS out of America, we must seal and control our border. Democrats will be playing on defense with President Trump in the White House. They’ll be so busy fighting mass deportation that Trump will easily get his wall. Under President Trump, the days of America being stupid are over.


Second, if Trump “compromises” and agrees not to deport every single illegal alien, there is something very valuable to negotiate. If he allows these lawbreakers to stay, they’ve won the lottery; they should kiss the ground of the great United States. But there’s a catch. They can stay only if they’re here to work. They will not be allowed to collect welfare, food stamps or other entitlements ever again. That’s the penalty. That’s the very fair price they have to pay to not be deported. If they agree to work, pay taxes and pay their own bills, they can stay.

It’s a new dawn in America under President Trump. You can’t break into our home and then expect us to pay your bills. You can work; you won’t be deported; you’re in. That’s the American dream. Welfare is not the American dream. You can never collect welfare, food stamps, housing allowances, aid to dependent children or all the hundreds of other entitlements available to citizens. You get a work permit, but you’ll never be a citizen. That’s the deal under President Trump. Take it, or leave.

Oh, and one other concession by illegal aliens: They must give up the right to ever vote. That would be a terrible conflict of interest. You committed a crime. Now, you’re in. But you’ll never get the privilege of voting. That’s reserved for American citizens. Under President Trump, the days of America being stupid are over.


Third, Trump may never get approval to deport every single illegal alien, but his compromise position should be the instant deportation of every illegal alien in American prisons. Most of them are Mexican nationals. Why are we paying for their prison costs? Are we stupid? President Trump will demand Mexico reimburse us for every single dollar, or we’ll immediately deport every Mexican criminal back to Mexico. Just drop them off on the Mexican side of the border. And with our shiny new wall in place, they won’t ever get back in.

Either way, Mexico can pay the bill. Under President Trump, the days of America being stupid are over.


Finally, here is the last thing Trump should demand. On the first day of a Trump administration, Donald Trump will overturn the Obama-Kerry plan to import tens of thousands of Syrian refugees into America. It’s insanity to allow thousands of potential terrorists into America. It’s self-destructive. It can lead only to the decline or death of America and our Judeo-Christian values.

Why aren’t wealthy Muslim countries taking them in? Why isn’t Saudi Arabia or Kuwait taking them in? After what just happened in Paris, it’s clear to any sane American that we cannot let any Syrian refugees — or any other Muslim refugees, for that matter — into our country. The risk is immense, and there is no upside. Who’d be dumb enough to let a bunch of strangers into your house around your children if there was a chance some of them were murderers? Only a dumb, mentally ill liberal. But they’re not coming near my family. Donald Trump will restore sanity to America.


Millions of American mothers now understand that we need someone like Donald Trump to keep their children safe at night. That’s what a president is for: to keep our children safe. His job is protect American children — not Muslim refugees from a dangerous land, who are raised to hate us, terrorize us and murder us in the name of their religion.

Let Muslim nations worry about Muslim refugees. Let them risk terrorist attacks. Let them risk violence, rioting, neighborhoods too dangerous for police to enter, soaring poverty, women not allowed to go to school and 90 percent rates of government dependency.

Now even mothers who ordinarily vote Democrat understand the value of Donald Trump. And that folks is what you call “the art of the deal.”

Now some of you may be saying, “But this is Wayne’s plan. How do we know Donald agrees?” Well he does. I know because I sent this entire commentary to him. Donald Trump replied personally with a handwritten note, saying: “Thanks Wayne. This is AMAZING. Donald.”

So this isn’t my interpretation of Donald’s plan. This is Donald’s plan!

I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. See you next week. God bless America.