WHY TRUMP TRIUMPHED!

ANN COULTER’S IN TRUMP WE TRUST

Rev. by Hugh Murray

            Ann Coulter’s most recent book was christened amid a storm.  On p. 3 she wrote, “…there’s nothing Trump can do that won’t be forgiven.  Except change his immigration policies.”  The very day following release of her book, adoringly titled In Trump We Trust, E Pluribus Awesome!, Trump seemingly changed his immigration policy!  A day or so later, Trump was again campaigning in his familiar style, “We are going to build a wall.  And who’s going to pay for it?”  “Mexico!”  Coulter could breathe more easily.

            This is not one of her deeper books, but Coulter does expose the media, and especially that which most required exposure – Fox News.  She discusses the actions of the Fox News “moderators” at the first Republican debate among the major presidential contenders.  The debate is memorable with one of the first questions coming from Fox’s Bret Baier, asking if the candidates would take an oath to support the eventual nominee of the GOP convention.  All raised their hands except Donald Trump.  His evasive response put him on the spot, especially with the Republican audience.  Then Megyn Kelly ripped into Trump by quoting his earlier remarks on various women.  Though Trump attempted to deflect the thrust by joking that all he was referring to was Rosie O’Donnell, Kelly pressed the women’s issue harder.  Coulter contrasts the grilling that Trump received, with the pass that the moderators gave to Marco Rubio.  Rubio had run for election as an opponent of amnesty for illegal aliens, but once elected, he joined the “gang of eight” in proposing an amnesty bill.  Rubio’s flip on this important issue was not deemed important enough to elicit a question by the Fox staff.  “Indeed there was no question but that Fox News was trying to take out Trump at that first debate.  One of the moderators, Bret Baier, later admitted as much…”(62)

            Coulter emphasizes, what made Trump’s candidacy stand apart from his 16 rivals for the GOP nomination was his stance on immigration.  The Democratic Party had long ago become a party of expanded immigration, especially after Sen. Ted Kennedy had led the fight for the 1965 Immigration Act.  That law effectively reversed American immigration policy set in the 1920s, which had greatly restricted immigration.  Major elements of the Democratic Partyat the time, like trade unions and the Ku Klux Klan, favored restriction.  Republicans, suspicious of the anarchists and Bolsheviks among the newcomers, also favored the restrictionist policies of the 1920s law.  However, in the more liberal 1960s, symbolized by the rise and martyrdom of two Kennedy brothers, it seemed natural that Sen. Ted Kennedy would become a major spokesman of the new immigration law that sought to end racial quotas of the old one.  In the debate for the 1965 law, Sen. Kennedy assured Americans that millions of immigrants would not enter New York each year, and the proposed legislation would not alter the ethnic population of the US (Kennedy’ assurance was similar to Pres. Obama’s decades later: - you can keep your doctor and keep your plan and save about $2,500 a year on your insurance with Obamacare).  Like Obamacare, the 1965 Celler-Hart immigration bill passed and became law.  Despite Kennedy’s assurances, the 1965 greatly changed the racial and ethnic composition of the US.

But America was changing in other ways too.  While trade unions remained a major constituency of the Democratic Party, the unions were changing.  As trade policies caused the closing of ever more factories, the high-wage union jobs in those factories evaporated over the years.  The factory belt became the rust belt, and a depressed belt.  Those unions had usually opposed widespread immigration realizing that it would depress their wages.  The law of supply and demand meant that vastly increasing the numbers of low-skilled workers meant lower wages.  But members of those unions were in decline due to trade policies.  Meanwhile, the unions that grew were often those for government workers, teachers unions, office workers, and service workers.  Many more of these were ideologically on the left, and some were illegal aliens themselves.  By the 1990s, union leaders changed their positions and became favorable to immigration and in line with the general thrust of the Democratic Party.  They also hoped that these new Americans would vote Democrat once they became citizens (if not before).

            Meanwhile, in the Republican Party, while many on the ground level were not happy about the changes they saw in “Dial 1 for English,” different languages, customs, religions, there appeared no intensity on the issue.  The media comforted their fears showing how the immigrants were really just like us.  And Republican businessmen were quite happy to have more potential workers to compete for lower wages.  Farmers found this to be a good solution too.  Though Republican Pres. Eisenhower had permitted a round-up and deportation of many illegal Hispanics in the 1950s, Reagan actually signed an amnesty for about 2-3 million illegal aliens.  In theory, the Reagan approach was a compromise, a one-time amnesty followed by strict border controls.  The amnesty happened, but no one was willing to enforce strict border controls.  So now we had what is said to be 11 million invaders in the nation.

While some Republican aspirants for the nomination spoke of roads to citizenship, paying taxes, some minor penalties, they all amounted to amnesty for the invaders.  Jeb Bush, who had raised over $100 million for his campaign chest, was considered the presumed nominee by many.  To Jeb, the invader is not committing a crime by entering the nation illegally; he is committing “an act of love.”  The Bush family is married into one of the wealthiest families of Mexico.

Into the fray of 17 Republican aspirants for the Presidential nomination, only Trump made it emphatically clear, he planned to end illegal immigration.  And he said it in a most politically incorrect manner – he would deport the Mexican drug dealers and rapists.  The media were horrified, as was most of the GOP political flock.  But Trump rose in the polls.

Coulter presents (162-63) a case of how immigration costs America – a case one would never see spotlighted on the major TV networks.  A Mexican illegal had 13 children, and all receive welfare and other services that American citizens must pay for to support them.  The parents have been in the US for over 20 years, but neither they nor their teen-age children speak English.  Our taxes must support the translators too.

Coulter is also excellent at exposing how the major media cover up for Muslim terrorists.(134)  “While at Walter Reed Medical Center, Major Nidal Malik Hasan gave what was supposed to be a medical lecture on how non-Muslims should be decapitated, set on fire, and have burning oil poured down their throats…He shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ before gunning down soldiers at Ft. Hood.”  Yet, Pres. Barack Hussein Obama’s Administration concluded Hasan’s shooting and killing was a case of work-place violence – not Muslim terrorism – and the major media went along.  Coulter provides other examples of the liberal media attempt to obfuscate, distort, lie, excuse, anything but admit to the real threat of Muslim terrorism in the US.  Coulter quotes Jeh Johnson, Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security (143-44) on why the US cannot ban Muslim immigration.  Coulter’s point – without a ban (or proper vetting, which is currently impossible in areas like Syria), we will be importing more terrorists.

Coulter’s final chapter, “Geniuses,” is a compilation of quotations by media figures revealing why Trump’s race for the nomination is a joke, why he is a clown, why Trump has no chance, why he cannot win, etc.  Coulter exposes the bias and errors of the media.

Coulter includes a share of her funny zingers, but she does not include an index.  Her book provides readers with insight into why Donald Trump won the GOP nomination in the summer of 1916 and the Presidential election later that fall. 

MAJ. HASAN IS SANE; LIBERALISM IS NOT

For those abroad, Major Hasan was in the military, and four years ago took his weapon onto the military base and shot and killed 13 or 14 people.  The Obama Administration did not want to call it a terror attack, so it was classified as workplace violence.  Last week, his court appointed attorneys sought to take control of the case from Hasan, for they thought him insane, because he would not follow their advice and instead was trying to get the court to condemn him to death.  The government attorneys are as politically correct as much of America society.  That means, they are incorrect.  They are so blind they cannot understand that Hasan wants to take a political stand at his trial.  He is willing to risk his life to present his case - the case for Muslim jihad, for killing the enemies of Islam.  Malkin exposes some of the insanity about the case: fellow officers were aware Hasan was a Muslim jihadist, but did nothing about it for the Dept. of Justice would have charged them with racism and bigotry - the worst crimes in Obama's new America.  Also, our military bases are disarmed!  Only civilian police had weapons and could halt the murderous rage of Hasan.  In America, many will conclude that Hasan is insane because he shot and killed fellow service men and women.  In America, many are willfully blind and refuse to comprehend that Hasan, like the suicide bombers, is willing to lose his life for the cause, in his case, the cause of Islam.  Hasan is not alone, nor is he the only Muslim jihadist in the US Army.  What IS insane are American policies that made fellow officers afraid to condemn Hasan when he spoke, and disarmed fellow officer so they were unable to defend themselves when Hasan began shooting and killing.  Liberalism is the lunacy.  Hasan should have been executed years ago, but like most murderers in the US, his case drags on and on.  
     Hasan was an army psychiatrist.  Can you imagine how he "helped" soldiers suffering from problems of killing the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan?
     Major Hasan was a soldier.  He proclaimed he was a soldier of Islam.  He thought it; he said it; he acted upon in.  He killed fellow American soldiers in his war for Islam - a war against the West.  Hasan is not insane.  He is an enemy of the West and Western values.  If the Hasans win, we will be subjected to sharia law.  If the Hasans win, Western Civilization will be destroyed.  He is the enemy.  He acted upon his evil jihadist beliefs.  He should have been executed years ago.
--------HUGH MURRAY

Three Forgotten Facts About the Fort Hood Massacre

By Michelle Malkin on August 6, 2013 at 7:21pm

Finally. Four years after Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan walked into the Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood, Texas, and perpetrated the bloodiest massacre ever on an American military base, the self-confessed jihadist's court martial proceedings began this week. Have you forgotten?

Americans obsessed over the O.J. Simpson, Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias trials. Gun-control lobbyists turned Newtown, Aurora andTucson into national awareness-raising, fundraising and legislation-promoting campaigns. But where are the celebrity lobbyists and high-profile advocates for the victims of bloodthirsty Muslim vigilante Nidal Hasan?

The White House, which downplayed the terrorist mass murder as"workplace violence," exacerbated national apathy for his evil acts. Our soldiers deserve better. Here are three facts you've probably forgotten—or never knew—about the Fort Hood terror spree.

• --Fourteen victims fell on Nov. 5, 2009, not 13. Thirteen of our U.S. military personnel died in cold blood at the deployment center. But the death toll was actually 14. Pvt. Francheska Velez, 21, was pregnant when Hasan shot her during the first round of gunfire. At a military Article 32 hearing in 2010 (analogous to a civilian grand jury hearing), a survivor of the Fort Hood shootings testified that Velez cried out, "My baby! My baby!"
  In his opening statement on Tuesday, Hasan (acting as his own lawyer) apologized to his fellow jihadists for not destroying more innocent life.
• --The victims were all unarmed. Soldiers inside the deployment center were and are forbidden from carrying weapons—either issued weapons or personal arms—on base. When Hasan commenced his shooting spree by shouting, "Allahu Akbar," several brave men and women in uniform used chairs, tables and their own bodies to try to stop him. But it wasn't until a courageous, armed civilian police officer,Sgt. Kimberley Munley, arrived on the scene with her 9mm Beretta that Hasan's rampage was interrupted.
  In a gunfight outside the deployment center, Munley wounded Hasan—who was able to return fire and shot her in the hand, thigh and knee. While she lay on the ground, Hasan kicked away her weapon. Another armed civilian police officer, Mark Todd, was able to fire at Hasan five times and brought him down.
  Gun-control zealots led by the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence exploited Fort Hood to argue for even tighter gun restrictions. But it was a 1993 Clinton administration gun-control directive banning most military personnel from carrying their arms for personal protection that facilitated Hasan's massacre except under very limited circumstances. Despite the death of 13 soldiers and the wounding of more than 30 at Fort Hood by a jihadist who warned his superiors that Muslim soldiers posed a specific threat, gun-free military base policies remain in place.
• --Hasan's military colleagues were more concerned with being accused of discrimination than with ridding our military of this known, deranged Islamic radical. In 2007, two years before he carried out his homicidal plan, Hasan laid out his murderous means, motives and Koranic inspiration for all to see.

His PowerPoint slide presentation to fellow Army doctors was titled: "The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military." Hasan warned: "It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims." And: "We love death more then (sic) you love life!" As first reported by Pamela Geller, Hasan carried an official calling card with the designation "SoA (SWT)"—for "Soldier of Allah" and "Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala" (Islamic for "Glory to Him, the Exalted").

Hasan told his superiors he was not alone among Muslim soldiers who believed they "should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly."

He reminded the Army of the fatal 2003 fragging attack on American soldiers in Kuwait by Sgt. Hasan Akbar (who was sentenced to death but remains alive while his case drags on in appeal) and the desertion case of Lebanon-born Muslim Marine Wassef Ali Hassoun.

A Joint Terrorism Task Force had been monitoring Hasan's communications with jihad spiritual leader Anwar al-Awlaki all along. But the military was not notified. Even without that information, military officers expressed concerns privately that Hasan might leak classified information to terror groups if he were deployed and that he was capable of committing a fragging.

Yet, they were prepared to deploy him anyway and did nothing to remove him from his job. One email from an Army investigator before the Fort Hood massacre fretted: "Had we launched an investigation of Hasan we'd have been crucified."

Instead, 13 soldiers and one unborn child were slaughtered and paid with their lives for our country's reckless political correctness and bureaucratic fecklessness.

Michelle Malkin [email her] is the author of Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores. Click here for Peter Brimelow’s review. Click here for Michelle Malkin's website. Michelle Malkin is also author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild and Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies