Donald Trump versus Hilary Clinton – who is going to win the White House?


Dr. Mohsen El-Guindy


Now we have two presidential nominees competing to win the White House, the Republican, Donald Trump and the Democrat, Hilary Clinton. My views about the two presidential candidates will be based on their political history and the plans they announced to the public during their electoral campaigns.

1- Donald Trump

Donald Trump – a man fought by his own Party!

Several observers predict Hillary Clinton to win the presidential election over Donald Trump by a landslide. With the election year nearly over, Clinton is predicted to maintain her lead in the polls, with a 7- to 10-point advantage. “She’s ahead in almost every poll, every swing state, every national poll,” Silver, the editor-in-chief of ESPN’s FiveThirtyEight blog, said on ABC’s Good Morning America.
It seems that the whole world is standing against Donald Trump. Donald Trump is not only fought by the Democrats, but also by his own Party! It is the first time in the American political history that a Republican Party presidential candidate is fought by his own party in order not to be elected!

Most Republicans working around Washington are upset by Donald Trump’s takeover of their party. Conservative Republicans have recruited Evan McMullin, a former CIA staffer and top House GOP aide to launch an independent White House bid. In their view, McMullin could cause problems for Donald Trump in a key state if he gets on the ballot. McMullin will offer anti-Trump conservatives an alternative to Trump and Clinton.

The people who drafted McMullin to be the “Never Trump” independent candidate are some of the Republican establishment’s most well-known operatives: Bill Kristol, John Kingston, Joel Searby, Rick Wilson.

The McMullin candidacy, which is being pushed by the remnant of the NeverTrump movement, appears to be designed with several key goals in mind: 1) Prevent Donald Trump from getting a majority in the Electoral College, 2) Promote a hawkish foreign policy, and 3) Motivate disgruntled anti-Trump Republicans to show up to vote for down-ballot Republican candidates.
The very existence of the well-funded McMullin candidacy is almost certain to have an impact on the Republican electorate.

McMullin has said Trump is a threat to democracy and Clinton is corrupt. He called Trump “inhuman” and said the Republican nominee doesn’t care about anyone but himself — pointing to Trump’s criticism of the Khan family, parents of a US soldier killed in combat, and Arizona Sen. John McCain, who Trump once suggested is not a war hero. McMullin also cast Trump as a candidate who’s already lost the general election.

“Donald Trump is already losing badly to Hillary Clinton. He is a weak candidate and he’s performing that way,” he said.
Evan McMullin, has only been in the race for a few weeks and lacks the massive name recognition of Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump. McMullin was pleased to get 1 percent in a recent poll.

The McMullin campaign is still working to get ballot access in other states. According to the Independence Party, he is on the ballot in nine states and is working to get on the ballot in a half a dozen others.

I wonder at the failure of the Republican Party to realize that Donald Trump is their only hope to win the 2016 presidential election! Donald Trump is so much distinguished that his Party cannot foresee his high political capabilities. They cannot perceive that Trump is their real hope to the White House, and also their hope to reform their already deteriorating party.

The Republican Party in its present form is a disaster. The Republicans are neglecting the reasons behind the deterioration of their Party because they are either looking after their narrow interests on the expense of their electorates, or are busy spreading dissension in their Party by fighting each other for no logical reason. Their fight among each other reached the extent of fighting their own presidential nominee Donald Trump!

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) recently said about Republicans’ choices, “Nominating Donald Trump or Ted Cruz could prove fatal for this party. It’s like being shot or poisoned. What does it really matter?” More recently Mitt Romney, the last Republican presidential nominee said, “If we Republicans choose Donald Trump as our nominee, the prospects for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished.” He added “Think of Donald Trump’s personal qualities: The bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, and the absurd third grade theatrics. You know, we have long referred to him as ‘The Donald.’ He’s the only person in the entire country to whom we have added an article before his name, and it was not because he had attributes we admired.”

Senator Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) put up a lengthy Facebook going after the Republican Party frontrunner for the fact that his “relentless focus is on dividing Americans and talking like he’s running for king.” Former New Jersey Republican Gov. Christine Todd Whitman said, “While I certainly don’t want four more years of another Clinton administration or more years of the Obama administration, I would take that over the kind of damage I think Donald Trump could do to this country, to its reputation, to the people of this country.”

There is a palpable fear in Republicans who believe if Trump is the nominee the Republican Party will not only lose the White House and the Senate but possibly even the House.

According to a New York Times report on Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R- Ky.), “Mr. McConnell has begun preparing senators for the prospect of a Trump nomination, assuring them that, if it threatened to harm them in the general election, they could run negative ads about Mr. Trump to create space between him and Republican senators seeking re-election. McConnell said about Trump, ‘We’ll drop him like a hot rock.”

Senior Republicans, including former presidents George HW Bush and George W Bush and House speaker Paul Ryan, subsequently refused to endorse him (1).

A handful of Republican senators, as a matter of principle or political prophylaxis or both, have completely disassociated themselves from their party’s nominee. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has variously termed Trump a “race-baiting, xenophobic religious bigot” and a “jackass.” Jeff Flake of Arizona has urged his colleagues to withhold their endorsement of Trump; “there are certain things you can’t do as a candidate,” he said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” Ben Sasse of Nebraska has described Trump’s attacks on Curiel as “the literal definition of racism” and has called for a third-party alternative.

Donald Trump however, and with his fighting spirit said: “I don’t need Republican unity to win.” Facing rebellion from within his own party, Donald Trump has dismissed unity as a prerequisite for winning the White House in November.

“I think it would be better if it were unified,” said Trump in an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press. “And I think there would be something good about it. But I don’t think it actually has to be.”

Many expected Trump to be more effusive in his efforts to court party elders. Instead, he has indicated he considers it their obligation to come to him. Neither side is yet willing to give ground.

Still, Trump has consistently predicted that his presidency would unite both the Republican Party and the nation.

“This country, which is divided in so many ways, is going to become one beautiful, loving country,” he said after winning in Indiana.

The deterioration of the Republican Party is behind its animosity to Donald Trump

the disunion among the Republicans is the reason behind fighting their own presidential nominee. In an article entitled “The deterioration of the US Republican Party and ways of reform” (2).

I mentioned the signs of such deterioration and the reasons behind it. The signs of deterioration reside in the following (1) imposing the religious beliefs of the Christian Right on the American people; (2) the neoconservative Republicans are war-monger bullies: (3) The Christian Right and affiliated Republicans are responsible for the spreading of Islamophobia in America; (4) the Republican Party is the Party of hate; (5) the Republican Party is the Party of “No” to almost every policy proposed by the Democrats intended to benefit the American people; (6) the Republican Party racked by political and religious disunion put forward the worst field of presidential candidates in 50 years; (7) the Republican leadership now faces the most potent extreme faction in its history; (8) Republicans have engaged in treachery, acts of anti-democracy and conduct detrimental to the people of the United States; (9) the issues on which Republicans are supposedly running are either ridiculous or nowhere to be found; (10) neocons have corrupted the Republican Party; (11) apocalyptic GOP is dragging America into civil war.

I summarized the reasons behind the deterioration of the Republican Party  in the following: (1) the Republican Party is associated with several factions and sects that are obstructing its social and political role in the American society, e.g. Christian Right, Evangelical Protestants, neoconservatives, Judeo-Christian coalition, Tea Party; (2) the Republican Party believes in the Christian Right distorted ideologies that are tearing it apart, e.g. dominionism, reconstructionism, racism, white supremacism, distorted reading of the Bible and its detrimental impact on world peace; (3) the Republican Party is influenced by the Tea Party. The Tea Party’s ties to the Republican Party have been consistently dragging its political position to the right; (4) Neo-conservatism of the Republican Party threatens the world peace; Republicans and the Tea Party are against Islam as a religion thus spreading dissension between non-Muslim and Muslim Americans; (5) the entire Republican Party has fallen prey to bigotry and paranoid fantasy; (6) the Republican Party says something and does something else; (7) the Republicans were behind war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and were behind the plot against the Middle East “the new Middle East or the Arab Spring” in order to divide the countries of the Middle East into sects living in small sectors without borders. The objective is to reshape the Middle East according to its geostrategic needs and objectives. The result was millions were killed, and millions of refugees scattered on the borders of foreign nations seeking shelter and protection (2).

The Republicans were also behind wars between the Palestinians and the Israelis. This is because they are dominated by the Christian Right and its distorted end-time prophecy.

Because the Republicans embrace the distorted ideas of the Christian Right, they believe in dominionism with an apocalytic End Times theological viewpoint that sees the war in Iraq and Palestine as part of God’s plan.

The Republicans have embraced for more than three decades end-time prophecy—interpreting world events as ‘signs’ of Jesus’ imminent return—and politics. Christian Right Evangelicals have interpreted almost every domestic or international crisis in relation to Christ’s return and his judgment upon the wicked. The Republicans blindly followed suit.

The Religious Right was the one who started all this hatred against Muslims and Islam. The Christian Right sowed the seeds of hatred between non-Muslim and Muslim Americans without any logical reason. The falsehood they disseminated among the people tore the society apart.

The Christian Right implemented an evil and an imperialistic agenda against the Muslim world by tarnishing the religion of Islam and convince people that Islam is a wicked religion and Muslims are terrorists and heretics.  The Christian Right worked hard to picture Islam as an evil religion, and its adherents as savages, and bloodthirsty.

Now we can see Republican Senators using the issue of Islam phobia in their electoral campaigns. Others, in the Congress, demand to restrict the movement of American Muslims and put them under siege! Others claim that American Muslims are unpatriotic citizens and must not join the army or penetrate the Congress, they must be deported. They even went to the extent of doubting the honesty and patriotism of the two Muslim Senators in the Congress!

Neoconservatives and members of the Tea Party also joined the comedy and their irresponsible and silly statements about Islam showed their hatred and bigotry. The objective is to prepare the ground for a vicious war against Muslim countries in order to divide the Arab world into small entities based on religious differences, ethnicity and racism.

This tremendous influence of the Christian right in the American political life explains the attempts of presidential and congressional candidates to seek its consent and to submit willingly to its embezzlements. The Christian Right with its distorted reading of the Bible and its false apocalyptic and dispensationalism beliefs has destroyed the Middle East countries.

The Christian Right considers all Palestine a conclusive home for Israel and to hell with the Palestinians, the original inhabitants of the land! The Christian right should have realized that by blindly supporting the Israeli aggression in Palestine, had entered into the circle of injustice. Its hands became stained with the Palestinian blood and its conscious became burdened with the crimes of murder and expulsion. In the sight of Allah supporters of criminals are equally guilty as criminals themselves. These crimes are the product of the Christian right’s unconditional support for Israel without considering the simple right of the Palestinians to live as human beings in their poor modest homes. They think that by killing Palestinian Muslims they are clearing the universe from the enemies of God. They must not play God, for God is Just to his servants and is against tyranny and aggression. Had they confined themselves to the real Christian teachings aiming at justice and peace, their relationship with God and the world would have been different and better.

The Christian Right is behind the division we see now in the Arab world. The only country that will benefit from this division is Israel of course. The Christian Right is threatening the world peace because it is interfering in America’s foreign policy thus directing it to siding blindly with Israel. The Christian Right is unwilling to see any peace settlement in the Middle East.

The Christian Right adjured American policy makers to adopt situations in the Middle East more harmonious to the Torah Prophecies and to declare the right of the Jewish people to live in the land that was given to them by God, including the West Bank, Gaza and Golan Heights. The leader of the Christian ethical majority claimed that as mentioned in the Book of Genesis the borders of Israel stretch east to Euphrates River, and west to the west of Egypt. He also added that the borders of the Promised Land enjoin parts from Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, all Lebanon, Jordan and Kuwait!

This is how the Evangelical mind thinks. God chose the Israeli, while the evil infidel Arabs are not blessed by God. The Christian right believes that since it was God’s wish that Israel be established, any Arab or Palestinian claims in Jerusalem or in Palestine land are false pretenses.

They even think that the Arabs are but pieces of chess in a holy cosmetic game, a hysteric power unfit to perform any reformatory or positive role in history. The Arabs are the enemies of God because their conflict with Israel is a challenge to His will. And as history is heading towards its end, the Arabs become the focus of evil, uniting with the disfigured imposter against God!

The Old Testament heritage made several American Christians look at the Arab-Israeli conflict as a reflection to the events pictured in the Old Testament. They consider the Israelis of the 21st century as the Children of Israel mentioned in the Torah, and the Palestinians are the Philistines whose hero Goliath fought David.

“It seems therefore that for the sake of Israel, the Christian Right is ready to inflame a nuclear war to ascertain the sacred prophecies.

“The American administration surrendering to the evil desires of the Christian Right, will be responsible before God for the hundreds of thousands killed in Palestine, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan. Allah will charge them for the women, elderly and children who faced collateral damage and fleeing armed conflicts.

“The Christian Right in collaboration with the Zionists are surely taking America to its demise.”

The Christian Right decided to gain political power through the Republican Party. Nearly every Republican aligns with conservative Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant, an affiliation reflected in their policy preferences. The Christian Right works hard to make evangelical Christians a decisive power in the Republican Party. The Christian right might not own all 535 members of Congress, but with Republicans in the majority, the Christian right is also in the majority.

In 2012 and now in 2016, there are a bevy of potential Republican candidates holding themselves out as the pious Christian candidates: Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, and Scott Walker are all playing the “vote for me is a vote for Jesus” card. Even Rand Paul, who is positioning himself more as a libertarian candidate, makes sure to check all the Christian right boxes, railing against legal abortion and doing the rounds with radical Christian right organizations like the Family Research Council (3).

That the evangelical right already controls the GOP shouldn’t really be in dispute. Not only do the Republicans do exactly as the Christian right tells them on every social issue, such as reproductive rights or gay rights, but Republicans also pay fealty to the Christian right by targeting Muslim countries with their hawkish posturing or using Christian language to rationalize slashing the social safety net. If you were trying to come up with a quick-and-dirty description of the Republican Party, coalition of corporate and patriarchal religious interests would be it.

The Christian Right however is losing ground. White Christian America, of which the Christian right is merely a subset, is losing its numbers. White Christians are now a minority in 19 states and its trend that is only picking up steam. A huge reason for this change is simply that white Christians are leaving the faith in droves. Both liberal and conservative churches are seeing their pews emptying out, of course, but the trend affects the Christian right as a political entity just as much as a spiritual one (4).

Influenced by the perverted and false ideas of the Christian Right, the Republicans waged war against Islam as a religion. The war began by invading Afghanistan and Iraq, then tearing the countries of the Middle East apart by proxy wars through creating ISIS and supporting it financially and militarily to rule the torn Middle East to their benefit. The plot began at the time of the Republican Bush and continued at the time of Obama who was influenced by the Republicans who won majority in the Congress (2).

Therefore, instead of fighting Donald Trump, the Republicans should start looking at their failure in all areas and make credible attempts to reform their party.

But who can take the huge responsibility of reforming the Republican Party and corruption has already gone too far? Donald Trump is the only man who can make such reformation. The Party needs a reformist to put things right, and the enthusiastic Donald Trump is the right man for the task.

Donald Trump is the only one capable to reform the Republican Party because he is not much of a Republican

The task of reforming the Republican Party is huge and Donald Trump is the only one fit for such task because he is not much of a Republican or even a democrat, he is a pure American belonging only to the American people without any benefit.

Looking at his political career, we find that Trump was Republican during the years1987-99; 2009-11; 2012-present; democratic until 1987; 2001-2009; joined the Reform Party during the period 1999-2001.

Trump has made contributions to campaigns of both Republican Party and Democratic Party candidates, with the top ten recipients of his political contributions being six Democrats and four Republicans. After 2011, his campaign contributions were more favorable to Republicans than to Democrats. In February 2012, Trump endorsed Republican Mitt Romney for President. When asked in 2015 which recent President he prefers, Trump picked Democrat Bill Clinton over the Republican Bushes.

Trump was then moving between the different parties without consistently belonging to one of them! Sometimes he supported Republicans and sometimes he supported Democrats. Such behavior indicates that Trump was searching for the most meaningful and suitable way to serve the American people. His political affiliation was only to the American people and not to parties with occasionally silly ideologies. The man is purely American. This is the kind of man who can reform and makes amendments.

Donald Trump is aware that the Republican Party does not represent the majority of the American people and its wrong policies has threatened the future of the United States. He knew that the Party covers its mistakes by not using transparent media but their own biased media. He is aware that the Party has caused a severe democracy deficit in the United States, and as an oligarchy party it has threatened American democracy.

Donald Trump could reform the corrupted GOP by taking courageous steps that would achieve the following:

  • The Republican Party must abandon the superstition of dispensationalism, apocalypse and reconstuctionism embraced by the religious Right.
  • The Republican Party must separate itself from the Tea Party.
  • The Republican Party must rid itself from the political influence of the Christian Right by abandoning the Judeo-Christian coalition.
  • The Republican Party must separate itself from the neoconservatives and the Tea Party.
  • The Republican Party must not use imperialism and militarism to enforce its foreign policy. The Party must quit overhyping threats and demanding military solutions.
  • The Republican Party must go back to the fundamental principles of a democratic society which they have forgotten a long time ago.
  • The Republican Party must stop spreading Islamophobia and hatred against Muslims and their religion.
  • The Republican Party must learn how to act as a just ruler. The GOP thought that it has a mission of peace when it had not even a true perception of right and wrong. By their blind arrogance and racism they depressed the good and encouraged the evil. They emptied the American treasury on unnecessary wars. They destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan and annihilated countries in the Middle East due to their greed and hatred. They have spread corruption in the land which caused loss only to them (2).

Whether Republicans like it or not, their fate is inexorably tied to that of the Republican nominee for president – Donald Trump. Republican politicians should realize that if Trump loses to Hillary Clinton, this will take them all down. If they really want to win in November, they need Trump to make it. Indeed, they need him way more than he needs them – Trump is not going to win or lose based on the endorsement or non-endorsement of a member of Congress. Indeed, Trump’s brand is based almost entirely on a complete and total repudiation of Washington and everyone in it.

Instead of looking to put distance between themselves and Trump, these Republicans need to find a way to capitalize on the energy and enthusiasm Trump has brought to their already dead Party. The sobering truth for many in the GOP is that control of the Senate, as well as possibly the House, rests entirely in the hands of Donald Trump. If Trump wins in November, once again defying the political odds, Republicans will undoubtedly maintain control in Washington. If, however, he loses badly, Republicans down ballot will pay the price as well.

Is Donald Trump mentally disturbed as his enemies claim?

The enemies of Donald Trump are many. They are not only democrats but also eminent Republicans. They all accuse him of narcissism, madness and too bigoted and racist. They earnestly raise questions about his temperament and his mental stability. Terms like “narcissist” and “sociopath” have been attached to his name. The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson even wrote a column asking: “Is Donald Trump just plain crazy?”

Barack Obama called the Republican presidential nominee “unfit” and a Democratic congress woman started a petition to force Trump to undergo a mental health evaluation .Former Obama administration advisor and economic analyst Steven Rattner said, “Somebody’s got to do a psychological profile of the guy and find out why he acts the way he acts, and is he really healthy.”

Amateur psychoanalysts have put Donald Trump on the couch, calling him a sociopath, unhinged, and a narcissist. Amid all this psych-talk, there is one group of people who aren’t talking as much: the professionals.

Dr. Justin A. Frank a Harvard-educated psychiatrist and author, has not delved deeply into Trump’s psyche yet, and Frank cautions that he is not capable of diagnosing someone he has never treated. That said, he does find the real estate mogul fascinating and, at the very least, his public persona edifying (5).
“What we see on TV seems very different from what we hear from friends of his,” Frank told NBC News Monday. “He may be very different in a boardroom and on TV than the way his is at home. What we can say is that he does seem to believe in tit for tat. I think it’s actually very self-protective.”
Frank sees Trump as a “brilliant” salesman and showman who has more in common with theatrical performers like Judy Garland or the fictional lead character in “All That Jazz” than anyone with a pathological disorder. So far it seems Trump’s unpredictable instincts have served him well in business and in the 2016 campaign.
According to Frank, Trump’s repetition of phrases (“believe me”) and pledges to single-handedly absolve the fears of the electorate have struck a chord, and have appealed to voters who crave reassurance regardless of the facts. Frank says this dissonance has inspired a “hot” internal debate within the psychiatric community about whether it’s appropriate to be more outspoken regarding troubling aspects of Trump’s public persona. “Most of my colleagues feel that he’s not crazy, and if he is crazy, he’s crazy like a fox,” Frank said.
Analysis and diagnosis without meeting a patient, and without medical records, “are so likely to be wrong, so likely to be harmful to that person and so likely to discourage people from seeking psychiatric treatment that psychiatrists should not engage in that behavior,” said Columbia University’s Dr. Paul Appelbaum, a past president of the American Psychiatric Association.
In Bush’s case, Frank surmised that the 43rd president had never been properly treated for his alcoholism, and was a functioning “dry drunk” prone to making poor decisions and rationalizing them later. In Obama, Frank saw a man “who can be so present yet so absent,” predisposed to seek consensus even when it was not to his advantage, in part because of Obama’s complex childhood (6).

Why accusing Trump of insanity and narcissism and the most influential presidents of the United States were perverts or dissolute!

The enemies of Donald Trump, those now raising the issue of character and its importance to the presidency seem to forget that America has gone through three eras in which presidential scandals have been part of the national political dialogue. Lots of salacious things have happened behind closed White House doors.

Let’s go through the distorted characters of the most influential presidents of the United States.

John F. Kennedy

The list of extramarital dalliances in John F. Kennedy’s black book is impressive: Marilyn Monroe, Angie Dickinson and Blaze Starr. Frank Sinatra, leader of the Rat Pack and a strong Kennedy supporter, fed the president a constant stream of pretty paramours. But JFK wasn’t only interested in glamorous women. His own White House secretaries, Priscilla Weir and Jill Cowan (referred to as Fiddle and Faddle behind the scenes), were among his bedmates. Most intriguing was his affair with Judith Exner Campbell, a fetching beauty who also happened to be sleeping with mob boss Sam Giancana at the same time.

James Buchanan

James Buchanan is an openly gay president, and number one on many a list of worst presidents ever. He lived with William Rufus King, a former vice-president under Millard Fillmore, for 10 years. Buchanan and King were apparently the talk of the town. Andrew Jackson referred to them as Miss Nancy and Aunt Fancy (a term at the time for a man with effeminate qualities). Others referred to King as Buchanan’s “better half,” and in a letter to former president James Polk’s wife, King was referred to as Buchanan’s “wife…rigged out in her best clothes.”

Franklin Roosevelt

Roosevelt had a lifelong affair with Lucy Mercer, his wife’s social secretary. The affair probably began in 1916 while Roosevelt was serving as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, with Eleanor and their children away for the summer. A couple of years later, Eleanor happened upon some steamy letters between her husband and Lucy. Threatening divorce, Eleanor remained FDR’s partner if not lover. Undaunted, FDR continued his relationship with Mercer until his death in 1945 (Mercer was actually with the president when he died.) Other rumored affairs included his secretary, Missy LeHand, and another with the Crown Princess Marta of Norway. Not to be outdone, Eleanor had her own extracurricular activities to keep her busy, not least of which were probable affairs with Nancy Cook, Marion Dickerman and Lorena Hickok.


Grover Cleveland

Grover Cleveland had a reputation for being quite the ladies’ man. While practicing law in Buffalo, New York, Cleveland had a romance with a young woman named Maria Crofts Halpin. Years later, Halpin accused Cleveland of fathering her son, Oscar. Cleveland did not deny it, and while never admitting paternity, did send her child support. When he ran for president in 1884, that dalliance came back to bite him, as his opponents rallied around the slogan, “Ma ma, where’s my pa, gone to the White House, ha ha ha.” Still, Cleveland prevailed in the election to become president (an office he lost in the subsequent election, and then regained in 1892).

Lyndon Johnson

Lyndon Baines Johnson competed with John Kennedy in realms beyond politics. Referring to JFK’s sexual voraciousness, LBJ once claimed, “I have had more women by accident than he has had on purpose.” It might have actually been true. A woman named Madeline Brown claimed to have had a 20-year affair with Johnson, which she said was purely physical, and produced, she says, her son. If so, LBJ was working her on the side, as he also, according to Johnson biographer Robert Caro, was conducting a 30-year affair with a woman named Alice Glass, beginning in 1937. Alice was the wife of a newspaper magnate who owned papers that strongly supported Johnson. The affair ended in 1967, apparently because Alice was vehemently antiwar. It seems the war ruined more than Johnson’s political career

Warren Harding

Warren Harding’s administration was riddled with corruption, bribery and general ineptness. Though immensely popular with the electorate, he was a terrible president. It didn’t matter to him though, as he was busy carrying on with various women in the White House closet. Besides a long affair with Carrie Fulton Phillips, the wife of his friend James Phillips, Harding was also having his way with Nan Britton, a woman 30 years younger than him. That affair produced an illegitimate daughter. Florence Harding was not unaware of her husband’s shenanigans, and when Harding died, in office, in 1923 from a case of ptomaine poisoning (probably contracted from eating contaminated crabmeat), rumors circulated that it was Florence herself who poisoned the President.

Thomas Jefferson

Author of the Declaration of Independence, third President of the United States, architect, philosopher, and man of enlightenment, Thomas Jefferson was rumored as a young man to have tried to seduce his best friend’s wife, Betsy Walker. In Paris, as America’s ambassador to France, he had an affair with a married woman, Maria Cosway. Jefferson also shared his bed with his half-black slave, Sally Hemings. Even more scandalous, Hemings was actually the half-sister of Jefferson’s wife, Martha who shared the same father as Sally. Jefferson had a long relationship with Hemings, fathering six children and taking her everywhere he went, including Paris (where presumably he was involved with both Cosway and Sally). Four of their children, all said to be of light complexion, survived to adulthood, and were freed by Jefferson. Oddly, Jefferson never granted Sally Hemings her freedom, which was left for Jefferson’s daughter Martha Randolph to grant after her father’s death.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Dwight Eisenhour was President from 1953-1961. During World War II, Dwight gave in to the temptations of a young woman named Kay Summersby, who happened to be his personal driver. While his wife, Mamie was in the states and Dwight was overseas, the affair blossomed. Summersby was a former British model and was quite attractive. She wrote a book in 1977, after Eisenhower had died in 1969, titled Past Forgetting: My Love Affair with Dwight D. Eisenhower. In the book, she describes that she and Dwight had tried on many numerous occasions to consummate their relationship. In 1945 Eisenhower actually asked permission from General George Marshall to divorce his wife Mamie in order to marry Summersby, but permission was refused by Marshall.


Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton was President from 1993-2001. Being the most recent President with public knowledge of cheating on his wife, these affairs are still fresh in everyone’s mind. Hillary Clinton, his wife, who is now running for President as we all know, has remained married to Bill regardless of his indiscretions. In 1994, two Arkansas state troopers who assisted in Clintons extramarital affairs of the then Governer Clinton, say that they saw him in delicate positions with dozens of different women. One Trooper said that for 7 years prior, there were many long-term hook-ups with women. One of these hook-ups was with the now well-known Gennifer Flowers. Other affairs during this time included a staff member in Clinton’s office; a lawyer who was a Clinton appointee to a judgeship; a prominent judge’s wife; a reporter; an employee at an Arkansas Power company, and a sales clerk at a Little Rock department store.

There were many other one-time encounters that Clinton had with many different women. State troopers said they were often called upon to arrange and keep secret Clinton’s extramarital affairs.

Then there was the story of Sally Perdue, who came forward of having an affair with Clinton in 1983 when he was governor. Right after her story appeared in the press, she says, a man claiming to represent the local Democratic Party, offered her a lifetime federal job if she would be silent and threatened her with physical harm if she refused to cooperate. And there was the sexual harassment case with Paula Jones, a state employee.

Then once he was in the White House, his promiscuousness didn’t stop. There she was, Monica Lewinsky, a young good looking 21-year-old intern. She performed oral sex on Clinton in the oval office. She had a dress with a Clinton sperm stain on it. And Clinton took a cigar tube and inserted it into Lewinsky’s vagina.

Reference: Sexual affairs by US presidents. Updated August 16,2016.

Andrew Jackson

He married his wife Rachel before she was actually divorced from her first husband, making him the first president married to a bigamist.

Richard Nixon

Much gossip circulated about Richard Nixon’s long-term friendship with Marianna Liu, a Chinese cocktail waitress he met in Hong Kong while vice-president. Nixon first met Liu in 1958 while she was a tour-guide. It is reported that, in the mid-’60s, Liu and a female friend had a party with Nixon and his buddy, Bebe Rebozo, in a suite at the Mandarin Hotel.
Ronald Reagan:

According to unauthorized biographer Kitty Kelley, Reagan was accused of raping a woman in 1952, when he was serving as president of the Screen Actors Guild. Kelley also claims Reagan’s wife Nancy had an affair with Frank Sinatra.

Bush 41 and Bush 43

Both father and son were rumored to have had extramarital affairs. 41’s alleged affairs occurred both before and during his administration. 43, is haunted by two sex scandals. One involved a criminal complaint and lawsuit of rape by Margie Denise Schoedinger, who later committed suicide; the second was an accusation by Tammy Phillips, a former stripper, of having an affair with Bush that ended in 1999. They were successfully dismissed as crank complaints, effectively sweeping them under the proverbial rug.

George W. Bush was also a drinker, but he quit drinking. He came to the decision to quit drinking after a “wild drunken weekend” to celebrate his 40th birthday, the former first lady told Oprah Winfrey. The first Lady also said, “ there were several factors that persuaded her husband to stop drinking, including a meeting with evangelist Billy Graham and regularly attending Bible study.George W. Bush was a political disaster. Failures from the illegal Iraq war to the Katrina catastrophe to the Great Recession mark his administration. History will judge his presidency as the worst in the post-WWII era (7, 8, 9, and 10).
Harry Truman is a war criminal

Why was Harry Truman’s decision to use atomic weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, 60 years ago, like George Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003? Both wars were based on lies. In Bush’s case the lie was the now-discredited claim that the U.S. had to invade Iraq to stop the use of “weapons of mass destruction.” In Truman’s case, it was that the U.S. had to drop A-bombs to force the Japanese to surrender—or this would require a land invasion that would cost hundreds of thousands of U.S. casualties. Truman agreed at a meeting that Japan was “looking for peace.” All the U.S. senior generals and admirals, including Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Admiral William Leahy, told him it was unnecessary to use the A-bomb to defeat Japan. But to Truman, impressing Russia was more important than ending the war. Based on a detailed investigation, of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

It was a crime against humanity. In Hiroshima, an estimated 80,000 people were killed in a split second on Aug. 6. Some 13 square kilometers of the city were obliterated. By December, at least another 70,000 people had died from radiation and injuries. Three days later, on Aug. 9, the U.S. dropped an A-bomb on Nagasaki, resulting in the deaths of at least 70,000 people before the year was out. About 10 percent of the casualties were Koreans forced to work in Japan at the time.

The investigators Kuznick and Selden put most of the blame on Truman. “He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species,” says Kuznick, “It was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity.” (11).

If the former presidents of the United States were so deviated, why then attacking Donald Trump in particular? The man has no history of deviation or distortion. He is in fact a successful entrepreneur who did well for himself and for America. As Forbes put it: “He’s a roguish charmer. He’s a pugnacious bully. He tells it like it is. He fibs when necessary. And for 33 years, he’s been building and boasting his way higher on The Forbes 400. If you want a unique window into what makes the most paradoxical presidential candidate in a generation tick, you just need to answer a simple question: What’s Donald Trump Really Worth? Trump says $10 billion; Forbes says $4.5 billion.
A presidential candidate’s fitness to serve in office is a central metric in any election.  Conservative commentators like Fox News’ Sean Hannity, right-wing news outlets like the Drudge Report and Breitbart, and a host of fringe sites have recently been revisiting dark conspiracy theories suggesting that Hillary Clinton is seriously ill, either with Parkinson’s disease or some deadly brain blood clot, and that the Democratic presidential nominee requires constant supervision to prevent from collapsing or forgetting information.

Trump’s campaign released a letter from his physician last year which proclaimed the candidate is in stellar health.

So what’s the truth?

If elected, Clinton, who turns 69 in October, would be the second-oldest president to take office, just behind Ronald Reagan. Trump, who turned 70 in June, would actually be the oldest first-term president in history (he would be 70 on Inauguration Day to Hillary’s 69). Given their ages, it isn’t unreasonable to wonder whether either have any health issues.

It is a well-known incident that when Clinton was running the State Department fainted and suffered a concussion that kept her from testifying in front of a House committee that week. State Department officials explained at the time that Clinton was fighting a stomach virus and had become dehydrated, causing her to faint, and that she required no hospitalization despite the concussion — an assertion that was confirmed by her physician, Dr. Lisa Bardack, in a letter released by the Clinton campaign last July.

Bardack, an internal medicine physician, also noted that follow-up evaluations revealed Clinton had a blood clot in a vein between her brain and skull, but the clot dissolved completely after treatment with anticoagulants by 2013. She stressed that Clinton is in “excellent physical condition.”

But the people questioning Clinton’s medical fitness argue that the concussion may have been far more serious than her spokespeople and doctor have said. Their proof? A widely-circulated (and heavily edited) video of a June 10 Clinton campaign event in which Clinton appears to be exaggeratedly shaking her head. (Other versions of the video include snippets in which Clinton pauses lengthily while making comments, or appears to have people helping her walk up a flight of stairs).

Conservative commentators, like Sean Hannity, fed speculation that Clinton might have had a seizure, saying that AP reporter Lisa Lerer, who is standing by Clinton, looked “scared” by Clinton’s “violent” movements.

Donald Trump’s physician, Dr. Harold Bornstein, said that he’d been treating the GOP nominee since 1980. and he lavished praise on his patient’s health.
“His physical strength and stamina are extraordinary,” wrote Bornstein, adding that if he wins, “Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.”

But critics have made Trump’s “mental fitness” and temperament an issue in the campaign, and they’ve received plenty of assistance from psychologists and psychiatrists who have openly speculated about Trump’s mental health.

To cite just one of many examples, Dan McAdams, a professor of psychology at Northwestern University, wrote an extensive piece for the June 2016 issue of The Atlantic attempting to map Trump’s psychological makeup by analyzing his various public statements and information from his biographies (it was not a flattering picture — the words “narcissist” or “narcissism” appeared in the piece 26 times).

So many mental health professionals, who don’t know Trump personally, have speculated on Trump’s mental health that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) felt compelled to issue a rebuke, ”The unique atmosphere of this year’s election cycle may lead some to want to psychoanalyze the candidates, but to do so would not only be unethical, it would be irresponsible,” wrote the organization.

Back in 1973, the APA adopted the “Goldwater rule,” named after 1964 Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, which prohibits psychiatrists from offering opinions on people they have not personally evaluated, as the New York Times explains.
When it comes to the dubious rumors about Clinton’s health, Trump has used loaded words that may play into the innuendos about his opponent while trying to avoid commenting on them overtly (12).

Trump claimed he wouldn’t comment on Clinton’s health. “”No, I don’t want to get into that. I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment.”

Clinton called Trump a “loose cannon.”

“He’s not just unprepared — he’s temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility.”

Last week Trump told voters in Iowa that Hilary Clinton was “not strong enough to be president.”

The Internet is awash with conspiracy theories claiming that she may have a brain tumor.
 Donald Trump – the struggle of a wounded lion

A man of such tremendous fortune must have bravery in his heart and outstanding cleverness in his brain. They accuse him of craziness, but who would believe them and the man stood against all odds and fought like a lion to win the nomination of the Republican Party? He courageously entered the primaries with 16 other Republican candidates campaigning for the nomination, the largest presidential field in American history. By early 2016, the race had mostly centered on Donald Trump and Senator Ted Cruz. On Super Tuesday, Trump won the majority of the vote and remained the front-runner throughout the primaries. By March 2016, Trump reached over 50% in national support from Republican primary voters and became poised to win the Republican nomination. By late-spring 2016, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) was one of the few presidential candidates still polling well against Trump. In May 2016, for the first time Trump publically expressed his personally-held belief that Senator Cruz’s father, Rafael Cruz, was involved in the tragic 1963 assassination of the 35th president of the United States, John F Kennedy. After a landslide win in Indiana on May 3, 2016, candidates Ted Cruz and John Kasich had to suspend their presidential campaigns. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus declared Trump the presumptive Republican nominee. With nearly 14 million votes, Trump broke the all-time record for winning the most primary votes in the history of the Republican Party.

One month before the Republican National ConventionSecret Service agents thwarted an assassination attempt on Trump by a 20-year-old British man illegally residing in the U.S. during one of his rallies in Las Vegas (13).
On July 15, 2016, Trump announced Indiana Governor Mike Pence as his running mate. Trump and Pence were officially nominated by the Republican Party on July 19, 2016, at the Republican National Convention. The list of convention speakers and attendees was marked by the absence of top Republican Party leaders, including Presidents George W. Bush and George H. W. Bush, former Florida governor Jeb Bush and their families; former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, presidential contender; Colin Powell, former Secretary of State; Governor Kasich of Ohio, and others. Two days later, Trump officially accepted the nomination in a 76-minute speech inspired by Richard Nixon‘s 1968 acceptance speech. The historically long speech was watched by nearly 35 million people and received mixed reviews, with net negative viewer reactions according to CNN and Gallup polls (14).

A man with such fighting spirit, and strong will to win, is not in the least crazy as his opponents assume? His words to his supporters express his dreams and strong will to act: “People have asked me why I’m running for president. I built an amazing business that I love, and I get to work side-by-side with my children every single day. We come to work together, and turn visions into reality. We think big, and then we make it happen. We absolutely make it happen.”

Trump also said: “I love what I do, and I am grateful beyond words to the nation that has allowed me to do it. So, when people ask me why I am running, I very quickly answer — I’m running to give back to this country which has been so very good to me.”

“I’ve always had a talent for building businesses and importantly for creating jobs. That’s a talent our country desperately needs. I’m running for president to end the unfairness and to put you, the American worker, first. It’s about time. We’re going to put America first and we’re going to make America great again. This election will decide whether we’re ruled by the people or by the politicians. Here is my promise to the American voter. If I’m elected president, I will end the special interest monopoly in Washington, D.C., very important.”

Yes, this is the man who can make America great again.

The political and socio-economic plans of Donald Trump for a great America

The Republicans see that Trump’s campaign speeches were provoking, and outrageous. I wonder: have they listened carefully to his speeches? The man has touched several vital issues that if applied would serve as crucial guidelines for the reformation of the American internal and foreign policies. Let’s see the significance of his words to the American nation.

Social issues

Trump describes himself as pro-life and opposes abortion with exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother. Trump has stated that he supports “traditional marriage”. He opposes the Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Trump supports the Second Amendment and says he is opposed to gun control in general. He supports fixing the federal background check system so that criminal and mental health records are always put into the system. Trump opposes legalizing recreational marijuana but supports legalizing medical marijuana. Trump favors capital punishment.

Economic issues

Trump’s campaign’s tax plan calls for reducing the corporate tax rate to 15%, concurrent with the elimination of various business loopholes and deductions. Personal income taxes would also be reduced; the top rate would be reduced from 39.6% to 25%, a large “zero bracket” would be created, and the alternative minimum tax would be eliminated, as would the estate tax (which currently applies to individual estates over $5.45 million or $10.90 million per married couple).

Trump’s comments about the minimum wage have been inconsistent: he has said that a low minimum wage is good; that the minimum wage should not be raised; that the minimum wage should be raised; that he’d like an increase, but the states should do the increasing; that he is against any federal minimum wage floor; and that that he is in favor of a $10 federal minimum wage, but “let the states make the deal”.

Trump says that trade must be “reasonably fair”. He has often been referred to as “protectionist“. He says NAFTA has been “a disaster” and would as president either renegotiate or break the NAFTA agreement. He opposes the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Trump proposes to raise tariffs on Chinese exports to the United States by 45%, and has raised the idea of placing 35% tariffs on Mexican exports to the United States. Trump has called the World Trade Organization (WTO) a “disaster”, and favors renegotiating or leaving the WTO unless it allows his proposed tariff increases.

Healthcare, education and environment

Trump favors repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) with a different free-market plan that would allow health insurance to be sold across state lines, enable individuals to deduct health insurance premiums, expand health savings accounts, and give more control of Medicaid to the states. He has voiced support for a single-payer healthcare system in the past, but distanced himself from the idea during his 2016 campaign. Trump favors getting rid of backlogs and waitlists that are the focus of the Veterans Health Administration scandal, and believes that Veterans Affairs facilities need to be upgraded. Trump has stated his support for school choice and local control for primary and secondary schools. He opposes the Common Core State Standards Initiative for primary and secondary schools, and has called Common Core “a disaster” that must be ended. He has stated he would abolish all or part of the Department of Education. Trump rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, repeatedly contending that global warming is a “hoax.”

Trump has said that the EPA is a “disgrace” and has promised to cut its budget. He has pledged to “cancel the Paris Climate Agreement“, which calls for reductions in carbon emissions in more than 170 countries, claiming it treats the United States unfairly and gives favorable treatment to countries like China. Trump has been described as non-interventionist and nationalist.  He supports increasing U.S. military defense spending, but favors decreasing U.S. spending on NATO and in the Pacific region. He says America should look inward, stop “nation building”, and re-orient its resources toward domestic needs. He questions whether he, as president, would automatically extend security guarantees to NATO members, and suggests that he might leave NATO unless changes are made to the alliance. Trump has called for Japan to pay for the costs of American troops stationed there and that it might need to develop nuclear weapons in order to protect itself from North Korea.

Foreign policy

In terms of confronting ISIS, Trump called for sending 20,000 to 30,000 US troops to the region, a position he retracted. He has since argued that regional allies of the US, such as Saudi Arabia should provide troops in the fight. He also believes that oil fields in ISIS-controlled areas should be bombed. He supports expanded use of aggressive interrogation techniques, including waterboarding “and a hell of a lot worse”, with terrorists. Trump would as president dismantle the international nuclear agreement with Iran. Regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Trump has stated the importance of being a neutral party during potential negotiations, while also having stated that he is “a big fan of Israel.” He supports Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank. Trump tentatively endorsed a future invasion of Iraq in 2002. There is no public record of him opposing the war until 2004, after it was well under way. Since 2004, he has repeatedly criticized the war, in particular during his presidential campaign. On February 18, 2016, he said that by the time the invasion occurred, he had become an opponent. Trump has at times during his presidential campaign stated that the Afghanistan War was a mistake, and at other times stated that it was necessary. He supports keeping a limited number of U.S. troops there. Trump was a strong supporter of the 2011 military intervention in Libya at the time. He has since then reversed his position several times, saying finally in June 2016 that he would have supported “surgical” bombing against Gaddafi.

Trump would consider recognizing Crimea as Russian territory and lifting sanctions on Russia. He added that Russia could help the United States in fighting ISIS militants.

Solving the Middle East problem, Trump is against Obama’s treacherous policy which created and supported ISIS and Daeish and deliberately ruined Muslim nations. Trump believes Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. He said: “You look at what she did with Libya, what she did with Syria. Look at Egypt, what happened with Egypt, a total mess…We don’t back any of our allies…She was truly, if not the, one of the worst Secretaries of State in the history of the country. She talks about me being dangerous, she’s killed hundreds of thousands of people with her stupidity.”

When he was asked: “What do you mean, she’s killed hundreds of thousands?” H answered. “She was secretary of state, Obama was president…Look at what happened. The Middle East is a total disaster under her. She traveled back and forth, but look at all the problems. Look at, as an example, Iraq. Total disaster. They didn’t get us in, but they got us out badly. We spend $2T, thousands of life, wounded warriors all over…(15).

Regarding the Middle East problem, Donald Trump announced that he is willing to work with Egypt, Jordan, and Israel to extinguish Islamic extremism. “We will work side by side with our friends in the Middle East, including our greatest ally Israel. We will partner with King Abdullah of Jordan and the president of Egypt, President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi,” Trump said.

In a speech in Ohio in which he laid out a counter-terrorism strategy, attacking the policies of his Democratic opponent Hilary Clinton and US president Barack Obama in the Middle East, Trump said that if he wins the November elections, he will call for an international conference focused on halting the spread of radical Islam.

“We will also work very closely with NATO on this new mission,” he added, before saying that he believes the US can find common grounds with Russia in fighting Islamic State (IS). Trump added, “Obama-Clinton adventures in the Middle East have only led to death, destruction, and tremendous financial loss for the US.”

Mentioning the deterioration of security status in the Middle East during the Obama era, Trump highlighted that “terrorists have gained a foothold in the Sinai near the Suez Canal, one of the most essential waterways in the world.”

These statements of Donald Trump are exactly what people of the Middle East need to save their countries from the grip of radical Islam, which Obama nurtured, sponsored and implanted in the Arab world.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi was briefly mentioned in a US presidential debate in Miami, when right-wing candidate Ted Cruz from the Republican Party discussed Muslims and US national interests.

“Let me give you an example of a Muslim we ought to be standing with,” said Ted Cruz, responding to an earlier comment by the leading Republican candidate Donald Trump. “President Al-Sisi of Egypt is a president of a Muslim country who is targeting radical Islamic terrorists. He’s hunting them down and stomping on them.”

This is not the first time Ted Cruz has mentioned Al-Sisi as a great example of a leader. Last year, during the first Republican presidential debate, he also took the time to praise the Egyptian president for his campaign against terror groups.

“Why don’t we see the president of the United States demonstrating that same courage [as Al-Sisi] and speak the truth about the face of evil we’re facing right now?” he questioned.

In a recent interview with The Guardian, Trump said the U.S. should shift its focus nation-building inward. “We’re nation-building and we can’t do it,” Trump told The Guardian’s Ben Jacobs. “We have to build our own nation.”

“We’re trying to tell people that have had dictators and worse for centuries how to run their own countries,” he added.

Trump, went on to reference to the U.S. effort to stabilize Iraq in order to foster a democracy in the Arab nation.

“Look at what happened in Iraq,” he told Jacobs. “We got rid of Saddam Hussein — I don’t think that was a very helpful thing. Iraq is a disaster right now, and is going to be taken over by Iran and ISIS.”

Trump advocates a non-interventionist approach to world affairs that would reject “nation-building” if he wins the White House. The
United States has to look inward. “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. We have $19 trillion in debt. We’re sitting, probably, on a bubble. And it’s a bubble that if it breaks, it’s going to be very nasty. I just think we have to rebuild our country.”

Trump also cast China as a leading economic and geopolitical rival and said the United States should toughen its trade pacts,

He also questioned the United States’ continued involvement in NATO and its military presence in Asia. Trump blasted the U.S. military investments in Asia.
“South Korea is very rich, great industrial country, and yet we’re not reimbursed fairly for what we do,” Trump said. “We’re constantly sending our ships, sending our planes, doing our war games — we’re reimbursed a fraction of what this is all costing.”

Asked whether the United States benefits from its involvement in the region, Trump replied, “Personally, I don’t think so… I think we were a very powerful, very wealthy country, and we are a poor country now. We’re a debtor nation.”

“Ukraine is a country that affects us far less than it affects other countries in NATO, and yet we’re doing all of the lifting,” Trump said. “They’re not doing anything. And I say: ‘Why is it that Germany’s not dealing with NATO on Ukraine? Why is it that other countries that are in the vicinity of Ukraine, why aren’t they dealing? Why are we always the one that’s leading, potentially the third world war with Russia.'”

Immigration policies

Trump’s immigration policies have been among his most highly-discussed policies during the campaign. Some of his proposals have come under scrutiny by several experts on immigration who question the effectiveness and affordability of his plans. Trump vows to build a substantial wall on the Mexico–United States border to keep out illegal immigrants, a wall which Trump promises Mexico will pay for. Trump would also create a “deportation force” to deport around 11 million people illegally residing in the U.S., stating “Day 1 of my presidency, [illegal immigrants] are getting out and getting out fast.” Trump opposes birthright citizenship.

One of Trump’s most controversial proposals was a “total and complete”, but temporary, ban on foreign Muslims entering the United States. Pollsters have found that support for the proposal depends upon whether the pollsters say that the ban would only last “until the federal government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists from coming here”. Trump later offered an “expansion” to his position by stating that the temporary ban would apply to people originating from countries with a “proven history of terrorism against the United States or its allies”, or countries “compromised by terrorism”. Trump insisted that the new proposal was not a “rollback” of his initial proposal to ban all Muslim immigrants. He said, “In fact, you could say it’s an expansion. I’m looking now at territory.” He has stated that the ban could apply to countries compromised by terrorism, such as France, Germany and Spain.

Trump’s called for “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the United States. He stated: “It is obvious to anybody the hatred is beyond comprehension. Where this hatred comes from and why we will have to determine. Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”

Trump has been given an inaccurate impression about Islam. Preventing Muslims from entering the United States is certainly unwise. It shows Trump’s ignorance about Islam as a religion of peace. A religion that respects human life. It shows that he doesn’t even know the true meaning of Jihad. He was just parroting the views of the hostile factions influencing the Republican Party: the Christian Right, Christian Zionists, Christian leaders, neoconservatives, Tea Party and their affiliated platforms and media spreading hatred against Islam.
This is not the place to explain to Trump the beautiful teachings of Islam, but I want to draw his attention that the hostility shown by some Muslims to America is because of the bad foreign policy of America towards the Muslim world. Daeish and ISIS are two evil entities raised and sponsored by America to create the so called “Arab spring”. A plot aiming at tearing the Middle East apart and reshaping it in accordance to the geostrategic goals and needs of the West. Daish and ISIS were the American tools to destroy the Arab world for the sake of Israel and the greedy interests of America. All this had happened on the expense of millions of victims who died or became refugees scattered on the borders of foreign nations.

Ironically, America is trying now to fight ISIS or Daeish – the two entities she created, – and is now turning against them by fighting them everywhere.

The problem of terrorism can be solved by changing the evil policy of America towards the Arabs, and Muslims in general, and to treat the Arab world on sound bases and equal footing. The solution resides in liberating the White House from the grip of the Jewish lobby, and affiliated neocons, and Christian Right Republicans who overwhelmingly control the foreign policy of the White House.

If Trump does that, no hostility from Muslims will be there to threaten the American peace. The problem lies in the White House and those controlling it and not with the Muslims.

Trump must not forget that there are already 7-8 million Muslims in America, and they increase exponentially each year. They are good American citizens. America has entrusted them to manage her affairs in many important domains.

Trump must not stand against Islam as other Republicans do. Islam is a true religion and not false as many Americans think. Islam is an Abrahamic monotheistic religion articulated by the Koran, the verbatim word of God (Allah), and by the teachings and normative example of Muhammad, the last Prophet of God. Muslims believe that God is one and incomparable, and that the purpose of existence is to worship God alone without partners. Islam is the complete and universal version of a primordial faith that was revealed many times before through prophets including AdamNoahAbrahamMoses, and Jesus.

Attacking Islam, the last Testament to the world, usually brings Allah’s wrath on the wrongdoers. This is what the Republicans are suffering from now. God divided them into uncoordinated groups fighting among themselves. America that allows such hatred against Islam to spread in the society under the pretension of freedom of speech, is now having her share of God’s wrath. Now she is suffering from low economy, continuous natural disasters, racism, white supremacy, homosexuality, lesbianism, rape, murder, shooting in schools, wine addiction, gambling and several other societal ills.
The oppression the Republicans are practicing against helpless nations will come down on them with clack. They will drink from the same cup. If America is not united, and this is the primary task of Trump if he wins the elections, the American states will be divided into sects and factions, and will separate themselves from the federal government. The separated states will war between themselves, each trying to protect its own natural resource.

America is being mutilated. In 2012, a wave of petitions have been submitted to the White House in which citizens of various states announced their desire to secede from the United States. These citizens are so fed up with the country, in other words, they want to opt out and start their own. Now, 36 States want to secede from the federal government. They want to withdraw from the United States of America and create their own new governments (16).

Lots of Americans fear that civilized society is breaking down, and it’s easy to see why. Fifteen police officers have been killed in the line of duty this month, including three in Baton Rouge, and Louisiana. Around 5,000 officers were drafted into Cleveland from across the country, and were left to roam the streets with little to do. This overbearing security operation showed the atmosphere of dysfunction and instability in the American society.

Donald Trump has promised to build a wall along the southern border. He’s referred to Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals. He’s attacked the Republican Hispanic governor of New Mexico.

But he tried to reconcile his connection with Hispanics when he said: “I’ll fix things so fast your head will spin. If you don’t get deported, you’ll get hired by the D-Force.”

“More jobs for the Hispanics because they are tremendous people. More jobs than e-mails deleted by Crooked Hillary.”

“More jobs than I sell Taco Bowls at Trump Tower.”

“So what do you have to lose, amigos? Vota Trump!”

During his 2013 inaugural speech, Obama addressed immigration reform specifically, saying: “Our journey is not complete until we find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity — until bright young students and engineers are enlisted in our workforce rather than expelled from our country.”

However, Obama has deported nearly two million undocumented immigrants — more than any president in history. And a 2013 report found that Immigrations Custom Enforcement detained nearly 90 percent of undocumented immigrants in 2012 and the beginning of 2013 for non-serious offenses. Deportations have become so rampant that 61 percent of immigrant Hispanics said that deportation relief is more important than a pathway to citizenship. This past year alone, in an attempt to resist the craze, undocumented activists have chained themselves to the White House demanding “Not One More.” They’ve blocked deportation buses, interrupted Obama’s speeches and 30 even crossed the border, which resulted in five of them getting deported. Last month, 29 House Democrats sent a letter to Obama, urging him to halt deportations. And five of these lawmakers will bring immigration activists as their guests to the SOTU address.

If Donald Trump wants to unify America and makes it great again, he must purify the Republican Party from the impurities the religious Right tarnished it with.

I see most of Trump’s statements in political and socio-economic domains quite logic, and keys to improving strategic thinking that would certainly change the internal and foreign policies of the United States to the better. His logic views are also negotiable and open to discussion with his administration if he wins the White House.

As a successful business man, Trump realized that the welfare of America depends upon good relations with the other super power, Russia. He therefore announced that Crimea belongs to Russia and that sanctions against Russia must be removed. He also stated that Russia could cooperate with the US to fight ISIS. These statements are totally against the policy of the Republicans in the first place, and also against Obama’s administration, which punished Russia by putting it under sanction because it joined Crimea to her.

Trump as a successful businessman might have asked himself an important question: Is it wise to put Russia – another terrifying super power – under sanction? How that could be and Russia’s new undiscoverable submarines in the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans are already surrounding the American coasts from all sides? How that could be and long-range Russian Tu-95 Bear-H bombers, accompanied by aerial refueling tankers, fly regularly into the U.S. Air Defense Identification Zone? (17).

Trump did not forget the bad policy of the Republican Bush, which led to global militarization against China and Russia, encircling them belligerently with bases and strategic weapons. It was a policy fraught with danger.
The consequences of such bad policies of Bush and his successor Obama produced a severe reaction from Russia that resulted first in inducing disturbances in the East of Ukraine, thus threatening world peace. The second reaction was the economic partnership between Russia and China that rapidly developed into a political and military alliance against US ambitions in Asia and the Middle East. Now the two countries had been coordinating and playing active roles in a number of international issues. The two countries, as permanent members of the UN Security Council and major emerging economies, had held similar positions on the Syrian crisis, as well as negotiations at the WTO and IMF. This coordination is most likely causing mass panic at the Pentagon.

Together, Russia and China are now protesting US plans to deploy new missile defense systems in South Korea. And as the US continues to antagonize China in the South China Sea, Beijing sees Russia as a political and military partner against further western ambitions in Asia.

Trump realized that Russia and China have entered into an economic alliance which will be stronger than the incessant ruble and petrol devaluation manipulations by Washington, aided by the European puppets. He also realized that NATO is hardly a model for an effective defensive alliance against the overwhelming power resulting from the military and economic alliance between China and Russia. This is why he announced that America would not necessarily come to the aid of a NATO ally under attack, saying he would first consider how much they have contributed to the alliance. This statement was consistent with his previous threat to withdraw American forces from Europe and Asia if those allies fail to pay more for American protection. He repeated his insistence that other countries should start sharing more of the defense costs long borne by Washington.

I find Trump’s statement quite reasonable especially when it is realized that the United States maintains about 800 military bases in at least 160 countries. Trump as a businessman might have asked himself: “Could America affords now hundreds of bases overseas at an estimated annual cost of $156 billion or more?” No doubt, the purpose of this empire of bases, and its massive cost to American taxpayers, seems to be largely overlooked by the several administrations and the mainstream media.

The sanction imposed on Russia has led Russia and China its ally, to form the so-called BRICS countries [Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa]. The BRICS are seeking alternatives to the existing world order. The BRICS created a $100 billion development bank and a $100 billion dollar reserve fund, designed to boost investment in BRICS economies and reduce the power of the Western-dominated World Bank and IMF.

BRICS share one common goal in that they have all voiced objections to the dollar as the principal reserve currency and the impact of US Federal Reserve policy on emerging markets, which the Fed pays very little attention to. When the World Bank or IMF lends money, strings are usually attached – strings which reflect the values and interests of the US and its allies.

The BRICS countries are seeking therefore to free themselves from the US dominance, and want to have more influence in global economic policy. They now account for 21 percent of global economic output and have contributed more than 50 percent of world economic growth in the past decade.

The five countries announced the need for a new global reserve currency, which would have to be diversified, stable and predictable. While they did not directly address the perceived “dominance” of the US dollar – something that Russia has done in the past – the statement did spark a drop in the value of the dollar against other major currencies.

The five BRICS countries represent almost 3 billion people with a combined nominal GDP of US$16.039 trillion and an estimated US$4 trillion in combined foreign reserves.

Putin said: “It was time to dilute the dominance of the U.S.-led West and the U.S. dollar by boosting the role of the BRICS on the global stage.” Putin wants the emerging powers to play a bigger role in world affairs to counter U.S. influence. “The international monetary system … depends a lot on the U.S. dollar, or, to be precise, on the monetary and financial policy of the U.S. authorities. The BRICS countries want to change this,” Putin said.

Donald Trump knew that the US economy is already teetering on disaster, and BRICS might push America to more ruin and shut the US and its allies out. Put all that together Trump saw with a right mentality that the dollar’s days are numbered. He realized that if the current trend continues, soon the dollar will be abandoned by most of the significant global economies and it will be kicked out of the global trade finance. Washington’s bullying will make even former American allies choose the anti-dollar alliance instead of the existing dollar-based monetary system. That is why Trump expressed his willingness to cooperate with Russia in certain political issues as a start for more cooperation in the future. The man wants to contain Russia instead of opposing it.

This kind of thought would certainly bring positive results to the American economy, let alone a new era of friendly relationship between America and her old adversaries is going to take place.
Trump is for the Americans and not for a party or sect

In one of his speeches Trump talked about himself and about Hilary Clinton. He said, “She thinks it’s all about her. I know it’s all about you. I know it’s all about making America great again for all Americans, all Americans. Our country lost its way when it stopped putting the American people really first. We have to go back to putting our American people first. We got here because we switched from a policy of Americanism, focusing on what’s good for America’s middle class to a policy of globalism, focusing on how to make money for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries, all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy itself. We reward companies for offshoring, and we punish companies for doing business in America and keeping our workers employed. They get punished. This is not a rising tide that lifts all boats. This is a wave of globalism that wipes out our middle class and our jobs along with it. We need reform, and we have to reform our economic system, so that once again, we can all succeed together and America can become rich again. And that’s what I mean by America first. Our country will be better off when we start making our own products again, bringing our once great manufacturing capabilities back to the shores. I mean, we have to bring our manufacturers back to the United States, desperately needed — desperately we need those jobs, and we need it even from our psyche.

“I have visited cities and towns across America, all across America, and seen the devastation caused by the trade policies of Bill and Hillary Clinton, and it’s total devastation, all over New York, all over Pennsylvania, all over New England, all over the country. Hillary Clinton supported Bill Clinton’s disastrous and totally disastrous NAFTA. Just like she supported China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization.

“We’ve lost nearly one-third of our manufacturing jobs since these two Hillary-backed agreements were signed, among the worst we’ve ever done, among the most destructive agreements we’ve ever signed. Our trade deficit with China soared 40 percent during Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state — a disgraceful performance, for which she should not be congratulated, but rather scorned (18).

Trump’s rhetorical focus on foreign policy and worker prosperity promises light. But to what policies will Trump commit himself? On whose advice will he rely? It remains to be seen.

I think Trump is still able to win. He is doing great with the Hispanics, What remains is to correct his statement about banning Muslims from entering the United States. The African-Americans love him, and women are totally on his side, the middle class is completely in for Trump. He is going to win because he’s not a Republican, and stands for positions that are contrary to everything the party stands for. The people who are voting for him are not necessarily Republicans themselves; in most states one does not have to be a bona fide supporter of the Republican Party to vote for Donald Trump.
Hilary Clinton

Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton is the nominee of the Democratic Party for President of the United States in the 2016 election. She served as the 67th United States Secretary of State from 2009-2013, the junior United States Senator representing New York from 2001-2009, First Lady of the United States during the presidency of Bill Clinton from 1993-2001, and First Lady of Arkansas during his governorship from 1979-1981 and from 1983-1992.

Apart from Lewinsky scandal which Hilary Clinton bravely and patiently tolerated, she had witnessed how brilliantly economic growth performed under her husband’s neoliberal economic regime. The Americans experienced at the time of Bill Clinton massive job creation, upward income mobility, and even a federal budget surplus. Being the wife of an successful politician would certainly decorate her political image before her supporters.

After the end of Bill Clinton’s era, the Republican George W. Bush supported by the Christian Right took over. Influenced by the imperialistic agenda of the neocons and the Republicans affiliated to the Christian Right, He invaded Iraq and killed 174,000 Iraqis between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants.

“Our country for the first time in my life time has abandoned the basic principle of human rights. …We’ve said that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to those people in Abu Ghraib prison and Guantanamo, and we’ve said we can torture prisoners and deprive them of an accusation of a crime to which they are accused.” Jimmy Carter, former American president said.

“After [this] war [against Iraq] has ended, the United States will have to rebuild much more than the country of Iraq. We will have to rebuild America’s image around the globe.” Sen. Robert Byrd stated in March 19, 2003.

George W. Bush will be remembered as the most fiscally irresponsible president in America’s history.” Sen. Kent Conrad, Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee announced. Economically, the Bush-Cheney administration left behind a big financial and economic mess. In fact, Bush-Cheney administration has brought misery upon America by its misguided economic policies that have built a mountain of shaky debt and rendered dysfunctional large segments of the American banking industry and large sectors of the U.S. economy, through inappropriate deregulation to enrich greedy special interest characters, wheeler-dealers, corporate con men, professional short-sellers and other scam artists and swindlers. In so doing, it has empowered rich parasitic speculators and turned the financial sector into a giant casino, thus risking the health of the entire economy.

To complete the picture, the Bush-Cheney administration has emptied the public treasury, debased the U.S. currency and fueled deflationinflation and, in the end, produced stagflation and what can turn out to be a very serious recession (19).

The expensive wars of George W. Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to the financial crisis which happened in his era, plus emptying the American treasury on unnecessary wars, are considered by the democrats and the American people as a big failure of the Republicans when acquiring power. This failure could be taken as an asset supporting Hilary Clinton in her battle with Trump to win the White House.

Assets to her advantage are certainly not the small achievements – some call them phony achievements – Obama made during his two terms at the White House. For the economy Obama added 13.7 million new jobs over a 69-month streak of job growth. More Americans got health insurance coverage. Obama has heavily championed a climate change agenda. He normalized relations between the United States and Cuba. He struck a nuclear deal with Iran. And in the months after, despite staunch Republican objection, the deal survived a vote in Congress.

Obama concluded a trade deal involving 12 Pacific Rim countries, with provisions to cut trade barriers, protect labor and environmental interests and ensure intellectual property rights. Obama called the Trans-Pacific Partnership the “strongest, most pro-worker, pro-environment trade agreement in our history.”

Obama allocated a budget that would achieve a sweeping education overhaul of No Child Left Behind and a budget deal that avoided the threat of a government shutdown.

One of his worst achievements was that he legalized same sex marriage. He commented: “Love won,” he said, referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark 5-4 decision that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. “No matter who you are, here in America, you’re free to marry the person you love because the freedom to marry is now the law in all 50 states.”

Obama’s achievements however, are still fraught with many problems that frustrate people across the spectrum.

Obama’s inclination to try to satisfy all factions has led to the key disasters of his presidency. The budget battles with the House GOP—and the tactical error he made about GOP thinking—led to the cruel federal sequester and subsequent government shutdown. His decision not to push for a public option in Obamacare and his failure to insist on cost controls for private health plans are two others. It’s sad that being a reasonable person in today’s Washington often doesn’t work. A less charitable interpretation is that Obama just wimped out. The hard truth is that a president has to be feared and respected by his opponents, not seen as a person who is more willing to compromise than draw lines (20).

All these achievements however small they were, faded away because Obama had created more debt in his one term than Bush did in 2 terms. While Bush’s rate of rise was slower, Obama nearly doubled the US debt. During his presidency he doubled the national debt to $20 trillion.

Although Hilary Clinton has gained from her husband a lot of political experience, she must have witnessed how her husband has gone beyond the Bush record of criminality. He has broken new ground as a war criminal, and people with any concern for human rights should recognize him as the true world leader in this sphere.

Bill Clinton’s military and other aggressive forays abroad have been partly a result of his political weakness, the need to divert attention from his domestic policy failures, and the longstanding need of Democrats to prove their anti-Communist and militaristic credentials.

The most monumental of Bill Clinton’s war crimes, however, has been his policy of sanctions on Iraq, supplemented by the maintenance of intense satellite surveillance and regular bombing attacks that have often resulted in civilian casualties. UNICEF reports that in 1999 more than 1 million Iraqi children under 5 were suffering from chronic malnutrition, and some 4,000-5,000 children are dying per month beyond normal death rates from the combination of malnutrition and disease. Death from disease was greatly increased by the shortage of potable water and medicines that has led to a 20-fold increase in malaria (among other ailments). This vicious sanctions system, causing a creeping extermination of a people, has already caused more than a million excess deaths, and it is claimed by John and Karl Mueller that Clinton’s “sanctions of mass destruction” have caused “the deaths of more people in Iraq than have been slain by all so-called weapons of mass destruction [nuclear and chemical] throughout all history” (Foreign Affairs, May/June 1999). U.S. mainstream reporters, who have so eagerly followed the distress of the Kosovo Albanians, somehow never get to Iraq for pictures of the thousands of malnourished children (21).
The horror and ruin Bill Linton inflicted to Iraq was also emphasized by David Harten. Clinton was impeached for his immoral affairs with Monica Lewinsky. At the beginning of the impeachment drive, Clinton’s tried to distract Americans from his affair by bombing Iraq causing thousands, of deaths. To delay the impeachment vote, he continued the bombing throughout all the days of the impeachment vote. Only an hour or two after the House impeachment vote ended, Clinton ended the bombing, saying, ‘We have achieved our objectives.’

Clinton gave several excuses for bombing Iraq on the eve of the impeachment vote, especially the false claim that Iraq had stopped cooperating with UNSCOM inspectors. In reality, Iraq’s cooperation with UNSCOM inspectors had actually been increasing, despite U.S. attempts to provoke a confrontation. However, knowing the impeachment schedule, Clinton had directed UNSCOM chief Richard Butler to write a report that Iraq was not cooperating. Even Scott Ritter, the former chief UNSCOM weapons inspector who quit because he thought the weapons inspectors were not tough enough, said that the White House had been on the phone with UNSCOM “shaping” the report to make sure it would justify bombing Iraq during the impeachment trial.

This ongoing bombing would not be happening except for Clinton’s attempt to distract from the impeachment vote.

Clinton killed thousands of Iraqis with bombs. Bombs are merciful compared to what Clinton has done to the innocent children of Iraq, the most vulnerable of all, by maintaining ten years of the harshest sanctions in the history of mankind, begun on August 6, 1990, and kept in place at the insistence of the United States. On May 12, 1996, television’s “Sixty Minutes” interviewed Madeleine Albright (then U.S. ambassador to the UN, now Secretary of State). Leslie Stahl asked Albright, “We have heard half a million children have died [from economic sanctions in Iraq]. That’s more children than died in Hiroshima. Is the price worth it?”

Albright replied, “I think this is a very hard choice. But the price, we think, is worth it.”

Over one million Iraqi civilians have died from the sanctions, mostly children under age five. Those are not Iraqi figures — those figures come from UNICEF, the World Health Organization, the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the UN’s Department of Humanitarian Affairs, and other international sources. The “oil-for-food” program is so ineffectual that two consecutive UN directors of that program (Denis Haliday and Hans Von Sponeck) resigned, out of protest that they were presiding over a humanitarian disaster which can only be called genocide. They were UN Assistant Secretaries General, the highest ranking UN personnel ever to resign for reasons of conscience. After they resigned, Denis Haliday and Hans Von Sponeck toured America and other countries, pleading for an end to the sanctions on Iraq.

Half a million children have died in Iraq since UN sanctions were imposed – most enthusiastically by Britain and the US. Three UN officials have resigned in despair. Meanwhile, Clinton bombed Iraq almost daily.

Embargoes during peacetime are tough enough, but after a devastating war, they are disastrous. During the Gulf War, U.S. forces deliberately targeted Iraqi water treatment plants, dams, and electric generating facilities (in violation of the Geneva Convention), later admitting they did it in order to cause disease (which was biological warfare by the United States). Iraq has not been allowed to rebuild its water treatment plants since then. Chlorine, and water chlorinators, are prohibited under sanctions. Disease is at epidemic levels, especially among babies and children under five. Nobel Peace prize winners have visited Iraq and described the sanctions as genocide. Iraqi children were dying from starvation, malnutrition, tainted water, lack of basic medicines, and diseases that were once rare but now epidemic (22).

Barak Obama deceived the Arabs when he gave a speech at Cairo University saying that peace was his main concern. He promised to end the wars, close torture concentration camp in Guantanamo. The Arabs were so enchanted with his honeyed words that they forgot that Obama’s key advisers were rabid militarists, big bankers, corporate CEO’s, die-hard Zionists and Wall Street manipulators.

In truth, Barack Hussein Obama did a lot that Bush never dared to do – he surpassed Bush by far in committing war crimes against humanity – pushing for more military adventures abroad and police state repression at home. He exceeded by far any President in US history in assuming dictatorial police powers, in waging multiple wars while directing the massive transfer of state revenues to Wall Street bankers. President Obama, hands down, will be regarded as the greatest con-man President in American history. The Carters, Reagans and Clintons all pale in comparison: the enormous gap between style and substance, promise and performance, peace and war, capital and labor has never been greater.

Obama’s soaring rhetoric promising justice for Muslims in Cairo was followed by the bloody bombing of Tripoli, the torture and slaughter of the Libyan patriot President Gadhafi; the broken promises to the Palestinians contrasts with the embrace of the bloody Israeli warlords. Obama far out-paced President Bush’s drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan, bombings which targeted farmers, whole families and famished orphans in their schools.

Soaring moral and ethical pronouncements accompany Obama’s arming and praising the 40,000 Muslim fundamentalist mercenaries sent to degrade and shatter the secular Syrian state. The pretexts for mass killing fall from his lips like maggots on a rotten corpse: his blatant lies about the use of poison gas in Syria as the government in Damascus confronts a foreign mercenary invasion; the lurid tales of fabricated massacres in Benghazi (Libya) and the false claims of stolen elections in Venezuela.

Events in the Middle East, and the policy debates surrounding them, tend to proceed in endless, disorienting loops. The Syrian civil war has gotten almost unimaginably worse since early 2012 (from 7,000 dead to 250,000), but we’re debating much the same thing we were debating back then: to enact safe zones and no-fly zones in the country, or not to. Algerian Islamists were ascendant in 1991 and the military intervened to stop them; something eerily similar happened in 2013 after the Muslim Brotherhood came to power in Egypt through democratic elections. Where exactly is the line between inaction and complicity? The notion of neutrality, for a country as powerful as the United States, is illusory. Doing nothing or “doing no harm” means maintaining or reverting to the status quo, which in the Middle East is never neutral, due to America’s longstanding relationships with regional actors.

Hilary Clinton seems to forget that Barak Obama owes a chunk of his election success to anti-war voters who turned out during the Democratic primaries in 2008, disgusted by Hillary Clinton’s vote to authorize force on Iraq. But the man who became president has sorely disappointed many of the same anti-war voters with his expansion of the deadly drone war.
Since he was elected, President Obama in consultation of course with his Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, has launched more 390 drone strikes—eight times the number George W. Bush oversaw. Obama has escalated the drone war in Pakistan—where the majority of attacks take place—and in Somalia and Yemen. The drone strikes, meant to target Al Qaeda and the Taliban, have killed scores of civilians, disrupted tribal life, brought about huge suffering and trauma and inflamed anger at the U.S. Four Americans have been killed in drone attacks, and the whole program remains shrouded in secrecy.

In response to a growing wave of criticism, Obama gave a landmark speech where he vowed that transparency would increase and that drone strikes would only occur when there was a “near-certainty” civilians would not be killed.

However, civilians continue to die in Pakistan and Yemen, “collateral damage” from these drone attacks. The latest example came on December 12, 2013, when a drone attack in Yemen, said to be aimed at an Al Qaeda leader, killed 12 civilians driving as part of a wedding convoy.

Bush was a real war monger, with his “Shock and Awe,”  “Mission Accomplished,” and wars of choice. But Obama, once seen as the anti-war candidate, has him soundly beat in the number of secret wars with unconventional forces spread across the globe. After a thorough investigation, Nick Turse of Tom Dispatch recently reported the staggering fact that there are currently U.S. Special Ops in 70% of the world’s nations. “All over the planet, the Obama administration is waging a secret war whose full extent has never been fully revealed”.

In the waning days of the Bush presidency, Special Operations forces were reportedly deployed in about 60 countries around the world. In 2013, elite U.S. forces were deployed in 134 countries around the globe. This 123% increase during the Obama years demonstrates how, in addition to conventional wars and a CIA drone campaign, public diplomacy and extensive electronic spying, the U.S. has engaged in still another significant and growing form of overseas power projection. Conducted largely in the shadows by America’s most elite troops, the vast majority of these missions take place far from prying eyes, media scrutiny, or any type of outside oversight, increasing the chances of unforeseen blowback and catastrophic consequences.” (23).

The 2014 elections gave the Republicans control of the Senate (and control of both houses of Congress) for the first time since the 109th Congress. With 247 seats in the House of Representatives and 54 seats in the Senate, this Congress began with the largest Republican majority since the 71st Congress of 1929–1931.

After half a decade of divided government, in which congressional Democrats worked to stymie President George W. Bush and his internal and foreign policies, congressional Republicans used every opportunity to block or roll back President Obama’s agenda. This has compelled Obama to resort to political compromise with the Republicans in order to make his resolutions pass both houses of Congress.

The Obama administration’s foreign policy has received criticism across the political spectrum. “Hawkish” conservatives such as Obama’s 2008 Republican challenger John McCain and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham have accused the President of being timid and ineffectual in wielding American influence. Some even claim that Obama’s policy of “appeasement” leads to a US retreat from the world scene and to an abandon of U.S. allies. On the other hand, more “dovish” liberals such as Jimmy Carter and Dennis Kucinich have accused him of cynicism and heavy-handedness. More specifically, some critics charge that he has pursued similarly imperialistic policies to those of his predecessor, George W. Bush, of whom Obama was deeply critical during his tenure in the Senate and his 2008 presidential campaign.

Obama Administration has embraced the Bush doctrine, or at least the preemption part of the Bush doctrine. Obama and his administration have implemented the hawkish policy of the Republicans in the Middle East. Hilary Clinton played a major role in implementing such despicable policy that led to millions of deaths.

Obama and his Secretary of State Hilary Clinton have terrorized the Middle East by creating the so called “Arab Spring”. They deceived the world when they claimed that the “Arab Spring” was totally Arab, while it was in fact a vicious American plan aiming at weakening the Arab world by dividing its countries into religious and ethnic factions and sects. The treacherous goal was to reshape the Middle East in accordance with the strategic needs and objectives of America. The objective was to steel the oil and the natural resources of the rich Arab world without paying any costs! This was exactly the policy of the Republicans against the Muslim and Arab world, which Obama adequately executed.

Obama had no foreign policy of his own. He was dominated by the Republican and neocon hawks and became more belligerent than Bush, waging four wars and various proxy ones. The Republicans, the Israeli Lobby, the Christian Right, and other extremist elements dominated him. Obama tried to satisfy them all. Instead of being feared and respected by his opponents, he inclined to compromise than draw lines. He adopted the imperial agenda of the Republican Congressional majority: conflict is preferred over diplomacy; global militarization against potential challengers and America’s main rivals – China and Russia, encircling them belligerently with bases and strategic weapons. It’s a policy fraught with danger. He initiated, the “Arab Spring” and trained, financed and supported fanatic Islamic militia and groups. He created ISIS which was largely unheard of until a year ago, on the world’s stage and which promptly replaced the worn out and tired al Qaeda as the world’s terrorist bogeyman.

Facts on the ground and recent developments confirm what is known and documented: Washington is behind the Islamic State (ISIS) and at the same time it is behind the moderate Al Qaeda terrorists, which the Obama administration supported as part of America’s campaign against the Islamic State (ISIS). Obama expects the Arabs to believe that they are committed to waging a campaign against terrorists.

The Islamic State (ISIS) was until 2014 called al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).

Al Nusra is an al Qaeda affiliate which has committed countless atrocities in Syria.  It is now considered by the Obama administration as the “Moderate Opposition”.

America’s “anti-terrorist campaign’ consists in supporting a so-called “moderate” Al  Qaeda entity (Al Nusra)  with a view to going after another al Qaeda entity entitled The Islamic State, formerly designated as Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Al Qaeda is going after Al Qaeda”, and both wings of al Qaeda are supported covertly by US intelligence. Both ISIS and Al Nusra are protected by the Western military alliance. Both Al Qaeda entities are used to destroy Syria and Iraq. The air campaign allegedly against ISIS does not target ISIS, it targets Syria and Iraq, schools, hospitals, factories, residential areas, government buildings, roads, bridges, etc.

Both Al Qaeda affiliated entities are being used to destroy Iraq and Syria as nation states. The terrorists are the foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance.

These various affiliated Al Qaeda entities in the Middle East, sub-Saharan Africa and Asia are CIA sponsored “intelligence assets”. They are used by Washington to wreak havoc, create internal conflicts and destabilize sovereign countries.

The IS caliphate project is part of a longstanding US foreign policy agenda to carve up Iraq and Syria into separate territories: A Sunni Islamist Caliphate, an Arab Shia Republic, and a Republic of Kurdistan.

US and allied bombings are not targeting the ISIL, they are bombing the economic infrastructure of Iraq and Syria including factories and oil refineries.

US-NATO-Israel are state sponsors of terrorism, providing training, weapons and money to various terrorist formations. The endgame is “regime change” in Syria and the fragmentation of Iraq.

The US led war against the Islamic State is a big lie. Going after ” Islamic terrorists”, carrying out a worldwide pre-emptive war to “Protect the American Homeland” are used to justify a military agenda.

The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is a creation of US intelligence. Washington’s “Counter-terrorism Agenda” in Iraq and Syria consists in supporting the terrorists.

The incursion of the Islamic State (IS) brigades into Iraq starting in June 2014 was part of a carefully planned military-intelligence operation supported covertly by the US, NATO and Israel.

The counter-terrorism mandate is a fiction. America is the Number One “State Sponsor of Terrorism”.
The Islamic State is protected by the US and its allies. If they had wanted to eliminate the Islamic State brigades, they could have “carpet” bombed their convoys of Toyota pickup trucks when they crossed the desert from Syria into Iraq. This large scale military operation directed against Syria and Iraq has resulted in countless civilian deaths. It could not have been undertaken without the unbending support of the Western media which has upheld Obama’s initiative as a counter-terrorism operation (24).

In order to prove that the Republicans were behind chaos and proxy wars in the Middle East, the hawkish Republican Senator John McCain has met up with jihadist terrorist leaders in Syria. He urged Obama’s administration to arm Syrian rebel groups. McCain met rebel leaders inside Syria to discuss their calls for heavy weapons and a no-fly zone to help them topple President Bashar al-Assad.

McCain’s intervention is likely to strengthen the hand of hawks in Washington. McCain is said to have met with General Salem Idris, the leader of the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army during his visit. He stayed in the country for several hours before returning to Turkey. In Syria and Turkey, McCain and Idris met assembled leaders of Free Syrian Army units that travelled from around the country to see the US senator.

Inside those meetings, rebel leaders called on the United States to step up its support to the Syrian armed opposition and provide them with heavy weapons, a no-fly zone, and airstrikes on the Syrian regime and the forces of Hezbollah.

Because Egypt fiercely rejected the American plot against the Middle East, McCain described the ousting of former Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi as a coup.

“We have said we share the democratic aspirations and criticism of the Morsi government that led millions of Egyptians into the streets,” McCain said at the end of a brief visit to Cairo in which he and fellow Republican senator Lindsey Graham met senior officials.

“We’ve also said that the circumstances of [Morsi’s] removal was a coup. This was a transition of power not by the ballot box.”

The visit by the senators, both members of the Senate foreign relations committee, was aimed at pressing for reconciliation between the interim military-led government and the vanquished Muslim Brotherhood, which remains encamped in two parts of the capital, demanding Morsi’s reinstatement.

Both senators pressed Sisi to release political prisoners, including Morsi, who has been held at a military base several hours outside of Cairo.

Obama did not keep his promise when he vowed in his speech in Cairo that he will do his best to create a Palestinian State. While addressing the annual conference of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, Washington’s most influential pro-Israel lobby group, Netanyahu said he was willing to resume talks on a two-state solution “immediately … anytime, anywhere”, if only his Palestinian counterpart Mahmoud Abbas was willing to do the same. This just one day after the Israeli government issued notices to seize nearly 120 hectares of land from Palestinian villages in the northern West Bank, and days after it declared more than 2,300 dunums of land in Jericho as “state lands”, which are then usually granted to Jewish settlers.

Obama quickly caved when Netanyahu rejected a halt to settlement expansion before talks with the Palestinians. He also didn’t listen to Biden, when the US presidential candidates are falling over themselves to appease the powerful pro-Israel lobby?

Hilary Clinton designed and implemented these disastrous foreign policies. The consequences of such annihilating policy is terrible.

Since 2011 when Qaddafi was overthrown, 4,600 people have died in Libya; Over 8,100 people have died in Yemen in 2015; the damage has been expedited in Syria as 470,000 people died from 2011 to 2015: another 21,000 are estimated to have been killed just this year. Hence, adding the totals of these figures equates to 1,160 521 deaths (Total) (25).

Hilary Clinton never mentioned in her presidential campaign that her administration is at war in varying degrees in four different countries in the Middle East and North Africa—Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen—as well as continuing its “longest war” in Afghanistan. All five of these wars now involve ISIS that was supported and financed by Obama’s administration. This created terrorist organization threatens the future stability of the Middle East and even U.S. internal peace. ISIS cannot be defeated quickly and no credible form of eventual defeat of ISIS Will defeat the threat of terrorism either in the Arab countries or in America.

During her presidential campaign, Hilary Clinton had never addressed U.S. policy for any of these five wars. Her campaign is going amidst multiple wars without seriously debating or discussing where any of its wars are going, or what their longer-term impact will be.

Hillary Clinton made headlines with a June speech in San Diego casting Donald Trump as unfit for the presidency due to the damage his incendiary rhetoric could cause. Simultaneously, the former Secretary of State sought to convince the California audience that she was the safer choice in foreign policy matters.

But when taking a closer look at US foreign policy under her leadership as the nation’s top diplomat, it’s obvious that Clinton could potentially be a disaster if given the position of Commander-in-Chief. Voters should be leery of Clinton, who, despite having met with more world leaders than any presidential candidate in US history, is responsible for some of the worst foreign policy blunders of the 21st century.

Thirteen years of wars in the Middle East, since the illegal and criminal invasion of Iraq by the United States and Britain in 2003, have killed way over a million people; destroyed Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Libya, and created millions of refugees. The terrorist attacks by Daesh (also known as ISIS or ISIL) in Europe, coupled with hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East have strengthened xenophobia, Islamophobia, and more generally, hatred of foreigners. Daesh itself is a byproduct of the invasion of Iraq that led to the emergence of al-Qaeda in Iraq, morphing into its present state as a result of the wars in Libya and Syria. Can things get any worse? Not only they can, we should expect new wars in the Middle East if Hillary Rodham Clinton, the presumptive Democratic candidate for president is elected next November. Even a glance at her record and the neoconservatives’ enthusiasm for her presidency indicate how likely new wars in the Middle East would occur.

Hillary Clinton is a hawk and warmonger. People often point to her vote in 2002 for going to war in Iraq and her enthusiasm for it. After all, it was during her husband’s presidency that toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein became the official policy of the United States. But, her track record of starting and supporting wars, and siding with despots is much deeper than Iraq.

Here are a few examples of countries where conditions are tremendously worse as a result of Hillary Clinton’s policies.

1-  Hillary Clinton made Libya a failed state

In an April interview with Fox News, President Barack Obama, reflecting on his 7 years as Commander-in-Chief, admitted that ousting Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi was the biggest mistake of his presidency. While Obama took responsibility for the failure of Libya in that interview, he relied on the input of Hillary Clinton, his Secretary of State at the time.

In March of 2011, Clinton met with Mahmoud Jibril, who was leading the opposition to Gaddafi. As the New York Times reported, Clinton asked Jibril a series of questions about how his coalition planned to fill the power vacuum that would be created by Gaddafi’s ouster. And in the end, it was Clinton who convinced the White House that deposing Gaddafi was the right thing to do. Her conviction was critical in persuading Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel Qaddafi’s forces. In fact, Mr. Obama’s defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a “51-49” decision, it was Mrs. Clinton’s support that put the ambivalent president over the line.

The 2011 NATO-led invasion of Libya that took place after Clinton’s visit has since allowed extremist groups to seize power in an unprecedented takeover of much of the country over the last five years.

In 2014, the US State Department shut down the US embassy in Libya and issued a travel warning urging all Americans to stay away from the country. Roughly one year ago, Libya’s central bank, the last remaining institution in the failed state, was forced to flee to a city in the Eastern region of the country due to rebel forces encroaching on the bank’s facility in Tripoli, the capital. Libya is now a haven for terrorists, with thousands of ISIS soldiers using the country as a staging ground.
In an interview on CBS, Clinton laughed about Gaddafi’s slaying, proudly exclaiming, “We came, we saw, he died.”

2- Hillary Clinton deserves credit for poverty and instability in Haiti

In Haiti, the first state ever founded by freed black slaves, citizens are still fighting for political and economic freedom today, largely due to the influence of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

In 2011, Wikileaks published US State Department cables from 2008 and 2009 confirming that State Department officials were meeting behind closed doors with Haitian business leaders, plotting on how to stop the Haitian government from implementing a 37-cent hike in the minimum wage from $0.24 an hour to $0.61 cents an hour.

While Haitian President René Préval was initially neutral on the proposal of raising the minimum wage, he went on the record opposing the wage hike after consistent efforts from within the US Embassy in Haiti and the Haitian business lobby by July of 2009.  Clinton’s State Department tried to suppress the wage hike as half-true, since there’s no link proving that Clinton directly played a role.

However, Clinton’s influence on Haiti didn’t stop there. As US Uncut previously reported, the former Secretary of State took an active role in swinging Haitian’s presidential elections in favor of corporate special interests. In the first round of Haiti’s presidential elections, thousands of citizens took to the streets demanding an annulment of election results, alleging that then-Haitian president Michel Martelly committed election fraud.

Martelly, who succeeded René Préval, is a close confidant of the Clinton family. In 2011, Martelly appointed Bill Clinton to an advisory board whose stated goal was to court foreign investors.

And in one of Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails made public, Clinton’s chief of staff received an email from another staffer openly boasting about using connections within the Haitian business elite to lobby for the withdrawal of Jude Célestin, Martelly’s political rival, from an upcoming runoff election. The aide, Kenneth Merten, predicted the news of the US interfering in election results would create widespread protests, and said he had called Martelly, asking him to plead with Haitians “to not pillage.”

While Martelly is no longer in power, his hand-picked successor, Jovenel Moïse, won the most recent election. However, watchdogs are calling the results fraudulent and demanding a new election. Ricardo Seitenfus, who has served as representative of the Organization of American States (OAS) for the last eight years, admitted that Haiti’s government is essentially a puppet of US interests, saying the Haitian election schedule is “subject to the U.S. schedule.” Hillary Clinton deserves to be closely scrutinized when touting her diplomacy record, as Haiti’s political instability is a result of her policies.

3-  Honduras’ downfall resulted from a coup Clinton supported

In 2009, shortly after Obama took office and appointed Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State, Honduran president Manuel Zelaya was arrested at gunpoint by the military and forced onto a plane to Costa Rica while a new government took power. While the US State Department didn’t directly oust Zelaya, it refused to call his ouster a coup, despite calls from the U.S. ambassador to Honduras and from Congress to do so. In her interview with the New York Daily News editorial board, Clinton defended her decision to keep sending aid to Honduras despite the violent overthrow of Zelaya:

“I think, in retrospect, we managed a very difficult situation, without bloodshed, without a civil war, that led to a new election. And I think that was better for the Honduran people. But we have a lot of work to do to try to help stabilize that and deal with corruption, deal with the violence and the gangs and so much else.”

However, the result of the coup was a massive amount of bloodshed, as gangs and drug cartels began to take more power in the absence of a stable government. In the year following the coup, Clinton’s State Department published a list of human rights abuses prevalent in Honduras.

The horrific conditions in Honduras triggered a mass exodus of migrants to the US. As Telesur reported, approximately 9,000 child refugees fled Honduras in 2015. Also in 2015, Clinton defended the deportation of children back to the Central American countries they’re fleeing in order “send a message.” However, Clinton has since walked back that statement as her Democratic presidential primary battle with Bernie Sanders became more competitive.

4-  Clinton is responsible for the fall of Iraq and Syria (and the rise of ISIS)

In late 2011, after months of sustained anti-government protests inspired by the “Arab Spring” movement, Hillary Clinton called for the resignation of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. Then, in April 2012, Clinton gave a speech in Turkey more forcefully calling specifically for regime change, saying, “Assad must go.” Those three words created the policies that led to both the rise of ISIS in Syria and the European refugee crisis of 2015.

One of Clinton’s last actions as Secretary of State was to call for the arming of Syrian rebels fighting Assad. As the London Telegraph reported, Clinton’s plan to give weapons to Assad’s enemies was backed by not only former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, but also by former CIA director David Petraeus and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. While Obama initially rejected his Secretary of State’s plan, he eventually agreed to arm Syrian rebels in the goal of ousting Assad.

However, as ISIS began to get a foothold into Syria and Iraq, the “moderates” that received weapons from the US were eventually overtaken by ISIS fighters, who suddenly found themselves in the possession of military-grade weapons paid for with US tax dollars.

In a study conducted by Conflict Armament Research, which tracks the movement of arms in war-torn regions, researchers found that ISIS has weapons and ammunition not just from the US, but also from coalition forces that are funded by the US government. The access to advanced weaponry was likely the reason for ISIS’ rapid expansion into Libya, Egypt, and elsewhere.
The consequences of destabilizing Syria and Iraq are apparent. Over one million refugees, largely from countries where the US intervened militarily, fled to Europe between 2015 and 2016, creating the world’s largest refugee crisis since World War II. In this chart compiled by Eurostat, the top three countries people are fleeing are Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Donald Trump however, laid out a counter-terrorism strategy, attacking the policies of his Democratic opponent Hilary Clinton and US president Barack Obama in the Middle East. He said, “We will work side by side with our friends in the Middle East, including our greatest ally Israel. We will partner with King Abdullah of Jordan and the president of Egypt, President [Abdel Fattah] Al-Sisi.” Donald Trump also announced that he will call for an international conference focused on halting the spread of radical Islam.

Trump further said: “”The rise of ISIS is the direct result of policy decisions made by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton,” Trump argued, pointing out that prior to Obama taking power in 2009 “Libya was stable, Syria was under control, Egypt was ruled by a secular president and ally to the U.S., Iraq was experiencing a decrease in violence and Iran was being choked off by economic sanctions.”

Trump also vowed to Banish Nation Building and Islamic Extremism.
“Our current strategy of nation building and regime change have been a total disaster…It’s time to chart a new course,” he continued. “When I become President, the era of nation building will be brought to a swift close.”

Trump slammed the Obama administration’s manipulation of intelligence reports to downplay the ISIS threat and attacked Clinton as lacking the judgement to be commander-in-chief. “Anyone who cannot name our enemy is not fit to lead our country,” Trump said. “She [Clinton] lacks the mental and physical stamina to take on ISIS.”

Trump said his administration would work with NATO to wage military force against ISIS and other radical Islamic groups in addition to finding common ground with Russia to fight the expanding threat. He also took at a shot at the Obama administration’s emptying of Guantanamo Bay Prison by reassuring voters foreign combatants will be tried in military commissions, not in U.S. courts. He also said those who offer material support to terrorist organizations will face aggressive and serious charges.

“We will decimate Al Qaeda and we will starve funding,” Trump said. “Military, cyber and financial warfare will be necessary to dismantle Islamic terrorism.” Trump also added.

“Our administration will be a friend to all moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East and will amplify their voices, this includes speaking out against honor killings,” he continued.

According to the Russian president Vladimir Putin, Hillary Clinton brings the real threat of war, not Donald Trump. Putin said: “If it’s Clinton, it’s war.” Clinton has compared Putin to Hitler and has taken a consistently hawkish position on foreign affairs. Putin’s open concerns about Hillary Clinton have put Russians and Romanians under a lot of stress. Putin was encouraged by Donald Trump’s message that he was willing to work with Russian leaders.

Vladimir Putin has ordered the Aerospace Defense Forces to accelerate the deployment of two or more missile attack early warning system satellites. He told his military leaders to prepare for imminent war if Hillary is elected president.

Marine Le Pen, leader of the right-wing French political party National Front, has backed Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and said that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton would bring “war”, “devastation” and “instability” if elected as President of the US.

“For France, anything is better than Hillary Clinton. Anything but Hillary Clinton. Because I think Hillary Clinton means war. Hillary Clinton means devastation. It means world instability,” CNN quoted Le pen as saying.

On the contrary, Hilary Clinton backs wars and massive retaliation:”if Iran attacks Israel, saying at the time: “If I’m President, We Will Attack Iran… We would be Able to totally obliterate them. I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.

I pose the question: “Has Hilary estimated the terrible consequences of such irrational statement?” First, Iran will never attack Israel because it knows the consequences. And if Hilary is going to attack Iran, does Russia, backed by China, is going to let her do that? Due to Hilary’s careless policy in the Middle East and Eastern Europe Russia is already there in Syria totally blocking Washington plans to topple Al-Assad. Attacking Iran would threaten the peace of Israel, because Iran is waiting for such opportunity to attack Israel. The American or the Israeli atomic bombs will not be of value because Russia will never allow it. Iran shares its northern borders with Russia, and Russia will never allow any military aggression taking place near its borders.

The myth and the false arrogance that America is the sole super power on earth should come to an end. Russia is also a super power that can destroy the whole world in few seconds. Provoking another super power by foolishly putting it under sanction, is disastrous and annihilating. This provocation could easily put the whole world on fire in just few seconds, and might also threaten the American peace within her land too.

These dangerous statements of Hilary shows clearly that she is incognizant of the relations between Russia and Iran. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the two neighboring nations have generally enjoyed very close cordial relations. Iran and Russia are strategic allies and form an axis in the Caucasus alongside Armenia. Due to Western economic sanctions on Iran, Russia has become a key trading partner, especially in regard to the excess oil reserves. Militarily, Iran is the only country in Western Asia that has been invited to join the Collective Security Treaty Organization, Russia’s own international treaty organization in response to NATO, while much of the Iranian military consists of Russian weaponry. Iran has its embassy in Moscow and consulates in the cities of Astrakhan and Kazan. Russia has its embassy in Tehran, and consulates in Rasht and Isfahan.

On July 3, 2015, Hillary Clinton addressed a hand-picked audience at a Dartmouth College campaign event. She lied calling Iran an “existential threat to Israel… “I hope we are able to get a deal next week that puts a lid on (its) nuclear weapons program. Even if we do get such a deal, we will still have major problems from Iran. They are the world’s chief sponsor of terrorism.

They use proxies like Hezbollah to sow discord and create insurgencies to destabilize governments. They are taking more and more control of a number of nations in the region and they pose an existential threat to Israel. We have to turn our attention to working with our partners to try to reign in and prevent this continuing Iranian aggressiveness.”

Fact: US and Israeli intelligence both say Iran’s nuclear program has no military component. No evidence whatever suggests Tehran wants one.

In 2008 Hilary addressed AIPAC’s annual convention saying:

“The United States stands with Israel now and forever. We have shared interests….shared ideals….common values. I have a bedrock commitment to Israel’s security.”

“Our two nations are fighting a shared threat” against Islamic extremism. I strongly support Israel’s right to self-defense (and) believe America should aid in that defense.”

“I am committed to making sure that Israel maintains a military edge to meet increasing threats. I am deeply concerned about the growing threat in Gaza (and) Hamas’ campaign of terror.”

Fact: No such campaign exists. The only threats Israel faces are ones it invents.

Clinton repeated tired old lies saying Hamas’ charter “calls for the destruction of Israel. Iran threatens to destroy Israel.”

“I support calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard what it is: a terrorist organization. It is imperative that we get both tough and smart about dealing with Iran before it is too late.”

She endorses using cluster bombs, toxic agents and nuclear weapons in US war theaters. She calls them deterrents that “keep the peace.” She was one of only six Democrat senators opposed to blocking deployment of untested missile defense systems – first-strike weapons entirely for offense (26).

This is the difference between the two candidates, Hilary calls for war and Trump calls for peace. Hilary sponsors and supports the terrorist entities ISIS and DAEISH, while Trump is determined to halt the spread of radical Islam.

In one of his electoral speeches Trump said: “Hillary Clinton is the embodiment of corruption. She’s a corrupt person. What she’s done with her e-mails, what she’s done with so many things.”

He added, “I think it might be her greatest accomplishment, escaping the recent scandal, and her lies, and the loss of 33,000 e-mails. But it wasn’t a loss, she discarded (them). That in itself is a major crime. Other people have been paying tremendous prices for what they’ve done, which is peanuts compared to what happened with Hillary Clinton.”

The reason for such harsh accusation is that Hilary Clinton exclusively used a private email address while serving as secretary of state from 2009-13. Instead of using the State Department email system (with an email address ending in, Clinton used a personal email address ( housed on private servers located in her Chappaqua, N.Y., home.

Because she didn’t use the government system, the department didn’t have her emails on hand when the House Select Committee on Benghazi asked to see them. So in 2014, Clinton’s lawyers combed through the private server and turned over about 30,000 work-related emails to the State Department and deleted the rest, which Clinton said were about personal matters.

Clinton has said she used the email setup for convenience, so she would only have to use one device for email. But there’s some evidence Clinton did it for privacy reasons as well. She said in 2010 that she would be open to a departmental email but added, “I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.” The FBI found that she used multiple mobile devices throughout her tenure, but it’s unclear if she switched out periodically or used more than one at the same time.

Some classified information ended up on her private server, which was an unclassified system, but there was not enough evidence to charge her with a crime. Clinton had repeatedly said she did not have any classified emails on her server, but the results of the FBI investigation show that claim was incorrect.

Of the tens of thousands of emails investigators reviewed, 113 contained classified information, and three of those had classification markers. FBI Director James Comey has said Clinton should have known that some of the 113 were classified, but others she might have understandably missed.

Comey said the Justice Department shouldn’t prosecute Clinton because there isn’t enough evidence that she intentionally mishandled classified information. FBI investigators didn’t find vast quantities of exposed classified material, and they also did not turn up evidence that Clinton intended to be disloyal to the United States or that she intended to obstruct justice. However, he called Clinton’s email setup “extremely careless.”

The Arab Spring – the American plot against the Arab world – has already ruined Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya. Egypt however, resisted the plot and stood erect on its feet. Let’s see what Hilary Clinton,   the Secretary of State then, and her ambassador Anne Patterson had done to Egypt in order to submit it to the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Hilary Clinton visited Cairo in March 2011, and she seemed to support the rise of political Islam in Egypt.

During Clinton’s visit to Cairo, young leaders of the revolution declined an invitation to meet with her, citing Washington’s tepid support for anti-government protesters over the course of the 18-day rebellion. The young leaders of the revolution refused to meet Hilary Clinton due to the US administration’s vacillating position and contradictory statements as the revolution unfolded. They refused to meet her because of the US administration’s wavering stance during the revolution, which remained ambiguous right up until Mubarak’s departure.

The leaders of the revolution announced additional reasons for its decision not to meet with Clinton. “The US administration only looks after its own interests, even if these interests conflict with those of the Egyptian people; the US administration supports oppressive regimes throughout the region. Their decision not to meet Clinton expressed their rejection of fifty years of faulty US policies in the region.

The rebellions announced: “The US has given Egypt some two billion dollars annually for the last thirty years as a bribe to allow it to intervene in Egypt’s domestic affairs and ensure that Egypt honors the Camp David peace agreement with Israel. From now on, all foreign funding should only be accepted on the condition that it doesn’t come with political strings attached or promote values alien to Egyptian culture. We really don’t want anything from America — neither intervention in our sovereign affairs nor advice on good governance and democracy.”

Egypt-US relations have been rocky since the ouster of former President Mohammed Morsi. 76% of Egyptians have an unfavorable view of the Obama administration. Many Egyptians see America as either an interloper or as a nation that promises democratic ideals as an excuse to interfere in other nations’ affairs.

During the revolution, the CIA was regularly receiving affirming reports from the American Embassy in Cairo that Egypt’s state of affairs is well under the control of MB and that they are a sure bet.

Ann Patterson, the US ambassador to Egypt, or the wicked witch as Egyptians like to call her, who worked closely with Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, used to spend more time with the MB supreme guide than with her staff. And even after the fall of the MB, Patterson refused to give up on her bet, and convinced the leaders of the MB to try and mobilize their loyalists and stir up violence to convince the west that Egypt is on the brink of a civil war. Actually, Patterson’s scenario could do well in a tribal country like Syria, or Pakistan, where Patterson served before, but definitely not in Egypt.

U.S. Ambassador Anne Patterson has become the public face in Egypt of America’s policy failure. She played a major role in forming the U.S. approach to the Muslim Brotherhood and its Freedom and Justice Party led by Mohamed Morsi. Many in the Egyptian opposition regarded her as the person responsible for America’s close embrace of Islamists in Egypt. During the protests that led to the fall of Morsi’s government, her face, crossed out with a red X, became the symbol for many Egyptians of what they saw as U.S. discouragement of their efforts.

Patterson pushed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to visit Cairo, a trip that turned out to be a disaster as Egyptians pelted Clinton’s motorcade with tomatoes, chanted about Monica Lewinsky, and promoted conspiracy theories that Clinton aide Huma Abedin was part of a Muslim Brotherhood conspiracy to control the Egyptian government.

Patterson pushed for a tight embrace of Morsi. She alienated the opposition. She told a lot of people that the opposition was useless, that there was no point investing time in them, that the Muslim Brotherhood was the only game in town.

These reasons and more showed why Ambassador Anne Patterson was disliked in Egypt, and also the pro-Muslim Brotherhood policies of the current U.S. administration. Why do millions of Egyptians, including politicians and activists, considered Anne Patterson, the U.S. ambassador to Egypt, a “stooge” for the Muslim Brotherhood — as she is so commonly referred to by many in Egypt, from the media down to the street? In America, some are aware of matters, such as that Patterson in particular resisted opportunities to criticize the Morsi government as it implemented increasingly authoritarian policies. She repeatedly dodged pointed questions about Morsi’s leadership. “The fact is they ran in a legitimate election and won,” she said.

Neglecting the fact that President El-SISI won the presidency with more than 93% of the votes, Clinton’s real intentions showed up when she called Egypt’s patriotic government: “basically an army dictatorship” during a live debate with her opponent Bernie Sanders. “I cautioned about the overthrow of former President Hosni Mubarak, and now we’re back with basically an army dictatorship,” said Clinton during the debate. It remains unclear whether Clinton’s statements about President Sisi’s government will be the official position of her administration if she wins the Presidency race.
By backing Morsi and Muslim Brotherhood and neglecting the demands of the Egyptian masses, Hilary Clinton proved that the American foreign policy in the region was a total failure and was originally directed to support Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic insurgents to rule Egypt and divide it into sectors warrying among themselves.

The Egyptian people removed Morsi from power because in less than one year time he was not capable of running Egypt. The masses realized that he would take advantage of his rule and exerts greater control over Egypt for the advantage of the American plot against the region.

The country was doing quite poorly under Morsi – the economy has been in the tank; the Egyptian stock market has been performing poorly; tourists revenues have been down; there have been gas shortages; most every economic indicator has shown Egypt to be in trouble, with no signs of improving under Morsi.

The Muslim Brotherhood when acquired power, held the presidency, dominated the legislature, and was actively working to curb the power and influence of the judiciary.

When Morsi became president, he sacked military generals, and attempted to wrest certain powers from the military. He gave his own office authority and power that reminded way too many of the type of autocratic power Mubarak himself had. Morsi’s opponents were being jailed, and there were signs of attacks on civil rights and free expression by his administration.

The Muslim Brotherhood and their pathetic puppet, Mohamed Morsi, the so called by America “democratically elected president”, were trying to demolish the civil pillars of the country. This included their goal to brotherhoodize the Judiciary, legislative, and administrative institutions. They wanted to immerse the constitution with controversial and radical Sharia law, wipe out press freedom, terrorize the Christian minority and turn the women into veiled ghosts. In short, the MB, an international syndicate of obscenely financed and radically brain-washed Islamists, were trying to hijack Egypt and turn it into the model they all treasure as the ideal Islamic Emirate, the Taliban example in Afghanistan.

While fashioning political structures to ensure dominance for years to come, Morsi was seen as also neglecting and mismanaging other aspects of rule (letting the economy flounder while too focused on seizing more power, for instance).  For millions of Egyptians, just as they’d not wanted the military to attempt to rule Egypt indefinitely after Mubarak, they did not want a civilian leader to – despite being “democratically elected” – take advantage of the circumstances.

Dissatisfied by the incompetent Muslim Brotherhood ‘MB’ governance and alarmed by their blatant agenda to turn Egypt into another Somalia or Afghanistan, the Egyptians revolted again, and rallied in millions across the country not against a failing president or government, but against a fascist group that peddles religion, feeds on ignorance and prejudice and craves authoritarian power. The MB respected no civil norms and left nothing behind except chaos, violence and ruins of a nation (27).

Morsi allowed during his presidency mobs of Islamists and MB loyalists to besiege the supreme constitutional court and humiliate its honorable judges to intimidate them into passing his distorted laws and deformed constitution!

Hilary Clinton and the other conspirators against Egypt’s unity say that Morsi was democratically elected.

Hilary Clinton and Obama’s administration thought that Egypt is just another Arab country living a tribal life. They thought that the Egyptians were hordes of cows who could not think for themselves which way to go. They did not know or maybe they forgot that Egypt is the cradle of civilization. Egypt has behind it 7000 years of splendid civilization. The Egyptians were the ones who taught the world what civilization truly was.

On June 30, 2013, Egyptians and for the second time in almost two years took to the streets in unprecedented numbers and fashion, and kicked out another incumbent president who failed to deliver on his electoral promises.

Realizing Morsi’s treachery, and his ardent backing for the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as the continuous conflicts and clashes erupting everywhere, the Egyptians asked the military to intervene and the military responded and overthrew Morsi. President Sisi was sworn into office on 8 June 2014.

When Morsi was removed from power, the Egyptians began to hear the reactionary American clichés “This is a coup, this is undemocratic. After all, Morsi is an elected president”!

The second wave of the Egyptian revolution, protected and endorsed by the Egyptian army is not a blow to democracy, on the contrary, it is reestablishing democracy that should be based on separating the synagogue, the mosque and the church from state. And it is also a severe blow to the US credibility in the Middle East which witnessed throughout the last couple of years the fall and the forsaking of all US allies in the region.

Morsi, himself, the so called by America and the West democratically elected president, turned out to be an ex-convict who was detained in prison on charges of collaboration with foreign intelligence.

Egypt was and will continue to be a civil state in which everyone is equal before the law.

After the removal of Morsi from power Patterson demanded that Egypt’s recently appointed Supreme Commander of the Egyptian Armed Forces, General Abdul Fatah al-Sisi, release all Muslim Brotherhood members currently being held for questioning, and when Sisi rejected this order, the American ambassador began threatening him that Egypt will turn into another Syria and live through a civil war, to which Sisi responded violently: ‘Neither you nor your country can overcome Egypt and its people.’

Earlier Patterson tried to communicate with General Sisi, demanding dialogue with the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, and concessions to them to which Sisi retorted: “Stop meddling in our affairs… the Egyptian people are capable of looking after their own welfare.”

Anne Patterson’s image has been plastered on banners in Tahrir Square, crossed out with a blood-red X or distorted and smeared with insults. She is too cozy with Egypt’s deposed president and the Muslim Brotherhood, the signs said: “Obama and Patterson support terrorism in Egypt; Anne Paterson leave Egypt now and go to hell; Obama you can’t fool your people anymore, you finance and back terrorism; we know what you did last summer; Egypt will remain a civil state.”

Such blatantly pro-Muslim Brotherhood actions are what have led most Egyptians, including politicians and activists, to see Patterson as the Brotherhood’s lackey. The Egyptians considered her a member of the sleeper cells of the Brotherhood because she meets with them and supports them. The Egyptian considered her as part of a conspiracy against Egypt and its people. Anne Patterson was seen as a Muslim Brotherhood stooge who supported the Islamist group even as they were oppressing the population of Egypt. Patterson was called “the first enemy of the revelation” and was even more reviled in the protests than Mohammad Morsi.

The Egyptians therefore, stood firmly against Obama’s policy directed to submit Egypt to the rule of Muslim Brotherhood.
The response of the Egyptians to Patterson’s attempts to reinstate the Brotherhood to power was strong. They protested in front of the U.S. embassy in Cairo calling for Patterson expulsion from Egypt (28).

Hillary Clinton wants to be president. But she doesn’t have the temperament, or as Bernie Sanders said very strongly, the judgment to be president. Sanders has challenged Democratic orthodoxy on free trade, Middle East policy and the scope of executive power to conduct unlimited military campaigns under the auspices of the war against terrorism. In doing so he has exposed one of Clinton’s greatest vulnerabilities in a general election: Her judgment when conducting foreign affairs.

Clinton’s record as a military hawk is well-known. She voted for the Iraq War as a senator. As secretary of state, she pushed for U.S. intervention in Libya and lobbied President Obama to take military action against Bashar al-Assad in Syria. She was lukewarm about the nuclear deal with Iran. With respect to Israel, in March she gave a major policy speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) without so much as mentioning the plight of the Palestinians – a point later highlighted by Sanders, a son of Jewish immigrants, during their debate in Brooklyn.

Increasingly endless military campaigns in the Middle East is a drain on American blood and treasure. Thus, Clinton’s reliance on hard power as a means of advancing American interests is a tough sell in an election year where voters seem to prefer retrenchment rather than military adventurism.

Clinton signaled in a major foreign policy address that she would be doubling down on the conflict in Syria by imposing a no-fly zone – something the Obama administration has ruled out for fear of deepening America’s involvement in the Syrian civil war and risking escalation with Russia and Iran, the Assad government’s main patrons.

Furthermore, Clinton has proclaimed that she would reaffirm her “unbreakable bond” with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Fidelity to Israel’s security is a staple of all presidential campaigns, but Clinton has gone on record embracing an Israeli prime minister who repeatedly embarrassed President Obama, tried to torpedo his signature foreign policy achievement – the Iran nuclear deal – and paid only lip service to the peace process with Palestinians.

Such positions put her at odds with Sanders’ supporters, who, like President Obama, are committed to Israel’s security but also recognize the tremendous toll the occupation and continued expansion of Israeli settlements take on American security interests in the Middle East and on Palestinian society. They would like to see the United States play a more evenhanded role. So far, Clinton has not shown any willingness to confront more hard-line Israeli policies that make peace harder to achieve (29).

Donald Trump has given a foreign policy speech that makes more sense than that of Hilary Clinton. He presented sensible policy goals to getthe U.S. out of the swamp. Trump promised to be pro-American, in contrast to Hilary and Obama’s fantasy policies that ended up killing hundreds of thousands of people abroad for no discernible reason at all.  Obama and Clinton bombed Libya for no stated reason except the obvious lie that America was going to stop genocide.  Instead, things got much worse, and today Libya is still entangled in an avoidable civil war.

Donald Trump has named the enemy in the Jihad War.  He calls it “radical Islam.”  That’s good enough, because it labels the war theology of jihad as the real enemy.  We do not hate Muslims.  We hate their indoctrination into a pre-medieval desert theology that makes war on infidels a first duty for every believer.

President El-Sisi of Egypt gave a very brave speech in Al-Azhar Institute calling for a change in Islam, to stop the madness of a billion Muslims being told by the, the priesthood, that they are obligated to make endless war against Kafirs.

This may sound like ordinary common sense, but common sense has been painfully missing during the Obama years. Trump doesn’t have to be a genius to figure it out. The name of the enemy, whether jihad or radical Islam, has been absurdly covered up by Obama. That has been a deliberate and malignant strategy.

Obama’s failure to point out the enemy has allowed jihad to shape-change into al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Syrian refugees,”

But jihad is one of the five “pillars of Islam,” and every child is indoctrinated to know that.  Jihad is a duty that Muslims are supposed to follow.

Failure to name the enemy has allowed Obama to spend billions — or is it trillions? — on what is supposed to be homeland security.

Trump’s foreign policy speech will be read by Vladimir Putin and President El-Sisi of Egypt, by the genocide-peddling mullahs of Tehran, by ISIS and its morally subhuman backers — like Turkey and Saudi Arabia — and even by the hopeless EU autocrats, who have made such a mess of Europe that regular people are finally rebelling against them.

Under Obama and the European left, things have gotten screwed up to an amazing extent.  Obama is a sort of genius in screwing things up. It will take consistency and some wisdom to fix the mess (30).


Under any circumstances, the Republican Party establishment should stop feeling “shocked” by the emergence of Donald Trump. He represents the aspiration of the American people to make America great again.

Americans are tired of prefabricated political lies fed to them by establishments of both parties. Trump knows voters don’t approve of the expensive geopolitical games perpetrated by the American subsequent administrations.
When Trump started to run for President most people laughed. A buffoon billionaire reality TV star with ridiculous hair and three trophy wives couldn’t be more unfit for President. Yet, it is exactly that lack of correctness which propelled Trump to the lead in the primaries.

Apparently, Americans who are tired of the mountains of prefabricated political lies that are fed to them with great eagerness by the political establishment of both parties prefer a candidate who is frank about the sham of it all – albeit rude and lewd.

Like him or detest him, Trump has a point when he says he’s rich enough to be independent of corporate lobbyists. That points to some independence. Plus, in the peculiar U.S. form of political mythology, when Americans see a rich candidate, they see success. And when they see someone going into politics who is not for sale, they vote for him.

Donald Trump is rising on the wave of public anger with the political establishment. Like him or detest him, most Americans are people angry at the political establishment that specializes in enriching itself while presumably serving the public “good.”

As to the real danger, Trump appeals to the most primal human instincts: anger, greed, fear of strangers and territorial imperative.

Trump wants to deport eleven million Mexicans because they entered the United States without documentation during peacetime.

American liberals denounce Trump’s plan to stop Muslim immigration as contrary to the very spirit of our multi-national country, but America is not the same country that it was 100 years ago. Today, there are so many huddled masses yearning to escape the world’s wars and collapsing climate, that even America (let alone Europe) cannot accommodate all of them. However, some of those wars are the direct fault of the United States’ recent policies.Donald Trump wants to stop those waves and calls out both big political parties for their role in the disastrous foreign policy actions that unleashed them. Is there any wonder that he’s winning the nomination? Trump goes as far as to suggest cooperation with Russia on these crises. This flies in the face of the resurgent Cold War, but to most Americans the new Cold War looks like an invention of the hated establishment to focus yet again on foreign wars – instead of addressing people’s urgent needs on the Homefront.

The public may therefore come to see Trump’s call to work with Russia as badly needed pragmatism in the face of an apparent global meltdown.

Most politicos get indignant with Trump for such a terrible idea, but it is surely not the worst of ideas. In fact, President Obama already cooperates with Vladimir Putin in Syria, while publicly chiding Putin for his Ukrainian aggression.

The brash and bold Trump just calls it as he sees it, and people like that.

Most Americans are more afraid of ISIS – whether that is a legitimate fear or not – than of Russia editing the borders of its neighbors, which is certainly not a threat to Americans. They don’t approve of the expensive geopolitical games perpetrated by the American establishment. Politicians cry wolf about Putin’s annexation of Crimea, but most Americans don’t really care about it as long as Russia doesn’t threaten America. On the right is an oligarch Trump, who uses primeval human instincts and a real frustration with the establishment’s bad policymaking to vault himself to power (31).

On the other hand, Hilary Clinton might get the U.S. in some kind of military action. She’s a hawk, to the right of Obama. The biggest problem isn’t Trump – it’s Hillary. She is hugely unpopular — nearly 70% of all voters think she is untrustworthy and dishonest. She represents the old way of politics, not really believing in anything other than what can get you elected. That’s why she fights against gays getting married one moment, and the next she’s officiating a gay marriage. Young women are among her biggest detractors, which has to hurt considering it’s the sacrifices and the battles that Hillary and other women of her generation endured so that this younger generation would never have to be told by the Barbara Bushes of the world that they should just shut up and go bake some cookies. But the kids don’t like her, and not a day goes by that a millennial doesn’t tell me they aren’t voting for her. No Democrat, and certainly no independent, is waking up on November 8th excited to run out and vote for Hillary the way they did the day Obama became president or when Bernie was on the primary ballot. The enthusiasm just isn’t there. And because this election is going to come down to just one thing — who drags the most people out of the house and gets them to the polls — Trump right now is in the catbird seat.

As a Muslim and an Middle Eastern citizen, I don’t like the Republicans. We have seen nothing from them in the Middle East but perfidy, deceit and ruin. They are war mongers searching for their narrow interests at the expense of defenseless countries. They hate the religion of Islam and waged war against it. They gained the hatred of one billion and five hundred million Muslims around the world. They destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan and planned the Arab Spring and compelled Obama to execute it. God spread dissension between them, and divided their party into sects fighting one another. Their arrogance separated them from the people and they forgot all about true democracy. Now they witness the deterioration of their party with hands tied up.

They think because they embrace the distorted ideas of the Christian Right (Apocalypse, dispensationalism, end of time theology) they are god-fearing! But piety is not believing in such fables, but to worship the One true and Only God (Allah in Arabic) without associating with Him partner or partners, and to abide by His commands and abstain from immorality and temptations. Do they do that? Certainly not.

If the Republicans persist in their atrocity they would certainly take America to its demise. The party needs reformation as mentioned above. I think Trump is the right man to reform the flimsy party and regains its polish once again.

The democrats are no better. Their presidents are not John Kennedy or Jimmy Carter anymore. It was Obama – the caller of peace – who left himself be influenced by the Republicans and the neoconservatives and came to our world to destroy it under the pretext of terrorist organizations, which he himself implanted on our soil, and financed and supported them.

I was inclined to promote Hilary Clinton over Donald Trump. But after the search and the analysis forwarded above, I see Trump more qualified for the White House.


(1) The Republican Party in turmoil. The Washington Blade.

(2) The reasons behind the deterioration of the US Republican Party and ways of reform. Dr. Mohsen El-Guindy.

(3) American Apocalypse – Mathew Avery Sutton.

(4) The Christian Right still dominated the GOP – Is there any end in sight? BY Amanda Marcott.

(5) Trump’s mental state is becoming a campaign talking point. By Adam

(6) Donald’s Trump’s mental health is off limits to psychiatrists, thanks to Barry Goldwater. By  Seth Borenshtein. The Mercury News.

(7) The 7 Biggest Presidential Sex Scandals in History. By Larry Shwartz.

(8) Lots of salacious things have happened behind closed White House doors. By Larry SchwartzAlterNet.

(9) Two centuries of presidential sex scandals. By David Rosen.

(10)  Infidelity in the White House: US presidents and their many mistresses. By Taylor Prewitt.

(11)  Truman was a war criminal. By John Catalinotto. www.workers

(12) What We Actually Know About Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s Health. By Sy Mukherjee. Fortune .com

(13) The hard truth for Republican politicians: Trump is their passport to success. By Christopher R. Baron. www.the

(14) Donald Trump. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(15) Donald Trump: Hilary Clinton’s foreign policy killed hundreds of thousands. By Taylor Millard.

(16) 36 States Want to Secede from the Federal Government. By Henry Blodget.

(17) Is it wise to put a superpower under sanction? By Dr. Mohsen El-Guindy. – under the link politics.

(18) Donald Trump is a wakeup call for the Republican Party – Forbes.

(19) Unscrupulous Manipulation of the US Financial Architecture: The Failed Presidency of George W. Bush. By Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay.

(20) The 10 Obama policies and failures that make us angriest. By AlterNet editorial staff.

(21) Clinton is the world’s leading active war criminal. By Edward Herman – December 1999. www.thirdworldtraveler.com_War

(22) Clinton’s Worst Crimes. By david L. Harten. www.

(23) The 10 Obama Policies and Failures That Make Us Angriest. By AlterNet Editorial Staff.

(24) Twenty-six Things About the Islamic State (ISIS) that Obama Does Not Want You to Know About. By Prof Michel Chossudovsky.

(25) War casualities

(26) Hillary Clinton: “If I’m President, We Will Attack Iran… We would be Able to Totally Obliterate Them. ”By Stephen Lendman. Global Research, August 28, 2016.

(27) Islamism, the Arab Spring, and the Failure of America’s Do-Nothing Policy in the Middle East. By Shadi Hamid.

(28) Ambassador Becomes Focus of Egyptians’ Mistrust of U.S. By Mark Landler.

(29) Commentary: Hilary Clinton foreign policy problem. By Amir Handjani. www.

(30) Trump names the enemy.By James

(31) Why Donald Trump is winning? By Anatol Zukerman. www.