Lunatic who murdered Virginia journalists saw racism in words like “swinging” and “field”


Dark humor from Sonny Bunch: “Instead of going on a killing spree, this guy should’ve gotten a columnist gig at The Guardian.” In fact, knowing what we now know, a phrase like “dark humor” probably would have set him off too.

“Microaggression” logic is a dangerous thing in the hands of a lunatic. Or rather, a more dangerous thing.

The 24-year-old white reporter [Alison Parker], who was murdered on live TV along with her cameraman, used the phrases as an intern at ­WDBJ TV in Roanoke in 2012, according to an internal complaint filed by Flanagan, who was black.

“One was something about ‘swinging’ by some place; the other was out in the ‘field,’ ” said the Jan. 21 report by assistant news director Greg Baldwin, which refers to Parker as Alison Bailey (her middle name)…

“[Those words are] just common, everyday talk. [But] that was his MO — to start s- -t,” Fuqua ­explained. “He was unstable. One time, after one of our live shots failed, he threw all his stuff down and ran into the woods for like 20 minutes.”…

“We would say stuff like, ‘The reporter’s out in the field.’ And he would look at us and say, ‘What are you saying, cotton fields? That’s racist,’ ” Fair recounted.
“Swinging” was presumably a reference to lynching. One time, the story goes on to say, the station manager brought in watermelon for the staff as a treat. You can imagine how well that went.

According to the Times, this same guy protested getting fired by the station by killing his two pet cats. Tossing cat feces at his neighbors’ doors was also a favorite tactic during disputes. I know what you’re thinking: “Didn’t anyone know he was disturbed?” There’s a reference to “meds” in one of his suicide notes — he’d reached the point, he said, where nothing could be done to change his sadness to happiness — but it’s unclear at the moment whether he’d sought help and given up for whatever reason or whether he’d never bothered to begin with.

Oh, he’d also purchased his gun legally. And by the White House’s own admission, the new background-check law they’re pining for wouldn’t have stopped him from doing that.

Charles Cooke asks a good question. After Gabby Giffords was shot, the left collectively concluded without evidence that right-wing rhetoric had contributed to the shooting, if not as a direct influence on Jared Loughner than as a sort of general cultural coarsening that had moved the Overton window towards tolerating more extreme expressions of political rage. Does the same logic apply to Vester Flanagan and “microaggressions”? If we needed Glenn Beck to tone things down at the time in the name of preventing shootings by insane people who were tapping into his angry vibe, we probably need Social Justice Warriors to cool it a bit too, no? Exit question: “Why do we not need to have a ‘national conversation’ about hypersensitivity?”


http://hotair.com/archives/2015/08/28/lunatic-who-murdered-virginia-journalists-saw-racism-in-words-like-swinging-and-field/

MEGYN KELLY: THE FIRST CASUALTY IN DONALD TRUMP’S ‘ASYMMETRIC’ WAR ON FOX NEWS






2016 GOP frontrunner and billionaire Donald Trump already won his war with the Fox News Channel’s Megyn Kelly.

She’s exposed as having a point of view, rather than being a purely impartial arbiter of news. Now he’s just having fun as a larger war between him and the network’s powers-that-be looms.

In exposing Kelly, he’s employed at least parts of an unwritten playbook for political warfare his former, longtime aide–legendary GOP trickster Roger Stone–has laid out mostly informally over the years called “Stone’s Rules.” Stone hasn’t actually published the “Rules” anywhere, though some appear littered throughout his Twitter account and in a profile that the Weekly Standard’s Matt Labash wrote of him in 2007.

Stone, ironically, is a Fox News Contributor. He left the Trump campaign operation a few weeks ago—Trump says he fired Stone, while Stone says he quit—but he’s become one of the Donald’s biggest supporters on the outside in no time at all appearing on virtually every television show he can to tout Trump’s candidacy. “Never miss the opportunity to have sex or be on television, as Gore Vidal said,” Stone told the New York Times for a fashion profile on him this week.

Stone has worked in Republican politics for decades and helped Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan win elections. There’s no indication he’s involved in this Trump play against Kelly in any way, shape or form—he says he quit the Trump campaign because Trump insisted on this fight with Kelly—but his decades of influence on Trump, and his style, are clearly on display here.

“Hit it from every angle. Open multiple fronts on your enemy. He must be confused, and feel besieged on every side,” probably the most important of “Stone’s Rules” reads, according to the Labash profile. That’s exactly what Trump has done to Kelly, and as she’s been “confused” amid a barrage of attacks, she’s made the critical mistake Trump had been hoping she’d make: she showed her hand, abandoning impartiality with people other than him.

[...]

...Trump has taken one thing away from her that she and her bosses at Fox can never replace, no matter how much time or money they spend on it: the appearance of impartiality.

[...]

After some more back-and-forth where Kelly noted that Trump is suing Univision for canceling his Miss Universe broadcast contract and that an executive from Univision compared Trump to Charleston, SC murderer Dylann Storm Roof, Kelly asked Ramos another question she could have posed to herself. “Do you understand Trump’s side of it, which is: ‘This is not the outlet I want to take these questions from because their mind is made up about me?’” Kelly asked.

The whole episode has left Kelly exposed—she probably didn’t intend to expose herself like this—which means Trump has inadvertently won the war with her. What remains on the horizon, however, is a bigger war that’s brewing between Fox News—and the network’s backers, including Rupert Murdoch and his sons—and Trump.

Murdoch’s ideology is one directly opposed to what Trump believes, especially when it comes to the issues of trade and immigration. As the 2016 election cycle progresses, with one of its best players in Kelly on intellectual battlefield sidelines—she’ll keep hosting her program and getting high ratings, but she’s forever lost the claim to impartiality thanks to Trump—the Fox News Channel is likely going to escalate, on behalf of the Murdochs’ worldview on immigration and trade, the war with Trump. It’s worth noting, though, that Ailes and Trump are friends and mutual admirers so this seemingly inevitable war may yet be averted. There are also many other personalities at Fox friendly with Trump, so it may not escalate further. What happens next remains to be seen.


http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/08/28/megyn-kelly-the-first-casualty-in-donald-trumps-asymmetric-war-on-fox-news/

‘Bing Bing Bing': Trump Lets Loose on ‘Perv,’ ‘Sleazebag’ Anthony Weiner




------------------------
The press and everyone need to never forget anthony...

Sarah Palin Defends Donald Trump for 'Telling the Truth'


Former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin took some time to chat with "Extra's" Renee Bargh on the set of her guest-hosting gig, "On Point with Sarah Palin.” During the interview, Sarah defended Republican candidate Donald Trump, who is making headlines daily. Sarah also chatted about Hillary Clinton.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXgmrr8KAw8


WTH, LAMESTREAM MEDIA! STAY OUT OF MY BIBLE

WTH? Lamestream media asks GOP personal, spiritual “gotchas” that they’d NEVER ask Hillary, or they’d feed the question to her and/or liberal cohorts before they asked it on-air (we know how these things work, lapdog media… the public’s on to you), so good on Trump for screwing with the reporter. By the way, even with my reading scripture everyday I wouldn’t want to answer the guy’s question either… it’s none of his business; it IS personal; what the heck does it have to do with serving as commander-in-chief; and these reporters trying to trip up conservatives can go pound sand until they ask the same things of their favored liberal pals. I’ll cover this in my interview with Donald Trump and other candidates tonight on the One America News Network show “On Point.” The more the media does this, the more they empower America to reject them and their bias as voters run to the anti-status quo candidates daring to Go Rogue.


https://www.facebook.com/sarahpalin/posts/10153596970878588

Why I Support Donald Trump’s Campaign – And It’s Probably Not What You Think…



Begin with the end in mind – I’m not trying to convince anyone that Donald Trump is  running a campaign to actually win the GOP nomination.

Factually, I’m as uncertain and perhaps more skeptical as the next person. However, given that Trump has actually done things he normally wouldn’t do if this was a mere publicity stunt (ie. stock divestitures, removal of conflicts etc.), for the sake of intellectual argument, I’m going to assume, cautiously yet optimistically, he’s in it to win it.


So why support him?

Argument #1 – After all, he’s been a democrat, an independent, a Republican, and well, I have consistently despised Charlie Crist.

Counter Argument – Then again, what about Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, and Orin Hatch, and Lindsey Graham, and John McCain, and John Cornyn, and Thad Cochran and, well, you get the point…. What’s the difference between supporting those consistently Republican “Republicans” only to have them advocate for liberal/progressive policies.

Are the aforementioned better because they didn’t change party registration, yet act like Democrats?

Let me first explain something few fully comprehend – and fewer still, are willing accept.

People like us rail against the “establishment” because, despite the GOP claims to the contrary, they never actually do anything to stop the liberal policy agenda. One only has to look at President Obama’s veto record (four in 6.5 years) to accept that only legislation Obama agrees with is reaching his desk.

We gave the GOP the House (2010, 2012, 2014) and the Senate (2014) and yet we never have received a single benefit to the election victories We The People provided.

Why is that?

Here’s where a paradigm shift is needed for many of the political followers who don’t have a deep and specialized knowledge of the Republican agenda.

Citizens United was touted by conservatives as a victory. Why?

Was it because Citizens United was genuinely a win for freedom of speech, or was it actually and substantively because Obama declared it a loss?

Again, paradigm shift time – Citizens United was as much a defeat for “our side” as it was for “their side”.

We didn’t need Citizens United to win a massive electoral victory in 2010, Obama’s “Shellacking”; we just showed up to the polls and voted against his policies.

However, the Republican professional political class did need Citizens United to try and stop our efforts in 2012 and again in 2014. I’ll explain.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, led by President Tom Donohue, is the power brokerage for the GOP “establishment”. In short, whatever the CoC wants, their lobbyists on K-Street will insure the CoC gets through campaign contributions to influence the GOP as a Party.

The U.S. CoC is the operational arm of Wall Street, not, I repeat, NOT, Main Street.

The Citizens United  decision is what allowed Wall Street to fund the U.S. CoC, which in turn funded the GOP establishment machine.  If politics is a blood sport, Citizens United just authorized the unlimited use of STERIODS for the paid gladiators.

How does Wall Street differ from Main Street?

The answer to that question can most easily be reflected by explaining why the Republican Establishment, the professional political class, supports ObamaCare, Common Core and Comprehensive Immigration Reform to include Amnesty.

Wall Street and ObamaCare:

Wall Street, through the CoC, advocate for policies that benefit their interests; their financial interests. The cost of worker healthcare is a liability embedded in the cost of the products sold. If the United Auto Workers healthcare plan costs $10,000 per person, that cost is embedded in the price to manufacture a car.

Unlike their global competitors U.S. businesses (manufacturers) have these costs as part of their product cost, the cost of goods sold.

Globally, other nations have various forms of “government provided” healthcare, and so their products don’t carry the cost directly.   In an effort to level the manufacturing playing field, the U.S. CoC, Wall Street, are firm advocates of removing the cost of healthcare from U.S. goods.

Wall Street, supports ObamaCare for an expanded profit margin on financially capitalized businesses – ie. higher profits = higher stock valuations.

Simultaneously, unions support ObamaCare (see SEIU, AFL-CIO et al, visits to White House during ObamaCare construct) because ObamaCare removes the healthcare liability from the union retirees benefits. ie. increased solvency.

The globalists, and progressive Democrats support ObamaCare because it aids their constituency, unions; and also expands the influence of government control which is based on a collective outlook and elimination of the individual freedom.

Wall Street therefore supports both Republicans and Democrats when it comes to the retention of ObamaCare.

That’s why you don’t see Republican Majorities trying to remove it – it’s all hat and no cattle; a ruse, a fraud. Only the promises of actual removal being used to get Pavlov’s sheeple masses to pull levers with hopes/promises of getting repeal pellets.

The GOP has NO INTENTION of removing ObamaCare.

Wall Street and Immigration:

Like ObamaCare, Wall Street wants comprehensive immigration reform to include amnesty. Again, focused almost entirely on the reduction of the labor costs for goods and services. These are financial balance sheet determinations, not considerations of what’s best for the middle class U.S. worker.

Democrats and Republicans both want immigration reform to include amnesty. Democrats for a voting block and more collectivist ideological approaches, Republicans to do the bidding of their financial interests – The CoC, Tom Donohue, etc.

Neither Democrats nor Republicans are willing to build a border wall to stop illegal immigration.

Wall Street and Common Core Education:

Like ObamaCare and Immigration, Wall Street wants the federalization of education. In part because it generates a consistently similar pool of eligible, who are increasingly Latino, workers; and in part because education is BIG BUSINESS.

Just look at your property taxes to see how much of your local property tax dollars are apportioned to public School and Education funding.

Democrats and Republicans both support Common Core. Democrats because it expands the financial base of local schools to allow greater room for increased labor union (teacher, NEA) wages; and because Common Core affords, yet again, an ideological watering down of individualism in favor of collectivism. Republicans support Common Core because it’s big business, and the CoC funds their advocacy.

Both Democrats and Republicans support Common Core.

In 2013 CoC President Tom Donohue went on record saying his 2014/2015 legislative priorities were:

1 – Full implementation of ObamaCare without repeal.
2 – Comprehensive Immigration Reform to include Amnesty.
3 – Full implementation of Common Core educational standards.

Wall Street, through K-Street, through the CoC, fund these legislative priorities.

The Citizens United decision allowed Wall Street, through K-Street, through the CoC to fund established legislative representatives to continue these legislative priorities.

Conversely, Citizens United, through Wall Street, through K-Street, through the CoC, fund attacks against any political opponent who would unseat their selected and established candidate. You only need to look at 2014’s Virginia (Ken Cuccinelli), or Mississippi (Chris McDaniels), or Kentucky (Matt Bevin) to see how strongly they will work to insure victory.

So now that you know why both Republicans and Democrats support ObamaCare, Amnesty and Common Core; what exactly is the difference between a Jeb Bush and a Hillary Clinton?

Some social issues, maybe – gay marriage, legalized pot? A SCOTUS appointment? Do you really think that Bush or Clinton would select a totally divergent SCOTUS, when their intents and purposes are essentially the same?

Wall Street needs Bush V Clinton in 2016 because they are two different sides of the same professional political coin. Wall Street doesn’t care which one, because Wall Street wins with either candidate.

How does Wall Street insure their desired candidate outcome?

Quite simple. WE’VE REPEATEDLY OUTLINED IT HERE – It’s a simple five state strategy, almost identical to their previously selected candidate, Mitt Romney, in 2012.

What makes Donald Trump different?

This is where you accept the value of Donald Trump; because despite opinion to the contrary, Donald Trump is Main Street – not Wall Street.

Trump’s wealth is tied directly to the success of Main Street. Trump builds things, actual things – which he then owns. Trump does not make money from capitalization of financials – Trump makes money from traditional business models, owning and operating stuff.

Both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are Wall Street candidates.

IDEOLOGICAL EXAMPLE: The IRS weaponization of government against people, as within the Lois Lerner IRS scandal, is an issue which Trump can breech. Both Democrats and Republicans benefit from the destruction of the Tea Party; neither Bush not Clinton bear any interest in exposing the IRS scandal itself.

When you accept that without Donald Trump you get Bush V Clinton, you begin to understand why it’s beneficial to support Donald Trump.

Quite simply, there’s nothing to lose.


[...]



http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/07/13/why-i-support-donald-trumps-campaign-and-its-probably-not-what-you-think/

Donald Trump did it again!

Trump held a fundraiser tonight in Norton, Massachusetts with hundreds of supporters and veterans. CNN asked the first question and asked about the few protesters outside. Trump let the CNN reporter have it!


“Well, I don’t see a lot of protesters. I see thousands of people. And there are a few protesters. And, I figured you’d ask that question because you know, that’s the way it is. CNN is terrible. CNN. Are you with CNN. Are you with CNN. You people do not cover us accurately. So they have a few protesters outside. And thousands of people. And the first question from CNN is about protesters. Yes."

America Is So in Play

Donald Trump’s staying power in the polls reflects a change in the electorate only now coming into focus.


So, more thoughts on Donald Trump’s candidacy, because I can’t stop being fascinated.

You know the latest numbers. Quinnipiac University’s poll this week has Mr. Trump at a hefty 28% nationally, up from 20% in July. Public Policy Polling has Mr. Trump leading all Republicans in New Hampshire with 35%. A Monmouth University poll has him at 30% in South Carolina, followed 15 points later by Ben Carson.

Here are some things I think are happening.

One is the deepening estrangement between the elites and the non-elites in America. This is the area in which Trumpism flourishes. We’ll talk about that deeper in.

Second, Mr. Trump’s support is not limited to Republicans, not by any means.

Third, the traditional mediating or guiding institutions within the Republican universe—its establishment, respected voices in conservative media, sober-minded state party officials—have little to no impact on Mr. Trump’s rise. Some say voices of authority should stand up to oppose him, which will lower his standing. But Republican powers don’t have that kind of juice anymore. Mr. Trump’s supporters aren’t just bucking a party, they’re bucking everything around, within and connected to it.

Since Mr. Trump announced I’ve worked or traveled in, among other places, Southern California, Connecticut, Georgia, Virginia, New Jersey and New York’s Long Island. In all places I just talked to people. My biggest sense is that political professionals are going to have to rethink “the base,” reimagine it when they see it in their minds.

I’ve written before about an acquaintance—late 60s, northern Georgia, lives on Social Security, voted Obama in ’08, not partisan, watches Fox News, hates Wall Street and “the GOP establishment.” She continues to be so ardent for Mr. Trump that she not only watched his speech in Mobile, Ala., on live TV, she watched while excitedly texting with family members—middle-class, white, independent-minded—who were in the audience cheering. Is that “the Republican base”? I guess maybe it is, because she texted me Wednesday to say she’d just registered Republican. I asked if she’d ever been one before. Reply: “No, never!!!”

Something is going on, some tectonic plates are moving in interesting ways. My friend Cesar works the deli counter at my neighborhood grocery store. He is Dominican, an immigrant, early 50s, and listens most mornings to a local Hispanic radio station, La Mega, on 97.9 FM. Their morning show is the popular “El Vacilón de la Mañana,” and after the first GOP debate, Cesar told me, they opened the lines to call-ins, asking listeners (mostly Puerto Rican, Dominican, Mexican) for their impressions. More than half called in to say they were for Mr. Trump. Their praise, Cesar told me a few weeks ago, dumbfounded the hosts. I later spoke to one of them, who identified himself as D.J. New Era. He backed Cesar’s story. “We were very surprised,” at the Trump support, he said. Why? “It’s a Latin-based market!”

“He’s the man,” Cesar said of Mr. Trump. This week I went by and Cesar told me that after Mr. Trump threw Univision’s well-known anchor and immigration activist, Jorge Ramos, out of an Iowa news conference on Tuesday evening, the “El Vacilón” hosts again threw open the phone lines the following morning and were again surprised that the majority of callers backed not Mr. Ramos but Mr. Trump. Cesar, who I should probably note sees me, I sense, as a very nice establishment person who needs to get with the new reality, was delighted.

I said: Cesar, you’re supposed to be offended by Trump, he said Mexico is sending over criminals, he has been unfriendly, you’re an immigrant. Cesar shook his head: No, you have it wrong. Immigrants, he said, don’t like illegal immigration, and they’re with Mr. Trump on anchor babies. “They are coming in from other countries to give birth to take advantage of the system. We are saying that! When you come to this country, you pledge loyalty to the country that opened the doors to help you.”

He added, “We don’t bloc vote anymore.” The idea of a “Latin vote” is “disparate,” which he said generally translates as nonsense, but which he means as “bull----.”

He finished, on the subject of Jorge Ramos: “The elite have different notions from the grass-roots working people.”

OK. Old style: Jorge Ramos speaks for Hispanic America. New style: Jorge Ramos speaks for Jorge Ramos. Old style: If I’ve lost Walter Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America. New style: How touching that an American president once thought if you lost a newsman you’d lost a country.

It is noted that a poll this week said Hispanics are very much not for Donald Trump. Gallup had 65% with an unfavorable view of him, and only 14% favorable. Mr. Trump and Mr. Ramos actually got into that, when Mr. Ramos finally questioned him after being allowed back into the news conference. Mr. Trump countered with a recent Nevada poll that has him with a state lead of 28%—and he scored even higher with Nevada’s Hispanics, who gave him 31% support.

I will throw in here that almost wherever I’ve been this summer, I kept meeting immigrants who are or have grown conservative—more men than women, but women too.

America is so in play.

And: “the base” isn’t the limited, clichéd thing it once was, it’s becoming a big, broad jumble that few understand.

***
On the subject of elites, I spoke to Scott Miller, co-founder of the Sawyer Miller political-consulting firm, who is now a corporate consultant. He worked on the Ross Perot campaign in 1992 and knows something about outside challenges. He views the key political fact of our time as this: “Over 80% of the American people, across the board, believe an elite group of political incumbents, plus big business, big media, big banks, big unions and big special interests—the whole Washington political class—have rigged the system for the wealthy and connected.” It is “a remarkable moment,” he said. More than half of the American people believe “something has changed, our democracy is not like it used to be, people feel they no longer have a voice.”

Mr. Miller added: “People who work for a living are thinking this thing is broken, and that economic inequality is the result of the elite rigging the system for themselves. We’re seeing something big.”

Support for Mr. Trump is not, he said, limited to the GOP base: “The molecules are in motion.” I asked what he meant. He said bars of support are not solid, things are in motion as molecules are “before combustion, or before a branch breaks.”

I end with this. An odd thing, in my observation, is that deep down the elite themselves also think the game is rigged. They don’t disagree, and they don’t like what they see—corruption, shallowness and selfishness in the systems all around them. Their odd anguish is that they have no faith the American people can—or will—do anything to turn it around. They see the American voter as distracted, poorly educated, subject to emotional and personality-driven political adventures. They sometimes refer to “Jaywalking,” the old Jay Leno “Tonight Show” staple in which he walked outside the studio and asked the man on the street about history. What caused the American Civil War? Um, Hitler? When did it take place, roughly? Uh, 1958?

Both sides, the elites and the non-elites, sense that things are stuck.

The people hate the elites, which is not new, and very American. The elites have no faith in the people, which, actually, is new. Everything is stasis. Then Donald Trump comes, like a rock thrown through a showroom window, and the molecules start to move.


http://www.wsj.com/articles/america-is-so-in-play-1440715262

https://twitter.com/TrumpTokens


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164479.0




We need more mexicans to tell us how dangerous it is for mexico to have Trump at the white house, in the US...


 

As long as you do not write his full name as I believe he had it trademarked a long time ago...

I love it. Good work!

 

Scarborough roasts Clinton: 'Gutter politics' at its worst to compare pro-lifers to terrorists


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhivgrImVZ0


Joe Scarborough roasted Hillary Clinton for her “gutter politics” when she compared pro-lifers to terrorists on Friday’s Morning Joe.

During a Thursday campaign event, Clinton compared her Republican opponents’ views to those of terrorists.

“Now, extreme views about women, we expect that from some of the terrorist groups, we expect that from people who don’t want to live in the modern world—but it’s a little hard to take from Republicans who want to be the president of the United States,” Clinton said.

Joe Scarborough said he was disgusted with Clinton’s comments.

“It’s gutter politics at its worst to compare people to radical terrorists [who’ve] cut off people’s heads and blow up grandmoms,” Scarborough said. “It’s not all right.”

Scarborough said Clinton used the comparison to distract people from her email scandal.

“She wanted to throw a bright shiny object out there,” Scarborough said. “So they don’t talk about the e-mail scandal and so she has to be so hyperbolic and insulting.”

Bloomberg reporter Mark Halperin said the comments should be condemned.

“It should be condemned in strong terms,” Halperin said. “I’m hoping and I suspect she’ll take it back today.”

“You know what she was doing during the most disgusting part?” Scarborough said. “She was reading notes. This was planned, and the campaign said she has no plans to apologize and now she’s accusing Republicans of twisting her words.”


http://freebeacon.com/politics/scarborough-roasts-clinton-for-disgusting-terrorist-group-comparisons-gutter-politics-at-its-worst/


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z2y2cwFh70

Yep.

The DC Circuit Court has overturned an earlier federal appeals court ruling that the NSA’s bulk collection of millions of Ameicans’ phone records was illegal.


http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/read-the-dc-circuit-court-ruling-against-the-nsa-bulk-collection-program/1719/

Donald Trump says he and Ted Cruz are planning a protest in D.C. over the Iran nuke deal

TED CRUZ Invites DONALD TRUMP to Speak at Anti-Iran Rally at US Capitol

Sen. Ted Cruz has invited fellow Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump to speak at a rally against the Iran nuclear agreement in Washington, according to the senator’s campaign.

The rally will be held at the Capitol and sponsored by Tea Party Patriots, Center for Security Policy, and the Zionist Organization of America, according to the campaign. The date, time and exact location haven’t been finalized.

Trump told reporters in South Carolina on Thursday afternoon that he and Cruz were planning an event protesting the deal in Washington.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/08/ted-cruz-invites-donald-trump-to-speak-at-anti-iran-deal-rally-at-capitol.html/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHZ_e0bOAao

-------------------------------
At least they tried to help, a bit.

It seems that was a mistake, according to the global middlemen union federation....