This is how little professional feminism has to do with helping women. In a BuzzFeed story on Juanita Broaddrick's assault by Bill Clinton, we get the following quote.

Many liberals scoff at the notion that Hillary Clinton played a role in a cover-up, or that she should be to blame at all. In their view, Hillary Clinton has suffered through enough sexism.

“With this more feminist era also comes heightened attention to how women are charged with keeping and controlling men, blamed for their bad behavior while getting no credit for their quiet work in the background,” said Jill Filipovic, a columnist who often writes about gender and politics. The only reason this story is being retold “is because Hillary is now running for president,” she said.

“I suspect using Broaddrick’s claims to try to puncture Hillary Clinton’s feminist bona fides — and make no mistake, that is how they are being used and how they will be used — will badly backfire, since it plays into a lot of the same stereotypes feminists reject.”

Hillary's quiet work in the background involved silencing women who accused her husband of assault.

Campaign narratives written by reporters detailed how she honchoed the campaign team that handled “bimbo eruptions,” digging up personal papers and official records that could be used to undercut the stories told by a series of women. One top aide later recounted Mrs. Clinton’s intent to “destroy” the story of one accuser, while former adviser Dick Morris said Mrs. Clinton engaged in “blackmail” to try to force women to recant their stories.

Of course modern feminists reject the stereotype that Hillary should be accountable for this sort of feminist behavior of intimidating her husband's victims.

And here was Hillary's feminist attitude when it came to a Republican accused of harassing women.

Hillary’s aggressive attitude was not limited to those who accused her husband of sexual misconduct: other men received the benefit of the doubt from Hillary when she needed their support politically. When former Sen. Bob Packwood was accused of sexual harassment, Clinton told her friend Blair that she was “tired of all those whiney women,” and that she needed Packwood on health care.

But professional feminists understand that this is perfectly okay.

When Hillary Clinton courted publicity by insisting that all rape victims have the right to be believed, the women assaulted by her husband began to come forward. That was inconvenient. Then there were the rapists who gave her money. Then Hillary shouted over a rape victim asking her questions at a campaign rally.

Then the 12 year old girl whose rapist she had defended by smearing her as mentally ill and slutty, after she was beaten into a coma, and then laughed about her rape, came forward.

Now, apparently, Hillary has decided that maybe rape victims don't have a right to be believed after all.

A redditor also pointed out that Hillary Clinton’s campaign website appeared to have made some edits to its “campus sexual assault” page. Last winter, website archives show, a September 14, 2015, quote from Hillary ran across the top:

“I want to send a message to every survivor of sexual assault: Don’t let anyone silence your voice. You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed, and we’re with you.”

In February, shortly after Broaddrick’s viral tweet made headlines, the line “you have the right to be believed” was cut from the text. 

So much for that. If they had the right to be believed, Hillary's campaign would be in trouble.

I suppose that's technically a crime, but then again technically the Clintons are criminals. Still it's good to see that the Clinton campaign now has the same strategy as lettuce farmers.

The Hillary Clinton campaign is launching a new program that will organize so-called DREAmers, undocumented children brought to the U.S. by their parents, to register voters.

The campaign will launch Mi Sueño, Tu Voto, which translates to "My Dream, Your Vote," Monday, the fourth anniversary the enrollment date of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Hillary for America will hold events in Florida, Nevada and North Carolina this week to unveil the program.

The program will also serve to remind voters of "Donald Trump's hateful and dangerous agenda," the campaign said in a statement. 

It will also remind voters that Hillary Clinton uses illegal alien labor.

Under the banner of "Make America Safe Again", Trump delivered a speech laying out common sense solutions to our Islamic terrorism problem showing the kind of real leadership that we need. Here is the speech...

Today we begin a conversation about how to Make America Safe Again.

In the 20th Century, the United States defeated Fascism, Nazism, and Communism.

Now, a different threat challenges our world: Radical Islamic Terrorism.

This summer, there has been an ISIS attack launched outside the war zones of the Middle East every 84 hours. 

Here, in America, we have seen one brutal attack after another.

13 were murdered, and 38 wounded, in the assault on Ft. Hood. 

The Boston Marathon Bombing wounded and maimed 264 people, 

and ultimately left five dead – including 2 police officers. 

In Chattanooga, Tennessee, five unarmed marines were shot and killed at a military recruiting center. 

Last December, 14 innocent Americans were gunned down at an office party in San Bernardino, another 22 were injured. 

In June, 49 Americans were executed at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando, and another 53 were injured. It was the worst mass shooting in our history, and the worst attack on the LGTBQ community in our history.

In Europe, we have seen the same carnage and bloodshed inflicted upon our closest allies.

In January of 2015, a French satirical newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, was attacked for publishing cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. Twelve were killed, including two police officers, and 11 were wounded. Two days later, four were murdered in a Jewish Deli. 

In November of 2015, terrorists went on a shooting rampage in Paris that slaughtered 130 people, and wounded another 368. France is suffering gravely, and the tourism industry is being massively affected in a most negative way. 

In March of this year, terrorists detonated a bomb in the Brussels airport, killing 32 and injuring 340. 

This July, in the South of France, an Islamic terrorist turned his truck into an instrument of mass murder, plowing down and killing 85 men, women and children – and wounding another 308. Among the dead were 2 Americans – a Texas father, and his 11-year-old son. 

A few weeks ago, in Germany, a refugee armed with an axe wounded five people in a gruesome train attack. 

Only days ago, an ISIS killer invaded a Christian church in Normandy France, forced an 85-year-old priest to his knees, and slit his throat before his congregation. 

Overseas, ISIS has carried out one unthinkable atrocity after another.

Children slaughtered, girls sold into slavery, men and women burned alive. Crucifixions, beheadings and drownings.   Ethnic minorities targeted for mass execution. Holy sites desecrated.

Christians driven from their homes and hunted for extermination. ISIS rounding-up what it calls the “nation of the cross” in a campaign of genocide. 

We cannot let this evil continue.

Nor can we let the hateful ideology of Radical Islam – its oppression of women, gays, children, and nonbelievers – be allowed to reside or spread within our own countries.

We will defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism, just as we have defeated every threat we have faced in every age before.

But we will not defeat it with closed eyes, or silenced voices.

Anyone who cannot name our enemy, is not fit to lead this country. Anyone who cannot condemn the hatred, oppression and violence of Radical Islam lacks the moral clarity to serve as our President.

The rise of ISIS is the direct result of policy decisions made by President Obama and Secretary Clinton.

Let’s look back at the Middle East at the very beginning of 2009, before the Obama-Clinton Administration took over.

Libya was stable. 

Syria was under control.

Egypt was ruled by a secular President and an ally of the United States.

Iraq was experiencing a reduction in violence. The group that would become what we now call ISIS was close to being extinguished. 

Iran was being choked off by economic sanctions. 

Fast-forward to today. What have the decisions of Obama-Clinton produced?

Libya is in ruins, our ambassador and three other brave Americans are dead, and ISIS has gained a new base of operations. 

Syria is in the midst of a disastrous civil war. ISIS controls large portions of territory. A refugee crisis now threatens Europe and the United States. 

In Egypt, terrorists have gained a foothold in the Sinai desert, near the Suez Canal, one of the most essential waterways in the world. 

Iraq is in chaos, and ISIS is on the loose. 

ISIS has spread across the Middle East, and into the West. In 2014, ISIS was operating in some 7 nations. Today they are fully operational in 18 countries with aspiring branches in 6 more, for a total of 24 – and many believe it is even more than that. The situation is likely worse than the public knows: a new Congressional report reveals that the Administration has downplayed the growth of ISIS, with 40% of surveyed analysts saying they had experienced efforts to manipulate their findings. 

At the same time, ISIS is trying to infiltrate refugee flows into Europe and the United States. 

Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, is now flush with

$150 billion in cash released by the United States – plus another $400 million in ransom. Worst of all, the Nuclear deal puts Iran, the number one state sponsor of Radical Islamic Terrorism, on a path to nuclear weapons. 

In short, the Obama-Clinton foreign policy has unleashed ISIS, destabilized the Middle East, and put the nation of Iran – which chants ‘Death to America’ – in a dominant position of regional power and, in fact, aspiring to be a dominant world power. 

It all began in 2009 with what has become known as President Obama’s global ‘Apology Tour.’ 

In a series of speeches, President Obama described America as “arrogant,” “dismissive” “derisive” and a “colonial power.” He informed other countries that he would be speaking up about America’s “past errors.” He pledged that we would no longer be a “senior partner,” that “sought to dictate our terms.” He lectured CIA officers of the need to acknowledge their mistakes, and described Guantanamo Bay as a “rallying cry for our enemies.” 

Perhaps no speech was more misguided than President Obama’s speech to the Muslim World delivered in Cairo, Egypt, in 2009. 

In winning the Cold War, President Ronald Reagan repeatedly touted the superiority of freedom over communism, and called the USSR the Evil Empire. 

Yet, when President Obama delivered his address in Cairo, no such moral courage could be found. Instead of condemning the oppression of women and gays in many Muslim nations, and the systematic violations of human rights, or the financing of global terrorism, President Obama tried to draw an equivalency between our human rights record and theirs.

His naïve words were followed by even more naïve actions.

The failure to establish a new Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq, and the election-driven timetable for withdrawal, surrendered our gains in that country and led directly to the rise of ISIS. 

The failures in Iraq were compounded by Hillary Clinton’s disaster in Libya. President Obama has since said he regards Libya as his worst mistake. According to then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the invasion of Libya was nearly a split decision, but Hillary Clinton’s forceful advocacy for the intervention was the deciding factor. 

With one episode of bad judgment after another, Hillary Clinton’s policies launched ISIS onto the world. 

Yet, as she threw the Middle East into violent turmoil, things turned out well for her. The Clintons made almost $60 million in gross income while she was Secretary of State. 

Incident after incident proves again and again: Hillary Clinton lacks the judgement, the temperament and the moral character to lead this nation. Importantly, she also lacks the mental and physical stamina to take on ISIS, and all the many adversaries we face – not only in terrorism, but in trade and every other challenge we must confront to turn this country around.

It is time for a new approach.

Our current strategy of nation-building and regime change is a proven failure. We have created the vacuums that allow terrorists to grow and thrive. 

I was an opponent of the Iraq war from the beginning – a major difference between me and my opponent.

Though I was a private citizen, whose personal opinions on such matters was not sought, I nonetheless publicly expressed my private doubts about the invasion. Three months before the invasion I said, in an interview with Neil Cavuto, to whom I offer my best wishes for a speedy recovery, that “perhaps [we] shouldn't be doing it yet,” and that “the economy is a much bigger problem.” 

In August of 2004, very early in the conflict, I made a detailed statement to Esquire magazine. Here is the quote in full:

"Look at the war in Iraq and the mess that we're in. I would never have handled it that way. Does anybody really believe that Iraq is going to be a wonderful democracy where people are going to run down to the voting box and gently put in their ballot and the winner is happily going to step up to lead the country? C'mon.

Two minutes after we leave, there's going to be a revolution, and the meanest, toughest, smartest, most vicious guy will take over. And he'll have weapons of mass destruction, which Saddam didn't have.

"What was the purpose of this whole thing? Hundreds and hundreds of young people killed. And what about the people coming back with no arms and legs? Not to mention the other side. All those Iraqi kids who've been blown to pieces. And it turns out that all of the reasons for the war were blatantly wrong. All this for nothing."

So I have been clear for a long time that we should not have gone in. But I have been just as clear in saying what a catastrophic mistake Hillary Clinton and President Obama made with the reckless way in which they pulled out.

After we had made those hard-fought sacrifices and gains, we should never have made such a sudden withdrawal – on a timetable advertised to our enemies. Al Qaeda in Iraq had been decimated, and Obama and Clinton gave it new life and allowed it to spread across the world.

By that same token, President Obama and Hillary Clinton should never have attempted to build a Democracy in Libya, to push for immediate regime change in Syria, or to support the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt. 

One more point on this: I have long said that we should have kept the oil in Iraq – another area where my judgement has been proven correct. According to CNN, ISIS made as much $500 million in oil sales in 2014 alone, fueling and funding its reign of terror. If we had controlled the oil, we could have prevented the rise of ISIS in Iraq – both by cutting off a major source of funding, and through the presence of U.S. forces necessary to safeguard the oil and other vital infrastructure. I was saying this constantly and to whoever would listen: keep the oil, keep the oil, keep the oil, I said – don’t let someone else get it.

If they had listened to me then, we would have had the economic benefits of the oil, which I wanted to use to help take care of the wounded soldiers and families of those who died – and thousands of lives would have been saved.

This proposal, by its very nature, would have left soldiers in place to guard our assets. In the old days, when we won a war, to the victor belonged the spoils. Instead, all we got from Iraq – and our adventures in the Middle East – was death, destruction and tremendous financial loss.

But it is time to put the mistakes of the past behind us, and chart a new course.

If I become President, the era of nation-building will be ended. Our  new approach, which must be shared by both parties in America, by our allies overseas, and by our friends in the Middle East, must be to halt the spread of Radical Islam.

All actions should be oriented around this goal, and any country which shares this goal will be our ally. We cannot always choose our friends, but we can never fail to recognize our enemies.

As President, I will call for an international conference focused on this goal. 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 President Sisi of Egypt, and all others who recognize this ideology of death that must be extinguished.

We will also work closely with NATO on this new mission. I had previously said that NATO was obsolete because it failed to deal adequately with terrorism; since my comments they have changed their policy and now have a new division focused on terror threats.

I also believe that we could find common ground with Russia in the fight against ISIS. They too have much at stake in the outcome in Syria, and have had their own battles with Islamic terrorism.

My Administration will aggressively pursue joint and coalition military operations to crush and destroy ISIS, international cooperation to cut- off their funding, expanded intelligence sharing, and cyberwarfare to disrupt and disable their propaganda and recruiting. We cannot allow the internet to be used as a recruiting tool, and for other purposes, by our enemy – we must shut down their access to this form of communication, and we must do so immediately.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, who has risked so many lives with her careless handling of sensitive information, my Administration will not telegraph exact military plans to the enemy. I have often said that General MacArthur and General Patton would be in a state of shock if they were alive today to see the way President Obama and Hillary Clinton try to recklessly announce their every move before it happens – like they did in Iraq – so that the enemy can prepare and adapt.

The fight will not be limited to ISIS. We will decimate Al Qaeda, and we will seek to starve funding for Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah. We can use existing UN Security Council resolutions to apply new sanctions.

Military, cyber and financial warfare will all be essential in dismantling Islamic terrorism.

But we must use ideological warfare as well.

Just as we won the Cold War, in part, by exposing the evils of communism and the virtues of free markets, so too must we take on the ideology of Radical Islam.

While my opponent accepted millions of dollars in Foundation donations from countries where being gay is an offense punishable by prison or death, my Administration will speak out against the oppression of women, gays and people of different faith. 

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 the horrible practice of honor killings, where women are murdered by their relatives for dressing, marrying or acting in a way that violates fundamentalist teachings. 

Over 1,000 Pakistani girls are estimated to be the victims of honor killings by their relatives each year. Recently, a prominent Pakistani social media star was strangled to death by her brother on the charge  of dishonoring the family. In his confession, the brother took pride in the murder and said: “Girls are born to stay home and follow traditions.”

Shockingly, this is a practice that has reached our own shores.

One such case involves an Iraqi immigrant who was sentenced to 34 years in jail for running over his own daughter claiming she had become “too Westernized.” 

To defeat Islamic terrorism, we must also speak out forcefully against a hateful ideology that provides the breeding ground for violence and terrorism to grow. 

A new immigration policy is needed as well.

The common thread linking the major Islamic terrorist attacks that have recently occurred on our soil – 9/11, the Ft. Hood shooting, the Boston Bombing, the San Bernardino attack, the Orlando attack – is that they have involved immigrants or the children of immigrants.

Clearly, new screening procedures are needed.

A review by the U.S. Senate Immigration Subcommittee has identified 380 foreign-born individuals charged with terrorism or terrorism- related offenses between 9/11 and 2014, and many more since then.

We also know that ISIS recruits refugees after their entrance into the country – as we have seen with the Somali refugee population in Minnesota. 

Beyond terrorism, as we have seen in France, foreign populations have brought their anti-Semitic attitudes with them. 

In Cologne, Germany, on New Year’s Eve, we have seen the reports of sexual violence and assault. Pew polling shows that in many of the countries from which we draw large numbers of immigrants, extreme views about religion – such as the death penalty for those who leave the faith – are commonplace. 

A Trump Administration will establish a clear principle that will govern all decisions pertaining to immigration: we should only admit into this country those who share our values and respect our people.

In the Cold War, we had an ideological screening test. The time is overdue to develop a new screening test for the threats we face today.

In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles – or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law.

Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.

Only those who we expect to flourish in our country – and to embrace a tolerant American society – should be issued immigrant visas.

To put these new procedures in place, we will have to temporarily suspend immigration from some of the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism.

As soon as I take office, I will ask the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security to identify a list of regions where adequate screening cannot take place. We will stop processing visas from those areas until such time as it is deemed safe to resume based on new circumstances or new procedures.

The size of current immigration flows are simply too large to perform adequate screening. 

We admit about 100,000 permanent immigrants from the Middle East every year. Beyond that, we admit hundreds of thousands of temporary workers and visitors from the same regions. If we don’t control the numbers, we can’t perform adequate screening.

By contrast, my opponent wants to increase the flow of Syrian refugees by 550% percent. 

The United States Senate Subcommittee on Immigration estimates that Hillary Clinton’s plan would mean roughly 620,000 refugees from all current refugee-sending nations in her first term, assuming no cuts to other refugee programs. This would be additional to all other non- refugee immigration. 

The Subcommittee estimates her plan would impose a lifetime cost of roughly $400 billion when you include the costs of healthcare, welfare, housing, schooling, and all other entitlement benefits that are excluded from the State Department’s placement figures.

In short, Hillary Clinton wants to be America’s Angela Merkel, and you know what a disaster this massive immigration has been to Germany and the people of Germany – crime has risen to levels that no one thought would they would ever see. We have enough problems in our country, we don’t need another one.

Finally, we will need to restore common sense to our security procedures.

Another common feature of the past attacks that have occurred on our soil is that warning signs were ignored.

The 9/11 hijackers had fraud all over their visa applications. The Russians warned us about the Boston Bombers, here on political asylum, and the attackers were even twice interviewed by the FBI.

The female San Bernardino shooter, here on a fiancé visa from Saudi Arabia, wrote of her support for Jihad online. A neighbor saw suspicious behavior but didn’t warn authorities, because said they didn’t want to be accused of racially profiling – now many are dead and gravely wounded.

The shooter in Orlando reportedly celebrated in his classroom after 9/11. He too was interviewed by the FBI. His father, a native of Afghanistan, supported the oppressive Taliban regime, and expressed anti-American views – and by the way, was just seen sitting behind Hillary Clinton with a big smile on his face all the way through her speech. He obviously liked what she had to say.

The Ft. Hood Shooter delivered a presentation to a room full of mental health experts before the attacks in which he threw out one red flag after another. He even proclaimed that “we love death more than you love life!”

These warnings signs were ignored because political correctness has replaced common sense in our society

That is why one of my first acts as President will be to establish a Commission on Radical Islam – which will include reformist voices in the Muslim community who will hopefully work with us. We want to build bridges and erase divisions.

The goal of the commission will be to identify and explain to the American public the core convictions and beliefs of Radical Islam, to identify the warning signs of radicalization, and to expose the networks in our society that support radicalization.

This commission will be used to develop new protocols for local police officers, federal investigators, and immigration screeners.

We will also keep open Guantanamo Bay, and place a renewed emphasis on human intelligence. Drone strikes will remain part of our strategy, but we will also seek to capture high-value targets to gain needed information to dismantle their organizations. Foreign combatants will be tried in military commissions.

Finally, we will pursue aggressive criminal or immigration charges against anyone who lends material support to terrorism. Similar to the effort to take down the mafia, this will be the understood mission of every federal investigator and prosecutor in the country.

To accomplish a goal, you must state a mission: the support networks for Radical Islam in this country will be stripped out and removed one by one.

Immigration officers will also have their powers restored: those who are guests in our country that are preaching hate will be asked to return home.

To make America safe again, we must work together again.

Our victory in the Cold War relied on a bipartisan and international consensus. That is what we must have to defeat Radical Islamic terrorism.

But just like we couldn’t defeat communism without acknowledging  that communism exists – or explaining its evils – we can’t defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism unless we do the same.

This also means we have to promote the exceptional virtues of our own way of life – and expecting that newcomers to our society do the same.

Pride in our institutions, our history and our values should be taught by parents and teachers, and impressed upon all who join our society.

Assimilation is not an act of hostility, but an expression of compassion. Our system of government, and our American culture, is the best in the world and will produce the best outcomes for all who adopt it.

This approach will not only make us safer, but bring us closer together as a country.

Renewing this spirit of Americanism will help heal the divisions in our country. It will do so by emphasizing what we have in common – not what pulls us apart.

This is my pledge to the American people: as your President I will be your greatest champion. I will fight to ensure that every American is treated equally, protected equally, and honored equally. We will reject bigotry and oppression in all its forms, and seek a new future built on our common culture and values as one American people.

Only this way, will we make America Great Again and Safe Again – For Everyone.

The one constant in this great universe of ours is that whenever anything goes wrong, Biden will show up to make it worse. 

Biden, who tried and failed to run for president because of his indecisiveness, showed up at a Hillary rally to argue that Trump can't be trusted with the nuclear codes.

“He is not qualified to know the code, he can’t be trusted,” Biden said.

Joe Biden can't be trusted with chewing gum, let alone nuclear codes. That's not an opinion. It's a fact.

He's well known for his verbal gaffes - now Joe Biden is in the spotlight for making a visual one.

The U.S. Vice President accidentally revealed the cover of a classified document for the world to see while standing absent-mindedly at a press event on Monday.

In a photograph published by AFP/Getty Images, the binder clearly shows the title 'Codeword: Classified Document' emblazoned across it. Below that, it said 'Vice President'.

It should have said, court jester.

The obvious question is why is Twitter doing ads at all. The obvious answer is that Twitter is struggling. Its obnoxious attempts to capitalize on Black Lives Matter's racist violence, particularly the video's references to Dallas, are an echo of how Twitter used the Arab Spring to promote itself.

Watching the ad though you get the impression that the main reasons to use Twitter are sports and social justice movements. That's how Twitter would like to be seen at least. It's not however the reality. And it's losing control of the social justice conversation despite renewed censorship.

In fact, from July 5 to July 7, fully 87% of the uses of #BlackLivesMatter on Twitter were favorable, compared to 11% that were negative.

However, following the attack on police officers in Dallas that began late on July 7, the tenor of the online conversation changed dramatically. From July 8 to July 17, 39% of tweets using #BlackLivesMatter were opposed to the movement, compared to 28% that were in support and 33% that were neutral.

On July 17, the day the attack on police occurred in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, two-thirds of the tweets opposed #BlackLivesMatter (67%) compared to 26% that were positive and 6% that were neutral.

So that just means more censorship.

More tidbits out of Sorosworld reveal some of what the aspiring James Bond villain's network was up to. And how that CAP report targeting counterterrorism experts and counterjihadists happened.

A non-profit group controlled by billionaire financier George Soros set out to conduct opposition research on a handful of critics of radical Islam, a newly released internal memo shows.

The 2011 document, entitled “Extreme Polarization and Breakdown in Civil Discourse,” is one of more than 2,500 files stolen from Soros’ Open Society Foundations and published online on Saturday.

In the memo, Open Society Foundations (OSF) executives lamented that progressive groups and members of the Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian-American (AMEMSA) community lacked “high quality opposition research” to combat “anti-Muslim xenophobia and to promote tolerance.”

The CAP project, called the Examining Anti-Muslim Bigotry Project, set out to engage progressives and journalists to raise awareness about the critics of radical Islam. In addition to Geller, Gaffney and Spencer, CAP planned to “research and track” the activities of David Horowitz, Daniel Pipes, Cliff May and Liz Cheney, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney.

Considering the quality of the CAP reports, no high quality opposition research. These were basically nicely laid out documents that kept repeating "Islamophobia" over and over again. 

But considering what the Center for American Progress is, it's not surprising that the Soros hand was the one wearing that puppet. Or that using typical tactics to intimidate and silence critics came from the expected place.

A low profile is a good strategy if you want to be evil, but you don't want everyone to know that you're evil. The interesting thing about the Soros hack is some of the insider chatter. Like this.

According to the leaked documents, Soros gave more than $2 million to Adalah, a self-described “independent human rights organization” that has accused Israel of war crimes and called on governments to sever diplomatic relations with the Jewish state. More than a $1 million was also donated to the Palestinian media center I’lam, which has accused Israel of ethnic cleansing and has published anti-Zionist content. Other organizations that received funding from Soros according to the report include: Mada al-Carmel, Kayan-Feminist Organization, Mossawa Center, Molad, The Galilee Society, Al-Tufula Center, Ma’an, Injaz, Sidreh, Lakiya, Baladna, Arab Association for Human Rights, National Committee of Heads of Arab Local Authorities in Israel and PILI Foundation.

Several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) received large grants through the New Israel Fund (NIF), which supports many such organizations. This, according to the watchdog group NGO Monitor, directly contradicts NIF’s stated position that it “will not fund global BDS activities against Israel nor support organizations that have global BDS programs.”

The NIF is a clearinghouse for anti-Israel activities so this certainly isn't surprising. Some of the amounts are. But also there is this revelatory paragraph.

“For a variety of reasons,” states one of the leaked documents. “We wanted to construct a diversified portfolio of grants dealing with Israel and Palestine, funding both Israeli Jewish and PCI (Palestinian Citizens of Israel) groups as well as building a portfolio of Palestinian grants and in all cases to maintain a low profile and relative distance—particularly on the advocacy front.” 

Despite that low profile, Soros has come to be associated with funding left-wing and anti-Israel activities. So Sorosworld attempts to maintain distance because they know that the Soros brand is toxic.

Despite Biden's despicable effort in dragging out his son's body for one more round of politicking (after building both his planned presidential campaign and his withdrawal from it around him) military families continue to reject the butcheress of Benghazi.

Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton among military households by 10 points, 51 percent to 41 percent, according to results from the latest NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking Poll.

Typically, Republicans do well among military households, and past presidential elections have shown the Republican candidate winning veterans by double digits. Mitt Romney won the veterans vote by 20 points in 2012, according to an American National Election Studies post-election survey. John McCain carried vets by 10 points in 2008, and George W. Bush won veterans by 16 points in 2004 according to network exit polls.

Also Hillary Clinton consistently fares less well among minority military households as well.

Hillary Clinton's candidacy is really uniting Americans. Mostly around hating her. Also about possibly seceding if she were to win. The results are at their most rebellious over in Texas.

In conducting a rare general-election poll of the Lone Star State, the left-leaning firm Public Policy Polling asked voters a (mostly) hypothetical question: Would you support or oppose Texas seceding from the United States?

Fortunately for Unionists, a clear majority of 59 percent of Texans said they’d rather stick with the Stars and Stripes, while just 26 percent said they wouldn’t. But that number dropped when the pollsters followed up by asking whether voters would support secession if Clinton won the election. Forty percent said they would, including 61 percent of Trump supporters. 

Finally there's optimistic news for Hillary. She could refight the Alamo.

Between the SNP's hostility to the Jewish State and the growing Muslim presence in Scotland, these results are certainly not surprising. Sad, yes. Surprising, no.

The two-year study, What’s Changed About Being Jewish in Scotland, was commissioned by the Scottish Government and carried out by The Scottish Council of Jewish Communities (SCoJeC).

The responses are predictably depressing.

One Jewish man in his 60s, living in Glasgow, said: “When people are murdered just because they shop in a kosher deli in Paris or attend a batmitzvah in Copenhagen, it’s natural for everyone who goes to the equivalent venues in Scotland to think that it could just as easily have been a Glasgow deli or an Edinburgh batmitzvah, and to change their behaviour.

“It’s not paranoid to be fearful when the threat is real.”

The threat is indeed real. And Scotland has already witnessed Muslim terror.

The SNP has a Friends of Palestine group but is the only major British party not to have a Friends of Israel group, while many SNP MPs and MSPs are staunch supporters of the Palestinian cause.

Deputy leadership candidate Tommy Sheppard is among those calling for a boycott of Israeli goods and was recently accused of promoting a group linked to Hamas.

One Israeli man in his 30s, living in Edinburgh, said: “With members of the parliament supporting BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) and other bodies that support an embargo on Israel, one day Jewish blood will be spilled in Scotland, and the Scottish Parliament will be directly responsible for not stopping the spread of anti-Semitism.”

And an Edinburgh woman in her 30s said she had been “upset and unnerved” after receiving an “aggressively worded” email from her local MP after she challenged him over Gaza.

She added: “I began to fear that anti-Semitism was being legitimised by such attitudes within Government. It is incredible that police had to attend our synagogue to reassure us of their support at that time.”

And, as is the case across Europe, there are thoughts of leaving.

Many Jews are now considering leaving Scotland, with one woman in Glasgow even comparing the current mood to Germany in the 1930s.

In contrast to the SNP though, the Scottish Tories are paying a visit to Israel.

A group of Conservative members of the Scottish Parliament are visiting Israel this week as part of the first ever delegation of its kind.

The trip follows a successful election in May 2016 for the Party in Scotland, which saw them leapfrog Labour as the second party in the Scottish parliament, now with 31 seats.

Feminism, after its hijacking by the left, has nothing to do with helping women. Or anybody. It's just a left-wing front branded with pink. That's it. Its members don't care about any of the issues they claim to care about. And that includes abortion. Never mind rape or sexual harassment. They just use them to community organize a very specific targeted demographic. Much as today's NAACP does.

Here's another reminder of the fact that feminism today is little more than a shell company for the left's agenda, as a writer at a feminist blog explains that Bill Clinton isn't a bad feminist for being a rapist.

"To sum up, I think Bill Clinton could very well have raped Juanita Broaddrick; that it doesn’t make him an evil man, or irredeemable (I’m Catholic; we’re all forgiven, if we’re sorry, and Broaddrick says Bill Clinton personally called her up to apologize). It doesn’t even necessarily make him a bad feminist — you know, later, once he stops doing that,"  Rebecca Schoenkopf writes at Wonkette.

What does make one a bad feminist? Raising questions about the Muslim treatment of women. Or doing something equally politically incorrect. Or perhaps, as Rebecca suggests, being a serial rapist.

Don't get the idea that the feminist left has no standards. Being a serial rapist still makes you a bad feminist. Unless you phone and apologize.

In response to the latest outbreak of racist Black Lives Matter violence, Donald Trump delivered some straight talk on a long neglected subject, the Democratic Party's betrayal of black communities and their promotion of racial violence as a political tactic.

"The Democratic Party has failed and betrayed the African-American community," Trump told supporters in West Bend, Wis., 45 minutes outside Milwaukee. "It is time to break with the failures of the past."

The real estate mogul accused Clinton of setting herself "against the police" and called for more law enforcement officers in local communities, vowing to "break up the gangs, the cartels, and criminal syndicates terrorizing our neighborhoods."

"[Clinton] panders to and talks down to communities of color and sees them only as votes, not as individual human beings worthy of a better future," Trump said. "She doesn’t care at all about the hurting people of this country, or the suffering she has caused them."

Addressing the weekend riots in Wisconsin's largest city after the shooting of a black man by a black police officer, Trump noted, "The main victims of these riots are law-abiding African-Americans living in these neighborhoods."

"Those peddling the narrative of cops as a racist force in our society … share directly in the responsibility for the unrest in Milwaukee," Trump said. "They have fostered the dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America [and] do a direct disservice to poor African-American residents who are hurt by the high crime in their communities."

Later, Trump said the impact of Democratic control of major cities has been "more crime, more broken homes, and more poverty."

There's no denying that, as the Freedom Center's own John Perazzo has documented so ably and aptly in The New Shame of the Cities.

Sylville Smith's sister Sherelle encourages "protestors" to burn the suburbs @Cernovich@CassandraRules@rooshvpic.twitter.com/prxR2prcUV

— DeeconX (@DeeconX) August 15, 2016

This is the kind of institutional bias that we are now seeing on a regular basis. It's why a violent racist hate group and its protests are being misleadingly depicted as a noble civil rights movement.

In a classic case of media bias by omission, CNN took extra care Monday to leave out a crucial part of their reports on the Milwaukee police shooting. After a black police officer fatally shot Sylville Smith Sunday, after he refused to put down his gun, riots and violence ensued in the city. Smith’s family was eager to talk to the media and his sister Sherelle had a message that should have been covered and condemned by the media. Instead, CNN decided to air her words but curtail them before they became controversial.

In this video posted by user DeeconX on Twitter, Sherelle Smith can be seen here, in front of several reporters, calling for violence to end...in the city. What she says next is shocking.

“Burnin down shit ain’t going to help nothin! Y’all burnin’ down shit we need in our community. Take that shit to the suburbs. Burn that shit down! We need our shit!  We need our weaves. I don’t wear it. But we need it.”

CNN however applied its predictable spin.

Both on their website and televised on CNN Newsroom Monday, CNN described Sherelle Smith as “calling for peace.” They conveniently left out the rest of her message, calling for protesters to burn down the suburbs.

On CNN.com, under the subhead, “Residents try to heal,” the article read:

Smith's sister Sherelle Smith condemned the violence, saying the community needs the businesses affected. "Don't bring that violence here," Neal, his other sister, said while sobbing.

That was all CNN reported. Again on CNN Newsroom this morning, correspondent Ana Cabrera reported that Sherelle Smith* was “calling for peace,” before playing just a few seconds of Smith’s words that left out the most damning part.

This is very straightforward bias and it's ubiquitous. We saw it most blatantly after the Black Lives Matter massacre of police officers in Dallas, but it's universally applied across a range of stories, including to protect Islamic terrorists.

Hillary Clinton and her entourage have had everything undeservedly handed to them on a silver platter. And yet they never stop hating America.

Tim Kaine, Hillary's ridiculous buffoon of a VP, who is running as number two to a female presidential candidate, decided to take his ridiculous hatred of America to a new level by claiming that America is worse for women than Afghanistan.

The Virginia senator claimed smaller, less wealthy countries actually put the United States to shame when it comes to electing women to higher office.

"Hold on for this, folks. Nineteen percent ranks the United States 75th in the world, below the global average," he said.

"Iraq is 26 percent. Afghanistan is 28 percent. Number one [is] Rwanda. Sixty-four percent. So for reasons, some of which I understand, some of which I don't, we have made it hard. We have made it hard for women to be elected to the highest positions in our federal legislature and as president," he added.

Kaine doesn't seem to grasp that America is actually holding democratic elections. Afghanistan's elections are worthless. Never mind Iraq's elections. These are tribal systems in which the results are known ahead of time. If you rig the system, then you can elect more of whomever will look good out front. But the actual decisions are coming from a handful of tribal elders and warlords anyway.

Not to mention that using these types of global statistics as a metric for anything is highly dubious. 

Does Kaine really believe that women have more political opportunities in Afghanistan than they do in America? Is he that stupid or does he hate his country that much? 

The Wall Street Journal was on the $400 million cash plane story from the beginning and each update only makes it more obvious that this was a ransom payment despite the administration's flood of denials and lies.

The latest update makes it painfully crystal clear.

New details of the $400 million U.S. payment to Iran earlier this year depict a tightly scripted exchange specifically timed to the release of several American prisoners held in Iran.

The picture emerged from accounts of U.S. officials and others briefed on the operation: U.S. officials wouldn’t let Iranians take control of the money until a Swiss Air Force plane carrying three freed Americans departed from Tehran on Jan. 17. Once that happened, an Iranian cargo plane was allowed to bring the cash home from a Geneva airport that day.

President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials have said the payment didn’t amount to ransom, because the U.S. owed the money to Iran as part of a longstanding dispute linked to a failed arms deal from the 1970s. U.S. officials have said that the prisoner release and cash transfer took place through two separate diplomatic channels.

And, to absolutely no one's surprise, that was a lie.

Once the Americans were “wheels up” on the morning of Jan. 17, Iranian officials in Geneva were allowed to take custody of the $400 million in currency, according to officials briefed on the exchange.

In short, the lying administration lied one more time. They loaded up money from foreign banks, piled it on pallets, loaded it on an unmarked cargo plane and then delayed handing it over until the prisoners were freed. If that's not a ransom payment, then nothing is.

Aspiring Bond villain George Soros has his greasy fingers in every political pie. If there's a sector of the left that Soros doesn't back, it's been hard to find. And while you might not naturally associate the former Nazi collaborator and Al Gore, the Soros Leaks show that you should.

Liberal billionaire George Soros gave former Vice President Al Gore’s environmental group millions of dollars over three years to create a “political space for aggressive U.S. action” on global warming, according to leaked documents.

A document published by DC Leaks shows Soros, a Hungarian-born liberal financier, wanted his nonprofit Open Society Institute (OSI) to do more to support global warming policies in the U.S. That included budgeting $10 million in annual support to Gore’s climate group over three years.

“U.S. Programs Global Warming Grants U.S. Programs became engaged on the global warming issue about four years ago, at George Soros’s suggestion,” reads a leaked OSI memo.

“There has been a budget of $11 million for global warming grants in the U.S. Programs budget for the last several years,” the memo reads. “This budget item captures George Soros’s commitment of $10 million per year for three years to Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection

Now keep in mind that Gore and Soros are in the same line of work. And I don't mean left wing politics, but finance. Gore has a hedge fund. He didn't become incredibly rich by doing a documentary but by finding new angles on Green theft. There's big money in various environmental schemes. Most notably the famous carbon tax which keeps lefties up nights drooling over the piles of green.

And I don't mean trees.

The Clintons are a microcosm of their party's corruption, but the more respectable figures like Gore are up to the same basic shenanigans. And behind them are dark billionaires like Soros.

Angela Merkel continues her courageous battle against reality. 

Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Wednesday refugees had not brought terrorism to Germany, adding that Islam belonged in the country as long as it was practiced in a way that respected the constitution.

"The phenomenon of Islamist terrorism, of IS, is not a phenomenon that came to us with the refugees," Merkel said at an election campaign event for her Christian Democrats in the eastern state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern ahead of a regional vote on Sept. 4.

This is a Hillaryism in that it's true in a very technical sense used by lawyers, but sounds like it means something else. Islamic terrorism in Germany certainly predated her open borders policy. But Islamic terrorism was brought to Germany by Muslim immigrants. Bringing in more Muslim immigrants brought in more Muslim terror.

 The question of whether Merkel's migrants brought terror to Germany isn't open for debate after recent attacks. For that matter Germany's intel people are saying that there's more to come.

German intelligence services have evidence that “hit squads” from the Islamic State terror group have infiltrated the country disguised as refugees, the deputy head of Bavaria’s spy agency told the BBC Thursday.

“We have to accept that we have hit squads and sleeper cells in Germany,” Manfred Hauser, the vice president of the Bavaria region’s intelligence gathering agency, BayLfV, told the Today program.

“We have substantial reports that among the refugees there are hit squads. There are hundreds of these reports, some from refugees themselves. We are still following up on these, and we haven’t investigated all of them fully,” said Hauser.

Merkel apparently has.

"We have said clearly that an Islam that works and lives on the basis of the constitution ... belongs to Germany," Merkel said.

She added that a type of Islam that did not stick to the constitution or accept equal rights for women had no place in the country.

So in other words, Islam has no place in Germany.

It makes sense.

If you have a Socialist state in economic decline with rising public anger at a corrupt left-wing oligarchy, it makes sense to launch a gun control bid to disarm the population. And I'm not even talking about Obama, but Maduro, the insane ex-bus driver presiding over a permanent Socialist revolution which took Venezuela from wealth to food riots as starving mobs swarm supermarkets.

So he's doing the logical thing. Gun control.

Venezuelan police crushed and chopped up nearly 2,000 shotguns and pistols in a Caracas city square on Wednesday, as the new interior minister relaunched a long-stalled gun control campaign in one of the world's most crime-ridden countries.

Interior Minister Nestor Reverol said the event marked the renewal of efforts to disarm Venezuelans, through a combination of seizures and a voluntary program to swap guns for electrical goods.

Reverol is exactly the kind of guy you want in charge of gun control because...

President Nicolas Maduro promoted Reverol this month, days after the United States accused the former anti-drugs tsar of taking bribes from cocaine traffickers.

That's okay as Venezuela's government pretty much consists of Socialist cocaine traffickers. Also seizing guns may not be a great plan for disarming gangs because...

Venezuela has the world's second highest murder rate and the street gangs that plague its poor neighborhoods have become increasingly heavily armed in recent years, at a time when a deep recession has reduced resources available to police.

Gangs often get weapons from the police, either by stealing them or buying them from corrupt officers, experts say.

Because money is kind of worthless in Venezuela due to inflation which its government doesn't believe exists. 

"We are going to bring disarmament and peace," Reverol told reporters, while police officers drilled and sawed at rusty shotguns, home made pistols and some newer weapons.

But while Venezuela can't feed its people, it's rolling out a dream lefty gun control effort.

Venezuela has also bought laser technology to mark ammunition, Reverol said, in an attempt to keep a registry of the bullets given out to the South American nation's many state and municipal police forces.

Experts say that much of the ammunition used in crimes in Venezuela is made at the country's government munitions factory and sold on by corrupt police.

It's almost like the problem here is government, not guns.

The great thing about the Huma Abedin - Anthony Weiner marriage is that it makes the Bill and Hillary marriage look downright plausible.

Every now and then, Huma Abedin, Hillary's No. 2, dives out of her mole hole for a profile. On these rare occasions, the piece is invariably fawning and consists mainly of praising Huma's fashion style and her problem solving skills. 

The latest Vogue piece is no different. It has some of the window dressing of journalism, but it's blatant public relations. In fact there's no obvious way to differentiate it from something that the Clinton campaign would just arrange to have done. The giant sucking hole at the center though is its premise.

Vogue has to sell Huma Abedin as a smart, sophisticated and strong woman. Who is married to a man whose cheating turned her into a national joke. It's the Hillary problem, in other words.

The answer? Islam.

In the longer term, she says she leaned on her faith—Abedin is a practicing Muslim—and what she calls “a really supportive group of friends and colleagues.” 

Islam would certainly tell Huma to shut up and put up with her husband's cheating. Unfortunately it would also tell her to stab him in his sleep because he's a Jew. So you have to split the difference.

When Abedin was two, they moved from Kalamazoo, Michigan, where she’d been born, to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, to teach. (Her father also started a notable nonprofit, the Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs.)

That's one way of describing it.

At its root, the "Muslim Minority Affairs" agenda is part of a grand plan to destroy America from within, in a stealth manner, exactly as the Muslim Brotherhood outlined in its 1991 "General Strategic Goal" memorandum. Journalist Andrew C. McCarthy summarizes the strategy as follows:

"The Saudi-constructed, Brotherhood-conducted Islamist infrastructure in the West is on a mission—the 'Muslim Minority Affairs' mission. It seeks to grow an unassimilated, aggressive population of Islamic supremacists, who will gradually but dramatically alter the character of the West. Its goal is incrementally to infiltrate sharia principles in our law, our institutions, and our public policy. That means the mission takes direct aim at our liberties, particularly free expression, because [the latter] enables examination and negative criticism of Islamist ideology. It takes aim at our alliance with Israel, because Jews are regarded as enemies and all of 'Palestine' as Islamic territory. And it takes aim at our economic system, because sharia regards capitalism as a bane of human existence—there is a reason why the Brotherhood’s American operatives make common cause with the Left on everything from socialized medicine to finance regulation to gun control to surveillance law."

Notable. Definitely notable.