Posted on 10/20/2016 6:41:55 AM PDT by xzins
LAS VEGAS, Nevada — Retired Army Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn tells Breitbart News he thinks Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s “unbelievable victory” in the final presidential debate against his Democratic opponent was “exactly what we needed.”
“I think this was an unbelievable victory for Trump,” Flynn, a top Trump surrogate, said in an exclusive interview.
I think this was amazing. He was so on point, so on message. He gave very precise answers. You listen, for those that watched it tonight, you saw a robot-like script coming out of Hillary Clinton with no new ideas. No new ideas at all. Donald Trump gave some amazing ideas tonight and he showed America what he’s going to do for jobs. He showed America what he’s going to do to help out our immigration and all the kinds of things we’re involved in.
Flynn says he was shocked at Hillary Clinton’s claims in the debate that she doesn’t support open borders, when a transcript of a paid speech she gave to a Brazilian bank shows she specifically said she supports “open borders” and “open trade.”
“She’s totally for open borders,” Flynn told Breitbart News.
Just look at what’s in her emails that have come out. She wants like a United States of North America not a United States of America. She would prefer to have just wide open like they have over in Europe right now. If you don’t have any borders you don’t have a country. This was an unbelievable victory for Donald Trump. It was exactly what we needed. So from our standpoint this is exactly what this camp needed because we are going to have so much momentum going into the final weeks of this election and this was exactly what we wanted tonight.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
That is complete and utter horseshit.
There is more revenant there than anything else.
There is nothing I detest more than that whole use of the female gender. In our local politics in NY they are using in a senate race *voted against pay equality 4 times* what does that mean exactly??? Hey, the good point is that the guy working in the sewer is usually a guy not a woman. The band leader lib here is a particularly vile female creature cackling and shrilling about everything. And they take it because she is on their team.
Yep. LOL
GO TRUMP
“All the local station FOX polls around the country were showing a Clinton win last night vs. most of the other polls went for Trump. It smelled suspicious.”
Saudi shareholders demanding some return?
That a woman who has been politically active, all her entire adult life, among a people with the most successful history of economic achievement over their first century and a quarter, of any people on earth, under a Constitutional Government designed to protect that people from a bureaucratic pestilence, which has been the bain of most nations; that such a woman has so missed the essential point of the American achievement, is staggering in its implications.
Mrs. Clinton claimed that a Clinton Government woujld rebuild the "Middle Class." Was she tottally unaware that the American Middle Class clearly built itself? That the American Middle Class resulted from naturally energized individuals, aspiring to achieve the good life, who risked everything to first clear a wilderness, work hard, generation to generation, to save & accumulate the attributes of the good life; with the result that by 1913--the year that a graduated income tax first became Constitutional, this Settler built Federation of newly settled States, had already surpassed every one of the great powers of Europe in industrial strength.
To "rebuild" the "Middle Class," Mrs. Clinton vowed to make the most successful Americans--those who had achieved the most-- pay increased taxes; she called it "paying their 'fair' share." But it was clearly to be a tax on success--a tax to fund a raft of new programs (a cancer or pestilence of an expanded bureaucracy). She was obviously indifferent to the fact that the biggest impediment to any poor person with ambition, actually launching a small business to improve his status, is an almost incomprehensible explosion in bureaucratic regulations, most of which premised on the same flawed understanding of how people actually advance, which Mrs. Clinton displayed, last night.
Americans used to learn by experience. What were the experience based lessons of what transpired from the drafting of our written Constitution in 1787, until the passage of the income tax amendment in 1913? Are they instructive or not, for what actually works for human advancement?
The Constitution prior to 1913, absolutely interdicted a tax driven war on the accumulation of individual wealth. Article I, Section 9, which Mrs. Clinton should have remembered from Law School, provided that no direct tax on individual Americans could be applied in any way but pro-capita. (That is Warren Buffet would pay the same tax--not the same percentage tax--but the same tax as Joe the Plumber. The Founders had no desire to limit individual success. They sought only to encourage it.
Under there experience based philosophy, there were almost certainly not even 1% of the bureaucratic regulations, with which Americans seeking to improve their lot, must face today. In place of today's pursuit of grievances, real or imagined, there was universal admiration for the high achievers! And the growth rate of a people freed to achieve, was the economic phenomenon of human history.
We do not pretend to know whether it was in her indoctrination by Marxist Pied Pipers, in her late teens, or pure confusion in whatever she is struggling with today. But Mrs. Clinton is utterly clueless on how a dynamic economy works; as she is utterly unaware of the dynamic, interactive factors, that drive or stagnate any human aspiration or achievement. What is absolutely clear, even if one ignores her lack of a moral compass in her political dealings; the woman is absolutely unqualified to be President of the United States.
This is one more reason why we must win this election for Donald Trump.
William Flax
[This may be reproduced, if in full context, with or without attribution.]
That a woman who has been politically active, all her entire adult life, among a people with the most successful history of economic achievement over their first century and a quarter, of any people on earth, under a Constitutional Government designed to protect that people from a bureaucratic pestilence, which has been the bain of most nations; that such a woman has so missed the essential point of the American achievement, is staggering in its implications.
Mrs. Clinton claimed that a Clinton Government woujld rebuild the "Middle Class." Was she tottally unaware that the American Middle Class clearly built itself? That the American Middle Class resulted from naturally energized individuals, aspiring to achieve the good life, who risked everything to first clear a wilderness, work hard, generation to generation, to save & accumulate the attributes of the good life; with the result that by 1913--the year that a graduated income tax first became Constitutional, this Settler built Federation of newly settled States, had already surpassed every one of the great powers of Europe in industrial strength.
To "rebuild" the "Middle Class," Mrs. Clinton vowed to make the most successful Americans--those who had achieved the most-- pay increased taxes; she called it "paying their 'fair' share." But it was clearly to be a tax on success--a tax to fund a raft of new programs (a cancer or pestilence of an expanded bureaucracy). She was obviously indifferent to the fact that the biggest impediment to any poor person with ambition, actually launching a small business to improve his status, is an almost incomprehensible explosion in bureaucratic regulations, most of which premised on the same flawed understanding of how people actually advance, which Mrs. Clinton displayed, last night.
Americans used to learn by experience. What were the experience based lessons of what transpired from the drafting of our written Constitution in 1787, until the passage of the income tax amendment in 1913? Are they instructive or not, for what actually works for human advancement?
The Constitution prior to 1913, absolutely interdicted a tax driven war on the accumulation of individual wealth. Article I, Section 9, which Mrs. Clinton should have remembered from Law School, provided that no direct tax on individual Americans could be applied in any way but pro-capita. (That is Warren Buffet would pay the same tax--not the same percentage tax--but the same tax as Joe the Plumber. The Founders had no desire to limit individual success. They sought only to encourage it.
Under there experience based philosophy, there were almost certainly not even 1% of the bureaucratic regulations, with which Americans seeking to improve their lot, must face today. In place of today's pursuit of grievances, real or imagined, there was universal admiration for the high achievers! And the growth rate of a people freed to achieve, was the economic phenomenon of human history.
We do not pretend to know whether it was in her indoctrination by Marxist Pied Pipers, in her late teens, or pure confusion in whatever she is struggling with today. But Mrs. Clinton is utterly clueless on how a dynamic economy works; as she is utterly unaware of the dynamic, interactive factors, that drive or stagnate any human aspiration or achievement. What is absolutely clear, even if one ignores her lack of a moral compass in her political dealings; the woman is absolutely unqualified to be President of the United States.
This is one more reason why we must win this election for Donald Trump.
William Flax
[This may be reproduced, if in full context, with or without attribution.]
The devil is always in the details with such grand general sounding acts. When situations are normalized for experience and skill and benefits, the ladies find themselves competitive with the gents. That’s how it ought to be. Women are busting their own je ne sais quois in order to be wage slaves too?
Good point.
My understanding of the combat power of a United Nations military unit is that it is about equivalent to an Iraqi infantry division’s capabilities during Iraqi Freedom.
IOW, a real army could roll over their entire defense establishment in about a week or two.
##############
Could civilians take them with a leavening of veterans and miscellaneous small arms? If so, they should be welcomed as an oblivious supply column.
3
I believe an organized militia of Americans with regular arms could effectively have taken out an Iraqi infantry unit.
“She said ‘hemispheric’, didn’t she. She wants a bigger bite even than Heidi Cruz. Heidi wanted North America, while Hillary wants all of North, South, and Central Americas.”
And that is pretty much the difference between the two party establishments. The Republican establishment is more timid in its sedition.
Funny, even the Washington Post thought Trump won. As they said in an article, “...she was on her heels all night.”
HiTech...I have some favortie posters here and you are one.
busting their own je ne sais
Like I have said here countless times, Don’t mess with God’s plan. They are so mixed up in this world.
Freedom in following God’s will sums it up. I’m not going to lecture on the differences between men and women.
I just got an article in my other in box. Sorry to change subject but will look for this on FR.
Evidently, Obama is pushing to enforce Sharia Law in America...Wow in one generation.
How far in was the “bad eye”? I was listening but not watching.
Several times in the first hour and a half. I taped the send half hour and haven’t seen it yet.
it COULD be good news - she is expecting to lose.
That is good to hear. Consistent with what I have heard from other veterans.
I know that UN units in foreign hotspots tend to dig into their bunkers and do nothing of note.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.