Sunday, March 20, 2016

Obama Has a Huge Secret Before Exiting The White House: These Draconian ...

Published on Mar 15, 2016

Obama Has a Huge Secret Before Exiting The White House: These Draconian ...



The Real Iran Hostage Crisis: A CIA Covert Op

Global Research Editor’s Note

The script of Best Film Academy Award Movie  “Argo” which depicts the Iran Hostage Crisis is largely based on fiction.
The purpose of the film is to rewrite history, to falsify what actually happened as well as provide a human face to US foreign  policy.
Amply documented, the Iran Hostage Crisis was a complex CIA covert operation intent upon stalling the Iranian Revolution as well as spearheading the political demise of President Jimmy Carter.
The following article first published in 1995 is based on extensive documentation collected by Fara Mansoor, a prominent Iranian intellectual.
Michel  Chossudovsky, February 26, 2013

The Real Iranian Hostage Story from the Files of Fara Mansoor

By Harry V. Martin

Free America, 1995
Fara Mansoor is a fugitive. No, he hasn’t broken any laws in the United States. His crime is the truth. What he has to say and the documents he carries are equivalent to a death warrant for him, Mansoor is an Iranian who was part of the “establishment” in Iran long before the 1979 hostage taking. Mansoor’s records actually discount the alleged “October Surprise” theory that the Ronald Reagan-George Bush team paid the Iranians not to release 52 American hostages until after the November 1980 Presidential elections.
Mansoor’s meticulous documents, shared exclusively with this magazine, shows a much more sinister plot, the plot to take the hostages in the first place. “For 15 years the truth about the nature and origins of the Iranian hostage crisis has been buried in a mountain of misinformation,” Mansoor states. “Endless expert analysis has served only to deepen the fog that still surrounds this issue. We have been led to believe that the ‘crisis’ was a spontaneous act that just sprang out of the ‘chaos’ of the ‘Islamic Revolution’. Nothing could be further from the truth!”
“To really understand the hostage crisis and ‘who done it’, one has to look not only with a microscope, but also a wide angle lens to have a panoramic view of this well scripted ‘drama’,” Mansoor states. “That ‘drama’ was the result of large historical patterns, models, and motives. Once its true nature is understood, it will be clear how Iran/Contra happened.
Why Rafsanjani has been trying to ‘move toward the West,’ and why Reagan called him a ‘moderate’. And why, during the Gulf War, James Baker said, ‘we think Iran has conducted itself in a very, very credible way through this crisis’” Mansoor emphasizes that the “October Surprise” myth has served as dangerous misinformation.
With thousands of documents to support his position, Mansoor says that the “hostage crisis” was a political “management tool” created by the pro-Bush faction of the CIA, and implemented through an a priori Alliance with Khomeini’s Islamic Fundamentalists.” He says the purpose was twofold:
  • To keep Iran intact and communist-free by putting Khomeini in full control.
  • To destablize the Carter Administration and put George Bush in the White House.
“The private Alliance was the logical result of the intricate Iranian political reality of the mid-70s, and a complex network of powerful U.S.-Iranian ‘business’ relationships,” Mansoor states. “I first met Khomeini in 1963 during the failed coup attempt against the Shah. Since that time I have been intimately involved with Iranian politics. I knew in 1979 that the whole, phoney ‘Islamic Revolution’ was ‘mission implausible’.” Mansoor was frank. “There is simply no way that those guys with the beards and turbans could have pulled off such a brilliantly planned operation without very sophisticated help.”
Mansoor has spent 10 years researching the issue.
“I have collected enough data to yield a very clear picture. Mr. Bush’s lieutenants removed the Shah, brought Khomeini back to Iran, and guided his rise to power, sticking it to President Carter, the American people (52 in particular), and the Iranian people.”
He stated with boxes and boxes of evidence to support his contentions.
“My extensive research has revealed the heretofore untold truth about this episode. This is not another ‘October Surprise’ theory purporting how the hostage crisis resulted in some Khomeini-Republic better deal. That theory puts the cart before the horse. Its absurd premise is that a major international deal was initiated and consummated in three weeks. Give me a break! Bill Casey didn’t have to go to Paris to play lets-make-deal. The ‘deal’ had been in operation for at least two years. This game of blind-man’s-bluff around Casey’s gravestone was more disinformation, damage control.”
Mansoor produced a confidential document called the “Country Team Minutes” of April 26, 1978, more than a year before the hostage crisis. The meeting was held in Iran. The second paragraph of the routine minutes, states, “The Ambassador commented on our distinguished visitors, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and Margaret Thatcher, and commented that Teheran seems to be the site for an opposition parties congress.” Mansoor indicates the entire relationship was probably the most sophisticated criminal act in recent history. “That the people who, until recently, were holding power in Washington and those who currently are still in control in Teheran, got there by totally subverting the democratic process of both countries is news. That their methods of subversion relied on kidnapping, extortion and murder is criminal,” Mansoor states.
Mansoor became a target after he did a radio show in Portland on November 13, 1992. It was the first time he attempted to go public with his documents and information. The Iranian regime has placed a bounty on Mansoor’s head and he has received many death threats.
Is Mansoor just another conspiracy nut? Ervand Abrahamian of Baruch College of New York stated in a letter to Mansoor,
“As you know I am very weary of conspiracy theories. But, despite my preconceived bias, I must admit I found your manuscript to be thoroughly researched, well documented, and, of course extremely relevant to the present. You have done an first-class job of interviewing participants, collecting data from scattered sources, and putting them together like a highly complicated puzzle.”
Mansoor’s meticulous research clearly demonstrates how Khomeini’s published vision of an Islamic Government (Vilayat-Faqih) dovetailed with the regional and global strategic objectives of a hard-core subset of the U.S. National Security establishment loyal to George Bush. It shows that the Iranian hostage crisis was neither a crisis nor chaos. In 1953, the CIA orchestrated a coup in Iran, which threw out the democratic government and installed the Shah.
In order to understand the imperative of this Alliance, we must realistically examine the sociopolitical alignment both in Iran and the U.S., and accurately assess their respective interests to find the command ground for this coalescence. The anti-monarchic forces in mid-70s Iran consisted of various nationalists groups including religious reformist, the Islamic Fundamentalists, and the leftists and communist.
The Nationalist forces were varied. Some were from within the government, but they were poorly organized and without grass-roots support. Their position was clearly anti-left and anti-communist, but they were vulnerable to being taken over by the well-organized left.
The Islamic Fundamentalists had no government experience, but they had major grassroots supports. Islam, in its Shi’ite format was deeply embedded in the lives of the vast majority of the Iranian people. The Fundamentalists were absolutely anti-communist.
The philosophical divide within the U.S. National Security establishment, especially the CIA, became quite serious in the aftermath of Watergate. To make matters worse, the election of Jimmy Carter in 1976, his campaign promise to clean the “cowboy” elements out of the Central Intelligence Agency and his “human rights” policies alarmed the faction of the CIA loyal to George Bush. Bush was CIA director under Richard Nixon. Finally, the firing of CIA Director George Bush by Carter, and the subsequent “Halloween Massacre” in which Carter fired over 800 CIA covert operatives in 1977, angered the “cowboys” beyond all measure. That was Carter’s October surprise, 800 firings on Halloween 1977.
Bush and his CIA coverts were well aware of the Shah’s terminal cancer, unknown to President Carter. The team had an elaborate vested interest to protect. They were determined to keep Iran intact and communist-free and put George Bush in the White House.
Hence, the Islamic Fundamentalists were the only viable choice through which the Bush covert team could implement its own private foreign policy. The results: the birth of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the fall of President Carter, and the emergence of something called the “New World Order.” Mansoor’s documents show step-by-step events:
1. In 1974, the Shah of Iran was diagnosed with cancer.
2. In 1975, former CIA director, and the U.S. Ambassador to Iran, Richard Helms learned of the Shah’s cancer through the Shah’s closest confidant, General Hossein Fardoust. The Shah, Helms and Fardoust had been close personal friends since their school days together in Switzerland during the 1930s.
3. On November 4, 1976, concurrent with Jimmy Carter’s election as President, CIA Director George Bush issued a secret memo to the U.S. Ambassador in Iran, Richard Helms, asking:
“Have there been any changes in the personality pattern of the Shah; what are their implication pattern for political behavior? Identification of top military officers that most likely play key roles in any transference of power if the Shah were killed…who will be the leading actors? How will the Shah’s pet projects, including the economic development program, be effected by his departure?”
4. By July 1977, anticipating trouble ahead, the Bush covert team issued preliminary script for the transition of power in Iran. According to John D. Stemple, a CIA analyst and Deputy Chief Political officer of the U.S. Embassy in Iran,
“A ten page analysis of the opposition written by the embassy’s political section in July 1977 correctly identified Bakhiar, Bazargan, Khomeini and Behesti as major actors in the drama that begin unfolding a year later.”
5. Contrary to this analysis, in August 1977, the “official wing” of the CIA fed President Carter a 60-page Study on Iran which concluded:
“The Shah will be an active participant in Iranian life well into the 1980s…and there will be no radical changes in Iranian political behavior in the near future.”
6. On October 31, 1977, president Carter made good on his campaign promise to clean the “cowboys” out of the CIA. He fired over 800 covert operatives from the Agency, many of whom were loyal to George Bush. Carter’s presidency split the CIA. It produced in them, among whom were “many well-trained in political warfare, a concerted will for revenge.” By the end of the 1970s many of these special covert operatives had allied themselves with George Bush’s candidacy, and later with Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign.
7. On November 15, the Shah of Iran visited Washington, D.C. Carter toasted his guest, “If ever there was a country which has blossomed forth under enlightened leadership, it would be the ancient empire of Persia.”
8. On November 23, Ayatollah Khomeini’s elder son, Haji Mustafa, died mysteriously in Najaf, Iraq. According to professor Hamid Algar, he was “assassinated by the Shah’s U.S.-instituted security police SAVAK…the tragedy inflamed the public in Iran.” Ayatollah Khomeini placed an advertisement in the French Newspaper Le Monde which read: “thanking people for condolences that had been sent of the murder of his son”. He also “appealed to the army to liberate Iran, and to the intellectuals and all good Muslims to continue their criticism of the Shah”.
9. December 31, 1977, Carter visited the Shah in Iran. He toasted the Shah for maintaining Iran as “an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world.” Ironically, that so-called stability evaporated before the champagne lost its fizz.
10. On January 7, 1978, an insidious article entitled Iran and the Red and Black Colonialism, appeared in the Iranian daily newspaper Ettela’at. It castigated the exiled Khomeini, and produced a massive protest riot in the Holy City of Qum the next day. The clergy had little choice but to rally to Khomeini’s defense. The Qum incident shifted many of the clergy from a position of support for the Shah’s monarchy to an active opposition. That “dirty trick” perpetuated by General Fardoust was the trigger that sparked Islamic movement participating in the anti-Shah democratic Revolution. John D. Stempel, characterized Fardoust’s importance to the Alliance: “it is hard to over estimated the value of having a mole in the inner circle of the Shah.”
11. On February 3, a confidential communiqué from the U.S. Embassy clearly reflected the vision of the Alliance:
“Though based on incomplete evidence, our best assessment to date is that the Shia Islamic movement dominated by Ayatollah Khomeini is far better organized, enlighten and able to resist Communism than its detractors would lead us to believe. It is rooted in the Iranian people more than any western ideology, including Communism.”
12. April 1978, Le Monde “identified Khomeini’s Liberation Movement of Iran as the most significant force in the opposition followed by the Shi’ite Islam joins the reformist of progressive critics of the Shah on the same ground. In fact, this analysis was contrary to what Mohaammad Tavassoli, leader of the Liberation Movement of Iran, expressed to John D. Stempel on August 21, 1978:
“The nationalist movement in Iran lacks a popular base. The choice is between Islam and Communism…close ties between the Liberation Movement of Iran and the religious movement was necessary. Iran was becoming split by Marxist and the religious.”
13. On April 26, the confidential minutes of the U. S. Embassy Country team meeting welcomed Bush, Reagan and Thatcher.
14. On May 6, Le Monde became the first western newspaper to interview Khomeini in Najaf, Iraq. Khomeini acknowledged his compatibility with the strategic imperatives of the Bush covert team, “we would not collaborate with the Marxists, even to the overthrow of the Shah.”
15. The same month, Khomeini’s old ally from the failed 1963 coup (that resulted in Khomeini’s arrest and major uprising in June 1963 and his subsequent exile to Iraq) General Valliollah Qarani sent his emissary to meet Khomeini in Najaf. Qarani had been a major CIA asset in Iran since the 1953 coup. Seeing another chance to gain power for himself, he advised Khomeini, according to former Iranian President Abol Hassan Bani-sader:
“if you settle for the Shah’s departure and don’t use anti-American rhetoric, Americans are ready to take him out.”
16. In August, the Bush team sent its own point man to meet the exiled Ayatollah in Najaf. Professor Richard Cottam carried excellent credentials. During the 1953 coup, he had been in charge of the CIA’s Iran Desk, also, he had been in close contact with Dr. Ibrahim Yazdi in the U.S. since 1975. Curiously, he admitted to Bani-sadr in 1987, that he had not been working for the Carter Administration. Cottam’s visit must have had an impact, because Iran suddenly began to experience a series of mysterious catastrophes:
  • In Aberdeen, Fundamentalist supporters burned down a theater killing the innocent occupants, blaming it on the SAVAK and the Shah.
  • There were riots in Isfahan that resulted in martial law.
  • On August 27, one of Khomeini’s rivals among the Shia Islamic faithful outside of Iran, Ayatollah Mosa Sadr mysteriously disppeared. According to an intelligence source he was killed and buried in Libya.
17. By late August, the Shah was totally confused. U.S. Ambassador Sullivan recorded the Shah’s pleadings over the outbreak of violence:
“he said the pattern was widespread and that it was like an outbreak of a sudden rash in the country…it gave evidence of sophisticated planning and was not the work of spontaneous oppositionists…the Shah presented that it was the work of foreign intrigue…this intrigue went beyond the capabilities of the Soviet KGB and must, therefore, also involve British and American CIA. The Shah went on to ask ‘Why was the CIA suddenly turning against him? What had he done to deserve this sort of action from the United States?”
18. September 8, the Shah’s army gunned down hundreds of demonstrators in Teheran in what became known as the “Jaleh Square Massacre”.
19. On September 9, President Carter phoned the Shah to confirm his support for the Shah, a fact that enraged the Iranian population.
20. A few days later, Carter’s National Security aide, Gary Sick, received a call from Richard Cottam, requesting a discrete meeting between him and Khomeini’s representative in the U.S., Dr. Yazdi. Sick refused.
21. Khomeini for the first time, publicly called for the Shah’s overthrow.
22. In Mid-September, at the height of the revolution, “one of the handful of Khomeini’s trusted associates”, Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Beheshti, secretly visited the United States among others, he also meet with Yazdi in Texas. Beheshti was an advocate of the eye-for-an-eye school of justice.
23. In early October 1978, the agent for the Bush covert team arranged to force Khomeini out of Iraq.
24. October 3, 1978, Yazdi picked up Khomeini in Iraq and headed for Kuwait. According to Gary Sick, he received an urgent call from Richard Cottam, learning for the first time that Khomeini had been forced out of Iraq. Sick was told that Khomeini and his entourage were stuck in no man’s land while attempting to cross the border. Cottam was requesting White House intervention to resolve the issue. Sick respond, “there is nothing we could do”.
25. October 6, Khomeini’s entourage, having gotten back through Baghdad, popped up in Paris. According to Bani-sadr, “it was Khomeini who insisted on going to Paris instead of Syria or Algeria”. Whoever helped Khomeini out of the Kuwaiti border impasse had to have been on good terms with both the French and Saddam Hussein.
26. December 12, Yazdi made a trip to the U.S. to promote Khomeini and his Islamic Republic. Yazdi met secretly with Henry Precht on an unofficial capacity. Precht was the Director of the Iran Desk at the State Department and one of the Bush team’s main choke points in the Carter Administration. Later Precht and Yazdi appeared together for televised discussion of Iran. Yazdi assured the American public that Khomeini had not really called for a “torrent of blood”, and that the “election would be absolutely free”. The Islamic Republic “would enjoy full freedom of speech and the press, including the right to attack Islam.
27. December 28, Cottam visited Khomeini in Paris where he noted that U.S. citizen Dr. Yazdi was the “leading tactician in Khomeini’s camp” and apparent “chief of staff”. Khomeini was not interested in the Mullahs taking over the government. Also noted that “Khomeini’s movement definitely plans to organize a political party to draw on Khomeini’s charisma. Cottam thinks such a party would win all Majlis seats.”
28. Leaving Paris, Cottam slipped into Teheran, arriving the first week in January 1979, to prepare Khomeini’s triumphal return to Iran.
29. January 4, 1979, Carter’s secret envoy, General Robert Huyser arrived in Iran. His mission was to prevent the “fall of the Shah”. According to Huyser, Alexander Haig, ostensibly a strong Shah supporter-inexplicably, “took violent exception to the whole idea.” Huyser recalled that “General Haig never gave me a full explanation of his strong objections.” Huyser also revealed that Ambassador Sullivan “had also expressed objections.” Two pro-Shah advocates opposed to the prevention of the Shah’s fall.
30. On January 14, President Carter finally “authorized a meeting between Warren Zimmerman and Ibrahim Yazdi. On the same day, Khomeini, in an interview on CBS claimed, “a great part of the army was loyal to him” and that “he will be in effect the strong man of Iran.”
31. On January 16, in an exact repeat of the 1953 CIA coup, Bush’s covert team ushered the “eccentric and weak” Shah out of Iran.
32. On February 1, 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini staged his own version of a “triumphal return” in the streets of Teheran.
33. Khomeini moved quickly to establish his authority. On February 5 he named Mehdi Bazargan, a devoted Muslim and anti-communist, interim Prime Minister. Yazdi and Abbas Amir Entezam became Bazargan’s deputies, Dr. Sanjabi Foreign Minister, and General Qarani was named military Chief of Staff.
34. On February 11, 1979, in seemingly a bizarre twist, General Qarani asked the Shah’s “eyes and ears” General Hossien Fardoust for recommendations to fill the new top posts in Iran’s armed forces. Outside of the Chief of SAVAK, all the other recommendations were accepted. Shortly after, General Fardoust became head of SAVAMA, Khomeini’s successor to SAVAK.
35. On February 14, 1979, two weeks after Khomeini’s return to Iran, the U.S. Embassy in Teheran was seized by Khomeini supporters disguised as leftist guerrillas in an attempt to neutralize the left. U.S. hostages were seized, but to the chagrin of Khomeini’s Fundamentalist, the Iranian coalition government restored order immediately. Ironically, in the same day in Kabul, Afghanistan, the U.S. Ambassador was also kidnapped by fanatic Islamic Fundamentalists disguised as leftist guerrillas and killed in the gunfight.
36. On February 14, soon after the order was restored at the U.S. Embassy in Teheran, Khomeini’s aide Yazdi supplied the Embassy with a group of Iranians for compound security. Ambassador Sullivan installed armed, and trained this Swat squad lead by SAVAK/CIA agent Mashallah Kahsani, with whom Sullivan developed a close working relationship.
37. By August, pro-Bush CIA official George Cave was visiting Iran to provide intelligence briefings to Khomeini’s aides, especially Yazdi and Entezam. These intelligence exchanges continued until October 31, the day Carter fired Bush and the 800 agents. Then with all the Iranian officials who had restored order in the first Embassy seizure eliminated, the stage was set for what happened four days later.
38. On November 4, 1979, the U.S. Embassy was taken again. Leading the charge was none other than Ambassador Sullivan’s trusted Mashallah Kashani, the Embassy’s once and former security chief.
With the evidence and documentation supplied by Mansoor, the alleged October Surprise would not have been necessary. President Carter was the target, in revenge for the Halloween Massacre, the night 800 CIA operatives and George Bush were fired by Carter. The main thrust, however, was to prevent a communist takover of Iran on the Shah’s anticipated death.

Hybrid Human Alien Children - Part 1 - Bridget Nielsen

O.K. EVERYONE on PYRAMID ONE NETWORK -  You will be able to hear a lot more information on someone who works with the Hybred Children her name is WELCOME TO SHARON'S WORLD, PEOPLED BY THE HYBRID CHILDREN AND

20 Reasons Why It Should Be Donald Trump in 2016 -- Keep reading then Think about what I said !!!!!! Write Me I want to know what is on your Mind

O.K. Listeners, We are Not Endorsing Anyone
However Bob Charles is putting this on the Block.

Every Country is Transparent and They have America running with it's Head Between it's Leg's afraid of China, Korea, Africa, The Middle East, and Others, but Why ?
It is because of America's long standing Democracy and Etiquette
AGAIN NOT DEFENDING or ATTEMPTING TO OFFEND, but should we COWER in FEAR while our Politicians are Spending all our Money on Wars, and Research on Killing Machines
Can America earn Back it's place as the Greatest Country in the World, Leave Wars to the Counties that caused them, Stop Fighting, and Start Helping and Feeding Humanity.
Read the Below and it is everything we should have but don't now, We're Smiling Idiots.
Here's a Fact and a For Instance
America has More OIL here then anywhere in the World according to Geo Research so why are we Kissing the Arabs's BUT!  Why don't we just tell them to keep their oil. We know that is not possibly right now because our Government is getting money under the Table to do business with them and meanwhile we pay More, And More, And More and Higher Prices again, and again.
Now tell me who's NUTZ ! and who should not be in a position to tell our Enemies to Chill Out NOW!
( Just on a Note, Korea is aiming Nuke Missles at us, have you heard anyone in Government tell you that ? Or how they are going to protect you when that Dope in Korea Pushes the Buttons, And he is Certified Crazy !
Read Below Then send me E-mail at  

20 Reasons Why It Should Be Donald Trump in 2016

It isn’t “acceptable” in polite society to support Donald Trump, I am told.

America’s bullies – the sneering, “we know better than you” establishment classes – have made many cower in silence rather than proclaim that Trump is a tremendous presidential candidate and has earned their support.
It is a replay of the worst aspects of high school peer-pressure, about what’s OK and what isn’t, based on selfish interests and prejudices.
Well, enough of that. Trump is already changing America for the better – and is encouraging us to boldly stand up for our beliefs about what’s best for our nation and best for our fellow Americans.
So let’s get right to it. Shifting America back on course requires Donald Trump as the Republican nominee. Not only is he the only Republican candidate who could win the general election, but he is the only choice Republican voters should consider (and should consider themselves lucky to have on their side).
In no particular order, here are the top 20 reasons why:
1. He is not your ordinary politician.  Yes, Trump is different. Guess what? That’s a good thing. His ideas – e.g., a sound immigration policy, returning manufacturing jobs to America, negotiating better trade deals – are not at all radical, but do go against the Washington status-quo. You see, we’re supposed to select another perfectly malleable politician – a Republican not unlike a Democrat – who won’t shake things up too much while in office. Same ol’, same ol’. And you, little person, you are supposed to vote for more of the same and like it. But the American public has reached a tipping point – we’d rather gouge out our eyes than select another career politician or Washington insider. That’s just electing the problem to fix the problem. Hence, this:
Screen Shot 2015-10-21 at 4.39.21 PM
It’s make or break time – and drastic times call for, well, not drastic measures but certainly something different. America is headed towards demise. If the old adage is that ‘insanity is trying the same thing time and time again and expecting a different result,’ why would we nominate the usual type of politician?
2. Trump is not reliant on donors.  This cannot be overstated enough. Not relying on donors – especially not following the Rubio-model of huge support from just a handful of individuals (as a Gawker piece rightly predicted last year) is crucial. No one will own Trump. Yet the Trump-attacking conservative pundits continue to scoff that he doesn’t have the cash to see this campaign through. This is an astonishing, frightening smear. Why? Because it means we no longer even bother with the pretense that money doesn’t buy an office.
The “he doesn’t have the big donors/funding-network to go all the way!” smirk is precisely why he should.
3. Yes, he doesn’t have much of a filter. Bravo. We keep hearing from the Trump-naysayers that’s Trump’s mouth is a problem. But where you see a loudmouth, I see candor. Where you see a lack of filter, I see transparency. Where you see a man who gaffes, I see a man who is willing to wipe the cancer of political correctness out of our society. Where you see a loose cannon, I see a man who says what he means and means what he says. Or, would we rather the typical Hollywood celebrity or establishment politician (the two are remarkably similar) who runs a statement by 20 handlers, 10 advisers, and a social-media team before making it? Do we wish to be led by an individual who does not speak from the heart but rather prefers to be advised on what to say and when to say it? Do we wish to be led by a politician who waits to see how the polls emerge on a subject before issuing an opinion? Do you seek a president…. or a ventriloquist puppet who’s views who you do not truly know?
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 12.07.18 PM(Hannity show, October 9th, 2015)
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 2.24.57 PM

Go ahead and call him a ‘bully.’ You almost say that as though it’s a bad thing –a “bully” in Washington is precisely what the doctor ordered. (And P.S.: he is no more a “bully” that those donors in the establishment who seek to sideline our preferences with a check, or smear us with epithets.)
4. He speaks for us little people. Hate to break it to ya’ – but we don’t have much of a voice. We have politicians who will throw us meaningless bones, corny platitudes about the “American dream”, and make big promises they will never keep. At the end of the day, all do their donors’ bidding, and the bidding of Big Business rather than ours. Try speaking up and you will be flattened. It takes someone powerful, who is beholden to no-one more powerful, to lift up our concerns. Thank heavens we have someone who understands those concerns and is willing to be that voice. Consider this online comment:
Stuart Mill
Trump actually discusses the concerns of the middle-class, blue-collar worker. Bringing jobs back to the American worker is something about which most politicians care little, if at all. Why? Because nearly all are crony-capitalists, tucked into the pockets of Big Business executives who want to outsource your job to China. The other GOP contenders will pay lip-service to middle-class concerns but, in reality, it’s all “wink-wink” behind closed doors in trade deals that ensure your job is lost, and immigration policies that ensure your wages remain stagnant and you’ll face stiff competition for housing or even a fast-food gig.
5. Make no mistake, there is an establishment plot against him. The establishment really, really doesn’t want him – but we really, really do.
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 12.15.49 PM
(NY Post, October 17, 2015)
So their takedowns keep backfiring. Consider this quote from George Will, which doesn’t at all sound hysterical!
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 7.38.59 PM
This Facebook commenter nails it:
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 12.19.16 PM
The more the powers-that-be try to take Trump down with breathless: “Can you believe he said ____?!” the more the American public shrugs and says: “Eh, sorry, still love him” or, worse yet, as seems to be the case lately: “Hey, actually, we like him even more now! I’m glad someone finally said ___!”
Attempt after attempt on ‘Teflon Trump’ slides right off him and instead backfires and blows up in their collective faces. It reminds me of a scene in “Gladiator” (indulge me for a minute – there is a side of me that is a 19-year-old bro), where Commodus (after attempting to orchestrate Maximus’s death by forcing Maximus to fight the greatest living gladiator, only to have Maximus turn the tables by not only besting the opponent but showing him mercy), in a fit of frustration, exasperatedly wails: “And now they love Maximus for his mercy! So I can’t kill him or it makes him even more merciful. The whole thing is like a great nightmare!” That is not unlike what is happening right now in the smoke-filled rooms of the establishment.
Take the Megyn Kelly incident – naysayers said Trump would be doomed among conservatives by feuding with a fairly popular Fox News host. Except, conservatives didn’t care.
Megyn Kelly screenshot copy
USA Today piece
(USA Today, September 4, 2015)
And poor Jorge Ramos, who self-imploded when he tried to confront Trump, coming across as an unhinged, angry activist rather than a professional journalist.
Creepiest of all is the “let’s not attack him directly, let’s just keep saying his campaign is over in the hopes that it will stick.” They’ve been saying his campaign is over, every week (“no, this time it’s really, really is over!” only to have it thrive. Consider this  from September 27, 2015:
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 11.44.21 AM
Yet this is the Drudge Report banner on October 21st:
Screen Shot 2015-10-21 at 10.21.33 AM
6. Diplomacy. We also keep hearing Trump isn’t “diplomatic.” Interestingly, though, it is Trump who is willing to sit across the table and actually talk to Vladimir Putin, while we have other GOP contenders calling a hugely popular First World nation’s leader a “thug.” (Free advice: It isn’t presidential to refer to another world leader, the elected leader of a first world nation, using ad hominem attacks. Not very Reagan-ite.) Remind me again who’s the diplomatic one? For an alleged blowhard, Trump sure is diplomatic when it counts. To that end, he’s also sensible. Despite describing the Iran nuclear agreement a “disastrous deal” and “horrible contract,” he said he would work it. Meanwhile, demagogue candidates were proclaiming they would (despite the impossibility of doing so) rip it up on “Day One” – sounds swell.
7. His business accomplishments.  Shocker! Imagine having a president who has actually built and created things! Imagine having a president with a proven track record as an enormously successful businessman. But, silly me – why have that when we can have, for instance, a first-term senator, career-politician who’s never even passed any significant legislation or a governor whom, despite some laudable accomplishments, most of the nation, including Republicans, can’t stomach?
8. He’s pro-women. In the plot to take down Trump, one of the first tactics tried was to cast him as anti-women. But Trump has worked with many peers and sparred against many rivals – male and female alike – and thus actually shows he treats women as equals (e.g., Yes, he joked about Carly Fiorina – he also joked about
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
. Get it?). Or are we, as women, demanding to be coddled and spared the same treatment as the gents? Last week, an article by Yahoo!’s Chief National Correspondent found Trump has a history of building women up. Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 12.40.27 PM

9. A stellar first family. We often forget that we are not only choosing a president but choosing a First Family. While the other candidates all have perfectly nice families, none has the potential for impact as the Trumps. (Before you say ‘the Bush family’ – stop. That family is more overexposed than Taylor Swift – go away for a while and maybe we can miss you.) Melania as First Lady? Absolutely. A poised, elegant, intelligent woman, already accustomed to the spotlight, who is an immigrant herself with a keen interest in women’s health issues. His children? Where to begin? Ivanka, for instance, would be a tremendous role model across the world – a working mother who is a thriving entrepreneur. And, in 2015, is it not time to consider having a ‘blended,’ modern family as the First Family?
10. A man of sound morals. For those who judge a man’s character based on whether he called someone a “loser” during a silly Twitter feud, well, there is no helping your stupidity so stop reading this. The rest of us, however, know to look at a man’s actions and his record in life. What is Trump’s? For one, he’s known for treating his workers well. Second, is there no ugly scandal or brush with the law – he seems to lead a fairly straight-arrow life. Then there’s his family life. Two divorces? Sure. Marriages sometimes don’t work out. Ask Newt Gingrich or even Ronald Reagan himself. He’s on friendly terms with both ex-wives, though. What does that tell you? And his children routinely express what a loving, supportive father he’s been. Point me to another businessman of Trump’s money with four adult children, all of whom have stayed away from scandal and disgrace despite growing up in the spotlight. We’d be hard pressed to find one – meaning, Trump clearly did something right. Heck, forget the “Art of the Deal” — Trump should write the “Art of Parenting.”
11. The celebrity factor is actually a huge plus. If you’re reading this article, you’re someone who follows politics and stays informed. Hey, congrats — proud of ya. But guess what? The majority of the American public does not. They’ll vote – if they can even be bothered to do so on election-day – for a candidate based on gut instinct or name recognition (how else do you think the Kennedy’s get elected?!). And, newsflash: Save for some parts of Texas, it isn’t OK to say you’re a Republican these days, thanks to years of liberal academia and Hollywood beating our image like a rented mule. But Trump can bridge that gap. It’s conservatism … but represented by a well-liked celebrity. How much clearer can this be? Trump is a God-send. Finally, we conservatives caught a break!
12. His policies are spot-on, particularly immigration. For brevity, this article is not meant to discuss the nuances of Trump’s proposed policies and positions. But he’s right on pretty much every position he espouses, first and foremost that of immigration, the most critical issue facing America.
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 12.45.33 PM
In fact, if you vote based on one issue, make it that one, as it affects all others. And only Trump has the correct view, out of every GOP contender. Moreover, each time he makes an ‘inflammatory’ remark, the stats back him up.
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 11.49.07 AM

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 11.51.31 AM
How about taxes? Trump is the only one willing to take on the hedge-fund managers and blast their ridiculously unfair tax rate. It’s the ideal position – someone with a conservative tax plan but who realizes attacking the hedge-funders’ sweet deal doesn’t make one a “liberal” – and simply shows an individual with an astute understanding of finance and a genuine sense of fairness.
How about a dedication to veterans? Check! A strong but sensible foreign policy? Check! (Trump admits Iraq wasn’t a great idea and thinks we are best off sitting back and letting the Syria mess play itself out, without sending our boys into harm’s way. Amen!) What does he not get right? He has the New York Times’ Paul Krugman praising him:
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 11.37.00 AM
For heaven’s sake, there’s even this:
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 11.34.35 AM
In a nutshell, the nation agrees with his policies, as noted here. Trump didn’t rise because of his personality but simply because his positions are popular ones, as noted in this August piece from VOX:
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 1.01.13 PM
13. He can bring in independents. Consider this:
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 7.43.27 PM(Quartz, September 1, 2015)
If you think any statistically-significant number of independents will vote for Bush or Rubio, I tip my hat to your ridiculous level of optimism. You should start a retreat in the mountains for manic-depressives. But simple math shows we cannot win without independents. So, even if you disagree with the rest of these reasons, Trump is the GOP’s only shot. And consider this online comment:
Want to see someone who will bring folks of all walks of life together? Trump. The war-hero? “Man do I love Trump….” The single mom down the block? “I actually like what Donald Trump says, I’d vote for him.” He’s a true populist. (P.S. Noticed how the Trump-attackers use that term as a pejorative? Odd. Apparently recognizing the needs and concerns of the masses, and of average Americans like you and me, is a negative.)
14. The naysaying is rooted in careerists’ self-interests. Too many conservative writers and conservative TV pundits are out for their career security and financial bottom line — not to save the nation or save conservatism.
Do you work at an outlet where the owners/donors/funders don’t like Trump? Here come the articles blasting him! (Because your career and your paycheck matter more than the good of conservatism, the nation, or your conscience, apparently.) Better yet, are you a network contributor or network TV host at a network whose top brass prefers another candidate? Tow that line! Ca-ching! (Ever notice how rarely some conservative pundits criticized the “Gang of 8” amnesty bill? Well, now ya’ know!) And, even above all that, do you want to fit in with the smarmy, snickering conservative writer/pundit so-called “smart set,” who simply can’t stomach the idea of having to publicly stump for, ewwww!, celebrity Donald Trump next year, should he win the nomination? Ridicule him! And, if you really want to earn a pat on the back, attack his supporters, too!
Aside from this, there is the political consultant class, whose entire cushy livelihoods are threatened by Trump’s rise. Why? He’s shown you can make it without their useless input and advice. The pointless wizard behind the curtain is revealed – uh-oh. Standing up for Trump is also standing up against these Pharisees.
15. Negotiation skills. Presidents have the benefit of being surrounded by highly talented experts in their respective fields – it’s the entire basis for the Cabinet appointments. But, what’s the one area on which a president is on his own? Negotiations. When our leader walks into an international forum, or that one-on-one meeting with the British PM, there is no adviser that can speak for him. It’s the one time the president sinks or swims on his own merits. As such, a stern – even arrogant — president with negotiating expertise is of paramount importance. Governors have keen negotiating skills, sure – so do CEO’s. Trump is so good at it, though, he – literally – wrote the ‘bible’ on it.
16. Many Latinos love him. Speaking of Jorge Ramos…. The media keeps insisting Latinos despise Trump. Except, we don’t. In fact, many of us love him. Myriam Wichter, the Columbian immigrant from the recent Las Vegas Trump rally, is not an anomaly. Hang-onto-your-horses for this whopper of a ‘revelation’: America’s Latinos have the same wants, needs, and concerns as other Americans! Our priorities are the same as “Anglos”: jobs, healthcare, and so on! A truly novel concept!
GettyImages-491994548 trump latino
Here’s more from the Pew Research Center;
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 11.29.04 AM
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 11.29.22 AM
Oops! Or how about this?:
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 7.47.58 PM

Or, this!
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 7.51.10 PM
Or, there’s more (we could do this all day…)
Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 1.07.56 PM
According to the media, however, Latinos’ main issue is not just immigration but illegal immigration, because, this argument goes, (1) Latinos all came to this country by breaking the law and (2) unlike every other American concerned about the economy or education, of course immigration is their number-one concern!
That line of thinking is what’s borderline racist, not Trump’s remark.
When VOX’s editor in chief tweets that “Donald Trump’s immigration plan reads like a plot to make sure Republicans never get another Hispanic vote,” as a genuinely-hurt Latina I have to wonder if the media realizes that is far more offensive to America’s Latinos than anything Trump has uttered.
I am a hard-working, taxpaying, American who has the same concerns as other hard-working, taxpaying Americans. Yes, “immigration” is on my list of concerns – but as a huge problem, and not something of which we need more.
17. African-Americans love him, too. Trump is the first Republican who actually has a chance at obtaining a huge chunk of the African-American vote. The main reason is simple – African-Americans are angry, and rightly so, about immigration and what it’s doing to this nation and to their job prospects. Here are just a few (out of countless) examples of the passionate support for Trump among the African-American community:

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 11.18.30 AM

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 11.21.18 AM

18. Heck, Americans idolize him. As a little kid in the 1980’s, the name “Trump” was synonymous with success. In fact, my understanding of conservatism was ingrained in me, by my father, using Donald Trump as an example. He would caution me against class warfare, and explain to me how economies and jobs work, citing Trump: “Take Donald Trump,” he’d say. “We don’t envy his wealth. We wish him well! His wealth is good for everyone. Look how many jobs he creates. Look how many people he employs with each project!”
I would nod and take it all in and this larger-than-life, Andrew Carnegie/Dodge-brothers type of figure, felt like a living testament of the capitalism’s greatness in action. While, even a year ago, I never would have envisioned myself writing an article about Trump and the GOP nomination, perhaps, reflecting on this, it makes perfect sense.
19. By process of elimination. If for no other reason, consider the other GOP options one by one. The flip-flopping, amnesty-pusher? Or Jeb? (I truly tried to get excited about Jeb – but one can only try for so long.) The failed technology CEO? The governors who crashed before they’d even begun? There aren’t any other options.
20. If he doesn’t earn the nomination, there is no hope for American politics. Not going to sugar-coat it: if Trump does not secure this nomination, despite his undeniable, widespread support across the nation, you should just give up. We should all just give up. That’s right, throw in the towel. It’s all a farce – your voice and your opinion really mean nothing. The jig will be up on the illusion of American democracy, for if a candidate with Trump’s enormous support cannot secure the nomination, then there really is no political process to speak of. And I’m not the only one who’s noticed this: