Skip to content

Hillary Clinton slams the entire Republican field over Donald Trumps remarks on illegal immigrants

July 7, 2015

 I have a theory as to why Donald Trump is pretending to run for President (it will become clear why I wrote he is pretending when you read the theory) and just so you know that I have not made this up on the spot in order to support what I am going to write here is part of what I wrote about Donald Trump on June 7th when the rumor first was floated be was going to jump into the race.

Donald Trump has this nasty little habit as of late: when a Presidential election nears he suddenly becomes vocal, teasing the possibility of running for President before backing down once his rather large ego is satisfied. Will he take the next step this time around or can we expect him to simply mouth off for awhile before disappearing again?

I get the feeling it is different this time. I believe he is going to announce a bid for the Presidency, but why?

Is it possible he is a Democratic Hegelian Dialectic operative seeking to injure whichever Republican emerges from the field to win the nomination to the point where he or she is so badly damaged as to ensure the Democratic nominee becomes the next President of the United States?

  Simply put, I do not trust this man nor his motives because I believe his interest is in making such outrageous statements as to bring down all the Republican candidates using guilt by association. Donald Trump is running as a Republican ergo anything he says must have the support of the other Republican candidates…that will be the implication.

  Donald Trump wasted  no time in infuriating the media and the Democrats who are running for President with his comments on illegal immigrants and it does not even matter if the comments were based in truth or not because we all know the mainstream media is not interested in the truth but rather in selling a product.

  And now lo and behold my prediction has come true. Here is what Hillary Clinton had to say about the Republican party in general based on what Donald Trump said:

“I’m very disappointed in those comments and I feel very bad and very disappointed with him and with the Republican Party for not responding immediately and saying, enough, stop it,” Clinton said to CNN after headlining an organizing meeting in a local public library.

“But they are all in the — you know, in the same general area on immigration. They don’t want to provide a path to citizenship. They range across a spectrum of being either grudgingly welcome or hostile toward immigrants.”

   Of course this statement is not entirely true because while the Republican candidates do oppose Barack Obama’s Executive Action on amnesty many of them have in fact come out in support of a pathway to citizenship and it has been a bone of contention with many of the Republican voters for quite some time. Rand Paul, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio have signaled support for a pathway to citizenship while people like Chris Christie and Scott Walker have given conflicting representations of their position on this issue.

  So you can see Hillary Clinton is using Donald Trump’s words to misrepresent the entire Republican field but that is the way the dialectic works because it is based on creating a crisis and controlling both sides of the issue in order to implement the desired, predetermined result. And in this case I believe we have Donald Trump working with the Democrats with the intention of ensuring we have another Democratic President in 2016.

  Donald Trump is but a pawn in a larger game which is being played behind the veil and he is playing those who are thinking about voting for him for fools. That is my theory anyway, what so you guys think about it? Am I losing my mind?

Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

28 Comments leave one →
  1. July 7, 2015 7:04 pm

    Reblogged this on Brittius.

    Liked by 1 person

    • July 7, 2015 7:15 pm

      Thank you.


      • July 7, 2015 7:15 pm

        You’re welcome.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. July 7, 2015 8:22 pm

    I understand that he contributed to Clinton last time around. If true, it is all we need to know and you are indeed right on. The only question is what is his reward worked out with Bill and Hillary?

    Liked by 1 person

    • July 8, 2015 5:34 am

      I am sure there is something in it for him, he would not be doing this if there were not. Unless he just needs the publicity.

      Liked by 1 person

    • July 8, 2015 12:11 pm

      Interesting. did he contribute to any other candidates on either side?

      Liked by 1 person

      • July 8, 2015 6:53 pm

        According to this story he does have a history of donating money to Democrats, including Harry Reid.


  3. petermc3 permalink
    July 8, 2015 7:50 am

    Have we on the right once again been blessed, screwed and tattooed without a kiss?

    Liked by 1 person

    • July 8, 2015 6:54 pm

      I think so!


  4. July 8, 2015 9:21 am

    I disagree about him being a pawn. If anything, he would be a rook or knight. Can’t be a queen as that has a special connotation among liberals. 🙂

    I don’t see why he would even play a role. It was said that he did the same thing in 2012. If he is playing this role, I would think that he would have gained something back then. I can’t think of an evidence to support that. Plus, I think he would have more to gain under a Republican presidency.

    The simplest explanation is that this is yet another ego stroking venture.

    Liked by 1 person

    • July 8, 2015 6:55 pm

      Good points and you could be right, the other possibility is that he is doing this for the publicity and for his ego.


  5. July 8, 2015 11:01 am

    ‘…enough, stop it…’

    Stop what? Stop telling the truth?!?!

    I don’t want a path to citizenship, I want people – yes, even children – deported and they can go to the back of the line to re-enter our Country!

    Anchor babies are not citizens. The 14th Amendment says those born in the Country and ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ are citizens. This means complete and sole jurisdiction. It means owing no allegiance to any country but the US. It means that babies of illegal aliens born in this Country are not citizens!

    SCOTUS illegally redefined the 14th Amendment!

    Sorry for the rant, this is an issue that really makes my blood boil.

    Now, regarding the actual topic, lol. I don’t trust Trump, either. I don’t know why he is in this, but I don’t think he would ever be the Republican candidate. I agree with him on illegal immigration, though. 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

    • July 8, 2015 12:19 pm

      We can all have out own opinions about what is and isn’t consistent with the Constitution, but SCOTUS is the authority.

      Liked by 1 person

      • July 8, 2015 12:28 pm

        Hahahaha…no, they aren’t.

        Liked by 1 person

      • July 8, 2015 4:45 pm

        Well, yeah, I guess we could amend the Constitution, which makes the state legislatures (and perhaps the Congress as well, depending on how it’s done) the final arbiter, or Congress could pass legislation limiting SCOTUS’ jurisdiction, but those are improbable at best. The reality is, when SCOTUS rules, even on controversial issues, the nation ultimately falls in line, whether it’s school desegregation, eminent domain, campaign financing, or any of dozens of other issues.

        Even if one thinks the Court’s actions are illegal.

        Liked by 1 person

      • July 8, 2015 5:26 pm

        Ultimately, the power of that court comes from the fact that the nation ultimately falls in line. If the people start perceiving it as being anything other than a court that upholds the constitution, it will lose its power as people will start refusing to fall in line.

        Liked by 2 people

      • July 8, 2015 6:37 pm

        People no longer see it as upholding the Constitution. They see SCOTUS as unconstitutionally making law and redefining the original meaning of the Constitution and the Amendments. Actions they have no authority to do.

        Hamilton Federalist 78:
        “Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community.

        The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

        This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that <b.the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power: that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive.

        For I agree, that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.” And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments…” (emphasis mine)

        We do a union of the judiciary with the legislative branch. The courts have been making ‘law’ and defining the law – both legislative powers – for a long time now.

        Liked by 1 person

      • July 9, 2015 3:28 pm

        That, unfortunately, is a difference in how it is supposed to work and how it is working in practice. When SCOTUS took that power for itself, the Federalists did object but nothing came of it. SCOTUS does what it does not because the Constitution gives them that power; it does it because we allow them to do it. If Congress and the president (working together of course) wanted, they can rein them in but I am not sure if that is a can of worms that should be opened.

        Liked by 2 people

      • July 9, 2015 5:44 pm

        Yes, SCOTUS took unto itself a responsibiliuty the Constitution didn’t assign to either of the other branches, and one, perhaps, that the Framers didn’t thoroughly evaluate. What is the Congress passed a law that violated the constitution and the President signed it? SAre we to wait for either branch to acknowledge its error and somehow repeal or retract its action?

        Marshall did the right thing, IMO, and the inaction of the other branches at the time attests to the validity of his decision.

        And not to put too fine a point on it, but if the people were the final arbiters, Brown v Bd of Ed would never have happened and we’d still have segregated schools, with people telling themselves all sorts of lies about “separate but equal.”

        Take good care and may God bless us all!


        Liked by 1 person

      • July 10, 2015 1:28 pm

        To be honest, I see it as a necessary evil but the fact is that the power was not delegated to the court. If it was, would they have still given the justices on that court a lifetime term with no accountability?

        Liked by 1 person

      • July 10, 2015 7:13 pm

        Terrant and TGY; I think you guys make some interesting points. It does seem as if this was neglected by the Founders and I think it was because they had to much trust in the people who would be elected and the people who would do the electing. I think they probably thought only people would be elected who would pass COnstitutional laws and of they did pass unconstitutional laws the people would hold them accountable. But that did not quite happen…


    • Zip-a-Dee permalink
      July 8, 2015 12:24 pm

      Yep, with you Laura. I was reading Jim Stone’s site who says that we’re getting the wrong info (propaganda news) of supposed abused and disgruntled Mexican’s. Most are glad to be there and some Americans are moving there? Are we being feed the real facts or just more Follywood theatrics? The photos we’re seeing are they ‘paid actors’? Or, just conned, and given ‘pluses’ to come here and get freebies – don’t have to work.
      Bari acknowledges that ‘some’ coming in are thugs, gang members and low life’s – that’s being done on purpose, to cause more chaos – and any politician who supports that is unacceptable for leadership! Jim S. writes, that food in Mexico is healthier than what we buy in our stores and fast-food outlet – which is making people fat (body can’t process nutriments) and clogs the system, rather than benefits it! He states that American’s aren’t over eating, rather ‘what they’re eating’ is the problem – it’s designed to sicken us (RoundUp used for wheat, grains, soy, etc put in all our products; breads, cereals, crackers, soups etc).
      We have so many evils coming against us (big Pharm, FDA approved toxins, vaccines, fluoride in water (that goes into our system rather than stay in our mouth for healthy teeth – what about those who wear dentures?)! More evidence of the enemy ruling.
      Hilly will use everything and anything to keep people unbalanced (Gaslighting). Trump, just reminds me of the game ‘Spades’ and the ‘trump’ card – would be nice if he were ‘our trump card’! Hilly the ‘Queen’ is given to put us more in the minus (debt). We already have a ‘queen of spades’ as 1st Lady (tranny), a position that use to have an ethical code – no longer. With the low-life in power, immigration is one drop in the ‘issue’ in their Bucket List.
      I think you’re on to something Steve, with the piranha ‘trashing’ going on in the sin pool, is evidence enough for me. While we’re watching this stage show play out other more insidious events are taking place. More than a 3 ring circles. Pretty soon American’s will be using those illegal tunnels or climbing the fences to GO TO MEXICO! Problem is the Mexican officials will catch them and send them back! “400% rise: Fee to renounce US citizenship goes up fourfold to $2,350” up from $450.
      This is from Occupy the BBC – same issue?

      More proof that it’s part of the NWO scam, not just Leadership Puppets doing the will of their Slave Master here in the USA.

      Liked by 2 people

    • July 8, 2015 4:43 pm

      Well, yeah, I guess we could amend the Constitution, which makes the state legislatures (and perhaps the Congress as well, depending on how it’s done) the final arbiter, or Congress could pass legislation limiting SCOTUS’ jurisdiction, but those are improbable at best. The reality is, when SCOTUS rules, even on controversial issues, the nation ultimately falls in line, whether it’s school desegregation, eminent domain, campaign financing, or any of dozens of other issues.

      Even if one thinks the Court’s actions are illegal.


      • July 8, 2015 5:50 pm

        Well, yeah, states are no longer ‘falling in line’ with SCOTUS’ unconstitutional actions. This is because so many people know that the Constitution delegates SCOTUS no authority to define the Constitution or our Rights, no authority to make law, no authority as sole and final arbiter on Constitutionality of laws. Too many people know that the Constitution only delegates SCOTUS the authority to hear and decide individual cases. Cases involving what’s in the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties.

        SCOTUS ruled correctly that states must recognize public records and acts from other states because that is in the Constitution. States have always had to do this under Article IV Section 1 of the Constitution. One of the reasons DOMA was unconstitutional was because it said states didn’t have to recognize legal SS marriages from other states.

        States are using nullification, non-compliance, and non-cooperation on many of the federal government’s unconstitutional acts.

        The worm is turning.

        You don’t know who the final arbiter is? It’s the People, of course. From where all governments get their power, sovereignty, and consent to govern.

        Liked by 1 person

    • July 8, 2015 6:58 pm

      People forget about the “and subject to the jurisdiction” part of the amendment and SCOTUS did not even have the authority of judicial review until it granted it to itself.

      Liked by 1 person

      • July 8, 2015 7:05 pm

        People, the courts, and government think it means physical presence in the Country. Not so. The House members said it meant total and complete jurisdiction. A jurisdiction the government exercises over current citizens. It means being able to vote and serve on juries, among other things.

        Illegal aliens can’t do those things.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. July 15, 2015 7:26 am

    Thanks for ones marvelous posting! I genuinely enjoyed reading it, you could be
    a great author. I will remember to bookmark your blog and will often come back in the future.
    I want to encourage you to ultimately continue your great posts, have a nice



  1. Brit Hume on Donald Trump: his ‘chickens will come home to roost’ when people ‘realize he hasn’t long been a Republican’ | America's Watchtower

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: