The point is that Hillary Clinton is running on all these ideas. She's gonna do this and she gonna do that. She's gonna fix this. She's got a massive new economic plan that's not gonna add a penny to the national debt, while Donald Trump's will add 20 trillion to the national debt. What she does, she always pivots and goes back to the Children's Defense Fund. "Well, I started working in the 1970s for women and children, Children's Defense Fund." That's magic and you're not supposed to question nothing further after that.
You're not allowed to criticize Obama because of his race. And I thought feminism made us all the same, we're all equal. Everybody's a tough guy now, so why can't we criticize women? Hillary Clinton is a nasty woman.
How many campaigns of your life have you heard candidates of both parties promise a fix for the Social Security system? And everybody's got a plan. Every damned candidate has had a plan, and yet it remains unfunded, biggest part of the budget, no end in sight, no solution has ever worked.
The Democrats are between a rock and a hard place on it. They hate the Second Amendment. They want to get rid of it, but if they come out and say that they will lose the election, so they have to lie, as Hillary Clinton did. "I'm for the Second Amendment. I've been upstate in New York and I've seen those weird things these guys use when they hunt, and I'm not opposed to that, but the Heller decision and toddlers and Washington and I protected children and I think it's horrible."
Here is what Hillary Clinton said. Crooked Hillary said, "You know, when we talk about the Supreme Court" - fake smile - "it really raises the central issue in this election, namely what kind of country are we going to be." Well, she's right about that, actually, but not in the way she means. "What kind of opportunities will we provide our citizens." The Supreme Court's not about that. Supreme Court is the law, and their cases are not about opportunities being provided for our citizens.
There are rights that Hillary Clinton doesn't like. American people have too many rights. There's too much freedom. Government doesn't have enough rights, in her mind. Government's too limited. The Constitution limits the government way, way, way too much. "And I feel strongly that" - fake smile - "the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people." Not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy.
Class warfare always sounds good. Taking action against the rich and the powerful and making 'em pay for what they do, it always sounds good. But that's not the job of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court standing on the side of the American people? The Supreme Court adjudicates the law. The Supreme Court determines the constitutionality of things and other things. The Supreme Court's gotten way out of focus, in my opinion.
The Democrats do not like free speech. And that's not an exaggeration.
Hillary Clinton thinks the government ought to have the power to eliminate - they go after Donald Trump saying he wants to expand libel laws. Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party want to limit what you can say.
People get together and they donate to organizations so that a pile of money can be used to create a message that can be broadcast en masse as part of the a political campaign. They are the lifeblood of Hillary Clinton campaign, the banks and all these big time rich people from Hollywood and Silicon Valley are the mother's milk of her campaign. They are the money. She just doesn't want Donald Trump to have it or any other Republican to have it or any average citizen to be able to bundle his money with other people's money and create an ad or a campaign.
The Supreme Court is about the Constitution. It is about constitutionality. It is about the law. At its bear simplest, it's about the law. It is not about the Democrat Party agenda. Because that's what it's become. The whole judiciary has become that because that's the kind of people they have put on various courts as judges, and every liberal justice on the Supreme Court is a social justice warrior first and a judge of the law second. And if they get one more, then they will have effectively corrupted the Supreme Court.
If Democrats get another Elena Kagan, who has no business being there, if they get another Senorita Sonia Sotomayor, if they get another Stephen Breyer, who may be one of the absolute worst, Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg, if they get another one of these, then we don't have a Supreme Court, folks.
People already think the court is there to become the final word on controversial political questions. So everybody looks to the Supreme Court as the final word on abortion or immigration or what have you. It's not what it's for. It's never intended to be such. It's just another institution that has been corrupted and it's facing total corruption depending on the outcome of this election.
I don't conjure up ways of denying people freedom. I don't sit around and examine what people do that I don't like and try to figure out ways to get them to stop it, unless we're talking about lawbreakers, of course. But I'm a freedom, liberty, live and let live kind of guy. I might not approve of or like what people do, but have at it.
I am not the kind of person that wants to enforce my wants, likes, desires, on everybody else. I have no desire that everybody like what I like. I have no desire everybody say what I want to hear said. I have no desire everybody stop whatever they're doing and listen to what I have to say. I have no desire that everybody agree. No, that's not true. I do wish everybody agreed, but I'm not gonna sit around and force that on people.
Of course, our immigration system isn't broken. The enforcement of our immigration system is broken. The president Barack Obama, the Democrat Party, and several in the Republican Party are trying to break the immigration system. The system itself is not broken; it's just fine. It's just being ignored.
Gun control and the specifics of it, like immigration, it's not really about the substance when it comes to RINO Republicans supporting it. It is about appearing sophisticated. It's about appearing superiorly educated, and it's about qualifying for admittance in the club of elites. And you'll never be invited to the right parties, cocktail or otherwise, in Manhattan or Washington or LA or San Francisco or what have you.
When it comes to understanding the nuts and bolts of the details of any policy, the elites haven't the slightest idea. I'm sure you've done this, too. In every gun control debate, somebody, some smart aleck will pop up and say the truth. The guns not killing anybody. The person pulling the trigger is. And then somebody will say, you know if you people were really serious, you'd ban bullets, a gun's worthless without bullets. And here we are. Here we are. Isn't it much easier to ban the production, the manufacture, and the sale of bullets than guns?
Do not forget that there are millions of Americans, who when they hear about gun control measures, are gonna be loudly applauding it. You know how many dumkoffs there are out there who think that it is the gun that is the problem in our culture, and you know how people believe in this gun control business 'cause whatever reasons they support it. You know it's gonna be applauded, and it's gonna be applauded in the Drive-By Media.
I agree that actually taking existing stocks of ammo away from people is problematic, but they can certainly keep people from buying any new ones. They can hoard themselves. They can buy it up themselves. They can demand the manufacturers stop selling it or they can demand the manufacturers start making new ammo for which there is no gun. There are any number of ways they can do. But the point is, don't doubt their intention here.
A lot of people assume that New Castrati meant "gay." No, that's why I came up with the term "New Castrati." It has nothing to do with sexual orientation. It has to do with lack of manhood. It has to do with men with no "circular orbs," however you wish to visualize it.
The Democrats are the people who willingly allow their testicles in a lockbox somewhere.
A Republican establishment member in the media would be David Brooks in the New York Times, the so-called conservative columnist. He's basically a moderate. He favors big government if run by the people he thinks are smart. He's not crazy about conservatives.
The Republican establishment cringe at the very discussion of social issues. They are in favor of big government for the most part. They think campaigns on smaller government are losers and they worry that, if they succeed, there's going to be less of an opportunity for them to have jobs in government. They're basically people who don't think we have a spending problem and that that's great.
We've elected an untested prima donna, zero, zilch, nada experience, and it's coming home to roost, clear for one and all to see, and the guy thinks he's better and smarter than everybody else, is an aristocrat, an elitist, and is hell-bent on getting even with whatever he thinks the grievances of America have been in the past. Barack Obama equals politics of grievance. He has rallied an entire nation against him, and, believe me, it's a larger number of people than you would ever know, because the media of course is not portraying these numbers accurately.
