Sunday, April 3, 2016

SS Cruz Sinking - ABORTION IS MURDER - Trump EPIC GOP Battle




Listen To Tapentadol for Pain Veteran Talk Radio

Show Notes Below:
Trump

- Corey Lewandowski incident – Rush (1D)

a.       David Muller fillin host “After the video is it now not true he touch her?”(1E)
b.      Matt Lauer tries to blast Trump (1F)
c.       Ted Cruz responds at the town hall meeting CNN (1G)
-          Sheriff David Clarke Milwaukee WI. (1A) GOP insanity
-          Abortion If You're a Republican Candidate, You'd Better Be Ready for an Abortion Trick Disguised as a Journalist's Question RUSH April 01, 2016
-          The Thom Hartmann Program on Cruz from 1997 (1B)
-          Stefan Molyneux – Ted Cruz Wife, Cruz Craziness all exposed (1C)
-          Ted Cruz Funded by GOP (Cruz email confirmation on the AshleyMadison.com database) money Posted by sundance Erick Erickson Redstate.com
a.       Thanks to the candidacy of Donald Trump the financial intersection of money and political opinion, as guided by the monetary motives therein, has brought some amazing revelations to the surface. These financial/media relationships have largely, and historically, remained hidden.  They have damned sure never been publicly, clearly, and regularly stated so the consuming audience would know the presentation was fraught with financial conflict.
b.      The Senate Conservatives Fund (PAC) purchasing massive quantities ($400,000) of Mark Levin’s books in exchange for favorable candidacy political opinion.  Conveniently Hidden by the radio host who avoids mentioning the financial conflict created.
c.        
d.      Then again, Levin never informed his audience of his family working within the Staff of Senator Ted Cruz either.  Does Levin’s endorsement, when contrast against the crony-constitutional advocacy, clarify with a little sunlight?  You decide.
e.       
f.        Or how about the Breitbart Media enterprise being run via an $11 million purchase from Billionaire Robert Mercer, who also funded Ted Cruz’s Super-PAC “Keep The Promise 1”, to the tune of $10 million.  Little overlooked facts, never openly shared for news consumers to determine source motive.   Pesky Sunlight
g.        
h.      Maybe the Most people consume an excessive amount of sodium through salt (corresponding to consuming a mean of 9–12 g of salt per day) and not enough potassium (less than 3.5 g). High sodium intake and insufficient potassium intake contribute to high vital sign , which successively increases the danger of heart condition and stroke Reducing salt intake to the recommended level of but 5 g per day could prevent 1.7 million deaths annually People are often unaware of the quantity of salt they consume. (e.g. ready meals; processed meats like bacon, ham and salami; cheese; and salty snacks) or from foods consumed frequently in large amounts . Salt is additionally added to foods during cooking (e.g. bouillon, stock cubes, soy and fish sauce) or at the purpose of consumption. website “The Daily Wire“, being funded by the billionaire Wilks Brothers, Levi and Farris, in Texas.  Who also fund Ted Cruz and his Super-PAC “Keep The Promise”.  Shapiro never publicly disclosed the financial/content conflict, or the extent therein.  Could Shapiro support any other candidate other than who his content owners approved of?  Again, you decide.  (Yep, Pesky Sunlight)
i.         Glenn Beck Defamation Lawsuit???
j.        of Glenn Beck’s Mercury One charity, David Barton, jointly running the Pro-Ted Cruz Super-PAC“Keep The Promise”; also never put into the sunlight by Glenn Beck or his various media enterprises so the consuming audience could filter presented political opinion through the filter of fiduciary connections.  More Pesky Sunlight
k.       These are just a few of the politically motivated – financially dependent – revelations we probably would never have known about were it not for Donald Trump presenting a genuinely conservative America-First platform; and as a direct consequence, the faux-constitutionalists having to reverse opinion simply to retain income.
l.          
m.    So it perhaps shouldn’t come as a surprise to find out that Erick Erickson’s media venture “The Resurgent“, is taking Super-PAC money from the (formerly Scott Walker advocates and financial backers) Ricketts family of Wisconsin who fund OUR PRINCIPLES PAC to the tune of $3,000,000 in February alone
n.      Ted Cruz Wife Heidi VP Goldman Sac and Her work on the indep. Task force that wrote “Building a North American Community” sponsored by the Conucil on Foreign Relations’ which will dissolve American Sovereignty.
2.       Obama
-          The Havana Tribune, a state-controlled Cuban newspaper,
a.        has added insult to injury following Fidel Castro’s scathing criticism of President Barack Obama upon his departure from the island. In an editorial, the title of which refers to President Obama as “negro,” an opinion columnist has accused him of “inciting rebellion.”
b.      The article is titled “Negro, ¿Tu Eres Sueco?” which roughly translates to “Black Man, Are You Dumb?” (The idiom “pretend to be a Swede” means to play dumb, hence the title is literally asking, “Are you Swedish?”) The author, who is black, goes on to condemn President Obama for meeting with Cuban pro-democracy activists and “subtly” suggesting that the Cuban Revolution needed to change. “Obama came, saw, but unfortunately, with the pretend gesture of lending a hand, tried to conquer,” Elias Argudín writes.
c.       “[Obama] chose to criticize and subtly suggest … incitations to rebellion and disorder, without caring that he was on foreign ground. Without a doubt, Obama overplayed his hand,” he continues. “The least I can say is, Virulo-style: ‘Negro, are you dumb?'”
d.      Virulo is a white pro-Revolution comedian.

Friday, April 1, 2016

Erick Erickson Website “Resurgent” Paid By Pro-Cruz/Anti-Trump “Our Principles PAC”…

Posted by sundance

Thanks to the candidacy of Donald Trump the financial intersection of money and political opinion, as guided by the monetary motives therein, has brought some amazing revelations to the surface.

These financial/media relationships have largely, and historically, remained hidden.  They have damned sure never been publicly, clearly, and regularly stated so the consuming audience would know the presentation was fraught with financial conflict.

♦ The Senate Conservatives Fund (PAC) purchasing massive quantities ($400,000) of Mark Levin’s books in exchange for favorable candidacy political opinion.  Conveniently Hidden by the radio host who avoids mentioning the financial conflict created.

Then again, Levin never informed his audience of his family working within the Staff of Senator Ted Cruz either.  Does Levin’s endorsement, when contrast against the crony-constitutional advocacy, clarify with a little sunlight?  You decide.

♦ Or how about the Breitbart Media enterprise being run via an $11 million purchase from Billionaire Robert Mercer, who also funded Ted Cruz’s Super-PAC “Keep The Promise 1”, to the tune of $10 million.  Little overlooked facts, never openly shared for news consumers to determine source motive.   Pesky Sunlight

♦ Maybe the Ben Shapiro website “The Daily Wire“, being funded by the billionaire Wilks Brothers, Levi and Farris, in Texas.  Who also fund Ted Cruz and his Super-PAC “Keep The Promise”.  Shapiro never publicly disclosed the financial/content conflict, or the extent therein.  Could Shapiro support any other candidate other than who his content owners approved of?  Again, you decide.  (Yep, Pesky Sunlight)

♦ The Chairman of Glenn Beck’s Mercury One charity, David Barton, jointly running the Pro-Ted Cruz Super-PAC“Keep The Promise”; also never put into the sunlight by Glenn Beck or his various media enterprises so the consuming audience could filter presented political opinion through the filter of fiduciary connections.  More Pesky Sunlight

These are just a few of the politically motivated – financially dependent – revelations we probably would never have known about were it not for Donald Trump presenting a genuinely conservative America-First platform; and as a direct consequence, the faux-constitutionalists having to reverse opinion simply to retain income.

♦ So it perhaps shouldn’t come as a surprise to find out that Erick Erickson’s media venture “The Resurgent“, is taking Super-PAC money from the (formerly Scott Walker advocates and financial backers) Ricketts family of Wisconsin who fund OUR PRINCIPLES PAC to the tune of $3,000,000 in February alone.

FEC Monthly Filing ‘Amended’ Date 3/13/16

Look at where the money was spent (pdf linkand below):

View this document on Scribd

Yes, it appears there’s another conservative voice who can be added to the list of those whose opinions are conveniently tied to a financial incentive therein.

In addition to all of those in the Salem Media Communications network, along with Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Ben Shapiro, Erick Erickson and anyone who is hosted upon the various media enterprises they front for…. all paid shrills dependent upon political graft.

Interesting indeed how the intersection of financial dependency drives the political ideology of these modern “conservative voices”.   However, this does increasingly explain how those same voices will stand and cheer for Mr. No-Budget/Omnibus, House Speaker Paul Ryan.

“Smaller government”?  Yeah, sure.

Thursday, March 31, 2016

Cuban State Media: ‘Negro’ Obama ‘Incited Rebellion and Disorder’

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com


by FRANCES MARTEL31 Mar 20163,637
The Havana Tribune, a state-controlled Cuban newspaper, has added insult to injury following Fidel Castro’s scathing criticism of President Barack Obama upon his departure from the island. In an editorial, the title of which refers to President Obama as “negro,” an opinion columnist has accused him of “inciting rebellion.”
The article is titled “Negro, ¿Tu Eres Sueco?” which roughly translates to “Black Man, Are You Dumb?” (The idiom “pretend to be a Swede” means to play dumb, hence the title is literally asking, “Are you Swedish?”) The author, who is black, goes on to condemn President Obama for meeting with Cuban pro-democracy activists and “subtly” suggesting that the Cuban Revolution needed to change. “Obama came, saw, but unfortunately, with the pretend gesture of lending a hand, tried to conquer,” Elias Argudín writes.
“[Obama] chose to criticize and subtly suggest … incitations to rebellion and disorder, without caring that he was on foreign ground. Without a doubt, Obama overplayed his hand,” he continues. “The least I can say is, Virulo-style: ‘Negro, are you dumb?'”
Argudín’s article later accuses President Obama of presiding over a racist country–mocking the calls for freedom in Cuba by stating, “Which freedom–the freedom enjoyed by white police to massacre and manhandle black people?”–and issue demands parroted straight from the Castro regime: the end of the “genocidal” embargo and giving the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, which has belonged to the United States since before Cuban independence, to the Castros.
Claims of rampant discrimination on the part of white police in the United States are common among the leaders and spokesmen of rogue communist states like ChinaNorth Korea, and Zimbabwe.
The column appears on the Havana Tribunewebsite with a March 23 dateline, though itappeared in the print edition of the newspaper on Monday and has begun to make the rounds online this week. It hasreceived intense criticism from Cuban-Americans on social media for its disrespect of the president and openly racist language.
Argudín has since written a follow-up article in which he claims he “did not expect” the negative feedback and apologizes “to those who may have been offended.” He then accuses his critics of “misunderstanding” his piece:
It is not necessary to be an advanced reader to note: I did not write a racist column. The word “negro” is mentioned twice, in the title and the phrase giving the article its name, which isn’t even mine. It is a reference to a comedy work. Journalism has its rules. It also allows some licenses. Among the demands of the job there is a very important one: capture the reader’s attention from the title.

Argudín’s piece has, nonetheless, highlighted the rampant discrimination against Afro-Cubans that has existed throughout the history of the Revolution. As the leaders of the communist Revolution were all white–and at least one was an avowed racistfew Afro-Cubans currently hold positions of power in Cuba, though an estimated 60 percent of the nation is black.
In a video declaration in 2015, Ladies in White dissident leader Berta Soler explains that, of known political prisoners, 60 percent are black. Black people are often forced to live in segregated neighborhoods and kept far away from tourism industry jobs (except prostitution). “To the government, the black person is a thief, a bandit, a troublemaker,” Soler argues, noting that the Cuban people are significantly less racist than the regime. “Interracial marriage is resulting in fewer black people. … This is a problem for the government,” she notes.

In a series about racism in Cuba, The Rootnotes a common phrase used by revolutionaries: “Negrada–which means, literally, a group of black people–came to signify a screw-up, a f*cked-up affair. ¡Que negrada! became as common as hustling foreigners.”
The inevitable use of what, in the United States, is considered a racial slur (though Cubans often use negro as a term of endearment), is the latest indignity in a trip to Cuba laden with them, from the slight of Raúl Castro failing to greet President Obama upon landing in Havana to Castro openly denying the presence of political prisoners in Cuba, only to have President Obama later “welcome” his criticism on America. The elder Fidel Castro, or someone claiming to be him, weighed in with a scathing column in the national publication Granma this week, in which he accused President Obama of being racist towards Native Americans and refused his call to normalization: “We do not need the Empire to gift us anything.”
Read More Stories About:

Trump sit down with rnc

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/31/trump-meets-with-rnc-chief-in-dc-days-after-backing-out-pledge.html

Exclusive: 21 Generals Lead ISIS War the U.S. Denies Fighting

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com


www.thedailybeast.com
Brass Ball03.31.16 5:10 AM ETThere are only 5,000 U.S. troops in Iraq—about what a colonel usually commands. But for this ISIS war, as many as 21 generals have been deployed. Why?
In the war against the self-proclaimed Islamic State, the U.S. military is notably short on soldiers, but apparently not on generals.
There are at least 12 U.S. generals in Iraq, a stunningly high number for a war that, if you believe the White House talking points, doesn’t involve American troops in combat. And that number is, if anything, a conservative estimate, not taking into account the flag officers running the U.S. air war, the admirals helping wage the war from the sea, or their superiors back at the Pentagon.
At U.S. headquarters inside Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone, even majors and colonels frequently find themselves saluting superiors at a pace that outranks the Pentagon and certainly any normal military installation. With about 5,000 troops deployed to Iraq and Syria ISIS war, that means there’s a general for every 416 troops, give or take. To compare, there are some captains in the U.S. Army in charge of that many people.
Moreover, many of those generals come with staffs and bureaucracy that some argue slows decision-making against an agile terror group.
The Obama administration has frequently argued that the U.S. maintains a so-called light footprint in Iraq to reassure the American public that its military is not back in Iraq. Indeed, at times, the United States has not acknowledged where it has deployed troops until one of them died.
But if the U.S. footprint is so small, why does the war demand so many generals?
There is the three-star general in charge of the war, Army Gen. Sean MacFarland, and his two deputies, one of whom is in Iraq at any given time. There is the two-star Army general in charge of the ground war, Army Maj. Gen. Gary Volesky, and his two deputies, who also travel between Iraq and Kuwait. There is the two-star general in charge of security cooperation—things like military sales—and his deputy.
Then there are the one-star generals in charge of intelligence, operations, future operations, targeting, and theater support.
There also are an untold number of Special Forces commanders in the battlefield whom the military does not speak publicly about; the dozen figure presumes at least one one-star Special Forces general.
And that is just the beginning of the top-heavy war fight. That figure doesn’t include the bevy of generals stationed in places like Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar to support the mission. Nor does it count the three-star Air Force general and his two-star deputy in charge of U.S. Air Forces Central Command, which is headquartered at Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina. Then there is a three-star Marine in charge of Marine Corps Forces Central Command, based out of MacDill Air Force, Florida, and his deputy and their Navy counterparts. All three commands are responsible for the Middle East.
Finally, there are a number of generals from the other roughly 60 coalition countries. The Daily Beast knows of three who support the U.S. generals—from Australia and the United Kingdom.
Once all those additional generals are included, there are at least 21 flag officers in Iraq, a number even military officials concede is conservative, as there likely are other coalition generals and possibly other Special Forces commanders.
Officially, there are only 3,870 U.S. troops, or the equivalent of a heavy brigade, which is usually led by a colonel. One colonel.
As The Daily Beast first reported, however, there are actually more than 5,000 troops, still far short of a footprint that would usually demand a score of generals.
Defense officials defended the deployment of so many generals to The Daily Beast. In a war where there are so many different types of fighters, these officials said, you need generals to coordinate. Today’s warfighter is more lethal, thanks to improved technology, and therefore needs a commander with the appropriate authority to sign off authority on the use of that power. The intelligence reaching the front lines is so complex, it demands the talents of a one-star general, defense officials argued to The Daily Beast.
Get The Beast In Your Inbox!Daily DigestStart and finish your day with the smartest, sharpest takes from The Daily Beast Cheat SheetA speedy, smart summary of news and must-reads from The Daily Beast and across the WebBy clicking "Subscribe," you agree to have read the Terms of Useand Privacy PolicySubscribeThank You!You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason
(Of course, it’s odd to brag about such lethality when the Defense Department has said repeatedly that American troops were “not in an active combat mission” in Iraq.)
These officials also say it is only fitting that Iraqi military leaders engage with a U.S. counterpart of the same rank.
“When you look at what they do and what they are in command of and how they provide support, I think it is justifiable,” one defense official explained to The Daily Beast.
Some defenders offer a more simplistic answer—the U.S. military has always used this structure to deploy generals to places like Iraq.
There are as a rule two types of generals in the U.S. military—those who command troops and those who support the fight. The military argues that in Iraq, the U.S. needs far more of the latter than the former. The Iraqi troops, led by Iraqi generals, should shape the front lines, they said.
But critics argue that such dependency on U.S. generals in areas outside the battlefield not only suggests a lack of Iraqi skills but also obfuscates the U.S. effort.
“Having this many generals and flag officers gives the appearance of commitment without the substance of commitment,” Christopher Harmer, a naval analyst at the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War, explained to The Daily Beast.
After World War II, the Vietnam War, and the Cold War, the U.S. military downsized its rank and file troops but did not shrink the size of its general and flag officer corps proportionally. The result is a long-standing criticism of a top-heavy military that some argue is costly and not as effective.
A May 2013 U.S. Government Accountability Office report, for example, concluded that “mission and headquarters support-costs at the combatant commands more than doubled from fiscal years 2007 through 2012, to about $1.1 billion.”
Several past defense secretaries have tried to cut the number of generals. Former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel tried to reduce the number of general officers and civilians by 20 percent but wasn’t on the job long enough to make it happen. Robert Gates, the defense secretary during the peak of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, proposed eliminating 50 generals and admirals.
If Gates’s efforts succeeded, it is not obvious in today’s military. In addition to all those generals in the Middle East, there are dozens of others at U.S. Central Command in Tampa, which is in charge of the Middle East, and at the Pentagon who also support the U.S. effort in Iraq and Syria—so many that it is impossible to say just how many generals are part of the U.S. war effort.
On Wednesday, two of the leading four-star generals of the war stateside took new command positions. Army Gen. Joseph Votel, the outgoing special operations commander, became the new head of U.S. Central Command, which oversees the Middle East. Army Gen. Raymond “Tony” Thomas is Votel’s special operations replacement.
Soon, they’ll be visiting the front lines in Iraq—and adding to the number of American generals on the ground in the ISIS war.
COMMENTS

Library of Congress to Eliminate Terms ‘Illegal Alien’ and ‘Alien’

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com


Office of US Rep Henry Cuellar
by CAROLINE MAY31 Mar 2016292
The Library of Congress is dropping the terms “illegal alien” and “alien” from its subject headings after a group of college students and the American Library Association protested the words’ usage.
As early as May, the Library of Congress will begin revising its subject headings and replacing “Aliens” with “Noncitizens” and heading references to “Illegal aliens” with “Noncitizens” and “Unauthorized immigration.”
“[The Policy and Standards Division of the Library of Congress] concluded that the meaning of Aliens is often misunderstood and should be revised to Noncitizens, and that the phrase illegal aliens has become pejorative,” the Library explained in its Executive Summary about the changes.
“The heading Illegal aliens will therefore be cancelled and replaced by two headings, Noncitizens and Unauthorized immigration, which may be assigned together to describe resources about people who illegally reside in a country,” it added.
The Dartmouth Coalition for Immigration Reform, Equality and DREAMers (CoFIRED), a Dartmouth student group that has been pressing for the change, declared the move a victory for their cause and called on additional institutions to cease using use term “illegal” to describe illegal immigrants.
“We call on both politicians and media outlets to follow the precedent set by the Library of Congress,” Dennise Hernandez, Co­Director of CoFIRED, said in a statement. “It is way past time that we all recognize that referring to immigrants as “illegal” is an offensive, dehumanizing term and that there is no excuse to continue using it.”
Recently the trend has been to eliminate references to “illegal aliens.” Last year California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law legislation to remove the term “alien” from the state’s labor code. 
Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX)
12%
 introduced legislation this Congress that would eliminate the terms “alien” and “illegal alien” from federal statute and agency materials.
Read More Stories About:

Ann Coulter: It’s Only Trump

Listen To Military Veteran Talk Radio

The only question for Republicans is: Which candidate can win states that Mitt Romney lost?

Start with the fact that, before any vote is cast on Election Day, the Democrats have already won between 90 and 98 percent of the black vote and 60 to 75 percent of the Hispanic and Asian vote. Unless Republicans run the table on the white vote, they lose.
If there’s still hope, it lies with Trump and only Trump. Donald Trump will do better with black and Hispanic voters than any other Republican. But it’s with white voters that he really opens up the electoral map.
A Republican Party that wasn’t intent on committing suicide would know that. But Stuart Stevens, the guy who lost a winnable presidential election in 2012, says it’s impossible for Republicans to get one more white vote — and the media are trying to convince the GOP that he’s right.
Stevens says Romney tapped out every last white voter and still lost, so he says Republicans are looking for “the Lost Tribes of the Amazon” hoping to win more white votes: “In 1980, Ronald Reagan won 56 percent of white voters and won a landslide victory of 44 states. In 2012, Mitt Romney won 59 percent of whites and lost with 24 states.”
Apparently, no one’s told Stevens about the 50-state Electoral College. The national white vote is irrelevant. Presidential elections are won by winning states. (Only someone who got his ass kicked running an eminently electable candidate might not know this.)
Excluding third parties and breaking it down to a two-man race, Mitt Romney won 88 percent of the white vote in Mississippi, but only 40 percent of the white vote in Massachusetts. What sense does it make to talk about his national percentage of the white vote with disparities like that?
Romney lost the white vote to Obama in five crucial swing states: Maine (42 percent of the white vote), Minnesota (47 percent), New Hampshire (48 percent), Iowa (48 percent) and Wisconsin (49 percent). He only narrowly beat Obama’s white vote in other important swing states — Illinois (51 percent), Colorado (52 percent), Michigan (53 percent), Ohio (54 percent) and Pennsylvania (54 percent).
Increasing the white vote in these states gives Trump any number of paths to victory.
If Trump wins only the same states as Romney, but adds Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Illinois — where Romney’s white vote was below his national average — Trump wins with 280 electoral votes. (Romney wasn’t an ideal candidate in the industrial Midwest.)
Trump could lose any one of those states and make up for it by winning Minnesota and Wisconsin — where Romney actually lost the white vote. Or he could lose two of those states but add victories in places outside the Rust Belt, where Romney’s white vote was also below average, such as Colorado, Iowa, Maine and New Hampshire. (In 1992, Ross Perot came in second in Maine, beating George Bush.)
I haven’t even mentioned Florida, where Trump recently trounced Stuart Stevens’ dream candidate,
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
79%
, a sitting senator — and a Cuban! — in a 20-point rout. Republican primary voters outnumbered Democratic primary voters in that election by more than half a million votes. If Trump wins Florida, he needs to win only two or three of the 10 states where Romney either lost the white vote outright or won a smaller percentage of it than he did nationally.
Stevens’ analysis assumes that there will be no new voters — and, again, there isn’t a mammal on the North American landmass who knows less about winning presidential elections than Stuart Stevens.
It’s as if we’re only allowed to divvy up the pile of voters from 2012. Unless you voted in 2012, you can’t vote in 2016! Use it or lose it, buddy.
That’s not how it works.
Trump is saying he’ll bring in lots of new people, as he has throughout the primaries. In the Florida GOP primary, for example, Trump got nearly half a million more votes than Romney did in 2012 — and about half a million new people voted. Trump may be wrong, but it’s insane to say that it’s impossible for him to bring out new voters.
What’s impossible is for any Republican candidate, other than Trump, to win a single state Romney lost.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
97%
’s corny speaking style is creepy to anyone who doesn’t already agree with everything he says. He’s the less likable, more hard-edged version of Romney. Every other Republican is, one way or another, a less attractive version of Romney. Maybe 50 years of Third World immigration means it’s too late, and even Trump can’t win. But it’s an absolute certainty that any other Republican will lose.
COPYRIGHT 2016 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK