Full monologue: Donald Trump roasts Hillary Clinton at Al Smith charity dinner

I’m watching this speech and all I can see are Maria Bartiromo’s tits hanging out of her red dress.




RUSH LIMBAUGH: “I must, by the way, change. I said everybody looked like they were wearing a corset last night. Other than Maria Bartiromo. The rackage on display there obviously was not constrained by a corset.”

TMZ: While Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton went HAM on each other during the NYC roast/charity dinner … they were also getting upstaged by a pair of famous boobs that were expertly placed.
The Internet was rightfully distracted by Maria Bartiromo’s cleavage, which was in every shot behind the candidates at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner. Organizers of the event tell us it was no mistake the FOX Business host was umm … prominently displayed.
We’re told the 70 people on the 5-tier dais were assigned seats to balance out people from politics, media, business and philanthropy. Obviously, Maria checks the media and business boxes.
Despite all visual evidence, we’re told she did NOT get the prime seat due to her fame, or her dress. Sooo … we just got lucky.






MARIA BARTIROMO at 'New York City Ballet Spring Gala'  Lincoln Plaza Centre, New York City, USA - 04.05.05 Credit: Lloyd Bishop / WENN

MARIA BARTIROMO at ‘New York City Ballet Spring Gala’
Lincoln Plaza Centre, New York City, USA – 04.05.05
Credit: Lloyd Bishop / WENN


* Hillary of course got through her speech with nothing more than silence at lame jokes, while midway through the Trump speech the liberals start booing. In every context they prove their intolerance, and their inability to relax even for a second and not politicize everything.

* The “elite” in that room can go ahead and be shocked but Trump’s “no f**ks given” style is the sort of thing men said back when they wore such clothes unironically. Charles Stewart Parnell and Lord Randolph Churchill would have said equally lively things in their white tie and tails. So would FDR, JFK and perhaps even John Foster Dulles if they’d been presented with Hillary Clinton and Anthony Weiner’s peer group. They’d be cheering on the scrappy guy from Queens with the cabbie’s accent if they were in that room last night. Hillary, Obama and their fans want to destroy everything those white ties, silk gloves and jewelled crucifixes represent.

If Trump is ruining anything, he’s ruining the evening of a pack of cultural saboteurs and Judases try to have their cake and eat it too. Trump was simply bringing back the realness. This is what politics looks like when it’s real. Trump is the Great American Vermifuge just working his way through the system.

* Madame went through the gamut of her facial expressions: the frozen smile, the cheeky-faced pursed lips and, of course, the ever-present smirk.

If you look carefully there are outlines of “The Joker” in some of her expressions.

* When you compare Juanita Broaddrick’s description of her encounter with Hillary (far more relevant now than the one with Bill) with California’s apparently strict current law covering “dissuading a victim”, presumably stricter than Arkansas’s in 1979, it seems she expertly walked right up to the legal line on intimidation without technically crossing it.

A textbook case of plausible deniability.

Any legal minds here?

* What did Trump say? Beautiful big-boobed Bartiromo was too damn distracting!

Isn’t it funny how Trump goes for that Eastern European look rather than that dark, Mediterranean look. I mean, Melania’s beautiful, but look at 49-year old Bartiromo! On Stern a few years ago Trump talked about all the 10′s from Latin American countries. But as a young man (going for Ivana) to an older guy (going for Melania) his tastes have stayed the same. My tastes went from blond Scandinavian in my teens to dark/Asian in my 30′s.

* Our Masters are not amused. Look at their faces when he speaks the truth. This is devastating.

* Trump calling out the Pharisees in the Temple. Pretty amazing.

* I saw that too, but only because I am excessively dirty-minded.

That visual would never happen anyway, because Hillary is homosexual. I have read enough by now to be 99% certain of that. Almost all media is ignoring this fact, for what I think are a variety of reasons, such as:

1) Many voters would be turned off by it, and therefore they would refuse to help make her media-assisted coronation happen.

2) “Mrs.” Clinton’s fellow lesbians, and most others in her LGB XYZ EE I EE I OH community would be very upset that she had remained in the closet all these years while many of them bravely came out.

3) It would make it painfully obvious to everyone that Bill has just been her beard all these years (which is why she always has tacitly approved of his extracurricular activities).

* I’m sure Trump keeps a Hillary lesbian sex-tape or other type of lesbian evidence in case he needs to go full nuclear on Dems, or save his life and businesses in case he loses.
In any case the “intelligence community” must have all the goods on Huma Abedin. Thus far we only got to see his husband’s weiner. No need to explain why.

* She wasn’t the least grotesque physically earlier in her life. Just a basic bitch with an irritating voice. It’s the attempt to make her look 45 when she’s a poorly preserved 68 that has made her, as you describe, a thing of horror.

* I realize that the crowd turned him once he really started in on her, and he got boos or very muffled applause thereafter, but I think this was one of his most effective public speeches yet. It doesn’t matter what the people at the dinner thought, it matters what the people watching thought. And he did two really good things in that respect. First, he made it memorable, so it will get lots of air time (have any of you actually watched the entire dinner before? I haven’t). Second, he landed some solid hits:
“Pardon me”
“How corrupt do you have to be to get kicked off the Watergate Commission?”
“here she is tonight, in public, pretending not to hate Catholics”
“And all of the jokes were given to her in advance of the dinner by Donna Brazile.”

* I’ll believe there’s genuine animosity between Donald and Hillary when Ivanka and Chelsea break up.

* Somebody has posted an edited version of the Red Dinner on Reddit, I foresee plenty of memes coming…

Posted in Donald Trump, Maria Bartiromo | Comments Off on Full monologue: Donald Trump roasts Hillary Clinton at Al Smith charity dinner

Can America Buy Israel Another 40 Years?

Posted in America, Israel | Comments Off on Can America Buy Israel Another 40 Years?

More Than 250 Female Rabbis Condemn Trump For Hate Speech

Posted in America, Rabbis | Comments Off on More Than 250 Female Rabbis Condemn Trump For Hate Speech

WP: Washington’s foreign policy elite breaks with Obama over Syrian bloodshed

The only member of Obama’s foreign policy team in his first term who opposed the 2003 invasion of Iraq was Barack Obama himself. There’s little difference between liberal interventionism and neo-conservatism. All sides of America’s political establishment like to meddle overseas. They just use different rhetoric to justify it.

Donald Trump is against America intervening overseas unless it is in America’s national interests. He doesn’t want to nation-build and launch wars for democracy.

Washington Post:

There is one corner of Washington where Donald Trump’s scorched-earth presidential campaign is treated as a mere distraction and where bipartisanship reigns. In the rarefied world of the Washington foreign policy establishment, President Obama’s departure from the White House — and the possible return of a more conventional and hawkish Hillary Clinton — is being met with quiet relief.

The Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the groundwork for a more assertive American foreign policy via a flurry of reports shaped by officials who are likely to play senior roles in a potential Clinton White House.

It is not unusual for Washington’s establishment to launch major studies in the final months of an administration to correct the perceived mistakes of a president or influence his successor. But the bipartisan nature of the recent recommendations, coming at a time when the country has never been more polarized, reflect a remarkable consensus among the foreign policy elite.

This consensus is driven by broad-based backlash against a president who has repeatedly stressed the dangers of overreach and the limits of American power, especially in the Middle East. “There’s a widespread perception that not being active enough or recognizing the limits of American power has costs,” said Philip Gordon, a senior foreign policy adviser to Obama until 2015. “So the normal swing is to be more interventionist.”

Posted in America | Comments Off on WP: Washington’s foreign policy elite breaks with Obama over Syrian bloodshed

Common Republican Misconceptions About Donald Trump

A friend says: One of the bigger misconceptions among the Republican critics of Trump is the assertion that had the Republicans nominated anyone other than Trump that candidate would be cruising to victory over Hillary Clinton.

Aside from the scandals that may have been uncovered regarding any of the other Republican aspirants, the fact remains that with the sole exception of Cruz, who is unelectable for other reasons, the remaining candidates hewed to the neo-conservative foreign policy and military adventurism that was discredited by Bush – Cheney, and refused to take a hardline on immigration, arguably the most important issue within the Republican primary. Mickey Kaus consistently stated that if the Republican establishment wanted to defeat Trump all it had to do was embrace an enforcement first immigration policy and rule out amnesty. However, the Republican establishment wouldn’t give on this issue.

Cruz is the darling of the “constitutionalists” and the religious right, but those make up perhaps 25% of the Republican voters and an even smaller percentage of the national electorate. Aside from his personal issues (no one who works with him in the senate can stand him) his reputation as an opportunistic grandstander, his actual policy positions, especially on social issues, are way outside the mainstream of the U.S. today and perhaps even outside the mainstream in Eisenhower’s America.

Trump, on the other hand has done something that no other Republican (with the possible exception of Reagan) has done in terms of rallying white working class, lower class and middle class Americans who are feeling displaced by the actions of the Democratic party in its unbridled pursuit of identity politics. Trump has also taken social issues off the table despite the Democrat’s success in labeling him misogynistic. He hasn’t spoken out against same sex marriage. He hasn’t even opposed transsexual’s using the toilets of the sex they supposedly identify with and he has cast his opposition to Muslim immigration as one that protects gays. He has done this without alienating his religious right backers. His position on trade, protectionism, and immigration are widely popular. The reason he is losing in the majority of polls (there are two groups of polls: IBD, Rasmussen and the L.A. Times have the race tied; the rest of the polls have Clinton ahead from just outside the margin of error to double digit leads) is because he has been successfully tarred as an irresponsible, hot head, who is a racist and woman groper to boot and the Clinton campaign has successfully diverted attention away from the revelations of James O’Keefe and Wikileaks and others about her and about her positions, where the respective policy positions remain in the background (although last night’s debate did point out some of the differences.)

But there is no other Republican who would have been more popular than Trump. The only question is whether that Republican would have made it as easy to demonize him as Trump did and whether if the candidate were anyone other than Trump, the media would have spent more time critiquing Clinton. I don’t think it would have mattered and in the case of some of the Republicans, such as Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, would they have governed substantially different than from how Clinton might govern? I don’t think it would have made much difference on foreign or domestic policy. I think each would have weakened immigration laws more than Clinton will be able to because there will be resistance to her. There might be some marginal differences in Supreme Court appointees and in staffing of cabinet positions, but certainly no significant changes in direction.

Posted in America, Donald Trump, Republicans | Comments Off on Common Republican Misconceptions About Donald Trump