T H E  N A T I O N A L  S P E C T R U M

A M E R I C A ' S  D O T  C O M M E N T A R Y©


December 29, 2016


            It's Obama, not Trump, who is an illegitimate president. Really. When Obama's father married Obama's mother, he was already married, with two children, all living in his home country of Kenya. Thus, he committed the crime of bigamy by marrying in  Hawaii. Not only is bigamy a crime in every state,  it renders the second "marriage" void. Obama was born out of wedlock which means he was an illegitimate child and is illegitimate yet, even though president as well.


               Given his most recent anti-semitic conduct at the United Nations, he is a true bastard. Some things never change.


December 24, 2016


          We're beginning to talk like Trump but it is still true that we warned as to Obama's being Islamic and not  Christian. Witness his "backstabbing of Israel " at the U. N. yesterday by abstaining from vetoing the resolution concerning the status of Jerusalem.


              Obama doesn't need Jewish money or votes anymore so he doesn't much care about exhibiting his full contempt for both and Israel itself. His financial future is assured and he will likely be with us for 40 more years, living well on his pension and profits, perpetually secure with the Secret Service and incredible healthcare not provided by Obamacare but through the special medical services  politicians provide for themselves while denying it to you.


              Why else would he permit the entry of all the Muslims and zero Christians from Syria and that sad region?


              Why else would he give Iran nuclear free reign PLUS $150 BILLION, lift sanctions against it and the TPP trade deal?


              Why else would he and his wife denigrate America world-wide and kow-tow to foreign leaders?


             Why else would he have sat in Jeremiah Wright' s pews for 20 years and have life-long "friends" like unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayres?


             Because he is not a Christian or a Christian sympathizer " He is a believer in Islam.


             And he' s not. much of an American either whether he was born in Hawaii or not.


December 23, 2016



          The cri du jour has reverted to the popular vote versus the Electoral College vote by which logic, Mrs. Clinton should be the one inaugurated next month rather than the Deplorable One . Maybe, but there have been other examples of this in history.


         In one example, the WINNER had but 39.7% of the popular vote but 59% of the Electoral vote. And who was that lucky Dude you ask? Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 election is the answer. Without the Electoral College we could still have slavery going strong, at least down South, and there would be no inner city issues, Jazz or NBA.


          What's one example out of 45 you say? Here' s another for your consideration. This President won 43% of the popular vote but 69% of the Electoral College. That would be 1992 and the winner was: William Jefferson Clinton.


           A third example is the time when the winner gathered 49% of the popular vote but 70% of the electoral vote. Guess who? 1996 and William Jefferson Clinton wins again.


          Yes, William Jefferson Clinton, draft-dodger and rapist extraordinaire, never won the popular vote but campaigned so as to win the electoral vote. Obviously, he's the smarter of that couple; his wife failed to take note and learn from history.


           Kvetch, Kvetch, Kvetch







December 20, 2016



          Now that the Electoral College has voted, it is fair to say that the Democrat Party radicals, such as John Podesta and the crazed media maniacs created "fake news" galore with their dishonest declarations about faithless electors and an election which was illegitimate. Those dishonorable people are the real illegitimates of this episode of fake news.


            It is now even more apparent that there was never a chance that the electoral voters would defect and faithlessly vote for a candidate other than the one to whom they were pledged. Yes, there were some cranks and more Clinton cranks than Trump cranks. But never was there any movement toward the necessary number needed to move the presidency from the winner to any other person or to not have an electoral winner and move the vote to the Republican House of Representatives. Thus, the multiple media outlets created a fake news story that any cub reporter could readily debunk. And they knew it but, to keep themselves relevant, at least in their own minds, they kept at this phony theme for weeks, knowing it was always a non-story - it would never happen as envisioned and as postulated.


            In this desperate attempt to thwart or injure Trump, the media once again disgraced itself and buried itself deeper into oblivion. If you didn't think much of the media before the Electoral College scam, you surely think less of it now. Their phony story has been shown to have been demonstrably false when you see that but 7 electors switched, mostly against Clinton. This is consistent with the other fake news story, the one about recounting the votes, ostensibly from loser Jill Stein, it arose from the entrails of the Clinton crowd who, as usual, have zero honor. [It is difficult for honor to be found in a group founded by a draft-dodging rapist.] The courts and the re-counters demolished that story and the fact of a recount's necessity as Trump actually gained a few votes. And yet none in the media have questioned why there were more votes counted in Detroit than there were voters registered. I suppose it's not necessary as we know why, don't we? The media's lack of interest is, btw, another fake news story - nothing to see here, let's move on.


            Slowly but surely, the newspaper media is dying. It cannot survive its recent past as it has destroyed the singular characteristic it most requires: credibility. You might think of it as the Clinton disease and, once infected, it is incurable.



jim sweeney

Jim Sweeney




Blog Archive