Clarity from Chaos

By: Dave Campbell

  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Donate

IMMIGRATION HISTORY

By dave

“We think it as competent and as necessary for a state to provide precautionary measures against the moral pestilence of paupers, vagabonds, and possibly convicts as it is to guard against the physical pestilence which may arise from unsound and infections articles.”

-New York v. Miln, Chief Justice Philip P. Barbour 1837

Throughout our history, the United States have always adapted our immigration policies to suit the times and the will of the citizenry.

Progressives have worked aggressively for decades to systematically rewrite history in support of their destructive ideologies. They must distort or ignore facts because facts lead to truth and common sense, and those are their greatest enemies. One such recent example is the claim that Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump is a xenophobe, a racist and an anti-immigrant bigot for proposing we change our immigration policies to meet today’s specific needs.

Much of the population associates him with these disparaging terms but cannot cite a single reason for holding this belief, except that they hear it over and over again from the liberal media and that is their intention.

In the wake of increasing Islamic Fundamentalist terrorist attacks within the United States and around the world, Donald Trump recently introduced a plan he refers to as “Extreme Vetting”.  As Trump stated, “Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.”

Trump’s overall position on legal immigration would include temporarily suspending entry by individuals from countries with high numbers of potential terrorists. On illegal immigration, Trump has promised to adhere to the oath all Presidents must take by enforcing both the U.S. Constitution and existing laws.   He claims he will stop the flow with a wall on our southern border, which he intends to “make Mexico pay for.”

President Obama, Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Progressive Representatives and even the Pope, all of whom are regularly surrounded by walls and armed security guards, have decried Trumps’ proposals as unprecedented and contrary to American values. However, their mission to eradicate facts is incomplete. Our true history is still available, and on Mr. Trump’s side.

For the first 7 years of U.S. history, under our first constitution (The Articles of Confederation), immigration fell under State jurisdiction. 

Requirements varied from State to State and included stipulations that immigrants take an oath disavowing loyalty to their country of origin; that they be of the Christian religion; of good character, etc.  Almost immediately after the U.S. Constitution went into effect in 1789, the 1790 Alien Naturalization Act established national guidelines requiring all immigrants be ‘free white persons’ (which excluded slaves, indentured servants and most women, all of whom were considered as dependents), that they be of good moral character, and that they take an oath of allegiance supporting the U.S. Constitution.

Later laws changed the period of residence and required immigrants to disavow any title of nobility. However, citizenship itself was bestowed by any court with jurisdiction in the immigrant’s State of residence. In 1837, the Supreme Court ruled in New York v. Miln with Chief Justice Philip P. Barbour writing:

“We think it as competent and as necessary for a state to provide precautionary measures against the moral pestilence of paupers, vagabonds, and possibly convicts as it is to guard against the physical pestilence which may arise from unsound and infections articles.”

Leave a Comment Filed Under: Self-Esteem Tagged With: Constitution, Donald Trump, hillary clinton, immigration law, Matt FitzGibbons, United States

More Clinton Cash

By dave

WASHINGTON (AP) — More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

Donors who were granted time with Clinton included an internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran; a Wall Street executive who sought Clinton’s help with a visa problem; and Estee Lauder executives who were listed as meeting with Clinton while her department worked with the firm’s corporate charity to counter gender-based violence in South Africa.

The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009. But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton. Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she and her top aides had with foundation donors.

The AP’s findings represent the first systematic effort to calculate the scope of the intersecting interests of Clinton Foundation donors and people who met personally with Clinton or spoke to her by phone about their needs.

The 154 did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives. Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP’s calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties.

Clinton’s campaign said the AP analysis was flawed because it did not include in its calculations meetings with foreign diplomats or U.S. government officials, and the meetings AP examined covered only the first half of Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

“It is outrageous to misrepresent Secretary Clinton’s basis for meeting with these individuals,” spokesman Brian Fallon said. He called it “a distorted portrayal of how often she crossed paths with individuals connected to charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation.”

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump fiercely criticized the links between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, saying his general election opponent had delivered “lie after lie after lie.”

“Hillary Clinton is totally unfit to hold public office,” he said at a rally Tuesday night in Austin, Texas. “It is impossible to figure out where the Clinton Foundation ends and the State Department begins. It is now abundantly clear that the Clintons set up a business to profit from public office.”

Last week, the Clinton Foundation moved to head off ethics concerns about future donations by announcing changes planned if Clinton is elected.

On Monday, Bill Clinton said in a statement that if his wife were to win, he would step down from the foundation’s board and stop all fundraising for it. The foundation would also accept donations only from U.S. citizens and what it described as independent philanthropies, while no longer taking gifts from foreign groups, U.S. companies or corporate charities. Clinton said the foundation would no longer hold annual meetings of its international aid program, the Clinton Global Initiative, and it would spin off its foreign-based programs to other charities.

Those planned changes would not affect more than 6,000 donors who have already provided the Clinton charity with more than $2 billion in funding since its creation in 2000.

“There’s a lot of potential conflicts and a lot of potential problems,” said Douglas White, an expert on nonprofits who previously directed Columbia University’s graduate fundraising management program. “The point is, she can’t just walk away from these 6,000 donors.”

Former senior White House ethics officials said a Clinton administration would have to take careful steps to ensure that past foundation donors would not have the same access as she allowed at the State Department.

“If Secretary Clinton puts the right people in and she’s tough about it and has the right procedures in place and sends a message consistent with a strong commitment to ethics, it can be done,” said Norman L. Eisen, who was President Barack Obama’s top ethics counsel and later worked for Clinton as ambassador to the Czech Republic.

Eisen, now a governance studies fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that at a minimum, Clinton should retain the Obama administration’s current ethics commitments and oversight, which include lobbying restrictions and other rules. Richard Painter, a former ethics adviser to President George W. Bush and currently a University of Minnesota law school professor, said Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton should remove themselves completely from foundation leadership roles, but he added that potential conflicts would shadow any policy decision affecting past donors.

Fallon did not respond to the AP’s questions about Clinton transition plans regarding ethics, but said in a statement the standard set by the Clinton Foundation’s ethics restrictions was “unprecedented, even if it may never satisfy some critics.”

State Department officials have said they are not aware of any agency actions influenced by the Clinton Foundation. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Tuesday night that there are no prohibitions against agency contacts with “political campaigns, nonprofits or foundations — including the Clinton Foundation.” He added that “meeting requests, recommendations and proposals come to the department through a variety of channels, both formal and informal.”

Some of Clinton’s most influential visitors donated millions to the Clinton Foundation and to her and her husband’s political coffers. They are among scores of Clinton visitors and phone contacts in her official calendar turned over by the State Department to AP last year and in more-detailed planning schedules that so far have covered about half her four-year tenure. The AP sought Clinton’s calendar and schedules three years ago, but delays led the AP to sue the State Department last year in federal court for those materials and other records.

S. Daniel Abraham, whose name also was included in emails released by the State Department as part of another lawsuit, is a Clinton fundraising bundler who was listed in Clinton’s planners for eight meetings with her at various times. A billionaire behind the Slim-Fast diet and founder of the Center for Middle East Peace, Abraham told the AP last year his talks with Clinton concerned Mideast issues.

Big Clinton Foundation donors with no history of political giving to the Clintons also met or talked by phone with Hillary Clinton and top aides, AP’s review showed.

Muhammad Yunus, a Bangladeshi economist who won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for pioneering low-interest “microcredit” for poor business owners, met with Clinton three times and talked with her by phone during a period when Bangladeshi government authorities investigated his oversight of a nonprofit bank and ultimately pressured him to resign from the bank’s board. Throughout the process, he pleaded for help in messages routed to Clinton, and she ordered aides to find ways to assist him.

American affiliates of his nonprofit Grameen Bank had been working with the Clinton Foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative programs as early as 2005, pledging millions of dollars in microloans for the poor. Grameen America, the bank’s nonprofit U.S. flagship, which Yunus chairs, has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the foundation — a figure that bank spokeswoman Becky Asch said reflects the institution’s annual fees to attend CGI meetings. Another Grameen arm chaired by Yunus, Grameen Research, has donated between $25,000 and $50,000.

As a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton, as well as then-Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and two other senators in 2007 sponsored a bill to award a congressional gold medal to Yunus. He got one but not until 2010, a year after Obama awarded him a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Yunus first met with Clinton in Washington in April 2009. That was followed six months later by an announcement by USAID, the State Department’s foreign aid arm, that it was partnering with the Grameen Foundation, a nonprofit charity run by Yunus, in a $162 million commitment to extend its microfinance concept abroad. USAID also began providing loans and grants to the Grameen Foundation, totaling $2.2 million over Clinton’s tenure.

By September 2009, Yunus began complaining to Clinton’s top aides about what he perceived as poor treatment by Bangladesh’s government. His bank was accused of financial mismanagement of Norwegian government aid money — a charge that Norway later dismissed as baseless. But Yunus told Melanne Verveer, a long-time Clinton aide who was an ambassador-at-large for global women’s issues, that Bangladesh officials refused to meet with him and asked the State Department for help in pressing his case.

“Please see if the issues of Grameen Bank can be raised in a friendly way,” he asked Verveer. Yunus sent “regards to H” and cited an upcoming Clinton Global Initiative event he planned to attend.

Clinton ordered an aide: “Give to EAP rep,” referring the problem to the agency’s top east Asia expert.

Yunus continued writing to Verveer as pressure mounted on his bank. In December 2010, responding to a news report that Bangladesh’s prime minister was urging an investigation of Grameen Bank, Clinton told Verveer that she wanted to discuss the matter with her East Asia expert “ASAP.”

Clinton called Yunus in March 2011 after the Bangladesh government opened an inquiry into his oversight of Grameen Bank. Yunus had told Verveer by email that “the situation does not allow me to leave the country.” By mid-May, the Bangladesh government had forced Yunus to step down from the bank’s board. Yunus sent Clinton a copy of his resignation letter. In a separate note to Verveer, Clinton wrote: “Sad indeed.”

Clinton met with Yunus a second time in Washington in August 2011 and again in the Bangladesh capital of Dhaka in May 2012. Clinton’s arrival in Bangladesh came after Bangladesh authorities moved to seize control of Grameen Bank’s effort to find new leaders. Speaking to a town hall audience, Clinton warned the Bangladesh government that “we do not want to see any action taken that would in any way undermine or interfere in the operations of the Grameen Bank.”

Grameen America’s Asch referred other questions about Yunus to his office, but he had not responded by Tuesday.

In another case, Clinton was host at a September 2009 breakfast meeting at the New York Stock Exchange that listed Blackstone Group chairman Stephen Schwarzman as one of the attendees. Schwarzman’s firm is a major Clinton Foundation donor, but he personally donates heavily to GOP candidates and causes. One day after the breakfast, according to Clinton emails, the State Department was working on a visa issue at Schwarzman’s request. In December that same year, Schwarzman’s wife, Christine, sat at Clinton’s table during the Kennedy Center Honors. Clinton also introduced Schwarzman, then chairman of the Kennedy Center, before he spoke.

Blackstone donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Eight Blackstone executives also gave between $375,000 and $800,000 to the foundation. And Blackstone’s charitable arm has pledged millions of dollars in commitments to three Clinton Global aid projects ranging from the U.S. to the Mideast. Blackstone officials did not make Schwarzman available for comment.

Clinton also met in June 2011 with Nancy Mahon of the MAC AIDS, the charitable arm of MAC Cosmetics, which is owned by Estee Lauder. The meeting occurred before an announcement about a State Department partnership to raise money to finance AIDS education and prevention. The public-private partnership was formed to fight gender-based violence in South Africa, the State Department said at the time.

The MAC AIDS fund donated between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In 2008, Mahon and the MAC AIDS fund made a three-year unspecified commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative. That same year, the fund partnered with two other organizations to beef up a USAID program in Malawi and Ghana. And in 2011, the fund was one of eight organizations to pledge a total of $2 million over a three-year period to help girls in southern Africa. The fund has not made a commitment to CGI since 2011.

Estee Lauder executive Fabrizio Freda also met with Clinton at the same Wall Street event attended by Schwarzman. Later that month, Freda was on a list of attendees for a meeting between Clinton and a U.S.-China trade group. Estee Lauder has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation. The company made a commitment to CGI in 2013 with four other organizations to help survivors of sexual slavery in Cambodia.

MAC AIDS officials did not make Mahon available to AP for comment.

When Clinton appeared before the U.S. Senate in early 2009 for her confirmation hearing as secretary of state, then- Sen. Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, questioned her at length about the foundation and potential conflicts of interest. His concerns were focused on foreign government donations, mostly to CGI. Lugar wanted more transparency than was ultimately agreed upon between the foundation and Obama’s transition team.

Now, Lugar hopes Hillary and Bill Clinton make a clean break from the foundation.

“The Clintons, as they approach the presidency, if they are successful, will have to work with their attorneys to make certain that rules of the road are drawn up to give confidence to them and the American public that there will not be favoritism,” Lugar said.

http://www.reaganbaby.com

Leave a Comment Filed Under: Self-Esteem Tagged With: Bill Clinton, CGI, Clinton Global Initiative, hillary clinton, megan barth

THE NEW AMERICA

By dave

HEY, MICHELLE: Here’s 7 Ways You & Barack Made America NOT Great

by Dan Perkins
Clash Daily Guest Contributor

As I was driving home this past weekend, I heard on the radio about the breaking news of the killing of three policemen and the wounding of three others in Baton Rouge. A great fear came over me, I found myself asking, “Is this the beginning of the American Sunset?”, “is this the end of the great experiment started by our founding fathers?”

Are there signs that the American Empire is over? After doing some research, I found 8 ways to tell if it is over, and for the most part, they come from Saul Alinsky. He told us his theory and I have found the scary facts that support the idea of the end of America.

Many of you are probably asking who is Saul Alinsky and why is he so important? Saul David Alinsky died in June of 1972, and he was a community organizer and writer before Barack Obama. He is generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing. His often quoted 1971 book “Rules for Radicals”, became the handbook for radicals including President Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Alinsky received much criticism, but also gained praise from many public figures for his work. He focused on improving the living conditions of poor communities across North America. In the 1950’s, he began turning his attention to improving conditions in the African-American ghettos, beginning with Chicago and later traveling to other ghettos in California, Michigan, New York City, and a dozen other “trouble spots”.

His ideas were adapted in the 1960’s by some U.S. college students including Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Hillary wrote a college thesis on Alinsky and his goals. In 1970, Time magazine wrote, “It is not too much to argue that American Democracy is being altered by Alinsky’s ideas.” So, what did he believe?

Healthcare

Alinsky believed that Hitler was the founder of universal healthcare; he believed his collective universal healthcare concept was “racial hygiene,” the elimination of certain “undesirable” segments of the society, as life not worth living. Under the appearance of reproductive freedom, black women are committing genocide on their own people.

According to the Guttmacher Institute “abortion rates among Black women are much higher than we thought: They are four times the rate of white women.”

The highest abortion rates among Black teens occur in Texas (78 per 1,000), New York (76 per 1,000), Delaware (51 per 1,000), Michigan (45 per 1,000), Ohio (35 per 1,000) and Rhode Island (30 per 1,000).

While Black women account for 13 percent of the female population, they accounted for 30 percent of all abortions. In New York City, the number of Black abortions exceeds the number of Black live births.

Poverty

“Poor People are easier to control and will not fight back if the government is providing everything for them to live.” The Chart below shows what has been happening to the poverty level in America.

poverty

Government Debt

Increase the National Debt to an unsustainable level.” That way you are able to increase taxes to pay the interest on the debt, and this will produce more poverty by taking a larger share of household income.

debt

Take away their guns

“Remove the ability of Americans to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a Police State – total local control.”

See these:

Time to get rid of the Second Amendment?

Repeal the Second Amendment– Baltimore Sun

MSNBC’s Alex Wagner Get Rid of Second Amendment 

Yes, Hillary Wants to Get Rid of the Second Amendment

Welfare

“The government takes control of every aspect of their lives (Food,
Livestock, Housing, and Income).”

welfare

Education

“Take control of what People read & listen to; take control of what Children learn in School.”

American test scores ranking along with International Test Scores:

Math

Grade 4, 12th Grade 8, 28th Grade 12, 19th

Science

Grade 4, 3rd Grade 8, 17th Grade 12, 16th

Religion

Jacqueline Martin’s research entitled “Its all about me” concludes that the decline of religion and the dramatic increase in secularism is the result of generations with a “me” focus, with little or no attention to the needs of others. She claims that the millennials with their “me focus” are now driving the decline.

religion

Class Warfare

Mark Hendrickson writing in Forbes magazine said:

“Those who believe in individual rights and liberty always have tended to reject the Marxian paradigm that pits the rich against the poor. Today, we hear all about this alleged class warfare. President Obama harps on income inequality, so does the IMF. French economist Thomas Piketty’s current bestseller, “Capital in the 21st Century,” echoes the same theme.

Well, I have bad news for both those on the right and those on the left: Yes, there is class warfare in America, but it’s not between the rich and poor, but between the political class and the rest of the citizenry who bear the brunt of political power and pay the price in lost liberty, property, and opportunity.”

Racial inclusiveness was a major chord in Obama’s speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, and on that note, he proclaimed:

“There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America – there’s the United States of America.”

The Democratic Left funded along with George Soros MoveOn.Org, which built Black Lives Matter.

The Gallup Poll of March 2-6, 2016 reported:

In U.S., Concern About Crime Climbs to 15-Year High

Percentage of Americans who worry “A GREAT DEAL” about crime violence:

53% worry “a great deal” about crime, compared with 39% in 2014

44% are concerned about drug use, also up significantly since 2014

60% Say Race Relations Have Gotten Worse

A new Rasmussen Report national telephone survey finds that 60% of likely U.S. voters think race relations are worse since President Obama’s election nearly eight years ago. That’s an 18-point jump from 42% in late 2014 and up from 43% when we first asked the question in August 2013. Just nine percent (9%) believe race relations are better now, little changed from the previous survey, while 28% say they have stayed about the same.

The above numbers are already so overwhelming that they may not be reversible. If Hillary becomes President the balance scale of survival may well tilt towards destruction of America. More spending with no significant increase in revenue from taxes paid on increasing profits and wages may well rapidly accelerate the ultimate collapse of America.

Many Americans find it difficult to believe that we are on the brink of no longer being America. We will still be called America on the maps, but be assured we will no longer be America, at least the America I knew. As our financial resources diminish because we are taking care of more and more people from cradle to grave we become more vulnerable to foreign attacks both financially and physically.

I believe the reason for the high percentage of worry about crime and the awful race relations in America is because the people who are bound by the chains of dependency on the government feel constrained and they want more. Generations of Americans, depending on the government to survive have breed contempt for the government and those Americans who have more than they do. They have reached the point of desperation to break the chains of oppression.

Glenn Beck said recently, that America is a country of rugged individualism. I fear that Glenn may be living in the past, for the rugged I see in the future is the type of lives we may well face.

Dan Perkins is a currents events commentator who writes for: The Daily Caller.com, TheHill.com, thedailysurge.com, and Reganbaby.com. He is the author of the trilogy on radical Islamic nuclear terrorism against the United States called, The Brotherhood of the Red Nile. Dan can be heard on his weekly radio show on W4CYradio.com on Tuesdays at 8 PM Eastern

Leave a Comment Filed Under: Self-Esteem Tagged With: Alinsky, Dan Perkins, hillary clinton, Michelle Obama, Rules for Radicals

FBI Closes In

By dave

“The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email as secretary of state has expanded to look at whether the possible “intersection” of Clinton Foundation work and State Department business may have violated public corruption laws, three intelligence sources not authorized to speak on the record told Fox News.

This new investigative track is in addition to the focus on classified material found on Clinton’s personal server.

“The agents are investigating the possible intersection of Clinton Foundation donations, the dispensation of State Department contracts and whether regular processes were followed,” one source said.

Clinton, speaking to the Des Moines Register, on Monday pushed back on the details of a second investigative track. According to reporter Jennifer Jacobs, Clinton said Monday she has heard nothing from the FBI.

“No, there’s nothing like that that is happening,” Clinton said, according to a tweet from Jacobs.

Experts including a former senior FBI agent said the bureau does not have to notify the subject of an investigation.

The development follows press reports over the past year about the potential overlap of State Department and Clinton Foundation work, and questions over whether donors benefited from their contacts inside the administration.

The Clinton Foundation is a public charity, known as a 501(c)(3). It had grants and contributions in excess of $144 million in 2013, the most current available data.

Inside the FBI, pressure is growing to pursue the case.

One intelligence source told Fox News that FBI agents would be “screaming” if a prosecution is not pursued because “many previous public corruption cases have been made and successfully prosecuted with much less evidence than what is emerging in this investigation.”

The FBI is particularly on edge in the wake of how the case of former CIA Director David Petraeus was handled.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/11/fbis-clinton-probe-expands-to-public-corruption-track.html

Leave a Comment Filed Under: Self-Esteem Tagged With: Devil inside the Beltway, Email, FBI, hillary clinton, Michael J Daugherty

North Korea and ISIS

By dave

“North Korea claimed it detonated a hydrogen bomb in a test Wednesday, a move that was condemned by the U.S., Britain, Japan and even China. It was the politically isolated country’s first nuclear weapons test explosion in three years.

Experts said the claim that the test involved a hydrogen bomb, which is more powerful than an atomic bomb, could not be confirmed. The White House said that initial analysis of the test was not consistent with a successful hydrogen bomb.

The report on the state KCNA website came within hours of reports from various agencies that a large earthquake had been detected near a known North Korean nuclear test site.

According to KCNA, North Korea tested a miniaturized hydrogen nuclear bomb “in the most perfect manner,” putting it in possession of hydrogen bomb capability, which it described as “the most powerful nuclear deterrent.”

North Korea wanted what it called “the H-bomb of justice” as protection from the “ever-growing nuclear threat and blackmail by the U.S.-led hostile forces,” according to KCNA.

It would use the weapons only if its sovereignty were encroached upon, the statement on KCNA said, but would not roll back its nuclear development until the U.S. had dropped its “vicious, hostile” policy toward the isolated Communist state.

“The U.S. is a gang of cruel robbers which has worked hard to bring even a nuclear disaster to the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korean], not content with having imposed the thrice-cursed and unheard-of political isolation, economic blockade and military pressure on it for the mere reason that it has differing ideology and social system,” according to the statement.

“The present-day grim reality clearly proves once again the immutable truth that one’s destiny should be defended by one’s own efforts,” the statement went on. “Nothing is more foolish than dropping a hunting gun before herds of ferocious wolves.”

Dan Perkins, is a foreign policy contributor to DailySurge.com and TheHill.com. Perkins, is a master writer, terror analyst and author of The Brotherhood of the Red Nile Trilogy, which centers around Islamic nuclear terrorism against the USA.

Leave a Comment Filed Under: Self-Esteem Tagged With: Brotherhood of the Red Nile, Dan Perkins, Email, hillary clinton, ISIS, North Korea

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »

Get the newest podcast episodes & articles delivered straight to your inbox:

Connect

  • Email
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • Reason
  • Self-Esteem
  • Purpose

Copyright © 2023 · Clarity from Chaos