Standing up to Fox News, Not Putin

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Donald J. Trump was insulted by Fox News chief Roger Ailes and says he will hold an alternative event rather than participate in Thursday night’s debate. But why won’t Trump stand up to Russia’s Vladimir Putin? A series of pro-Putin remarks by a potential leader of the Free World is a far more serious matter than whether Megyn Kelly is given the opportunity to question Trump.

The Trump-Putin relationship has been labeled a “bromance” involving two men who have a fondness for one another. It is very strange, considering that Putin runs a regime that has invaded Ukraine, intervened in Syria, and has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the United States. Russian government and media officials regularly threaten to incinerate the U.S.

Ironically, on the same day Trump was pulling out of a debate sponsored by Fox News, he was on the Fox Business Network telling anchor Maria Bartiromo that Putin “hasn’t been convicted of anything,” in reference to the British report that Putin’s regime killed KGB dissident Alexander Litvinenko in London. “Have they found him guilty? I don’t think they’ve found him guilty. They say a lot of things about me that are untrue, too.” The 329-page report said Putin “probably” ordered the hit, using the standard of probable cause in a case where direct eyewitness evidence was not forthcoming from the Moscow regime. A former KGB spy who ran the KGB’s successor, the FSB, Putin had to be directly involved in such a plot, carried out by Russian intelligence on British soil. After all, Putin rules the country like a virtual dictator.

Trump, who is quick to make charges and accusations against his political opponents in the U.S., had previously said, “I haven’t seen any evidence that he [Putin] killed anybody, in terms of reporters.”

Litvinenko’s murder in 2006 by radiation poisoning followed the assassination of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, who was shot four times, once in the head. She was the target of a failed poisoning attempt in 2004.

Trump, who claims to be a real conservative, has openly emerged as Putin’s preferred candidate and boasts about his endorsement from Putin, saying, “It is always a great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond.” The remarks gave new meaning to the term “dupe,” or “agent of influence.” Putin had said about Trump, “He is a bright and talented person without any doubt—an outstanding and talented personality.”

The back-and-forth remarks of mutual admiration raise serious questions about whether Trump, if he is elected president, would be a security risk.

A savvy businessman, Trump is certainly not dumb. His attacks on political correctness and media bias have been applauded by conservatives. He’s been critical of Communist China’s trade practices and illegal immigration. On Russia, however, he acts like a propagandist for the Putin regime.

We have cited reports dating back to 1987, during the time of the old Soviet Union, demonstrating that Trump has been seeking business in Russia and attempting to build a “Russian Trump Tower” in Moscow. One of Trump’s contacts was Russian billionaire Araz Agalarov and his company, Crocus Group. He owned Crocus City Hall, where Trump’s Miss Universe finals were held in 2013. Crocus Group had been participating in real estate talks with Trump. A member of the Kremlin elite, Agalarov was given an outstanding citizen award by Putin at a ceremony held in the Kremlin. He has been called “The Donald Trump of Russia.” At a news conference in Moscow and a subsequent interview, Trump himself talked about how business was “booming” in Russia. “I mean, you look at what’s going on in Russia, in Moscow, you look at how it’s just booming and how well it does,” he said.

Clearly, Trump was fascinated by Russia’s economic opportunities.

But does Trump’s enthusiasm for Putin’s Russia go beyond business opportunities?

At his news conference on Tuesday, where he declared that he would drop out of the Fox debate, Trump was asked by CNN reporter Sara Murray about his attacking Bill Clinton over marital infidelity, and whether Trump’s own marital infidelity was an appropriate topic. “You can bring up whatever you want to bring up,” he said.

Since he extended the invitation, it would appear that Trump’s indifference to the evidence of the evil deeds of the Putin regime means that he has no knowledge of the KGB’s use of the “honey-trap.” As explained by former KGB general Oleg Kalugin, “In America, in the West, occasionally you ask your men to stand up for their country. In Russia, we just ask our young women to lay down.” Former FBI counterintelligence chief Frank Figliuzzi told the BBC that sexy Russian spy Anna Chapman was getting “closer and closer” to seducing a sitting member of President Obama’s cabinet.  She was arrested and deported from the U.S. The documentary, “Russian Spies—Deceitful Beauties,” examines how Russia uses beautiful women to steal information and intelligence. One case involves a young Russian woman, Katia Zatuliveter, an alleged “honey-trap” spy in London who later went to work for the Russia Today (RT) propaganda channel. She denied being a spy, but former KGB officer Oleg Gordievsky said the 25-year-old woman was working undercover for Russian foreign intelligence, the SVR, and gathering information about British naval bases around the world.

One might say Trump’s personal life is his own, except for the fact that he has attacked Bill Clinton’s personal life and talks in his book, Think Big: Make It Happen in Business and Life, about the women he has “dated” over the years, including “the top models and most beautiful women in the world.” Trump, who has been married three times, wrote, “I have been able to date (screw) them all because I have something that many men do not have.”

The author of four books, including The Longest Romance: The Mainstream Media and Fidel Castro, Humberto Fontova suggests that ego is the explanation for Trump’s behavior and statements on Russia. He quotes KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov as saying back in 1985, “Ego-centric people who lack moral principles—who are either too greedy or who suffer from exaggerated self-importance. These are the people the KGB wants and finds easiest to recruit.”

Whatever the explanation, Trump’s pandering to Putin has to be addressed. As part of the National Review cover story headlined, “Against Trump,” former chief assistant U.S. attorney Andrew C. McCarthy commented that Trump did not have “a clue” about dealing with the problem of global terrorism, other than “leaving it in Vladimir Putin’s nefarious hands.” But how did this happen? Where do these views come from?

Serious journalists can’t sweep this matter under the rug.

Before he makes even more astonishingly ignorant statements about Putin’s Russia, Trump ought to take some time to read the British inquiry into the Litvinenko murder. Litvinenko was a target of his former comrades in the KGB because he exposed Russian links to organized crime, and even al-Qaeda. However, another possible motive in the murder was an article Litvinenko wrote claiming Putin was a pedophile. The article said:

After graduating from the Andropov Institute, which prepares officers for the KGB intelligence service, Putin was not accepted into the foreign intelligence. Instead, he was sent to a junior position in KGB Leningrad Directorate. This was a very unusual twist for a career of an Andropov Institute’s graduate with fluent German. Why did that happen with Putin? Because, shortly before his graduation, his bosses learned that Putin was a pedophile [sic]. So say some people who knew Putin as a student at the Institute…

Many years later, when Putin became the FSB director and was preparing for the presidency, he began to seek and destroy any compromising materials collected against him by the secret services over earlier years. It was not difficult, provided he himself was the FSB director. Among other things, Putin found videotapes in the FSB Internal Security directorate, which showed him making sex with some underage boys.

The odd spectacle of Putin quickly pulling up a boy’s white tank-top and kissing his belly raised eyebrows worldwide at the time it happened. Litvinenko had put the strange display in perspective. Putin claimed it was a spontaneous gesture of affection. “I wanted to cuddle him like a kitten and it came out in this gesture. He seemed so nice,” Putin said. On the other hand, Putin wants to appear macho. He rides horses while bouncing his bare chest for the cameras, and has posed shirtless while fishing.

In addition to his involvement in the Litvinenko case, questions are being raised about the mysterious death of Putin’s former media adviser in Washington, D.C. It appears that Mikhail Lesin, the founder of Russian propaganda channel Russia Today, was stealing money from Russia and laundering it in the United States. He was under pressure to inform to U.S. authorities about corruption by the Putin regime.

In that regard, the BBC Panorama show has run a program on “Putin’s Secret Riches,” noting how he gets a $100,000 a year salary but lives like a member of the super-rich. It is estimated that he is worth $40 billion.

Not surprisingly, RT is now featuring a story about how Putin is cracking down on corruption in Russia. Putin has even formed a Presidential Anti-Corruption Council.

Does Trump also deny that Putin is corrupt? If so, perhaps we know where Trump is getting his information about Russia. After all, his long-time adviser, Roger Stone, became a favorite of RT when Stone wrote a book using a KGB agent of influence as a source and accusing President Lyndon Johnson of ordering the murder of President John F. Kennedy.

Trump denies that Putin had Litvinenko killed. Does he believe Roger Stone’s theory that LBJ killed JFK?

You don’t have to be Megyn Kelly to want answers to this one. And what about those beautiful women in Moscow? Did Trump “date” any of them?


The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results – Iowa Caucus Edition

The Watcher’s Council

Iowa Caucu3

Iowa Caucus1

Iowa Caucus

Iowa Caucus5

Iowa Caucus2

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast and the results are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council match-up.

I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. – President James Madison

A republic, if you can keep it. – Benjamin Franklin

Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary. – Reinhold Neibuhr


This week we had tie in the Council category between Bookworm Room’s The single most important election issue in 2016: The Constitution! and Joshuapundit’s The Clinton E-Mail Scandal And How It Will End.

As Watcher, I get paid the big bucks to break ties like this.

My piece detailed exactly how Mrs. Clinton broke the law, endangered national security and discussed where the current FBI investigation is as well as my prediction for how this all will end, which may startle some people!

Andrea’s articulate and well written article explored in great detail her belief that the real issue in the coming election is strengthening our Constitution. Not only did I vote for it myself, but she definitely wins the honors this week as far as I’m concerned! Here’s a slice:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
— Presidential Oath of Office

In 1992, James Carville famously hung a sign in Bill Clinton’s Little Rock campaign headquarters pointing campaign workers to Clinton’s most powerful campaign message: “The economy, stupid!” Today, in the run-up to the 2016 election, conservatives need to keep hammering their most powerful campaign message: “The Constitution!” After eight years of Obama’s savage disregard for the Constitution, the 2016 election is America’s last chance to return our Constitution to its rightful, and central, place in American politics.

In this essay, I hope to establish three things:

I. That the Constitution is a unique document that empowers individuals over government, making it the bedrock of American exceptionalism;

II. That Barack Obama has significantly damaged the Constitution’s preeminent position in American government, creating a dangerous imbalance in favor of an unlimited executive backed by a powerful, all-encompassing bureaucracy; and

III. That we must choose our next president very carefully in order to redress this imbalance lest we wake up one morning to find ourselves living under a permanent de facto dictatorship.

Part I

After winning the Revolution, America’s Founding Fathers had the unique opportunity to build a government from the ground up. Being educated men, they had several models from which to choose. They could replicate the British model, with its monarch, hereditary aristocracy, and House of Commons. They could attempt a commune of the type that the Pilgrims tried in 1620. Although that attempt almost killed the Pilgrims, the utopian impulse towards communism has continued to tempt revolutionaries ever since. They could try to put Plato’s Republic into effect and appoint themselves as the ideal Platonic ruling elite. They could even try the Judges approach from the Old Testament. They rejected all of those models.

The Founders’ genius lay in recognizing that all previous government models had a pyramidal structure, with power held only at the very top of the pyramid. This was certainly true of Britain which, beginning in 1066, had vested complete power in a hereditary monarchy. It took centuries for the aristocracy and landed gentry to chip away at the monarch’s authority, starting with the Magna Carta (1215) and finishing with the Glorious Revolution’s Bill of Rights (1689).

Ironically, thanks to the American Revolution, Parliament concluded that the British Bill of Rights, many parts of which the Founders incorporated wholesale into our Constitution, limited only the monarchy, but had no controlling effect on Parliament. In other words, Britain emerged from the American Revolution as pyramidal as before, only with Parliament at the top of the pyramid, not the King.

This same pyramidal pattern held true for all other governments the Founder’s studied. No matter the outcome of history’s wars and revolutions, government’s fundamental structure remained unchanged: Power resided at the top, with those citizens excluded from power enjoying limited freedoms and privileges — and those only at the whim of the ruling class. The Founders would therefore have been unsurprised to see that the 20th century’s communist revolutions, despite destroying the old ruling classes entirely, created governments no different from the ones they replaced – power was at the top, with the apparatchiks, and the people groaned in bloody servitude under what was just another self-appointed elite.

To prevent the tyranny of the elite – any elite – the Founders created an entirely new government structure, one never before tried: They broke governing authority into its constituent parts (legislative, executive, and judicial) and divvied that power amongst three different, but equal, branches of government. No government branch could act alone. The theory was that each branch would guard its power jealously, thereby keeping either of the other two branches from becoming dominant. These “checks and balances,” integral to our Founder’s design, were an elegant example of the old idea that it takes two thieves (or, in this case, three) to keep an honest bargain.

The Founders also went beyond creating a radically new government structure that diffused power throughout government to prevent the inevitable tyranny that flows from vesting all government power in one person or collective. In 1791, they enacted the Bill of Rights.

The philosophy underlying our Bill of Rights is not found in the Constitution itself, but in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Throughout history, many have called themselves revolutionaries, but they are invariably just as power-hungry as the governments they’ve overthrown. The Founders, however, were true revolutionaries. Their new paradigm holds that a majority of citizens can voluntarily elect a legislature and abide by its laws; accept the executive’s enforcement of the laws (including punishments); and allow the judiciary to interpret the laws, if they have concluded that a particular set of political figures will best protect their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. If, however, the majority of the people conclude that this same government no longer serves them well, they may reconstitute the government to make it more to their liking.

Being cautious men, and with Parliament’s gutting of the British Bill of Rights as a grim example of government overreach, the Founders did not feel that just a Declaration and Constitution were adequate protections for individuals. In 1791, the Founders enacted the Bill of Rights, explicitly spelling out the inviolate sphere of rights that each person possesses independent of government. Ironically, many of the rights are verbatim restatements of the same British Bill of Rights that Parliament had only recently nullified.

America’s Bill of Rights represents a complete inversion of the traditional power pyramid. In America, the governing power rests, not at the highest point of the pyramid, with kings and politicians, but in its base, which is comprised of individuals who possess inherent, unalienable rights. Because these individual rights are so important, they bear repeating here:

Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment 3 – Quartering of Soldiers.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6 – Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment 7 – Trial by Jury in Civil Cases.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment 8 – Cruel and Unusual Punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 – Powers of the States and People.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Much more at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Doug Ibendahl at Republican News Watch with National Review just handed Donald Trump the Election submitted by Puma By Design.

Mr. Ibendahl, a Chicago attorney was former General Counsel of the Illinois Republican Party. His contention is the the National Review,Weekly Standard and various movement conservatives HQ’d in New York City and Washington who just gratuitously attacked Donald Trump did him a huge favor by emphasizing his bona fides as an independent outsider unconnected to the GOP establishment. Based on the polls, he may very well be right.

Here are this week’s full results. The Noisy Room was unable to vote this week, but was not subject to the usual 2/3 vote penalty for not voting:

Council Winners:

Non-Council Winners:

See you next week!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum and every Tuesday morning, when we reveal the week’s nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted onFriday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it… or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter… ’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?


WATCH: Trevor speaks at Tea Party convention in South Carolina (video)

By: Renee Nal
New Zeal

Trevor South Carolina

Author and speaker Trevor Loudon spoke at the South Carolina Tea Party Coalition Convention this year along with Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Ann-Marie Murrell of the Politichicks, KrisAnne Hall and many other conservative icons, and what an amazing speech it was!

Watch (Trevor speaks for the first 29 minutes, followed by Jim Gilmore):


Putin: I Still Like Communist Ideas ‘Very Much’

By: Brent Parrish
The Right Planet


In October 2015, I posted an installment of Update Brazil with Jeff R. Nyquist and Allan dos Santos. They interviewed author and political researcher Trevor Loudon on the communist infiltration of the U.S. government that occurred over many years.

The accepted and popular history of communism is that ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall. But those of us who research and study the history communism know that nothing could be farther from the truth. If anything, socialism (i.e. communism) has only strengthened its grip on the West. This shouldn’t really come as a surprise to anyone, considering who are current president is, and the fact that we have a full-blown big “C” communist running for president on the Democrat ticket (i.e. Bernie Sanders).

Many people believe modern-day Russia has abandoned its communist past. But as I attempted to show in my aforementioned article, former KGB officer Vladimir Putin has never relinquished his communist roots; nor did Mikhail Gorbachev, for that matter. In 2000, Putin reinstated the Soviet national anthem when he took the helm of the Russian Federation (cf. Soviet Union). Many of the symbols of the Soviet regime still remain in place to this day.

Now, CNS News reports Vladimir Putin stated on Monday that he rather likes communism.

Via CNSNews.com:

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday he still likes the ideas of theoretical communism “very much,” and recalled that unlike many others he had not publicly destroyed his Communist Party membership card, but still keeps it at home.

“In contrast to many functionaries I did not throw my membership card away or burn it in public,” he told supporters in the southern city of Stavropol. “I still keep it at home.”

The Itar-TASS news agency quoted the former KGB official as saying that he had been rank-and-file member and not an office-bearer of the Communist Party.

“I cannot say that I was a hardline advocate of the communist ideology,” he said. “Yet my attitude to all this was very delicate.”

Putin said that while serving in the KGB he liked – and continues today to like – communist and socialist ideas “very much.”

Referring to the “Moral Code of the Builder of Communism” – a set of 12 rules every party member was expected to follow – he said the “wonderful ideas” resembled the Bible in many ways.

However, the reality was different in practice.

“The practical embodiment of these wonderful ideas in our country was very far from what the utopian socialists had proclaimed,” he said.

The comments came as Putin critically addressed, for the second time in five days, the legacy of Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin.

Last Thursday, he caused a stir by saying, during a meeting of the Presidential Council for Science and Education, that Lenin had been responsible for ideas that led ultimately to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Putin said then that Lenin’s ideas like providing regions with autonomy “planted an atomic bomb under the building that is called Russia which later exploded.”

In his address in Stavropol on Monday – to activists of his Russian Popular Front movement – Putin reiterated those points, recalling that Lenin and his successor Joseph Stalin had disagreed on the matter, with Stalin arguing in favor of a unitary state.

Stalin was overruled, and Lenin’s model that allowed for the possibility of territories seceding led to the Soviet Union’s eventual breakup, he said.

(In his 2005 state of the nation address, Putin famously described the collapse of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century.”)

Putin also criticized Lenin for the execution of Russia’s last royal ruler, Tsar Nicholas II, along with his family and servants in 1918, and for killing large numbers of Orthodox priests.

“Why did they kill Dr. Botkin?” he asked, in reference to the slain court physician Eugene Botkin. “Why did they kill the servants, people of proletarian origin by and large?”

“What for? Just for the sake of concealing a crime,” Putin said.

Not too long ago, a friend of mine pointed out something that I had never noticed before. Aeroflot, one of the largest and oldest airlines in the world, is the flag carrier of the Russian Federation. It was founded in 1923. It is now a quasi-private enterprise. Aeroflot was the official national airline of the Soviet Union. Aeroflot is still considered the de facto national airline of Russia. Interestingly, Aeroflot still retains the hammer and sickle on its official logo to this very day, which can be seen below under the “A” and “E” below.


Another example of communist symbolism still present in Russia today is that of Mosfilm, one of the largest and oldest film studios in Russia and Europe. It, too, was founded in 1923. Below is a screencap of the opening credit for Mosfilm that appears in the 2012 Russian film “White Tiger.” Clearly present is the hammer and sickle being held aloft by the two statuesque figures of a man and woman (i.e. “the workers”), and the red star shining atop a building spire in the background.


Now, imagine, if you will, modern-day Germany still retaining the symbolism of the Third Reich. What do you think the international reaction would be? And yet the Soviet regime, which is responsible for the deaths of millions, has never been held to account for its monstrous crimes against humanity and its own people … quite the contrary.


Don Fairly does not exist

By: Renee Nal
New Zeal

The Last Refuge

Screenshot from “The Last Refuge” website

While this author would think that a self-proclaimed group of “Conservative Misfits” would go after establishment types or perhaps the socialists who have taken over the Democrat party, “sundance” at the Last Refuge prefers to target Mark Levin, Glenn Beck and Ted Cruz, while lauding Donald Trump almost as loudly as Breitbart has been of late.

With friends like this, conservatives don’t need enemies.

Consider the latest smear piece by “sundance.” It cites a “report” which is actually a series of tweets claiming that a man named “Don Fairly” left the Cruz campaign along with seven other staffers.

Cruz smear piece cites "report" at the Last Refuge

Cruz smear piece cites “report” at the Last Refuge

The claims were made by @LandmanMarius, a man (presumably) whose tweets consist solely about the touting the awesomeness of Trump while relentlessly bashing Cruz:

Here is the first tweet:

Then these came after a supposed meeting:

The blogger “sundance” pounced on the tweets, “Seven Cruz campaign staff quit,” lamented “sundance,” “Campaign legal staff hits exiting campaign workers with legal notices to keep quiet.”

This author will go out on a limb to say that “Don Fairly” is as real as Donald Trump’s dedication to the Bible or the Constitution. 

After tweeting this:

This happened:

Blocked by Storm Trumper1

The fake photo of “Don Fairly” is actually of Dushaun Fairley, a real estate advisor who lives in San Diego according to his LinkedIn page. As far as @LandmanMarius, his photo is evidently fake as well (see here and here). Donald Trump gave him a shout out here:

It makes one wonder how many fake Trump twitter accounts exist.

The author “sundance” goes on to cite a truely vile unsourced smear piece by CNN about Cruz and finishes off with a jab at Glenn Beck.