Build the Wall of Perception: It's the Smart Move

U.S.-Mexico Border Wall

The big problems with the much-promised wall along the U.S.-Mexico border are that it:

1. Takes time to design, approve, and build.
2. Costs a bunch of money to build and maintain.
3. Spoils the scenery.
4. Disrupts natural flows.

Air, water, and wildlife have a natural flow, after all. One day it might even be necessary to move a number of human beings across the border (either way) for military or humanitarian reasons.

An extended physical wall is also difficult and expensive to update and upgrade over time. 

What a wall doesn't protect us against

Most importantly to this discussion, a physical wall along the Mexican border does not protect us against those who illegally:

1. Go around the wall.
2. Tunnel under the wall.
3. Fly high above the wall.

In fact, it encourages exactly this sort of evasion.

Enforcing existing laws creates a wall

We have prevailing laws that protect against illegal immigration — and protect us from related misbehavior. When properly enforced these laws create a "wall of perception" that says to those:

1. Thinking of entering the country illegally, "Don't!"; and
2. Who are already here illegally, "Leave!"

The effect of building this wall of perception is already clear. In the few months since the installation of a new president in the Oval Office in January 2017, a national leader intent on reducing illegal immigration and enforcing related laws, unwanted traffic across the Mexico border has dropped 70%. 

Enforcement protects us everywhere

A physical wall along one border does not. Instead, it encourages entry somewhere else along our many border miles elsewhere:

1. Our Lower-48 states share a 3,987-mile border with Canada to the north, and
2. A 1,538-mile border surrounding Alaska.
3. The length of all our shorelines totals 95,471 miles.*

These are exposed national border miles that a wall along the Mexico border does not protect — and which those deterred by such a wall are further encouraged to try.

Enforcement of the laws works on those who evade a border wall, while continuing to press on already-resident border jumpers. 

Technology adds to the wall

Instead of building a solid, unbroken border wall, towers packed with detection equipment might be spaced along the Mexican border:

1. The towers would be connected underground by above- and below-ground (tunneling) detection devices. 
2. At the top of each tower would be drone platforms (some tethered**) for continuous surveillance runs and immediate-response to alerts.
3. Detection devices would be positioned at top of towers for help with low-flying aircraft — including drones. 

Other robots can used to aid interdiction, too.

Protection that relies on technology can be upgraded easily as science progresses. And use of surveillance technology adds to the sense that somebody's watching at all times. Such technology can be developed and tested along one border and subsequently applied elsewhere.

The smart move

Build the Wall of Perception by enforcing prevailing laws and applying technology appropriately. It's the smart move.

---

*The National Ocean Service reaches that enormous number by adding together all the inches of exposure around our Atlantic, Pacific, Hawaii, and other shorelines.
**Persistent Aerial Reconnaissance and Communications (PARC) drones stay up in the air indefinitely, and fly up to 500 feet from base, attached by a microfilament that transmits power and data.

The Importance of a Well-Run White House (Without Leaks)

Ret. Marine Corps General John F. Kelly

The reasons for appointing a general to White House chief of staff in 2017 are the same for President Donald J. Trump as they were for Richard M. Nixon in 1973. Watergate and Vietnam raged then. Tight command was needed in the highest offices of the United States.

Constant media attack, continuous leaks, and pending foreign military action drive this president's choice.

The big difference is that active Army Major General Haig transferred over from his position as Military Assistant to the Presidential Assistant for National Security Affairs (Henry Kissinger), while retired Marine Corps General John F. Kelly comes to the White House from his role as United States Secretary of Homeland Security.

What does this say?

1. The Department of Homeland Security is not really all that important to our security.
2. Kelly wasn't doing such a great job over at DHS.
3. A well-run White House (without leaks) is more important to U.S. national security than a well-commanded DHS.

Perhaps this lets the secret out that the DHS is just a $50-billion layer of bureaucratic boondoggle that really doesn't enhance our "homeland security". A handful of highly-skilled sharpies in the West Wing could do a better job of coordinating the work of our various intelligence agencies (e.g., CIA, FBI, NSA, etc.).

Questions have been raised by those who view the closing down of illegal immigration in to the U.S. as to Kelly's commitment to this effort. Maybe it's better to put somebody at DHS who's fully dedicated to this aim.

With military action pending against North Korea and other hot spots around the globe, and the virulent and unremitting attacks on the U.S. president from the media, the argument that having a tight ship in the White House is critically important to our national security. 

And what about those leaks? We can only hope all the best minds in technology and security are brought to the task of tightening down on them as well.

Trumps in Paris

The first couple arriving at Orly airport

• The classiest First Lady in history heads directly to children's hospital: "First lady Melania Trump in rouge ensemble splits off from her husband after touching down in Paris to tour a children's hospital in the city center" DailyMail.com
• The classiest First Lady in history nails the proper fashion: "Melania Trump nails diplomatic first lady style with red Dior skirt suit in Paris" USAToday
• The French leader enhances his profile: "Donald Trump arrives in Paris for Bastille Day as Macron tries to boost world position" Express
• Reminiscent of JFK's line: "I'm the man who accompanied Jacqueline Kennedy to Paris . ."
• Trump must be enjoying the world spotlight.
• Another great speech?

How I Went from #NeverTrump to #TrumpPossible

I was #NeverTrump, mainly because he's not really conservative. His natural instincts are all Leftist: trade protection, infrastructure investment, using government power against critics, etc.

What appear to be his conservative traits are actually those of right-wing Leftist dictators, e.g. nationalism. Starting with his seeming love for Putin and his tactics, he has a thing for Leftist strongmen, perhaps seeing himself in that mold.

Then there's the rest of the Russian stuff.

As Election 2016 progressed, however, a hopeful (necessary?) three-phase process materialized in my mind: 1) Stop Clinton; 2) Check Trump; and, 3) Get to Pence.

1) Stop Clinton

This necessity became clearer with the growing certainty that Hillary Clinton was an IMPOSSIBILITY. Perhaps, it occurred to me, this "orange-haired Jesus" was sent to us to stop her.

Could anyone else have done it? Unclear. He did. Step one accomplished.

2) Check Trump

Next step was to check the elected Trump. The checking of a president should happen naturally with the system of checks and balances designed into the Constitution. Media check the president. His own team checks him. Impeachment proceedings check the president, as well as what's written in the 25th amendment.

The "A"-word can certainly check the president in a big way, but even to discuss it borders on the illegal. Don't think it's not on everyone's mind, though.

3) Get to Pence

Whatever natural terms Trump might serve, Pence has an excellent chance of being his party's nominee to replace him the next time around—and he has a good chance of becoming the next president. History shows vice presidents often rise to the top spot, but not so much via the ballot box.*

They get there more often when the president is removed for some reason.

Perhaps the president becomes unfit for office due to illness or other reasons (see above). Maybe he decides he's had enough. The vice president is first-in-line for succession, and Mike Pence is that person at the moment.

And he's a true conservative, one who's served in Congress—and as governor of a state.

The first step has been accomplished, and the second is underway. Trump's team, especially, seem to be having a checking effect on him.

The final step of getting to Pence is a question mark, of course. With a president who has a sometimes mysterious hold on much of the American voting public, who can really say when he might let go of power?

---

*the vice president has been nominated 100 percent of the time in the five elections since 1960 that have had at least one vice president running (Gore/Quayle were both 2000), and a vice president won these elections 40 percent of the time; the close and controversial Nixon (1960) and Gore (2000) elections, if gone the other way, would up the win percentage bigly.

"Until It's True It's Just Bulls@%t!!"

At a recent writer event in Burlington, a rather tall woman who had been signing people up for the open mic started things off with an original ditty that demeaned our newly-elected president's private parts, brain size, and children.

This hastily-constructed contribution to literature turned on whatever rhymes with "teeny" and "weenie". It encouraged considerable laughter from the largely female audience.*

Applause was energetic.

Appearing seventh on the list, I shared a political poem I'd written recently:

We've got our very own Dilma

The prez they impeached in Brazil

The difference is we already know

About her and her husband Bill.**

I then shared how a fellow poet believed that what we have on Hillary Clinton is "unsubstantiated innuendo". Thinking this might make an excellent title for a detailing of Hillary Clinton's crimes, written as a "list poem", I promised to keep such in my back pocket in case I had to be subjected to further readings of the teeny-weenie sort.

Keying off a reading of an anti-war poem, I then read my narrative poem "An End to War". Several people filed out as I read. The singer-songwriter who'd appeared just before me kept his eyes glued to the floor as I left the performance area. I reached out my hand anyway, saying "Good job!" He responded in kind, finally looking into my face.

The male emcee, a noted radio show host from New Hampshire, took center stage again, saying something to the effect of "sounds like somebody's been getting into the Heady Topper".***

A sweet lady came up to me at the food table . .

. . and said: "Thank you for what you said. That's exactly what I wanted to say after I heard her read." She had been a Bernie supporter. I gave her a hug, noting that we needed to be loving and tolerant.

The co-organizer of the writer organization came in later, as I was leaning on the back wall. She pointedly said positive things to the teeny-weenie "poetess" seated nearby, averting her eyes as she passed by me.

The one male about my age . .

. . who I thought by his thoughtful look might actually be on my side, came over and said he liked my poem. He then opened up a political discussion of how we must somehow come together as a nation. I asked:

"Does starting off an open mic by demeaning the president-elect's genitalia, brain size, and children qualify?"

The sweet lady came over and started in on him, mentioning Hillary's wars. He wouldn't hear any more of what she had to say because he didn't believe it, so she left the discussion. He said more than once:

"The problem is that I don't believe what you're saying about Hillary Clinton."

I agreed. That is indeed the problem.

He and millions of other Americans refuse to accept the facts about her. I don't know if it was the alcohol speaking — he seemed to be drinking water — but he then shouted:

"Until it's true, it's just bulls@%t!!"

This left me wondering if he meant until it's proven — or until it appears in the media he listens to?

Or is it until she's actually locked up.

---

*how might they react if a man got up and said the same things about Hillary and her daughter?
**the actual differences are: 1) in a sea of corruption around Dilma Rouseff in Brazil, the legislature got her on a rather minor charge (fiddling with economic data); and, 2) guilty of a massive amount of corruption and numerous crimes herself, Hillary may never have the chance to be impeached.
***appearance of which, rolled in on a dolly by an organizer's ten-year-old son, met with great applause earlier.

It Locks Up As Easily As This

Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

Life Among the "Servile" Puppies

"You would think it would occur to him, 'Every place I've ever been, everyone has hated me. My only shot is to tie my wagon to Donald Trump. Maybe I can be attorney general or solicitor general.'"

Ann Coulter

Calls Senator Ted Cruz "a little bitch"

#VoteYourConscience

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas

“Stand and speak and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket who you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”

Senator Ted Cruz

Telling Americans to vote their conscience seems like a fine enough ideal to encourage. In an ideal political world, if more people would just vote their conscience it would keep the system honest. But, in a system that encourages (concretizes?) two parties, voting in this country has tended to be about not letting the other guy get in.

That's certainly how the 2016 presidential election is shaping up, with more people hating the opposing candidate than loving their own.

Telling Republicans at their convention in Cleveland to vote their conscience means what? With the absence of an expected, hoped-for endorsement for their chosen nominee, much might be read into it—but what does it actually mean?

The speaker that followed Ted Cruz last night at the convention—the redoubtable veteran pol with the quicksilver mind, Newt Gingrich—spun it around quickly to mean vote for the nominee. Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, has said it meant vote for him.

Even Hillary Clinton has "trolled" the phrase for her own purposes. Does she know that if the Democrat "superdelegates" at the convention next week in Philadelphia heed the call they might not nominate her at all?

Senator Cruz has not said if he'll vote for the Republican nominee—just that he will not vote for Clinton. He would not seem to be steering Republicans to her.

Could it be about the "down-ballot" races, all the other Republicans that might be elected that day? The Senator says he's not asking anyone to write him in.

Trump supporters on whose ears such a call to conscience falls hard might ask themselves why. If they are voting their conscience already  they needn't be upset. If they aren't, well, maybe they needed to hear about it from Senator Cruz.

“I have to say it was somewhat dismaying that, apparently, some of Donald’s biggest partisans right down front, when they heard that people should vote for someone you can trust to defend our freedom and defend our conscience, defend the constitution, immediately they began booing. I’m gonna say that’s a little bit troubling what they’re saying.”

Senator Ted Cruz

Our Next First Lady?

Melania Trump

She Can Stand in Front of My Flag Any Old Time

Melania Trump

Perfect Gemini

What makes Donald J. Trump the perfect Gemini are his . .

1. Lying, lying, lying: not that those born under other Sun signs don't tell the odd fib, it's just that for the Gemini lying is a way of life. Geminis could give seminars on lying. For them it's not really lying, it's just the way you do things.
2. Looks: even as a craggy, increasingly-old man, he still turns female heads. As a young man he had playboy good looks. Geminis, whatever their faults, are almost always physically attractive.
3. Amorality: Geminis are always in moral difficulties, infidelity being top of list.*
4. Split personality: Geminis, the sign of the twins, always have two distinct personalities. For Trump it's his public and private personae.
5. Money problems: Geminis spend money like water.
6. Nine lives: Geminis take major hits in life, reinvent themselves, and move on anew. 
7. Changing minds: Geminis change their minds every five minutes.

What helps a Gemini in a political race—besides their looks—is their ability to communicate. Another Gemini, JFK, said 90% of politics was "sex appeal" (and he should know). And he was a great communicator, something Geminis are known for (think Rubio).

Geminis are also known for their quicksilver intelligence, which when combined with their noted amorality often looks like evil genius (consider Henry Kissinger). JFK was almost scary smart and is often considered one of our most intelligent presidents.

Interestingly, Trump is surrounded by possible Gemini running mates: Rudolph Giuliani, Newt Gingrich, and Marco Rubio—meaning we could have four (4) personalities running the country all at once.

---

*Trump reportedly did business with Anthony "Fat Tony" Salerno, head of the Genovese crime family.

#NeverHillary or #NeverTrump?

Each side in the 2016 nomination race for president scares voters into a choice based on the likely/apparent/presumptive choice on the other side. What if these opponents fail to materialize, or if something more complicated happens?

Vote #NeverTrump

#NeverHillary

On the Republican side the scare is #NeverHillary. Whatever the choice may be on our side, we must do whatever we can to prevent Lady Macbeth in Pantsuit from destroying this great country further.

Beyond the possible reality that anybody on the GOP side could beat the weakest presidential candidate in a lifetime, consider that she has . .

• no successes in her public life, only disasters
• only one personal success (that became professional/political), that of picking William Jefferson Clinton as a mate
• completely controverted any feminist principles she might pretend to hold by essentially being the product of a well-chosen-mate
• no policy positions that excite anyone
• no policy positions that fail to change depending
• been accused of murder
• stolen the White House silver
• become fabulously wealthy selling the country out, and

. . she could be indicted by the FBI for committing traitorous crimes as Secretary of State. Or she could keel over with health problems. 

More than all that, or perhaps because of it, she's been unable so far to eliminate the threat of a 74-year-old Socialist curmudgeon from the political powerhouse state of Vermont—with its population of 626,562 souls.

What's the chance that she's not the Democrat nominee for president in 2016? What if her unshakable opponent goes independent against her in the general election?

Vote #NeverHillary

#NeverTrump

No matter how inevitable the Carnival-Barking Colossus might appear to the casual observer, political insiders know that the Republican party has the right and the power—and the responsibility—to choose the candidate they feel best represents them to the country (and the world). Taking whatever political risks this might entail, they can decide they do not want to certify the candidacy of a gate-crashing Democrat from New York.

What if he goes independent?

All this leaves aside the question of a full range of other things that can happen in the course of human events that might change the entire complexion of the 2016 contest.

Shilling for #SleazyDonald?

To the great dismay of those of us who listen to radio talk show hosts for better understanding and perspective on politics—most particularly this race for president—several of these airwave pundits have seemingly been shilling for Donald Trump.

Michael Savage was quiveringly in the New Yorker's thrall early, then Howie Carr followed. Even Sean Hannity joined in promoting the rich man—speaking of his electoral inevitability, building up his business accomplishments, covering for his obvious faults.

What's Going On Here?

Is this simply cultural affinity (these are all northeasterners; two from New York). Does it arise from long-term friendship. Or could there be more going on here? Money? Power? Fear?* Does this man have some sort of hypnotic power over people?

It takes no small amount of moral development and familiarity with history not to be swayed by success, wealth, looks, and (perhaps most importantly) celebrity—and instead see through the evil behind.

Two prominent talk show hosts—Glenn Beck and Mark Levin—have prominently gone the other way, openly and fervently endorsing major rival, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. At the risk of losing audience, they have taken this bold move to help save the republic.

National Enquirer Smear

Enter the National Enquirer smear of Cruz as an adulterer. Michael Savage has called for Trump to disavow the story or he will withdraw his endorsement and support. And some curious things seem to be happening in the Hannity and Carr camps.

Perhaps it's just the hope in me—for the goodness of our country to rise up against the bad—but . .

1. Sean Hannity corrects himself on claiming a Cruz connection to the anti-Melania Trump ad (run by a PAC)—in a Wednesday, March 23 evening tweet;
2. Mark Simone hosted his show the next day, sweetly endorsing Trump at every possible point, calling Melania's naked fling on a bear rug as simply part of being a model;
3. Friday the show was a re-run from the day Ben Carson withdrew from the race (which he did March 4).

Switching over to Howie Carr in my addictive state, I discovered that his show was: a) running a poll of listeners regarding the truth of the Enquirer hit piece; and, b) just about the delve into the story more. But every time I'd hit the play button it would pause after re-looping this one bit.** 

Cooler Heads Prevail?

I hope somebody has come to his senses. Maybe the station director or owner. Maybe the show sponsors. Maybe even the hosts themselves. Has legal action been threatened?

We should know more soon.

---

*We've all seen what happens to those who attack Mr. Trump; actions described in this article perhaps making a good example.
**I was listening on iHeart Radio (which might explain everything).

Killing Bogeymen

From the Republican perspective, the two bogeymen in the 2016 presidential race are Donald Trump ("The Carnival-Barking Colossus") and Hillary Clinton ("The Bitch of Benghazi"). The best thing to do is to kill the bogeymen.

Deny Trump the Majority . .

Make sure he doesn't get to 1,237

The first objective of anyone on the Republican side who wants to save Republic and Party is to keep Donald Trump from getting the mathematical majority of delegates before the convention in Cleveland. The second objective is to beat him at the convention.

The big bogeyman fear? That if Trump loses the Republican nomination for president he will become a third-party candidate, and then—the other big bogeyman fear—Hillary wins.

Does Hillary Win in a Three-Party Race?

"Bitch of Benghazi"

There's much to this concern that Hillary Clinton wins in a three party race:

1. That's how we got the Clintons in the White House to begin with. Her husband, Bill, never got as much as half of the vote—helped each time by the presence of a third-party candidate. 
2. She's known to have a solid core of voters who would pull the lever for her even if she shot Bill on live television. That number might be 40+% (which would be enough to pull her husband's trick in 1992).

What if none of this comes to pass? She must first escape indictment for a number of crimes she apparently committed while Secretary of State. Perhaps more predictable, is her continued lackluster performance as a candidate. She just ain't got the pizzazz her husband had. In fact, she's a highly-flawed candidate without strong positions—or convictions, apparently.

She screams. She has major health problems. There's Benghazi and too many other failures and scandals (actual crimes) to count. Even her hubby, who's still around to mess things up, apparently thinks she's gone too far left (in trying to become Bernie-lite) to win in the general.

Is Trump Really a Third-Party Threat?

For Donald Trump to open up a third party third, he'd need to finance it—something he hasn't shown any great willingness to do. He's a businessman. He's probably not as rich as he pretends. He can't just pull the necessary billion dollars from his business "empire" and expect it to motor on smoothly. He almost certainly doesn't have that kind of money sitting around ready to be tapped.

Second, he'd have to build an effective third party almost from scratch. Pretending to be a Republican (and conservative one) and crashing the GOP tent suggests the third-party approach presented too many challenges.

Killy the Bogeymen . .

Republicans need to deal with each challenge as it presents itself, never fearing what might happen next. When the next challenge appears, it's time to man-up and kill the bogeymen.

The Smart Move: Saving Party and Republic in 2016

Carnival-Barking Colossus

Republican-side voters are faced with an interesting (read treacherous) choice in helping pick a president this year with their twin objectives: to save both Party and Republic.

The first option they are presented with is to nominate the gate-crashing populist who was a Democrat his entire life, supporting Democrat candidates and progressive policies—with no apparent care for preserving the Constitution—but who appears at times to be unstoppable in his race to Cleveland.

RESULT: LOSE THE PARTY, SAVE THE REPUBLIC

If Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination against their wishes, and Hillary Clinton wins the Democrat nomination, they can vote for Hillary in the Fall.

Bitch of Benghazi

RESULT: SAVE THE PARTY, LOSE THE REPUBLIC

This desperate move to save the party—at least in it's pro-big government, big spending adjunct role as pretend opposition to the Democrats—would not matter with the loss of the republic. Those who are considering this option might need to wake up to this greater existentialist danger election of Hillary poses.

They could also create a third party, running a candidate for president they believe is committed to preserving the Constitution. For conservatives who wish to to save the Republic, saving the Republican party is not as important.

RESULT: LOSE THE PARTY, SAVE THE REPUBLIC

Or they could simply nominate the only constitutional conservative candidate in the race, no matter how odious he might now appear to the "establishment"—for standing against them on matters of principle in D.C. 

RESULT: SAVE THE PARTY, SAVE THE REPUBLIC

It's the smart move.

Christie Agonistes Run Amok

“We’re fed up with Gov. Chris Christie’s arrogance. We’re fed up with his opportunism. We’re fed up with his hypocrisy. We’re fed up with his sarcasm. We’re fed up with his long neglect of the state to pursue his own selfish agenda. We’re disgusted with his endorsement of Donald Trump after he spent months on the campaign trail trashing him, calling him unqualified by temperament and experience to be president.”

Asbury Park Press

Bridgewater Courier-News

Cherry Hill Courier-Post

East Brunswick Home News Tribune

Morristown Daily Record

Vineland Daily Journal

These newspapers—all owned by Gannett—published their joint call for Governor Christie’s resignation a day after he refused to answer questions related to his endorsement of Donald Trump for president at a press conference.

Much-fazed Christie Agonistes

His reason: “I don’t want to.”

According to the editorial, Christie spent a portion of 261 days out-of-state in 2015, travelling out of New Jersey to endorse and campaign with Trump—having quit the race February 10 after a distant finish in the New Hampshire primary (where he'd placed all his political hopes).

Looks to me like a man seeking national office to vault himself out of the cesspool of New Jersey politics, a cesspool he'd had a hand in creating. Endorsing Trump was his last desperate stab at regaining the spotlight, with its chance of a national political office (or appointment).

Going from the hope of the Republican party—as widely touted by the Leftist Media Bloc (LMB)—to national laughingstock was too much (on top of what already might have been a complex persona).

Christie Agoniste has run amok (or, perhaps it's beramok).

"Bent His Knee"

"Watching Christie kiss the Donald’s ring this weekend — and make excuses for the man Christie himself had said was unfit for the presidency — demonstrated how wrong we were. Rather than standing up to the bully, Christie bent his knee. In doing so, he rejected the very principles of his campaign that attracted our support."

Joseph W. McQuaid, publisher

New Hampshire Union Leader

Slaying Dragons

Angels conquer the Wyvern

"One of the things I look forward to most of all is deposing Donald Trump."

Ted Cruz

As a lawyer and competing candidate for president, "deposing" might take on a double meaning—the giving/taking of evidence for the prospective civil case being discussed, and the removing of someone from a powerful position. 

Ted Cruz is all that currently stands between us and the media-made colossus of the Republican gate-crashing Donald Trump—already crowned our future president by pundits, press, and populace. Which might be all right, except that he's harried by the newly-anointed "Establishment candidate" Marco Rubio—who is also a nasty little vato.

The enormity of the challenge is biblical. The name "Theodore", from which "Ted" derives, means gift of God in Greek. "Cruz", meanwhile, means cross in Spanish.

America is certainly at a crossroad, and we might need a gift from God to save us.

"Their Motley Ranks"

"Whatever envious, petty, bigoted, grievance-based movement Trump is leading, it is not a Republican movement. Whatever Paul LePage represents, it is not the egalitarianism of the Enlightenment for which his forbearers (sic?) fought and died. Whatever struggle the likes of Sarah Palin and Ann Coulter are waging, it has very little to do with the country they supposedly love. And now Chris Christie has joined these motley ranks. Good riddance."

Noah Rothman

"That's the Plan"

“$75 million to stop Trump and $25 million to Marco Rubio, but they gave Rubio a condition: he’s got to win the Florida primary or he’s out and Mitt Romney’s in. That’s the plan.”

Roger Stone on InfoWars

(the Alex Jones Radio Show)