Donald Trump says McCain was in a position to do a lot for our Veterans, is on television all the time, but has done little, and is disrespectful to thousands of Americans by calling them "crazies"

.
7/18/15, "Donald J. Trump," Facebook 4 hrs ·

"I am not a fan of John McCain because he has done so little for our Veterans and he should know better than anybody what the Veterans need, especially in regards to the VA. He is yet another all talk, no action politician who spends too much time on television and not enough time doing his job and helping the Vets. He is also allowing our military to decrease substantially in size and strength, something which should never be allowed to happen.

Furthermore, he was extremely disrespectful to the thousands upon thousands of people, many of whom happen to be his constituents, that came to listen to me speak about illegal immigration in Phoenix last week by calling them "crazies".

These were not "crazies"---these were great American citizens.

I have great respect for all those who serve in our military including those that weren't captured and are also heroes.

I want to strengthen our military and take care of our Veterans. I want to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN especially for those that serve to protect our freedom. I am fighting for our Veterans!"

.........................
================== 

Added: At least 40 veterans died while waiting for health care in Arizona:

4/24/14, "CNN: 40 Vets Died While Waiting for Care at VA," military.com

"At least 40 U.S. veterans died while waiting for health care at the Phoenix VA, many of whom were placed on a secret waiting list, according to a CNN report."...

==========================

========================

Trump in Iowa  at Family Leadership Summit on Sat., July 18, 2015: 25:49

Why is ridiculous Frank Luntz hosting this event in Iowa? He's part of the Fox News-Bush cartel. He's a professional global warming promoter and even sold his services to EDF to advise them how to fool rube Republicans into diverting scarce tax dollars from the poor and needy to global warming profiteers all over the world. Luntz doesn't mention that Americans have been forced to spend millions a day on imaginary climate danger since 1990 when it was mandated in the Executive branch and 13 federal agencies by George Bush #1.

7/18/15, "Donald Trump FULL Appearance at 2015 Family Leadership Summit (7-18-15)"



==============
===================
================== 

Reaction: "Trump the billionaire businessman who has been leading some national GOP polls, received standing ovations before and after his time on stage."...

7/18/15, "Cruz, Jindal, Trump score big at Christian conservative event," Globe Gazette, Des Moines Bureau, Erin Murphy, Ames

"Moments before she would hear 10 Republican presidential candidates speak, a woman from Ames said she would like to see 16 years of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in the White House starting in 2017.

Judging by the response from the thousands who attended Saturday’s event, which was organized by Iowa’s largest Christian conservative organization, that woman is not alone.

Trump — who made some particularly provoking comments — Cruz and Bobby Jindal received some of the most vociferous responses during the fourth annual Family Leader Summit, held Saturday in an auditorium on the Iowa State University campus.

Of the roughly 3,000 people who registered for the event, approximately 2,500 attended, organizers estimated.

Trump, the billionaire businessman who has been leading some national GOP polls, received standing ovations before and after his time on stage, during which he said U.S. Sen. John McCain, a U.S. Navy veteran and Vietnam War prisoner of war, is considered a war hero only “because he was captured.”

Moderator Frank Luntz, a national political consultant, pollster and Fox News contributor, asked Trump about recently calling McCain “a dummy.” Luntz asked Trump if that was appropriate given McCain is “a war hero.”

“He’s a war hero because he was captured,” Trump said. “I like the people who weren’t captured.”
Trump refused to apologize for the comment while meeting with reporters after his summit appearance and in a statement issued by his campaign."...

===================
=====================

Fact check reveals Washington Post substantially misquotes Donald Trump statement about McCain:

7/18/15, "Fact Check: The Washington Post on Donald Trump and John McCain," sharylatkisson.com

"An article in the Washington Post today is headlined, “Trump slams McCain for being ‘captured’ in Vietnam.”

The article’s lead sentence states, “Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump slammed Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a decorated Vietnam War veteran, on Saturday 

by saying McCain was not a war hero because he was captured by the North Vietnamese [emphasis added].”...

In fact, Trump’s actual quote is the opposite of what is presented in the Post’s first sentence."...

Actual quote: “He’s a war hero because he was captured.”...

(continuing): "The Post did not provide context at the outset disclosing that McCain and Trump have been feuding....

When a panelist characterized McCain as a “war hero,” the Post is accurate in reporting that Trump initially said McCain is “not a war hero.” But then, Trump immediately modified his statement saying– four times– that McCain is a war hero:

“He is a war hero.”
“He’s a war hero because he was captured.”
“He’s a war hero, because he was captured.”
“I believe, perhaps, he’s a war hero. But right now, he’s said some very bad things about a lot of people.”

Did Trump say McCain is not a war hero because he was captured? No, not in the exchanges represented in the Post....

Is the Post’s characterization an accident? It would appear not, because it is repeated in the Post’s caption of the video clip, which also states: “Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a decorated Vietnam war veteran, was not a war hero because he was captured by the North Vietnamese [emphasis added].”

Further, in the Post’s second sentence, Trump is quoted as stating of McCain, “He’s not a war hero…He’s a war hero because he was captured,” but the article selectively left out the phrase Trump had uttered in between: “He is a war hero.”

Conclusion

Trump actually said the opposite of what the Post lead sentence and video caption claim. The Post might have been able to get away stating that Trump “implied” McCain was not a war hero because McCain was captured, but even that would have been a subjective interpretation since Trump had actually stated the opposite.

It’s true that Trump stated one time that McCain is not a war hero. But Trump stated four times that McCain is a war hero–and that was not accurately characterized in the article.

Obviously, all are free to draw conclusions about any candidate or politician. But the news media has a responsibility to do its best to report accurately and fairly–even when reporters find a candidate and/or his positions to be personally distasteful." via Free Rep.

...........................................
----------------------------------
...........
Below, three Frank Luntz global warming links: 

=========================
========================

1/21/2010, "Pollster Frank Luntz Releases New Polling Results: Bipartisan Public Support for National Climate Legislation," edf.org

=====================
...........

1/21/2010, "Frank Luntz on How to Pass a Climate Bill," New Republic, Jesse Zwick

=====================

2/1/2010, "The Frank Luntz Poll About Global Warming: Still Hot News," EDF.org

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
------------------------------------

More on global warming fraud:

2/21/11, "Hackers target European carbon registries," USA Today, B. Acohido

7/16/10, "Carbon Trading Used as Money-Laundering Front," Jakarta Globe

10/24/10, “Queen’s £38m a year windfarm windfall,” This is money, by Martin Delgado and Christopher Leake
.............
.............
12/13/10, "‘Perverse’ CO2 Payments Send Flood of Money to China," by Mark Schapiro, Yale Environment 360
...............

======================
.....................

US taxpayers financed the global climate danger industry:
............................

11/16/1990, U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990 

"Funding appears to be driving the science rather than the other way around." 3/8/15 study

...........................
========================
=====================

Comment: John McCain should have retired from the public stage long ago. He had no intention of winning the 2008 election. If he bothered campaigning at all, people at rallies had to beg him to act like he cared. Instead he lectured "the crazies" on what a great guy Obama was and that he'd be fine as president: (10/13/2008): "After a particularly fired-up rally in Minnesota, Mr McCain was booed when he  tried to sooth the crowd, defending Mr Obama as ‘a decent person and a person you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States.’" Throwing elections is what they do in third world dictatorships. This country can't survive without two opposing political parties to serve as a check and balance. McCain has put all his efforts into destroying the two party system.

Dec. 2013 NRO article: "Immigration politics is at the heart of the divide between conservative populist groups, on one side, and corporate elites within the GOP on the other."

12/16/13, “Re-Branding the GOP,” “From the party of big business to the party of the little guy,” NRO, By John Fonte


========================

John McCain has done nothing to stop decades long US impoverishment via imaginary CO2 danger--of which evil Americans are said to be the cause and must pay in perpetuity. Why didn't McCain make job #1 removing the US from the UN?

In 1990 US politicians promised the world that US taxpayers would finance a global climate danger spending boom before most people had even heard of climate scientists:

3/6/15, "Causes and consequences of the climate science boom," William Butos and Thomas McQuade

From the paper:

"1. The Government’s Role in Climate Science Funding...[is] embedded in scores of agencies and programs scattered throughout the Executive Branch of the US government. While such agency activities related to climate science have received funding for many years as components of their mission statements, the pursuit of an integrated national agenda to study climate change and implement policy initiatives took a critical step with passage of the Global Change Research Act of 1990. This Act established institutional structures operating out of the White House to develop and oversee the implementation of a National Global Change Research Plan and created the US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) to coordinate the climate change research activities of Executive Departments and agencies.[33] As of 2014, the coordination of climate change-related activities resides largely in the President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, which houses several separate offices, including the offices of Environment and Energy, Polar Sciences, Ocean Sciences, Clean Energy and Materials R&D, Climate Adaptation and Ecosystems, National Climate Assessment, and others. The Office of the President also maintains the National Science and Technology Council, which oversees the Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability and its Subcommittee on Climate Change Research. The Subcommittee is charged with the responsibility of planning and coordinating with the interagency USGCRP. Also, the Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy is housed within the President’s Domestic Policy Council. While Congress authorizes Executive branch budgets, the priorities these departments and agencies follow are set by the White House. As expressed in various agency and Executive Branch strategic plans, these efforts have been recently organized around four components comprising (1) climate change research and education, (2) emissions reduction through “clean” energy technologies and investments, (3) adaptation to climate change, and (4) international climate change leadership.[36]....By any of these measures, the scale of climate science R&D has increased substantially since 2001. Perhaps, though, the largest funding increases have occurred in developing new technologies and tax subsidies. As can be seen from Table 1, federal dollars to develop and implement “clean energy technologies” have increased from $1.7 billion in 2001 to $5.8 billion in 2013, while energy tax subsidies have increased from zero in 2001 and 2002 to $13 billion in 2013, with the largest increases happening since 2010. The impact on scientific research of government funding is not just a matter of the amounts but also of the concentration of research monies that arises from the focus a single source can bring to bear on particular kinds of scientific research. Government is that single source and has Big Player effects because it has access to a deep pool of taxpayer (and, indeed, borrowed and created) funds combined with regulatory and enforcement powers which necessarily place it on a different footing from other players and institutions. Notwithstanding the interplay of rival interests within the government and the separation of powers among the different branches, there is an important sense in which government’s inherent need to act produces a particular set of decisions that fall within a relatively narrow corridor of ends to which it can concentrate substantial resources.

2. By any standards, what we have documented here is a massive funding drive, highlighting the patterns of climate science R&D as funded and directed only by the Executive Branch and the various agencies that fall within its purview.[40] To put its magnitude into some context, the $9.3 billion funding requested for climate science R&D in 2013 is about one-third of the total amount appropriated for all 27 National Institutes of Health in the same year,[41] yet it is more than enough to sustain a science boom. Its directional characteristic, concentrated as it has been on R&D premised on the controversial issue of the actual sensitivity of climate to human-caused emissions, has gone hand in hand with the IPCC’s expressions of increasing confidence in the AGW hypothesis and increasingly shrill claims of impending disaster.

3. The recent pattern of federal climate science funding, moving toward emphasis on the development of technologies and their subsidization through the tax system, suggests that climate change funding has become more tightly connected to agencies like the Department of Energy, NASA, the Department of Commerce (NOAA), EPA, and cross-cutting projects and programs involving multiple agencies under integrating and coordinating agencies, like the USGCRP, lodged within the Executive branch. The allocations of budgets within these agencies are more directly determined and implemented by Administration priorities and policies. We note that the traditional role of NSF in supporting basic science based on a system of merit awards provided (despite some clear imperfections) certain advantages with regard to generating impartial science. In contrast, even a casual perusal of current agency documents, such as The National Science and Technology Council’s The National Global Change Research Plan 2012-2021, shows that those driving this movement make no pretense as to their premises and starting points.[39]

4. To be sure, the very opaqueness of these allocations and their actual use only provides for “ball park” estimates. However, we believe that the results presented in Table 3 come closer to a useful accounting than what previously has been provided. We have combined data from Leggett et al. (2013) and the AAAS Reports for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013 (the only years for which the AAAS provides detailed budgetary data for climate science R&D and climate-related funding). This constrains Table 3 to including data only from 2010 through 2013. We have adjusted budgetary data and categorized it in light of discussion points 1-5 above. Note that the estimated aggregate expenditures for climate science and climate-related funding (excluding tax subsidies) from 2010-2013 in Table 3 are about twice that of the Leggett findings.

5.5 Funds administered by the Treasury Department in Table 2 are credit lines and loans channeled through the World Bank earmarked for international organizations to finance clean technologies and sustainable practices; consequently such funds would also more accurately be considered as climate-related sustainability and adaptation....

8. This summary and the detail in Table 1, however, do not capture the full scale of federal funding for climate science R&D. Two complications must be considered to capture a more accurate estimate. First, the entries in the first row of Table 1 for climate science only refer to monies administered by the Executive branch via the office of the USGCRP and does not include all climate-related R&D in the federal budget. For example, the entry in Table 1 for the USGCRP in 2011 is just under $2.5 billion; yet the actual budget expenditures for climate science-related R&D as calculated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) total about $16.1 billion.[38] In addition, since USGCRP funding is comprised of monies contributed from the authorized budgets of the 13 participating departments and agencies, a more accurate estimate of climate-related R&D requires deducting USGCRP funding from the aggregated budgets of those 13, most of which are included in Table 2.

9. Leggett et al. (2013) of the Congressional Research Service provides a recent account of climate change funding based on data provided by the White House Office of Management and Budget (see Table 1, below). Total expenditures for federal funded climate change programs from 2001-2013 were $110.9 billion in current dollars and $120.2 billion in 2012 dollars. “Total budgetary impact” includes various tax provisions and subsidies related to reducing greenhouse gas emissions (which are treated as “tax expenditures”) and shows total climate change expenditures from 2001-2013 to be $145.3 billion in current dollars and $155.4 billion in 2012 dollars.[37]

10. The USGCRP operates as a confederacy of the research components of thirteen participating government agencies, each of which independently designates funds in accordance with the objectives of the USGCRP; these monies comprise the program budget of the USGCRP to fund agency cross-cutting climate science R&D.[34] The departments and agencies whose activities comprise the bulk of such funding include independent agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency, US Agency for International Development, the quasi-official Smithsonian Institute, and Executive Departments that include Agriculture, Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology), Energy, Interior (the US Geological Survey and conservation initiatives), State, and Treasury.[35]

11. The past 15 years have seen a sustained program of funding, largely from government or quasi-government entities.[31] The funding efforts are spread across a bewildering array of sources and buried in a labyrinth of programs, agency initiatives, interagency activities, and Presidential Offices, but what they seem to have in common is an adherence to the assumption that human activity is primarily responsible for the warming observed in the latter part of the 20^th century. Funding appears to be driving the science rather than the other way around. And the extent of this funding appears not to have been heretofore fully documented.[32]"...
.
=========================

11/16/1990, U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990


.......................................