Monday, February 29, 2016

The Truth About David Duke And The Ku Klux Klan

By Frances Rice

Democratic Party leaders and their media allies falsely link the Republican Party to David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan.  In reality, David Duke has never been embraced by the Republican Party and it was Democrats who started the Ku Klux Klan that became the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party. 


In his book, “A Short History of Reconstruction (1st edition),” Dr. Eric Foner wrote: “Founded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a ‘reign of terror‘ against Republican Party leaders, black and white.  In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy.” The Klan killed over 3,000 Republicans, 1,000 of whom were white.

Dr. Foner is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University and one of America’s most prominent historians. He is only the second person to serve as president of the three major professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians, American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians.  His bio can be found on the Internet at:
Another excellent reference is the book by Rev. Wayne Perryman "Whites, Blacks and Racist Democrats: The Untold History of Race & Politics Within The Democratic Party From 1792-2009."
Notably, former Senator Robert Byrd who was a recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan remained a Democrat until he died in 2010. 
Mr. Byrd was a prominent leader in the Democrat-controlled Congress where he was honored by his fellow Democrats as the “conscience of the Senate.” Mr. Byrd was a fierce opponent of desegregating the military and complained in one letter:  “I would rather die a thousand times and see old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen of the wilds."
While turning a blind eye to how the Democratic Party embraced former Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, Democrats regularly lambaste the Republican Party about David Duke, a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.


When Mr. Duke ran for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 1992, Republican Party officials tried to block his participation.
Democrats ignore Mr. Duke’s long participation in the Democratic Party with no efforts to block him. Below is Mr. Duke’s political history in Louisiana, which has an open primary system.

Mr. Duke ran for Louisiana State Senator as a Democrat in 1975.
He ran again for the Louisiana State Senate in 1979 as a Democrat.
In 1988, he made a bid for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.
Then on election day, in 1988, he had himself listed on the presidential ballot as an “Independent Populist.”
After his unbroken string of losses as a Democrat and an Independent Populist, Mr. Duke decided to describe himself as a Republican, without being embraced by the Republican Party.
Then Mr. Duke ran the following races where he lost every time:
In 1989 he ran for Louisiana State Representative and lost.
In 1990, he ran for US Senator and lost.
In 1991 he ran for Governor of Louisiana and lost.
In 1992 he ran for president and lost.
In 1996 he ran for US Senator and lost.
In 1999 he ran for US Representative and lost.

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Is Marco Rubio The Real "Con" Artist?

By Frances Rice

The majority of Floridians, including me, gave Senator Marco Rubio a pass on his shortcomings, since no human being is perfect, and voted for him to be our senator.

We believed Mr. Rubio would fight against the liberal Democrats who are refusing to secure our borders, failing to defend our national security adequately and destroying our economy with their socialist policies.

To our utter amazement, after Mr. Rubio arrived in Washington, he turned his back on us by embracing liberal Democrats and pushing for amnesty, as explained in the below article.

The voters in Florida were, in a word, "conned" by Mr. Rubio.

Now, a message is being sent loudly and clearly by Republican primary voters.

We are fed up with the Washington establishment.

We want a non-politician with business experience in the White House, a person who is not beholden to special interests and has the intestinal fortitude to take on the Washington establishment and their media allies. That person is the only self-funded candidate in the race for the presidency--Donald J. Trump.

Marco Rubio Pushed for Immigration Reform With Conservative Media
By Jason Horowitzeb

 Senator Marco Rubio, center, with a bipartisan group of senators at a Washington news conference to unveil details of an immigration overhaul bill in April 2013. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times 

A few weeks after Senator Marco Rubio joined a bipartisan push for an immigration overhaul in 2013, he arrived alongside Senator Chuck Schumer at the executive dining room of News Corporation’s Manhattan headquarters for dinner.
Their mission was to persuade Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the media empire, and Roger Ailes, the chairman and chief executive of its Fox News division, to keep the network’s on-air personalities from savaging the legislation and give it a fighting chance at survival.
Mr. Murdoch, an advocate of immigration reform, and Mr. Ailes, his top lieutenant and the most powerful man in conservative television, agreed at the Jan. 17, 2013, meeting to give the senators some breathing room.
But the media executives, highly attuned to the intensifying anger in the Republican grass roots, warned that the senators also needed to make their case to Rush Limbaugh, the king of conservative talk radio, who held enormous sway with the party’s largely anti-immigrant base.
So the senators supporting the legislation turned to Mr. Rubio, the Florida Republican, to reach out to Mr. Limbaugh.
The dinner at News Corporation headquarters — which has not been previously reported — and the subsequent outreach to Mr. Limbaugh illustrate the degree to which Mr. Rubio served as the chief envoy to the conservative media for the group supporting the legislation. The bill would have provided a pathway to American citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants along with measures to secure the borders and ensure that foreigners left the United States upon the expiration of their visas.
It is a history that Mr. Rubio is not eager to highlight as he takes on Donald J. Trump, his rival for the Republican presidential nomination, who has made his vow to crack down on illegal immigration a centerpiece of his campaign.
Those discussions of just a few years ago now seem of a distant era, when, after the re-election of President Obama, momentum was building to overhaul the nation’s immigration system.
The senators embarked on a tour of editorial boards and newsrooms, and Mr. Rubio was even featured as the “Republican savior” on the cover of Time magazine for his efforts to change immigration laws. He already was being mentioned as a 2016 presidential contender.
Now Mr. Trump has become the Republican leader in national polls by picking fights with Mr. Ailes and offending the Latino voters whom Mr. Rubio had hoped to bring into the Republican fold. And while Mr. Rubio ultimately abandoned the bipartisan legislation in the face of growing grass-roots backlash and the collapse of the conservative media truce, he, and to a certain degree Fox News, are still paying for that dinner.
Fox’s ratings remain strong, but its standing among Republican viewers, influenced by Mr. Trump’s offensive, has dropped to a three-year low, according to YouGov BrandIndex. And Mr. Rubio’s opponents, for whom Mr. Schumer, a Democrat from New York, has become the ultimate villain, continue to depict the Florida Republican as a duplicitous establishment insider.
“If you look at the ‘Gang of Eight,’ one individual on this stage broke his promise to the men and women who elected him and wrote the amnesty bill,” Senator Ted Cruz said of Mr. Rubio during Thursday’s Republican debate. And as Mr. Rubio defended himself, Mr. Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, posted “MARCO ‘AMNESTY’ RUBIO” on Twitter.
The so-called Gang of Eight was four Democrats and four Republicans, including Mr. Rubio, who drafted an immigration bill in 2013. It passed the Senate but was stymied by conservative opposition in the House.
Details of the dinner, and a previous one in 2011, were provided to The New York Times by an attendee of one of the meetings and two people with knowledge of what was discussed at both get-togethers.
None of the attendees agreed to be identified for this article because the conversations were supposed to be confidential.
But on Monday, Mr. Limbaugh shed light on his interactions with the senators when he told a caller frustrated with his criticism of Mr. Rubio that the immigration position the senator had advocated “comes right out of the Gang of Eight bill.”
Mr. Limbaugh added, “I’ve had it explained to me by no less than Senator Schumer.”
Mr. Schumer declined to comment for this article. But before Mr. Obama’s re-election and soon afterward, he could hardly stop talking with conservative senators and media power brokers about the chance to pass comprehensive immigration legislation.
As early as March 9, 2011, Mr. Schumer joined Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and another eventual member of the Gang of Eight, at the Palm restaurant in Manhattan, where they made their case to Mr. Murdoch, Mr. Ailes and Mr. Limbaugh in a private room. The senators argued how damaging the word “amnesty” was to their efforts, and walked Mr. Limbaugh through their vision for an immigration overhaul.
The senators were especially eager to try to neutralize conservative media, which proved lethal to a big push for immigration changes in 2007. A study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism showed that conservative news shows had devoted about a quarter of their time to immigration.
In late 2012, after Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, lost the presidential election in part because of his dismal performance with Latino voters, Mr. Rubio joined the fight. On one Sunday alone in April 2013, he made an appearance on seven talk shows to advocate the immigration overhaul, including on “Fox News Sunday.”
Mr. Rubio also reached out to other conservative power brokers, including the radio hosts Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham, telling them that the legislation did not amount to amnesty. The Fox anchors Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly became more supportive.
At the time, The Washington Post reported that Mr. Rubio’s advisers were monitoring to the minute how much time the hosts devoted to immigration, and that “they are heartened that the volume is much diminished.”
Mr. Rubio publicly and privately worked to assuage the fears of Mr. Limbaugh, who on air called him a “thoroughbred conservative” and assured one wary listener that “Marco Rubio is not out to hurt this country or change it the way the liberals are.”
On Jan. 29, 2013, the same day Mr. Obama highlighted immigration in Las Vegas, Mr. Limbaugh had Mr. Rubio on as a guest to talk about immigration and called him “admirable and noteworthy” during a warm conversation about the bipartisan immigration plan.
“I know for you border security is the first and last — if that doesn’t happen, none of the rest does, right?” Mr. Limbaugh lobbed.
“Well, not just that,” swung Mr. Rubio. “That alone is not enough.”
The conversation concluded with Mr. Rubio saying: “Thank you for the opportunity, Rush. I appreciate it.”
“You bet,” Mr. Limbaugh said.

Thursday, February 25, 2016

AG Confirms: Hillary Clinton Under Criminal Investigation By The FBI

By Frances Rice
Attorney General Loretta Lynch acknowledged during Congressional testimony that Hillary Clinton is under criminal investigation by the FB for violations of national security laws by storing classified information on her secret email server in her home. 

According to an article in The Washington Post, Clinton and her top aides could face subpoenas over her secret email server due to “’reasonable suspicion’ that public access to official government records under the federal Freedom of Information Act was undermined.” 
The FBI is also investigating Clinton for corruption. She provided government favors to corporations and foreign governments while she was Secretary of State in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.
For an additional analysis of Clinton's scandals, see the below editorial that was published in the New York Post.

New York Post

With the Clintons, the political scandals never stop
By Post Editorial Board
“Drip, drip, drip” — so US District Judge Emmett Sullivan described the constant trickle of disclosures on Hillary Clinton’s email.

“When does it stop?” he demanded.

With the Clintons, it never does. Ever.

It’s not that they invite scandal. They greet it at the door, give it a seat by the fire, beg it to stay for a few more rounds and then crash on the couch — or in the Lincoln Bedroom.

After two presidents who’ve served beyond personal reproach, many Americans have forgotten the eight-year stream of Clinton scandals — right up to the pardons for fat-cat donors in Bill’s final days in the White House. If Hillary wins come November, it’ll all start up again.

Indeed, Judge Sullivan just ensured that she’d take office with at least one investigation still open. He ruled that top State Department officials and Clinton aides can be questioned under oath about whether her private email server was set up specifically to evade the freedom-of-information laws.

Oh, and the FBI’s still doing its criminal probe into Clinton and her cohorts’ mishandling of top-secret information.

Mind you, Judge Sullivan was named to the bench by Bill Clinton — and he made it clear he’s fed up with this stalling. He even left open the possibility of ordering Hillary and Huma Abedin to testify.

“How on Earth can the court conclude there is not at minimum a reasonable suspicion of bad faith?” he asked.

“It just boggles the mind a little that the State Department allowed this practice” — a private email server located in her home — “to occur in the first place. It is very, very troubling.”

We guess the judge has forgotten the ’90s, too: This is just how the Clintons roll.

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

Trump's Success In Nevada Is A Big Win For America

By Frances Rice

With Donald Trump's huge win in Nevada, his third electoral triumph in a row, the Trump Train is on track to making America great again.

Donald Trump's America

Trump Tower in Las Vegas, Nevada

The America of Socialist Democrats

A Detroit Community

Inner-city communities run by socialist Democrats for decades have been devastated by their socialist policies. Detroit, South Chicago and Baltimore are just a few examples.

To see the video "The Black-O-Scope Show- Liberal Democrats Destroy Black Cities," click here: 

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Obama Prosecuted Black CIA Agent For Security Violations - Gives Hillary A Pass


By Frances Rice
President Barack Obama prosecuted Jeffrey Sterling, a black CIA agent, for violations of national security laws.  Yet, during an TV interview, Obama gave Hillary Clinton a pass, even though she is under FBI investigations for far more egregious violations of national security laws by storing classified information on a personal server in her home.
The Hill reports: A former CIA officer serving jail time for leaking documents to the New York Times accused federal officials of setting a double standard by apparently refusing to aggressively prosecute Hillary Clinton. Clinton was “a high ranking official who should know better, but completely given a pass, and almost an apologetic pass,” Jeffrey Sterling, who was found guilty of leaking classified information to Times reporter James Risen last year, said in an interview with the Washington Post published on Monday.  “So how should us regular citizens feel, especially with heightened concerns about national security?” The comments from Sterling, who is serving a 3.5-year prison term, come as an indictment of the Democratic presidential frontrunner’s controversial use of a “homebrew” email setup throughout her tenure as secretary of State.
Below is the complete Washington Post article.
He was fired from the CIA and jailed for a leak. Now he’s trying to hang on.
By Matt Zapotosky

Former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling leaves the Alexandria federal courthouse with his wife, Holly, after being convicted of leaking classified details of an operation to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions to a New York Times reporter. (AP Photo/Kevin Wolf)
Locked away in federal prison, Jeffrey Sterling is struggling to keep his demons at bay. The former CIA officer whose case came to signify the Obama administration’s crackdown on leakers spends his days reading, tutoring fellow inmates and finishing a memoir, which he says he has to write by hand and mail home so his wife can type it.
“There is no sugarcoating it for me,” Sterling said. “I’m in prison.”
Sterling said he wants the public to know that he has “survived with my head held high.” But he concedes that he feels low on some days. He was a CIA officer, helping run an operation to sabotage Iranian plans to design a nuclear weapon. Now he’s Inmate No. 38338-044 in Englewood, Colo., taking classes on checking and saving accounts to help increase his chances of eventually being released to a halfway house.
“I am doing my best,” he wrote in a recent message, “to hang on.”
 Sterling, 48, was convicted last year of giving journalist and author James Risen classified information about a highly secretive operation targeting Iran’s nuclear program. The case was perhaps the greatest courtroom success of a presidential administration that has pursued more leak cases than all of its predecessors combined, and one that could have lasting impact.
Sterling discussed his case and his life with a Washington Post reporter in a months-long back-and-forth over the prison’s electronic messaging system. Prison officials also allowed him an hour-long telephone interview with the reporter but denied an in-person visit.
The correspondence was thorough and wide-ranging, offering some of the first public glimpses into Sterling’s life behind bars; his relationship with his wife, Holly; and his thoughts on Risen — who, by Sterling’s view of things, could come forward and exonerate him.
A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to comment on the case, though federal prosecutors have asserted previously that Sterling’s trial “laid to rest” any doubts about his guilt. Through an attorney, Risen declined to comment.
Sentenced to 3½ years in prison, Sterling reported to Federal Correctional Institution, Englewood, in June and is not projected to be released until 2018. He said he has not made any real friends at the facility, which also houses former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich and Jared Fogle, who was Subway’s pitchman.
Sterling, who said he plans to start working out again when his motivation returns, said he grapples, at times, with thoughts of suicide but insists that he promised his wife he would not “lose all hope and make such a move.”
Holly, who met Sterling on in 2004 and married him three years later, has been her husband’s biggest booster. On Wednesday, she spoke at a news conference in the District sponsored by ExposeFacts, Reporters Without Borders and, urging people to sign a petition that asks President Obama to pardon her husband.
Later, a group of supporters — which included prominent professor and activist Cornel West and another former CIA officer convicted in a leak case, John Kiriakou — walked to the White House carrying reams of paper containing what they said was just short of 150,000 signatures.
“It is wrong, and you have the power, and you need to do what is right,” Holly said, directing her remarks at Obama.
Sterling rations his phone calls so he can speak to Holly, who works in the foster-care system in Missouri, for 10 minutes every day, and he hopes that her finances keep allowing her to visit every month. He said he longs for the day when he can provide for her and “be back in the world.” Holly says there is no doubt that she will wait for him.
“We are not going to let them take away the foundation of our marriage and our relationship,” Holly said. “They can destroy everything else, but they’re not destroying that.”
The case has dragged on for more than a decade now. Sterling, the youngest of six brothers who grew up in Missouri, joined the CIA in the early 1990s after answering an employment ad in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. He worked a variety of assignments — including on the Iran operation — but his relationship with his superiors soured as he began to feel he was being discriminated against. He sued over his treatment in 2001 and was fired months later.
Sterling soon found himself with mounting legal expenses and no job. He said he lived in his car for a time and worked as what he termed a “manny” — babysitting for friends in exchange for room and board. By the time he met Holly, he had started work as a fraud investigator for a healthcare company, but he soon began hearing rumblings he was being investigated for a leak.
Sterling said two FBI agents visited him in 2005, and Holly testified before a federal grand jury in Alexandria the next year. Holly said prosecutors asked her if she knew about an “Operation Merlin,” or an author named “James Risen.” Shortly after she arrived back home in Missouri, she said, agents searched her home.
More than four years later, Sterling was indicted on charges that he provided classified information to Risen for his 2006 book, “State of War.” Prosecutors alleged Sterling told Risen about how the CIA paid a Russian scientist to try to get faulty nuclear plans to Iranian officials, even describing a clandestine meeting with the scientist in California’s wine country. Risen’s book characterized the operation as a botched one because the flaws in the nuclear plans were easily detectable.
Justice Department lawyers initially tried to compel Risen to testify, and though they later abandoned their efforts, they did so only after a federal appeals court ruled reporters had no protection against subpoenas to take the stand in criminal cases.
The decision gave prosecutors a powerful tool to force journalists to reveal their sources. Sterling said it left him feeling like a sideshow in his own criminal case.
“There was so much outcry about the potential of his being forced to testify and no real concern for whether I was innocent or not,” he wrote. “There was no concern that a life, a real person was being persecuted.”
Norman Solomon, a journalist and activist who has come to consider Sterling a friend, said he first became interested in the case because of Risen but soon came to realize “there was another part of this saga.” He attended every day of Sterling’s trial, and after Sterling was convicted, used frequent flier miles so Sterling and his wife could return home to Missouri. He is one of a few people who has visited Sterling behind bars, where he said he and Sterling talked about everything from “jazz in the 1920s and Louis Armstrong to politics and his trial.”
During their visit, Sterling seemed simply “stunned by the injustice of it all,” Solomon said.
“He grew up really feeling that he was going to make it out of the situation that is so often consigned to poor, black Americans, and so he really was resolute, from everything I understand, that he wasn’t going to end up behind bars, he wasn’t going to use drugs, he wasn’t going to break the law,” Solomon said. “My impression is that he’s stunned. In a sense, his worst case scenario, that he had dedicated his life to be in the opposite situation of, has come to pass, in that he’s a black man in a federal prison.”
  Holly Sterling, fourth from left, stands with supporters urging President Obama to pardon Jeffrey Sterling (Matt Zapotosky/ The Washington Post)
Prosecuting those who leak classified information has been a hallmark of the Obama administration, which has pursued more such cases than all its predecessors combined. Sterling said he believes his treatment was particularly harsh considering what happened to other more, prominent people. Gen. David H. Petraeus, for example, gave his mistress and biographer access to classified materials and was sentenced to only two years of probation and fined $100,000, Sterling said.
Even presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, whom political rivals have alleged mishandled classified information related to her use of a personal e-mail account while she was Secretary of State, seems to have benefited from her position, Sterling said.
“Again, a high ranking official who should know better, but completely given a pass, and almost an apologetic pass,” he said of Clinton. “So how should us regular citizens feel, especially with heightened concerns about national security?”
Prosecutors have long said Sterling’s case was different — and, in many ways, worse — than those to which he sought to compare himself. At the trial, prosecutors cast him as a vindictive ex-employee. They alleged he was upset over losses in his various legal squabbles with the CIA, and he leaked details about a classified operation to Risen to get back at the employer that fired him. The government said he effectively shut down an important and sensitive program designed to put faulty nuclear plans in the hands of Iranians and put the lives of those working with the CIA at risk.
Jurors agreed — convicting Sterling of all nine criminal counts. Several jurors declined to speak for this story, and others did not return messages.
Sterling, who did not take the stand in his own defense, denied he ever provided any classified information to Risen or served as a source for Risen’s 2006 book, “State of War,” or for any other reporter. He acknowledged that he knew Risen, who wrote a story about his discrimination lawsuit against the CIA, and said at one time, he even considered Risen a friend.
“He was the only person out there who listened and had any genuine interest in the discrimination I was facing at the CIA,” Sterling said. He said he does not harbor any anger toward Risen now — even though he contends that if Risen were to testify, that would effectively exonerate him. During previous legal proceedings, his lawyers took no position on whether Risen should be forced to testify.
“He wasn’t the one that fired me, he wasn’t the one that brought these charges, he wasn’t the one that did the search warrant at my home,” Sterling said. “I can’t answer for someone else. I can only answer for myself. I hold no ill will for him. He did not create the situation.”
For her part, Holly said she pressed for an explanation about why Risen could not simply vindicate her husband — even if he wouldn’t reveal the identities of his source or sources.
“I asked that specific question to our lawyers, ‘Why can’t he just get up there and say it wasn’t Jeffrey?’” Holly said. “I understand, and I feel that there’s a lot of mistrust in our government, and the citizens of our country need to know what’s going on, but I’m not okay that my husband is innocent and is sitting in prison right now.”
Sterling is appealing his case, while Holly pursues other avenues to secure his release.
“This is an outrageous miscarriage of justice,” Holly wrote in an open letter posted with the petition on and elsewhere. “My husband was wrongfully sentenced to prison simply because he was in touch with a journalist.”
She is also working to keep her husband’s spirits up, putting money in his prison commissary account so he can buy odds and ends like gym shoes or an MP3 player, and flying to Colorado once a month to see him. Their visits, she said, are necessary but wrenching. She spends all day Saturday and Sunday with Jeffrey, spending $40 at the vending machine so they can eat together. By the time she walks out, she said, she is usually crying.
Sterling said the sound of Holly’s crying is one of his most vivid memories from the day he was convicted. But without her now, he said, he does not know that he could persevere.
“She is such an incredible person and I know without her, I would never be able to endure any of this,” he wrote. “Truly, my fondest wish is just to get home to her.” 





Monday, February 22, 2016

The Vicious Snake


 By John Porter
I ask you to put aside politics for just a moment and think about the safety and security of our great nation.

This short 3-minute video is going viral in Europe.
Click Here to Watch:

It should be in America, but won't unless you and I make it so, because our media outlets are ignoring it.

This POWERFUL message, delivered with the lyrics from a 1960's song, aptly applies to today and our world situation.
It cuts straight to the heart and was published on YouTube January 18, 2016.
After you view it, please bring it to the attention of everyone in America that you can.

New RNC South Carolina Video: "The Clintons Hope You Forgot"


Click Here To Watch

Franklin Graham Gets It Right About The Pope And Trump


The below view about Pope Francis and Donald Trump is  posted on Rich Swier's eMagazine website at:

Open Letter to Pope Francis

By Geoff Ross

Dear Pope Francis,

Fanciscus, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of Apostles, Pontifex Maximus of the Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop of the Dioceses of Rome, Sovereign of the Vatican State, Servant of the Servants of God.
You called out Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump for his views on U.S. immigration policy as “not Christian.”
Are you really wanting to take on this political battle?
Would you be referring to all the Muslim men between the age of 18 and 45 trying to get into our nation, as they have in Europe, to rape and slaughter Christians and Jews? Do you think we, the U.S. tax payers of the United States, should be a dumping ground for Muslim migrants who have no intention of assimilating into our Judeo/Christian culture?
Muslims who want to take our Churches land to build mosques. Muslims who think its permissible, according to the Qur’an, to marry 9-year old children and stone women to death? Are these the people you speak of while bashing Mr. Trump?
Hmm, perhaps maybe you are referring to the Mexican criminal gangs, like MS 13, and other miscreants that sneak across our borders to rape our women, sell drugs and kill and maim Americans. We pick up the tab for that too.
The sovereignty of the United States has been pillaged since Jimmy Carter opened up the flood gates with his Refugee Act of 1980. We have had enough.
The question to ask is how many Muslim refugees has the Vatican taken in? Lets hazard a guess at ZERO.
You also stated on your flight home from your visit to Mexico:
“A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian.”
The Vatican is a walled in city. Its the most protected city in Italy. You are inside a fortress, a compound. No bridges. No Muslim or South American refugees. I have been there. I met with Pope John Paul II in Saint Peters Basilica in 1990 right before Desert Storm started.
So before you start criticizing others, first take the plank out of your own eye so you can see clearly to remove the speck of dust from ours. Matthew 7:3-5 (NIV):
“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Aerial view of the wall surrounding the Vatican (white line).

Bryan Fischer in his article “Trump, the Pope, and the wall” notes:
The Pope created a firestorm of controversy by going to our southern border and making the building of a border wall the litmus test of Christian faith. “A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not the gospel.”
Setting aside the plain truth that the litmus test of Christian faith is what a man does with Christ, not what he thinks about a wall, the Pope has hoisted himself on his own petard here. The Vatican is surrounded by the mother of all walls, and has the stingiest citizenship and immigration policy of any sovereign state in the world.
The low-information media and the Vatican itself have scrambled to the Pope’s defense. The Vatican reminds us that the Pope did not build the Vatican wall. True. But he’s making no effort to take it down either.
Mr. Trump does not take any false criticism lying down. Not from you Holy Father, not from the Democrats, not from the “establishment” Republicans, the Chinese, the Russians or the North Koreans. NO ONE!
So, if you wish to debate on the issue of building walls perhaps you should first check the Holy Bible. Do  you recall Zechariah 2:5 which says:
And I myself will be a wall of fire around it,’ declares the LORD, ‘and I will be its glory within’
We don’t need any distractions during this critical election year.
Now Mr. Trump was prompted by your little outburst to respond in kind. He said you sir are “disgraceful” for questioning his faith. I and many others agree.
You want to stick your nose into the sovereignty of the United States be careful. We will challenge you. We are done with the political correctness. It is time to confront the real evils in the world, those who slaughter Christians and Jews. This is our nation and Mr. Trump is going to protect our borders, our culture, our Judeo/Christian heritage and our language to paraphrase radio talk show host Mr. Michael Savage.
Remove your blindfold and understand that you should spend more time protecting your flock against Islam, Communists and atheists.
I beseech you, Pope Francis take down your walls.