Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

So, Trump has easily secured the nomination without a hitch. What happened to all those media reports of plans to take it away from him? Just a bunch of bollocks. Bollocks. I'm getting to like that word. It's how the Brits say bull shit. The advantage is: you can always say it. And, they say it with such contempt. It's very endearing. 

But, it's been quite a circus at that Republican convention. This old geezer, a Southern congressman, got up there and started in about how white people have made the greatest contributions to western civilization. Was that necessary at a time like this? Was that helpful? Has he not been awake for the last two weeks? 

Then they had this General Flynn get up there and say that Donald Trump is going to wage a new war against Islamic extremists. And, from the sound of it, he means a real war; a shooting war. He wasn't speaking in metaphor; he wants to bomb and shoot. 

And, it makes me wonder: Why does the Establishment hate Donald Trump so much? He wants to wage war on radical Muslims. Isn't that what George W. Bush wanted to do and did? But, the Establishment went for Bush.  

Some people say it's because Trump doesn't adequately support Israel. But, he told AIPAC that "we are going to take such good care of Israel." Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson supports Trump, and Adelson, who is Jewish, certainly supports Israel. I think it's very likely, rather, I think it's 100% certain that Adelson and Trump talked this out, and Adelson came away satisfied that Trump, as President, would indeed support Israel. Adelson doesn't doubt it. I don't doubt it. So, why would anyone doubt it? 

So no, I don't think it's that. What about his proposal to build a wall to stop illegal entry from Mexico? I can't say I'm enthused about it, but didn't former Texas Governor Rick Perry advocate the same thing? Haven't quite a few people talked about and advocated building a wall? So, why get all riled up when Donald Trump does it?

Or do you think it's his plan to keep Muslims out, or at least to make it much more difficult for them to immigrate to this country than other people? To me, it's ridiculous because Islam is a religion. So, how can you have an immigration policy based on religion? And if he's going to base it on religion affiliation, does that mean that he's going to keep blue-eyed blondes who happen to be Muslims out too (for being Muslim) or does he just mean Arab Muslims? He needs to clarify that. 

But, either way, the idea of having special immigration barriers placed against Muslims would never hold up in court. What he should have said- if anything- was that there needs to be greater immigration barriers, more hurdles, across the board, for all prospective immigrants. Even if you don't agree with that, at least it doesn't offend anyone in particular. Politically, it would have been much better for him to say that.

But, the truth is that even before he said that, the mainstream media and the whole Establishment were deadset against him. They have been deadset against him from the start. So, why?

I think it's because of his political incorrectness, the fact that he dabbles in conspiracies. He was a big voice in the birther movement. And, he has dabbled around the edges of 911 truth. No, he has never said that the Project for New American Century were the ones who conceived of 9/11, and that the collapse of the Twin Towers was a controlled demolition. And he's never discussed Building 7, the fact that it collapsed straight down into its own footprint in 8.8 seconds even though it was never hit by a plane and had only minimal fire and damage. But vaguely, he has talked about the official 9/11 story as if there is more to it, and that the government is hiding something. And that is way too close for comfort for a Presidential candidate. 

Didn't he jump on the Rafael Cruz/Lee Harvey Oswald story? That wasn't politically correct either. Even in the pit of political warfare, which that primary was, you're not supposed to do that. You might say that there is a code, and he broke it. 

Believe me, I wouldn't rejoice a President Trump. But, I wouldn't rejoice a President Hillary either. But, I'll tell you one difference: if it winds up being President Trump, I just might send a packet to his Attorney General about Oswald in the doorway. I know it would still be a remote long shot, but still, I'd be tempted. But, if it's President Hillary, no, I won't bother writing her Attorney General. That would be a complete waste of time with zero chance of succeeding.