29

Debate Open Thread

 

 

Fifty-six years to the day from the first Presidential Debate:  Trump v. Nixon Clinton.  Put your thoughts on the debate in the comboxes.

 

Update:

I thought it was a wretched debate with neither Hillary nor Trump doing especially well, although I gave it to Clinton on points.  However, the online polls are showing a decisive Trump win.  That is probably bad news for Hillary as those often in the wake of a Presidential debate are a good sign of political strength as hard core partisans tend to see their candidate winning no matter what.  It looks like Trump did himself no harm tonight and Clinton did herself no good.  She needed to change the momentum of the race away from Trump, and this is an early sign that she has failed to accomplish that.

 

9

Eve of the Debate

 

Presidential debates don’t matter much except when they do.  Back in 1976 on October 6, Ford, in his second debate with Carter, denied that Poland was dominated by the Soviet Union.  He was too proud and stupid to simply admit intially he had misspoke.  This stalled his rise in the polls with Carter, and he went on to lose a close one.

 

 

In 1980 the one and only debate between Carter and Reagan occurred on October 28, 1980, six days before the election.  Reagan clobbered Carter and Carter had no time to recover before election day.

 

 

 

 

So where is the current race just prior to the debate?  The Washington Post ABC poll released last night shows a dead heat.  Go here to read about it.  Likewise the Morning Consult poll released yesterday.  Go here to read about it.  The Los Angeles Times Tracking poll shows Trump with a four point advantage.  Go here to look at it.  Battleground polls have been trending over the past few weeks in Trump’s direction.  A Pennsylvania Poll by Morning Call Muhlenberg College yesterday for example shows Trump slashing into Clinton’s lead in Pennsylvania with Clinton having only a two point lead in a four way race.  Go here to read about it.  If Trump takes Pennsylvania, Clinton’s path to victory becomes very, very difficult.  Right now Trump is ahead in all the states taken by Romney, and leads in Ohio, Florida, Iowa and Nevada.  Trump is tied with Clinton in Maine and close to tied in Colorado.  A shocking poll last week showed him only six points down in Illinois.  If that poll is accurate, and I have my doubts about it, Clinton is in deep trouble around the nation. Continue Reading

20

Clinton Campaign Steals From Its Small Donors

 

 

Once one understands that Hillary Clinton is a transparent crook, this is not surprising:

 

An elderly woman who donated to the Hillary Clinton campaign says she was charged multiple times after she stipulated she would only be making a one-time donation, according to a report from the New York Observer.*

Carol Mahre, an 81-year-old grandmother from Minnesota who has voted Democratic since Eisenhower’s re-election in 1956, said she wanted to make a one-time donation of $25 to Clinton’s campaign. But when she received her U.S. Bank statement, she noticed that multiple charges of $25 (and one for $19) were made to her account from the Clinton campaign.

Mahre said she wanted to make only a one-time donation. Her son, Roger, agreed to help her get her money back, as she could not afford the multiple donations.

“It took me at least 40 to 50 phone calls to the campaign office before I finally got ahold of someone,” Roger told NBC affiliate Kare11, which first investigated Mahre’s story. “After I got a campaign worker on the phone, she said they would stop making the charges.”

But the charges didn’t stop. Roger said his mother is “very good with the Internet,” and doesn’t believe she would have mistakenly signed up for recurring donations. But even if she had, why would the recurring donations change from $25 to $19? Why would the charges come on the same day or in the same month instead of monthly? . . .

Observer reporter Liz Crokin spoke to a Wells Fargo employee who works in the fraud department to figure out what was going on.

“We get up to a hundred calls a day from Hillary’s low-income supporters complaining about multiple unauthorized charges,” the employee, who asked to remain anonymous, told Crokin. The source added that they had not received any calls about the Trump campaign and donations.

The source said this has been going on since the spring, and that the campaign stops after it has taken a little less than $100 from a one-time donor.

“We don’t investigate fraudulent charges unless they are over $100,” the source said. “The Clinton campaign knows this, that’s why we don’t see any charges over the $100 amount, they’ll stop the charges just below $100. We’ll see her campaign overcharge donors by $20, $40 or $60 but never more than $100.” Continue Reading

23

Les Deplorables

 

 

In 50 years of observing politics I have never seen a politician hand her adversary such a powerful weapon as Hillary Clinton did when she damned 20% of the American people as deplorables.  In that one remark she summarized the leftist contempt for Americans who stubbornly refuse to submit to leftist shibboleths, and she poured gasoline on the anger of half our population who are sick of being treated as enemies in their own nation.

 

 

24

Not Our Kind

 

 

It is interesting  how much that passes for liberalism these days is merely dressed up snobbishness where people with lots of money can look down their noses at people they deem “poor white trash”.  It is no accident, as Marxists used to say, that Hillary made her condemnation of 20% of the American people at a fundraising event to the cheers and laughter of the Hollywood glitterati and assorted fat cats.  Poor whites are one of the few safe groups to hate, and what is the point of having a great deal of money unless one can feel free to dump vials of loathing on those near the bottom of the economic ladder?

Daniel Henninger at The Wall Street Journal gets this aspect of our politics, an aspect rarely spoken of, but blindingly obvious:

As with the irrepressible email server, Mrs. Clinton’s handling of her infirmity—”I feel great,” the pneumonia-infected candidate said while hugging a little girl—deepened the hole of distrust she lives in. At the same time, her dismissal, at Barbra Streisand’s LGBT fundraiser, of uncounted millions of Americans as deplorables had the ring of genuine belief.

 

Perhaps sensing that public knowledge of what she really thinks could be a political liability, Mrs. Clinton went on to describe “people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them . . . and they’re just desperate for change.”

 

She is of course describing the people in Charles Murray’s recent and compelling book on cultural disintegration among the working class, “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.” This is indeed the bedrock of the broader Trump base.

 

Mrs. Clinton is right that they feel the system has let them down. There is a legitimate argument over exactly when the rising digital economy started transferring income away from blue-collar workers and toward the “creative class” of Google and Facebook employees, no few of whom are smug progressives who think the landmass seen from business class between San Francisco and New York is pocked with deplorable, phobic Americans. Naturally, they’ll vote for the status quo, which is Hillary.

 

But in the eight years available to Barack Obama to do something about what rankles the lower-middle class—white, black or brown—the non-employed and underemployed grew. A lot of them will vote for Donald Trump because they want a radical mid-course correction. Which Mrs. Clinton isn’t and never will be.

 

This is not the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton. The progressive Democrats, a wholly public-sector party, have disconnected from the realities of the private economy, which exists as a mysterious revenue-producing abstraction. Hillary’s comments suggest they now see much of the population has a cultural and social abstraction.

 

To repeat: “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic.”

 

Those are all potent words. Or once were. The racism of the Jim Crow era was ugly, physically cruel and murderous. Today, progressives output these words as reflexively as a burp. What’s more, the left enjoys calling people Islamophobic or homophobic. It’s bullying without personal risk.

 

Donald Trump’s appeal, in part, is that he cracks back at progressive cultural condescension in utterly crude terms. Nativists exist, and the sky is still blue. But the overwhelming majority of these people aren’t phobic about a modernizing America. They’re fed up with the relentless, moral superciliousness of Hillary, the Obamas, progressive pundits and 19-year-old campus activists.

 

Evangelicals at last week’s Values Voter Summit said they’d look past Mr. Trump’s personal résumé. This is the reason. It’s not about him.

 

The moral clarity that drove the original civil-rights movement or the women’s movement has degenerated into a confused moral narcissism. One wonders if even some of the people in Mrs. Clinton’s Streisandian audience didn’t feel discomfort at the ease with which the presidential candidate slapped isms and phobias on so many people. Continue Reading

16

State of the Race: Revenge of the Deplorables: Trump Takes the Lead

 

 

Trump had the momentum even before Hillary’s ghastly exercise in political malpractice of the past week, but now he is clearly in the lead.  The Los Angeles Times daily tracking poll, which seems to be an accurate barometer of where the race is heading this campaign, has Trump today out to a five point lead.  Go here to look at it.  The Bloomberg Politics Poll, go here to view it, shows Trump with a five point lead in Ohio, the Buckeye state often mirroring the national race.  Perhaps most significantly, a just-released Reuters Ipsos poll, go here to read a story on the Colorado race, gives Trump a two point lead in a state that was thought to be irrevocably lost to Hillary.  Trump is beginning to expand the Romney map.  For example, if he takes the Romney states from 2012, and takes Ohio, Florida Iowa, Nevada and Colorado, he is the President even if he loses Virginia.  Current polls show him ahead in all of these states with the exception of Nevada where Hillary clings to a one point lead in the latest poll.  However, in that scenario Trump  leads in Maine 2 in current polling and if Hillary took Nevada and Trump got the one electoral vote in Maine 2, the race would be tied 269-269 with  the race decided, almost certainly in Trump’s favor, by majority vote by state delegations in the House of Representatives.  Trump is expanding his electoral college reach while Clinton’s is contracting.

Hillary Clinton has been cordially despised by many in her party for a very long time.  Leftists have never warmed to her, and many Democrats view her as simply dishonest.  If she begins to look like a sure loser, more Democrats will vote Green, Libertarian or stay home.  There would be an effort to replace her on the ticket.  Unless she dies, a possibility that in view of her health which cannot be discounted, she will never voluntarily leave the ticket.  Forcing her off the ticket would probably only enhance the disaster for the Democrats.

Trump of course is not popular, to say the least, among Republicans.  His paid leave plan for new parents illustrates again that he is neither a Republican nor a conservative.  However, as he increasingly looks like a winner, more Republicans and conservatives will come to his side, enjoying the crushing of Clinton and hoping to benefit in down-ballot races. Continue Reading

21

Jews For Hitler = Pro-lifers for Clinton

 

images

1933:  “Well, sure, Hitler really hates Jews, but he has a great policy of getting everybody back to work!”  2016:  “Yeah, Hillary is an abortion extremist, but she really loves the welfare state!”

 

 

Hmmm. the willingness of Mark Shea and other Catholic “pro-lifers” to endorse Hillary abortion-uber-alles Clinton has attracted the attention of a writer outside of Saint Blogs.  Tom Riley at The American Thinker dissects this movement of the absurd:

 

Now that the practical choice is between coughing Clinton and terrifying Trump, the Seamless Garment crowd is making new attempts to co-opt pro-life sentiment in favor of the vociferously pro-abortion candidate – that is, Clinton.  This New Pro-Life Movement is supposedly bolder, more sincere, more consistent, and especially more “prudent” than the old (and conservative) one.

It’s wise to wave aside some of this with a sneer – especially the tried-and-false dilution of the pro-life message with the goofy pretense that opposing capital punishment makes innocent lives safer.  But it’s also wise to take seriously a more profound falsehood:  that the way to advance pro-life goals is to throw our full support behind the welfare state. 

Oddly enough, one of the most prominent proponents of this viewpoint is Mark P. Shea, whose self-written Wikipedia listing describes him as “an American author, blogger, and speaker working in the field of Roman Catholic apologetics” and whose forays on behalf of broad pro-lifery display all the telling logic and rhetorical effectiveness of a banana slug in the noonday sun.  Shea is fond of telling us such things as that the invasion of Europe must be encouraged by pro-life Christians, maybe because Jesus was a refugee, too.  It’s pointless to ask him whether little German girls ought to be raped by Jesus stand-ins.  Indeed, it’s pointless to offer counter-argument to anything Shea says, since he never offers argument.  He makes assertions and accuses anyone who disagrees with him of defying the Magisterium.

But Shea refers us to Matthew Tyson, whose presentation of the New Pro-Life Gospel is more explicitly reasoned and cogent.  Tyson reasons thus: pro-lifers have put all their authentic plastic fetal models into the wrong basket.  They’ve been working to elect Republicans for years.  They’ve concentrated on changing the composition of the Supreme Court.  Yet time and again, the Court has handed them defeats, and legalized abortion has continued unabated.  Therefore, pro-lifers must address the “root causes” of abortion – by expanding various welfare programs so women will not feel forced to seek the destruction of their children.

Like all the most effective lies, this one has a limited truth behind it.  Efforts to establish a pro-life – or even a strict constitutionalist – Supreme Court have proved less than encouraging.  Tyson is right that both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were decided by courts on which Republican presidents had appointed a majority of the justices.  (He’s certainly wrong, however, to characterize these courts as featuring a majority of conservatives.)  Why has this strategy proved a disappointment? 

One reason is that pro-life conservatives haven’t managed to place all their most favored nominees on the Court.  Please recall that Robert Bork was President Reagan’s first choice for the vacancy left in 1987 by the retirement of Justice Powell, and that Douglas Ginsburg was Reagan’s second choice.  (Ginsburg withdrew his nomination over marijuana use, arguably a necessary qualification for Democrat presidential candidates.)  Instead of Bork or Ginsburg, we got Anthony Kennedy – the “conservative justice” liberals love to flatter, and the deciding vote in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.  Why is it that we got Kennedy instead of Bork?  Because Bork was borked by just such Democrats as the “pro-life” Tyson proposes to vote for.  Let’s hear it for a progressive pro-life attitude!

Whole Woman’s Health is certainly the most extreme pro-abortion decision ever rendered by the Court – and it’s important to look at who, aside from Kennedy, rendered it.  We have Stephen Breyer (a Clinton appointee), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (a Clinton appointee), Sonia Sotomayor (an Obama appointee), and Elena Kagan (an Obama appointee).  One of the reasons the grand pro-life strategy for the Supreme Court hasn’t delivered is that voters like Shea and Tyson have labored to thwart it.  Tyson mocks conservatives for electing Republicans in an effort to influence the composition of the Court: supposedly, in conformity with the commonplace definition of insanity often attributed to Albert Einstein, conservatives do the same thing over and over again and expect different results.  Is Tyson saner because he intends to the same thing over again (that is, vote Democrat) and get the same unacceptable result?

Tyson boils the whole pro-life emphasis on the U.S. Supreme Court down to a single question:  can pro-lifers overturn Roe v. Wade?  He concludes – reasonably, though not unassailably – that they cannot.  Yet is this the only question of importance to the movement that is likely to come before the Court?  Whole Woman’s Health shows that it is not.  Texas’s perfectly sensible restrictions on abortion mills could have stood without overturning Roe.  They didn’t stand because a Democrat-influenced Court is inevitably devoted to expanding Roe.  This is a process that will continue if the insouciant Mr. Tyson gets his way.  Will the Court overturn state requirements that only a physician can perform surgical abortions?  Following the example of California’s legislature, a Democrat Court almost certainly will.  Will the Court restrict even further the First Amendment rights of abortion opponents?  A Democrat Court will.  Will the Court lift restrictions on fetal tissue procurement and sale?  Yup – if the Democrats prevail.  Mandatory abortions for mothers deemed unfit?  Don’t count it out.  After all, Hillary is a big admirer of Margaret Sanger.

It’s all coming down that great big pro-abortion highway, folks, and “pro-lifers” Shea and Tyson are, in effect, cheering it on.  None of this stuff really matters, after all.  What really matters is “focusing on why.”  What really matters is “thinking deeper.”  What really matters is expanding the welfare state in every way imaginable.

An entertaining deficiency in Tyson’s argued thesis (and Shea’s unargued one) is the assumption that pro-lifers should practice something that can only be called vital utilitarianism.  Just as Jeremy Bentham thought ethics should focus on the greatest good for the greatest number, the new “pro-lifers” think our only concern should be the most lives for the greatest number.  In this assessment, questions of principle are mere distractions.  American law is establishing an expanding right to kill?  Who cares?  We can’t change that anyhow and shouldn’t even try.  The only question is, how can our heroes Shea and Tyson save the most lives?  Photos on their websites should let the critical reader know just what unlikely action heroes Shea and Tyson would be.  More important, utilitarianism of this sort, even if it’s not explicitly hedonistic, isn’t an ethical theory consistent with the Catholic faith.

Despite their ethical confusion, our new “pro-lifers” insist that the smart and prudent thing for pro-lifers to do is to support every state program for making lives easier, work less necessary, and businesses more likely to collapse.  Only that way – and not by maintaining pro-life principles – can we truly call ourselves pro-life.

This is the most offensive part of the argument because it is so hypocritical.  Expanding the welfare state too is the same old thing expected to produce new results.  Tyson indicates that aborting mothers are women in poverty who feel they don’t have options.  But why are there so many single mothers in poverty?  Shea and Tyson probably don’t remember Daniel Patrick Moynihan – although, as a liberal Democrat, he would certainly have won their vote.  Way back in 1965, Moynihan first began to assert that the expanded welfare state wasn’t good for poor people, and especially for poor blacks.  Experience since then has only tended to strengthen his distrust of such expansion.  Shea and Tyson like simplifications, so I’ll give it to them simplified.  Welfare programs contribute to the breakdown of the family, and the breakdown of the family contributes to the abortion culture. Continue Reading

12

Hillary Collapses

Well even the mainstream media can no longer keep up the pretense that there is not something seriously wrong with the health of Hillary Clinton.  After her hurried departure from the 9-11 memorial in New York yesterday, and her filmed collapse, even a completely pro-Clinton press could no longer ignore the obvious.  First the Clinton campaign said she left because she got overheated.  Temperatures in New York at the time of her departure were around 80 degrees.  Next up was a sudden statement by a physician that Clinton had been diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday by him.  Maybe.  Pneumonia however is an opportunistic disease that often accompanies other maladies, and I doubt seriously that is all that is wrong with her.  Rumblings about her replacement are beginning to be heard in high Democrat circles.  However, my guess is that Clinton has been planning to be the first female president since at least her college days.  The only way she will agree to leave this race is if she is a corpse.  On a human level I do not enjoy seeing anyone struggling with illness and I pray for her recovery.  However, I do blame her for her manifest dishonesty in attempting to conceal the true state of her health from the American people. Continue Reading

16

Hillary’s Gift to Trump

Well, before a fundraiser in New York City yesterday of Hollywood glitterati, put on by a lesbian group, Hillary, I guess because she really must secretly long for retirement, made this statement:

“To just be grossly generalistic, you can put half of Trump supporters into what I call ‘the basket of deplorables.’ Right? Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that and he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric.” Continue Reading

6

Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others

 

“Comrades!’ he cried. ‘You do not imagine, I hope, that we pigs are doing this in a spirit of selfishness and privilege? Many of us actually dislike milk and apples. I dislike them myself. Our sole object in taking these things is to preserve our health. Milk and apples (this has been proved by Science, comrades) contain substances absolutely necessary to the well-being of a pig. We pigs are brainworkers. The whole management and organisation of this farm depend on us. Day and night we are watching over your welfare. It is for your sake that we drink the milk and eat those apples.”
George Orwell, Animal Farm
A Navy vet focuses in on one of the more damning aspects of this whole Clinton e-mail scandal.  Anyone else not as politically connected as Hillary Clinton would now be under criminal indictment, with excellent prospects of being a convicted felon for the rest of his life, and likely looking forward to at least a year in the slammer.   Hillary’s answer to her interlocutor isn’t even worthy of being called bovine dung.  Guy Benson at Hot Air ably dissects her farrago of lies:

In response, Clinton ran through a litany of excuses, some of which were flat-out lies. She asserted, for instance, that none of her emails were marked classified, even though some were. That’s the whole reason she had to concoct the nonsensical story that she believed ‘(C) for confidential’ was an effort at alphabetizing paragraphs — which is preposterous, especially given this context. She wrapped up her answer by insisting that she did “exactly what I should have done,” which is also false. But a prominent new element of her shifting email spin is a heightened focus on the absence of classification headers at the top of her emails as a key exculpatory factor. This is irrelevant, misleading, and stands in direct contradiction to a previous Clinton claim. First, those headers are used to underscore classification levels on emails sent through the official secure systems, which Hillary was knowingly and intentionally bypassing with the exclusive use of her private and unsecure server. Second, at the outset of her term at the State Department, Mrs. Clinton signed a binding nondisclosure agreement swearing to identify and protect all classified information, “marked or unmarked:”

 

Perhaps Clinton can be cut some slack for not immediately recognizing low-level classified information as such, but she also sent and received messages that were secret, top secret, and above top secret from the moment of origination. A number of these emails remain so sensitive that the State Department refused to release them in any form, even with major redactions. “But there were no headers” is not a valid explanation for these egregious security lapses, particularly in light of her formally-acknowledged duty to safeguard unmarked secrets. But since she suddenly wants to fixate on headers, how’s this for a relevant flashback? Continue Reading

8

Hillary is as Healthy as a Horse!

 

On her way to the glue factory.  If we had a media that wasn’t almost completely in bed with the Democrats, the following questions might be asked:

1.  Why such a light campaign schedule?

2.  What did Huma Abedin mean in disclosed e-mails in which she said that you are frequently confused and that you need naps?

3.  What did you mean when you told the FBI that due to a concussion you could not recall the briefings you attended in December 2012?

4.  Were your 26 failures to recall information as set forth in the FBI interview notes in regard to the e-mail scandals due to health problems?

5.  Why do you often have severe coughing fits?

Continue Reading

16

Clinton Knew Nothing, Nothing!

Well, judging from this document dump from the FBI on Friday, Hillary Clinton does a mean Sergeant Schultz imitation:

 

Hillary Clinton told FBI agents that she could not recall issues related to her email server at least 26 times, according to an 11-page document released by the FBI on Friday.

Clinton’s memory lapses are frequent during the interview, marked often by agents as “could not recall” and “did not remember.” But the “could not recall” remarks are often related not to long-distant emails, but things she should perhaps definitely recall.

Here is a list of what she allegedly couldn’t recall:

 

  • When she received security clearance
  • Being briefed on how to handle classified material
  • How many times she used her authority to designate items classified
  • Any briefing on how to handle very top-secret “Special Access Program” material
  • How to select a target for a drone strike
  • How the data from her mobile devices was destroyed when she switched devices
  • The number of times her staff was given a secure phone
  • Why she didn’t get a secure Blackberry
  • Receiving any emails she thought should not be on the private system
  • Did not remember giving staff direction to create private email account
  • Getting guidance from state on email policy
  • Who had access to her Blackberry account
  • The process for deleting her emails
  • Ever getting a message that her storage was almost full
  • Anyone besides Huma Abedin being offered an account on the private server
  • Being sent information on state government private emails being hacked
  • Receiving cable on State Dept personnel securing personal email accounts
  • Receiving cable on Bryan Pagliano upgrading her server
  • Using an iPad mini
  • An Oct. 13, 2012, email on Egypt with Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal
  • Jacob Sullivan using personal email
  • State Department protocol for confirming classified information in media reports
  • Every briefing she received after suffering concussions
  • Being notified of a FOIA request on Dec. 11, 2012
  • Being read out of her clearance
  • Any further access to her private email account from her State Department tenure after switching to her HRCoffice.com accou

Continue Reading

8

L’audace, L’audace, Toujours L’audace

 

 

In a memorable day in American political history, Donald Trump met with the Mexican President in a scene which had all the trappings of a head of state visiting another head of state.  It could easily have blown up in his face, instead Trump looked completely presidential.  Trump is clearing willing to gamble, something professional politicians are loathe to do.  He might well be audacity incarnate, and calls to mind Danton’s famous cry:  audacity, audacity, ever audacity.  He is the most dangerous opponent for a completely conventional politician like Hillary Clinton who never makes a move that is not heavily scripted.  I am looking forward to their debates. Continue Reading

15

State of the Race

 

 

Going into the Labor Day weekend, Clinton is slightly ahead with Trump gaining ground.  The Los Angeles Times daily tracker shows Trump with a lead today of three points.  Go here to view it.  The topline result in August presidential polls isn’t important but the direction can be, and the direction for Trump is good news.  Almost all polls now show that he has at least halved the bounce that Clinton got from her convention.  As a candidate Trump seems to be learning his new trade of politician.  Clinton is bedeviled by her ongoing e-mail scandals that demonstrate that as Secretary of State she was selling access.  The New York Times published an editorial yesterday urging Clinton to cut all ties with the Clinton Foundation.  Clinton is a candidate under constant ethical fire who seems to be attempting to sit upon a shrinking lead with few public appearances for a candidate for President, while Trump ceaselessly barnstorms up and down the country.  This is political malpractice on the part of the Clinton campaign. Continue Reading

14

Hillary For Sale

 The level of corruption on display in the State Department e-mails just revealed through the litigation brought by conservative group Judicial Watch, is too great for even the mainstream media to ignore:

WASHINGTON (AP) — More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It’s an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

Donors who were granted time with Clinton included an internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran; a Wall Street executive who sought Clinton’s help with a visa problem; and Estee Lauder executives who were listed as meeting with Clinton while her department worked with the firm’s corporate charity to counter gender-based violence in South Africa.

The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009. But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton. Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she and her top aides had with foundation donors.

The AP’s findings represent the first systematic effort to calculate the scope of the intersecting interests of Clinton foundation donors and people who met personally with Clinton or spoke to her by phone about their needs.

.

Continue Reading

4

Pay for Play at the State Department

 

 

Judicial Watch, the conservative group that has forced, through litigation, the release of e-mails from Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, has a press release today that builds a damning case that “pay for play” was standard operating procedure at the Clinton State Department:

 

 

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 725 pages of new State Department documents, including previously unreleased email exchanges in which former Hillary Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin provided influential Clinton Foundation donors special, expedited access to the secretary of state. In many instances, the preferential treatment provided to donors was at the specific request of Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band.

The new documents included 20 Hillary Clinton email exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to 191 of new Clinton emails (not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department).  These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department.

The Abedin emails reveal that the longtime Clinton aide apparently served as a conduit between Clinton Foundation donors and Hillary Clinton while Clinton served as secretary of state. In more than a dozen email exchanges, Abedin provided expedited, direct access to Clinton for donors who had contributed from $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In many instances, Clinton Foundation top executive Doug Band, who worked with the Foundation throughout Hillary Clinton’s tenure at State, coordinated closely with Abedin. In Abedin’s June deposition to Judicial Watch, she conceded that part of her job at the State Department was taking care of “Clinton family matters.”

Included among the Abedin-Band emails is an exchange revealing that when Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain requested a meeting with Secretary of State Clinton, he was forced to go through the Clinton Foundation for an appointment. Abedin advised Band that when she went through “normal channels” at State, Clinton declined to meet. After Band intervened, however, the meeting was set up within forty-eight hours. According to the Clinton Foundation website, in 2005, Salman committed to establishing the Crown Prince’s International Scholarship Program (CPISP) for the Clinton Global Initiative. And by 2010, it had contributed $32 million to CGI. The Kingdom of Bahrain reportedly gave between $50,000 and $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. And Bahrain Petroleum also gave an additional $25,000 to $50,000.

Continue Reading

21

Hillary, Stop Measuring the Oval Office Drapes Quite Yet

measuring

 

 

The Los Angeles Times daily Presidential Tracking Poll today shows Trump two points in the lead.  All other polls show Clinton still ahead but with a closing gap between her and Trump.  Remember, in August the horserace numbers tend to be unimportant, but the direction can be significant.  The Clinton campaign and the mainstream media have been selling the narrative that Trump is a maniac who is a terrible candidate and this race is over.  It clearly isn’t, and they had better come up with a new line of attack because this one has passed its sell by date. Continue Reading

10

Trump to Louisiana

 

Acting in lieu of our golfing President,  Trump and Pence visited flood ravaged Louisiana Friday and dispensed relief supplies filling an 18 wheeler donated by Trump.  Critics will of course say that he is motivated by politics in doing this and they are correct.  It is good politics and Trump seemed genuinely moved by the positive reaction from the people he met who were grateful that someone nationally known cared enough to come down to see them.  Hillary has taken the weekend off to rest up.  While she is snoozing Trump has put himself back into this race. Continue Reading

6

Trump Speech in Wisconsin: Law and Order

 

 

Continuing on with my task of doing what the mainstream media is failing to do this year, allowing the message of both candidates to reach the voters, Trump gave a speech last night in Wisconsin with his focus on law and order, and how the status quo fails inner city blacks.  Here is the text of his speech:

 

We are at a decisive moment in this election.

Last week, I laid out my plan to bring jobs back to our country. Yesterday, I laid out my plan to defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism. Tonight, I am going to talk about how to make our communities safe again from crime and lawlessness.

Let me begin by thanking the law enforcement officers here in this city, and across this country, for their service and sacrifice in difficult times.

The violence, riots and destruction that have taken place in Milwaukee is an assault on the right of all citizens to live in security and peace.

The main victims of these riots are law-abiding African-American citizens living in these neighborhoods. It is their jobs, their homes, their schools and communities which will suffer as a result.

There is no compassion in tolerating lawless conduct. Crime and violence is an attack on the poor, and will never be accepted in a Trump Administration.

The narrative that has been pushed aggressively for years now by our current Administration, and pushed by my opponent Hillary Clinton, is a false one. The problem in our poorest communities is not that there are too many police, the problem is that there are not enough police.

More law enforcement, more community engagement, more effective policing is what our country needs.

Just like Hillary Clinton is against the miners, she is against the police. You know it, and I know it. Continue Reading

3

Feminist Rapist

 

 

I have been observing leftists for over half a century and even so they still can take me by surprise at their willingness to jettison morality for the sake of political expediency.  From Wonkette, a feminist and foul mouthed site:

 

 

  • To sum up, I think Bill Clinton could very well have raped Juanita Broaddrick; that it doesn’t make him an evil man, or irredeemable (I’m Catholic; we’re all forgiven, if we’re sorry, and Broaddrick says Bill Clinton personally called her up to apologize). It doesn’t even necessarily make him a bad feminist — you know, later, once he stops doing that.

Go here to read the rest.  Machiavelli would not be surprised, but even he I think would have been disgusted.

 

22

The System Is Rigged

 

One of the sure fire applause lines for Trump at his rallies is his contention that the system is rigged.  Well, he is right under this administration:

Several FBI field offices approached the Justice Department asking to open a case regarding the relationship between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation, according to a law enforcement official,” CNN said late Wednesday.

“At the time, DOJ declined because it had looked into allegations surrounding the Clinton Foundation around a year earlier and found there wasn’t sufficient evidence to open a case,” the report continued. Continue Reading

2

Clinton Bounce Fades

Hillary and Donald

 

I have been amused at the focus of the media on polls, since polls prior to Labor Day tend not to mean much.  Americans simply do not tend to focus on a Presidential election until we get to September, and often not until late September or early October.  However, polls are useful now for their direction rather than their topline numbers.  After the Republican and Democrat conventions both Trump and Clinton got bounces, Clinton having a bit more of a bounce which is typical usually for Democrats.  Thus we have had rafts of stories making predictions based on these bounces, most of them written by either highly partisan, almost always in a Democrat direction, or highly ignorant reporters.  Looking at the most recent polls we see Rasmussen showing a three point race, Reuters showing a 5 point race and Bloomberg showing a 4 point race.  (I am using the polls with the Libertarians and Greens included, since they are on almost all state ballots.)  The Los Angeles Times tracker poll which has consistently shown a much closer race than any other poll, had it on Thursday as a one point race. Continue Reading

8

Clinton and the Art of Political Corruption

 

While the mainstream media concentrates on the latest gaffe of Trump, they are completely ignoring a story by The Daily Caller which demonstrates how Hillary Clinton used her position as Secretary of State to enrich herself and her hubby:

 

 

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton publicly defended an embattled banker during an official visit to Bangladesh while Clinton Foundation officials tried to steer money from an Abu Dhabi oil company into the banker’s coffers.

A Daily Caller News Foundation investigation traced the convoluted payment by TAQA — formally known as the the Abu Dhabi National Energy Company — to Muhammad Yunus’ Grameen Bank. Yunus is a long-time friend and Clinton Foundation donor.

The oil company deal eventually put as much as $500,000 into President Bill Clinton’s pockets via a speaking fee he got in Scotland. Continue Reading

7

Kathy Shelton and Hillary Clinton

If Donald Trump had done this you would be hearing non-stop about Kathy Shelton from all media outlets:

“It’s put a lot of anger back in me … Every time I see [Clinton] on TV I just want to reach in there and grab her, but I can’t do that,” 54-year-old Kathy Shelton told The Daily Mail, as Clinton tries to portray herself as a supporter of women and girls during the 2016 campaign.

“I don’t think [she’s] for women or girls. I think she’s lying, I think she said anything she can to get in the campaign and win … If she was [an advocate for women and children], she wouldn’t have done that to me at 12 years old,” said Shelton.

I heard you on tape laughing …. I just want to know, you’ve got a daughter and a grandbaby. What happens if that daughter of yours, if that would have been her [who was assaulted at age 12]?

You would have protected her. You don’t know me, so I’m a piece of crap to you … Who cares about me, as long as you can win your first case as an attorney?

Continue Reading

2

Gold Star Families and Media Outrage

One thing I have learned from the media since the Democrat Convention is that gold star families have absolute moral authority.  Even when a family attacks a candidate who had nothing to do with their son’s death at a national convention, if the candidate responds to the criticism, he is a wretched person attacking a gold star family.  I am sure the media will apply this standard even-handedly to both candidates:

The parents of two Americans killed in the Benghazi attacks in 2012 have filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, who served as secretary of state at the time.

Patricia Smith and Charles Woods are seeking damages for wrongful death, defamation, the intentional infliction of emotional distress and more. They filed the lawsuit in US District Court in Washington on Monday.
The move comes three months from the general election, from two parents who have been critical of the Democratic presidential nominee’s handling of Benghazi and the public and private answers she’s given to questions about just what occurred at the US diplomatic compound there the night their sons were killed.
The lawsuit was filed by Larry Klayman of Judicial Watch, a conservative organization that’s been critical of Clinton and sought her emails from her private server during her tenure as secretary of state.
Go here to read the rest.  The wrongful death suit is a stretch due to the immunity that government officials possess.  The defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress counts are more likely to succeed due to Clinton’s many interviews since she left office in which she has denied lying to family members of the Benghazi dead, telling them that the attack was caused by an anti-Mohammed video.  She has suggested that their memories are faulty, in effect calling them liars.   In any case I am sure that the press will swing into action with moral outrage, just as when Trump responded to the attack on him by the Khan family.  I am sure the moral outrage of the press will sound something like this:

Continue Reading

10

Who Is Unfit to be President?

Fifty foreign policy figures, most from the Bush 43 administration, have issued a letter slamming Donald Trump.  Some of the names are notable and most are deservedly obscure, being relatively low ranking munchkins.  Here is the text of the letter:

 

STATEMENT BY FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIALS

The undersigned individuals have all served in senior national security and/or foreign policy positions in Republican Administrations, from Richard Nixon to George W. Bush.

 

 

 
We have worked directly on national security issues with these Republican Presidents and/or their principal advisers during wartime and other periods of crisis, through successes and failures.We know the personal qualities required of a President of the United States.

 

 

 
None of us will vote for Donald Trump.

 

 

 
From a foreign policy perspective, Donald Trump is not qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief. Indeed, we are convinced that he would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.
Most fundamentally, Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President. He weakens U.S. moral authority as the leader of the free world. He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary.

 

 

 
In addition, Mr. Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he has little understanding of America’s vital national interests, its complex diplomatic challenges, its indispensable alliances, and the democratic values on which U.S. foreign policy must be based.  At the same time, he persistently compliments our adversaries and threatens our allies and friends. Unlike previous Presidents who had limited experience in foreign affairs, Mr. Trump has shown no interest in educating himself.  He continues to display an alarming ignorance of basic facts of contemporary international politics. Despite his lack of knowledge, Mr. Trump claims that he understands foreign affairs and “knows more about ISIS than the generals do.”

 

 

 

Mr. Trump lacks the temperament to be President.  In our experience, a President must be willing to listen to his advisers and department heads; must encourage consideration of conflicting views; and must acknowledge errors and learn from them. A President must be disciplined, control emotions, and act only after reflection and careful deliberation.A President must maintain cordial relationships with leaders of countries of different backgrounds and must have their respect and trust.
In our judgment, Mr. Trump has none of these critical qualities.  He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood.  He does not encourage conflicting views.  He lacks self control and acts impetuously. He cannot tolerate personal criticism. He has alarmed our closest allies with his erratic behavior. All of these are dangerous qualities in an individual who aspires to be President and Commander-in-Chief, with command of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

 

 

 

We understand that many Americans are profoundly frustrated with the federal government and its inability to solve pressing domestic and international problems. We also know that many have doubts about Hillary Clinton, as do many of us.
But Donald Trump is not the answer to America’s daunting challenges and to this crucial election. We are convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless President in American history.

 

 

 

Continue Reading

16

Hillary’s Health

 

The above video is from Info Wars so take it with a mountain of salt.  For years there have been rumors that Hillary Clinton is in poor health.  She sought to dispel those rumors by releasing a a two page letter from her personal physician last year saying that she was in good health and fit to be President. 

However, she has not released her medical records. Strange incidents keep happening that seem to indicate some sort of health problem.  Just today a picture from February 24, 2016 made headlines showing her being helped up stairs by aides:

 

CpSn-h6UsAALmJA Continue Reading

12

Media as Propaganda Arm of the Democrat Party

 

 

 

 

Christopher Johnson at Midwest Conservative Journal helps point out that most members of the media this year are nothing but Democrat shills.  In that respect this year is like all years since 1964 although this year they are not bothering to make any attempt to disguise the fact:

 

 

“American “journalists.”  Pretty much the same thing.  CNN’s Carol Costello desperately tries to get a parent of one of Lady Macbeth’s victims to focus on what’s truly important:

Charles Woods, father of U.S. Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, who was killed during the Benghazi attack, appeared on CNN Tuesday. CNN Newsroom host Carol Costello repeatedly badgered him about Donald Trump’s feud with Khizr Khan, and whether Trump should apologize. Transcript below, via CNN.

“I know who should apologize, and that would be Hillary Clinton, for lying to the American families who lost their loved ones as well as to the American public,” Woods said.And I’m sure when the election comes out next year, they’re going to have to make the decision, who should they vote for, based upon who will do the best job of defending this country.

COSTELLO: Right.

WOODS: And I think the whole reason …

COSTELLO: Do you, do you think, Sir …

WOODS: … Clinton proved at Benghazi that she was incapable of protecting 35 of her own employees. So how could she possibly protect 330 million Americans at home?

COSTELLO: Do you think that Mr. Trump should apologize to Mr. Khan?

WOODS: You know, I really don’t know what’s been said. I haven’t seen a T.V. set since last Monday or Tuesday … 

COSTELLO: So Eric Trump is saying that his father sort of apologized by calling Khan’s son a hero. And that Donald Trump has also sacrificed for this country.

WOODS: Well I would agree with what Mr. Trump said, definitely Khan was an American hero. He was a patriotic American, and he was also a moderate Muslim.

COSTELLO: But should Mr. Trump apologize?

WOODS: You know, like I say, I don’t know what he originally said, and I don’t know what he’s said since then. I — I know who should apologize, and that would be Hillary Clinton, for lying to the American families who lost their loved ones, as well as to the American public. You know, she’s …

COSTELLO: Do you …

WOODS: … in fact, she’s even doubled down and called us liars. Which is not appropriate at all. Because like I said, either she’s lying …

COSTELLO: Who are you endorsing this election?

WOODS: Well my son would still be alive if Mrs. Clinton was performing her job properly, as Secretary of State. So in good conscience I cannot vote for the person who was directly responsible for the death of my son. There is only two choices, and obviously I support Donald Trump.

And the main reason is because national security, as well as the economy, are the two most important issues that voters are going to have to decide upon next November.

COSTELLO: And just the last question I’ll ask you, do you wish that Mr. Trump would stop talking about the Khans now?

WOODS: You know, when Hillary Clinton on several occasions, has called the Benghazi victims’ families liars, would that be — should she apologize for that?

That exchange, ladies and gentlemen, is why so many of us have to depend on foreign news sources to find out what’s really going on in our own country. Continue Reading

11

Black Lives Matter Demands

images

 

 

The groups that make up Black Lives Matter have released a list of demands:

 

  1. Reparations for the systemic denial of access to high quality educational opportunities in the form of full and free access for all Black people (including undocumented and currently and formerly incarcerated people) to lifetime education including: free access and open admissions to public community colleges and universities, technical education (technology, trade and agricultural), educational support programs, retroactive forgiveness of student loans, and support for lifetime learning programs.
  2. Reparations for the continued divestment from, discrimination toward and exploitation of our communities in the form of a guaranteed minimum livable income for all Black people, with clearly articulated corporate regulations.
  3. Reparations for the wealth extracted from our communities through environmental racism, slavery, food apartheid, housing discrimination and racialized capitalism in the form of corporate and government reparations focused on healing ongoing physical and mental trauma, and ensuring our access and control of food sources, housing and land.
  4. Reparations for the cultural and educational exploitation, erasure, and extraction of our communities in the form of mandated public school curriculums that critically examine the political, economic, and social impacts of colonialism and slavery, and funding to support, build, preserve, and restore cultural assets and sacred sites to ensure the recognition and honoring of our collective struggles and triumphs.
  5. Legislation at the federal and state level that requires the United States to acknowledge the lasting impacts of slavery, establish and execute a plan to address those impacts. This includes the immediate passage of H.R.40, the “Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act” or subsequent versions which call for reparations remedies.

Go here to read the rest.  Trump should ask Clinton repeatedly if she agrees with these demands.  One thing I will miss with the end of the Obama administration is all the racial healing.  The Democrats for decades have used racial appeals to black voters to increase black turnout at the polls.  They have sown the wind and they are beginning to reap the whirlwind.

6

Grief and Politics

Having observed the political scene for the past half century I sometimes think I have seen it all, but the disparate treatment given to Patricia Smith and the Khan family truly nauseates me.  Note how the CNN talking head in the video above attempts to turn Patricia Smith into a weapon against Trump.  For my entire life most of the media has been in the tank for the Democrat party and each year it gets a bit worse.  Now we have an example of how some parental grief simply does not matter if it cannot be turned against the GOP.  Jim Geraghty at National Review Online gives us the disgusting details:
Hey, remember when the first night of the Republican convention featured Patricia Smith, mother of Sean Smith, one of the Americans slain in Benghazi? Remember how her speech was called a “cynical exploitation of grief”? Or the “unabashed exploitation of private people’s grief” or “the weaponization of grief”? Remember how she “ruined the evening”? How it was, “a spectacle so offensive, it was hard to even comprehend”? How some liberal commentators said, “Mrs. Smith was really most interested in drinking blood rather than healing”? How her speech represented an “early dip into the gutter”? Remember how a GQ writer publicly expressed a desire to beat her to death?

In every interaction about the Khan family, Donald Trump reveals what most observers already knew: He’s a narcissistic ass who can’t even be bothered to fake empathy. But the Democratic convention organizers’ decision to showcase the Khans as the spokespeople for the message that Trump is morally unacceptable to be the leader of the country is the mirror image of the Republican convention organizers’ choice to showcase Smith. And we see that most people’s reaction to each grieving parent aligns precisely with their partisan perspective.

Continue Reading

41

Two Gold Star Parents and the Media

 

Patricia Smith spoke at the Republican Convention.  She was lied to face to face by Hillary Clinton as to why her son died during the Benghazi attack.  The media largely ignored her speech or mentioned it in passing during their coverage of the Convention.

 

 

Khizr Khan spoke at the Democrat Convention.  His son, an Army Captain, was killed in Iraq in 2004.  He has never met Donald Trump in his life.  He used his speech to attack Trump on the issue of Muslim immigration.  The media has been playing up his speech ever since he gave it.

The candidates and the issues may change, but the media will always have their ink stained thumbs on the scales for the Democrat in a Presidential election year.

 

7

I Am Shocked, Shocked!: White Noise

Strong language advisory as to the above video.

Well, what do you know, the Hillary Clinton people at the just concluded Democrat Convention, were taking no chances regarding the Sanders delegates booing during Queen Hillary’s speech:

Where the Bernie people were crammed into was a pre-planned section by the DNC that happened to have a white noise generator behind them. That’s fancy talk for loudspeakers that are controlled by the convention sound board so that if there are any troublemakers booing or carrying on during Hillary’s speech, the speakers with canned crowd noise are instantly brought up to drown out the protesters.

Now when Hillary Clinton did mention having the need for having the strongest military in the world, you could hear the Bernie people starting to ramp up. But they instantly got drowned out. Now we know why.

Poor, delusional Bernie people. They never had a chance from start to finish. Never. Continue Reading

3

Trump Bounce

RNC-Convention-Bounces

 

We are beginning to see a bounce for Trump post the Republican Convention.  CNN shows Trump with a ten point swing with Trump now leading 48-45.  That 48 could be ominous for Clinton since that is probably a sign of solidifying Republican support for Trump.  Morning Consult shows Trump leading by four, 44-40.  In the CNN poll if the Greens and the Libertarians are included, Trump is ahead by five.   Nate Silver at 538 now is predicting a Trump win at 56.7%.

 

Presumably Clinton will have a convention bounce, but this has to be disheartening for her.  Many pundits were predicting no bounce for Trump from his convention, and Hillary has outspent Trump something like fifteen to one, only to find herself going into her convention behind.

6

The Other Clinton E-Mail Scandal

 

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz being booed at the Democrat Convention this morning.  WikiLeaks released a horde of e-mails that revealed that the Democrat National Committee, run by Wasserman-Schultz, was completely in the tank for Clinton during her primary battle with Sanders.  Wasserman-Schultz resigned as head of the DNC in exchange for being able to speak at the Convention which struck me as bizarre.  Hillary Clinton should have sent her on a mission during the Convention to round up Democrat votes in Antarctica.  The reaction she received this morning was completely predictable.  Of course this underlines Trump’s contention that the system is rigged and also supports his argument that Hillary is the establishment incarnate.  Yesterday some pro-Hillary Democrat flack said they are expecting the release from WikiLeaks of more e-mails.  I wonder if they have the e-mails from Hillary’s private server?  No doubt the Russian’s do, and I can imagine them funneling those e-mails to WikiLeaks.  Pass the popcorn, this is going to be fun!

1

Clinton Cash

 

Breitbart is running a free showing of the documentary Clinton Cash at 2:00 PM and 8:00 PM Eastern time today.  Go here to watch it.  You can also find it other places, Youtube that is your cue, on the internet.  I have watched it.  It is an absolutely damning indictment of how the Clintons have sold out American interests in exchange for massive donations to the Clinton Foundation slush fund and in speaking fees, up to $750,000 for one speech, to Bill Clinton.  As I have noted before, the Clintons are completely transparent crooks.

Go here to read a review by a left of center writer regarding the book Clinton Cash on which the film is based.  It is not merely conservatives who are troubled by the ethics of the woman who is being nominated for President by the Democrat party this week.

6

Tim Kaine For Veep

 

Hillary has picked Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia for Veep.  In today’s far left Democrat party Kaine passes for a moderate.

 

He is a “personally opposed” Catholic pro-abort.  He in theory supports a partial birth  abortion ban, but only with a broad health of the mother exception which would render it meaningless.  Democrats for Life stripped him of their endorsement in 2012 when he came out as one hundred percent behind Roe.  As a Senator he has a 100 percent rating from Worse Than Murder, Inc. Planned Parenthood and a zero percent rating from National Right to Life.  Unsurprisingly, he served in the Jesuit Volunteer Corps for a year in Honduras. This year when his name began to be mentioned as a possible Veep, he signed on to the proposed Women’s Health Protection Act, which if past, would nullify almost all pro-life laws passed in the states or by the federal government.

 

An interesting defensive pick by Hillary.  As a former Governor of Virginia he likely was picked to help put the Old Dominion state in the Democrat column which will probably be a tight fight as it was in 2012.   This is an indication that Clinton feels she has done enough to soothe the leftist Sanders supporters.

7

Trump Picks Pence as Veep

 

Trump has decided to pick Indiana Governor Mike Pence as his Veep:

Gov. Mike Pence is dropping his re-election bid in Indiana to become Donald Trump’s running mate.

IndyStar has confirmed that Trump plans to announce Pence as his selection for vice president, ending a weeks-long vice presidential casting call during which Trump vetted a handful of high-profile Republicans.

Trump’s national campaign spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, said “a decision has not been made.” A formal announcement is scheduled for 11 a.m. Friday in Manhattan.

The long-awaited decision upends the political landscape in Indiana and at least partially remakes the Trump campaign in Pence’s image.

In Pence, Trump has added a social conservative who GOP strategists say will reassure rank-and-file Republicans that Trump can be trusted to pursue their interests. Veteran political observers say Pence, a former U.S. House member and chairman of the House Republican Conference, will provide a disciplined counter to Trump’s improvisational campaign style. Pence also brings fundraising power and credibility on a wide range of policy issues that are important to conservatives.

Pence is set to officially become the vice presidential nominee during the Republican National Convention, which starts July 18 in Cleveland. He could become the first vice president from Indiana since Dan Quayle took office in 1989 under George H.W. Bush. Continue Reading

7

When Even the New York Times is Calling Hillary Untrustworthy

 

I had to rub my eyes three times, and I still couldn’t quite believe I was reading this in the New York Times:

Hillary Clinton has emerged from the F.B.I. investigation into her email practices as secretary of state a wounded candidate with a large and growing majority of voters saying she cannot be trusted, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

As Mrs. Clinton prepares to accept the Democratic Party’s nomination at the convention in Philadelphia this month, she will confront an electorate in which 67 percent of voters say she is not honest and trustworthy. That number is up five percentage points from a CBS News poll conducted last month, before the F.B.I. released its findings.

Mrs. Clinton’s six-percentage-point lead over the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, in a CBS News poll last month has evaporated. The two candidates are now tied in a general election matchup, the new poll indicates, with each receiving the support of 40 percent of voters.

Mr. Trump is also distrusted by a large number of voters — 62 percent — but that number has stayed constant despite increased scrutiny on his business record and falsehoods in his public statements and Twitter messages.

But Mrs. Clinton’s shifting and inaccurate explanations of her email practices at the State Department appear to have resonated more deeply with the electorate. Continue Reading

1

Comey Testifies

 

FBI Director James Comey was grilled before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for four hours/  A few interesting revelations came out.

  1. Hillary Clinton’s interview was not recorded and she was not placed under oath.  Not recording the interview was not unusual, the FBI relying on written section 302 reports based upon contemporaneous notes of the interview made by an FBI agent.  Normally one FBI agent conducts an interview while a second agent writes out notes.  Federal judges have often expressed skepticism as to the reliability of these reports.  Congress should subpoena the 302 report of the Clinton interview.
  2. Comey revealed that he is no longer a registered Republican.
  3. Comey noted that if Clinton had worked for the FBI she could have been subject to a broad range of disciplinary measures, up to termination.
  4. Comey refused to confirm or deny that the FBI is investigating the Clinton Foundation.

Continue Reading

21

Clinton and the Left’s War Against Christianity

 

 

I unsay nothing that I have said against Donald Trump who would make an appallingly bad president.  Having said that, John Zmirak makes a compelling case as to what a disaster a Hillary Clinton presidency would be for Christians:

 

Hillary Clinton, whose actions were more destructive than Edward Snowden’s, might squeak her way into our country’s seat of supreme power, which she has just learned she may abuse without any consequences. If so, she has promised her Planned Parenthood financial backers to pack the nation’s courts with the likes of Mark Tushnet, the Harvard law professor who in May proclaimed that the “culture wars” are over, and that Christians and other conservatives ought to be treated as the Allies did the defeated Nazis and Japanese.

Not since the Soviet dupe Vice President Henry Wallace was a heartbeat (and FDR’s fading heartbeat) away from the presidency in 1945 has the Republic been in such danger. The mainstream left in this country used to be just an opponent — a movement that shared our basic premises about civic order and common decency, but differed on how best to guide the economy, on the wisest foreign policy, on how much to tax and where to spend.

That is no longer even remotely true. Now the left is threatening to tax our churches, close our colleges, force our doctors to sexually mutilate mentally ill patients, and make our pharmacists hand out abortion pills. The people of Massachusetts have just been told that they may not even vote on whether the multiculturalist, dumbed-down Common Core curriculum will be imposed upon their children.

The leaders of our elite universities will not defend the teaching of basic texts of Western civilization, while the unhinged hysterical “snowflakes” whom they diploma-fy after four years of pricey coddling are screaming for their loans to be paid off by the taxpayer. So Walmart workers without college degrees would foot the bill for the next Lena Dunham’s M.A. in Women’s Studies.

Meanwhile our government proposes to spend our tax money providing sex change surgeries for soldiers and importing unvettable Muslim refugees all the way here from their safe havens in Turkey, while leaving local Christians to die.

A Supreme Court that Hillary Clinton has not yet had the chance to pack has tossed out basic safety laws that briefly made Texas abortion clinics less dangerous to women than Kermit Gosnell’s butcher shop, perhaps undoing similar laws in many other states — the fruit of decades of patient, scrupulous incremental work by the pro-life movement through the democratic process. All tossed in the trash. The icy contempt which British elites expressed for that nation’s voters after Brexit is reflected perfectly here, as the Citizens of International Business Class unite to repress the “racist,” “xenophobic” masses.

The left has made itself not our opponent but our enemy. While its partisans are still our fellow citizens and deserve basic Christian charity, they do not deserve our trust. We are long past the time when it was possible to compromise with the left in view of some agreed-upon common good. They have blasted it into No Man’s Land.

We are locked in a Hobbesean conflict for mere civic survival. Continue Reading

3

Nixon and Clinton: Two of a Kind

images

It is ironic that Hillary Clinton began her political life as a staff attorney  for the Democrat controlled House Committee on the Judiciary in 1973, arguing in a brief that Nixon had no right to counsel in regard to a House committee considering articles of impeachment, because the similarities between Nixon and her as politicians, and as individuals, are striking.

In a profession for extroverts both Nixon and Clinton share the traits of introverts who have political careers:  ill at ease campaigning, giving rote, passionless, speeches and obviously detesting the necessary glad-handing that goes with being a politician.

Politicians have ever been regarded as honoring truth by using it as sparingly as possible.  Even in such an assemblage both Nixon and Clinton developed reputations for raising bold faced mendacity to an art form.

Like Nixon, Clinton has a distrust of the normal channels of authority in regard to the position she held as Secretary of State, and preferred to exercise her power through her personal staff.

As in the case of Nixon, Clinton is distrusted by the dominant ideological faction in her party.

Clinton, like Nixon, would walk on her knees over any amount of broken glass for the sake of obtaining power.

Nixon was ever noted for the hatred he aroused in his political adversaries, a capacity Clinton shares to the full.

Paranoia and self-pity are essential elements in the psychological makeup of Clinton as they were in the case of Nixon.

Nixon could never conceal the raw contempt he felt for those who disagreed with him politically, and Clinton does not lack in that capacity to project disdain.

Nixon could, and Clinton can, inspire political devotion but not an ounce of the affection that charismatic politicians like Ronald Reagan and Theodore Roosevelt could excite.

No one would buy a used car from either of them.

 

 

Continue Reading