WATCH: The Biggest Media Meltdowns to Trump’s Win, MRCTV via YouTube, November 11, 2018
Archive for the ‘2016 elections’ category
WATCH: The Biggest Media Meltdowns to Trump’s Win
November 16, 2016FULL MEASURE: November 13, 2016 – Pulse
November 15, 2016FULL MEASURE: November 13, 2016 – Pulse via YouTube, November 13, 2016
(The pulse of rural America. — DM
Sharyl Attkisson – the big miss
November 14, 2016Sharyl Attkisson – the big miss via YouTube, November 13, 2o16
(A transcript is available here. — DM)
The Communists Behind the Anti-Trump Protests
November 11, 2016The Communists Behind the Anti-Trump Protests, Front Page Magazine, John Perazzo, November 11, 2016
(Please see also, ‘Professional protesters’ riot over Trump’s election, attacking bystanders and vandalizing cars, property. — DM)
Ever since Donald Trump’s election victory Tuesday night, the media have been abuzz with stories about massive, sometimes violent, anti-Trump protests breaking out in cities all across the country. We’ve been told that ordinary Americans everywhere are so frightened and angered by the prospect of a Trump presidency—as opposed to a Hillary Clinton presidency—that they’re taking to the streets to express their grave concerns for the future of the country.
In Chicago, for instance, thousands of people held an “emergency protest” outside a Trump hotel, chanting: “No Trump, No KKK, No Fascist USA!”
In New York, some 5,000 people (including the political oracle Lady Gaga) demonstrated outside Trump Tower. “Their concerns,” said CNN, “ranged from policies, such as Trump’s proposed plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border, to the polarizing tenor of his campaign that they say stoked xenophobic fears.”
In Oakland, some of the 7,000+ demonstrators damaged police cars, vandalized businesses, hurled Molotov cocktails and rocks at law-enforcement officers, and started at least 40 separate fires.
And in Los Angeles, more than 1,000 people filled the streets, burned Trump in effigy, and sang John Lennon’s Give Peace a Chance. “Several protesters said they feared that family or friends might be deported once Trump takes office,” said CNN.
From reading the various mainstream media accounts of these events, one comes away with the distinct impression that they are grassroots actions that began organically among ordinary, concerned, well-meaning citizens.
But alas, if one were to think that, one would be wrong.
Contrary to media misrepresentations, many of the supposedly spontaneous, organic, anti-Trump protests we have witnessed in cities from coast to coast were in fact carefully planned and orchestrated, in advance, by a pro-Communist organization called the ANSWER Coalition, which draws its name from the acronym for “Act Now to Stop War and End Racism.” ANSWER was established in 2001 by Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center, a group staffed in large part by members of the Marxist-Leninist Workers World Party. In 2002, the libertarian author Stephen Suleyman Schwartz described ANSWER as an “ultra-Stalinist network” whose members served as “active propaganda agents for Serbia, Iraq, and North Korea, as well as Cuba, countries they repeatedly visit and acclaim.”
Since its inception, ANSWER has consistently depicted the United States as a racist, sexist, imperialistic, militaristic nation guilty of unspeakable crimes against humanity—in other words, a wellspring of pure evil. When ANSWER became a leading organizer of the massive post-9/11 demonstrations against the Patriot Act and the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, it formed alliances with other likeminded entities such as Not In Our Name (a project of the Revolutionary Communist Party) and United For Peace and Justice (a pro-Castro group devoted to smearing America as a cesspool of bigotry and oppression).
Another key organizer of the current anti-Trump protests is a group called Socialist Alternative, which describes “the global capitalist system” as “the root cause of … poverty, discrimination, war, and environmental destruction.” Explaining that “the dictatorships that existed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were [unfortunate] perversions of what socialism is really about,” this organization calls for a happy-faced “democratic socialism where ordinary people will have control over our daily lives.”
And, lo and behold, many components of Socialist Alternative’s agenda mesh seamlessly with Hillary Clinton’s political priorities. For instance, Socialist Alternative seeks to: (a) “raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, as a step toward a living wage for all”; (b) provide “free [taxpayer-funded] … public education for all from pre-school through college”; (c) create “a publicly funded single-payer [healthcare] system as a step towards fully socialized medicine”; (d) impose absolutely “no budget cuts [on] education and social services”; and (e) legislate “a major increase in taxes on the rich and big business.”
In short, the anti-Trump protests that are currently making headlines are 100% contrived, fake, phony exhibitions of street theater, orchestrated entirely by radicals and revolutionaries whose chief objective is to push America ever farther to the political left. Moreover, they seek to utterly demoralize conservatives into believing that public opposition to their own (conservative) political and social values is growing more powerful, more passionate, and more widespread with each passing day.
The bottom line is this: The leaders and organizers of the anti-Trump protests that are currently making so much noise in cities across America, are faithfully following the blueprint of Hillary Clinton’s famous mentor, Saul Alinsky, who urged radical activists to periodically stage loud, defiant, massive protest rallies expressing rage and discontent. Such demonstrations are designed to give onlookers the impression that a mass movement is preparing to shift into high gear, and that its present size is but a fraction of what it eventually will become. A “mass impression,” said Alinsky, can be lasting and intimidating: “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have…. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
And that is precisely what we are witnessing at the moment.
The People — and No One Else — Have Spoken
November 9, 2016The People — and No One Else — Have Spoken, PJ Media, Robert Spencer, November 9, 2016
The establishment media and the political elites are reeling, and we have every reason to believe they will never recover.
Considering the massive coalition Donald Trump and his movement had to fight against, it may truly be said that the people — the people alone — have spoken more clearly than they have at any time in recent memory.
Against the always shrill, often hysterical opposition of the establishment media and the leaders of both the Democratic and the Republican parties, the American people have made it clear: they’re tired of politics as usual. It is time indeed to drain the swamp.
Trump’s victory shows that the hegemony of the globalists, the internationalists who have held sway in Europe and North America for decades, is decisively weakening. The Brexit vote in the UK and both the Trump candidacy and his victory show that huge numbers of people on both sides of the Atlantic are fed up with lies, hypocrisy, and self-serving corruption. The free world is fed up with the suicidal policies of the political elites, and their bought-and-paid-for mouthpieces among what are supposed to be objective news outlets.
Not that those elites are going quietly into the night. The upset win, they say, is proof of America’s deep-seated “racism” and “xenophobia.” It’s a sign that Americans are misogynistic, unwilling to countenance a female president and all too forgiving of Trump’s tasteless locker room bluster.
This is the line they took throughout the campaign. Few who opposed Trump — either among the Democrats or among the neo-mugwump NeverTrump faction — ever grasped what made him popular in the first place. They still (still!) have no idea what enabled this man, who had never been a politician and had all sorts of negatives regarding his personal behavior, to defeat sixteen Republican challengers, including several movement conservatives, and then to defeat the Clinton machine.
Trump’s success isn’t a sign that America is “racist.” It’s a sign that significant numbers of Americans want the United States to survive as a free nation. Among all those who excoriated Trump for his proposed temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration never addressed why he actually made the suggestion: not because of their lazy charge of “xenophobia,” but because of the real, rational concern that jihad terrorists will enter the United States among peaceful refugees.
The Islamic State has vowed to embed jihadis among the refugees; refugees were among the jihadis who murdered 130 people in Paris in November 2015.
No one who opposed Trump’s proposal ever offered an alternative way to keep jihadis out of the country. (Of course, the problem of those who learn jihad inside the U.S. is also acute, and must be addressed). Some glibly opined that Trump should ban “Islamists,” not Muslims as a whole, yet never suggested a reliable way to distinguish “Islamists” from ordinary Muslims. Indeed, the Islamic State has instructed its operatives to appear secular — to avoid ostentatious displays of Islamic piety that might arouse suspicions of “radicalization.”
Hillary Clinton promised that the refugees would be “vetted,” but in light of her refusal to acknowledge the Islamic doctrinal roots of Islamic jihad terrorism, it was unclear how she proposed to do this. How could U.S. officials vet for an ideology that they don’t admit exists? Tashfeen Malik, the Islamic jihadist who, along with her husband Syed Rizwan Farook, murdered fifteen people at a Christmas party in San Bernardino last December, showed how effective this “vetting” is: she had passed five separate background checks from five different U.S. agencies.
A majority of the American people saw through the same-old, same-old hollowness of Clinton’s proposals, and opted for a real choice, not an echo.
As Donald Trump begins his presidency, we may only hope that he continues his stinging critique of the political and media elites, and that he never surrenders to their inevitable attempts to regain power. They are the ones who have gotten us into this fix. It’s time for new faces with the courage and the will to do what it takes to get us out of it.
After Last Night
November 9, 2016(Trump won. Of even greater importance, so did America. — DM)
With Donald Trump’s improbable victory last night, the Clinton Crime Family can retire from public life to enjoy its ill-gotten gains. Lady Hillary tastes the fruit of an incredibly bitter and humiliating defeat. Her zombie husband is now free to continue his “charitable” efforts and pursue other interests unimpeded by the need to keep up appearances.
I pray that Donald Trump will honor the high office he has attained. As Jesse Ventura put it when he proclaimed victory in Minnesota’s 1998 gubernatorial election, he has shocked the world. He has much to do and to undo to set our country back on course.
It was a great night for Republicans. Against the odds, they maintain only slightly diminished control of both houses of Congress. They too have much work to do and to undo to set our country back on course.
Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republican caucus have been vindicated in declining to act on the nomination President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Trump will now have the opportunity to name the successor to Justice Scalia. To say the least, the prospect pleases — the prospect that the Supreme Court may not fall indefinitely to the left in the left’s battle to destroy limited constitutional government.
Clinton had the gall to make the reversal of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission a litmus test in her Supreme Court appointments. Intended to protect political speech from control by Congress, the First Amendment would have been turned on its head. Clinton thought she deserved protection from criticism in “electioneering communications.” In the ancien régime they called it lèse-majesté. It’s about as home in the United States as titles of nobility.
Trump’s election is unprecedented. Watching the returns come in last night, however, I felt the reverberations of 1980 with the narrow Republican victories in the hotly contested Senate races.
Rob Portman’s victory in Ohio was far from narrow; he crushed an opponent in whom Democrats had placed great hopes. Ron Johnson staged a glorious comeback with a little help from his friends and prevailed over the execrable Russ Feingold in Wisconsin. Todd Young’s victory over Evan Bayh in Indiana was particularly sweet. Given his military background, Young has an important contribution to make along with Tom Cotton in the Senate. Young has already made an important contribution to Evan Bayh. Bayh no longer has keep up the pretense that he is a resident of Indiana.
The schadenfreude we feel in the suffering of the Democrat/Media complex is delicious. Let’s enjoy it while we can. To the extent that Trump’s election serves as a repudiation of Obama, megadittos. Obama has sunk us in a hole out of which it will take us a long time to climb and formidable obstacles will be arrayed against Trump to the extend he seeks to get get us out.
Something was gaining on the Clintons. It finally caught up with them last night. I didn’t see it coming and don’t understand what it was. Having vehemently expressed the view since he emerged in the primaries that Trump was not a viable general election candidate, I need to fortify my understanding of practical politics at the presidential level.
I’m calling a minor penalty on myself for my errors of understanding, of prediction and of pessimism over the past year. I intend to refrain from commenting on politics at the presidential level for the next few months and to use the time to deepen my understanding before I let myself climb out of the penalty box, although I ask that you not hold me to this vow too strictly.
NYC: Undercover journalist in full burka allowed to vote as Huma Abedin
November 7, 2016NYC: Undercover journalist in full burka allowed to vote as Huma Abedin, Jihad Watch, Robert Spencer, November 7, 2016
“Yeah, but they could do it by wearing a burka. But then no one could say, ‘Oh, wait, let me see your ID,’ because they don’t have ID, because they don’t want to discriminate because they’re wearing a burka.”
This hesitancy to “discriminate” even to stop voter fraud could be the death of the republic, and it all flows from today’s general solicitude toward Muslims and anxiousness to avoid charges of “Islamophobia.”
A Few Thoughts About Temperament
November 7, 2016A Few Thoughts About Temperament, PJ Media, Roger Kimball, November 6, 2016
Secret Service agents rush Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump off the stage during a campaign rally in Reno, Nev., on Saturday, Nov. 5, 2016. (AP Photo/John Locher)
The biggest worry about Donald Trump has always revolved around the question of temperament. Isn’t he just too thin-skinned? Too irritable? Too likely to strike out wildly when on the receiving end of a slight, real or imagined? Would you want to entrust someone whose temperament is on a hair-trigger, as Trump’s was said to be, with the awesome power of the U.S. military, including our nuclear codes?
That’s the rap, endlessly repeated by the (irony alert!) calm and even-keeled Hillary Clinton, echoed faithfully by battalions of Democratic operatives with bylines at CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and elsewhere.
But is it true? I happened to be watching Trump’s rally in Reno last night when Secret Service agents rushed on stage — “Go, go!” — to grab him and, protecting his body with theirs, scurry him backstage after a protestor made what seemed to be a threatening move towards the stage.
A few minutes later, after the fellow had been removed from the arena, Trump strolled calmly back on stage. “Nobody ever said this was going to be easy for us, but we will never be stopped,” he observed. He then gave effusive thanks to the Secret Service and proceeded with his campaign talk. He was cool, calm, collected, almost nonchalant. Ten minutes later he was boarding his plane to fly to Denver to preside over his final rally of the day.
Trump’s appearance at Reno, by the way, was his third that day. Today he is scheduled to appear at five rallies, from Sioux City, Iowa, to Leesburg, Virginia. Tomorrow is even more demanding: he makes six stops, from Sarasota, Florida, to Manchester, New Hampshire, and Grand Rapids, Michigan. Voters will determine whether his sole scheduled appearance on November 8 proceeds as billed at the New York Hilton: “Donald J. Trump Victory Party.”
I suspect it will. And I suspect that Hillary was wise to describe her November 8 colloquy as an “election night event” rather than a “victory party.”
“Oh, that’s just like Trump,” you say. “Typical braggadocio,” etc.
Yes, it is. It may also be sound psychology.
So let’s talk about temperament a bit. According to The American Heritage Dictionary, the primary meaning of “temperament” is “the manner of thinking, behaving, or reacting characteristic of a specific individual.” It is interesting that “temperament,” in addition to being a neutral vessel waiting to be colored by a particular quality — we speak of someone having a nervous temperament, serene temperament, melancholy temperament, and so on — it can also, all by itself, suggest “excessive irritability or sensitiveness”: so-and-so, we caution, suffers from an abundance of temperament.
My sense, having observed Donald Trump since July 2015, is that his temperament has mellowed and matured these past fifteen months. Partly, perhaps, it is because he is following the direction of his aides and advisors, who have, we are told, urged him to “stay on message.”
But people tend to become the characters they emulate, which is one reason that habit is so important. “In a word,” as Aristotle observed, “our moral dispositions are formed as the result of the corresponding activities.” Accordingly, he notes, “we become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.” To some extent, then, people are responsible for their characters, their temperament: “they acquire a particular quality,” said the philosopher, “by constantly acting in a particular way.”
With increasing diligence over the last several months, Donald Trump has added dollops of deliberateness to his drive, discipline, ambition, and sobriety. And by degrees (though not without some slippage) he has become more deliberate, more focused. His grueling campaign schedule tells us something about his temperament, his “characteristic manner of behaving.” It tells us that he is willing to work very hard and put himself out to deliver his message and achieve his goals.
And I believe that his behavior throughout the Secret Service eruption last night reveals something else about his temperament. It gave us a little window on how he behaves in an emergency. He didn’t fly off the handle. He issued no recriminations. He didn’t bluster. He did not cancel the event or skulk off fearfully. He took charge, calmly, proceeded with business, and delivered his message.
We do not know how Hillary Clinton would have behaved in an analogous situation. We know how she behaved when fabricating a story about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia, but that is different. We also know how she behaved as secretary of State when she deliberately circumvented security protocols by installing a private email server in her house from which she conducted the nation’s business. We know how she behaved after leaving office when she lied about whether there were classified documents on the server — there were — and when she destroyed documents and had her server professionally wiped afterreceiving a congressional subpoena. (Andy McCarthy lays out the whole sordid story here.)
In fact, we know quite a lot about Hillary Clinton’s temperament. We know, for example, that when our consulate in Benghazi came under attack and four Americans, including our ambassador to Libya, were killed by jihadists, she acknowledged to her daughter that the atrocity was an act of terrorism but stood next to the coffins of the fallen Americans and told their parents that the episode was sparked by a crude internet video. We also know that she was involved in having the maker of that video rounded up at midnight by brown-shirted agents and held without bail. We know, too, how Hillary and Bill Clinton used the Clinton Foundation as a sort financial entrepôt: money from supplicants seeking favors would flow into its coffers in exchange for face time with the Clintons which led to lucrative business deals or government contracts.
In short, I agree with those who say that temperament is a key issue in this election. Ten years ago, Donald Trump privately indulged (at least, he thought it was private) in lewd, locker-room banter with a pal. That privacy was violated by the Clinton campaign in an effort to smear their opponent. A few days ago, Hillary Clinton, unable to attract many people to her rallies by herself, offered free tickets to hear the filth-emitting rapper Jay Z and Beyoncé at a Pennsylvania event. Which is worse? Follow the link and read about the event. Ponder Jay Z’s “lyrics.” Think about the pictures of him with a smiling if slightly shell-shocked Hillary Clinton. What does it all say about her temperament?
It will be interesting to see how the Clinton campaign spinmeisters deal with last night’s episode in Reno. They should hope it does not receive wide coverage. For what it shows is a man acting with grace under pressure — acting, in a word, presidential. It was Trump’s third event of the day. It was already late by New York time. But then being president of the United States is a demanding job. The sudden eruption must have been scary. It turns out that the pro-Hillary protestor did not — contrary to the shouts of some audience members — have a gun. But neither the Secret Service nor Donald Trump knew that at the time. Trump responded to the crisis with aplomb. Would Hillary have given as good account of herself in a similar situation? I suppose there is room for disagreement about that. But when I cast my mind over Hillary Clinton’s legacy of mendacity, blame-shifting, and cover-ups, I conclude that to ask the question is to answer it. “Only an utterly senseless person,” said Aristotle, “can fail to recognize that our characters are the result of our conduct.” Take a look a Hillary Clinton’s conduct. Temperament will tell.
The Incredible Shrinking NeverTrumps
November 7, 2016The Incredible Shrinking NeverTrumps, American Thinker, Jared E. Peterson, November 7, 2016
It’s been a great pleasure to watch the massive return of ordinary Republican and conservative voters to the only man who can prevent eight more years of America’s rule by the poisonous, destructive and corrupt Democratic Left. In states that are normally solid Republican at the presidential level (e.g., Texas and Utah) the American Propaganda Ministry’s non-stop carpet bombing of Donald Trump took its toll for a while, as Utah flirted briefly with an irrelevant Romney sponsored spoiler and some Texas Republicans fell into uncertainty. But those states are solid now, and the race as a whole has tightened astonishingly over the last ten days.
It’s hard to know what demographic movements account for the narrowing (or, for that matter, whether what we’re seeing is simply more honest polling as Election Day nears); but there’s no doubt that the return to Trump, or recent declaration for Trump, by Republicans and conservatives who had not been openly with him before is a large part of the story.
The collective efforts of CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, the New York Times and Washington Post to destroy Trump’s character and to hide his enormously popular agenda from public view couldn’t succeed forever in the internet era.
Ordinary Republicans examined and reflected on Trump the man, and sensibly concluded that, though imperfect, his character and past conduct fall far short of disqualifying — particularly when compared to that of his opponent, now unmasked as the most odiously corrupt human being ever to seek the US presidency as a major party nominee.
But less important than character and personal conduct, Trump’s overwhelmingly conservative agenda has finally gotten the attention it deserves from his natural voter base.
And even the most rigorously conservative among normal voters are concluding that 75-90% of a loaf beats no bread at all, especially when the one offering no bread at all demands that they drink poison besides.
And so, in the end, ordinary Republicans and conservatives are streaming to Trump’s banner.
Meanwhile, the intellectual and political NeverTrumps add fresh coats of paint to the floor surrounding the corner they’ve painted themselves into.
Examples abound but a recent one stands out:
The snobbish, confused, out-of-touch-with-America David Brooks helpfully explained that Trump’s is a “campaign of hate” and that Trump’s supporters who do not have college degrees are voting for Trump because “they are just going with their gene pool.”
Does this New York City/Philadelphia Main Line-reared son of university academics have any idea how statements like that affect the mass of Republican/conservative voters who’ve made his cushy life possible? Does he know anything at all about the practical art of coalition building in a democracy?
Could statements like Mr. Brooks’ and the elitist world-view they imply explain at least in part why East Coast conservative intellectuals have failed utterly to halt or even slow the progress of the American Left through the nation’s cultural institutions?
Throughout this campaign an arrogant superiority and oily condescension has flowed like a river out of the New York-Washington NeverTrumps, reaching and inundating the heart of traditional America, in the Midwest and South, where the great voter base of American traditionalism and conservatism resides. It’s going to be many years before the ground poisoned by that flow recovers.
But to a happier subject:
The national contest is finishing up close, extremely close, despite uniform recent predictions of a decisive Clinton victory from propagandists in the major media.
At the state level, too, there has been strong movement to Trump across the nation during the last week; battleground states have moved from “likely Clinton” to toss-up; Trump has inched slightly ahead in critical tossup states; and normally Democrat states, such as New Mexico and Maine, have moved into the unaccustomed status of tossup.
The RealClearPolitics No Tossups map of Saturday, November 5, 2016, shows an electoral vote of Clinton 297, Trump 241, and that assumes Clinton carries Florida’s 29 electoral votes. The RCP map has Trump carrying all the Romney states, plus Nevada, Iowa, Ohio, New Hampshire and Maine CD1.
On this electoral map, if Trump Carries Florida, he wins. It appears that infamous Never Trump George Will is going to fall far short of his April 28, 2016 publically announced wish for a 50 state Clinton landslide.
But back to that wonderful phenomenon, the ability of ordinary Republicans and conservatives to get it right, despite ubiquitous media disinformation and numerous internal apostasies:
Unlike their intellectual betters, or embittered members of the Republican Party’s discredited and deposed royal family, or the Party’s two most recent failed presidential candidates, the vast majority of Main Street is moved by the realization that that they would have to live with the direct consequences if the Left triumphs.
A mentally clarifying realization, that.
The Trump haters among many conservative intellectuals and Republican royalty understand the enormous damage the Left will do if Clinton wins, but it doesn’t move them. They are among “the protected” classes (Peggy Noonan). They can — so they think — survive and thrive under Clinton and the Left.
Whatever the outcome, none of us who’ve fought for Trump from the moment he clinched the nomination will forget or soon forgive conservative intellectuals — including David Brooks, George Will, Jonah Goldberg, William Kristol and Rich Lowry, to name just a few — and former Republican office holders and candidates who, for feeble reasons of personal grudge, style, language or social acceptability, went over to the leftist enemy.
They made weak attempts to defend their deserting the battlefield, but all their self-justifying language is chaff in the wind to anyone who compares what we know America faces under Clinton with what we have good reason to hope for under Trump.
Doubters can compare Trump’s definitive policy statement in his speech at Gettysburg, with almost anything out of Clinton’s mouth or with the Democratic Party platform. William Buckley would have read and reflected on Trump’s program, considered Trump’s personal style and attributes, pronounced the program 75-90% great, the style and attributes occasionally problematic but not disqualifying, the alternative an unspeakable atrocity, and given Trump his full support.
The whole analysis would take Bill all of about five minutes if God would lend him to us for a short visit.
In making political choices in a universal suffrage democracy, especially for President of the United States, the agenda to be pursued is everything. Barring gross criminality, including the sale of access or influence, always support the candidate who will do the most to bring about and preserve the kind of country you would want for your children and grandchildren. Wherever possible forgive the personal and decide based on the agenda.
In the circumstances we face today, only a socially snobbish conservative intellectual or a failed Republican politician could be dumb enough, in the first case, or vindictive enough, in the second, to miss the opportunity of electing a President who credibly promises to work for an agenda containing upwards of 90% of what conservatives have sought for 25 years.
Embarrassment at social gatherings in Georgetown and the Upper East Side explain, but will never excuse, the Never Trump’s rejection of Trump.
Though Trump is now drawing huge majorities of Republican and conservative voters, his performance among both groups may not yet rise to the almost always requisite level of near unanimity. The race appears to be extremely close. If Trump loses narrowly, by a margin attributable to the Republican and conservative deficit created by the NeverTrumps, that suicidal crowd of snobbish apostates will own the Clinton/Left disaster to follow.
What are they going to do for a living?
Who will be their friends?
President Obama Triggers Election Eve Controversy With Interview That Suggests “Undocumented Citizens” Can Vote And Not Fear Investigation
November 6, 2016One of the controversies that has been raging in this election is the allegation of Republicans, including Donald Trump, that illegal immigrants have been voting around the country. An interview with Hispanic activist group “Mitú” has now magnified this controversy after President Barack Obama appeared to say that non-citizens could vote and that there is no way that they would be investigated. The statement came in an interview with Mitú’s Gina Rodriguez who asked the President is “undocumented citizens” are at risk if they vote. The President assured them that they have nothing to fear even though such voting is strictly illegal.
Here is the exchange (the video is below):
Rodriguez: “Many of the millennials, DREAMers, undocumented citizens — and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country — are fearful of voting. So, if I vote, will immigration [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement] know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?”
Obama: “Not true. First of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself, and there is not a situation where the voting rolls are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for.
Putting aside the contraction of an “undocumented citizen,” the answer to the question is clear: undocumented person cannot vote in this country.
I am certainly willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt that he heard “millennials” and might have thought that the question was whether their families (which might include illegal immigrants) would be at risk. Nevertheless, the President could have missed the reference.
Given the controversy over this very issue, it should have been a misstatement that the White House corrected immediately. Conversely, if this tape is doctored, they should make such a statement on the inaccurate or false editing. I have found no statement from the White House even though I cannot understand how the answer to that question could be construed as true — unless you cut cut everything after the word “millennial,” which makes the question nonsensical since there is no reason why an actual citizen — millennial or non-millennial — would be investigated after voting for possible illegal immigrants in a household.
The U.S. government makes the exclusion of illegal immigrants clear:
Who Can Vote?
You can vote in U.S. elections if you:
Are a U.S. citizen
Meet your state’s residency requirements
You can be homeless and still meet these requirements.
Are 18 years old on or before Election Day
You can register to vote before you turn 18 if you will be 18 by Election Day. Check your state’s registration age requirements.
Register to vote by your state’s voter registration deadline
The one exception is for residents of North Dakota, which doesn’t have voter registration.
Who CAN’T Vote?Non-citizens, including permanent legal residents
For President in the general election: U.S. citizens residing in U.S. territories
Some people with felony convictions. Rules vary by state. Check with your state elections office about the laws in your state.
Some people who are mentally incapacitated. Rules vary by state.
President Obama’s comments has predictably exploded on the Internet at a time when the Democrats are also opposing voter identification laws used to confirm voter status. I am baffled why there has been no immediate correction by the White House.
States like Virginia make such acts a misdemeanor (or felony for procuring or assisting illegal voting):
§ 24.2-1004. Illegal voting and registrations.
A. Any person who wrongfully deposits a ballot in the ballot container or casts a vote on any voting equipment, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.B. Any person who intentionally (i) votes more than once in the same election, whether those votes are cast in Virginia or in Virginia and any other state or territory of the United States, (ii) procures, assists, or induces another to vote more than once in the same election, whether those votes are cast in Virginia or in Virginia and any other state or territory of the United States, (iii) votes knowing that he is not qualified to vote where and when the vote is to be given, or (iv) procures, assists, or induces another to vote knowing that such person is not qualified to vote where and when the vote is to be given is guilty of a Class 6 felony.
Here is the interview:
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments