Archive for the ‘2016 elections’ category

Trump beats the Big Fix in Vegas

October 20, 2016

Trump beats the Big Fix in Vegas, Israel National News, Jack Engelhard, October 20, 2016

Donald Trump had a good night, here in Vegas at the third and final debate, but was it good enough – would anything be good enough – to stop the Clinton Machine?

The Clinton Machine, since time began, is a colossus that is prepared to run over and demolish everything in its path by use of an unholy alliance – a compliant media in cahoots with government agencies that have been fully corrupted to meet Hillary’s every need, truth and integrity be damned.

Trump is right to be worried about playing against loaded dice.

Americans ought to be worried that the White House may be won by means of theft.  FBI files and Wikileaks provide evidence of double-dealing on a massive scale.

Trump started off slowly but he got stronger, much stronger as the debate moved along and he did respond on the question as to whether he actually did take it that the system is rigged against him. He said that the media are “one-sided against my campaign. They even admit that it’s the case.”

Then, on the topic of women and the flurry of accusations against him, Trump pivoted to add: “That’s all fiction started by Hillary, just as her campaign hired thugs to commit violence at my rallies. That is a fact now out in the open.” Trump spoke in declarative sentences.

Clinton spoke in prepared paragraphs that amounted to rehearsed speeches, and when finally he’d had enough of her barbs, remarked, “Such a nasty woman.”

If that wasn’t the quote of the night, then it was Trump saying, “Given what she did destroying those emails, Hillary Clinton has no right to be running for president.”

Trump was unsparing on her email scandals, noting that a four star general was going to jail for committing the same offenses but to a far lesser degree.

The crowd in Vegas gasped when Trump said, “I’ll keep you in suspense,” as to whether he would support her if she won.

He left that open-ended by calling attention to all the corruption being exposed against her through Wikileaks.

He accused her Clinton Foundation of being a “sleazy operation” that took “millions from countries like Saudi Arabia where they throw gays off buildings.”

He turned to her directly: “Why don’t you give back the money? It would be a great gesture.”

Moderator Chris Wallace challenged her on the Foundation, but she passed to make a speech about something else

This writer finds her a nightmare to quote. The mind wanders for all that political gobbledygook. Throughout, she emphasized her experience nationally and on a global scale and, in political posturing at its finest, mentioned everything she would do for women and children and yes, “undocumented people.”

“You had 30 years and you did nothing. All talk, no action,” said Trump.

He blamed her (and Obama) for American failures in Iraq and Syria. “You created ISIS,” he said. “They are now in 32 countries, thanks to you.”

As for the Iran deal, and likewise bringing in tens of thousands of Syrian migrants, “Wait till you see what’s coming,” he said. “ISIS for sure.”

On our overseas ventures in general, Trump said, “We’re being played, by China, Russia, Iran, everybody.”

Trump had a good night, even a terrific night. He was calm, but firm, and did not fall for the usual traps.

Clinton, in a word, was boring. She came across as a prepackaged politician, prepared and scripted to the point of being mechanical and cute.

Sixteen months ago a gambler rolled the dice and shot for all the works. That gambler was Donald Trump. He should have remembered Rule #1.

The House always wins. In political terms the House is the Clinton Machine.

Last night Donald Trump beat the House.

The Third Debate: ‘What Kind of Country Are We Going to Be?

October 20, 2016

The Third Debate: ‘What Kind of Country Are We Going to Be? Front Page MagazineRobert Spencer, October 20, 2016

rd

The peculiar self-contradiction of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign was on abundant display Wednesday night during her third and last presidential debate with Donald Trump: running as the anointed heir of a two-term president in whose administration she served, she has to maintain both that everything is going great and that the nation in general  is in drastic need of repair. Above all, amid all the bluster and platitudes, she and Trump took up opposing sides on virtually all the major fault lines of contemporary America, emphasizing yet again that this election is for all the marbles: either the U.S. will continue on the road to socialist internationalism, or recover a sense of itself. This may be the last time that question is at stake in a presidential election.

“What kind of country are we going to be?,” Hillary Clinton asked near the beginning of the debate, and that indeed was the question. The Supreme Court, she told us, needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on side of the wealthy. What would a Supreme Court that stood on the side of the people, rather than the plutocrats, look like? Why, of course it would be one that said no to Citizen’s United, and yes to Marriage Equality and Roe vs. Wade: as far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, anyone who stands for traditional values is simply not of the people, or any people she has any interest in representing. Nor, presumably, among Hillary Clinton’s people are those who respect and want to uphold the Second Amendment – in which she firmly believes, she assured us Wednesday night, as long as it is gutted of any actual substance.

Trump, on the other hand, affirmed that he would appoint justices who would interpret the Constitution as written, repeal Roe v. Wade and return the abortion question to the states, and protect gun rights. Chicago, he pointed out, has some of the nation’s toughest gun laws, yet also has more gun violence than any other city. This was a telling point; in response, Clinton promised she would give us both the Second Amendment and “reform,” but did not explain how this sleight-of-hand would be performed.

The situation was the same when the topic turned to immigration. Trump spoke of the need for strong borders, pointing to the drugs pouring into the country over the Mexican border as the reason why a border wall was needed, and declaring: “We have no country if we have no border.” In response, Clinton spoke about not wanting to send illegal immigrant parents away from their children who are citizens – an answer that may have tugged at Leftist heartstrings, but left the drug problem unaddressed.

Clinton danced all night. When moderator Chris Wallace quoted her earlier statement saying she wanted open borders, Clinton turned the question into one about Wikileaks, and pressed Trump over whether he would condemn Russia, which she insisted was behind the leaks, for meddling in an American election. “That was a great pivot,” Trump noted drily, “from her wanting open borders.”

Once Clinton had brought up Putin, Trump bored in, charging: “She doesn’t like Putin because Putin has outsmarted her in every way.” In response, Clinton promised to work with our allies all over the world. That highlighted her campaign’s nagging contradiction again, leaving unanswered the question of why the world is so aflame today after eight years of Barack Obama, who came into office with similar promises to mend America’s relationships with friends and foes alike globally – promises that were taken so seriously that he won the Nobel Peace Prize before he had done anything at all. (What’s left to give President Hillary Clinton as she begins herefforts to bring peace to our troubled world? Sainthood?)

There was so much that he had heard before. Clinton promised to make the rich pay their fair share of taxes. Some enterprising and independent-minded historian should research the history of that shopworn phrase, used by so very many Democratic presidential candidates before Hillary. Who was the first to use it? Certainly not Barack Obama, although he made the same promise, or John Kerry or Al Gore, who did as well, or Hillary’s husband. Was it Mike Dukakis? Jimmy Carter? Harry Truman? Woodrow Wilson? Grover Cleveland? How far back does this phrase go, and why, after eight years of Barack Obama, are the poor soaked rich still not paying their fair share? If he couldn’t make them pony up, how will Hillary accomplish it?

That was the rub, on all the issues Trump and Clinton discussed Wednesday evening. She pledged to eradicate the Islamic State, whereupon Trump noted that it was the vacuum created in Iraq by the precipitous Obama/Clinton withdrawal from Iraq that led to the creation of ISIS in the first place. Trump pointed out that the U.S. is pouring money into Syrian rebel groups of doubtful reliability, and noted that if they overthrow Assad (“and he is a bad guy”), Syria might end up with a regime’s worse than Assad, and noted that the chaos in Syria has “caused the great migration, the great Trojan Horse,” with “many ISIS-aligned” coming into the U.S. “Thanks a lot Hillary,” he said acidly, “thanks a lot for doing a great job.”

Indeed. If she didn’t get all this right when she was Secretary of State, how can Americans be confident she will get it right the next time, particularly when all she is offering is more of the same, more of the same failed foreign policies that have gotten the world into the fix it’s in today — with the centerpiece being the denial of the nature, magnitude and motivating ideology of the jihad threat?

That is what is ultimately the choice Americans face: more of the same, or a drastic change of course. If Hillary Clinton is elected president, and the mainstream media is in a frenzy to do all it can to make sure that she is, Americans will at very least know what they’re getting, and a great many of them will applaud it. Ultimately, however, politically correct fantasies will collapse under the weight of reality. If that happens while she is president, there will be more of the same in another way as well: many Americans who applauded her platitudes, generalities, and appeals to sentiment on Wednesday night will be looking for ways to blame the Republicans.

DNC Chair Unravels During Megyn Kelly Interview, Claims ‘Persecution’ Over Accusation of Feeding Clinton Town Hall Question

October 20, 2016

DNC Chair Unravels During Megyn Kelly Interview, Claims ‘Persecution’ Over Accusation of Feeding Clinton Town Hall Question, Washington Free Beacon, October 20, 2016

Interim Democratic National Committee chair Donna Brazile struggled to answer Fox News host Megyn Kelly’s questions Wednesday night about a video showing Democratic activists discussing how to incite violence at Donald Trump rallies and whether she tipped off the Clinton campaign to a question before a CNN town hall.

Kelly started the interview by asking Brazile about the recent Project Veritas video, which shows Scott Foval, a Democratic organizer, discussing how planted party activists instigated fights at a Trump rally in Chicago earlier this year. The other person in the video is Bob Creamer, a long time Chicago-based Democratic operative who had been contracted by the DNC for the 2016 election.

Brazile told Kelly that the contract between the DNC and Creamer’s group was not signed until June 2016 and then tried to discredit James O’Keefe, the man who made and distributed the video.

“When you have a convicted criminal sneaking around your office with imposters that try to—” Brazile said before Kelly cut her off.

“Are you referring to Bob Creamer, the head of Democracy Partners?” Kelly asked.

Brazile said she was referring to O’Keefe. Kelly then informed the viewers of Creamer’s conviction of fraud and also his relationship with the White House, which he has visited upwards of 300 times since Obama came to office. Creamer has announced his resignation from Democracy Partners after the video was released.

Brazile appeared visibly uncomfortable with the conversation and pivoted to Hillary Clinton’s performance in Wednesday night’s debate. She then accused Kelly of “feeling strongly” about the O’Keefe video, to which Kelly said that she “had said nothing about her feelings.”

Kelly then asked Brazile whether she could verify the veracity of the video, but the DNC chair claimed the videos are doctored.

“You’re dodging,” Kelly interjected.

“I’m not dodging. I don’t play dodgeball. I play basketball,” Brazile responded.

Kelly moved on and brought up the revelation from the hacked WikiLeaks emails that Brazile passed along a question to the Clinton campaign before a CNN town hall in which Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) also participated.

“How did you get that question, Donna?” Kelly asked.

Brazile claimed that she “did not get any questions from CNN.”

“Where did you get it?” Kelly asked.

“As a Christian woman I understand persecution, but I will not sit here and be persecuted. Your information is totally false,” Brazile said. She would not verify the content of the email and instead pointed out that the emails were stolen from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

Kelly did not let Brazile ignore the question and proceeded to read off a statement from CNN’s Jake Tapper in which he said that passing along the town hall question was unethical and upsetting.

“Who gave you that question?” Kelly again asked.

“I am not going to validate falsified information,” Brazile answered. “I have my documents. I have my files. Thank God I have not had my personal emails ripped off from me.”

“In my 14 years at CNN I have never received anything,” Brazile later asserted. “I never get documents from CNN.”

Kelly pressed her repeatedly about why the email shows her passing along the question.

“When you said from time to time I get the questions in advance what were you referring to? Because in that email you offered the exact question that one of the moderators, Roland Martin, asked the next day,” Kelly asked, quoting the email.

“A lot of those emails I would not give the time of day. I have seen so many doctored emails,” Brazile said. “If there is anything I have I will share.”

No, Trump Should Not Accept the Results of a Possibly Stolen Election

October 20, 2016

No, Trump Should Not Accept the Results of a Possibly Stolen Election, American ThinkerSelwyn Duke, October 20, 2016

Crooks on the left, cowards on the right. Where do we go to find integrity?

One of the most talked about parts of last night’s final presidential debate was Donald Trump’s statement that he’d let us know on election night if he’d accept the balloting results. An NBC commentator expressed her bubble-headed opinion that the statement lost him the election. Worse still, “conservative” commentator John Podhoretz wrote that Trump’s comment was “a shocking and cravenly irresponsible thing to say, the sort of thing that threatens to rend our national fabric, and for that alone, Trump has earned his place in the history of American ignominy.” But Podhoretz’ criticism is what’s shocking and cravenly irresponsible — and reflective of profound ignorance.

Are some of us living in an alternate-reality universe? We just saw NYC’s Democrat election commissioner, Alan Schulkin, caught on video admitting “there’s a lot of vote fraud,” as he talked about how people are “bussed” around to vote illegally. This was followed by a Project Veritas sting video showing a Democrat operative slug named Scott Foval giving advice on how to commit the fraud, saying that it has been going on for 50 years and that it “doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this m****rf****r.”

There was also the WikiLeaks released email showing that Clinton allies, also Democrats, presumably, believe that Obama forces committed vote fraud in 2008. Then there’s another WikiLeaks email in which Clinton campaign manager John Podesta wrote that “if you show up on Election Day with a drivers [sic] license with a picture [and 12 states and D.C. allow illegals to get licenses], attest that you are a citizen, you have a right to vote in Federal elections.” Add to this the 2012 Pew study showing that approximately “24 million — one of every eight — voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate. More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters. [And] [a]pproximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state,” and what does it add up to?

Reality # 1: There is vote fraud.

Reality # 2: Since there’s vote fraud, it’s possible an election — especially a close one — could be stolen.

Yet the three-little-monkey coward-cons think that, somehow, it’s noble and healthy to view a possibly stolen election and say “Nothing to see here; move along.” Maybe if we pretend hard enough, everything will be okay.

I have no idea how Trump’s statement will play out, given that he didn’t explain the matter well and we have coward-cons doing the jobs (real) Americans wouldn’t do, but I suspect the average person doesn’t share Podhoretz’ concern over violation of a twisted view of propriety. But here’s the answer I would have given debate moderator Chris Wallace when he stated, to Trump, that we have a “tradition” in this country of a peaceful transfer of power:

Yes, sir, and we have another American tradition: it’s called the “rule of law.” And when you suspect an election has been stolen, and allow it to go unanswered, you become complicit in the undermining of our rule of law. Moreover, vote fraud that swings an election thwarts the people’s will. You may not care about that. Hillary Clinton certainly doesn’t care about that. But if I have reasonable suspicion that the Nov. 8 contest has been stolen, I will stand against the thwarting of the rule of law and the people’s will — even if I’m the only person in America to do it.

I cannot tell you how disgusting I find the coward-cons’ cravenness. It is, sadly, a common failing of man to prefer to rationalize, or stick one’s head in the sand, than to face up to tough challenges and hard truths. This is the mentality causing coward-cons to tell Sheriff Joe Arpaio not to look into Obama’s birth certificate and judges to refuse to hand down anti-establishment rulings for fear of opening “that can of worms.” But tolerating criminality gets you more criminality. This is, mind you, a hallmark of Third World nations. Corruption is rife, tolerated, and many pretend it isn’t going on. You want to descend fully into Third Worldism? Listen to the coward-cons.

What the coward-cons miss, in their infinite lack of wisdom, is that unanswered corruption means our national fabric is already being rent.  And their prescription is to allow corruption to fester, to grow, to become status quo? It’s as with cancer: attacking it early involves some pain, perhaps enduring nauseating treatments or an operation to excise a malignant tumor. But ignoring it, refusing to face reality, means a metastasis that will consume the whole body and lead, ultimately, to death. Tolerate a bit of visible rending now — or risk having nothing left to rend later.

The coward-cons are the people who get elected to office…and then get nothing done; they’re the weak sisters who never saw a culture-war battle they couldn’t lose. If you suspect your vote has been negated by electoral fraud, would you want those charged with ensuring the system’s integrity to look the other way? Or would you want the matter sifted to the very bottom?

If the coward-cons would choose the former, then they’ve earned their place in the history of American ignominy.

 

Democratic heads roll after video shows agitators planted at Trump rallies

October 19, 2016

Democratic heads roll after video shows agitators planted at Trump rallies, Washington TimesValerie Richardson, October 18, 2016

hiredprotestersPeople were hired by Democratic strategists to stir up trouble at rallies for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Officials with Democracy Advocates and Americans United for Change stepped down after a video by Project Veritas Action confirmed their political chicanery.

Brad Woodhouse, Americans United for Change president, said in a late-Monday statement that Mr. Foval “is no longer associated with Americans United for Change.”

He insisted that the Democratic political consulting firm has “always operated according to the highest ethical and legal standards.”

******************************

Two top Democratic strategists have exited the presidential campaign after explosive undercover videos showed them discussing voter fraud and their roles in planting paid agitators at campaign events for Republican candidate Donald Trump.

Robert Creamer, founder of Democracy Advocates and the husband of Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky, Illinois Democrat, stepped down from the campaign Tuesday, a day after Scott Foval was fired from his post as national field director of Americans United for Change.

Mr. Trump, who has long complained of a “rigged” election system, said at a Tuesday rally in Colorado that the video released by the conservative group Project Veritas Action confirmed his suspicions of Democrat-sponsored political chicanery.

“The protesters are paid a lot of money by the [Democratic National Committee], and they kept saying, ‘I wonder why those people are here, because they never seem to have much on their mind other than stand up and protest,’” Mr. Trump told a crowd in Colorado Springs. “And yesterday it came out, but it was barely covered by the media. But it’s all over the internet. They were busted.”

Brad Woodhouse, Americans United for Change president, said in a late-Monday statement that Mr. Foval “is no longer associated with Americans United for Change.”

He insisted that the Democratic political consulting firm has “always operated according to the highest ethical and legal standards.”

Mr. Creamer, a four-decade Democratic strategist who pleaded guilty in 2005 to charges of bank fraud and tax violations, said in a statement that he was “unwilling to become a distraction to the important task of electing Hillary Clinton.”

“We regret the unprofessional and careless hypothetical conversations that were captured on hidden cameras of a temporary regional contractor for our firm, and he is no longer with us,” said Mr. Creamer, who is also featured in the videos.

The two 16-minute videos were released Monday and Tuesday after a yearlong undercover investigation headed by Project Veritas’ James O’Keefe, known for his hidden-camera probes into Planned Parenthood, ACORN and voter fraud.

Mr. O’Keefe said the investigation reveals “compelling evidence of a dark-money conspiracy” and that he would continue to release videos as part of a series titled “Rigging the Election” until voters go to the polls on Nov. 8.

The first video shows Democratic strategists discussing how they hire agitators — including union members, homeless people and the mentally ill — to incite violence by provoking Trump supporters on camera at campaign stops.

Project Veritas released a second video Tuesday showing Mr. Foval brainstorming over ways to commit voter fraud, such as by busing people from one state to another, while appearing to indicate that it had already been done in Iowa.

“It’s a pretty easy thing for Republicans to say, ‘Well, they’re busing people in,’” Mr. Foval said. “Well, you know what? We’ve been busing people in to deal with you f–ing assholes for 50 years, and we’re not going to stop now. We’re just going to find a different way to do it. So, I mean I grew up with that idea. They used to bus people out to Iowa. If they needed people, there we’d bus people out to Iowa.”

The same video shows Mr. Creamer discussing a proposal by a Project Veritas investigator to register people to vote illegally by setting up a shell corporation.

“I’m going to write down these options,” Mr. Creamer said. “Let me see if I can chat with the people who are most involved in Hispanic voter registration.”

Mr. Foval, who has worked for the George Soros-funded People for the American Way, said his paid agitators fueled a Chicago protest in March that forced the Trump campaign to cancel its event.

“They’re starting confrontations in the line, right?” said Mr. Foval. “They’re not starting confrontations in the rally. Because once they’re inside the rally, they’re under Secret Service’s control. When they’re outside the rally, the media will cover it no matter where it happens. The key is initiating the conflict by having leading conversations with people who are naturally psychotic.”

Inciting Trump supporters was easy, he said.

“I mean, honestly, it’s not hard to get some of these assholes to pop off,” Mr. Foval said. “It’s a matter of showing up, to want to get into the rally, in a Planned Parenthood T-shirt. Or, ‘Trump is a Nazi,’ you know. You can message to draw them out and draw them to punch you.”

Another operative, Aaron Black, who identified himself as “deputy rapid response director for the DNC for all things Trump on the ground,” said he was with Mr. Creamer’s group Democracy Partners but that his work was supposed to be a secret.

“Nobody’s really supposed to know about me,” Mr. Black said. “So the Chicago protest, when they shut all that, that was us. It was more [Mr. Creamer] than me, but none of this is supposed to come back to us because we want it coming from people. We don’t want it to come from the party.”

He said the idea is for the protests to appear spontaneous, not orchestrated by the DNC.

“So if we do a protest and if it’s branded a DNC protest, right away the press is going to say, ‘partisan,’” said Mr. Black, also known as “Aaron Minter,” according to the video.

“But if I’m in there coordinating with all the groups on the ground and sort of playing field general but they are the ones talking to the cameras, then it’s actually people, but if we send out press advisories with DNC on them and Clinton campaign, it just doesn’t have the same effect,” he said.

The same day the video was released, Mr. Black posted a photo on Twitter showing protesters outside Trump Tower holding signs with messages such as, “Trump Demeans Women.”

Keeping the protesters’ connection to the DNC hidden from the press was a priority, Mr. Foval said.

“We have to be really careful because what we don’t need is for it to show up on CNN that the DNC paid for X people to — that’s not going to happen,” he said.

Mr. O’Keefe said the first video raises questions about whether the Clinton campaign is coordinating with super PACs and independent expenditure committees in violation of campaign finance rules.

The Clinton campaign, DNC, Americans United for Change and Democracy Partners did not return requests for comment Tuesday.

The only public criticism of the videos has come from foes of Mr. O’Keefe’s past work such as Salon’s Brendan Gauthier, who said Project Veritas has been criticized for “strategically editing footage to make false accusations.”

In the video, Mr. Foval made clear his connections to the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

“We are contracted directly with the DNC and the campaign both. I am contracted to [Mr. Creamer]. But I answer to the head of special events for the DNC and the head of special events and political for the campaign,” said Mr. Foval.

He goes on to say, “The campaign pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group, the Foval Group goes and executes the sh— on the ground.”

Mr. Creamer indicated that he was in close contact with the Clinton campaign, saying, “We have a call with the campaign every day to go over the focuses that need to be undertaken.”

“Wherever Trump and Pence are going to be, we have events,” Mr. Creamer said. “And we have a whole team across the country that does that. Both consultants and people from the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party apparatus and people from the campaign, the Clinton campaign. And my role in the campaign is to manage all that.”

Another activist, Zulema Rodriguez, told the Project Veritas investigators, “I just had a call today with the campaign and the DNC. Every day at 1 o’clock.”

She also took credit for being involved with two anti-Trump events in March: the Chicago rally and another in Arizona in which anti-Trump protesters blocked a highway.

Federal Election Commission records unearthed by Project Veritas show that Ms. Rodriguez was paid nearly $2,000 on Feb. 29 by the Hillary for America campaign.

In conversations with Project Veritas reporters, Mr. Foval described his operation as “bird dogging,” meaning that he places hired protesters in key positions at Republican campaign events, often in front of rallies or lines.

He said he has training centers in New York, Washington, Las Vegas, Colorado and Minneapolis, and that trainees include the mentally ill and homeless people.

“I’m saying we have mentally ill people that we pay to do sh—, make no mistake,” Mr. Foval said. “Over the last 20 years. I’ve paid off a few homeless guys to do some crazy stuff, and I’ve also taken them for dinner and I’ve also made sure they had a hotel and a shower and I’ve put them in a program. I’ve done that.”

He also has contacts with unions such as the AFL-CIO. “But the reality is, a lot of people, especially our union guys, a lot of union guys, they’ll do whatever you want,” Mr. Foval said. “They’re rock ‘n’ roll.”

Mr. Foval also made it clear that he viewed Mr. Creamer as a mentor.

“I work for Bob Creamer one to one,” Mr. Foval said in the video. “I’m the white hat. Democracy Partners is kind of dark hat. Bob Creamer is diabolical, and I love him for it.”

 

A deep dive into the WikiLeaks revelations

October 18, 2016

A deep dive into the WikiLeaks revelations, Fox News via YouTube, October 17, 2016

Illegal Immigrants ‘Surge’ on Southern Border Ahead of 2016 Election

October 18, 2016

Illegal Immigrants ‘Surge’ on Southern Border Ahead of 2016 Election, Washington Free Beacon, October 18, 2016

(Please see also, America is addicted, sleepy and becoming comatose.– DM)

FILE - In this July 12, 2014 file photo, migrants walk along the rail tracks after getting off a train during their journey toward the U.S.-Mexico border in Ixtepec, Mexico. Many of the immigrants recently flooding the nationís southern border say theyíre fleeing violent gangs in Central America. These gangs were a byproduct of U.S. immigration and Cold War policies, specifically growing from the increase in deportations in the 1990s. With weak dysfunctional governments at home, U.S. street gang culture easily took hold and flourished in these countries. (AP Photo/Eduardo Verdugo)

FILE – In this July 12, 2014 file photo, migrants walk along the rail tracks after getting off a train during their journey toward the U.S.-Mexico border in Ixtepec, Mexico.  (AP Photo/Eduardo Verdugo)

“The 408,870 does not include those illegal aliens who evaded detection and successfully entered the United States,” Sessions said. “Earlier this year, Brandon Judd, the president of the National Border Patrol Council, testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest that for every one illegal alien who is apprehended, another evades arrest. This statistic reportedly has been confirmed by DHS, but the Obama administration refuses to release that information.”

“Using that rate as a baseline, that means approximately 408,870 illegal aliens evaded detection, for a grand total of roughly 817,740 illegal entries into the United States last year,” according to Sessions, who added that it is “notable” DHS’s statistics do not “indicate how many of the 408,807 apprehended aliens were actually removed from the United States.”

************************

The Obama administration has confirmed a large surge of illegal immigrants along America’s southern border less than a month before the presidential election that has thrust the issue onto the national stage.

The Department of Homeland Security published new statistics on Monday that confirmed at least 408,870 illegal aliens were apprehended along the U.S. southern border in fiscal year 2016, a 23 percent surge from this time last year.

The rate of juvenile illegal immigrants being apprehended on the border also has increased, according to the statistics, which show a 49 percent jump from similar periods in 2015.

The surge in illegal immigrants comes as leading members of Congress pursue an investigation into the precise number of individuals the Obama administration wrongly granted citizenship and immigration benefits.

The issue also is expected to provide fuel to accusations by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump that his political opponents are loosening restrictions on immigration in a bid to increase the number of likely Democratic voters ahead of Nov. 8.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), a Trump ally and critic of the administration’s border policies, raised concerns that federal authorities are not taking affirmative action to deport these illegal immigrants who have been apprehended in the past months.

DHS’s most recent statistics, Sessions said in a statement, “[are] only half the story.”

“The 408,870 does not include those illegal aliens who evaded detection and successfully entered the United States,” Sessions said. “Earlier this year, Brandon Judd, the president of the National Border Patrol Council, testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest that for every one illegal alien who is apprehended, another evades arrest. This statistic reportedly has been confirmed by DHS, but the Obama administration refuses to release that information.”

“Using that rate as a baseline, that means approximately 408,870 illegal aliens evaded detection, for a grand total of roughly 817,740 illegal entries into the United States last year,” according to Sessions, who added that it is “notable” DHS’s statistics do not “indicate how many of the 408,807 apprehended aliens were actually removed from the United States.”

Immigration experts have told Congress that around 80 percent of the illegal immigrants apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol are released and not scheduled for deportation.

“Data revealed earlier this year indicated that the Obama administration allowed 97 percent of the unaccompanied illegal alien juveniles it previously apprehended to remain in the United States, instead of being deported,” according to Sessions.

Meanwhile, Sens. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) and Ron Johnson (R., Wis.), chair of the Senate’s committee on Homeland Security, are attempting to force DHS to disclose the number of individuals “subject to deportation who were improperly granted citizenship and other immigration benefits.”

Around 858 to 1,811 individuals have been improperly granted citizenship, according to a recent government report that examined a small portion of immigrants.

Rigging the Election – Video II: Mass Voter Fraud

October 18, 2016

Rigging the Election – Video II: Mass Voter Fraud, Project Veritas via YouTube, October 18, 2016

(Scott Foval has been fired by Americans United for Change. — DM)

Rigging the Election – Video I: Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies

October 17, 2016

Rigging the Election – Video I: Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies, Project Veritas via YouTube, October 17, 2016

 

The blurb beneath the video states,

In this explosive new video from Project Veritas Action, a Democratic dirty tricks operative unwittingly provides a dark money trail to the DNC and Clinton campaign. The video documents violence at Trump rallies that is traced to the Clinton campaign and the DNC through a process called birddogging.

A shady coordinated communications chain between the DNC, Clinton Campaign, Hillary Clinton’s Super PAC (Priorities) and other organizations are revealed. A key Clinton operative is on camera saying, “It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherfucker.”

What Should Americans Be Talking About?

October 17, 2016

What Should Americans Be Talking About? Gatestone Institute, Judith Bergman, October 17, 2016

Should Americans uphold the Judeo-Christian values, which have governed Western civilization until now? Or should they quietly allow the defeat of those values by a false liberalism — false, because it is anything but liberal — which will allow values, such as that of Islamic sharia religious law to settle over the United States? Will people willingly surrender their own culture in order to avoid becoming victims of intimidation?

Worse, these policies often come in the seemingly benign-sounding terms of “diversity”, “multiculturalism”, “peace”, “anti-racism”, and “human rights”; but are often used in an Orwellian way to mean their own opposites. “Diversity” means, “It is great to look different so long as you think the same way I do” and is also an acceptance of Islamic values. “Anti-racism” often means, in a racist way, anti-white or anti-Jew. “Human rights” now means a political agenda. “Peace” is used to mean the destruction of Israel. “Multiculturalism” means any culture except the Judeo-Christian one — regardless of whether that culture supports denigrating women, slavery, flogging, amputating limbs, murdering gays and the intolerance of all other religions and cultures. These inversions of language are having devastating consequences not only on university campuses, but also throughout the U.S. and abroad.

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all [that] the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…” — Muslim Brotherhood, 1991.

The question of whether to submit to these policies, as Europe is doing, or to uphold freedom, as Israel is doing, has arrived in the United States. The choice Americans make will immeasurably affect not just the US, but, despite sounding melodramatic, the future of Western civilization.

For the American voter, issues of immense urgency to the survival of the free world — such as individual freedom, dispassionate enquiry and freedom of speech and thought, which we dangerously have come to take for granted — are being derailed by crude language and behavior, when Americans need to be paying attention to serious threats to the United States, its allies and to the values of the West.

Internationally, these threats come from Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, and countless terrorist groups.

Domestically, they appear in the form of massive corruption — financial and otherwise — that is visibly hollowing out American institutions, such as the FBI (the failure to follow investigative procedure, followed by calls for FBI Director James Comey’s resignation); the Department of Justice (the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal, and the Attorney General meeting with a former president whose wife is under investigation); the State Department (email leaks are still yielding up evidence of collusion between the Clinton Global Initiative and the State Department under Hillary Clinton); the IRS (targeting conservative non-profits, and raiding the businesses of private citizens, who disagree with policy); the Environmental Protection Agency’s attempt to acquire power over every puddle in America) and the Executive branch in the “I have a pen and I have a phone” president’s dealings with Iran.

There have also been attempts by outsiders to incite racial and religious anarchy. The entrepreneur George Soros, for example, donated $33 million to turn events in Ferguson, Missouri from a local protest into chaos.

1952There have been attempts by outsiders to incite racial and religious anarchy. The entrepreneur George Soros, for example, donated $33 million to turn events in Ferguson, Missouri from a local protest into chaos. (Image source: World Economic Forum)

Instead of helping Americans to create a safer, more prosperous way of life, the Ferguson events destroyed a community, devastated small business owners, and eroded security, the rule of law, and any hope for a better future. Who benefits? Creating chaos embeds a political dependency: rather than helping people to climb out of poverty, it keeps them voting for politicians to “rescue” them.

Jews and Israel are also targeted — often, regrettably, by other Jews, who appear naïvely to hope that they will thereby “immunize” themselves from attacks on Jews. Recently, for example, an article accused the U.S. Republican presidential election campaign of “significantly enhancing the presence of antisemitism in the public arena.”

Seriously?

While “conservative” radicals, such as white supremacists do exist, they are not even close to overtaking the mainstream discourse. That space, rather, seems to have been filled in the last decades by self-described “liberals” who now seem to dominate it to such a degree that the Dean of Students at the University of Chicago, John Ellison, felt obliged to write a letter warning prospective applicants not to expect a “safe space.” “Conservative” radicals are not the ones hunting down Jews — “liberals” and Islamists are victimizing and shutting them out.

Ironically of course, the liberals have not yet figured out that the agendas of these two groups are incompatible (as in gender equality); perhaps they are trying to “immunize” themselves, too.

Public debate in the US, particularly in the next few weeks, really needs to be about choosing what policies would actually improve the lives of Americans. Should they uphold the Judeo-Christian values, which have governed Western civilization until now? Or should they quietly allow the defeat of those values by a false liberalism — false, because it is anything but liberal — which will allow values, such as that of Islamic sharia religious law to settle over the United States? Will people willingly surrender their own culture in order to avoid becoming victims of intimidation?

American university campuses, which should proudly be championing debate of all ideas, have instead been rife with antisemitism for years, mostly because a “thought police” obsessed with identity politics — another way of saying my race, religion, skin color or sexual proclivity is good, yours is not — has overtaken campuses and turned them into embittered war-zones. It is postmodern Stalinism.

Worse, these policies often come in the seemingly benign-sounding terms of “diversity”, “multiculturalism”, “peace”, “anti-racism”, and “human rights”; but are often used in an Orwellian way to mean their own opposites. “Diversity” means, “it is great to look different so long as you think the same way I do” and is also and acceptance of Islamic values. “Anti-racism” often means, in a racist way, anti-white or anti-Jew. “Human rights” now means a political agenda. “Peace” is used to mean the destruction of Israel. “Multiculturalism” means any culture except the Judeo-Christian one — regardless of whether that culture supports denigrating women, slavery, flogging, amputating limbs, murdering gays and the intolerance of all other religions and cultures. These inversions of language are having devastating consequences not only on university campuses, but also throughout the U.S. and abroad.

The glue that brings “liberals” and Islamists, such as the Muslim Students Association (MSA) in the US (a front[1] for the Muslim Brotherhood), together in a common cause is the goal of eradicating Israel — of course always only under the euphemisms of “helping Palestinians” and “Peace,” even though Jihadi camps for children were organized first by Palestinians.

A 1991 official document authored by the Muslim Brotherhood outlines its strategic goals for civilizational jihad in North America. It depicts the Muslim Brotherhood’s plans for civilization jihad in the United States stating:

“The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all [that] the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers… [W]e must possess a mastery of the art of “coalitions”, the art of “absorption” and the principles of “cooperation.”

The question of whether to submit to these policies, as Europe is doing, or to uphold freedom, as Israel is doing, has arrived in the United States. The choice Americans make will immeasurably affect not just the US, but, despite sounding melodramatic, the future of Western civilization.

________________-

[1] In a 1991 official document authored by the Muslim Brotherhood, outlining its strategic goals for civilizational jihad in North America, the Muslim Students Association was mentioned as “one of our organizations and the organizations of our friends”, that is, a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood. The document was entered as evidence in the 2008 Holyland Terror Funding Trial.