Archive for the ‘2016 elections’ category

The hard truth – it don’t take a genius

August 19, 2016

The hard truth – it don’t take a genius, Israel National News, Meir Jolovitz, August 19, 2016

The traditional supporters of the Democratic Party, must confront, nay, stop the Obama/Clinton machine from fully deserting the only democracy in the Middle East or be judged by future generations as those who surrendered to willful negligence at best, and to fascist totalitarianism from the left at worst. The path to peace will not come from the euphemisms that the Clinton camp uses to shroud its platform. And it will not be realized by vilifying Israel and glorifying the assault against it. By every measure, the Democrats have failed, miserably, in an arena that will soon be threatened with an Iranian nuclear capability – while Hillary Clinton boasts of being a significant architect of that endeavor.

It is therefore imperative that Donald Trump use his platform to speak the truth; enough to convince a significant enough segment of the voting population – those few percentage points that so often determine an election – that the Obama/Clinton train is fast approaching an unavoidable precipice.

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

That age-old maxim that posits that one can tell much about someone by their choice of friends is invariably true, and yet, when applied to the political arena, it is even less telling than one’s choice of advisors. Witness the case of Hillary Clinton, a political chameleon who, despite every effort to be all things to all people, can be readily and transparently identified by those under whose cloak she hides: her advisors.

Political advisors, chosen carefully by aspiring presidential candidates, are often the window by which one can view the policies yet to follow. The very choice of these advisors allows one to understand that “it don’t take a genius” to know what’s coming next. President Obama, influenced by his Middle East mentor (and notorious PLO spokesman) Rashid Khalidi, subsequently filled his dance card with Valery Jarrett, Samantha Power, John Kerry, Ben Rhodes, and yes, Hillary Clinton. And today, we have a deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran that even its architects now shamelessly admit was passed through Congress, with a supportive blessing of the media, as a result of duplicitous power brokering.

No, it don’t take a genius.

Hard-pressed to list her own accomplishments, has chosen her own advisors as part of her inner circle. It begins and ends with Sidney Blumenthal. And, silently in the shadows, his son Max.

Sidney Blumenthal, a Clinton friend and advisor for many years and her confidant formulating her failed Libya policy – even despite a strong admonition by Obama during her stint as Secretary that he be distanced from State Department policy-making – continues to be the Svengali behind the scenes. A Clinton electoral success in November guarantees that Blumenthal emerges from the shadows to the great consternation of all friends of Israel. And, at great expense to American efforts to maintain a stable Middle East.

Until Obama, Israel had been viewed by virtually every chief executive as the moral imperative when counting allies in a world where the United States found fewer friends than foes. A Clinton presidency would be disastrous and do little to right that wrong.

The reluctant release by Clinton of her many secret emails have revealed a disturbing picture that ought to shake up all friends of Israel. The Blumenthal plan is one which calls for isolating and then breaking Israel. But it might be too late. Polls indicate that the American Jewish vote will again be quite heavily Democratic, despite the fact that the Democratic platform will be completely incongruous with their strong desire that American support for Israel never be compromised. And the damage that will be done will be immeasurable. Yes, it’s time to panic. Better now, than the day after the presidential election.

And yes, it’s time for Israel’s supporters to look beyond the Democratic Party.

Abraham Lincoln is credited for having opined that you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Well, sort of. In November 2016, approximately 130,000,000 million voters will determine the US’s future, and the course that it charts. The Democratic Party has found a formula that allows it to fool over 67 million people, all of the time. Enough to have won the last two elections with a candidate found wanting on so many fronts. You see, it seems not to matter. African Americans will vote overwhelmingly Democratic. As will the Hispanics, and yes, American Jews as well. Unless, in the coming months, we succeed in getting them to wake up to the truth. The hard truth.

One cannot recall in recent history a presidential election which pitted two candidates whose ideological base has been so contrastingly different, on policy matters, both domestic and foreign. And few foreign affairs are more important, more challenging, and more portentous than the volatile Middle East. In defense of Western values, proponents of a strong and secure Israel, which includes, of course, the tens of millions of America’s evangelical Christians, need to pay careful attention.

As Clinton’s foreign affairs guru, Sidney Blumenthal’s view of the Middle East, fashioned so closely to the vitriolic anti-Israel writings of his son – who questions Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish State, who refers to Israelis as Judeo-Nazis, and who ironically supports the global boycotts of the Jewish State – is cause for alarm. Decidedly proud of his son Max, an apologist for Hamas, the elder Blumenthal has on several occasions expressed equal pride in getting Hillary Clinton to read his scathing screeds, and remarkably, to comment quite favorably.

The antipathy of Blumenthal to Israel is well known, and very much ignored, remarkably in Jewish circles as well, particularly by those who support the Clinton campaign. This inexcusable attitude, suspended halfway between ignorance and indifference, carries with it consequences unlike ever before.

It don’t take a genius.

Someone needs to speak the truth. The hard truth. The traditional supporters of the Democratic Party, must confront, nay, stop the Obama/Clinton machine from fully deserting the only democracy in the Middle East or be judged by future generations as those who surrendered to willful negligence at best, and to fascist totalitarianism from the left at worst. The path to peace will not come from the euphemisms that the Clinton camp uses to shroud its platform. And it will not be realized by vilifying Israel and glorifying the assault against it. By every measure, the Democrats have failed, miserably, in an arena that will soon be threatened with an Iranian nuclear capability – while Hillary Clinton boasts of being a significant architect of that endeavor.

It is therefore imperative that Donald Trump use his platform to speak the truth; enough to convince a significant enough segment of the voting population – those few percentage points that so often determine an election – that the Obama/Clinton train is fast approaching an unavoidable precipice.

In the movie “Wall Street,” Gordon Gekko barks out: “I’ll make you a deal. You stop telling lies about me, and I’ll stop telling the truth about you.” Well, given the unyielding assault on Israel, fraught with its many euphemisms from the Obama/Clinton camps, and perpetuated by all those that hide under the mantle of progressivism, it behooves proponents of Israel to continue to tell the truth.

The Trump Speech that will Win Him the Presidency*

August 18, 2016

The Trump Speech that will Win Him the Presidency*, Power LineJohn Hinderaker, August 17, 2016

Yesterday in West Bend, Wisconsin, Donald Trump delivered a speech that was described as being on law and order. True enough, but it was much more than that. Trump powerfully wove together his campaign’s themes in a direct appeal for African-American votes. You can read the speech here. Of course, Trump didn’t deliver it exactly as written, but it was close, with no notable deviations that I noticed. Excerpts are below. This is the video of the speech in its entirety:

This is from the law and order portion of the speech:

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.

Law and order must be restored. It must be restored for the sake of all, but most especially the sake of those living in the affected communities.

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. Those peddling the narrative of cops as a racist force in our society – a narrative supported with a nod by my opponent – share directly in the responsibility for the unrest in Milwaukee, and many other places within our country.

They have fostered the dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America.

Every time we rush to judgment with false facts and narratives – whether in Ferguson or in Baltimore – and foment further unrest, we do a direct disservice to poor African-American residents who are hurt by the high crime in their communities.

Those words are true, and they will be welcomed by something like 85% of voters. The Democrats’ association with Black Lives Matter, with rioters and with anti-police elements generally is deeply unpopular.

Trump appealed directly to African-American voters. These excerpts are drawn from different portions of his speech:

The war on our police is a war on all peaceful citizens who want to be able to work and live and send their kids to school in safety.

Our job is not to make life more comfortable for the rioter, the looter, the violent disruptor. Our job is to make life more comfortable for the African-American parent who wants their kids to be able to safely walk the streets. Or the senior citizen waiting for a bus. Or the young child walking home from school.
***
The Hillary Clinton agenda hurts poor people the most.

There is no compassion in allowing drug dealers, gang members, and felons to prey on innocent people. It is the first duty of government to keep the innocent safe, and when I am President I will fight for the safety of every American – and especially those Americans who have not known safety for a very, very long time.

I am asking for the vote of every African-American citizen struggling in our country today who wants a different future.

It is time for our society to address some honest and very difficult truths.

The Democratic Party has failed and betrayed the African-American community. Democratic crime policies, education policies, and economic policies have produced only more crime, more broken homes, and more poverty.

Let us look at the situation right here in Milwaukee, a city run by Democrats for decade after decade. Last year, killings in this city increased by 69 percent, plus another 634 victims of non-fatal shootings. 18-29-year-olds accounted for nearly half of the homicide victims. The poverty rate here is nearly double the national average. Almost 4 in 10 African-American men in Milwaukee between the ages of 25-54 do not have a job. Nearly four in 10 single mother households are living in poverty. 55 public schools in this city have been rated as failing to meet expectations, despite ten thousand dollars in funding per-pupil. There is only a 60% graduation rate, and it’s one of the worst public school systems in the country.

To every voter in Milwaukee, to every voter living in every inner city, or every forgotten stretch of our society, I am running to offer you a better future.

The Democratic Party has taken the votes of African-Americans for granted. They’ve just assumed they’ll get your support and done nothing in return for it. It’s time to give the Democrats some competition for these votes, and it’s time to rebuild the inner cities of America – and to reject the failed leadership of a rigged political system.
***
We reject the bigotry of Hillary Clinton which panders to and talks down to communities of color and sees them only as votes, not as individual human beings worthy of a better future. She doesn’t care at all about the hurting people of this country, or the suffering she has caused them.

The African-American community has been taken for granted for decades by the Democratic Party. It’s time to break with the failures of the past – I want to offer Americans a new future.

It is time for rule by the people, not rule by special interests.

Every insider, getting rich off of our broken system, is throwing money at Hillary Clinton. The hedge fund managers, the Wall Street investors, the professional political class.

It’s the powerful protecting the powerful. Insiders fighting for insiders. I am fighting for you.
***
The Democratic Party has run nearly every inner city in this country for 50 years, and run them into financial ruin.

They’ve ruined the schools.

They’ve driven out the jobs.

They’ve tolerated a level of crime no American should consider acceptable.

Violent crime has risen 17% in America’s 50 largest cities last year. Killings of police officers this year is up nearly 50 percent. Homicides are up more than 60% in Baltimore. They are up more than 50% in Washington, D.C.

This is the future offered by Hillary Clinton. More poverty, more crime, and more of the same. The future she offers is the most pessimistic thing I can possibly imagine.

It is time for a different future.

That is powerful stuff. The Democrats can only hope that the press doesn’t let their urban voters hear Trump’s message.

Trump wove his trademark immigration issue into the narrative:

First, on immigration. No community in this country has been hurt worse by Hillary Clinton’s immigration policies than the African-American community. Now she is proposing to print instant work permits for millions of illegal immigrants, taking jobs directly from low-income Americans. I will secure our border, protect our workers, and improve jobs and wages in your community. We will only invite people to join our country who share our tolerant values, who support our Constitution, and who love all of our people.

Trump is right on the facts, and polls indicate that his policies are extremely popular with African-American voters. Trump also came out for school choice and merit pay for teachers:

Hillary Clinton would rather deny opportunities to millions of young African-American children, just so she can curry favor with the education bureaucracy.

That’s true. And it isn’t just Hillary, it is the entire Democratic Party, at every level.

There was much more, especially on corruption. But the bottom line is that Donald Trump did exactly what conservatives have been saying for years that Republican politicians should do. He asked for African-American votes, explicitly and aggressively. He called out the Democrats for their failed policies. Urban American has been voting Democrat for a century, and how has that worked out? Badly. Democrats count on African-American votes, but their policies on public safety, immigration, education and trade (here I think Trump is mostly wrong), among others, consistently screw black Americans. Why not try something different?

If Trump keeps giving this speech, and variants on it, for the next 90 days he will win the election. He needs, above all, to maintain message discipline. Yesterday, he riffed a bit here and there, but not substantively. He stuck to his script and delivered his message powerfully. He needs to keep that up until Election Day.

One more thing about Trump’s Wisconsin speech is notable: He was introduced by Scott Walker, and Reince Preibus and Rudy Giuliani were prominently in attendance. Trump is inherently more powerful when he speaks in the context of approval by luminaries like those who showed up to support him in West Bend. It is time, I think, with all due respect to those who have resisted Trump as the Republican standard bearer, for the party to unite behind its nominee.

Finally: the title of this post ends with an asterisk. Speeches like the one Trump gave in Wisconsin will win him the presidency, but only if voters hear them or otherwise learn about them. The Democratic Party media will do everything possible to prevent that from happening.

So, for example, the liberal media led this morning not with stories about Trump’s speech, which would have damaged their preferred candidate, but rather with stories about his campaign staff shakeup. Trump needs to circumvent the liberal media in a manner that was not necessary when they largely cheered him on during the primary season. In that respect the debates, when voters will see Trump unfiltered by his enemies, likely will be critical.

Dr. Jasser discusses Donald Trump’s call for “extreme vetting” as part of plan to stop ISIS

August 17, 2016

Dr. Jasser discusses Donald Trump’s call for “extreme vetting” as part of plan to stop ISIS, Fox News via YouTube, August 16, 2016

(Please see also, Donald Trump’s Outreach to Moderate Muslim Leaders Highlights Clinton Failure in Egypt. — DM)

 

Donald Trump’s Outreach to Moderate Muslim Leaders Highlights Clinton Failure in Egypt

August 17, 2016

Donald Trump’s Outreach to Moderate Muslim Leaders Highlights Clinton Failure in Egypt, BreitbartTera Dahl, August 17, 2016

al sisi(1)AFP

In his foreign policy speech on Monday, Donald Trump stated that he would “amplify the voice” of moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East, saying, “Our Administration will be a friend to all moderate Muslim reformers in the Middle East, and will amplify their voices.”

He also said that he would work with Egypt, Jordan and Israel in combating radical Islam, saying, “As President, I will call for an international conference focused on this goal. We will work side-by-side with our friends in the Middle East, including our greatest ally, Israel. We will partner with King Abdullah of Jordan, and President Sisi of Egypt, and all others who recognize this ideology of death that must be extinguished.”

He said that, as President, he would establish a “Commission on Radical Islam,” saying, “That is why one of my first acts as President will be to establish a Commission on Radical Islam – which will include reformist voices in the Muslim community who will hopefully work with us. We want to build bridges and erase divisions.”

His comments about cooperating with Egypt, Israel and Jordan were highlighted in the Arab world’s media, with headlines reading “Donald Trump Announces Plan to Cooperate with Egypt, Jordan, Israel to Combat Radical Islam” and “Trump vows to work with Egypt’s Sisi to ‘stop radical Islam’ if elected.”

Under the Obama Administration, US policy has not been friendly towards our Muslim allies such as Egypt. Hillary Clinton recently said in a primary debate with Bernie Sanders that, in Egypt, you basically have an “army dictatorship”.

Egypt is one of the most catastrophic foreign policy failures of the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton’s State Department. President Obama started his outreach to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood when he delivered his 2009 Cairo speech. The US Embassy invited 10 members of the Muslim Brotherhood to attend the speech, undermining US ally Mubarak – who had rejected to previous U.S. efforts to reach out to the Brotherhood.

The Obama Administration, and Clinton’s State Department, again undermined President Mubarak in 2011 when they urged him to step down and pressured Egypt to hold elections “immediately” after the 2011 revolution. This policy favored the Muslim Brotherhood to win elections since they were the most organized at the time.

Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammed Morsi in Cairo offering “strong support” for the Islamist President, saying, “I have come to Cairo to reaffirm the strong support of the United States for the Egyptian people and their democratic transition… We want to be a good partner and we want to support the democracy that has been achieved by the courage and sacrifice of the Egyptian people.”

The Obama Administration embraced the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, but when millions of Egyptians took to the streets one year later, calling for early elections against the Muslim Brotherhood government, the Obama Administration did all they could to undermine their efforts.

Over 30 million Egyptians took to the streets on June 30, 2013 calling for the removal of the Muslim Brotherhood from power. After one year of being in power, the Brotherhood was taking Egypt towards an Iranian theocracy and the Egyptian people stood against political Islam. The 2011 Egyptian Constitution had no impeachment mechanism included, so the only democratic way to remove the Brotherhood was signing a petition and taking to the streets in the masses. Millions of Egyptians took to the streets again in July, supporting then Defense Minister General el-Sisi and the Egyptian military in their efforts to fight terrorism.

The Obama Administration condemned the Egyptian military and police after the removal of the Muslim Brotherhood and punished Egypt by freezing military and economic aid to Egypt. This was done while the Egyptian military had launched a major offensive to “crush terrorist activity” in the Sinai that had built up during the Muslim Brotherhood government. Egypt had to fight terrorism alone – not only without support from the US – but with pressure to succumb to the requests from the US Administration to release the Muslim Brotherhood members from prison and reconcile.

The pressure from the Obama Administration against the removal of the Morsi regime emboldened the Muslim Brotherhood and they waged an Islamist insurgency, not only in the Sinai but on the streets of Cairo. The Muslim Brotherhood specifically targeted theChristian community and burned down over 65 Christian Churches and hundreds of Christian shops.

The Obama Administration sent U.S. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns to Egypt for “U.S. mediation efforts” and met with Khairat el-Shater, the deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, who was in jail at the time and sentenced for life in prison. Our State Department, under John Kerry, sent a representative to Egypt pressuring the Egyptian government to release terrorists from jail.

The Obama Administration also sent Senators McCain and Graham to Egypt to ask the Egyptian government and military to find an agreement with the Muslim Brotherhood. They asked the Egyptian government to “sit down and talk” to the Muslim Brotherhood, who had waged war on the Egyptian people.

Since being democratically elected in 2014, winning with 97% of the vote, Egyptian President al-Sisi has made history speaking out for equality between Muslims and Christians. He was the first President in Egyptian history to visit the Coptic Christian Christmas mass service in January 2015. During his speech at the Christmas mass, he emphasized the need to look at each other as “Egyptians” and not as Muslim or Christian. He said, “We will love each other for real, so that people may see.” President Sisi again visited the Coptic Christmas mass in January 2016 where he vowed to rebuild the Christian churches that were destroyed by Islamists in 2013 after the Muslim Brotherhood were removed from power.

President Sisi has called for “Islamic reform” within Islam numerous times. During a speech to Islamic scholars in 2015, marking the anniversary of Muhammad’s birth, President Sisi urged reform of Islamic discourse and called on Islamic scholars to send Christmas greetings to Christians. In the televised speech to Islamic scholars, President Sisi stated, “We talk a lot about the importance of religious discourse… In our schools, institutes and universities, do we teach and practice respect for the others? We neither teach or practice it.”

The Egyptian government has also addressed the ideology by banning thousands of radical clerics from preaching in the mosques that are not licensed.

Recently, the government of President al-Sisi introduced a textbook for Egyptian public schools that requires Egyptian pupils to memorize the provisions of the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty and delineate the “advantages of peace for Egypt and the Arab states”. This is a major reform taken from the Egyptian government in normalizing and strengthening relations between Israel and Egypt.

President Sisi should be considered a key ally of America as he is leading Egypt towards democracy and also is leading the fight against global jihad, both militarily and politically, in countering radical Islamic ideology. Instead, he has yet to be invited to the United States from President Obama.

Hillary Clinton has been critical of Trump’s position towards Russia, but policies implemented under the Obama Administration have pushed Egypt towards Russia and have alienated our strongest Arab ally for over 40 years. Egypt and Russia signed a$2billion arms deal after the United States abandoned them during their fight against terrorism. Russia also is providing Egypt with $25 billion to build Egypt’s first nuclear power plant.

Donald Trump in his speech recognized the need to support our Muslim allies in the global war on terrorism. This is critical in defeating global jihad. We cannot afford another four years of a policy of alienating our allies and emboldening our enemies as we have seen under the Obama Administration.

Which Is Worse—an October Surprise or a December Surprise?

August 13, 2016

Which Is Worse—an October Surprise or a December Surprise? PJ Media, Roger L Simon, August 12, 2016

(Won’t December be a tad late to do anything about it? — DM)

hillary mugshot

While the mainstream media—desperate to prevent Donald Trump from bringing his gold lamé lifestyle anywhere near the White House—rattles on in mock astonishment about the loquacious businessman’s latest gaffe, a far more significant threat to our country looms than any possible verbal miscue. According to The Daily Caller Foundation’s Richard Pollock:

Multiple FBI investigations are underway involving potential corruption charges against the Clinton Foundation, according to a former senior law enforcement official.The investigation centers on New York City where the Clinton Foundation has its main offices, according to the former official who has direct knowledge of the activities.

Prosecutorial support will come from various U.S. Attorneys Offices — a major departure from other centralized FBI investigations.

The New York-based probe is being led by Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Bharara’s prosecutorial aggressiveness has resulted in a large number of convictions of banks, hedge funds and Wall Street insiders.

Bharara is the attorney who recently brought down the supposedly untouchable Democratic NY Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver—a veritable Boss Tweed of modern New York politics.  Evenhanded, the prosecutor also put away NY Republican Majority Leader Dean Skelos for five years on corruption charges.

Importantly, I have been told that Mr. Bharara works independently of the censorious hand of Loretta Lynch at the DOJ in DC. He is reputed to be his own man and likes to keep New York’s Southern District free of Beltway interference. As for that anonymous “former senior law enforcement official,” he—I also have been told—is definitely in a position to know. (This contradicts earlier reporting, by CNN and others, that the Clinton Foundation was not under investigation.)

Can we say, “Watch out, Hillary!”?  Better yet, “Watch out, America!”? Be careful what you wish for at the ballot box this November. What you vote for on Election Day may not be what you are getting a month later.

In other words, which is worse—an October Surprise or a December Surprise?

Trump still holds the aces against Hillary Clinton

August 12, 2016

Trump still holds the aces against Hillary Clinton, Spectator (UK), August 13, 2016

WILMINGTON, NC - AUGUST 9: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump addresses the audience during a campaign event at Trask Coliseum on August 9, 2016 in Wilmington, North Carolina. This was TrumpÕs first visit to Southeastern North Carolina since he entered the presidential race. (Photo by Sara D. Davis/Getty Images)

WILMINGTON, NC – AUGUST 9: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump addresses the audience during a campaign event at Trask Coliseum on August 9, 2016 in Wilmington, North Carolina.(Photo by Sara D. Davis/Getty Images)

Last week, the New York Times ran the page one headline ‘Pence Supports Ryan, Showing GOP Turmoil.’ There was turmoil in the Republican party because Mike Pence, its vice-presidential nominee, had endorsed the candidacy of Paul Ryan, its most powerful congressman. One wonders what the Times would have called it had the two men actually disagreed about something. The Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump had waited days before endorsing Ryan, a signal that he had not forgotten Ryan’s slowness to back him in the spring. And the whole press is now in a frenzy of negative reporting about the Trump campaign. These have been ‘weeks of self-inflicted controversies and plummeting poll numbers’ among Trump’s Republicans. It has been a ‘meltdown’, a ‘cascade of blunders’, a ‘panic’.To judge from the headlines, Trump cannot win, because he is disrespecting the families of America’s war dead, bullying babies and helping Vladimir Putin spy.

But there was no meltdown. Democrats got a polling ‘bounce’ after their convention that pushed Hillary Clinton back to the seven–point lead she had enjoyed at the start of summer. Trump has taken a few pratfalls, but it is well to remember that he is not the worse off for the many he took earlier in the campaign.

Fights with the parents of Humayun Khan, a Muslim US army captain killed in Iraq, started the idea of a Trump collapse. The father, Khizr Khan, a Pakistani-born US citizen, appeared at the Democratic convention to attack Trump’s call for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration and berated him for his understanding of the constitution. Trump wondered aloud why Khizr Khan’s wife, Ghazala, who had stood silently beside him in a headscarf, hadn’t herself been allowed to speak.

Trump’s foes believe recent US political rhetoric has established a ‘rule’ whereby anything associated with patriotism and sacrifice gets turned into a popular commodity — even Islam. Trump himself believes a version of this and only 13 per cent of Americans think he was right to speak back to the Khans. Just because swing voters may honour Humayun Khan’s sacrifice, however, does not mean that on election day they will relish the memory of having been angrily lectured on their own constitution in Islam’s name.

The primary strength of Donald Trump’s campaign is hidden in plain sight: he is genuinely funny. If elected he would be the first president since John F. Kennedy to possess a sense of humour. Those who cover his campaign seem eager to punish him for this distinction. When Wikileaks released internal emails from the Democratic national committee, Democrats, with no evidence, sought to blame the leak on Russian intelligence, implying that Russian president Vladimir Putin was trying to get Trump elected. Trump replied that, if that were indeed the case, perhaps Russia would be so kind as to share the 30,000 official emails that Hillary Clinton kept on a private server during her tenure as secretary of state. (Congressional investigators have sought them, but Clinton claims to have deleted them.) The Los Angeles Times news story began: ‘Donald Trump dared a foreign government to commit espionage on the US to hurt his rival on Wednesday, smashing yet another taboo in American political discourse and behaviour.’

At a speech days later, Trump tried to put the mother of a crying baby at ease — when she left he joked, ‘I think she really believed me that I love having a baby crying while I’m speaking.’ Mother and baby soon returned. Chicago Tribune columnist Clarence Page wrote that Trump had ‘booted a crying baby from a rally’. It wasn’t so much a bad week for Trump as a week of bad press.

Jim Rutenberg of the New York Times has written that the confabulation and extremism of Trump are making journalists ‘throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half century, if not longer’. Paul Waldman of The Week writes that the unusually negative coverage is not due to the media’s treating him differently but to ‘the simple fact that Trump is in fact such a different candidate’.

It goes deeper than that. Western elites are hardening into something like a class. Having little contact with other social classes, they may, on certain issues, never have met someone who disagrees with them. They cannot distinguish between wishes and facts, and see no need to. ‘This is a bad moment for Mr Trump, so a good one for America,’ wrote the Economist last week. ‘As Trump’s feud with his party deepens,’ the Los Angeles Times headlined, ‘some discuss what to do if he quits the race.’ An ex-speechwriter for George W. Bush encouraged Mike Pence, Trump’s vice-presidential pick, to repudiate him.

The Trump meltdown reports were far from reality. But they may yet become reality in voters’ minds. Part of the reason his campaign is alleged to be ‘melting down’ is that it has wound up in confrontations with elite institutions. But these have lost authority in recent years. This week four-dozen Republican foreign policy aides warned that Trump ‘would put at risk our country’s national security and wellbeing’. Trump correctly noted that the signatories included the people who brought the world the Iraq war. It was similar to the episode in June when Moody’s Analytics, a subsidiary of the agency that misrated the world’s derivatives on the eve of the financial collapse of 2007–08, warned that Trump’s economic policy would cause a recession and Clinton’s would create jobs. The report was written by Mark Zandi, a Hillary Clinton donor.

The road to the presidency for Trump is a narrow one. He does lag in the polls. He lacks experience and savvy electoral and policy personnel. But he ought to win it. He need take only Ohio and Pennsylvania away from Hillary Clinton.

Issues likely to arise in the coming months — immigration statistics, terrorism incidents, protests by Black Lives Matter — favour him. He will enter the 26 September debate with enviably low expectations. The myth persists that he is dumb. Even though Trump has shown a gift for vaulting ahead with every new debate. And even though, measured by the gap between the modesty of its beginnings and the heights it has already attained, his is one of the more effective campaigns any US candidate has run for anything.

Compromised: Justice Dept. Refused FBI Probe of Clinton Foundation

August 11, 2016

Compromised: Justice Dept. Refused FBI Probe of Clinton Foundation, Front Page MagazineMatthew Vadum, August 11, 2016

(Please see also, Report: Justice Department declined FBI request to investigate Clinton Foundation. — DM)

gty_ap_loretta_lynch_hillary_clinton_jt_150726_16x9_992

The highly politicized Department of Justice swatted down pesky FBI requests to investigate the Clinton Foundation earlier this year, CNN reported yesterday.

CNN buried the lede, as it frequently does on news stories that make Democrats look bad. The online version bears the innocuous-sounding headline, “Newly released Clinton emails shed light on relationship between State Dept. and Clinton Foundation.”

It is not until the 25th paragraph that the article states that an unidentified law enforcement official gave CNN a heads-up earlier this year. As the probe of Clinton’s private email servers was ramping up “several FBI field offices approached the Justice Department asking to open a case regarding the relationship between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation.”

At that time, the article continues, the Justice Department “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.”

Not even enough evidence to look into the foundation’s affairs?

Not more than a year after the publication of Peter Schweizer’s blockbuster book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, opened the floodgates for investigative reporters to dig into the matter.

As I’ve written before, various lawyers have told me there is already a strong legal case against Mrs. Clinton. The fact that she destroyed email evidence — evidence subject to a congressional subpoena, no less — is already evidence in itself that she obstructed justice through spoliation of evidence. Spoliation means you can take as evidence the fact that evidence has been destroyed. Courts are entitled to draw spoliation inferences and convict an accused person on that basis alone.

The only reason FBI Director James Comey didn’t recommend she be prosecuted is because, well, he lacks a spine and he’s corrupt. He said there was no evidence of Clinton’s “efforts to obstruct justice,” a requirement that does not actually appear in the Espionage Act.

Evidence of corruption at the Clinton Foundation is everywhere, yet CNN and much of the mainstream media are still doing everything they can to ignore, misrepresent, or downplay the questionable things Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton did through the foundation.

The congenitally corrupt Clintons created their private email system to frustrate Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) requesters, shield Hillary’s correspondence from congressional oversight, and steer money to their corrupt foundation, which, amazingly enough, still enjoys tax-exempt status.

These illegal, insecure private email servers Clinton used while at the State Department are at the heart of the scandal over her mishandling of an Islamic terrorist attack in militant-infested Benghazi, Libya on the 11th anniversary of 9/11 that left four Americans, including U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens, dead. Even now, four years after the assault, the Obama administration has failed to provide an autopsy report about Stevens who was initially reported to have been ritualistically sodomized before being murdered by Muslim terrorists.

Every few days Judicial Watch has been releasing emails obtained under FoIA that may ultimately lead to evidence of political interference at the highest levels that provided cover for the anticipatory presidential bribe processing vehicle known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

“No wonder Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin hid emails from the American people, the courts and Congress,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “They show the Clinton Foundation, Clinton donors, and operatives worked with Hillary Clinton in potential violation of the law.”

On Tuesday the watchdog group published emails sent to Abedin, Clinton’s longtime aide with generational ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, seeking favors. Abedin now vice-chairs Clinton’s presidential campaign. She also worked at the State Department with Clinton and with her at the Clinton Foundation.

“The new documents reveal that in April 2009 controversial Clinton Foundation official Doug Band pushed for a job for an associate,” according to a Judicial Watch summary. “In the email Band tells Hillary Clinton’s former aides at the State Department Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin that it is “important to take care of [Redacted]. Band is reassured by Abedin that “Personnel has been sending him options.” Band was co-founder of Teneo Strategy with Bill Clinton and a top official of the Clinton Foundation, including its Clinton Global Initiative.”

Emails also show Abedin left then-Secretary Clinton’s daily schedule, presumably a  sensitive document, on a bed in an unlocked hotel room.

“An email on April 18, 2009, during a conference in Trinidad and Tobago, from aide Melissa J. Lan to Huma Abedin asks for the Secretary’s “day book binders.” Abedin replies: “Yes. It’s on the bed in my room. U can take it. My door is open. I’m in the lobby. Thx.” Moreover, the emails show the annoyance of another Clinton aide that the schedule was sent to an authorized State Department email address and not to an unsecured non-state.gov account.”

Other emails show Clinton campaign adviser and pollster Mark Penn provided Clinton advice on NATO and piracy. Clinton fundraiser Lana Moresky asked Clinton to have the State Department hire someone. Clinton asked Abedin to follow up and “help” the applicant and asked Abedin to “let me know” about the job.

Meanwhile, the Left is trying to take the focus off the Clinton Foundation.

A high-profile watchdog group controlled by Hillary Clinton ally David Brock is demanding the IRS investigate Donald Trump’s personal foundation for allegedly aiding his presidential campaign.

The call by CREW, or Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, has to be the most obvious political hit job of this election cycle.

CREW is a member of what some in the conservative think tank community call the “Brocktopus,” that is, the network of groups the disgraced former journalist runs, which spends oodles of money defending all things Clinton. An admitted serial liar, Brock’s empire of sleaze also includes “conservative misinformation” watchdog Media Matters for America, pro-Hillary disaster-control spin site Correct the Record, and American Bridge 21st Century, a super PAC that promotes Hillary and attacks her critics.

CREW executive director Noah Bookbinder asked the IRS to investigate the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a tiny nonprofit founded by Trump decades ago to give away profits from his book, The Art of the Deal.

How the foundation, which ranked 4,347th in the FoundationSearch “Top Foundations by Assets for the state of New York” list would help the Trump campaign isn’t clear. “The Trump Foundation has no full-time staff, and gave away just $591,000 in 2014 — the last year for which records are available,” the Washington Post reports.

It’s possible the Trump Foundation has been helping the Trump campaign but the philanthropy is so anemic it is difficult to imagine it doing much to help its benefactor’s political career. Even if the IRS takes up this piddling little case not much is likely to come of it. It’s a political stunt by CREW, a nakedly partisan group under the boot of one of Hillary’s biggest backers.

It’s the wheeling and dealing Clinton Foundation with its involvement in billion-dollar transactions, its ties to shady figures, and the debt it owes to the unsavory governments of countries around the world that needs to be properly and thoroughly examined.

Trump lacks experience but his detractors lack common sense: Spengler

August 10, 2016

Trump lacks experience but his detractors lack common sense: Spengler, Asia Times

Gen. Hayden was perhaps the most prominent signator of a letter from fifty former national security officials who served in Republican administrations, declaring that Donald Trump “lacks the character, values and experience” required of a president and, if elected, “would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”

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

Last year I arrived early for a lunch address by Gen. Michael Hayden, who ran the National Security Agency and later the Central Intelligence Agency in the George W. Bush administration. Hayden was already there, and glad to chat. The conversation turned to Egypt, and I asked Hayden why the Republican mainstream had embraced the Muslim Brotherhood rather than the military government of President al-Sisi, an American-trained soldier who espoused a reformed Islam that would repudiate terrorism. “We were sorry that [Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed] Morsi was overthrown” in July 2013, Hayden explained. “We wanted to see what would happen when the Muslim Brotherhood had to take responsibility for picking up the garbage.”

“General,” I remonstrated, “when Morsi was overthrown, Egypt had three weeks of wheat supplies on hand. The country was on the brink of starvation!”

“I guess that experiment would have been tough on the ordinary Egyptian,” Hayden replied, without a hint of irony. As Tommy Lee Jones said in “Men in Black,” Gen. Hayden has no sense of humor that he’s aware of. He repeated the same point verbatim a few minutes later in his speech: It was a shame that the Muslim Brotherhood government of Egypt was overthrown, by acclaim of the majority of Egypt’s adult population, which had taken to the streets as the country careened towards ruin. Hayden, like Sen. John McCain, the Weekly Standard, and the majority of the Republican foreign policy establishment, believes that America should try to foster a democratic version of political Islam. It lionized Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood in Washington, nurtured Turkey’s dictator Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and armed “moderate Islamists” in Syria as a supposed democratic alternative to the Assad regime. Hayden’s specialty was signal intelligence, and by all accounts he was good at his job. He is clueless about foreign policy.

Gen. Hayden was perhaps the most prominent signator of a letter from fifty former national security officials who served in Republican administrations, declaring that Donald Trump “lacks the character, values and experience” required of a president and, if elected, “would put at risk our country’s national security and well-being.”

Trump responded, “The names on this letter are the ones the American people should look to for answers on why the world is a mess, and we thank them for coming forward so everyone in the country knows who deserves the blame for making the world such a dangerous place.” That is exactly correct. He might have added that they are incapable of learning from their mistakes and doomed to repeat them if given the opportunity.

trumpclubRepublican U.S. presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks to the Detroit Economic Club at the Cobo Center in Detroit, Michigan August 8, 2016. REUTERS/Eric Thayer TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

The Republican Establishment believed with fervor in the Arab Spring. Weekly Standard founder Bill Kristol went as far as to compare the abortive rebellions fo the American founding. It backed the overthrow and assassination of Libya’s dictator Muamar Qaddafi, which turned a nasty but stable country into a Petri dish for terrorism. It believed that majority rule in Iraq would lead to a stable, pro-American government in that Frankenstein monster of a country patched together with body parts taken from the corpse of the Ottoman empire. Instead, it got a sectarian Shi’ite regime aligned to Iran and a Sunni rebellion stretching from Mesopotamia to the Lebanon led by ISIS and al-Qaeda.

Trump is vulgar, ill-informed and poorly spoken. He has no foreign policy credentials and a disturbing inclination to give credit to Russia’s Vladimir Putin where it isn’t due. But he has one thing that the fifty former officials lack, and that is healthy common sense. That is what propelled him to the Republican nomination. The American people took note that the “experiment” of which Gen. Hayden spoke so admiringly was tough not only on the ordinary Egyptian, but on the ordinary American as well. Americans are willing to fight and die for their country, but revolt against sacrifices on behalf of social experiments devised by a self-appointed elite. That is why the only two candidates in the Republican primaries who made it past the starting gate repudiated the Bush administration’s foreign policy.

Common sense, to be sure, isn’t enough. Trump can’t swap spit with Vladimir Putin and let the witches’ kettle of the Middle East boil along by itself without dire consequences. As Bret Stephens complained Aug. 8 in the Wall Street Journal, some of Trump’s loudest supporters make a motley virtue of their ignorance. “There was a time when the conservative movement was led by the likes of Bill Buckley and Irving Kristol and Bob Bartley, men of ideas who invested the Republican Party with intellectual seriousness,” Stephens wrote. I knew the late Irving Kristol, who trained and promoted most of the cadre who ran the first Reagan Administration, and Robert Bartley, the late editor of the Wall Street Journal — brilliant men from whom I learned a great deal, some of which I had to unlearn afterwards.

But the Republican Establishment today is guided not by the likes of Irving Kristol, but by his epigonoi. His son Bill Kristol has never published a single essay of intellectual significance, and the same is true of Commentary Magazine editor John Podhoretz, son of the estimable Norman Podhoretz. To be a “neo-conservative” in the 1970s in the mold of Irving Kristol and former Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz meant to repudiate the leftist views of one’s youth and make the leap to the Reagan camp. The original neo-conservatives knew how wrong they had been in their youth, and re-learned their politics after forty. Unlike their forbears, today’s neo-cons never have had a self-critical moment. Today’s guardians of the sacred flame of the sacred conservative flame are to the manure born.

The choice, sadly, lies between an unlearned interloper with common sense and an Establishment whose policy response is predictable as the emergence of a gumball from a supermarket machine after a quarter is cranked in. They are mediocre ideologues incapable of learning from past failures, clinging to their careers because they are unsuited for honest work. Trump may not know much but he is capable of learning. That can’t be said for his detractors.

“It isn’t just that the emperor has no clothes,” I wrote in a review of Angelo Codevilla’sbrilliant 2014 book To Make and Keep Peace. “The empire has no tailors.” Three administrations of Bush father and son have produced a monotone Establishment of functional foreign policy morons. One can’t find many prominent national security officials to oppose the signators of the anti-Trump letter because a whole generation of functionaries has been bred from the same stable. America will have to learn foreign policy from scratch. For my money, I’ll take the rough-edged outsider over the recidivist failures.

The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the view of Asia Times. 

The Real Reason the Mainstream Media Hates Trump

August 10, 2016

The Real Reason the Mainstream Media Hates Trump, PJ MediaRoger L Simon, August 9, 2016

trump_angy_msm_reporters_banner_8-9-16-1.sized-770x415xc

In a much talked about August 7 piece—“Trump Is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism”—New York Times “mediator” Jim Rutenberg takes the mainstream media out of the closet and publicly declares them in the tank for Trump.

As front page news this is not exactly man bites dog, but he goes further actually to excuse this bias because, after all, Trump is Trump:

If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?

How’re you supposed to cover a woman whose family foundation helped Putin corner the uranium market? Oh, never mind. Rutenberg’s point is that the barbarian Trump has put those Fourth Estate idealists in a quandary as never before. The poor dears always try to be neutral, but The Donald is just too many bridges too far. They just can’t be even-handed anymore. (Please stay clear of your computer screen if you start to sputter.)

But the truth is that—although he can be a loudmouthed blowhard with poor impulse control—Trump is not remotely  what they say he is: a racist, sexist demagogue. In fact, if you bother to look it up, he was more than a decade ahead of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on one of the most “sainted” of all liberal issues—gay marriage.  But don’t expect to see that covered by Gutenberg, et al.

The real reason the MSM disdains, even loathes, Trump is that he threatens what I call The Big Wink, which means he threatens them

Qu’est-ce que c’est The Big Wink?

We saw it writ large during the (media pronounced) highly successful Democratic National Convention—the key topic of which, beside the excoriation of Donald Trump, was the rescue of the middle class, a middle class, no one admitted, that has done surpassingly poorly during the Obama administration. Improving the situation of minorities was also, as always, invoked, even though minorities, particularly blacks, have done even more wretchedly over the last eight years.

Unspoken, not surprisingly, was a truly uncomfortable truth—the people who have done best under the Obama administration are the rich. No one said or did anything for eight years as the labor participation rate declined to new lows and stocks rose to new highs. The rich profited at the expense of the poor (somewhat) and the middle class (a lot). The Democrats have become the secret—or not so secret—party of the rich.

The media are, for the most part, those rich people, the most successful of them ensconced well up into the higher reaches of the one percent. They also are people who like to think good of themselves, that they are “doing good.” For the older ones, now in control, this comes from their “fight the power” college days, only now they are the power. How do you resolve such a contradiction? By making morally narcissistic pronouncements  on behalf of the disadvantaged while privately hoping for, even working for, the status quo.

No more perfect candidate of the status quo has ever come along than Hillary Clinton. She personifies the status quo. Nothing will change under Hillary—for the country or the media. It’s all downhill from here.

Her lifetime reputation as a serial liar and crony capitalist only amplifies this. It’s hard to believe she really means it when she makes such outrageous proposals as her confiscatory capital gains plan that could cause a Depression. Wink, wink, she’s a Wall Street girl—and everybody, especially the media, knows it. She won’t do anything the slightest bit extreme.  And they like it that way, even if they don’t admit it to themselves. Better for the old 401K and property values in the Meatpacking District. No one really believes Hillary will follow through with those dopey leftwing proposals—not that she has anything else to offer, but that doesn’t matter. Nor will she put more than a slight delay in the TPP trade agreement. It’s all a Big Wink, designed to fool the Sanders supporters and, of course, the always handy minorities. Power and money are everything.

Donald Trump is a wholly different matter. No one, especially the media, knows what he really intends to do.  The media doesn’t like this because if there’s one thing they don’t like, no matter what they profess, it is change. Or loss of control.

No wonder they don’t like Donald and seize on his every miscue or aside as if he were the second coming of Attila bent on overrunning our nation and quite possibly the world. (Compare that to how they shrug their shoulders at Hillary’s actual misdeeds.) What they hate most of all is the temerity of the vulgar Queens billionaire in exposing the haute bourgeois lifestyle of the Upper West Side for what it is—fake and self-serving.  The way things look now, they won’t let him survive it.

‘Rigged?’ 5 Ways the Election Is Under Attack

August 9, 2016

‘Rigged?’ 5 Ways the Election Is Under Attack, PJ MediaJ. Christian Adams, August 7, 2016

dt2

Donald Trump gaslighted the left when he suggested the upcoming elections may be “rigged.” The usual comic trove of Democrats posing as academics, journalists, and civil rights groups pounced on Trump. It’s a revived “Southern strategy” that tars “Democrats as cheaters,” wailed Rutgers professor Lorraine Minnite.

Democrats as cheaters? You mean Democrats like Wendy Rosen, Melowese Richardson, and Lessadolla Sowers?

Whether Trump was correct or not depends on the meaning of “rigged.” If “rigged” means a group of Democrats sit in central command and control the output of voting machines from outer space, then no, the election isn’t rigged.

But what Democrats are really doing is far more dangerous, far more diffuse, and far harder to fix than a conspiracy to control voting machines.

The integrity of our elections are suffering from a coordinated, multi-million dollar attack on multiple fronts. It’s far more complicated than one centralized high-powered conspiracy to “rig” the election. A more sophisticated understanding of what is happening is essential to combat the real threat to our elections.

Here are five ways that the integrity of elections are under attack:

  1. Big money organizations fight against election integrity

Large brick-and-mortar organizations with multi-million dollar endowments are fighting to undermine the integrity of American elections. These organizations, such as Project Vote, Demos, the ACLU, Advancement Project, and the League of Women Voters have vast financial resources. They have used these resources in key states such as Ohio, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and elsewhere to attack election integrity measures. They bring attacks against Voter ID laws, but they also bring more important efforts, such as attacks against citizenship verification.

I’d wager that more votes are cast in American elections by ineligible aliens than by those impersonating voters.

Citizenship verification is essential. Naturally, groups like the NAACP and ACLU do absolutely nothing about alien voting, except whatever they can to ensure that barriers to illegal voting are struck down in court.

I am involved in litigation across the country to help election integrity. In one lawsuit in a swing state, we discovered that non-citizens were voting illegally in Presidential elections. This is both a federal and state felony. When we asked the election supervisor for records showing referral to law enforcement officials, none existed — because no referral was ever made. Never mind that dozens and dozens of aliens were participating in the election process in just one county. Imagine how many participate statewide. Yet nothing was done to prosecute the illegal voting — so word spreads through the community that illegal voting is a hobby that goes unpunished.

Rigged?

These same big money organizations send swarms of lawyers to the smallest court hearings, so many that sometimes there isn’t enough room for them in the courtroom.

For this, the left pounced.

In a hearing before United States District Judge Richard Leon, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and I were seated at defense counsel table because we were defending the federal agency. You read that right: We had to do so because the Justice Department lawyers sharing the table with us refused to do their job and defend a federal agency. They didn’t defend the agency because they ideologically disagreed with the actions of the agency.

On the other side of the room was a circus. About sixteen lawyers had arrived for the attacking plaintiffs. Some came from New York, some came from elsewhere. They were all there to stop citizenship verification, but there weren’t enough seats. Judge Leon noticed the circus, too. As Hans von Spakovsky has written:

The courtroom was so full that Judge Leon was obviously surprised by the size of the audience when he walked into the courtroom, calling it a “traveling roadshow.” In fact, the plaintiffs showed up with over a dozen lawyers. There were so many lawyers (even though only one lawyer was there to argue for the plaintiffs) that, before the hearing started, the clerk asked them to move from the plaintiffs’ table to the gallery.

Noncitizen voting helps the left win elections. Most of the groups in this traveling roadshow are 501(c)(3) charities.

I doubt very much that Lois Lerner’s Exempt Organizations Unit at the IRS has sent them a letter asking for their social media passwords or the text of prayers recited at meetings.

LynchFraudster Melowese Richardson celebrated

 

  1. A focus on process brings policy results

Republicans focus on policy. Democrats focus on process. Democrats and the left know if they alter the rules, they can win the elections. Better still, if they alter the rules and brand it a civil rights matter, they disguise their partisan goals with something that sounds better.

What do I mean by process?

Years ago, we all voted on Election Day. That made it harder for the machine to motivate the unmotivated on one single day. Now? the election is spread out over weeks of early voting.

We used to register to vote in advance. Now, instant registration is another process that helps the demographic that has difficulty planning ahead. It means you can register and vote at the same time, making it harder to verify eligibility.

In Ohio, you could register to vote and vote weeks in advance at the same time. When Ohio discovered that California and New York residents such as Amy Little and Yolanda Hippensteele were registering and voting simultaneously for Obama in 2008, Ohio changed the law to eliminate this “Golden Week.”  Naturally, the Big Money Organizations (See #1, above) sued.

Bush-appointed federal judge Michael Watson ruled that such a change violates the Voting Rights Act and struck down the election integrity measure.

Out-of-precinct voting, mandatory voter registration, felon voting, dirty voter rolls, underage registration, and simple refusal to enforce election integrity laws are process priorities of the left.

You don’t need someone sitting in a smoke-filled command bunker to rig an election. There are more subtle and more effective ways to affect elections.

  1. Big Law

The well funded organizations fighting to block election integrity laws are helped by some of the nation’s largest law firms — for free!

These law firms use the inflated fees their corporate clients pay to subsidize helping left-wing groups attack election integrity laws. A glance at the pleadings in the North Carolina Voter ID lawsuit gives you a sense of the aid. The opponents of Voter ID in North Carolina enjoyed free help from ten lawyers at Kirkland and Ellis: Thomas Yannucci, Daniel T. Donovan, Susan M. Davies, K. Winn Allen, Uzoma Nkwonta, Kim Knudson, Anne Dechter, Bridget O’Connor, Jodi Wu, and Kim Rancor.

kirkland and ellisPleading from N.C. Voter ID case

The attack on Voter ID isn’t the only instance where large law firms donate their free time to leftist organizations with multi-million dollar endowments. Nearly any time there is an attack on election integrity, Big Law helps.

And don’t think that state governments have the money and expertise to defend themselves. Some states, like North Carolina and South Carolina, did excellent jobs defending their laws. But consider what one federal judge said last week when striking down Voter ID in North Dakota. He even put it in boldface in his opinion:

It is important to note that with respect to the Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief, none of the affidavits, declarations, survey, studies, or data submitted by the Plaintiffs in support of their motion have been challenged or refuted by the State of North Dakota. (Italics mine; Bold, judge’s)

On the next page of the opinion where the judge discusses the flimsy evidence offered by the plaintiffs in North Dakota, the judge again notes in boldface at the end of his recitation:

The Defendant neither disputes nor challenges these findings.

North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem (R) did not give a statement regarding the ruling.

  1. Failure to maintain rolls

Millions of voter registrations are wrong or out of date. Hundreds of counties, including many in swing states, have more registrants than eligible people alive. That doesn’t mean millions of votes are being cast illegally — but corrupted rolls provide the perfect environment for election corruption. It’s what allowed Democratic Congressional nominee Wendy Rosen to vote twice for President Obama in both Maryland and Florida.

The guiltiest culprit for corrupted rolls is the Obama Justice Department. It refuses to do anything about the failure to keep rolls clean. Their failure to act is both deliberate and ideologically driven.

Anytime I give a speech on campus about this disgraceful inaction, someone brings up “prosecutorial discretion” in defense of the Obama administration. They claim that limited resources drive the decision to not enforce federal law requiring voter rolls to be clean.

That’s balderdash. The attorneys at the Public Interest Legal Foundation who are bringing litigation to enforce the law instead of the DOJ are carrying a heavier caseload than the dozens of lawyers at the DOJ Voting Section. Without active list maintenance keeping rolls clean, criminal elements can flourish. Inaction and ambivalence toward the obligation to enforce the law can affect an election just like an active attempt to rig an election can.

If Trump becomes president, sweeping away the lawlessness inside the Justice Department that turned the federal government into silent partners with election gangsters like Wendy Rosen should be a top priority.  t’s no accident that vote fraudsters across the country, including Melowese Richardson and others, get a free ride from this DOJ and never face criminal prosecution.

  1. Academics and media lying about election integrity

The final way our electoral system is endangered is through the pack of lies pushed by academics and the media. If you pay attention to legacy media, voter fraud doesn’t exist — only racists want election integrity, and Jim Crow is back.

When it comes to covering election integrity, some of the media are lazy, the rest are activists with by-lines.

Here’s some narrative they’ve invented:  Voter ID is a “solution in search of a problem”; voter fraud “isn’t widespread”; and election integrity laws “disproportionally affect communities of color.” There you have it: attack the motives of election integrity advocates and claim there’s not a problem. They never tell you what “widespread” means, so you’ll never satisfy their artificial threshold.

Partnering with activists in the media are academics. You’ve already been introduced to Lorraine Minneite in this column. From their perches at government-funded universities, they spend their time pumping out a narrative smokescreen for criminal behavior in American elections.  hey write books that are lucky to sell 2,000 copies, telling us that Jim Crow is back or that voter fraud is the stuff of unicorns and leprechauns. They probably sell far fewer units if you don’t countsales to their own students.

Are they helping criminals? Well, not directly, and of course they’d be highly offended at such a charge.  But help it does. Wendy Rosen and Melowese Richardson couldn’t do what they do best if it wasn’t for academics and the media telling us it’s no big deal.

Is the November election rigged? Certainly not in the way you might have thought it was. The election is afflicted with something far more dangerous than a single plot to flip the outcome. The affliction is diffuse, decentralized, and funded by millions of dollars.