Archive for the ‘2016 elections’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

How Hillary Helped U.S. Investors Fund Russian Research for Military Uses

August 1, 2016

How Hillary Helped U.S. Investors Fund Russian Research for Military Uses, Power Line,  Paul Mirengoff, August 1, 2016

Clinton is responsible for helping create a Russian “Silicon Valley” that has enabled the Kremlin to boost its military and surveillance capacity. And let’s not forget her role in enabling Russia to gain control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.

Russia has been well-served by Hillary Clinton’s cluelessness and greed.

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

Clinton is responsible for helping create a Russian “Silicon Valley” that has enabled the Kremlin to boost its military and surveillance capacity. And let’s not forget her role in enabling Russia to gain control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.

Russia has been well-served by Hillary Clinton’s cluelessness and greed.

Russia has become a major issue in this year’s presidential campaign. It should have been a major issue in the last one, but President Obama countered Mitt Romney’s attempt to inject Russia into the debate with his sophomoric quip that “the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.” Whether it’s ISIS (aka “the jayvee”) or Russia, Obama sure knows how to spot trouble.

This year, both parties agree that Russia poses a serious threat. In this respect, and perhaps only this respect, the 2016 campaign is an improvement over last time.

With attention now being paid, Peter Schweizer’s latest piece on the Clinton Foundation will perhaps make a mark. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Schweizer shows that under Hillary Clinton’s leadership, “the State Department recruited and facilitated the commitment of billions of American dollars in the creation of a Russian ‘Silicon Valley’ whose technological innovations include Russian hypersonic cruise-missile engines, radar surveillance equipment, and vehicles capable of delivering airborne Russian troops.”

Here’s how it happened. As part of Hillary’s Russian reset, the Kremlin committed $5 billion over three years to fund Skolkovo, an “innovation city” on the outskirts of Moscow billed as Russia’s version of Silicon Valley. Clinton’s State Department worked aggressively to attract U.S. investment partners and helped the Russian State Investment Fund identify American tech companies worthy of Russian investment.

Dozens of U.S. tech firms, including top Clinton Foundation donors like Google, Intel, and Cisco, then made major financial contributions to Skolkovo. According to Schweizer, by 2012 Skolkovo had 28 Russian, American and European “Key Partners.” Of the 28 key partners, 17 have made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation, totaling tens of millions of dollars, or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton.

Russian money also flowed to the Clinton Foundation. Schweizer reports that Andrey Vavilov, the chairman of SuperOx, part of Skolkovo’s nuclear-research cluster, donated between $10,000 and $25,000. Skolkovo Foundation chief and billionaire Putin confidant Viktor Vekselberg also donated through his company.

As the Slolkovo project gained momentum, U.S. defense experts became alarmed. The U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Program at Fort Leavenworth warned:

The Skolkovo Foundation has, in fact, been involved in defense-related activities since December 2011, when it approved the first weapons-related project—the development of a hypersonic cruise missile engine. . . . Not all of the center’s efforts are civilian in nature.

Similarly, Lucia Ziobro, an assistant special agent at the FBI’s Boston office, stated that “the FBI believes the true motives of the Russian partners, who are often funded by their government, is to gain access to classified, sensitive, and emerging technology. . .” Ziobro added, “The [Skolkovo] foundation may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research development facilities and dual-use technologies with military and commercial application.”

Hillary Clinton knew about the dual-use problem while she was Secretary of State. Schweizer notes that a State Department cable sent to then-Secretary Clinton (and obtained via WikiLeaks) mentioned possible “dual use and export control concerns” related to research and development technology ventures with Moscow.

Clinton ignored the problem. Was this due to the millions of dollars in Clinton Foundation donations by Skolkovo’s key partners?

Only Hillary knows for sure. But the burden should be on her to provide a more convincing explanation.

In any event, Clinton is responsible for helping create a Russian “Silicon Valley” that has enabled the Kremlin to boost its military and surveillance capacity. And let’s not forget her role in enabling Russia to gain control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States.

Russia has been well-served by Hillary Clinton’s cluelessness and greed.

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton Cash film, Clinton character, Clinton Crime Family, Clinton Foundation, Hillary Clinton and Russia, Technology transfer
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Khizr Khan, Servant of the Global Umma

August 1, 2016

Khizr Khan, Servant of the Global Umma, Front Page Magazine, Robert Spencer, August 1, 2016

(Please see also, The Disingenuous Outrage Over Khan-Gate. — DM)

kahn

The mainstream media is wild with enthusiasm these days over Khizr Khan, the father of a Muslim soldier, Humayun Khan, who was killed fighting in Iraq in 2004. Khizr Khan, brimming with self-righteous anger, spoke at the Democratic National Convention, where he delivered what the Washington Post dubbed a “brutal repudiation of Donald Trump.” Trump responded, elevating Khizr Khan to the status of full-fledged flavor-of-the-moment media celebrity. There’s just one catch: Khizr is using his son’s memory not to advance the cause of the United States, as his son apparently died trying to do, but to advance a quite different cause: that of the global umma.

The well-heeled and powerful backers of the global jihad – those who have enabled the Islamic State (ISIS), al-Qaeda, and other jihad groups to grow as powerful as they have today — are enraged at Donald Trump. They are deeply worried by his call for a temporary moratorium on Muslim immigration into the United States, as that will make it much more difficult for jihadis to get into this country. They are anxious to stigmatize any and all resistance to jihad terror – and so, happily enough for them, is the Democratic Party, which has eagerly signed on to the longtime strategy employed by Islamic supremacist advocacy groups in the U.S., to demonize all effective measures against jihad terror as “bigoted” and “Islamophobic.”

So it was that Khizr Khan, in the full fury of his indignation at the DNC, trotted out a straw man, falsely claiming that Trump wanted to “ban us from this country.” Trump has said nothing about banning Muslim citizens of the U.S. from the country, only about a temporary moratorium on immigration from terror states. Even worse, all the effusive praise being showered on Khizr Khan in the last few days overlooks one central point: he is one man. His family is one family. There are no doubt many others like his, but this fact does not mean that there is no jihad, or that all Muslims in the U.S. are loyal citizens.

Khizr Khan is enraged at Donald Trump, but is Trump really the cause of his problem? Jihad terrorists, not Donald Trump or “Islamophobes,” killed his son in Iraq. And if Donald Trump or anyone else looks upon Muslims in the U.S. military with suspicion, it is with good reason: does any other demographic have as high a rate of treason as Muslims in the U.S. military? In 2003, a convert to Islam, Sgt. Hasan Akbar, murdered two of his commanding officers in Kuwait. In 2009, Major Nidal Malik Hasan murdered 13 Americans at Fort Hood.

Other than those attacks, a Muslim in the U.S. Navy discussed sniper attacks on military personnel. A Muslim U.S. naval engineer allegedly gave an Egyptian agent information on how to sink a U.S. carrier. In 2015, a Muslim National Guard soldier in Illinois planned an Islamic State jihad attack against a U.S. military base. Last February, a U.S. Army enlistee who vowed to “bring the Islamic State straight to your doorstep” pleaded guilty to attempting to detonate a car bomb at Fort Riley military base in Kansas. Just days ago, a U.S. Air Force veteran was convicted of trying to join the Islamic State.

Then there is the U.S. Muslim who gave the Islamic State U.S. military uniforms, combat boots, tactical gear, firearms accessories, and thousands in cash. Where are those uniforms now?

It is good that there are Muslims in the U.S. military who are loyal. But can we have a discussion about those who aren’t, and why they aren’t, and what can be done about it? Such a discussion is vitally necessary, but it wouldn’t serve the classic objective of the global umma, to increase the dar al-Islam (house of Islam) at the dar al-harb (house of war). Nor would an open discussion of Khan’s Sunday morning assertion on Meet the Press that terrorists “have nothing to do with Islam.”

We constantly are told this, but the repetition doesn’t make it true. In the first place, jihadis repeatedly make clear that they think what they’re doing has everything to do with Islam:

“Jihad was a way of life for the Pious Predecessors (Salaf-us-Salih), and the Prophet (SAWS) was a master of the Mujahideen and a model for fortunate inexperienced people. The total number of military excursions which he (SAWS) accompanied was 27. He himself fought in nine of these; namely Badr; Uhud, Al-Muraysi, The Trench, Qurayzah, Khaybar, The Conquest of Makkah, Hunayn and Taif . . . This means that the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) used to go out on military expeditions or send out an army at least every two months.” — Abdullah Azzam, co-founder of al-Qaeda, Join the Caravan, p. 30

“If we follow the rules of interpretation developed from the classical science of Koranic interpretation, it is not possible to condemn terrorism in religious terms. It remains completely true to the classical rules in its evolution of sanctity for its own justification. This is where the secret of its theological strength lies.” — Egyptian scholar Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd

“Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims. Therefore, killing you and fighting you, destroying you and terrorizing you, responding back to your attacks, are all considered to be great legitimate duty in our religion.” — Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow 9/11 defendants

“Allah on 480 occasions in the Holy Koran extols Muslims to wage jihad. We only fulfil God’s orders. Only jihad can bring peace to the world.” — Taliban terrorist Baitullah Mehsud

“Jihad, holy fighting in Allah’s course, with full force of numbers and weaponry, is given the utmost importance in Islam….By jihad, Islam is established….By abandoning jihad, may Allah protect us from that, Islam is destroyed, and Muslims go into inferior position, their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligation and duty in Islam on every Muslim.” — Times Square car bomb terrorist Faisal Shahzad

“So step by step I became a religiously devout Muslim, Mujahid — meaning one who participates in jihad.” — Little Rock, Arkansas terrorist murderer Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad

“And now, after mastering the English language, learning how to build explosives, and continuous planning to target the infidel Americans, it is time for Jihad.” — Texas terrorist bomber Khalid Aldawsari

All of these, of course, may be dismissed as “extremists,” although they were also all devout Muslims who were determined to follow their religion properly. And then there are the many passages of the Qur’an exhorting Muslims to commit acts of violence:

2:191-193: “And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, slay them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.”

4:89: “They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of Allah; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper.”

5:33: “This is the recompense of those who fight against Allah and His Messenger, and hasten about the earth, to do corruption there: they shall be slaughtered, or crucified, or their hands and feet shall alternately be struck off; or they shall be banished from the land. That is a degradation for them in this world; and in the world to come awaits them a mighty chastisement.”

5:38: “And the thief, male and female: cut off the hands of both, as a recompense for what they have earned, and a punishment exemplary from Allah; Allah is All-mighty, All-wise.”

8:12: “When thy Lord was revealing to the angels, ‘I am with you; so confirm the believers. I shall cast into the unbelievers’ hearts terror; so smite above the necks, and smite every finger of them!”

8:39: “Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s entirely; then if they give over, surely Allah sees the things they do.”

8:60: “Make ready for them whatever force and strings of horses you can, to terrify thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not; Allah knows them. And whatsoever you expend in the way of Allah shall be repaid you in full; you will not be wronged.”

9:5: “Then, when the sacred months are drawn away, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then let them go their way; Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.”

9:29: “Fight those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day and do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden — such men as practise not the religion of truth, being of those who have been given the Book — until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled.”

9:111: “Allah has bought from the believers their selves and their possessions against the gift of Paradise; they fight in the way of Allah; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon Allah in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Koran; and who fulfils his covenant truer than Allah? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him; that is the mighty triumph.”

9:123: “O believers, fight the unbelievers who are near to you; and let them find in you a harshness; and know that Allah is with the godfearing.”

47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if Allah had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will not send their works astray.”

To be sure, there are some tolerant verses in the Qur’an as well — see, for example, sura 109. But then in Islamic tradition there are authorities who say that violent passages take precedence over these verses. Muhammad’s earliest biographer, an eighth-century Muslim named Ibn Ishaq, explains the progression of Qur’anic revelation about warfare. First, he explains, Allah allowed Muslims to wage defensive warfare. But that was not Allah’s last word on the circumstances in which Muslims should fight. Ibn Ishaq explains offensive jihad by invoking a Qur’anic verse: “Then God sent down to him: ‘Fight them so that there be no more seduction,’ i.e. until no believer is seduced from his religion. ‘And the religion is God’s’, i.e. Until God alone is worshipped.”

The Qur’an verse Ibn Ishaq quotes here (2:193) commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until “the religion is God’s” — that is, until Allah alone is worshipped. Ibn Ishaq gives no hint that that command died with the seventh century.

The great medieval scholar Ibn Qayyim (1292-1350) also outlines the stages of the Muhammad’s prophetic career: “For thirteen years after the beginning of his Messengership, he called people to God through preaching, without fighting or Jizyah, and was commanded to restrain himself and to practice patience and forbearance. Then he was commanded to migrate, and later permission was given to fight. Then he was commanded to fight those who fought him, and to restrain himself from those who did not make war with him. Later he was commanded to fight the polytheists until God’s religion was fully established.”

In other words, he initially could fight only defensively — only “those who fought him” — but later he could fight the polytheists until Islam was “fully established.” He could fight them even if they didn’t fight him first, and solely because they were not Muslim.

Nor do all contemporary Islamic thinkers believe that that command is a relic of history.

According to a 20th century Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Humaid, “at first ‘the fighting’ was forbidden, then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory.” He also distinguishes two groups Muslims must fight: “(1) against them who start ‘the fighting’ against you (Muslims) . . . (2) and against all those who worship others along with Allah . . . as mentioned in Surat Al-Baqarah (II), Al-Imran (III) and At-Taubah (IX) . . . and other Surahs (Chapters of the Qur’an).” (The Roman numerals after the names of the chapters of the Qur’an are the numbers of the suras: Sheikh ‘Abdullah is referring to Qur’anic verses such as 2:216, 3:157-158, 9:5, and 9:29.)

How does Khizr Khan explain all that? He doesn’t — and he knows that no one in the mainstream media will ask him to. All this disinformation and obfuscation he is perpetrating serves the interests of the global umma – but not in any sense those of the United States.

Categories: 2016 elections, Caliphate, Democrat National Convention, Democrat Party and media, Donald Trump, Islamic hatred of others, Islamic immigration, Islamic terrorism, Media and Donald Trump, Media and Hillary Clinton, Media and Islam, Quran
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Disingenuous Outrage Over Khan-Gate

August 1, 2016

The Disingenuous Outrage Over Khan-Gate, Daily Caller, Scott Greer, July 31, 2016

While claiming that Khan is above any criticism due to his loss, they had spent the prior week attacking Pat Smith — the mother of a Benghazi victim — for being exploited by the Republican National Convention. Her crime? Sharing the story of how she believes Hillary Clinton is responsible for her son’s death, which clearly has more basis in fact than Trump being responsible for Khan’s death.

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

Our incredibly objective media has moved on from declaring Donald Trump an agent of the Kremlin and gushing over every moment of the Democratic National Convention to fixating itself on another unbiased story.

Namely, Trump hates the families of dead veterans.

On the final night of the DNC, Khizir Khan — a Muslim father who lost his son, Captain Humayun Khan in Iraq 12 years ago — took the stage with his wife in Philadelphia and delivered arguably the most notable speech of the entire convention. Khan condemned Trump for being un-American and sacrificing nothing for the country. It was a powerful speech, and it fully won over America’s chattering class — both in its conservative and liberal elements.

While obviously heartfelt and genuine, the reason the Democrats put Khan on stage and the media celebrated him was, in part, to bait Trump into responding. Trump did just that in an interview with ABC host and former Bill Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos.

As far as Trump putdowns go, The Donald’s response was relatively mild. For one, he said he expressed condolences for the family’s loss and their son’s service. On the negative side, he wondered why Mrs. Khan didn’t speak at the convention, which gave the impression he was implying it was due to her faith. The New York businessman also said in his characteristically humble fashion that he has made sacrifices in developing successful companies.

The comments were inartful, yet they were hardly the stuff of vicious denigration. Trump did not attack the service of the Khans’ son and the issue, as later campaign statements pointed out, dealt with the father’s criticism of the Republican nominee’s policies.

Apparently, that’s “inhuman” and “barbaric,” according to the Washington consensus. Thus, we’re in the midst of the most disingenuous Trump outrage story yet.

Here’s a few things to take away from this scandal.

One, Trump and his proposals have zero responsibility for Captain Khan’s death. The same cannot be said of Hillary Clinton, who authorized the Iraq war and continue supporting it long after it was abundantly clear it was a major disaster. Moreover, her hawkish foreign policy would lead to more unnecessary interventions into the Middle East and other parts of the world and sadly create more Gold Star families like the Khans.

To criticize Trump for his lack of sacrifice, but overlook Hillary’s lack of sacrifice and tacitly endorse her policies forcing more American families to lose their children on behalf of fuzzy ideological objectives is ridiculous.

Two, Khizr Khan is draping himself in his son’s death to attack Trump on an issue unrelated to his son’s death. A moratorium on countries where radical Islamists (whom, by the way, killed Capt. Khan) are abundant is about national security. Same goes for the proposal to secure the U.S.-Mexico border. The elder Khan claims it is unconstitutional and un-American to do both, when, in fact, legal scholars argue the measures fit very much within the precedents of American immigration law. (RELATED: Law Professors: Trump’s Muslim Moratorium Is Constitutional)

To denigrate or undermine the Khan family for their sacrifice is wrong and we should honor their son’s service. However, that does not mean the father is immune from criticism on political issues after he decided to take them up in the public arena. Upholding the standard that the families of fallen soldiers should not be criticized for anything is illogical and asinine. We certainly didn’t apply the same standard to Cindy Sheehan and her crusade against George W. Bush — a leader who was actually responsible for her son’s death.

Three, the impression given by the media that Captain Khan is reflective of all Muslims who may want to enter in the United States is just as faulty as claiming all Muslims are terrorists. It is true that 14 Muslims have lost their lives in service to this country since 9/11. It is also true that over 5000 Muslims are currently serving in our armed services. Various outlets love to report these facts with the hope it transmits the notion that Muslims are incredibly patriotic and are indispensable to our national security. While these individuals are unquestionably devoted to America, as a community, Muslims are very underrepresented in the military.

Muslims constitute one percent of the U.S. population, yet comprise a little under .3 percent of the armed forces. In contrast, whites are 62 percent of the population, yet make up 71 percent of the present military. Moreover, whites comprise over 83 percent of those who have died in the line of duty since 9/11, while Muslims constitute .2 percent of the fatalities.

With that in mind, declaring Trump’s policies on Middle Eastern migration as a barrier to the military getting the personnel they need to protect this country is not at all accurate.

Finally, it’s 100 percent certain the mainstream media is an unofficial arm of the Clinton campaign. After a whole week of trying to downplay the Wikileaks DNC scandal and cheering on every moment of the convention, they created a top-down outrage story for the sole purpose of shaming Trump and his supporters.

(Several social media posts, which I could not copy, are here in the linked article — DM)

While claiming that Khan is above any criticism due to his loss, they had spent the prior week attacking Pat Smith — the mother of a Benghazi victim — for being exploited by the Republican National Convention. Her crime? Sharing the story of how she believes Hillary Clinton is responsible for her son’s death, which clearly has more basis in fact than Trump being responsible for Khan’s death.

Additionally, the media entirely ignored the stories of the families at the Republican convention who lost loved ones to illegal immigrants. Their children died as a direct result of policies supported by the Democratic Party, but the media plays by a double standard when it comes to who gets to use their tragedy to highlight a policy issue.

The Khan affair is another demonstration that the media is deadset against Trump and will blow any story out of proportion in order to gin up resistance to his candidacy. The journalists hyperventilating over Trump’s response to Khan don’t care about Gold Star families or veterans — they just see it as a good opportunity to derail The Donald.

It’s barely August, and we already have papers of record insinuating Trump is Vladimir Putin’s Manchurian Candidate. We can only imagine what they’ll come up with next as he continues to compete with Hillary in the polls and the public forgets about the Khan fracas.

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Democrat National Convention, Donald Trump, Khan-Gate, Media and Donald Trump, Media and Hillary Clinton
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

EXCLUSIVE: Breitbart/Gravis Blockbuster Immigration Poll Demonstrates Americans Want Total Revolution Against Mass Immigration

August 1, 2016

EXCLUSIVE: Breitbart/Gravis Blockbuster Immigration Poll Demonstrates Americans Want Total Revolution Against Mass Immigration, Breitbart, Julia Hahn, July 31, 2016

Protesters climb atop a car stopped in traffic as a crowd marches near the venue where Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was speaking during a rally in San Jose, California on June 2, 2016. Protesters who oppose Donald Trump scuffled with his supporters on June 2 as the presumptive Republican presidential nominee held a rally in California, with fistfights erupting and one supporter hit with an egg. / AFP / JOSH EDELSON (Photo credit should read JOSH EDELSON/AFP/Getty Images)

Protesters climb atop a car stopped in traffic as a crowd marches near the venue where Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was speaking during a rally in San Jose, California on June 2, 2016.
/ AFP / JOSH EDELSON (Photo credit should read JOSH EDELSON/AFP/Getty Images)

New polling data shows that it would be virtually impossible for Hillary Clinton to win the general election if the Republican nominee were able to frame the immigration issue in populist terms that emphasize reducing the overall amount of immigration into the country and protecting jobs, incomes, and benefits for the domestic population.

The poll was conducted by Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, in conjunction with Breitbart News Network, and surveyed a random selection of 2,010 registered voters throughout the nation.

“The poll shows that instead of dividing Americans, immigration is an issue where Americans have reached the consensus that it is a problem, maybe the problem,” said Doug Kaplan, the managing partner of Gravis Marketing.

The polling data suggests that the Republican Party could see overwhelming electoral success if it were able to portray Clinton’s immigration policy as a corporatist attempt to flood the labor supply with foreign workers in order to drive down wages and incomes for American workers.

As the polling data confirms, the most potent framing of the immigration issue is to focus on the numbers and scale of total immigration into the country, and to present the American people with the choice between more immigration and less immigration.

Whereas the media and Democrats try to frame the immigration issue as pitting native-born Americans against foreign-born Americans, the polling reveals that Republicans should offer a completely different framing of the issue– one which focuses on the interests of the domestic American population– and all of its members (i.e. foreign-born, native-born, etc.)–versus the interests of the world’s seven billion people that live outside the United States.

In other words, the media understands the words “pro-immigrant” not in the context of helping actual immigrants (i.e. people living inside the United States, who were born elsewhere). Rather the media and Democrat politicians uses the term “pro-immigrant” in a completely alien way– i.e. in a way which focuses on trying to help foreign nationals who do not live in America. The new polling information underscores the importance for Republicans to reclaim the historically correct understanding of “pro-immigrant”– as meaning defending U.S. residents who have already immigrated to the country against competition for jobs and resources from foreign nationals residing outside of the country.

Below are some of the poll’s findings:

– By a nearly 6 to 1 margin, U.S. voters believe immigration should be decreased rather than increased.

Every three years, the U.S. admits a population of new immigrants the size of Los Angeles. Sixty three percent of voters said that this figure is too high, whereas only a minuscule 11 percent of voters said that number is not high enough. Only 13 percent of Democrats and Independents— and only 7 percent of Republicans— said immigration should be increased.

– By a 25-to-1 margin, voters believe that unemployed American workers should get preference for a U.S. job rather than a foreign worker brought in from another country.

Seventy five percent of voters believe American workers should get U.S. jobs, whereas only 3 percent of voters believe foreign workers should be imported to fill U.S. jobs.

Democrats agreed with this sentiment by a margin of roughly 30-to-1 (69.8 percent who think jobs should go to unemployed Americans whereas only 2.3 percent think foreign labor should be imported). African Americans agree with this sentiment by a margin of 65-to-1 (78.5 percent who think unemployed Americans should get the jobs versus 1.2 percent who think foreign workers should be brought in). Hispanics agree with this sentiment by a margin of 30-to-1 (59.1 percent versus 2.0 percent).

There are roughly 94 million Americans operating outside the labor market today. Yet every year the U.S. admits one million plus foreign nationals on green cards, one million guest workers, dependents, and refugees, and half a million foreign students.

– Sixty one percent of voters believe that any politician, “who would rather import foreign workers to take jobs rather than give them to current U.S. residents, is unfit to hold office.”

Yet politicians on both sides of the aisle, such as Hillary Clinton and House Speaker Paul Ryan, have pushed policies that would do just that. Clinton supported a 2013 immigration expansion bill, which would have doubled the number of foreign workers admitted to the country at a time when millions of Americans are not working. Speaker Ryan has a two decade long history of pushing for open borders. Ryan hascalled for enacting an immigration system that would allow foreign nationals from all over the globe to freely and legally enter the country and take any U.S. job. Speaker Ryan has explained that he believes foreign labor is necessary to help corporations keep wages low.

– Three out of four voters believe the nation needs “an immigration system that puts American workers first, not an immigration system that serves the demands of donors seeking to reduce labor costs.”

More than seven out of ten African Americans agreed with the sentiment that the nation’s immigration system should prioritize needs of American workers above donors who want to reduce labor costs.

– A majority of U.S. voters (53%) believe “record amounts of immigration into the U.S. have strained school resources and disadvantaged U.S. children.”

– A majority of voters (55%) disagree with Hillary Clinton’s call to release illegal immigrants arriving at the border into the United States and give them a chance to apply for asylum.

A majority of women (51.6 percent) opposed Clinton’s proposal to release illegal immigrants into the interior and allow them to apply for asylum.

– Roughly three out of four voters— including nearly three out of four Democrat voters— believe that “instead of giving jobs and healthcare to millions of refugees from around the world, we should rebuild our inner cities and put Americans back to work.” 

African Americans agreed with this sentiment by a 10 to 1 margin (86.3 percent agree versus 8.5 percent disagree). Hispanics agreed by a margin of 5 to 1 (68.9 percent agreed versus 12.6 percent disagreed).

The number of immigrants in the U.S. is currently at a record high of 42.4 million. In 1970, fewer than one in 21 Americans were foreign-born. Today, as a result of the federal government’s four-decade-long green card gusher championed by Ted Kennedy, nearly one in seven U.S. residents was born in a foreign country. If immigration levels remain at the same rapid pace— without any expansions— within seven years, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population will reach an all-time high.

In the 1920s, the last time the foreign-born share of the population reached a record high, then-President Calvin Coolidge hit the pause button for roughly fifty years, producing an era of explosive wage growth and allowing immigrants already in the country to assimilate.

As the polling data suggests, a majority of U.S. voters would be supportive of similar measures to reduce immigration and improve jobs, wages and benefits for the domestic population.

Categories: 2016 elections, Democrats, Immigration, Republicans
Tags: , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

‘Salon’ Fans Bernie Supporters’ Fire, Says #DemExit is ‘Serious’

August 1, 2016

‘Salon’ Fans Bernie Supporters’ Fire, Says #DemExit is ‘Serious’, PJ Media, Stephen Kruiser, July 30, 2016

demexitPhoto Credit: Tyler O’Neil, PJ Media

So much for convention afterglow.

Shortly after Bernie Sanders publicly endorsed Hillary Clinton a new hashtag trended on Twitter: #DemExit. The hashtag offered Sanders supporters a chance to vent their frustrations with the Democratic Party and with the sense that their candidate had been pressured into an endorsement. Rather than reach out to these disaffected voters, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) ignored them. Understood within the larger narrative that Sanders supporters were just whining brats who refused to concede and move on, #DemExit was dismissed as just more sour milk.But now that the latest leak of DNC emails proves that Sanders supporters have a legitimate right to feel cheated, #DemExit increasingly seems like an appropriate response to a rigged system.

The new leak shows that the DNC never took the Sanders campaign seriously, even when he was winning state after state. Rather than recognize that Sanders was attracting new voters to the party, members of the DNC chose to mock them and close ranks around Clinton.

There was another hashtag, #StillSanders, that sprung up and was quite active all through the night that Hillary was officially nominated. I was going to do a post highlighting the hardest-hitting tweets from that, but most were far too expletive-laden to share in this forum. It was exceedingly obvious, however, that Bernie’s exhortation and Sarah Silverman’s admonition weren’t resonating with the Sanders folk much. Or at all, really.

If this does come back to bite the Democrats it will be due to the very thing that we conservatives complain about the most: the party’s coziness with the mainstream media.

Up to this point, left-leaning new media have been rather in sync with the mainstream outlets. It was easy to do during the Obama years, as they were all on board with the directive to make the historic presidency seem perfect. More often than not, old media was taking cues and talking points from new.

Enter Dame van der Cankles.

Hillary Clinton redefines “polarizing.” If this woman were a Republican, the media wouldn’t don their “be nice to her because she’s a girl” kid gloves when dealing with her. They would note that even she probably doesn’t like herself half the time. It was always a calculated risk elevating such an execrable human being into another “Historic First” position for the Dems, but they probably figured that a combination of Bubba nostalgia and media cover would be enough to distract the nice people. When even that didn’t convince them, they hedged their bets by rigging the primary process.

Then they got caught.

It is still unclear what the Democrats offered Sen. Sanders that immediately changed him from an inspiring firebrand into a visibly defeated, garden variety politician for the DNC, even though he switched his registration back to “independent” while it was all going on. What is very, very clear though is that the passionate Sanders supporters don’t have a convenient “Off” switch that the party can flip in order to move on smoothly.

The party’s presumptions about the post-convention Sanders supporters is what may be the most mystifying thing in all of this. Admittedly, it never did seem to pick a clear emotional side on how it felt about them, vacillating between a dismissive attitude and enough worry that it had to undermine his campaign behind the scenes. Obviously, it should have erred on the side of worry.

One thing that was very clear from the beginning was the passion of the Sanders movement. That passion is what made it an overnight sensation. It is remarkably naive for the Democrats to have thought that the passion could be easily managed after a few head fakes to the far left by Hillary during the primary season. Sure, what they want is insane, but the Democrats have been steadily moving leftward for thirty years and can’t be too upset that Sanders merely attempted to make them be less coy about the end game. Bernie gave the Democrats’ coveted youth vote a taste of the Soviet American dream they’ve been tiptoeing towards since the late 1960s and the kids aren’t patient enough to play the long game. The concessions in the platform haven’t satisfied the throaty lust for socialism Bernie spent almost a year firing them up for:

The recent fights over the DNC platform reveal a real lack of support for progressive policy, especially on key economic issues. As Marcetic reported for In These Times “there’s no denying that the platform compromises on certain core progressive values.” While some suggested that the new platform was a “win” for Sanders, in the end the platform submits to corporate will on many issues.Committee delegates selected by Clinton and Wasserman Schultz voted down several measures dear to progressives’ hearts: “amendments advocating single-payer health care and a $15 minimum wage indexed to inflation, several proposals to halt climate change, language criticizing Israeli ‘occupation’ of Palestine and an amendment explicitly opposing the TPP trade agreement.” As Marcetic shows, delegates to the committee with corporate ties were among the most avid in promoting pro-business policy completely out of step with the sort of progressive values that once separated Democrats from Republicans. Unsurprisingly, those very same delegates were the ones connected to Clinton and Wasserman Schultz.

Yeah, lunatic stuff, but Hillary and Tim Kaine both keep using the phrase “progressive agenda” on the campaign trail. They might want to get an intern to Google “progressive” for them so they can find out exactly what that entails. Remember, the only reason the Congressional Progressive Caucus signed onto Obamacare is because they were promised that it would eventually lead to single-payer.

If you are wondering just how otherworldly this election has become, trust me, it’s even weirder than you think. Salon is complaining about Democrat “collusion” with the media too:

The corporate media was no ally to the Sanders campaign. With AP calling the primary for Clinton before California, New Mexico, New Jersey, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota were set to vote, many Sanders’ supporters felt betrayed by the press. As Bill Boyarsky reports for Truthdig, “The story was not just a scoop. It fed the hostility and cynicism of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ fervent supporters.”The Guccifer 2.0 leaks also reveal a disturbing pattern of collusion between the media and the DNC to support Clinton and not Sanders. Luis Miranda, the national communications director for the DNC, communicated with reporters from both Politico and the Wall Street Journal in efforts to discredit Sanders.

Welcome to what the rest of us have been fighting for decades, little proggies.

The Salon post concludes with what could be the biggest problem going forward for the Democrats — that the party isn’t taking the email leaks seriously:

Much in the same way Clinton blew off her own email scandal, we basically have crickets from the DNC and party leaders. The failure to take responsibility or reach out to disaffected supporters has created a real blowback where voters who backed Sanders are irate. Now many supporters just think the party is corrupt– and they have point.

There’s your Bizarro World: Salon is echoing conservative frustrations with the Democrats.

As always, it remains to be seen if the Republican Party can effectively take advantage of this turmoil. Well, it remains to be seen if you are still holding on to any faith in the GOP. As I voted #GOPExit a couple months ago, I’m not a big believer. Still, there are signs of some opportunity for it to do so.

Categories: #DemExit, 2016 elections, Bernie Sanders, Bernie Sanders' supporters, Democrat National Committee, Democrat Party, Democrat Party unity, Hillary Clinton
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Judge Jeanine Pirro 7/30/16 | Hillary’s America Documentary, RNC vs DNC, Donald Trump Economics

July 31, 2016

Judge Jeanine Pirro 7/30/16 | Hillary’s America Documentary, RNC vs DNC, Donald Trump Economics, Fox News via YouTube, July 30, 2016

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton character, Clinton cover ups, Corruption, Crooked Hillary, Democrat National Convention, Democrats, Donald Trump, Economy, Foreign policy, Immigration, Islamic terrorism, National secuity, Obama's America, Party unity
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The 2016 Democratic Platform: Be Happy

July 30, 2016

The 2016 Democratic Platform: Be Happy, American Thinker, Robert Potts, July 30, 2016

In these troubled times, are you feeling anxious? Do you wake up at night wondering if the country is on the right track? Well, friends, I have in my hand a document with words of comfort and encouragement for troubled souls: the 2016 Democratic Party Platform. Fifty-one pages of solutions for what ails you, and that’s not Roger.

Have you been hacked? What a hassle. Can’t anyone fix this problem? Democrats to the rescue. Hi Ho Hillary. From the party platform: “Democrats will protect our industry, infrastructure, and government from cyberattacks. We will strengthen our cybersecurity, seek to establish global norms in cyberspace, and impose consequences on those who violate the rules.” (Well… maybe not consequences for absolutely everyone.)

A veteran myself, I was reassured to read in the platform that the Democrats “are outraged by the systemic problems plaguing the Department of Veterans Affairs.” Whoever has been running the VA for the last 8 years should be terrified. The Democrats are “outraged.” Look out you scoundrels, whoever you are.

Are you worried about the decline of entrepreneurship? You should be. New business starts are down. Entrepreneurs aren’t entrepreneuring like they used to. What can be done? The Democratic party platform calls for programs to train entrepreneurs. “We will support entrepreneurship and small business growth in cities by providing mentoring and training to entrepreneurs and small business owners…” Government training for entrepreneurship from those crazy, creative, risk-taking bureaucrats. Zing!

Having a tough time as a small business owner? No worries. Democrats “will cut the red tape that holds back small businesses and entrepreneurs.” I thought Democrats were known for printing the red tape. Elsewhere in the platform the Democrats say they will “empower regulators.” Give regulators the power, but take away their red tape. Brilliant.

Dare I mention banking? We’ve been on the edge of our seats for months. Bernie and Hillary back and forth on “too big to fail,” on releasing those transcripts of her Wall Street speeches, on who voted for the bailout and who didn’t, on who was tough on the banks and who just talked tough. Can’t we all just get along? Well, they came together as only liberal Democrats can. The party platform proposes “empowering the United States Postal Service to facilitate the delivery of basic banking services.” Post offices as banks. Reverse privatization. Take that Republicans.

The Federal Reserve is the central banking system of the United States. People talk a lot about the Federal Reserve. Some are for it; others are against it.  Democrats have an idea. They will ensure “that executives of financial institutions are not allowed to serve on the boards of regional Federal Reserve banks.” Men and women who know something about banking and finance will not be allowed to serve. Problem solved.

Traveling overseas? Don’t worry. Be happy. From the 2016 platform: “Democrats will protect American citizens abroad.” What a tragedy that the guys in Benghazi were calling the State Department for help when they should have been calling the Democrats.

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Democrat party platform, What? Me worry?
Tags: ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Domesticating Donald

July 30, 2016

Domesticating Donald, PJ Media, David Solway, July 30, 2016

domestic donald

One notices that when the current nomination cycle began, Donald Trump was more often than not referred to by his full name: Donald Trump. Or by his surname: Trump. As time went by, his iconic sobriquet began to be used on a regular basis, generally in a not unkindly way: The Donald, as if he were a reified entity, a theatrical performance, or even a sort of force or condition, like The Weather. Now he is increasingly addressed simply as: Donald. The outsider, the mogul, the thespian has become a household guest, someone many of us know—with the exception of his enemies or professional skeptics—as a friendly and companionable figure. This is the other “nomination” that has occurred.

Despite the media hype painting him as an unprincipled opportunist, it appears that he has gradually earned the trust of millions of voters, including the initially undecided. That is, he has become Donald, familiar, admired and likeable.

Indeed, what’s not to like?

He has solemnly promised to fix America’s porous border situation and put paid to the violence and fiscal burdens that attend the vast influx of illegal migrants among ordinary, tax-paying Americans.

He has thrown down the gauntlet before the Islamic terror industry, vowed to halt the flow of “Syrian” refugees into the country, and pledged to set up screening mechanisms to repair a broken immigration system and weed out the carriers of an ideology hostile to the preservation of a free and democratic society.

He has presented himself as the law and order candidate in a nation careening toward anarchy in the streets and open war on the police, which has put every citizen at risk.

He has expressed his contempt for political correctness, a species of evasion and outright lying that is weakening the cultural sinews of the nation and its ability to defend itself against a host of enemies, internal and external.

He is committed to restoring an enfeebled military to its former status as the world’s mightiest fighting force. Additionally, he will honor and support America’s veterans, left to malinger by the Obama administration.

He has promised to renegotiate unfavorable trade deals that have left America at a competitive disadvantage, cost millions of jobs, and led to the gutting of the blue collar, middle class and small entrepreneurial strata of society.

He has vowed to replace globalism with Americanism and to require NATO allies to pay their fair share for defense rather than rely on continued American largesse to make up for shortfalls. Who respects a sucker?

He has promised to end the disaster of Obamacare, to tackle the national debt, to revitalize American manufacture, and to open up a restrictive, dumbed-down, “assembly line” educational system.

Considering this bordereau of serious and meaningful pledges, what’s not to like?

Trump—sorry, Donald—enjoys four distinct advantages over all other political actors on the national stage. He is not a beltway politician, which means he has not been corrupted by the perks and privileges so dear to the political elite. He is self-funded and therefore not beholden to major donors and lobbyists. He is a hands-on person, who pays attention to detail, where the devil is said to live, which accounts for his efficiency in keeping the devil’s handiwork of distraction and error at a minimum. And he possesses the ability to spot talent, to put the right people in place to ensure the success of his various projects. Donald is now “Donald” because he has become a member of the American family.

True, Hillary is also a first-namer, but that’s owing to the fact that she is not Bill, that her name operates no differently from a slogan, and that she is the media’s darling. Hillary is a very nice name, but it is really, like the pricey pantsuit, a form of camouflage; the venality and mendacity that lie beneath do not bear scrutiny.

On the contrary, Donald has nothing to hide, he is who he is, a man who has raised a beautiful and capable family, who is disdainful of media deception and shallowness, who can be direct and aggressive without apology, and who believes in hard work and the prosperity that comes from it. As celebrated author Conrad Black said in a keynote address at a conference that Chatham House rules forbid me to specify, Trump—sorry, Donald—has nothing in common with the punditocracy’s representation of him; he is by no means a scoundrel but a loyal friend, a generous man and a decent employer. He is a phenomenon that has rarely been seen on the political proscenium, at least since Reagan—a real person, warts and all. He has lived the American dream and is determined to dispel the American nightmare. That puts him on the side of every aspiring American, makes him one of us, just Donald. In an op-ed for The National Post, Black makes the point succinctly: “The commentariat should be celebrating the fact that Donald did the necessary to round up the Archie Bunker vote, and it is little wonder that it is now almost half the people.”

And yes, Donald has trodden on sensibilities and spoken abrasively, but sometimes that is necessary. He does not suffer fools gladly and has, as many of his supercilious and pampered adversaries have not, grappled in the rough-and-tumble. This is the world, after all, not some utopian fantasy spawned by the left, the bien pensants, and the cushy academics who build castles in the sand, not office towers and hotels. The man of the hour, however, is the man of the years to come. We know him now as Donald.

What’s not to like?

Categories: 2016 elections, Donald
Tags:

Comments: Be the first to comment

America’s First Major Socialist Party Debuts in Philadelphia

July 30, 2016

America’s First Major Socialist Party Debuts in Philadelphia, PJ Media, Roger L Simon, July 29, 2016

(How different would Hillary be from the late lamented el Thugo down in Venezuela? He and his family got rich and his daughter remains the richest person there. El Thugo  was rotten to the core and his anointed successor, Maduro is, if that is possible, even worse. Should she become Obama’s successor, Hillary has much to look forward to. — DM)

soc party

Under cover of a sudden profusion of American flags (borrowed from city hall) and staged chants of “USA” ringing out on the final day, a new party was born in Philadelphia.

Gone are The Democrats.  Welcome, The Socialists.  

Okay, the Democratic Socialists, in deference to Bernie Sanders, whose party it is no matter who was giving the acceptance speech on Thursday. He held the whip hand and will continue to do so to keep his followers on the reservation.

And, yes, there have been more than a few socialist parties in America before – Eugene V. Debs, Norman Thomas, etc. – but never has one of our two major political parties been taken over to such an extent, not even during the days of George McGovern or Jimmy Carter.

I wouldn’t go quite so far as Dan Greenfield, who wrote the following in a compelling column inFrontPage:

Sinclair Lewis famously said, “When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross”. More accurately, when Communism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. That’s what the Democratic National Convention was.

So far, as I see it, it’s still socialism.  Hillary Clinton (even under the spell of Bernie ) is closer to François Hollande or some other Eurocrat than she is to Chairman Mao.  But the situation is bad enough and likely to get worse, if she is elected.

Those who think that she will be the second coming of centrist Bill should have their heads examined – or at least watch the reruns of her speech.  Bill was asleep during it.  Call it self-preservation of mind or body, he couldn’t take it either way.  He knew what was coming and it wasn’t going to be a reprise of his most famous line – “The days of big government are over.”  Quite the contrary.  The days of big government are coming as never before.  So he shut his eyes, and not just from whatever health issue he may be harboring.

They should also reread Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, written during the rise of the National Socialist Party, for a clear analysis of why socialism inevitably turns totalitarian.

Which leads me to this:  Many of you think you have the luxury of debating whether Donald Trump is sufficiently conservative or is really a Republican or will carry out all the things he says he will (more of this in a moment).

Sorry, you don’t.  It’s five minutes to midnight for Western Civilization.  Europe, in case you haven’t noticed, is on the brink of going Islamic.  Twenty-five percent of French teenagers already are. Mohammed has been the most popular baby name in the UK for some time. (Thank God, they passed Brexit.) And Ms. Merkel, despite the constant carnage in her country, is doubling down on Middle Eastern immigration.

Hillary Clinton intends to do the same thing here – in the name of human rights, naturally, when, needless to say, it’s about votes.  Economically, if she passes even a third of her proposals, our country will be so far in debt we may never find a way out, ratifying all of Hayek’s predictions as we all become slaves to a desperate state.

Pessimistic, sure.  But we can stop it.  This is a surprisingly winnable election if we pull together.

So for reassurance, let me tell one story from the Republican Convention. It was, as anyone watching television knows, a mostly uninformative event, as virtually all conventions are.  But I did go to a luncheon panel on the economy held by Freedom Works.  Larry Kudlow was the moderator.  I forget everyone on it, but it was a distinguished panel of conservative economists including Stephen Moore and a man named Harold Hamm I had never heard of.  My bad.  It turns out Hamm had more to do with the immediate revival, such as it is, of the US economy than anybody – he is the king of fracking, the developer of the Bakken formation and someone with a net worth at least double Trump’s and closer to George Soros’.

All of the panelist had worked closely, some one-on-one, with Trump on his tax plan, This plan is quite in the mainstream of conservative economic policy with lower, simplified rates across the board, particularly for businesses, which Trump puts at 15%.  (It currently starts at 39%.) Republicans have been calling for this reduction for years to bring our corporations home and generate jobs.

Anyway, midway into the panel, Kudlow asked a question on everybody’s mind – and probably yours too.  Larry wanted to know if the panelists thought Trump would go through with it, if Donald was, to put it bluntly, for real.

The panelists were all emphatic in saying Trump would.  They also gave him high marks for listening, of all things.

Now I know you can rationalize this a lot of ways.  Rich and powerful as these men were, they clearly wanted to be advisers to a man who could be the most powerful in the world.  So factor that in.  And factor in that I have been supporting Trump for a while.  But then ask yourself if you would rather have Hillary…. and socialism.

And I’m not even going to get into the Supreme Court.

Categories: 2016 elections, Democrat National Convention, Democrat Party, Donald Trump, Europe, Freedom, Hillary Clinton and Islam, Illegal immigration, Islamic immigration, Islamisation, Socialism
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Right Angle: Quien es Mas Malo?

July 29, 2016

Right Angle: Quien es Mas Malo? Bill Whittle Channel via YouTube, July 29, 2016

(Habla Espanol? No? No problema. — DM)

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Democrats, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Republicans
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »