Archive for the ‘2016 elections’ category

Clinton, Trump advisors get into nasty fight at Harvard

December 2, 2016

Clinton, Trump advisors get into nasty fight at HarvardSperoNews via YouTube, December 1, 2016

According to the blurb beneath the video,

During an election ritual every four years at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, opposing teams from the presidential campaigns answer questions together from the media and from each other. This year, Clinton’s advisors attacked Trump’s campaign team on racism charges, saying “I would rather lose than win the way you guys did.” But the Trump team didn’t take it laying down.

‘Panic in Progressive Park’ — What If Trump Is Actually Good?

December 2, 2016

‘Panic in Progressive Park’ — What If Trump Is Actually Good?, Roger L Simon, December 1, 2016

If you thought Trump Derangement Syndrome was a tad excessive, as they say, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.  To channel an old Pacino flick, opening now for Oscar season, it’s “Panic in Progressive Park.”

Reason for the panic — the dawning realization, repressed and often unrecognized though it may be, that Donald Trump may even a be a good president, possibly a great one.

Then what?

If anything could cause panic among liberals, progressives, and the media (apologies for the redundancy), that’s it.

And Trump has certainly hit the ground running with more “vigah” — this time to channel an old Kennedy phrase — than we have seen in a long while.  And not just because of the Carrier deal, though that clearly caught America’s attention, as it should.

It also caught the attention of the media, which rushed to denigrate it — and demonstrate their “profound knowledge” of deal-making — by reminding us that Donald’s agreement did not keep all the Carrier jobs in America, just most of them.  And they actually had to bargain with the directors of Carrier — imagine that!

For comic relief, the now completely ignored (as he should be) Bernie Sanders rushed to remind us of the same thing, as if anything of that sort (or any sort) could have been done under a Sanders presidency.

Indeed, Trump seems to be firing on all engines to a degree I have never seen in an American president, before he has even been inaugurated. His transition, once said to be confused, is rocketing along with a palpable sense of excitement that Trump and his team are deliberately sharing with the public, by-passing the media when necessary.

The Democrats, who have been floundering to an extent equally never before seen, are participating in a juvenile and over-priced recount while reelecting the terminally botoxed Nancy Pelosi to the House minority leadership even though that same chamber hemorrhaged Democrat members like a hemophilia victim under her rule. Topping that off, they’re considering Keith Ellison to helm the DNC, a man who, according to a recent report, “met with a radical Muslim cleric who endorsed killing U.S. soldiers and with the president of a bank used to pay the families of Palestinian suicide bombers” on a trip to Saudi Arabia organized by an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Talk about a party on a suicide run.

Meanwhile, the thing that Democrats, and many Republicans too, don’t get about Trump is that Donald is an upper.  He’s a real optimist in a world of cynics.  That’s a yuuuge part of his attraction, as that should be, and the catalyst that helps him get things done.  The reaction to Trump is something of a Rorschach test — those who have a positive (even excited) view of the future tend to go for him.  Those that don’t, don’t.

His victory speech in Cincinnati Thursday night — and the reaction to it — was an illustration of that.  Watching the postmortem on Tucker Carlson’s excellent new show (prediction: it will soon be outstripping The Kelly File, if it hasn’t already), the optimistic Tucker himself was wildly positive about Trump’s speech.  His two guests — Caitlin Huey-Burns of RealClearPolitics and Shelby Holliday of the Wall Street Journal — were much more  cautious in their somewhat fearful approaches.  While obviously intelligent women, the conventional wisdom they imparted was pessimistic by nature and unwittingly a minor part of the swamp that Trump seeks to drain.  Perhaps they sensed that.

Most of the media doesn’t just sense it. They know it.  They are at war with Trump and at this moment they are losing, badly.  A wise person would change their tactics.  But the media is not filled with wise people.  These days they’re filled with wounded, entitled people who seem already to have forgotten the rest of us have read WikiLeaks.  We know who they are even if they don’t know themselves.

Look for “Panic in Progressive Park” to run for a long time. It will, however, be more amusing than the original Pacino version.

 

EXCLUSIVE: ‘Civil Rights’ Groups Fearmongering Over Trump “Hate Crimes” Backed Hillary

December 2, 2016

EXCLUSIVE: ‘Civil Rights’ Groups Fearmongering Over Trump “Hate Crimes” Backed Hillary, Counter JihadPaul Sperry, December 2, 2016

civilrightsgroups

“President-elect Trump must reconsider some of the selections he has made as top advisers to his administration,” asserted Brenda Abdelall of Muslim Advocates. “Otherwise, the selection of individuals like Steve Bannon (White House counselor), Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (National Security Adviser) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (Attorney General nominee) indicates that the bigoted and divisive rhetoric that we saw in his campaign will continue as a matter of policy and practice in the White House.”

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

A coalition of self-described “civil rights groups” tarring GOP President-elect Donald Trump and his advisers as “white supremacists” unleashing “hate crimes” against Muslims and other minorities is made up of Democrat activists who endorsed or donated heavily to Hillary Clinton, federal records show.

The group — comprised of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Muslim Advocates, The Leadership Conference, National Council of La Raza and the American Federation of Teachers — says it formed to protect minorities from the “hate-filled” and “bigoted rhetoric” of Trump and his supporters. But it has a decidedly partisan political agenda that includes trying to derail key Trump appointments to his Cabinet.

Earlier this week, the group held a press conference in Washington calling on Trump to “disavow” supposedly “anti-Muslim” policy proposals and “reconsider” Cabinet appointees “who have sent a message that white supremacy and anti-Muslim conspiracy theories are in vogue this days.”

“President-elect Trump must reconsider some of the selections he has made as top advisers to his administration,” asserted Brenda Abdelall of Muslim Advocates. “Otherwise, the selection of individuals like Steve Bannon (White House counselor), Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn (National Security Adviser) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (Attorney General nominee) indicates that the bigoted and divisive rhetoric that we saw in his campaign will continue as a matter of policy and practice in the White House.”

Added Abdelall: “He needs to disavow the dangerous proposals and ideas that single out and demonize Muslims and other communities.”

The George Soros-controlled group bankrolling Muslim Advocates, the Open Society Foundation, gave $9,463 to Clinton and $0 to Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign.

White House visitors logs show San Francisco-based Muslim Advocates met with Obama officials at least 11 times, including several times in 2011 to lobby the administration to purge FBI and Homeland Security counterterrorism training materials it deemed “offensive” to Muslims. Muslim Advocates played a central role in the agencies removing in 2012 more than 870 pages of material from some 390 presentations — including PowerPoints and papers describing jihad as “holy war” and portraying the Muslim Brotherhood as a worldwide jihadist movement bent on, according to its own bylaws, “establishing an Islamic state.” Security experts say the purge weakened terrorism investigations and left the US vulnerable to the rash of deadly homegrown jihadists attacks seen in the country starting with 2013’s Boston Marathon bombings.

Top Muslim Advocates officials have spoken at Islamic conferences held by known Muslim Brotherhood front groups and defended a major U.S. Muslim Brotherhood charity convicted of financing terrorism.

Southern Poverty Law Center President Richard Cohen called Trump’s naming of Bannon as his top White House strategist “a very unfortunate sign.” He contended that Bannon “is the alter ego” of American white nationalist Richard Spencer.

“Mr. Trump has been singing the white supremacist song since he came down the escalator in his tower and announced his candidacy,” Cohen claimed, adding that “he needs to apologize to the Muslim community.”

Cohen, who says he was the target of discrimination “growing up as a Jewish kid,” has hired security guards to protect his offices and home in Montgomery, Ala. In the past, he has said that he so feared “white supremacists” that he “had to leave his home and stay in a hotel as a precautionary measure.”

A search of Federal Election Commission records shows that Southern Poverty Law Center directors have given more than $13,450 to Hillary Clinton’s campaigns.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is also backed by the ultra-liberal billionaire Soros, and has supported radical leftists, including unrepentant communist terrorist Bill Ayers, whom the group once called “a highly respected figure.”

The National Press Club event also featured Janet Marguia of the National Council of La Raza, an illegal immigrant advocacy group, who claimed Trump was “threatening” Hispanic children.

La Raza, which means “the race,” refuses to condemn an openly racist affiliate known as MECHa, which claims the Southwest was stolen and should be returned to Mexico and whose slogan is “For the race, everything; outside the race, nothing.”

In the 2016 election cycle, La Raza gave $6,600 to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and $0 to Trump’s campaign.

American Federation of Teachers President Randy Weingarten also took the podium to denounce Trump and his appointments.

“The nomination of Jeff Sessions, the appointment of Steve Bannon and the appointment of Mike Flynn all sent a message that white supremacy and anti-Muslim conspiracy theories are in vogue these days,” she said.

American Federation of Teachers formally endorse Clinton and donated$38,885 to her campaign while contributing nothing to Trump.

“We endorsed Hillary today for the same reasons we endorsed (her) in the Democratic primary. She is a tested leaders who shares our values,” Weingarten said</> earlier this year. “Today, our members made it clear we stand with her.”

During the campaign, AFT made more than 1 million phone calls and knocked on more than 500,000 doors to get out the vote for Clinton.

Leadership Conference President Wade Henderson also laced into Trump and his nominations, claiming they were “racist.”

“We are concerned about the impact of Jeff Sessions at the Department of Justice, Gen. Mike Flynn or Steve Bannon just a heartbeat away from the presidency,” he said during the press conference.

Henderson charged that Bannon “has supported and embraced organizations that take direct views that are anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, anti-immigrant and racist.” He also alleged that Sessions is “someone whose record will suggest that he will have great difficulty in enforcing civil rights laws, including hate crimes laws on the books.”

In the 2016 election cycle, records show The Leadership Conference donated $8230 to Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaign, while contributing $0 to Trump. All told, the conference gave $81,800 to Democrat candidates for federal office in 2016 vs. $0 for Republicans.

In addition, FEC individual donation records reveal that The Leadership Council’s top lobbyists — including executive vice president Nancy Zirkin and senior counsel Emily Chatterjee — have personally given thousands of dollars to Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

DOJ Declines To Comment On Why Agency Won’t Investigate Threats To Electors

December 2, 2016

DOJ Declines To Comment On Why Agency Won’t Investigate Threats To Electors, Daily Caller, Kerry Picket, December 1, 2016

WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice did not want to discuss why the agency refuses to investigate alleged harassment and death threats toward Electoral College voters in states that went for Donald Trump.

“The department will decline to comment,” DOJ deputy press secretary David Jacobs told The Daily Caller in an email Wednesday afternoon.

The Justice Department seemed concerned about protecting voters from being intimidated at the polls on Election Day. It deployed 500 monitors to 67 jurisdictions in 28 states to watch polling stations this past presidential election cycle.

The department’s goal is “to see to it that every eligible voter can participate in our elections to the full extent that federal law provides,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement at the time to the Chicago Tribune. “The department is deeply committed to the fair and unbiased application of our voting rights laws and we will work tirelessly to ensure that every eligible person that wants to do so is able to cast a ballot.”

Some have wondered, then, why the Justice Department and the FBI will not investigate the recent claims of threats and harassment of these electors as per violation of Section 11b of the Voting Rights Act (52 U.S.C. §10307).

Attorney J. Christian Adams, who previously worked in the DOJ’s civil rights division, appeared unsurprised by the department’s reaction, telling TheDC in a statement Thursday, “The Justice Department should be investigating the brutal attacks on Trump voters caught on video and the death threats to Trump electors. Federal law protects people who want to vote. The Obama Justice Department unfortunately only protects people who vote the right way.”

According to the law, it is a crime to “intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote.”

The law was used in the past to protect the rights of average American voters in nationwide elections, but the language is not restricted to the individuals who make up the popular vote.

Voters of the Electoral College who are casting their votes for president and vice president are also protected by Section 11b, since the College is a necessary part of the federal voting process.

Section 14(c) of the Voting Rights Act, for example, says that “voting” includes “all action necessary to make a vote effective in any primary, special, or general election.”

The votes Americans cast for president and vice president three weeks ago cannot go into effect if electors, chosen by the voters, are intimidated or threatened from casting their votes in the Electoral College on Dec. 19.

Democrats Must Dig Faster and Use Bigger Shovels

December 1, 2016

Democrats Must Dig Faster and Use Bigger Shovels, Front Page MagazineOleg Atbashian, December 1, 2016

demhole

Being an ex-Soviet citizen, I naturally perceive the reality through the prism of my past Soviet experiences. That said, today’s political developments in America remind me of what happened in the USSR during Perestroika and Glasnost. The day Trump won the election I felt as elated as when the USSR officially collapsed.

I was lucky to have witnessed the fall of two evil empires from the inside. One was run by the monstrous Communist Party; the other by the well-greased Democratic party machine.

In the USSR, the Communist Party thrashed violently, obsessed with its own self-preservation without any regard to the crumbling Iron Curtain and the fact that nobody feared them any longer, nor believed a single word coming out of their mouths. And then it went down surprisingly fast. Disbanded without a whimper.

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

The biggest media topic of the day, apart from how president-elect Trump is Hitler, is how the Democratic party can dig its way out of the sinkhole in which it woke up on November 9th.  In the meantime, perpetual panic attacks among Democratic elites result in uncontrollable anger, projections, verbal incontinence, hallucinations, and outright lunacy.

Amidst alarming reports that her own party is being consumed by crisis, chaos, and infighting, Elizabeth Warren all of a sudden decided to call Trump’s well-organized transition “chaotic” and demanded that a federal agency investigate this matter.

It was followed by the delusional idea of a ballot recount  in three states at once. The debate is still open on who was more insane: those who brought it up a week after the expired deadline – or their supporters who donated over $5 million of their money for this crash and burn project.

Other widespread examples of lunacy, verbal incontinence, hallucinations, and projections include intrusive and repetitive thoughts about race, racism, and racists.

Aiming to regroup and clean up the mess without losing any of their personal power, confused Democratic elites are offering more erratic solutions, from embracing white working class nationalism to excluding white people from running the party.

Who are we to argue? If the Democrat party wants to continue to run on affirmative action principles, let them. I also urge them to expand on the idea and hire affirmative action pilots for their jets and affirmative action doctors for their Botox injections.

Barack Obama was an affirmative action president. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Donna Brazile were affirmative action DNC chairs. Hillary was an affirmative action presidential nominee.

As a result, the Democratic party has lost the White House, Senate, House of Representatives, many governorships, state and local legislatures, as well as the ability to make Supreme Court appointments that will determine the direction of the Judiciary for a generation. The Democrat party today is the weakest it has been since the 1920s.

My only regret is that the Democrats hadn’t tested all of their half-baked ideas on their party first, before forcing them on the entire nation. Had they done that, their party would not have survived natural selection and today’s Republicans would have to compete with a lot more sensible group of people.

In spite of all the evidence, some Democratic hard-liners continue to believe their party lost the elections because it didn’t fully live up to its own principles.

Power to the hard-liners! If only they could force every rank and file Democrat to live exactly the way they want the rest of Americans to live, we’d see their ranks deflate to the size of the Communist Party USA faster than you can say “hypocrisy.”

demhole1

Here’s a helpful to-do list:

Things the Democratic elites should do in order to live up to their party principles:

  • Relinquish all positions of power to the less fortunate, previously overlooked due to their lack of skills, intelligence, language proficiency, work ethics, felony record, hygiene, or another disability.
  • Balkanize the Democratic party by splitting it into a thousand factions based on race, gender, language, country of origin, ethnicity, culture, religion, sexual orientation, profession, education, or disability – and let them fight each other to the death for power.
  • Limit your own healthcare options so that the less fortunate can have more.
  • Surrender all firearms, get rid of bodyguards or Secret Service agents.
  • Tear down all walls and fences around you, remove your locks and throw away the keys.
  • Move all your offspring from private “academies” to inner city public schools.
  • Turn your luxury condos and mansions and into communal apartments for the homeless, or better yet, for the refugees from Syria, Somalia, and other troubled Third World countries.
  • Stop hiring tax accountants; donate all your income to the IRS because the government  knows best how to use your money for the common good.
  • Redistribute the remaining personal wealth equally among fellow Democrats – stocks, bonds, real estate, yachts, bank accounts – to each according to their need.
  • Buy only overpriced, fair-trade, union-made, free-range, non-GMO, non-polluting, green-energy, locally grown, halal, organic, and otherwise regulated products.
  • Convert to the most progressive religion of Islam; then try to impose political correctness within its ranks and generally manage that organization as you’ve managed your own party.
  • Have mandatory consensual sex with each other regardless of gender, age, or body image – excluding any reproductive sis-gender relationships.
  • Help stop global warming and protect the environment by disconnecting from the power grid; replace shopping with dumpster-diving; establish quotas on toilet paper.
  • Save the planet and fight overpopulation by limiting your own lifespan.

Some of you may say, dude, don’t point out their errors, we don’t want them to smarten up. I say, we do want them to smarten up, dude. And right at this moment the best way to go about it is point out precisely how the use of their far-fetched leftist ideology has brought them to ruin.

With any luck, the least brainwashed of them will lose faith and stop pushing their hoary Utopian dogmas on the rest of us. There will be others, of course, who will stay the course and keep digging their way out of their hole until they surface in North Korea. Godspeed, comrades! Please dig faster and use bigger shovels.

Being an ex-Soviet citizen, I naturally perceive the reality through the prism of my past Soviet experiences. That said, today’s political developments in America remind me of what happened in the USSR during Perestroika and Glasnost. The day Trump won the election I felt as elated as when the USSR officially collapsed.

I was lucky to have witnessed the fall of two evil empires from the inside. One was run by the monstrous Communist Party; the other by the well-greased Democratic party machine.

In the USSR, the Communist Party thrashed violently, obsessed with its own self-preservation without any regard to the crumbling Iron Curtain and the fact that nobody feared them any longer, nor believed a single word coming out of their mouths. And then it went down surprisingly fast. Disbanded without a whimper.

In the U.S., hardly anyone believes the leftist media anymore, especially after it was exposed to be a cog in the Democratic propaganda machine. Ideologically driven Hollywood movies tank in the box office, and politically correct colleges are quickly becoming the butt of every joke.

Make no mistake, well-connected Soviet apparatchiks still held on to their power and money, retaining many key positions in the government. That largely explains the undying culture of corruption in ex-Soviet countries that had never purged their ex-Communist officials, which badly needed to be done for the same reason de-Nazification was done  in post-World War II Europe. But at least the stifling ideology was gone and living standards began to improve by leaps and bounds.

The Trump administration would be wise to perform a thorough lustration of leftist ideologues in all government agencies, similar to how it was done in Poland and other former Eastern Bloc states that have successfully purged their communist past. I’m not calling for purges of all rank and file Democrats, but the more zealous ideologues in the government had better get ready to use their professional skills, if any, in the private sector.

The election was only a preview; the real fight is about to begin. We need to move fast while the Democratic party is wallowing in its crisis. In the words of their own apparatchik, you never let a serious crisis go to waste.

Kellyanne Conway Would Be A Feminist Hero If She Were A Democrat

December 1, 2016

Kellyanne Conway Would Be A Feminist Hero If She Were A Democrat, The Federalist, December 1, 2016

kellyanne

Now that President-Elect Trump is appointing women to key posts such as UN Ambassador, Secretary of Education, and Deputy National Security Advisor, their anger is rising rather than abating. If anything, this election has further revealed the hypocrisy of the left—particularly modern-day feminists—who despite all their talk of empowerment, are now exposed as a weak and whiny sisterhood of victims.

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

If you’re a woman still anguishing over “what to tell our daughters” about the 2016 election, I suggest you point to Kellyanne Conway: the first woman to run a presidential campaign. This smart, tough, cool mom of four was the winning campaign manager for the most brutal presidential race in history—and she kept a steely smile on her face the whole time. She’s now poised to become either White House press secretary, or the most sought-after political consultant in the world.

After taking the helm of the listless Trump campaign in August, Conway helped shape a more disciplined candidate, with a message focused on a stronger economy and national defense. Conway is like the pretty brainiac who tamed the school jock, got him to shut up in class, and made him carry her books. Hell, she even got him to study once in a while. She’s the kind of example I want for my own daughters on how to handle an egotistical, sometimes boorish male boss: with firmness, class, and calm.

But Conway didn’t just take on Trump. She faced down an antagonistic, male-dominated media that had declared was acting as a de facto arm of the Clinton campaign. One of the few bright spots leading up to Election Day was watching political commentators lose their cool and credibility trying to rile Conway. It didn’t work (and still isn’t). This lawyer, pollster, and business owner should be the new hero of the post-feminism era: a super mom who rose to the top of her field and is now, unquestionably, the most influential woman in Washington.

Why Don’t Feminists Love Conway?

But modern-day feminists are still wringing out their “I’m With Her” crying towels and snubbing Conway’s historic victory because, well, she’s a Republican.

Without any sense of irony, they ignore the achievements of a self-made woman (Conway), while lamenting the loss of a candidate who earned fame and power largely because of her husband. If she were a Democrat, Conway would be the toast of women’s groups across the country, feted in the media, splashed across the pages of Vogue and Cosmo. She would be touted as a future candidate herself. Maybe even Lena Dunham would’ve thrown out a tweet or two after her Election Night shower-cry.

But I suspect there’s even more to this than partisan politics. After all, you can’t accuse a man of misogyny—which literally means “hatred of women”—if he puts a female in charge of the riskiest, most important endeavor of his life. Trump can’t be a sexist pig who hates women if he fires two men and replaces them with a woman, right? Acknowledging, even celebrating, Conway’s success would undermine that entire plotline.

Conway Undermined Trump’s Misogynist Image

The Trump-is-a-misogynist meme was the cornerstone of Clinton’s campaign message: a Google search of “Trump” plus “misogynist” yields 579,000 results—not counting the approximately five billion tweets making the same accusation.

The day of the election, The Telegraph UK published a lengthy list of allegedly sexist Trumpisms dating back to the 1980s. Some were not bad (in 1994, he said he gets mad if dinner isn’t on the table when he gets home, so what did that make my grandfather). Many were cringe-worthy—particularly remarks he made as a guest on the Howard Stern show, perhaps one of Trump’s worst judgment calls of all time. Some were downright slap-worthy, and nothing you would want to hear from your husband or son or boss. But when people put a microphone in front of your face for three decades, you’re bound to have to live down a trove of dumb comments.

But raw, even offensive remarks do not a misogynist make. Yet the pearl clutching by the female left went into overdrive after Trump was elected, with women weeping and fearing for their daughters—as if Trump is a one-man Boko Haram ready to swipe them out of their classrooms and turn them into drink cart girls.

Now that President-Elect Trump is appointing women to key posts such as UN Ambassador, Secretary of Education, and Deputy National Security Advisor, their anger is rising rather than abating. If anything, this election has further revealed the hypocrisy of the left—particularly modern-day feminists—who despite all their talk of empowerment, are now exposed as a weak and whiny sisterhood of victims.

So what do we tell our daughters? Be less like Lena and more like Kellyanne.

Trump Is Right — Millions Of Illegals Probably Did Vote In 2016

November 29, 2016

Trump Is Right — Millions Of Illegals Probably Did Vote In 2016, Investors Business Daily, November 28, 2016

edit_trump_112816_newscom(Jose More / VWPics/Newscom)

Media Bias: Not surprisingly, the media take seriously and support Jill Stein’s and Hillary Clinton’s excellent vote-recount adventure, despite there being no indication a recount is needed. Heck, even President Obama agrees — Donald Trump won, period. But when Trump dares to suggest in a Sunday tweet that illegal aliens voted in the election, the media respond with massive denial.

“In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally,” Trump tweeted to the barely concealed contempt of many in the media.

Typical was the utterly dismissive headline in The Nation, the flagship publication of the progressive movement: “The President-Elect Is An Internet Troll.”

The Washington Post’s “The Fix” blog site did a little better: “Donald Trump’s new explanation for losing the popular vote? A Twitter-born conspiracy theory.”

There are many more, too many to put here. Most follow the same theme: Trump foolishly followed the faulty analysis of Gregg Phillips of True The Vote, an online anti-voter-fraud site and app. Phillips estimates that illegals cast three million votes in the 2016 election. He’s wrong, say the media. Heck, even the liberal fact-checking site FactCheck.org says so.

But, in fact, it’s almost certain that illegals did vote — and in significant numbers. Whether it was three million or not is another question.

While states control the voter registration process, some states are so notoriously slipshod in their controls (California, Virginia and New York — all of which have political movements to legalize voting by noncitizens — come to mind) that it would be shocking if many illegals didn’tvote. Remember, a low-ball estimate says there are at least 11 million to 12 million illegals in the U.S., but that’s based on faulty Census data. More likely estimates put the number at 20 million to 30 million.

What’s disappointing is that instead of at least seriously considering Trump’s charge, many media reports merely parrot leftist talking points and anti-Trump rhetoric by pushing the idea that Republicans and others not of the progressive left who seek to limit voting to citizens only are racist, xenophobic nuts.

But there is evidence to back Trump’s claims. A 2014 study in the online Electoral Studies Journal shows that in the 2008 and 2010 elections, illegal immigrant votes were in fact quite high.

“We find that some noncitizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and congressional elections,” wrote Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, both of Old Dominion University, and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.

More specifically, they write, “Noncitizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.”

Specifically, the authors say that illegals may have cast as many as 2.8 million votes in 2008 and 2010. That’s a lot of votes. And when you consider the population of illegal inhabitants has only grown since then, it’s not unreasonable to suppose that their vote has, too.

Critics note that a Harvard team in 2015 had responded to the study, calling it “biased.” But that report included this gem: “Further, the likely percent of noncitizen voters in recent U.S. elections is 0.”

Really? That’s simply preposterous, frankly, as anyone who has lived in California can attest. Leftist get-out-the-vote groups openly urge noncitizens to vote during election time, and the registration process is notoriously loose. To suggest there is no illegal voting at all is absurd.

What’s appalling, as we said, is not the media’s skepticism, but its denial. But why? Illegal votes shouldn’t be allowed to sway U.S. elections. So why tolerate them?

When the far left began insinuating that the Russians had hacked the election, the media treated the nonsupported claims with the utmost of respect. They still do. But not Trump’s suggestion that illegals voted, and in large numbers, mainly for Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton.

And, yes, Trump is right: Illegal votes may in part explain why Hillary now has a nearly two-million-vote lead in the popular vote, even though she lost convincingly in the Electoral College. A Pew Research Poll earlier this year found that 53% of the Democratic Party supports letting illegals vote, even though it’s against the law. It’s pretty clear why.

Yes, there is room for skepticism of any claim that’s made. But every vote cast by someone who isn’t by law permitted to vote disenfranchises American citizens. The charge should at least be taken seriously.

Meanwhile, we will expect the media to continue to give its fawning attention to the spurious challenges of nonexistent vote tampering leveled by Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein, on behalf of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

While the media savage Trump and his motives, please recall what Hillary said in the debates: that the idea a defeated candidate wouldn’t recognize the results of the election was “horrifying.” And she has also agreed there is no “actionable evidence” of either hacking or outside interference, despite joining with Stein to seek recounts.

So what about Clinton’s motives?

As for Stein, who barely registered a blip on the 2016 electoral screen, the $5 million or so she has raised to pay for recounts really seems more like a ploy to bail out her failed campaign than a serious attempt at a recount. But the media continue to treat her like a serious political operator — not the far-left kook she is.

RIGHT ANGLE: Will He Ever Stop Talking?

November 29, 2016

RIGHT ANGLE: Will He Ever Stop Talking? Bill Whittle dot.com via YouTube, November 28, 2016

(Long may he blather. — DM)

The Fake News of CNN | SUPERcuts! #390

November 28, 2016

The Fake News of CNN | SUPERcuts! #390, Washington Free Beacon via YouTube, November 28, 2016

Nigel Farage reacts to the death of Fidel Castro

November 26, 2016

Nigel Farage reacts to the death of Fidel Castro, Fox News via YouTube, November 26, 2016

(And other stuff, such as BREXIT, Trump appointees, election recounts, etc. — DM)