Archive for the ‘Democrat National Committee’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Trump’s Bizarre Winning Formula

November 17, 2016

Trump’s Bizarre Winning Formula, Town Hall, Victor Davis Hanson, November 17, 2016

dtrump

The Democratic Party handed Donald Trump a rare opportunity to make radical changes to the electoral map that could last for years to come.

First, the Democrats gave Trump a great gift by completing the ongoing radicalization of their party under President Obama. After 2008, it was no longer a party of the working and middle classes, but a lopsided political pyramid.

On top were the cynical elites who turned up in the WikiLeaks John Podesta email trove: self-important media members, Ivy League grandees, Silicon Valley billionaires, Wall Street plutocrats and coastal corridor snobs. They talk left-wing but live royally. They court minorities to vote in lockstep, then deride them in private. The vast lower tier of the party comprises government employees, the poor, minorities, and the millions dependent on state and federal assistance. The Democrats in between were ignored, and so they kept fleeing the party. Look at the red/blue map of the election. Democratic strength retreated to the inner cities and the rich coastal suburbs.

The Democrats also, in suicidal fashion, stoked racial chauvinism, or the notion that one’s tribe should transcend all other affiliations. After pandering to various minority groups, Hillary Clinton apparently believed that they suddenly would forget her emphasis on race and ethnicity to vote for her, a 69-year-old white multimillionaire.

But the Democrats learned a bitter lesson in 2016: Obama’s left-wing, rich/poor ideological agendas do not appeal to most of the country. Despite a hard progressive agenda, Obama was able to win two terms by relying on racial and ethnic solidarity, earning record numbers of Latino and black votes.

The logic of such a formula could not be easily transferred to a non-minority Democratic candidate. So Clinton lost key blue states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin because minority turnout in cities such as Detroit, Philadelphia and Milwaukee fell off from 2008 and 2012.

Worse for Democrats, by pandering to tribal solidarity, they polarized the white working classes. When physical similarity is touted as the best argument to vote for someone, it green-lights everybody to do the same — including huge numbers of less affluent whites who voted for Trump.

Trump took advantage of these openings. By reformulating the old Republican messages to include so-called fair (rather than free) trade, by leaving Social Security alone and by promising to create more jobs, Trump plucked millions of lower- and middle-class voters from the Democratic Party.

Republican elites may have been appalled that Trump blasted global trade agreements and promised to punish corporations that outsourced jobs overseas. But those who have been left out of the globalized economy flocked to that message after not warming up to John McCain and Mitt Romney in earlier presidential elections.

Trump’s populism also appealed to a surprising number of blacks and Latinos. Although Trump was even richer than some multimillionaire Republican nominees of the recent past, he posed as a man of the people, eating fast food and speaking in a Queens accent.

For many non-whites, Trump’s message was more about class than race. Inner-city dwellers share many of the same worries as the poor whites of the Ohio Valley and southern Michigan. Some blacks have more in common with poor whites than with Colin Kaepernick or Van Jones. And many whites have more in common with less affluent blacks and Latinos than with Mitt Romney or Jeb Bush.

These populist economic interests had been ignored by Democrats and Republicans, as coastal-corridor economies made 30-somethings in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street multimillionaires — with only crumbs left for those who work with their hands.

In other words, Trump miraculously won the Electoral College despite adversarial media and hostile Democratic and Republican establishments. He ran with relatively little campaign spending, virtually no ground game, few political handlers, little celebrity backing and few establishment endorsements. And he won because he rewrote the traditional rules of red/blue presidential politics.

Democratic Party chiefs slammed Trump as a bigot. “Never Trump” Republicans trashed him as a protectionist and populist rather than label him a true conservative. Some elite Democrats rightly feared that he might revolutionize politics by stealing minority and working-class voters from Democrats on shared class concerns that transcend race. Some elite Republicans worried that he could win new converts who weren’t concerned with whether the Wall Street Journal found him to be an apostate and so often a vulgarian.

The strangest irony of all?

Establishment Republicans who hated Trump sounded a lot like establishment Democrats.

In sum, the billionaire Trump thinks he can forge a new kind of “Republican” majority, to the chagrin of elite Democrats and elite Republicans alike.

And he could be right.

Categories: 2016 elections, Democrat establishment, Democrat National Committee, Democrat plantation, Donald Trump - President Elect
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Could a Radical Israel Basher Soon Head the Democratic Party?

November 16, 2016

Could a Radical Israel Basher Soon Head the Democratic Party?, Front Page Magazine, Joseph Klein, November 16, 2016

ellison

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) is the leading contender to head up the Democratic National Committee. In announcing his candidacy for the position, Ellison said, “When voters know what Democrats stand for, we can improve the lives of all Americans, no matter their race, religion, or sexual orientation.”

Ellison has the support of the progressive wing of the party, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, as well as the so-called establishment types such as Senator Chuck Schumer.

What would a Democratic Party led by Rep. Ellison really look like? One need look no further than Rep. Ellison’s own statements, associations and actions. Under Ellison’s leadership, the Democratic Party will continue to evolve into a pro-Islamist party that helps advance the stealth jihad agenda, and a party that moves away from its traditional support of our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel.

Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, has a past history of working actively on behalf of the anti-Semitic firebrand Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. In 1995, writing as Keith X Ellison, he published a column for Insight News, which praised Farrakhan as “a role model for black youth” and denied that Farrakhan was an anti-Semite. In 1997, Ellison defended a statement by Joanne Jackson of the Minnesota Initiative Against Racism, who was reported to have said that “Jews are among the most racist white people I know.”

When Ellison first ran for Congress, Nihad Awad, executive director of the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), provided his support at a fund raiser in Minneapolis for Ellison. Ellison in turn has spoken at CAIR fundraising events. He also defended CAIR against credible charges that CAIR was trying to infiltrate staff offices tied to committees on the judiciary, homeland security and intelligence. At CAIR banquets in late 2008, Ellison urged CAIR supporters to seek jobs in the then incoming Obama administration.

Some of Ellison’s donors have “a history of Muslim Brotherhood connections,” according to Campus Watch. The Minneapolis branch of the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Muslim American Society reportedly paid for Ellison’s pilgrimage to Mecca for the Hajj in 2008.

Ellison is not interested in hearing a diversity of views from moderate Muslims such as M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder and president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, who believe that reform is needed within Islam today. Indeed, Ellison accused Jasser of speaking like those allegedly turncoat blacks “who would seek to ingratiate themselves with powerful people in the white community and would there turn them on the rest of us and give license to attack us all. Now is somebody going to snatch my 13-year-old daughter’s hijab off, call her a horrible name, spit on her because of something that you said, Dr. Jasser, I worry about that.”

Ellison’s example of a good role model for a dedicated Islamist appears to be Hamza Yusuf, president and chairman of the Zaytuna Institute in California. Ellison lauded Yusuf as a respected religious authority who had converted to Islam. Ellison’s role model called Judaism a “most racist religion,” and said just two days before the September 11, 2001 attacks on our homeland, “This country [America] unfortunately has a great…tribulation coming to it. And much of it is already here, yet people are too illiterate to read the writing on the wall.”

As Robert Spencer, the author of Stealth Jihad, has just written, the same media that are falsely claiming President-elect Trump’s choice to serve as his chief strategist, Steven K. Bannon, is a white supremacist and anti-Semite are “hailing Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) for announcing his candidacy for Chairman of the Democratic National Committee – despite Ellison’s very real links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, two groups that are outdone by no one in anti-Semitism.”

In addition, one wonders why the more so-called establishment Democrats, in particular the likely next Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a strong supporter of Israel, would not be more troubled by Ellison’s virulently anti-Israel positions.

Ellison has called for the cut off of military aid to Israel. His opposition to supporting Israel with any funding for military purposes even extended to the purely defensive Iron Dome. His cockeyed justification for not even backing an effective means to destroy incoming rockets launched by Hamas from Gaza before they can reach civilian population centers in Israel was that to do so could undermine negotiation of a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. “Because a cease-fire is what we should prioritize now,” Ellison said when asked to explain his vote on Meet the Press. “A cease-fire protects civilians on both sides — it doesn’t just say, ‘We’re only concerned about people on one side.’”

Ellison also wrote an op-ed article for the Washington Post in which he called for “an end to the blockade of the Gaza Strip.” Thus, for the next possible chairman of the Democratic Party, cutting off Israel’s ability to defend itself with the Iron Dome, together with pressuring Israel to remove all barriers to the import into Gaza of sophisticated rockets from Iran and elsewhere for Hamas to use against Israeli civilians, represents what Democrats should stand for.

Ellison has also made himself an ally of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement against Israel, and he has helped legitimize them through participating in their programming. For example, in July 2016, Ellison participated in a panel discussion co-sponsored by The US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, one of the largest BDS operations in the US. Ellison has been at the top of that anti-Israel organization’s “House Hall of Fame.” It should be no surprise that, as Salon reported on June 2, 2016, “Rep. Keith Ellison shared a photo on Twitter…that refers to Israel’s illegal military occupation of the Palestinian territories as apartheid.”

Finally, with respect to the issue of Syrian refugees, Ellison did not think that President Obama’s decision to admit 10,000 Syrians during the last fiscal year was good enough. Shortly before Obama announced his ramp up decision, Ellison had written a letter to the president stating, “Now, more than ever, we need to live up to our history by increasing the number of Syrian refugees allowed to resettle in the United States.” After the president announced his decision to admit 10,000 more Syrian refugees in just one year, Ellison commented, “Ten thousand is not enough. Aren’t we the people who say, ‘give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses’? We must do more for families who are not safe in their own homeland.”

Not on President-elect Trump’s watch if there is any potential danger of admitting jihadist terrorists. With Trump intent on curbing the admission of more Syrian refugees until we get a handle on who they really are, one can imagine how Ellison, as head of the Democratic National Committee, will push his open borders policy for Syrian refugees to the top of his party’s agenda, irrespective of the risks to the American people.

If the Democrats do end up selecting Rep. Keith Ellison as the new chair of the Democratic National Committee, they will be elevating a radical Islamist and Israel basher. Contrary to his pitch on Meet the Press last Sunday, his record does not demonstrate how he would successfully lead his party’s effort to “make working America know that the Democratic party is absolutely on their side.” To the contrary, his selection will risk further alienation of a vast portion of Americans who are convinced – correctly so – that the party they had once supported has abandoned them.

Categories: Antisemitism in America, Democrat establishment, Democrat National Committee, Islamist threats, Islamists in America, Islamists vs Islam, Islamists vs Israel, Israel, Israeli security, Keith Ellison
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

A message from the Democrat National Committee

November 16, 2016

A message from the Democrat National Committee, via e-mail, November 16, 2016

Friend —

Over the past few days, Donald Trump has been rolling out the names of some of the people who will be a part of his administration. Leading his transition team is his anti-women, anti-LGBT Vice President-elect Mike Pence. He named Steve Bannon — publisher of the racist, sexist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic, white nationalist “news” site Breitbart — as one of his most senior advisors. And his list of cabinet secretaries ranges from the extreme fringe of the Republican party (think Sarah Palin) to Wall Street and oil company CEOs. [Emphasis added.]

They say you can judge a man by the company he keeps. Well, this list of future members of the Trump administration means we’ve got our work cut out for us over the next four years. But I have no doubt that if we stay committed to our values and steel ourselves to fight back against everything that’s going to come out of this administration, we can keep Donald Trump from taking our country over the cliff.

But we’re going to be counting on folks like you more than we ever have before to stand together with us. We were on the right side of history in this election, and we owe it to the future of this country to hold Donald Trump and his allies accountable.

Add your name, and we’ll make sure you stay in-the-know about what Trump and the GOP are planning — so that we can be ready for whatever comes our way:

http://my.democrats.org/Next

Eric

Eric Walker
Deputy Communications Director
Democratic National Committee

Categories: 2016 elections, Democrat National Committee, Transition plans
Tags: ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Steve Bannon and Keith Ellison: Do the Democrats Really Care about Anti-Semitism?

November 15, 2016

Steve Bannon and Keith Ellison: Do the Democrats Really Care about Anti-Semitism? Front Page Magazine, Robert Spencer, November 15, 2016

(Please see also, The Ellison Angle.– DM)

sd

When is anti-Semitism not anti-Semitism? When it comes from the Left, of course. 

President-elect Trump has enraged the establishment media by choosing Steven K. Bannon as his chief strategist, because Bannon, they claim on the flimsiest of evidence, is a white supremacist and an anti-Semite. Meanwhile, that same media is hailing Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) for announcing his candidacy for Chairman of the Democratic National Committee – despite Ellison’s very real links to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, two groups that are outdone by no one in anti-Semitism.

“A chorus of critics took to Twitter,” said the New York Times, “to lament what they said was a frightening normalization of the fringe views that Mr. Bannon promoted as the chairman of Breitbart News. The site has for years given voice to anti-Semitic, racist and white nationalist ideology.”

The evidence? Slim to none. As David Horowitz pointed out Monday, the source for the claim that Bannon is anti-Semitic is “a one sentence claim from an angry ex-wife in divorce court no less, that Bannon didn’t want their kids to go to school with Jews.” Horowitz noted in response that Bannon had wanted to produce a Horowitz biopic: “I find that particularly amusing since Bannon wanted to make a film to celebrate this Jew’s life.”

Horowitz also noted that CNN hit Bannon over “a headline at Breitbart.com calling Bill Kristol a ‘renegade Jew.’” Surely that proves Bannon’s anti-Semitism, right? Wrong. Said Horowitz: “In fact, neither Breitbart nor Bannon is responsible for that statement. A Jew is. I wrote the article, which was neither requested nor commissioned by Breitbart. And I wrote the headline: ‘Bill Kristol, Republican Spoiler, Renegade Jew,’” because “Kristol and his friends betrayed the Republican Party, betrayed the American people, and betrayed the Jews when he set out to undermine Trump and elect the criminal Hillary Clinton. Obama and Hillary are supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood, the organization that launched the Arab drive to destroy Israel and push its Jews into the sea (that was their slogan).”

Joel B. Pollak, senior editor-at-large at Breitbart News and an Orthodox Jew, declared: “I have worked with Stephen K. Bannon, President-elect Donald Trump’s new chief strategist and senior counselor, for nearly six years at Breitbart News. I can say, without hesitation, that Steve is a friend of the Jewish people and a defender of Israel, as well as being a passionate American patriot and a great leader.”

Meanwhile, the same Democrats who are howling about Bannon are applauding Ellison’s announcement that he is running for DNC Chair, despite the abundant evidence of Ellison’s links to anti-Semitic groups. Ellison has spoken at a convention of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Yet ISNA has actually admitted its ties to Hamas, which styles itself the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Justice Department actually classified ISNA among entities “who are and/or were members of the US Muslim Brotherhood.”

It gets worse. In 2008, Ellison accepted $13,350 from the Muslim American Society (MAS) to go on a pilgrimage to Mecca. The Muslim American Society is a Muslim Brotherhood organization: “In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation’s major Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious debate among Brotherhood members.” That’s from the Chicago Tribune in 2004, in an article that is now carried on the Muslim Brotherhood’s English-language website, Ikhwanweb.

Also, the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) raised large amounts of for Ellison’s first campaign, and he has spoken at numerous CAIR events. Yet CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused todenounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups.

Hamas has declared: “Killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah.” Ellison has spoken before several groups that have ties to Hamas, and has accepted money from a Muslim Brotherhood group; Hamas styles itself the Muslim Brotherhood for Palestine. Does Keith Ellison also, then, think that “killing Jews is worship that draws us close to Allah”? No establishment media “journalist” would ever dream of asking him that question, but it’s a fair one: Hamas repeatedly demonstrates genuine and murderous anti-Semitism, and Ellison has repeatedly shown himself willing and even eager to associate himself with Hamas-linked groups.

That’s the real story of anti-Semitism in American politics this week. But the media propagandists are most certainly not going to pause in their hysteria over Trump and Bannon to take any notice of it. Their hypocrisy is obvious, their dishonesty unrelenting, and their moral authority absolutely nil.

Categories: Antisemitism in America, Democrat establishment, Democrat National Committee, Democrat Party, Hamas, Islamists in America, Keith Ellison, Muslim Brotherhood, Steven K. Bannon
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

The Ellison Angle

November 15, 2016

The Ellison Angle, Power Line, Scott Johnson, November 15, 2016

Democrats and their media adjunct are stirring the pot about the alleged bigotry of prospective Trump White House advisor Steve Bannon, yet they are poised to name a long-time advocate of one of the leading racist and anti-Semitic organizations in the United States as chairman of their party. I’m referring of course to Minnesota Fifth District Rep. Keith Ellison and his long involvement with the Nation of Islam.

Yesterday Ellison formally announced his bid to become chairman of the Democratic Party. Leading Democrats have lined up to support him. He seems to be poised to take the reins of the national party. Allison Sherry reports from Washington for the Star Tribune:

Ellison drew widespread support over the weekend and Monday from the party’s elite, including Sanders and presumed incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Harry Reid, the current Senate minority leader, threw his support behind Ellison. Even President Obama told reporters the party needed fresh faces and new ideas to rebuild, though he did not mention anyone by name.

As a black and left-wing Muslim in a one-party town with a cheerleading newspaper, Ellison has been insulated from the kind of media scrutiny that he should have received over the past 10 years. Rather, he has been celebrated as the first Muslim to be elected to Congress. Who wanted to stand in his way? Certainly not the political reporters or editors at the Star Tribune.

The Star Tribune has never troubled itself to chronicle Ellison’s unsavory years on the make in Minneapolis as an active local leader of the Nation of Islam, even though it could have drawn on its own archives to do so. The Star Tribune has left Ellison free to lie about his past and it is a freedom that he has exploited to the hilt.

Thus Sherry reports on Ellison’s current bid without the slightest hint of Ellison’s back pages:

Ellison issued a statement Monday castigating Trump’s choice, saying that Bannon “is adored by white supremacists, white nationalists, anti-Semites, neo-Nazis and the KKK,” and that the president-elect must rescind the appointment if he is “serious about rejecting bigotry, hatred and violence from his supporters.”

Ellison’s public agitation on behalf of the Nation of Islam extends back to his days as a law student at the University of Minnesota Law School through his first attempt to secure the Democratic endorsement for a state legislative seat. Over the years Ellison agitated on behalf of the Nation of Islam he operated under names including Keith Hakim, Keith X Ellison and Keith Ellison-Muhammad. I summarized this aspect of Ellison’s rise in the Weekly Standard article “Louis Farrakhan’s first Congressman” and the companion Power Line post “Keith Ellison for dummies.”

Ellison’s freedom from media scrutiny has served him well so far. Apart from an extremely misleading letter to the Jewish Community Relations Council in 2006, Ellison has never had to account, explain or apologize for his long-time membership in and advocacy of the Nation of Islam. Rather, Ellison has lied about it, minimized it and suppressed it. In his own memoir Ellison rewrites his past, presenting himself as a critic of the Nation of Islam for its bigotry and hatred. He does not confide in readers that the source of his knowledge is personal and that it comes from the inside. I don’t think much of the Democratic Party or its leaders, but I have to ask whether Democrats really know what they are buying with Ellison.

UPDATE: I just heard a radio news report indicating that Ellison denies he was ever a member of the Nation of Islam. This is a bald-faced lie for which I have the ocular proof in “Keith Ellison for dummies.”

Categories: Antisemitism, Democrat establishment, Democrat National Committee, Democrat Party, Keith Ellison, Media, Nation of Islam, Racism
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Steep Learning Curve: DNC Staff Rally Behind Brazile As Democratic Leaders Reportedly Groom Chelsea For Congress

November 12, 2016

Steep Learning Curve: DNC Staff Rally Behind Brazile As Democratic Leaders Reportedly Groom Chelsea For Congress, Jonathan Turley’s Blog, Jonathan Turley, November 12, 2016

donna

 

chelsea_clinton_dnc_july_2016_cropped

For even the armchair political commentator, the results of this election were not surprising. The voters made two things clear from the outset of the election: they wanted a change from the establishment and they did not like Hillary Clinton. The Democratic leadership responded by engineering the selection of perhaps the greatest establishment figure in politics and someone with a record level of unpopularity with voters. On election day, voters followed through on every poll: they voted against Clinton and the establishment. Only the mainstream media and democratic insiders seemed bowled over by the news — shocked that the voters would reject their sage advice and lopsided coverage. Indeed, as someone who contributed to the coverage that night, I was shocked how shocked everyone was. It showed how entirely out of touch the core Democratic leadership (and media) has become. Now, that thick cloak of denial appears firmly in place as Democrats blame FBI Director Comey for the loss despite the fact that Hillary was declining in the polls before his late disclosure to Congress and the fact that Hillary set records on dishonesty in poll after poll. Two stories this week have brought this home. One was the rallying behind Donna Brazile by DNC staff last week with the notable exception of one man who confronted both Brazile and his colleagues. The second is the report that Democratic leaders immediately turned form Hillary Clinton’s historic defeat to start grooming Chelsea Clinton for political office. The problem it seems was that the public was not given enough Clintons. Faced with a populist uprising, the Democratic leadership seems to be offering more of the same like an actor who cannot move beyond one script and one role.

We have previously discussed the unethical actions of interim DNC chief Brazile and the conspicuous failures of the media to investigate her claims of altered emails. While CNN Worldwide President Jeff Zucker called Brazile’s actions “disgusting” and others have denounced her actions, the DNC has stuck with Brazile and she recently appeared before staff to given them a pep talk.

The event however did not turn out quite as planned when one staffer had had enough. According to The Huffington Post, a staffer named Zach asked “Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this? You backed a flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain and yourself.” He continued by saying “You are part of the problem. You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”

He then left — a personification for millions of independents and Democrats who abandoned the party to elect Donald Trump.

Nevertheless, the rest of the DNC rallied behind Brazile and gave breathless accounts of her inspiring leadership. A DNC staffer told HuffPost that there was “overwhelming” support for Brazile and that her words “had some staffers in tears.” That would be welcomed news for Republican strategists. It is also worth noting that, after emails showed that Debbie Wasserman-Shultz (Brazile’s predecessor) had worked to rig the primary and dealt dishonestly with Sanders, she was overwhelmingly reelected and embraced by the DNC leadership.

The second story is even more curious. Many viewed the election as the ultimate rejection of the Clinton dynasty that has controlled the Democratic party for over a decade. The Clintons put their family and its “brand” front and center in this election . . . and voters rejected it. However, within hours of the defeat, Democratic leaders were reportedly turning to Chelsea Clinton as the new flag bearer. Clinton, 36, is reportedly being groomed by the same leadership to replace Rep. Nita Lowey, 79, in representing New York’s 17th District. Of course, Chelsea does not live there but the district covers part of Westchester County, including Bill and Hillary Clinton’s hometown of Chappaqua.

Chelsea was previously given a high-ranking media position with disastrous results— a move that was denounced by journalists as political connections overwhelming journalistic merit. Her role in the Clinton Foundation has come under fire. However, the greatest problem is that her resume is largely the result of her family and foundation ties.

The question is whether the Democrats are going to spin the result of this election and deny reality when, in two years, they will be facing the inverse of this election: more Democratic seats will be up for grabs and Trump could receive a super majority in Congress, including a veto-proof margin.

I am an independent and do not have a horse in this race. However, in speaking with my Democratic students, they express complete separation from the Democratic leadership and the establishment politics that it has come to represent. I come from a long-standing Democratic and liberal family in Chicago. When I was raised in that environment, the Democratic party was the populist party — the voice of the outsider and emerging constituencies. Now it is viewed as the party of insiders and establishment power brokers. There may be enough unhappy members (particularly Sanders people) to change the party, but these stories do not help with that image.

It seems to me that, if the Democrats want to resurrect their party, it will require entirely new leadership and a new vision to fit an increasing independent populace.

What do you think?

Categories: Chelsea Clinton, Clinton campaign, Clinton Foundation, Democrat National Committee, Donna Brazile
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

CNN Distances Itself From Donna Brazile Over Leaked Questions

October 31, 2016

CNN Distances Itself From Donna Brazile Over Leaked Questions, Truth Revolt, Mark Tapson, October 31, 2016

(But first, a word from her sponsor:

— DM)

donna_brazille_at_tulane_2009

Yet again, Wikileaks has exposed Democratic malfeasance so undeniable that even the Clinton News Network can’t avoid acknowledging it.

CNN says it is “completely uncomfortable” with hacked emails showing that former contributor and interim DNC chair Donna Brazile shared questions with the Clinton campaign before a debate and a town hall during the Democratic primary — so uncomfortable that the network has accepted her resignation, according to Politico.

Those damning emails show that Brazile, who had repeatedly tried to divert blame by suggesting that the emails might have been altered or forged, shared with the Clinton campaign a question that would be posed to Hillary before the March CNN Democratic debate in Flint, and that she also shared with them a possible question prior to a CNN town hall in March.

CNN spokesperson Lauren Pratapas said in a statement that the network had accepted Brazile’s resignation:

On October 14th, CNN accepted Donna Brazile’s resignation as a CNN contributor. (Her deal had previously been suspended in July when she became the interim head of the DNC.) CNN never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate. We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor.

Brazile tweeted thanks to CNN and wished her former colleagues “Godspeed.”

Politico noted that a CNN employee suggested Brazile may have met the woman who was supposed to pose the question about lead poisoning during a service event the day before the debate.

As for the town hall question, emails obtained by POLITICO seem to point to Roland Martin, a co-moderator of the Town Hall, as its source.

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton campaign, CNN, Democrat National Committee, Donna Brazile, Hillary Clinton
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

FBI and DoJ are ignoring evidence of crimes in Project Veritas Action videos

October 23, 2016

FBI and DoJ are ignoring evidence of crimes in Project Veritas Action videos, American Thinker, Thomas Lifson, October 3, 2016

Ahem, where is the criminal investigation of apparent crimes, conspiracies to violate the civil rights of Trump supporters, and possibly riot, for starters?  And where is the media clamor to get to the bottom of this frightening perversion of democracy?  People were hurt in the near-riot at the Trump rally in Chicago, and their right to assemble negated by a conspiracy. The media are completely uninterested in asking any questions.

J. Christian Adams is one of my heroes. He resigned his career at the Justice Department on principle and now is a crusader. On Fox & Friends, he spoke frankly:

 Look, if this was a tea party group coordinating with the Trump campaign to incite violence at Clinton rallies or NAACP events or whatever, we know exactly what would be happening. This would be Justice Department fully investigating this for civil rights violations and all sorts of things. This is a Justice Department and an FBI that is dolling out justice based on your politics. If you support Clinton, if you are Clinton, you can engage in all sorts of misbehavior without consequence. If you are the IRS commissioner or an attorney general who is held in criminal contempt, he would give you a pass. You don’t face justice under this administration. (snip)

It feels like a rigged system. So you have got this operative Bob Creamer who is clearly in with the White House, 300 visits. I have had none. And then he is on tape saying we’re inciting violence at rallies. No accountability. What in a perfect world, non-rigged world, what happens to Bob creamer?

Spare me the rhetoric about “doctored” tapes and James O’Keefe’s criminal conviction for entering a senator’s office under false pretenses in the course of his investigative journalism. If Hollywood were magically switched 180 degrees to pervasive conservatism, there would already be a caper movie deal starring a hot male lead, the shenanigans generating many a knowing chuckle as the real crooks, the politicians and their minions,  are brought to public light, and then retaliate with criminal prosecution of the hero.

The FBI can subpoena all 40 hours of the uncut recordings and examine them for evidence of these crimes, and already would be doing so were Trump supporters involved. All they need to do is ask for a grand jury. In the corrupt Obama/Lynch Justice Department, so it will never happen.

 

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton advisers, Clinton campaign, Clinton corruption, Clinton supporters, Democrat National Committee, Department of Justice, FBI, Media and Hillary Clinton, Project Veritas
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

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

October 20, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“You’re dodging,” Kelly interjected.

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

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

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

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

“Where did you get it?” Kelly asked.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: 2016 elections, 2016 presidential debates, Clinton campaign, Democrat National Committee, Donald Trump and vote fraud, Media and Donald Trump, Media and Hillary Clinton, Project Veritas, Vote fraud, WikiLeaks
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

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

October 20, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

Reality # 1: There is vote fraud.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Categories: 2016 elections, 2016 presidential debates, Clinton campaign, Democrat National Committee, Donald Trump and vote fraud, double standards
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »