Archive for the ‘President Reject Clinton’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

The Obama years stumble to a cheesy climax

January 3, 2017

The Obama years stumble to a cheesy climax, Washington Times, Wesley Pruden, January 2, 2017

democrats_frustrated_state_parties_15878-jpg-8a8bd_c0-258-4908-3119_s885x516In this May 15, 2013, file photo, President Barack Obama sits with Attorney General Eric Holder during the 32nd annual the National Peace Officers Memorial Service on Capitol Hill in Washington. Obama has announced plans to improve Democrats down-ballot fortunes

Everyone only thought the interregnum between presidents was “the natural transition,” an orderly march to the beat of neither knives, nor guns or even stones. It’s the way Americans have conducted themselves since George Washington turned the house key over to John Adams.

Until this time. A few embittered denizens of Bubba World pulled a few childish tricks as they left the White House, such as extracting the “W” key from typewriter keyboards. Hillary decamped with a few pieces of her favorite White House furniture. But she sent it back, probably on the advice of lawyers versed in the criminal code. She and Bubba might have been tempted to swipe the bed in the Lincoln Bedroom, but it was so broken down from harsh use by campaign donors that it probably wasn’t worth taking. But no knives have been unsheathed over the centuries, no guns drawn.

Barack Obama is obsessed with what he calls his “legacy,” but doesn’t seem to understand what a legacy is. It’s not something a president or anyone else can write or devise, to put it on a scroll for the National Archives, to be taken out to be read in a ceremony on the Fourth of July.

An authentic presidential legacy is the record of everything a president has done, all the good and bad that he will be remembered for, and President Obama will have a lot to be remembered by and for. A lot of it is what he didn’t deliver of what he promised eight years ago. Someone, perhaps Hillary, perhaps John Podesta, the Democratic campaign chairman, should tell him about the moving finger, the one that writes in bold and legible letters, so that not a single line of all the piety and wit his speechwriters can concoct can be recalled.

President Obama arrived in Washington on the wings of his promise to cool the rancor between the races, the nation’s saddest and most enduring inheritance of slavery, and he leaves Pennsylvania Avenue having only made things worse. That was the promise that won the 2008 election, and four years later the voters, including the majority whites who are so fashionably disdained now, still gave him the benefit of the doubt out of an abundance of good wishes and good faith.

His promise to make the transition to the administration of Donald Trump easy is similarly worthless. The new president will bring to office an agenda with radically different priorities — which is why the people of the 50 states elected him — and Mr. Obama is doing everything he can to lay traps and land mines in the Donald’s paths, few of which he would have dared earlier.

He has banned oil drilling in the Atlantic off the eastern coast, seized land for monuments to radical environmental causes, protected federal funding for fraud and the profitable abortion schemes of Planned Parenthood, transferred terrorists in a last-minute, desperate attempt to empty the prison at Guantanamo Bay, and last but by no means least, did what he could — and it was a lot — to permanently cripple Israel’s ability to deter the Palestinians who, with the assistance of their radical Islamic neighbors, promise to wipe the Jewish state “off the map.” Rarely if ever since the Nazi era has there been such blatant public spite taken against Jews.

The president has done what he could to people the federal bureaucracy with new appointments designed to disable the new president at the beginning of his administration, with appointments to boards and commissions ranging from the National Council on Disability to the Amtrak Board of Directors to the boards of visitors to the military academies.

“He’s doing all this stuff as his legacy,” says Newt Gingrich, the former speaker and onetime candidate for president. “If he goes through three more weeks of this stuff, who is the country going to think is the extremist? Trump? Or Obama.”

Indeed. Barack Obama has always portrayed himself as a man of dignity and repute, aspiring to stateliness, and now in his last days in office he’s acting, in the words of one pundit, as if “Obama and John Kerry are tenants who trash the place as they are being evicted.”

Some of the dead-end Democrats are even urging Mr. Obama to try, like a mouse in pursuit of a piece of cheese discovered in a rat hole, to exploit a loophole in the law that could enable him to put Merrick Garland on the U.S. Supreme Court with a recess appointment in the few seconds between the Obama and the Trump presidencies.

The president-elect has moderated his Twitter feed. “Too bad,” he says of the Obama mischief, “but we will get it done, anyway.”

Categories: 2016 elections, Obama and transition, Obama's legacy, President Elect Trump, President Reject Clinton, President Reject Obama
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Why the Left Secretly Loves Trump

December 31, 2016

Why the Left Secretly Loves Trump, Power Line, Steven Hayward, December 31, 2016

Forget all the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the left. That’s just for show. Remember that the left was never very enthusiastic about Hillary Clinton, and are not sorry to have seen her lose. Trump’s victory, however, provides the left with something much more important that patronage in Washington DC: it provides them with the supposed evidence to bolster their essential hatred and contempt for America, and endless opportunities to proclaim and parade their supposed moral superiority over their fellow citizens.

I’ve been waiting for concrete evidence in the form of a confession from a certified liberal source, and Slate has stepped up!

2016 Was the Year White Liberals Realized How Unjust, Racist, and Sexist America Is

By L.V. Anderson

The sense of disillusionment white American liberals woke up with on Nov. 9 was powerful enough to taint the entire year with a sense of doom. So many illusions were shattered by the election of Donald Trump: about the media, polling, the Democrats’ vaunted ground game, the fundamental character of our fellow citizens, the viability of the American experiment. . .

After Trump’s election, it is more or less impossible to believe that we are making meaningful progress. White liberals who woke up horrified on Nov. 9 weren’t horrified because the world had suddenly changed—we were horrified because the scales had finally fallen from our eyes, and we could at least see our unjust, racist, sexist country for what it is.

There. Doesn’t that feel so much better if you’re a liberal than the phrase “President Hillary Clinton”? And liberals will get to carry on in their favorite mode of outrage and contempt for America for the next four years. I’m going to enjoy every minute of it.

Categories: 2016 elections, Democrats, Leftists, President Elect Trump, President Reject Clinton
Tags: , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Making Sense of the Russian Hacking Saga

December 31, 2016

Making Sense of the Russian Hacking Saga, PJ Media, Charlie Martin, December 30, 2016

Now, we have leaked files that exposed real corruption in the DNC and real conspiracies against private citizens. We’re told this is an attack on our democracy. At the same time, there was an ongoing effort to lobby, coerce, even threaten electors to get them to change their votes in the Electoral College.

So you tell me what the bigger threat to democracy is: Revealing actual facts about the DNC and the Clinton campaign? Or trying to suborn the electors and change the election results?

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

A quick trip to an alternate timeline:

New York Times, December 7, 2016

Trump Campaign Claims Times’ Coverage Skewed Election

“Hacked” Emails Responsible for Trump Loss

In a dramatic announcement, failed presidential candidate Donald J. Trump accused the New York Times and the Russian FSB of sabotaging his campaign by hacking and releasing emails from the Trump campaign’s mail servers.

Mr. Trump announced a campaign to convince members of the Electoral College to vote for him even if their state had voted for Mrs Clinton.

“A source inside the FBI told me that the Russians released these emails because they wanted Crooked Hillary to win,” Mr Trump said. “They call electors who change their votes ‘faithless electors’ but we should call them ‘faithFUL’ — faithful to what Alexander Hamilton meant electors to do. They should vote for me, to prove to Vladimir Putin he can’t corrupt American elections.”

President-Elect Clinton’s spokesperson issued this statement: “As we saw before the election, Mr Trump refused then to promise to accept the election results, and continues to refuse, even going so far as to attempt to subvert the electoral process by suborning electors. President-elect Clinton won fair and square, and Mr. Trump is, at best, grasping at straws.”

So I admit it: the “what if a Republican said that” trope has gotten to be so much a cliche that I honestly hate to use it. The problem is, it’s so often right.

For the last several weeks, people in the Democratic Party, the press, groups of crazies like Media Matters, and individual nuts like Keith Olbermann have been pushing this idea that the Rooosians are hacking our elections, doom!

So get out your tinfoil hats and let’s see if we can make some sense of this mess.

What we know for certain. Starting on July 22, 2016, WikiLeaks started releasing emails obtained from the Democratic National Committee going back well into 2015. These emails proved to be, at the very least, embarrassing to lots of people involved with the Hillary Clinton campaign: they resulted in Debbie Wasserman Schultz being forced to resign as head of the DNC when it became clear she and the DNC were conspiring behind the scenes to prevent Bernie Sanders from being nominated; they also revealed that Donna Brazile, acting head of the DNC, had been passing supposedly confidential debate questions to the Clinton campaign.

In November, WikiLeaks started to release emails obtained from John Podesta’s personal email accounts. These also proved embarrassing for many reasons — not just because of the campaign, but by exposing Podesta and the Center for American Progress conspiring to use political pressure against private citizens, in one notable case very successfully intimidating Roger Pielke Jr. into leaving the Climate Change debate entirely.

There is one more thing we know: with the exception of a desultory attempt to claim the emails had been modified, there has been essentially no attempt to deny the illicitly obtained emails were authentic.

How were the emails obtained? The consensus of the legacy press and the Clinton campaign has been that the emails were “hacked.” Now, any time you read a news story about anything relating to computer security, it’s worth remembering that to most people in either media or politics, the word “hacked” means “this happened somehow with a computer and computers are scary.” In this case, what people really mean is that somehow someone illicitly got access to a bunch of embarrassing email.

What we know is this: There were active Russian efforts to hack both Democrats and Republicans. To anyone with even a vague knowledge of intelligence and counter-intelligence — say, anyone who has read a detailed history of World War II, or a John LeCarré novel — the basic reaction to this should be, “well, duh.” The Russians are almost certainly trying to hack various email systems — as well as trying to intercept Internet traffic, exploit zero-day flaws, seduce young and impressionable (and old and lonely) staffers, dig through trash, and everything else that has been part of spying since Ur and the Assyrians. So are the Americans. And the Israelis. And the Chinese. And the Germans and the French and pretty much everyone else.

(Just as an aside — if the Russians were hacking the DNC successfully, I wonder what happened to the clintonemail.com server…)

In the case of the Russians, though, we have something more, since we have a number of statements on the part of the DNI and the DCIA that there were active Russian attempts to hack U.S. servers. And I have sources of my own who confirm the intelligence community really does have good evidence the Russians were involved.

There’s another point here: while the Russians were trying to hack both parties, there are only some unsubstantiated assertions the hackers were successful with the RNC computers. The RNC has repeatedly denied they were successfully hacked.

WikiLeaks says they didn’t get the emails from the Russians. This is one of those things that we don’t know how to evaluate. WikiLeaks honestly has a pretty good record of their released data being the real thing. When Julian Assange and Craig Murray are willing to come out publicly and say they got these emails from a disgruntled DNC staffer disgusted with what happened to Sanders, we ought to at least consider it.

On the other hand, it’s exactly what we’d expect if Assange really were a front for Russian intelligence.

What to make of that? I don’t know.

What we can suspect. Now we come to the part where I dance. These are some things I find suspicious.

  • What is the evidence the Russians wanted to help Trump? As far as I can tell, the public evidence for this assertion is that derogatory information was leaked about the DNC and not the RNC. But then, the RNC tells us they weren’t actually hacked.
  • Why did the evaluation change so quickly? In October, there was no evidence the Russians were taking sides. On November 17, there was no evidence the Russians were taking sides. On December 9, the CIA (according to anonymous sources) had decided it was an effort to help Trump, but the FBI disagreed. By December 16, the FBI reportedly came around.Here’s one other thing we know: over that same interval, a Democrat-connected PR firm began a campaign to suborn electors.
  • It’s possible everyone involved is telling the truth. That is, the Russians really did hack the DNC, and a DNC insider really did leak the emails to WikiLeaks.

This is an article that, by the nature of things, doesn’t have any conclusions. There’s too much we don’t know. And yes, before someone starts up on “how dare you not trust the CIA?!,” I’m just going to tell you, it’s easy.

The CIA, like every other bureaucracy, suffers from the SNAFU principal: in most circumstances, bureaucrats will tell their bosses what they think the bosses want to hear. (Yes, this is not exactly the original SNAFU principal. For a longer exposition, see this Ignite talk I did some years ago.)

Intelligence assessments almost never say something with absolute certainty; they’re usually phrased to lay out all possibilities and then say which ones seem most probable. When you hear that the intelligence says something certainly — think “slam dunk” — it means the SNAFU principle is probably in action.

After all these years, though, I am pleased to see the strange new respect the CIA is getting from the Left.

Did the Russians or WikiLeaks or both “hack the election”?

Now, here’s where we run into a third version of the word “hack.” No one is asserting that the Black Hats, whoever they were, actually affected the voting. (Well, there was one person at New York Magazine suggesting computer scientists were suggesting this, but no one took it seriously, including the computer scientists he was misinterpreting.) All that anyone is suggesting is that publishing the emails may have led some people not to vote for Clinton.

What to make of all this?

Here, at last, we wrap around to the little parallel-universe story that started this piece. We know that a number of emails, ranging from embarrassing to really really embarrassing and possibly criminal, were exposed by WikiLeaks, and after that Clinton lost the election.

This isn’t the first time documents have been released — whether by “hacking” or old-fashioned leaking. Think back to the Pentagon Papers, which were leaked to the New York Times, and published. I don’t recall anyone at the time suggesting this was a threat to democracy, and even if it was, we seem to have survived. Certainly, repeated leakings of FBI investigations during Watergate were noble moments of journalistic perfection, not threats to democracy.

Now, we have leaked files that exposed real corruption in the DNC and real conspiracies against private citizens. We’re told this is an attack on our democracy. At the same time, there was an ongoing effort to lobby, coerce, even threaten electors to get them to change their votes in the Electoral College.

So you tell me what the bigger threat to democracy is: Revealing actual facts about the DNC and the Clinton campaign? Or trying to suborn the electors and change the election results?

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton advisers, Clinton campaign, Clinton e-mails, Hacking, President Elect Trump, President Reject Clinton, Russian hacking
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

For Obama Administration, Time to Put Up or Shut Up on ‘Russian Hacking’

December 29, 2016

For Obama Administration, Time to Put Up or Shut Up on ‘Russian Hacking’, PJ Media, Michael Walsh, December 29, 2016

(Please see also, Obama administration announces measures to punish Russia for 2016 election interference. Obama just did it, with no recitation of evidence, credible or otherwise. — DM)

trump-truman-sized-770x415xt

Barack Hussein Obama, in the waning days of his administration, is clearly preparing to do maximum damage to his country and its allies on his way out the door to a very comfy — and no doubt ungratefully activist — retirement. First, there was the stab in the back to Israel at the UN the other day; now, he’s threatening to “retaliate” against the Russians for “hacking” the American election:

The Obama administration is under intense pressure to release evidence confirming Russian interference in the presidential election before leaving office. The administration up until now has provided little documentation to back up its official October assessment that the Russian government was attempting to interfere in the U.S. election.

Nor has it corroborated subsequent leaks from anonymous officials contending that the CIA believes the campaign was an attempt by Russian President Vladimir Putin to ensure Donald Trump’s victory.

President Obama has ordered the intelligence community to produce a complete review of its findings before Trump takes office on Jan. 20. The White House has said it will make as much of the report public as it can. But officials have warned that the document will contain “highly sensitive and classified information” and it is unclear how much concrete evidence it will be able to release.

Yeah, right. This is simply another shot across the incoming president’s bow — part of the “resistance” deracinated Democrats have promised in the wake of Hillary Clinton’s surprising (to them) — but thoroughly satisfying defeat in November.

Releasing any documentation of Russian interference would be a slap in the face to Trump, who has rejected assertions that the Kremlin was involved in the hacks on the Democratic National Committee (DNC) andHillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

The president-elect and his team have treated any suggestion of Russian involvement as an attack on the legitimacy of his election, and Republican leaders in Congress have treaded carefully on the issue.

The firestorm ignited by the CIA’s assessment has spurred calls from both parties for the administration to provide proof of Russian meddling. In late November, seven Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee urged the White House to declassify “additional information concerning the Russian Government and the U.S. election.”

As of last week, they had not yet received a response.

“If the CIA Director [John] Brennan and others at the top are serious about turning over evidence … they should do that,” Trump aide Kellyanne Conway said earlier this month. “They should not be leaking to the media. If there’s evidence, let’s see it.”

How about that? What this episode shows is the near-complete untrustworthiness of the CIA under career hack John Brennan, and its politicization by Obama. It also reveals the extent to which mainstream newspapers — the Washington Post and the New York Times — are so addled by partisanship that they have willingly abrogated their ethics in order to smear the new administration. As I wrote in the New York Post on Dec. 13:

In the wake of their shocking loss, Democrats and their fellow travelers in the media have mounted a frantic, and increasingly deracinated, campaign to deny Trump the fruits of his victory in the Electoral College and thus overturn the election by any means necessary, fair or foul.

The recounts failed, so now it’s on to the Russians. Unsourced speculation from “sources” inside the CIA says Russian agents hacked John Podesta’s emails from the Democratic National Committee, according to “bombshell” reports in the Washington Post and New York Times.

Except that was the same “bombshell” that Jeh Johnson, the secretary of homeland security, and James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said on the record in October. The same “bombshell” that had Joe Biden acting like John Wayne, saying the US was going to retaliate. “We’re sending a message. We have the capacity to do it. And the message — he’ll know it,” Biden said about Vladimir Putin on “Meet the Press.”

No proof was offered then, or now, that Russia was involved. But it’s not as though voters weren’t aware of the speculation before the election, as some Democrats and columnists claim.

So what’s changed? Now Democrats and their media allies are in panic mode, looking for something, anything, to try to change the results.

As I’ve been saying on Twitter since the election: don’t believe a word you read in the MSM until Jan. 20, because every single “news” story will be a naked attempt at propaganda. After the inauguration, of course, the same warning will apply; it’s just that, having failed to stop Trump from taking office, the media will be on to something else in order to sabotage him and his voters.

Categories: 2016 elections, Clinton campaign, Democrat National Committee, Democrat Party, Democrats, Obama and fake news, Obama and Russian hacking, President Elect Trump, President Reject Clinton, WikiLeaks
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Trump Wins Electoral College After Clinton Loses The Most Defections Of “Faithless Elector”

December 20, 2016

Trump Wins Electoral College After Clinton Loses The Most Defections Of “Faithless Elector”, Jonathan Turley’s Blog, Jonathan Turley, December 20, 2016

(A good wrap-up of the Electoral College results and Democrat machinations. — DM)

preselect

 

presreject

The Clinton supporters have been campaigning hard to convince electors to switch their votes from Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton. It was a remarkably hypocritical stance for Clinton who repeatedly called Trump failure to promise to abide by the election results as “horrifying” and unAmerican. Clinton maintained that shocked demeanor all the way up to election night when she found herself the loser. She then broke from tradition and refused to concede that night before her supporters. Her campaign then supported challenges in various states and actively sought to convince electors to switch their votes. Well the results are in and it is rather surprising: Of the 10 electors who did not vote for their designated candidate, eight were actually Clinton electors who refused to vote for her. Only two Trump electors switched and neither voted for Clinton.

Four of the electors who were set to vote for Clinton were in Washington state. Of those, three voted for former Secretary of State Colin Powell, and the fourth voted for Native American tribal leader Faith Spotted Eagle. They each will face $1,000 fines.

The two electors who did not cast their votes voted for Kentucky Sen. Ron Paul and Ohio Gov. John Kasich.

In the meantime, Bill Clinton went public with an interview to continue the spin that his wife lost because of FBI Director James Comey and “fake news.” Once again, he did not point to the fake news that was so decisive in the election since the Wikileaks emails were not fake but real news. However, Clinton added that Trump won because “he does know is how to get angry white men to vote for him.” The problem is that white males could not and did not secure the election for Trump. According to the New York Times, Clinton carried only 54 percent of the female vote against Donald Trump. However, nearly twice as many white women without college degrees voted for Trump than for Hillary and she basically broke almost even on college-educated white women (with Hillary taking 51 percent). Trump won the majority of white women at 53 percent.

Other Clinton supporters have explained the results by denouncing women as slaves to their “internalized misogyny. So it is either “angry white males” or self-hating women that toppled Hillary Clinton. Of course, there could be a more obvious answer: people really did not like Hillary as a leader regardless of her gender. It may be that the large numbers of women refused to vote for Hillary simply because she was a woman. Clinton and Trump were the most unpopular politicians ever to be nominated for president and over 60 percent of voters viewed Clinton as fundamentally dishonest. None of that stopped the DNC from engineering her victory over Bernie Sanders who presented precisely the populist campaign that many voters were looking for. Clinton had the Democratic establishment and many allies in the media — everyone agreed except the public. That was enough . . . until the voters had their say on November 8th.

What is striking about this story is how leading Democrats still refuse to acknowledge that the party was seriously out of touch with the electorate. Indeed, after securing her own reelection as minority leader, Nancy Pelosi promptly announced that voters really do not “want a new direction.” Yet, after a huge effort to get electors to move against Trump, most moved against Clinton. The sentiments are not likely to pass despite the coordinated effort to blame Comey or white males or self-loathing women. Few people outside of the Clinton core supporters are buying the spin. The question is how steep this learning curve will be for a party that has continued the same leaders on the same course after the electoral defeat.

Categories: 2016 elections, Electoral College, President Elect Trump, President Reject Clinton
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Voters Not Fooled by Democrats’ Dangerous Immigration Agenda

December 20, 2016

Voters Not Fooled by Democrats’ Dangerous Immigration Agenda, Front Page Magazine, Michael Cutler, December 16, 2016

border_patrol_car_patroling_on_border-1

A growing majority of Americans have had it with the duplicitous conduct of the political elite of both parties.  There is a new sheriff in town and the Democrats, must accept that Americans are not as dumb as they hoped we are.

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

One of the most treasured hallmarks of America’s democratic electoral process is that following every election the transference of political power is done peacefully.  It is also expected that the candidate that loses an election will concede the results of the election and congratulate his/her opponent and wish that person success.

However, members of the Democratic Party and others, such as Presidential candidate Jill Stein, were so upset with the outcome of the election that they have made a series of false, outrageous accusations.

In so doing they not only attacked Donald Trump but our most prized democratic traditions.

The inflammatory and vitriolic statements made by various Democratic politicians, on all levels of government, were followed by violent demonstrations around the United States and on college campuses spurred on by the false accusations.

FBI Director Comey was blamed for causing Hillary to lose the election because he had made public statements about Hillary’s missing e-mails and illegal use of a private e-mail server to receive and transmit highly classified national security information.

Stein sought a recount of the votes in three key states. This costly effort failed to disclose any voting irregularities committed on behalf of Trump.

Now the most recent claim of the Democrats is that Russia hacked the U.S. electoral process to insure that Trump would win the election.

It is impossible to discuss computer security and not raise the issue of Hillary and her outrageous national security transgressions, through the use of her private and non-secure server as well as her non-secure digital devices, that created huge national security vulnerabilities for the United States.

Our government may not ever fully discover the extent of the damage this may have done to America’s intelligence gathering operations and may well continue to hobble those efforts for years to come.

Nevertheless this fact has been entirely ignored by the mainstream media.

Chuck Schumer, the newly anointed Minority Leader in the Senate, immediately jumped in front of the television cameras (actually he is rarely far from those cameras) and complained bitterly about Trump’s purported connection to Vladimir Putin.  He was almost immediately joined by Republican senators Graham and McCain.

The mainstream media referred to this triumvirate as a “Bipartisan effort,” ignoring the obvious connection that these three have as members of the “Gang of Eight” that attempted to ram Comprehensive Immigration Reform” down the threats of Americans.

We will get to the immigration connection momentarily but first it is extremely important to note that on December 14, 2016, Fox News reported that although the House Intelligence Committee had scheduled a hearing on December 15, 2016 to delve into the claims that Russia had hacked into the U.S. elections, incredibly the intelligence agencies have refused to provide any witnesses for this hearing.

It is unfathomable that representatives of our intelligence agencies would refuse to provide testimony or evidence on a matter of such potential seriousness as the alleged interference by Russia in our elections, unless there is no evidence.

Accusations without corroboration is properly called slander.  The accusations about Russian interference into the election of Donald Trump now create the appearance of yet another smear campaign against America’s President-elect.

The conduct of the Democrats is obviously attributable to the outcome of the election.  But adding to the consternation of the Democrats is Trump’s promise to address the immigration crisis that has lit the Democrats’ hair on fire.

Donald Trump made building a wall to secure the U.S./Mexican border the rallying cry of his campaign.  He has also promised to enforce America’s immigration laws to prevent the entry and continued presence of criminal aliens and make certain that American workers get the jobs being taken by foreign workers, including high-tech workers.

This stands in stark contrast with the policies of the Obama administration and promises made by Hillary during her campaign.

For nearly eight years the Obama administration has issued illegal executive orders to gut the enforcement of our immigration laws.  The consequence of the administration’s immigration policies including the release of criminal aliens has resulted in more crimes committed against more victims across the United States.

In fact, at one recent Congressional hearing into the administration’s policies of releasing violent criminal aliens from prison, Congressman Lamar Smith asked the rhetorical question, “President Obama: Accessory To The Crimes Committed By Illegal Aliens?”

The Obama administration flooded the United States with thousands of refugees who cannot be vetted, playing “Immigration Roulette” with national security and public safety.  Hillary Clinton promised to admit even more such refugees.

The lack of border security is more than conjecture.  The most reliable metric for determining how secure or insecure our nation’s borders are is the price and availability of heroin and cocaine.  The supply of these poisons has never been more plentiful and the prices have never been lower.  Inasmuch as these substances are not produced in the United States every gram present in the United States was smuggled into our country.

Drug smuggling goes hand-in-glove with alien smuggling.  Transnational drug gangs from around the world set up operations in towns and cities across the United States to control the flow of drugs into the United States and to make certain that all proceeds of this extremely violent criminal enterprise are successfully sent back to their home countries and into the bank accounts of criminal as well as terrorist organizations.

This is not the only “price” America and Americans pay, however.  There is a clear nexus between narcotics and violence.  The drug trade also deals in human suffering and carnage.

Former Speaker of the House Thomas Phillip “Tip” O’Neill Jr. famously stated that “All politics is local.”  In point of fact, all law enforcement is also local.

When the federal government fails to secure our nation’s borders and enforce our immigration laws from within the interior of the United States, the stage is set for massive quantities of narcotics to be smuggled into the United States.

However, the daily enforcement of our criminal laws are not only a vital mission for federal authorities but for local, city and state police departments as well.

The DOJ tracks crime statistics but ultimately murders, rapes and muggings occur on streets in our towns and cities.  So do drug transactions.

“Sanctuary Cities” further encourage massive numbers of illegal aliens to enter the United States who are secure in the knowledge that by setting up shop in such cities, their violations of our borders and immigration laws will go unreported to federal immigration authorities.

Where transnational criminals and international terrorists are concerned, these violations of our borders and our laws are anything but “victimless” crimes.

As I have noted in previous articles, ‘sanctuary city’ mayors should be given an MVP Award by ISIS and drug cartels.

Speaking of local crime and local politics, Donald Trump was not the only Republican to win his election.  Across the United States nearly two-thirds of the governors are now Republicans.

The Republicans control both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives.

Clearly the majority of Americans are not “buying” what the Democrats are peddling.  Yet the Democratic Party refuses to accept these cold hard facts.

At the beginning of the Presidential campaign, on July 2, 2015 a young woman by the name of Kate Steinle was gunned down by an illegal alien, Francisco Sanchez, a citizen of Mexico who had been previously convicted of seven felonies and, as the the Los Angeles Times reported, was previously deported five times.

Reportedly, Sanchez admitted that he lived in San Francisco because of its “sanctuary” policies.

This case ignited a national firestorm highlighting that San Francisco is a “Sanctuary City” that had refused to honor an ICE detainer.  Consequently Sanchez was allowed to roam freely when he should never have been released from custody.

Rather than learn from this tragedy, it has been reported that San Francisco City Supervisor David Campos wants millions of dollars to defend illegal aliens from deportation.

To political leaders, such as Campos, the bodies of the victims of crimes committed by criminal aliens are mere “speed bumps” to his political goals.

While the Steinle murder drew national attention, similar crimes are committed every day across the United States, often on multiple occasions.

Abraham Lincoln sagely observed that “You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”

A growing majority of Americans have had it with the duplicitous conduct of the political elite of both parties.  There is a new sheriff in town and the Democrats, must accept that Americans are not as dumb as they hoped we are.

Categories: 2016 elections, Contesting elections, Democrats, Drug gangs in Mexico, Drugs from Mexico, Hillary Clinton and immigration, Leftists, Obama and illegal immigration, President Elect Trump, President Reject Clinton, Sanctuary cities, Trump and immigration
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Democrats Threaten, Harass Electors: Where is the Outrage?

December 19, 2016

Democrats Threaten, Harass Electors: Where is the Outrage?, Power Line, John Hinderaker, December 18, 2016

(In the highlighted paragraph, it seems very likely that Mr. Hinderaker meant “Obama administration.” — DM)

The Democrats’ ongoing campaign of harassment against Republican members of the Electoral College is a scandal. It shows a complete lack of regard for our democracy. Politico describes how bad the situation has gotten:

In the aftermath of a uniquely polarizing presidential contest, the once-anonymous electors are squarely in the spotlight, targeted by death threats, harassing phone calls and reams of hate mail. One Texas Republican elector said he’s been bombarded with more than 200,000 emails. …

There have been ad campaigns targeting electors and op-eds assailing their role. One Democratic member of Congress has called to delay the vote for president while an investigation of Russian involvement in the election is underway. Two others have pleaded with electors to consider Russia’s role when deciding how to vote. Progressive groups are preparing protests across the country at sites where electors will meet to cast their ballots. Personal contact information for many electors has been posted publicly — and it’s been used to bury them with massive email campaigns. …

Last week saw the release of a video of celebrities like Martin Sheen pleading with Republican electors to vote for someone other than Trump. On Saturday, Unite for America — the group behind the video — began sending personalized versions to electors in which Sheen and more than a dozen others call them out by name.

This is insanity. The election is over, and Trump won. The United States slid down the slope toward becoming a banana republic during the Trump administration, and if electors were bribed or threatened to overturn the result of a presidential election, the process would be complete.

Meanwhile, those who rely on the Democratic Party press for news may not even be aware of the Democrats’ disgraceful behavior. A reader writes:

I cannot find a single news report or, indeed, ANY reference at all in the New York Times that any of this harassment of electors has occurred. None, zero, nada.

Proof, as if any were needed, that the real news is what is not reported; everything else is propaganda. And the Times is the agitprop organ of the liberal establishment’s Inner Party, shamelessly and unhesitatingly so. Intentional spiking of reports unfavorable to the image and, supposedly, as the self-proclaimed “newspaper of record,” to the history of the Party is standard operating procedure for the MSM.

Where is George Orwell when you need him?

Where, indeed?

Categories: 2016 elections, Electoral College, Media and Democrats, Media and Donald Trump, President Elect Trump, President Reject Clinton, Threats to electors
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: 2 Comments

Obama Inc. Didn’t Do Anything About Russian Hacks B/C/ They Thought Hillary Would win

December 18, 2016

Obama Inc. Didn’t Do Anything About Russian Hacks B/C/ They Thought Hillary Would win, Front Page Magazine (The Point), Daniel Greenfield, December 17, 2016

(Please see also Obama to Putin: Cut It Out! — DM)

lovers

If the Dems are endangered, then they might contemplate taking action. If the country is endangered, they don’t care.

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

Set aside everything else about this entire contentious debate and can this be viewed as anything other than an admission of politically motivated treason.

The Obama administration didn’t respond more forcefully to Russian hacking before the presidential election because they didn’t want to appear to be interfering in the election and they thought that Hillary Clinton was going to win and a potential cyber war with Russia wasn’t worth it, multiple high-level government officials told NBC News.

“They thought she was going to win, so they were willing to kick the can down the road,” said one U.S official familiar with the level of Russian hacking.

Again, let’s set aside everything else.

We have admissions by top government officials that they didn’t do anything about the hacking because they thought Hillary would win. If they thought Hillary would lose, as she did, they would have done something.

Their basis for responding to a threat isn’t national interest, but party interest.

This is a point that I made back in October.

Obama shrugged at Snowden. His former DOJ stooge, Eric Holder, claimed that the enemy traitor had performed a public service. But that was back when Russia was merely compromising national security secrets. And endangering national security meets with a shrug and a yawn from Obama.

If not, as from Eric Holder, with outright praise.

But suddenly it wasn’t our defense secrets that were being spilled. It was the Democratic Party’s dirty dealings. And all the outrage and anger that had lain slumbering while our national defense secrets were being plundered by the enemy was suddenly roused to a boiling pitch.

Obama has gone to the featherbed mattresses. This means war.

Reports claim that the CIA is “is contemplating an unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia in retaliation for alleged Russian interference in the American presidential election”.

The right time to launch such an “action” would have been after Snowden or after the theft of top national security secrets by China. The OPM database hack should have merited such a response. Instead the corrupt left-wing elites running this country only respond to threats to their political power.

The CIA wasn’t allowed to strike back when its operatives were endangered. But humiliating Hillary Clinton and John Podesta must not be allowed. National security is disposable. Dem security isn’t.

What’s being communicated here is that Dem officials function like a state within a state. Their concern isn’t for the country, it’s purely for the party.

If the Dems are endangered, then they might contemplate taking action. If the country is endangered, they don’t care.

Categories: 2016 elections, National secuity, Obama and Russian hacking, Obama's hypocrisy, Obama's motivations, President Elect Trump, President Reject Clinton
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Russian Hacking Conspiracy Theory Implodes

December 16, 2016

Russian Hacking Conspiracy Theory Implodes, Front Page Magazine, Matthew Vadum, December 16, 2016

vlad1

The Left’s crusade against Republican presidential electors is kicking into high gear even as the CIA-attributed story that Russian hackers won the White House for Donald Trump is going up in flames.

There is still no evidence –at least none that has been made publicly available– that the Russian government or Russian-backed cyber militias hacked anything to help Trump win the election but that’s not halting the Left’s efforts to delegitimize his presidency before it even begins.

Against this backdrop, members of the Electoral College are preparing to gather this Monday in the 50 states and the District of Columbia to fulfill their constitutional duty. Adding to the drama, some electors are demanding intelligence briefings on the alleged hacking before they vote.

But sometimes not everyone on the Left gets the memo.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch yesterday undermined the Left’s post-election jihad against Trump by rejecting the proposition that the Russian government (or anyone) hacked into voting machines used in the recent election.

“We didn’t see any sort of technical interference that people had concerns about, in terms of voting machines and the like,” she said at an event hosted by Politico.

While community organizers across America whip their followers into a state of frenzy, stories are still being planted in the media by the Central Intelligence Agency or sources claiming to speak for the spy agency. Yet the CIA refuses to be held to account.

When federal lawmakers did their job this week and demanded proof of the Russian hacking allegations, intelligence agencies refused to show up to provide congressional testimony.

Most reasonable people would infer from this appallingly arrogant behavior by the CIA, which has long been home to left-wing Democrats and squishy moderate Republicans, that all this damning evidence we keep hearing about does not actually exist.

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) blasted “Intelligence Community directors” for their “intransigence in sharing intelligence with Congress [which] can enable the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes.”

Intelligence overseer Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) is hopping mad over the CIA’s obstructionism. It is “absolutely disgraceful,” he said, that the intelligence community is refusing to brief lawmakers about the alleged Russian hacking program while false information is being surreptitiously funneled to the media to discredit Donald Trump.

“There is no consensus opinion, and yet we find it in the New York Times and the Washington Post and yet the House Committee on Intelligence was told nothing about this,” King said.

“This violates all protocols and it’s almost as if people in the intelligence community are carrying out a disinformation campaign against the president-elect of the United States,” King said. He acknowledged it is possible that someone in Congress could also be leaking false information.

Obama White House press secretary Josh Earnest escalated the time-limited administration’s war of words against the incoming president.

Referring to Trump’s fabled July 27 press conference at which the media falsely reported the then-GOP candidate had invited Russia to hack Hillary Clinton, Earnest said matter-of-factly Wednesday that Trump asked Russia to use cyberwarfare against Clinton.

“There’s ample evidence that was known long before the election and in most cases long before October about the Trump campaign and Russia — everything from the Republican nominee himself calling on Russia to hack his opponent,” Earnest said.

“It might be an indication that he was obviously aware and concluded, based on whatever facts or sources he had available to him, that Russia was involved and their involvement was having a negative impact on his opponent’s campaign.”

“That’s why he was encouraging them to keep doing it,” Earnest said.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, whose site released thousands of purported emails from senior Democrats during the recent election campaign, threw cold water on the Russian hacking conspiracy theory.

Assange told Sean Hannity yesterday, “Our source is not the Russian government.” He also said the information WikiLeaks received “has not come from a state party.”

What Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the House Intelligence Committee on Nov. 17 suggests Assange may be right.

“As far as the WikiLeaks connection [to Russian hackers is concerned] the evidence there is not as strong and we don’t have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided,” Clapper said. “We don’t have as good insight into that.”

Assange told Hannity WikiLeaks received almost nothing on Republicans. “We received about three pages of information to do with the RNC and Trump but it was already public somewhere else.”

Interestingly, Assange, who has been built up in the media to be some kind of radical anarchist, stood by America’s constitutionally prescribed system for choosing a president.

He said:

There’s a deliberate attempt this week to conflate a whole lot of different issues together. It seems to be as a desire, an extremely dangerous and foolish desire, to flip members of the U.S. Electoral College around into getting up John Kasich or Hillary Clinton on the 19th. It’s foolish because it won’t happen. It’s dangerous because the argument that it should happen can be used in four years’ time or eight years’ time for a sitting government that doesn’t want to hand over power and that’s a very dangerous thing. There’s [Hillary] Clinton-aligned PACs putting out ads with lots of celebrities trying to push these electors to do it.

Who’s doing all this conflating? President Obama, Assange suggested.

Hannity asked Assange if the president knows Russia isn’t behind the Democrat electronic document dump and is “purposefully” pushing a false narrative to delegitimize Trump. Assange replied, “yes … there is a deliberate effort to conflate” underway.

Hannity piled on the CIA, noting that “for over 10 years WikiLeaks has never been proven wrong, not one single time.”

The radio talk show host said the CIA pushed the lie that the coordinated military-style attack on U.S. assets in Benghazi, Libya on Sept. 11, 2012 arose out of a mere protest.

“The CIA advanced that false story that it was a spontaneous demonstration when we now know it was a terrorist attack. And they advanced it through the CIA in Langley,” Hannity said. “There were some people there that were playing politics at the CIA, advancing a false narrative, a story that we know is false.”

But facts are malleable things and reality is never an obstacle to the plans of the Left.

The fact that Trump never asked Russia to hack Hillary and the CIA apparently has nothing to back up its wild allegations is no reason for those who wish to overturn the recent verdict of the American people to back off.

Something called Electors Trust is claiming that somewhere between 20 and 30 Republican electors are considering not voting for Trump on Monday, the John Podesta-founded Center for American Progress Action Fund’s propaganda site ThinkProgress reports. Co-founded by radical Harvard law professor Larry Lessig, Electors Trust claims to provide “free and strictly confidential legal support to any elector who wishes to vote their conscience.”

In a dramatic come-from-behind victory, Trump won 306 of the 538 available elector slots on Nov. 8. Left-wingers want to peel off enough GOP electors to deprive Trump of the magic number 270 he needs to formally secure the presidency in the official Electoral College vote this Monday.

There is almost no chance this coup will succeed but even if the Electoral College were to reach a stalemate Trump would still be on track to become president. With each state’s delegation casting a single vote, the current Republican-dominated House of Representatives would elect a president. The current GOP-dominated Senate would elect a vice president with each senator casting a single vote.

Trump-haters could still try and throw a wrench in the works when the new Congress convenes in January. When Congress begins to officially count the electoral votes, they could apply pressure to lawmakers to contest those votes. But it’s a very hard slog. A written objection has to be made to the president of the Senate, that is, Vice President Joe Biden, and it has to be signed by at least one senator and one House member.

Both chambers then debate the objection separately. Debate is limited to two hours. Afterwards, both the Senate and the House of Representatives rejoin and both must agree to reject the electoral votes for them not to count.

Making matters more difficult for the Trump-blockers, Lessig’s estimate of having as many as 30 sympathetic Republican electors in his pocket is almost certainly a hallucination on his part that helps to create the false impression that his anti-democratic campaign is succeeding.

More responsible whip counts place the number of likely faithless electors in the single digits – enough for an interesting historical footnote but not enough to keep Trump out of the Oval Office.

In an email Lessig cited “three groups that I know of working with/supporting electors,” and said that his faithless electors’ estimate is “based on my confidence in the reports from these three groups.”

Lessig told Chuck Todd on MSNBC Tuesday that he shares the goal of groups like Hamilton Electors to convince at least 40 Republican electors to say they’re contemplating dumping Trump.

Lessig is just one of many mass hysteria-afflicted leftists trying to stop Trump from becoming president.

Some officeholders are demanding a congressional investigation of the supposed hacking saga. Others liken the cyber-conspiracy they fantasize to 9/11 and are demanding an independent blue-ribbon commission be created. Maybe Jesse Jackson Sr. will invite the United Nations to participate.

Up to 55 electors –54 of whom are Democrats– have reportedly called upon Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to authorize intelligence briefings on the alleged Russian cyberattacks before the Electoral College votes. California elector Christine Pelosi, daughter of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is spearheading the effort.

Democrat activist Daniel Brezenoff is paying for full-page ads in newspapers across the country such as the Washington Post and Atlanta Journal-Constitution asking electors to “vote their conscience” and reject Trump, Politico reports.

Then there are the left-wingers who have been doxxing Republican electors.

“Liberal groups, including a new one called Make Democracy Matter, have disseminated the names and contact information of the electors and encouraged people to contact Republican electors and ask them to change their vote,” hippy rag Mother Jones reports. “And those messages are arriving to electors’ inboxes, voicemails, and homes by the thousands.”

So now at least we know where all the death threats Republican electors are receiving are coming from.

Left-wing activists call this kind of in-your-face harassment “accountability,” an Orwellian euphemism to be sure. Accountability actions focus on harassing and intimidating political enemies, disrupting their activities, and forcing them to waste resources dealing with activists’ provocations. It is a tactic of radical community organizers, open borders fanatics, and union goons. Taking a cue from Marxist theorist Herbert Marcuse, they want to shut down, humiliate, and silence those who fail to genuflect before their policy agenda, or in this case, ignore the votes of the 63 million Americans in 3,084 of the nation’s 3,141 counties or county equivalents who chose Donald Trump for president.

Make Democracy Matter, by the way, shrieks on its homepage that “We can stop Trump from imposing his racist agenda on America … we can build systems and structures that protect people from harm and dismantle white supremacy.”

MoveOn plans to run a 30-second ad on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” today featuring faithless Republican elector Christopher Suprun from the 30th congressional district in Texas.

“The CIA report is frightening,” Suprun says in the video even though as far as anyone knows he’s never seen the elusive report.

No doubt the Van Jones-founded Megaphone Strategies, a self-described “social justice media strategy firm” hired by parties unknown to turn Suprun into 2016’s Cindy Sheehan has helped put him in the media spotlight.

In a sanctimonious New York Times op-ed earlier this month, Suprun denounced Trump, saying, “He does not encourage civil discourse, but chooses to stoke fear and create outrage. This is unacceptable.”

After writing that “Mr. Trump lacks the foreign policy experience and demeanor needed to be commander in chief,” he repeats the proven lie that during the campaign Trump said “Russia should hack Hillary Clinton’s emails.” He adds, “This encouragement of an illegal act has troubled many members of Congress and troubles me.”

Suprun, by the way, is quite a piece of work. GotNews discovered he “joined and paid for cheating website Ashley Madison in 2012, using the same address registered to his 9/11 charity, while bankrupt, likely unemployed, and married with three young kids, after he and his working wife owed over $200,000 to multiple creditors.”

More than 35,000 people have signed a Change.org petition demanding Suprun “be removed” as an elector.

And then there are the famous college dropouts from Hollywood.

Something called Americans Take Action, apparently doing business as Unite for America, put together a celebrity-larded public service announcement to urge Republican electors to vote for somebody, anybody, other than Donald Trump on Dec. 19.

In the video we learn that idiot actors Martin Sheen, Debra Messing, Bob Odenkirk, James Cromwell, Noah Wyle, and singer Moby have suddenly become champions of the government-limiting U.S. Constitution.

“Our Founding Fathers built the Electoral College to safeguard the American people from the dangers of a demagogue, and to ensure that the presidency only goes to someone who is, ‘to an eminent degree, endowed with the requisite qualifications,’ ” Sheen solemnly intones in the video.

A somber Messing repeats Sheen’s words, “to an eminent degree.”

You get the picture.

It’s also been fascinating watching left-wingers embrace Founding Father Alexander Hamilton solely because he wrote Federalist No. 68 which explains the Electoral College and the qualifications of a president.

Because the Left’s narrative paints Trump as a rabid Russophile, these people who otherwise would use the Constitution as toilet paper are heeding Hamilton’s warning that foreign powers might seek to raise “a creature of their own” to the presidency.

And they scream bloody murder about Holy Mother Russia, a country they were only too happy to serve in the days of the Soviet Union when Russian President Vladimir Putin was a colonel in the KGB.

KGB collaborator Ted Kennedy must be rolling in his grave.

Categories: 2016 elections, CIA, Contesting elections, Democrats, Electoral College, Leftists, Obama and intelligence, Obama and Russian hacking, Obama's hypocrisy, President Elect Trump, President Reject Clinton, Protesting Trump, Russia and Trump, Russian hacking, Trump and Russia, U.S. Congress, U.S. Constitution, WikiLeaks
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

RIGHT ANGLE: Trump Derangement Syndrome

December 16, 2016

RIGHT ANGLE: Trump Derangement Syndrome, Bill Whittle Channel via YouTube, December 15, 2016

Categories: 2016 elections, President Elect Trump, President Reject Clinton, Trump Derangement Syndrome
Tags: , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »