Posted tagged ‘Clinton campaign’

Complaint Filed Against Clinton’s Campaign Following O’Keefe Videos

October 19, 2016

Complaint Filed Against Clinton’s Campaign Following O’Keefe Videos, Washington Free Beacon, October 19, 2016

hilclintonHillary Clinton / AP

An election integrity group has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission following the release of undercover videos from James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), an Indiana-based group that litigates to protect election integrity, submitted the complaint Tuesday to the Office of the General Counsel at the FEC claiming that Hillary Clinton’s campaign committee and other left-wing groups may have violated campaign finance laws.

“This complaint is based on information and belief that respondents have engaged in public communications, campaign activity, targeted voter registration drives, and other targeted GOTV [get out the vote] activity under 11 C.F.R. 100.26 and 11 C.F.R. 114.4 at the request, direction, and approval of the Hillary for America campaign committee and the Democratic National Committee in violation of 11 C.F.R. 109.20 and 11 C.F.R. 114.4(d)(2) and (3),” the complaint states.

“Complainant’s information and belief is based on findings from an investigation conducted by Project Veritas Action and their published reports regarding the same, as well as on news sources.”

“‘If the Commission, upon receiving a complaint … has reason to believe that a person has committed, or is about to commit, a violation of [the FECA] … [t]he Commission shall make an investigation of such alleged violation … ‘ 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(2); see also 11 C.F.R. § 111.4(a).”

PILF argues that the groups within the videos–which were caught on tape discussing possible voter fraud scenarios–have organized voter registration drives and other GOTV activities that could have potentially registered people who are not United States citizens.

“On the same information and belief, these voter registration drives and other GOTV activity were coordinated with DNC and HFA by express communication through agents of Democracy Partners and The Foval Group,” the complaint reads. “These communications resulted in coordination of voter registration activity in violation of 11 C.F.R. 114.4(c)(2) and (d)(2)-(4) by all parties involved.”

The complaint also mentions the “paid protesters” referenced by Democratic operatives within the videos who were allegedly paid to incite violence at Donald Trump rallies.

“Upon information and belief, and based upon the facts set forth above, Respondents Hillary for America, the Democratic National Committee, Democracy Partners, Americans United for Change, and their agents, named and unnamed above, have, each of them, individually and collectively, violated the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, and must be held accountable and liable for their unlawful actions,” the complaint concludes.

Clinton campaign treasurer Jose H. Villarreal, the Democratic National Committee, Democracy Partners, Americans United for Change, Scott Foval, and Voces de la Frontera Action are additionally listed as respondents on the complaint alongside Hillary for America.

J. Christian Adams, president of PILF, hopes the FEC will investigate the matter.

“American voter rolls are corrupted with unacceptable numbers of aliens who are illegally registered to vote,” Adams said. “Groups should not be coordinating with campaigns and political parties to exploit vulnerabilities in our election system. We hope this matter is fully investigated by the FEC and that if aliens are voting, they are prosecuted by the Justice Department. That would mark a change in DOJ policies of the last 7 years.”

A deep dive into the WikiLeaks revelations

October 18, 2016

A deep dive into the WikiLeaks revelations, Fox News via YouTube, October 17, 2016

Rigging the Election – Video I: Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies

October 17, 2016

Rigging the Election – Video I: Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies, Project Veritas via YouTube, October 17, 2016

 

The blurb beneath the video states,

In this explosive new video from Project Veritas Action, a Democratic dirty tricks operative unwittingly provides a dark money trail to the DNC and Clinton campaign. The video documents violence at Trump rallies that is traced to the Clinton campaign and the DNC through a process called birddogging.

A shady coordinated communications chain between the DNC, Clinton Campaign, Hillary Clinton’s Super PAC (Priorities) and other organizations are revealed. A key Clinton operative is on camera saying, “It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherfucker.”

What Should Americans Be Talking About?

October 17, 2016

What Should Americans Be Talking About? Gatestone Institute, Judith Bergman, October 17, 2016

Should Americans uphold the Judeo-Christian values, which have governed Western civilization until now? Or should they quietly allow the defeat of those values by a false liberalism — false, because it is anything but liberal — which will allow values, such as that of Islamic sharia religious law to settle over the United States? Will people willingly surrender their own culture in order to avoid becoming victims of intimidation?

Worse, these policies often come in the seemingly benign-sounding terms of “diversity”, “multiculturalism”, “peace”, “anti-racism”, and “human rights”; but are often used in an Orwellian way to mean their own opposites. “Diversity” means, “It is great to look different so long as you think the same way I do” and is also an acceptance of Islamic values. “Anti-racism” often means, in a racist way, anti-white or anti-Jew. “Human rights” now means a political agenda. “Peace” is used to mean the destruction of Israel. “Multiculturalism” means any culture except the Judeo-Christian one — regardless of whether that culture supports denigrating women, slavery, flogging, amputating limbs, murdering gays and the intolerance of all other religions and cultures. These inversions of language are having devastating consequences not only on university campuses, but also throughout the U.S. and abroad.

“The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all [that] the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…” — Muslim Brotherhood, 1991.

The question of whether to submit to these policies, as Europe is doing, or to uphold freedom, as Israel is doing, has arrived in the United States. The choice Americans make will immeasurably affect not just the US, but, despite sounding melodramatic, the future of Western civilization.

For the American voter, issues of immense urgency to the survival of the free world — such as individual freedom, dispassionate enquiry and freedom of speech and thought, which we dangerously have come to take for granted — are being derailed by crude language and behavior, when Americans need to be paying attention to serious threats to the United States, its allies and to the values of the West.

Internationally, these threats come from Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, and countless terrorist groups.

Domestically, they appear in the form of massive corruption — financial and otherwise — that is visibly hollowing out American institutions, such as the FBI (the failure to follow investigative procedure, followed by calls for FBI Director James Comey’s resignation); the Department of Justice (the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal, and the Attorney General meeting with a former president whose wife is under investigation); the State Department (email leaks are still yielding up evidence of collusion between the Clinton Global Initiative and the State Department under Hillary Clinton); the IRS (targeting conservative non-profits, and raiding the businesses of private citizens, who disagree with policy); the Environmental Protection Agency’s attempt to acquire power over every puddle in America) and the Executive branch in the “I have a pen and I have a phone” president’s dealings with Iran.

There have also been attempts by outsiders to incite racial and religious anarchy. The entrepreneur George Soros, for example, donated $33 million to turn events in Ferguson, Missouri from a local protest into chaos.

1952There have been attempts by outsiders to incite racial and religious anarchy. The entrepreneur George Soros, for example, donated $33 million to turn events in Ferguson, Missouri from a local protest into chaos. (Image source: World Economic Forum)

Instead of helping Americans to create a safer, more prosperous way of life, the Ferguson events destroyed a community, devastated small business owners, and eroded security, the rule of law, and any hope for a better future. Who benefits? Creating chaos embeds a political dependency: rather than helping people to climb out of poverty, it keeps them voting for politicians to “rescue” them.

Jews and Israel are also targeted — often, regrettably, by other Jews, who appear naïvely to hope that they will thereby “immunize” themselves from attacks on Jews. Recently, for example, an article accused the U.S. Republican presidential election campaign of “significantly enhancing the presence of antisemitism in the public arena.”

Seriously?

While “conservative” radicals, such as white supremacists do exist, they are not even close to overtaking the mainstream discourse. That space, rather, seems to have been filled in the last decades by self-described “liberals” who now seem to dominate it to such a degree that the Dean of Students at the University of Chicago, John Ellison, felt obliged to write a letter warning prospective applicants not to expect a “safe space.” “Conservative” radicals are not the ones hunting down Jews — “liberals” and Islamists are victimizing and shutting them out.

Ironically of course, the liberals have not yet figured out that the agendas of these two groups are incompatible (as in gender equality); perhaps they are trying to “immunize” themselves, too.

Public debate in the US, particularly in the next few weeks, really needs to be about choosing what policies would actually improve the lives of Americans. Should they uphold the Judeo-Christian values, which have governed Western civilization until now? Or should they quietly allow the defeat of those values by a false liberalism — false, because it is anything but liberal — which will allow values, such as that of Islamic sharia religious law to settle over the United States? Will people willingly surrender their own culture in order to avoid becoming victims of intimidation?

American university campuses, which should proudly be championing debate of all ideas, have instead been rife with antisemitism for years, mostly because a “thought police” obsessed with identity politics — another way of saying my race, religion, skin color or sexual proclivity is good, yours is not — has overtaken campuses and turned them into embittered war-zones. It is postmodern Stalinism.

Worse, these policies often come in the seemingly benign-sounding terms of “diversity”, “multiculturalism”, “peace”, “anti-racism”, and “human rights”; but are often used in an Orwellian way to mean their own opposites. “Diversity” means, “it is great to look different so long as you think the same way I do” and is also and acceptance of Islamic values. “Anti-racism” often means, in a racist way, anti-white or anti-Jew. “Human rights” now means a political agenda. “Peace” is used to mean the destruction of Israel. “Multiculturalism” means any culture except the Judeo-Christian one — regardless of whether that culture supports denigrating women, slavery, flogging, amputating limbs, murdering gays and the intolerance of all other religions and cultures. These inversions of language are having devastating consequences not only on university campuses, but also throughout the U.S. and abroad.

The glue that brings “liberals” and Islamists, such as the Muslim Students Association (MSA) in the US (a front[1] for the Muslim Brotherhood), together in a common cause is the goal of eradicating Israel — of course always only under the euphemisms of “helping Palestinians” and “Peace,” even though Jihadi camps for children were organized first by Palestinians.

A 1991 official document authored by the Muslim Brotherhood outlines its strategic goals for civilizational jihad in North America. It depicts the Muslim Brotherhood’s plans for civilization jihad in the United States stating:

“The process of settlement is a “Civilization-Jihadist Process” with all [that] the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and “sabotaging” its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers… [W]e must possess a mastery of the art of “coalitions”, the art of “absorption” and the principles of “cooperation.”

The question of whether to submit to these policies, as Europe is doing, or to uphold freedom, as Israel is doing, has arrived in the United States. The choice Americans make will immeasurably affect not just the US, but, despite sounding melodramatic, the future of Western civilization.

________________-

[1] In a 1991 official document authored by the Muslim Brotherhood, outlining its strategic goals for civilizational jihad in North America, the Muslim Students Association was mentioned as “one of our organizations and the organizations of our friends”, that is, a front group for the Muslim Brotherhood. The document was entered as evidence in the 2008 Holyland Terror Funding Trial.

 

The Selling of America—by the Clinton Campaign

October 17, 2016

The Selling of America—by the Clinton Campaign, PJ MediaRoger L Simon, October 16, 2016

hillary_selling_of_america_banner_10-16-1-sized-770x415xc

While the American public is having their brains numbed by endless retellings of Donald Trump’s decades-old putatively unwanted sexual advances, the media is almost entirely, in many cases deliberately, ignoring the far more significant revelations being made by WikiLeaks. What does the media care? It doesn’t affect them, just the common folk. And the disclosures might impede the coronation of Queen Hillary.

Many stories have drifted by almost without notice — including confirmation that the president of the United States lied when he claimed he learned  of Hillary Clinton’s private email server only when the public did. He had been communicating with her on it for over a year on multiple occasions under a pseudonym. (If a President Trump had done such a thing, the cries for his impeachment would drown out the Super Bowl.) Andrew McCarthy has cited this as the reason the FBI was prevented from recommending the prosecution of Clinton. To have done so would have implicated the president himself.

Today’s “Podesta Emails” revelations from WikiLeaks bring up another matter—money. The foreign kind. As the Federal Elections Commission notes, “Foreign nationals are prohibited from making any contributions or expenditures in connection with any election in the U.S.”

The reasons for this should be obvious—foreign subversion of our national interest, etc.—but, as we shall see, the crew at Hillary Clinton HQ evidently wasn’t convinced these risks were serious, not serious enough anyway to merit observing the federal regulation known to all.

(These are the same people—it should be noted—who blather on about the danger of Russia and insist that Putin & Co. are responsible for their computer break-ins rather than their own embarrassing [and hugely perilous] cyber idiocy.  Unfortunately, there is now evidence that the culprits were notalways the FSB or the Chinese or even the Iranians, but in some cases a couple of twentysomethings  in North Carolina known as the “Crackas With Attitude.” Working with UK teenagers they were, among other things, able to the break into the emails of CIA Director John Brennan, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, turning the results over to Wikileaks. Doesn’t sound much like the NKVD to me—though it does sound as if a lot of people should be fired…. If you read the link, hacking into Brennan’s account was the most simple of all.)

But back to today’s revelations, wherever they came from originally. An email chain–subject line: “RE: Registered foreign agents“—that wound up in the lap of Clinton campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri tells a tale of greed over national interest straight out of H. L. Mencken’s famous remark: “When they say it’s not about the money, it’s about the money.”

On the cc. line and responding at various points were many of the usual suspects: Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook, Huma Abedin (no identification necessary), John Podesta (ditto), campaign general counsel Marc Elias, national finance director Dennis Cheng, and quite a few others.

The issue at question was what to do about donations  from representatives of several dozen countries, some, not surprisingly, misogynistic and homophobic, few democratic.  Included are Iraq, Egypt, Libya, UAE,  Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka,  National Security Council of Georgia, Hong Kong Trade Dvelopment [sic] Council, Embassy of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Kosovo, Republic of Peru, Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Colombia (of Clinton Cash fame) and something called the Breaux Lott Leadership Group for Government of Taiwan that appears to have been bought by a group connected to the Embassy of China.

This only touches the surface because early in the chain Karuna Seshasai, also an attorney,  writes: “This is only 23 names of the first 350 prospective bundlers we looked at pre-launch. I anticipate more coming down the pipeline.

More do. And there follows a debate about what to do. Can they get away with it?  Can they disregard the inconvenient federal regulations proscribing foreign donations? Finally, campaign manager Robby Mook steps forward to clear up the legal and moral issues at hand:

Marc [campaign counsel Elias] made a convincing case to me this am that these sorts of restrictions don’t really get you anything…that Obama actually got judged MORE harshly as a result. He convinced me. So…in a complete U-turn, I’m ok just taking the money and dealing with any attacks. Are you guys ok with that?

And after that “U-turn,” Ms. Palmieri wraps things up with this succinct comment: “Take the money!!

Yes, the two exclamation points are hers.  Don’t believe me?  See the whole chain for yourself at the link below.

But before you do, before you go around assuming our country is being sold out to foreign despots by Democratic Party crony capitalists and that in a society that observed the rule of law these clowns would be up on RICO charges,  just remember what’s really important: Donald Trump may have kissed a woman on the lips on Mother’s Day at Mar-a-Lago.  Now go ahead and read.

UPDATE:  Apparently Hillary was not told of this decision—to take foreign money—but read about it in the paper.  However, she DID NOT move to stop it, just wanted to weigh in on choices. From Law Newz:

After this whole discussion over the course of several days of emails and at least one conference call, nobody told Clinton what the decision was. That turned out to be a mistake, because it got reported anyway. From campaign chairwoman Huma Abedin to Mook (Podesta is ostensible CCed):HRC read in paper that we are taking FARA money

We are going to discuss today in Elias meeting

talked to Elias

Flagging for you

Mook was slightly taken aback:

She doesn’t want to?

Abedin calmed him down:

she just didnt know that we had decided to accept it

wanted to know who the individuals are and wants to weigh in

karuna sending list for meeting

As Law Newz concludes, “And that was that, at least as far as the emails show.”

Clinton Operatives Brag They “Scared off” Chief Justice

October 15, 2016

Clinton Operatives Brag They “Scared off” Chief Justice, Power LineJohn Hinderaker, October 15, 2016

(The strategy seems to have worked. The Supreme Court’s 2012 Obamacare decision — written by Chief Justice Roberts — was worse than a farce, as I wrote here shortly after the decision was rendered. — DM)

In one of the more remarkable Wikileaks exchanges, Clinton operatives Neera Tanden and Jennifer Palmieri took credit for “scaring off” Chief Justice John Roberts by threatening to make the Supreme Court’s decision in the first Obamacare case, NFIB v. Sebelius, a campaign issue. These are the players on the email thread:

Center for American Progress (CAP): a left-wing activist organization that was an arm of the Obama administration and now is an arm of the Clinton campaign.

Neera Tanden: President of CAP.

John Podesta: Former President of CAP, now Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.

Jennifer Palmieri: Former White House Communications Director for Barack Obama, now communications director for the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Jake Sullivan: Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff when she was Secretary of State, now foreign policy adviser to the Clinton campaign.

In the main email in the thread, Neera Tanden harkens back to the first Obamacare case, decided on a 5-4 vote in 2012, and says that she believes the White House “scared off” Chief Justice John Roberts by politicizing the case. She suggests that the Clinton campaign should do the same with regard to the then-pending second Obamacare case, King v. Burwell. She identifies Justices Roberts and Anthony Kennedy as most vulnerable to political pressure:

I mentioned this to John some time back, but think it’s a bit more current now.

It is most likely that this decision has already been made by the Court, but on the off chance that history is repeating itself, then it’s possible they are still deciding (last time, seems like Roberts went from striking the mandate to supporting it in the weeks before). As Jennifer will remember, it was pretty critical that the President threw the gauntlet down last time on the Court, warning them in the first case that it would politicize the role of the Court for them to rule against the ACA. As a close reader of the case, I honestly believe that was vital to scaring Roberts off.

In this case, I’m not arguing that Hillary spend a lot of time attacking the Court. I do think it would be very helpful to all of our interest in a decision affirming the law, for Roberts and perhaps Kennedy to see negative political consequences to ruling against the government. Therefore, I think it would be helpful to have a story of how progressives and Hillary would make the Supreme Court an election issue (which would be a ready argument for liberals) if the Court rules against the government. It’s not that you wish that happens. But that would be the necessary consequence of a negative decision…the Court itself would become a hugely important political issue.

At CAP Action, we can get that story started. But kinda rests on you guys to make it stick.

What do you think? If you want to proceed, we should move soon.

Tanden then added this in a separate email:

And to clarify, the candidate wouldn’t have to do anything. I think we could move the story with just a nod from the campaign on the strategy.

Note how CAP seamlessly coordinates with the Clinton campaign, taking directions on whether to “move the story” from campaign officials. Tanden makes no pretense of independence.

Jake Sullivan responded that he is “into it,” but would “defer to Jen on this one.” Palmieri gave the green light:

She has already been making this an issue. Not sure how in depth you are suggesting but seems like this should be manageable.

Of course, the liberals’ belief that Justices Roberts and Kennedy can be influenced by political pressure, and that such pressure was “pretty critical” to the decision upholding Obamacare’s constitutionality, could be wrong. Their conversation is, in any event, chilling.

Via InstaPundit and the Wall Street Journal.

WikiLeaks: Podesta Agreed that Iran Deal is Disastrous

October 15, 2016

WikiLeaks: Podesta Agreed that Iran Deal is Disastrous, Power Line, Paul Mirengoff, October 14, 2016

Among the recent WikiLeaks documents is an exchange between John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, and John Anzalone of something called Anzalone Liszt Grove Research. Anzalone sent Podesta an email that consisted of a quote from Sen. Mark Kirk contained in a BuzzFeed article about the Iran deal. Analone also included a link to the article.

In the quoted portion of the article, Kirk said that the Iran deal “condemns the next generation to cleaning up a nuclear war in the Persian Gulf.” Kirk added: “This is the greatest appeasement since Chamberlain gave Czechoslovakia to Hitler.”

Podesta responded to this email by saying: “Yup.”

Hillary Clinton backed the Iran deal and continues to do so. Nor is she alone. Virtually the entire Democratic Party publicly supports this disastrous agreement.

Neither Podesta nor the Clinton campaign has denied the authenticity of the email exchange, according to this report from a Chicago television station. Instead, Podesta condemned Russia for the leaks which he says are designed to help Donald Trump.

Regardless of how one views the leaks, many of them have been enlightening. The Podesta-Anzalone exchange is no exception. I see no explanation for Podesta’s “yup” other than his concurrence with Sen. Kirk’s grim assessment of the Iran deal. Thus, we can conclude that Podesta agreed with Kirk that the centerpiece of President Obama’s foreign policy, supported by Hillary Clinton, is atrocious.

I wonder whether Hillary agrees. If so, it’s another example of her duplicity, but also a rare instance of sound judgment.

Memory Lane, With a Suggestion for Trump and a Cartoon

October 14, 2016

Memory Lane, With a Suggestion for Trump and a Cartoon, Power Line, John Hinderaker, October 14, 2016

It is interesting to see the news dominated by allegations of sexual boorishness by Donald Trump. Some of us are old enough to remember when Bill Clinton was disbarred and fined $90,000 because he committed perjury in a sexual harassment case. In those days, of course, Democrats insisted all of that was “just about sex,” and demanded that we stop talking about it. Same with the Lolita Express, I guess.

That was then and this is now. Or, more pertinently, that was a Democrat and this is a Republican. So here is an idea: Trump should point out that he was a Democrat when the boorishness in question happened (or didn’t), and therefore it is dirty pool to mention those events. Or else he can say that since then he has reformed his behavior, as well as his politics.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton appears to have stopped campaigning. She has no public appearances scheduled prior to the final presidential debate. Apparently she is happy to let the press campaign for her. Michael Ramirez comments; click to enlarge:

clintonmedia

Carlson: Imagine If Anyone Said About Muslims What Clinton Aides Said About Catholics

October 13, 2016

Carlson: Imagine If Anyone Said About Muslims What Clinton Aides Said About Catholics, Fox News via YouTube, October 12, 2016

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8mL_gbrZ7Q

“Stronger Together” Under Hillary Clinton? I Don’t Think So

October 13, 2016

“Stronger Together” Under Hillary Clinton? I Don’t Think So, Power LinePaul Mirengoff, October 13, 2016

“Stronger together” is Hillary Clinton’s campaign slogan. Like most of what comes out of Hillary’s mouth, it is insincere. Clinton has written off approximately 20 percent of the American public as deplorable and irredeemable. Her top aides express contempt for traditional Catholics, evangelicals, and Jews who support Israel.

But let’s look beyond the inevitable Clinton insincerity and ask whether, under a Hillary presidency, America would be stronger together.

We must first ask what makes America strong. I believe there are four main elements.

First, America must have a strong military. Second, America must have a shared belief that it is great, and not just “because it is good.” Third, America must hold its citizens to high standards of personal conduct. Fourth, America must be a meritocracy and must judge merit without regard to extraneous factors such as race, ethnicity, and gender.

Would an America unified behind Hillary Clinton’s left-liberal leadership and vision satisfy these requirement? I don’t think so.

First, America’s military is in steep decline under President Obama. Marco Rubio laid out some of the sorry details here. In all likelihood, this decline would continue under Hillary Clinton.

Second, Hillary Clinton’s stated position on American greatness is that “America is great because it is good.” Coming from Hillary, this tired phrase is code for the claim that American greatness depends on policies such as open borders and liberal largess.

The real left-liberal view of American greatness is even more disturbing. It holds that America is anything but great. Political leaders like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have manifested this view by running around the world apologizing for American foreign policy.

Meanwhile, under the guidance of left-liberal intellectuals, the rejection of American greatness has become the organizing principle behind a new way of teaching of American history to top high schools students.

Can America be great if it teaches students that it isn’t even good?

Third, Hillary Clinton and her fellow left-liberals want to hold Americans to lower standards of personal conduct than those currently embodied in the criminal law. They want to release criminals, set lower sentences, and decriminalize certain conduct. They also want to impose substantially less discipline on disruptive students.

Their main argument in favor of these measures is that certain segments of the population bear a “disproportionate” burden as a result of current standards. Thus, they want standards lowered because some groups have difficulty adhering to them. Such laxity won’t make America stronger; it will weaken us.

Finally, Hillary Clinton and her fellow left-liberals oppose a meritocracy in which merit is judged without regard to factors like race, ethnicity, and gender. Instead, they favor a spoils system in which a share of rewards — e.g. admission to college and accession to jobs — is set aside for African-Americans, Latinos, and (where necessary) females. This system produces a lowering of quality and a sense of entitlement antithetical to a strong America.

For these reasons, America won’t be “stronger together” under Hillary Clinton’s leadership. Rather, it will be stronger if those who oppose the left-liberal policies and viewpoints described above maintain a status apart. That way, we can uphold a vision of what a strong America truly is like and, as Hillary’s America begins to unravel, perhaps persuade a critical mass of Americans of the soundness of our vision.