Posted tagged ‘Donald Trump’

A Candidate’s Death Could Delay or Eliminate the Presidential Election

August 31, 2016

A Candidate’s Death Could Delay or Eliminate the Presidential Election Chaos would ensue if a vacancy emerges near Election Day.

By Steven Nelson | Staff Writer

Aug. 30, 2016, at 4:55 p.m.

Source: A Candidate’s Death Could Delay or Eliminate the Presidential Election | US News

American democracy would break new ground if Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump left a presidential ticket vacancy before the Nov. 8 general election. Getty Images

The presidential election could be delayed or scrapped altogether if conspiracy theories become predictive and a candidate dies or drops out before Nov. 8. The perhaps equally startling alternative, if there’s enough time: Small groups of people hand-picking a replacement pursuant to obscure party rules.

The scenarios have been seriously considered by few outside of the legal community and likely are too morbid for polite discussion in politically mixed company. But prominent law professors have pondered the effects and possible ways to address a late-date vacancy.

“There’s nothing in the Constitution which requires a popular election for the electors serving in the Electoral College,” says John Nagle, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, meaning the body that officially elects presidents could convene without the general public voting.

“It’s up to each state legislature to decide how they want to choose the state’s electors,” Nagle says. “It may be a situation in which the fact that we have an Electoral College, rather than direct voting for presidential candidates, may prove to be helpful.”

Both major parties do have rules for presidential ticket replacements, however, and Congress has the power to change the election date under Article II of the Constitution, which allows federal lawmakers to set dates for the selection of presidential electors and when those electors will vote.

But Congress would be up against a de facto December deadline, as the Constitution’s 20th Amendment requires that congressional terms expire Jan. 3 and presidential terms on Jan. 20. Though it’s conceivable to split legislative and presidential elections, they generally happen at the same time. And if the entire general election were to be moved after Jan. 3, Congress effectively would have voted themselves out of office.

Yale Law School professor Akhil Reed Amar considers in a 1994 article in the Arkansas Law Review the possibility of a special presidential election being pushed to after Jan. 20, with the speaker of the House serving as acting president until an election could pick “a real president for the remainder of the term.” But he tells U.S. News that scenario probably is far-fetched.

Is it possible for the election to be delayed until after Jan. 20, leaving both the offices of president and vice president temporarily vacant? Perhaps, Amar says, but “it wouldn’t make sense if it were permissible, given there actually are answers. Why would you ever do that?”

Amar recommends an up to four-week postponement of Election Day if a candidate dies just before voting, or even if there’s a major terrorist attack.

The possible last-minute replacement of a candidate attracts some cyclical coverage, but this year the scenario would play out after consistent conjecture about the health of Democrat Hillary Clinton and hidden agenda of Republican Donald Trump.

Trump, 70, would be the oldest person elected president, but his health has received less coverage over the election cycle than apparently unfounded speculation he will drop out. Clinton, 69 in October, would be the second oldest president-elect, months younger than Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Although Clinton’s coughs and stumbling have earned speculative headlines on the news-driving Drudge Report, her doctor, Lisa Bardack, said she “is in excellent physical condition and fit to serve.” Trump physician Harold Bornstein, meanwhile, wrote he would be “the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.”

Old age doesn’t rule out a full presidency. Reagan served two terms before dying at 93 in 2004. Other recent officeholders have lived beyond the life expectancy for the general population. Gerald Ford died in 2006 at 93. George H.W. Bush, 92, and Jimmy Carter, 91, are still living.

If something were to happen to Clinton or Trump before the election, rules established by the Republican and Democratic parties do offer guidelines for what to do.

If Clinton were to fall off the ticket, Democratic National Committee members would gather to vote on a replacement. DNC members acted as superdelegates during this year’s primary and overwhelmingly backed Clinton over boat-rocking socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

DNC spokesman Mark Paustenbach says there currently are 445 committee members – a number that changes over time and is guided by the group’s bylaws, which give membership to specific officeholders and party leaders and hold 200 spots for selection by states, along with an optional 75 slots DNC members can choose to fill.

But the party rules for replacing a presidential nominee merely specify that a majority of members must be present at a special meeting called by the committee chairman. The meeting would follow procedures set by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee and proxy voting would not be allowed.

DNC member Connie Johnson, a former Oklahoma state senator who supported Sanders, says it would be most appropriate for the DNC to give the nomination to the runner-up if Clinton were to die or drop out before the election.

“I believe that’s why Sen. Sanders stayed in the contest,” she writes in an email. “As to whether the party would adopt what would appear to be a common sense solution in the event of [Clinton] no longer being able to serve – that would remain to be seen. There was so much vitriol aimed at Sen. Sanders and his supporters by [Clinton supporters] that they would likely want ‘anybody but Bernie’ in order to save face and maintain control.”

The Republican National Committee’s rules potentially allow for greater democratic input, but don’t require it. If a vacancy emerges on the ticket, the 168-member RNC would decide whether to select a replacement on its own or “reconvene the national convention,” which featured 2,472 voting delegates, that met over the summer.

If RNC members make the choice themselves, the three members representing each state, territory and the nation’s capital – a committeeman, committeewoman and the local party chairman – would jointly have “the same number of votes as said state was entitled to cast at the national convention.”

RNC rules allow for state delegations to split their vote and for members to vote by proxy.

Richard Winger, editor of Ballot Access News and an expert on presidential election history, says state election officials likely would be compelled to accept a major party’s request to swap candidates, citing precedent set in 1972 when states allowed Democrats to replace vice presidential nominee Thomas Eagleton, who was revealed to be a shock therapy patient, with Sargent Shriver.

Winger says every state but South Dakota also allowed the prominent 1980 independent candidate John Anderson to swap his vice presidential candidate Milton Eisenhower for former Wisconsin Gov. Patrick Lucey.

Still, if the central party organizations were to upset electors with an unpalatable pick, it’s possible many could bolt.

Edward Foley, a law professor at Ohio State University, says “the Supreme Court has never ruled that electors can be forced to obey their pledge” to vote for a particular presidential candidate, leaving open the door for mass defections or, in the event of a post-election candidate death, an en masse vote flip.

John Fortier, director of the Democracy Project at the Bipartisan Policy Center, says he’s not certain that Congress would reach consensus on moving an election date if a candidate died, meaning parties would need to formally – or informally – decide on a replacement. If the election date was moved by Congress, Fortier says ongoing absentee or early voting would make for a mess.

Though not legally required, Fortier says parties may decide on an easy fix and loudly encourage electors to support their existing vice presidential nominee. A party legally could pick someone else, but he says a desire for legitimacy in the eyes of the public may force its hand.

With more than two centuries of history, the U.S. does have some examples of candidate deaths, though none with a catastrophic impact.

In 1872, presidential candidate Horace Greeley died about three weeks after winning about 44 percent of the popular vote as a Liberal Republican supported by Democrats against incumbent Republican Ulysses S. Grant. Presidential electors chose between various alternatives, but because Greeley had lost, his death did not sway the election’s outcome.

In another case, Republican running mate James Sherman died six days before the 1912 general election. He wasn’t replaced on ballots and the matter was rendered moot by the GOP’s crushing defeat.

Amar, author of a forthcoming book touching on candidate death, outlines four distinct scenarios that would warrant special consideration because of the wording of the 20th Amendment: a death before an election, a death after an election but before electors meet in December, a death between electors voting and Congress counting votes in January, and the time between Congress confirming the election and the Jan. 20 inauguration.

The three post-election time frames identified by Amar are distinguished by whether the candidate technically is considered “president-elect.” That designation is covered by the 20th Amendment, which allows in case of a president-elect’s death that he or she be replaced by the vice president-elect. But in their narrowest sense, those amendment terms only cover part of January.

Though all considerations accounting for a candidate’s death are hypothetical, they could at some future point become less so.

“We should never forget 9/11 was a local election day in New York,” Amar says.

“Moderate” Muslims? No thank you

August 30, 2016

“Moderate” Muslims? No thank you, Dan Miller’s Blog, August 30, 2016

(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)

In an article posted on August 19th titled “Donald Trump and Islamists,” I stated that I do not use the term “moderate” when referring to Muslims because it is so grossly misused as to have become meaningless. Nevertheless, one commenter stated, “It’s dangerous to perpetuate the myth of moderate Islam,” which I had neither intended to do nor done. This post elaborates on the word “moderate” as it applies to Islam.

The term “moderate” Muslim is often applied to those who do not want to kill for Allah, but who want other Muslims to do it for them and for Allah. Many “moderate” Muslims also want Sharia law for themselves and others. The following video, presented by The Clarion Project, shows Obama and Hillary expressing their views on Islam as the religion of peace. It then rebuts their lies with facts.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and similar Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas-affiliated Islamist organizations are viewed by the Obama administration as “moderate” Muslims. They are integral parts of the “countering violent extremism” scam perpetrated by Obama’s Department of Homeland Security.

Their goal is not to fight Islamic “extremism” but to defeat American constitutional principles by implementing Sharia law. Among their tools is their lamentation of the “Islamophobia” which Islamist terrorist activities generate. CAIR and other “moderate” Islamist groups are so intent upon combatting “Islamophobia” that when they can’t find any they solicit Muslims to engage in anti-Islamic “hate crimes” and then blame them on the “Islamophobia” of non-Muslims. Here are a few examples from Jihad Watch. The linked article provides more.

The Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), designated a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates, and other Muslims have on many occasions not hesita-ted to stoop even to fabricating “hate crimes,” including attacks on mosques. A New Jersey Muslim was found guilty of murder that he tried to portray as an “Islamophobic” attack, and in 2014 in California, a Muslim was found guilty of killing his wife, after first blaming her murder on “Islamophobia.”

This kind of thing happens quite frequently. The New York Daily News reported just last week that “a woman who told cops she was called a terrorist and slashed on her cheek in lower Manhattan on Thursday later admitted she made up the story, police said early Friday. The woman, who wore a headscarf, told authorities a blade-wielding wacko sliced open her face as she left a Manhattan cosmetology school, police sources said.”

. . . .

In today’s politically correct environment, hate crimes are political capital. They foster the impression that resistance to Islamic terrorism equals hatred of Muslims, and results in the victimization of innocent people. Hamas-linked CAIR and other Islamic supremacist organizations want and need hate crimes against Muslims, because they’re the currency they use to buy power and influence in our victimhood-oriented society, and to deflect attention away from jihad terror and onto Muslims as putative victims. Want power and influence? Be a victim! [Emphasis added.]

“OKC man charged in terrorism hoax after allegedly sending letter containing white powder to a mosque,” by Kyle Schwab by Kyle Schwab, NewsOK, August 26, 2016 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):

An Oklahoma City man was charged Wednesday with a felony after he allegedly sent a threatening letter to a mosque containing a white powder meant to be mistaken for anthrax.

Justin William Bouma, 32, was charged in Oklahoma County District Court with the rarely filed felony count known as the crime of terrorist hoax. Bouma also was charged with one misdemeanor count of malicious injury and destruction of property.

Prosecutors allege Bouma sent the letter to the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City on June 1. The imam at the mosque, 3815 N St. Clair Ave., contacted the FBI after opening it.

After testing the powder, the Oklahoma City Fire Department determined it was harmless. Police reported the powder was potassium perchlorate.

Bouma admitted to police on Aug. 18 he sent the “anthrax” letter to the mosque, police reported in a court affidavit.

Bouma “purchased some cheap detergent and placed it in the envelope,” according to the affidavit. Police reported threats in the letter were cut out of a magazine and a newspaper.

On Aug. 11, OK Halal Meat & Grocery, a Muslim-owned store adjacent to the mosque, had anti-Muslim sentiments spray-painted on the back.

Bouma admitted he painted the store but said the imam told him to, the affidavit states. [Emphasis added.]

The graffiti referenced the Council on American- Islamic Relations, also known as CAIR. One statement said “CAIR not welcome.” Other remarks were crude and the terrorist group ISIS was mentioned.

Bouma reportedly attended the mosque in the past. Bouma became a suspect after authorities discovered threatening emails he had sent to mosque members, police reported….

Muslim reformers

Muslims who want to reform Islam are not “moderate” Muslims; neither was Martin Luther a “moderate” Roman Catholic. Both represent small minorities seeking material changes in their religions.

Luther came to reject several teachings and practices of the Roman Catholic Church. He strongly disputed the claim that freedom from God’s punishment for sin could be purchased with money, proposing an academic discussion of the practice and efficacy of indulgences in his Ninety-five Theses of 1517. His refusal to renounce all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521 resulted in his excommunication by the Pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the Emperor.

The changes sought by Martin Luther were feared by the Church leaders because they would disrupt its cash flow. The changes sought by Muslim reformers are feared by CAIR, et al, because they would disrupt governmental approval and patronage and eventually their power over Muslims. Perhaps Martin Luther was, and those who now seek the reformation of Islam are, “radical” — not, however, in the sense that the term “radical” is used with reference to Islam. Martin Luther did not murder those who did not believe as he did and neither do Muslim reformers.

Mecca and Medina Islam

We sometimes refer to those who adhere to the post-Mecca teachings of Mohammad, as they evolved in Medina and elsewhere later, as “radical” Muslims. It is apparently the view of Obama and His associates that they are not “radical” Muslims because they are not really Muslims. Hence, the Islamic State “has nothing to do with Islam.” The murderous activities directed by Sunni Muslims against Shiite Muslims and vice versa and, of course, against non-Muslims and Muslims who express “incorrect” views of Islam, are seen as not Islamic.

Ayaan Hiri Ali(1)

Please see Donald Trump and Islamists for a discussion of the substantial differences between Mecca Islam and Medina Islam.The article provides a lengthy quotation from Ayaan Hirsi Ali — a former Muslim now intent upon the reformation of Islam to coincide with Mohammad’s views as set forth in Mecca and to reject those as set forth in Medina. The differences are quite substantial and there appear to be substantially fewer Mecca Muslims than Medina Muslims.

Sharia law

Sharia law, sometimes referred to as Islamic law, focuses on human rights — as practiced in important Islamist countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia — where homosexuals, apostates and others whose words and deeds are seen as offending Mohammad and Allah are executed, often in the most painful ways possible. The Islamic State does the same and, as noted in the By the Numbers video presented above, millions of Muslims want Sharia law. Are they “radical” or “mainstream?”

Muslim reformers in America oppose Sharia law because it is grossly inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution and is also grossly evil per se. Here are the goals of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy as set forth at the adjacent link:

The American Islamic Forum for Democracy’s (AIFD) mission is to advocate for the preservation of the founding principles of the United States Constitution, liberty and freedom, through the separation of mosque and state.

AIFD is the most prominent American Muslim organization directly confronting the ideologies of political Islam and openly countering the common belief that the Muslim faith is inextricably rooted to the concept of the Islamic State (Islamism). Founded by Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, AIFD looks to build the future of Islam through the concepts of liberty and freedom.

AIFD’s mission is derived from a love for America and a love of our faith of Islam. Dr. Jasser and the board of AIFD believe that Muslims can better practice Islam in an environment that protects the rights of an individual to practice their faith as they choose. The theocratic “Islamic” regimes of the Middle East and some Muslim majority nations use Islam as a way to control Muslim populations, not to glorify God as they portend. The purest practice of Islam is one in which Muslims have complete freedom to accept or reject any of the tenants or laws of the faith no different than we enjoy as Americans in this Constitutional republic.

AIFD believes that the root cause of Islamist terrorism is the ideology of political Islam and a belief in the preference for and supremacy of the Islamic state. Terrorism is but a means to that end. Most Islamist terror is driven by the desire of Islamists to drive the influence of the west (the ideas of liberty) out of the Muslim consciousness and Muslim majority societies. The underlying philosophy of Islamism is what western society should fear most. With almost a quarter of the world’s population Muslim, American security will never come without an understanding and winning out of the ideas of liberty by Muslims and an understanding of the harm of political Islam by non-Muslims. [Emphasis added.]

AIFD seeks to build and establish an institution that can provide an ideological infrastructure for the ideas of liberty and freedom to Muslims and our future generations. We seek to give Muslims a powerful intellectual alternative to political Islam (Islamism) ultimately seeking the defeat of political Islam as a theo-political ideology.

Can the Muslim reform movement succeed?

Under Obama, the Muslim reform movement has not had even a ghost of a chance to succeed. Obama supports such “moderate” Islamist groups as CAIR and has made no attempt to consider the contrasting views of Islamic reformers which CAIR — and perhaps Obama — deem “Islamophobic.” Perhaps the reform movement actually is “Islamophobic,” if one deems Islamism perfect and any reform harmful to the already perfect status quo.

How many have heard of “moderate” CAIR? How many have heard of  “Islamophobic” reform movements such as Dr. Jasser’s American Islamic Forum for Democracy? Substantially fewer, I suspect, than have heard of CAIR, et al. Perhaps the lack of attention afforded the Islamic reform movement is among the reasons many adhere to the view that the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim. Perceptions of the views of Muslim reformers seem likely to change for the better under President Trump.

Conclusions

Insofar as Islam is concerned, we have been living on Obama’s Islamist plantation for nearly eight long years. Blacks have been living on the Democrat Party’s racist plantation for far longer.

LBJ's blacks

Trump has tried to convince Black voters to leave the racist Democrat Plantation. As he recently asked rhetorically, “what do you have to lose?”

What do we have to lose by abandoning Obama’s Islamist plantation? Nothing, but we have much to gain. When we do, our relationship with Islam won’t get worse and seems very likely to get better as Islamic reform movements get a voice in our official policy toward Islam.

Would you prefer to have Islamist organizations such as CAIR, or Muslim reform organizations, speak to and for American Muslims? One or the other will do so.

Will the Clinton Foundation Mark the Fall of Our Republic?

August 29, 2016

Will the Clinton Foundation Mark the Fall of Our Republic?, PJ MediaRoger L Simon, August 28, 2016

bill_hillary_clinton_roman_empire_banner_8-28-16-1.sized-770x415xc

No matter how extreme the future revelations of Julian Assange and others turn out to be, the truth about the Clinton Foundation is already clear. Whatever its original intentions, this supposed charity became a medium to leverage Hillary Clinton’s position as secretary of State for personal enrichment and global control by the Clintons and their allies.  We also now know—as the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel made clear in her recent oped—why Hillary decided to hide all her emails on her “infamous server.”

To my knowledge, nothing like this has ever been done in the history of the United States government. It calls to mind, if anything, the United Nations’ scandalous Oil-for-Food program in which millions were siphoned off from a plan to feed Iraq’s children during the war.

It could even be worse, because of the national security implications. The Clinton Foundation and the State Department were commingled to such an extent we may never know the truth, certainly not before the election since that same State Department has refused to release Hillary’s official schedule before then.

This means, quite simply, that the United States of America has abandoned the rule of law. Maybe we did a while ago. In any case, we are now a banana republic—a rich and powerful one, at least temporarily, but still a banana republic.

The election of Hillary Clinton—our own Evita—will make the situation yet more grave. Consider something so basic as how you raise your children in a country where the president is most probably an indictable criminal and most certainly a serial liar of almost inexhaustible proportions. What do you tell them? What do their teachers tell them? A far cry from George Washington, isn’t it? What does this say about our basic morality and how does that affect all aspects of our culture? The fish, as they say, rots from the top.

Equally importantly, what does our government do as further actionable information emerges as it inevitably will? The Department of Justice, as we have seen, is already corrupt, unable to indict those in power, indeed colluding with them aboard airplanes. The same personnel will undoubtedly be in place. Can we rely on congressional oversight for justice and/or a potential impeachment? What if the Democrats control the Senate?

In the far less serious Watergate era, Republicans like Howard Baker stood up against Nixon. Democrats, however, cling to power the way they accuse Republicans of clinging to their guns and religion and will no doubt avert their eyes, pretending, with their friends in the media, that nothing out of the norm is happening. But plenty is and will. Look to Sweden for the future of America.   And with expanded entitlements and immigration, Syrian and otherwise, don’t look for a Republican revival in 2020. Those days will be long over.

“A republic, if you can keep it,” Benjamin Franklin reportedly said when emerging from the Constitutional Convention of 1787.  Yes, it may be apocryphal, but so are many important statements that are true in concept.

2016 is about to mark the year we lost that republic. It could well be an historical date like 1066, 1215 and 1776. Think about that one.

Which leads us to Donald Trump (as usual).

He is, like it or not, the last man standing to prevent this. He and all of us. And that includes you, NeverTrumpers. There is nothing, repeat NOTHING, that Trump has ever done that comes remotely within the proverbial spitting distance (even from a dragon) of the malfeasances of the Clinton Foundation. The big difference between Trump and Clinton is this: What distresses us about Donald is what he says. What distresses us about Hillary is what she does. Anyone with an IQ in the also proverbial triple digits knows which is worse.

It’s time for the NeverTrumpers to abandon what’s left of their crusade for the sake of the country.

Democrats Have Nothing to Fear but Losing Black Votes

August 27, 2016

Democrats Have Nothing to Fear but Losing Black Votes, American ThinkerEugene Slaven, August 27, 2016

(They have more to fear than that — Clinton Foundation, Clinton e-mails, etc. — DM)

Donald Trump’s outreach to black voters was predictably met with unbridled, laughably over-the-top scorn and derision from Democrats and their media allies – media allies who at this point are so blatantly unfair that one might think they would no longer even have the audacity to object to being mocked as Clinton shills.

Gripped by fear that Donald Trump’s efforts might peel black votes from Democrats in key battleground states, the Clinton campaign has embraced the lowest brand of gutter politics: tying Donald Trump to the KKK and other white supremacist groups.  While slandering Republicans as racists has been a favorite tactic of the left for decades, the offensive against Trump is abhorrent even by the left’s low standards.

Setting aside the fact that unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton has direct, personal ties to a former powerful KKK grand wizard, the left’s line of attack against Trump is the most desperate counteroffensive since the Wehrmacht’s ill-fated Battle of the Bulge gambit in the waning months of World War II.

And yet it’s perfectly rational.

The centerpiece of the left’s critique of Trump’s speeches targeting black voters is that Trump’s arguments are “condescending” to black Americans.  Why condescending?  Because Trump has been emphasizing the disproportionately high unemployment, poverty, and crime rates in predominantly black neighborhoods.  Deliberately amplifying the most provocative snippets from Trump’s substantive speeches, such as the “what the hell do you have to lose [by voting for Trump]” line, the left is incredibly claiming that citing poverty statistics is tantamount to talking down to black Americans, most of whom don’t live in poverty.

It’s true that most blacks don’t live in poverty, and millions of blacks are successful, patriotic, hardworking, productive members of society.  There are black business executives, entrepreneurs, movie stars, music legends, sports icons, writers, artists, and so on.  Also, the president of the United States happens to be black.

But that reality hasn’t stopped the left from arguing that blacks are systematically oppressed.  Indeed, the alleged plight of black Americans has been a central theme of the left for decades, becoming increasingly prevalent over the last several years as radical fringe terms such as “white privilege” have been mainstreamed.

In a stroke of audacious hypocrisy, leftists, who routinely highlight every statistic showcasing socioeconomic disparities between whites and blacks, are now hammering Trump for doing exactly the same thing.  In fact, many of the left’s foremost intellectuals – including neo-Marxists Ta-Nehisi Coates and Cornel West – go much fartherthan Trump, arguing that black Americans are permanently doomed to second-class status in a capitalist society.

There is one key difference between Trump’s and the left’s messages vis-à-vis the state of black Americans.  Whereas the left shamelessly and dishonestly blames so-called white privilege and fictitious institutional racism for the disproportionately high poverty and unemployment rates among blacks, Donald Trump is instead arguing that left-wing policies are at the root of the socioeconomic disparities.

As difficult as it is to establish a cause-and-effect relationship in the public policy realm – the number of dynamic variables affecting socioeconomic conditions reminds us that political “science” is actually more of an art – it happens to be a hard, inescapable fact that left-wing policies governing majority-minority communities have failed spectacularly to achieve their desired ends.  No one disputes this – not even Ta-Nehisi Coates.  And this is a fact unwittingly confirmed by liberals, who, when they’re not ridiculing Donald Trump for his condescending rhetoric, bemoan the high poverty and unemployment rates among black Americans.  In doing so, are they not in fact indirectly acknowledging the failure of their own agenda?

Given the undeniable track record of failure, is it not reasonable to think that a certain percentage of black voters will be open to changing course?  Even if black voters harbor doubts about a Republican Party viciously maligned by its political foes, is it not reasonable to think some will tune out the demagoguery and be open to a new way?  This is the nightmare that keeps Democrats up at night.

There is another fascinating storyline in Trump’s black outreach: the so-called racial dog whistle that Republicans and conservatives allegedly emit in every election cycle has been effectively silenced.

You know the perverse charge: a perfectly innocuous comment made by a Republican that has nothing to do with race is deemed a covert message to racists.  For example, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews in all seriousness claimed that presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s use of the word “Chicago” is racist code.

The examples of leftists hearing dog whistles are infinite, and the absurdity of the charge is belied by the implausible notion that the “racist” vote is an all-important bloc that can swing an election in a Republican’s favor.  More likely, liberals are lying when they claim that Republicans are using racist dog whistles that ironically only liberals can hear.  But what makes Donald Trump’s pitch to black Americans so perfectly devastating to the dog-whistle conspiracy theory is that asking black Americans for their vote and promising a better life for the black community are irreconcilable with the alleged goal of coveting the racist voting bloc by means of racist dog whistles.

Donald Trump is the first presidential candidate to do what conservatives have been exhorting Republicans to do for years: he is making the woeful track record of left-wing policies in majority-minority neighborhoods a major national issue.  He is forcefully presenting the case that every predominately black neighborhood is run at every level of government – local, state, and federal – by liberal Democrats.  He is pointing to the Democrats’ fanatical opposition to school choice and other public school reform initiatives, shared by one of their most vital allies, the teachers unions, as evidence that the left’s agenda is hurting black Americans.

Given the volumes of evidence, Democrats are understandably terrified that a statistically significant number of black American voters will reconsider their allegiance to Democrats and give Republicans a chance.  And given the long-term implications of this possible demographic electoral shift – including the collapse of the Democrats’ race-based coalition – is it any wonder that Democrats and their media allies are counterattacking Trump in unhinged ways that redefine negative political campaigning?

 

Cartoons of the Day

August 27, 2016

H/t Power Line

Trump-Muzzle-copy

 

Hillarys-Office-copy

 

Black-Votes-Matter-copy

 

Powell-made-me-copy

H/t Vermont Loon Watch

press1

H/t Freedom is Just Another Word

benghazimoms

 

The Alt-Right is Coming! Hillary Shrieks.

August 27, 2016

The Alt-Right is Coming! Hillary Shrieks. Front Page MagazineMatthew Vadum, August 26, 2016

hilshreiks

After a terrible week on the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton lashed out at her Republican opponent yesterday as – surprise, surprise – a racist.

But this time, she claims, Donald Trump is backed by a nasty, racist “alt-right” conspiracy that aspires to lynch blacks and Muslims and that laughs at feminist idiocy.

When in doubt, scream “racist!”

That has been Democrats’ rule of thumb since their party’s image took a huge hit when Democrat senators fought the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tooth and nail. Ultimately, the legislation only passed when Republican senators put it over the top.

In her speech in Reno, Nev., the former secretary of state assailed the allegedly racist “alt-right” or “Alternative Right” movement, which she claims Trump champions. It is old wine in a new bottle. Clinton hopes to portray Trump as really, really, really scary – even scarier than he was a few days ago! – because this supposedly sinister new force is backing him.

The proof of alt-right ascendancy in the Republican Party, she said, is the fact Trump “hired Stephen Bannon, the head of a right-wing website called Breitbart.com, as campaign CEO.” (Disclosure: I’ve written many articles for Breitbart.)

Clinton said:

It’s truly hard to believe, but according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups, Breitbart embraces “ideas on the extremist fringe of the conservative right.”

This is not conservatism as we have known it. This is not Republicanism as we have know it. These are race-baiting ideas, anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant ideas, anti-woman –– all key tenets making up an emerging racist ideology known as the ‘Alt-Right.’

               Now Alt-Right is short for “Alternative Right.”

The Wall Street Journal describes it as a loose but organized movement, mostly online, that “rejects mainstream conservatism, promotes nationalism and views immigration and multiculturalism as threats to white identity.”

The de facto merger between Breitbart and the Trump campaign represents a landmark achievement for the “Alt-Right.” A fringe element has effectively taken over the Republican Party.

Not so fast, Hillary.

Alt-right is so new to the American political scene that it is difficult to describe it.

The alt-right that Clinton smears as racist may be more accurately described as a right-leaning, anti-establishment, grassroots movement whose supporters are sick and tired of being betrayed by weak-kneed Republican politicians.

In other words, much of what the alt-right embraces is tactical rather than ideological. It’s edgy and hard-hitting and its proponents like to make a splash. Many of its supporters are markedly younger than traditional conservatives. Alt-right people, who are not all Caucasians, are against open borders and affirmative action; some want trade restrictions imposed, a position mostly eschewed by conservatives in recent decades. The alt-right, unlike much of the conservative movement establishment and the GOP, strenuously avoids accepting the premises of the Left. They’re generally smart, media-savvy, and effective. They reject political correctness and they’re not easily intimidated.

Yes, there are some racist Internet trolls, white supremacists, and neo-Nazis that are attempting to attach themselves to this movement, but they don’t define it. If these people want to call themselves alt-right and pretend that they are, there is not much anyone can do about it.

A few days before his untimely death in 2012, Breitbart.com founder Andrew Breitbart lectured Bill Maher about how destructive it is to call someone a racist. “There’s nothing in this country that’s a worse accusation,” he said. “In America, if you accuse somebody of racism, that person has to disprove that. It’s completely un-American …”

But Clinton can’t help it. She’s being doing it for too long. Now she is building up a boogeyman so she can tear it down. She hopes to make alt-right a swear word and make it stick to Trump.

To this end, her campaign released an inflammatory video containing Ku Klux Klan members saying nice things about Trump. The fact that the KKK thinks highly of Trump is proof he is a threat to the republic, according to Hillary.

Two can play at that game of guilt by association.

The Communist Party USA embraces Hillary, saying “[o]n all the major democratic issues and demands, i.e. collective bargaining rights, racial and gender equity, climate change, immigration reform, etc., Clinton is on the right side.”

Will Quigg, Grand Dragon of the California KKK, endorsed Clinton in March. “We want Hillary Clinton to win,” Quigg said. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda.”

Incidentally, Clinton hailed a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter when he died in 2010 as a “friend and mentor,” saying he was a man of “surpassing eloquence and nobility.” She was referring to the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) who filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Byrd had at one time referred to black Americans as “race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.” Even in his later years Byrd, this man who was an inspirational figure to Clinton, remained a fan of the N-word.

Seddique Mateen, the Taliban-supporting father of mass-murdering Muslim terrorist Omar Mateen, endorsed Clinton, calling her “good for the United States versus Donald Trump, who has no solutions.” In June Mateen’s late son killed 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Fla., after repeatedly declaring his allegiance to Islamic State.

Other Hillary endorsers include unrepentant Nazi collaborator George Soros, self-described “communist” and “rowdy black nationalist” Van Jones, racial arsonist and riot-starter Al Sharpton, porn pioneer Larry Flynt, admitted child molester Lena Dunham, and Viet Cong admirer Jane Fonda.

You can’t choose your supporters. They choose you. Sometimes they reflect what you stand for; sometimes they don’t.

In her oration, Clinton accused Trump of doing what she and just about all Democratic officeholders at the federal level do every day.

“Everywhere I go, people tell me how concerned they are by the divisive rhetoric coming from my opponent in this election. And I understand that concern, because it’s like nothing we’ve heard before from a nominee for president of the United States from one of our two major parties.”

Conservatives know that President Obama, who, like Clinton, is an in-your-face Alinskyite, smears his adversaries more or less every day. He compares Republicans to the murderous mullahs in Tehran and condemns cops for this phantom the Left calls systemic racism.

In 2008 Obama attacked gun owners and churchgoers in his “bitter clingers” speech, told his comrades “if they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” and urged supporters to argue with their neighbors and “get in their face.” In 2009 Obama said that police “acted stupidly” when they arrested his personal friend in Cambridge, Mass. The next year he urged Latinos to “punish” their “enemies.”

This is not an exhaustive list of the current president’s divisive, insulting rhetoric.

Clinton assailed Trump for building “his campaign on prejudice and paranoia” and “taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party.”

Trump, she said, “is reinforcing harmful stereotypes and offering a dog whistle to his most hateful supporters.” She continued:

“A man with a long history of racial discrimination, who traffics in dark conspiracy theories drawn from the pages of supermarket tabloids and the far, dark reaches of the Internet, should never run our government or command our military.”

Such chutzpah. This comes from the woman who coined the phrase “vast right-wing conspiracy” and whose campaign routinely deflects attacks on her by labeling them conspiracy theories, whether the attacks are related to her lethal bungling of the terrorist attack in Benghazi, the email scandal, her failing health, or the bribe processing center known as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

She attacked Trump for “leading the charge for the so-called ‘Birthers.’” Trump “promoted the racist lie that President Obama is not really an American citizen – part of a sustained effort to delegitimize America’s first black president,” adding that with Trump there has been “a steady stream of bigotry.”

Of course it is a well-established fact that her 2008 campaign spread rumors Obama was born overseas. And Obama himself is the original birther. He allowed promotional material from a publisher to claim he “was born in Kenya.”

Hillary accused Trump of anti-Semitism, repeating the lie that “his campaign famously posted an anti-Semitic image – a Star of David imposed over a sea of dollar bills – that first appeared on a white supremacist websites.”

But it’s not actually a Star of David that appears in the graphic to which Clinton refers. The actual Star of David appears on the Israeli flag because it has over time come to be considered exclusively a Jewish symbol. The figure on the poster is an opaque six-pointed star or hexagram that is closer to a sheriff’s badge. A Star of David, by contrast, is a hexagram formed by compounding two equilateral triangles and it is translucent, i.e. not filled in. In any event, nobody can credibly claim Trump is anti-Semitic. He hasn’t said anything that is anti-Semitic. His daughter married a Jew, became a Jew, and gave birth to Jews and Trump was fine with all of it.

Hillary didn’t mention that her party has formally endorsed the violent, racist Black Lives Matter movement and that she has said wonderful things about.

And for the remaining days of the campaign cycle, my guess is she won’t.

Hillary’s Race War

August 26, 2016

Hillary’s Race War, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield

hill

Hillary Clinton has met with leaders of a racist hate group responsible for torching cities and inciting the murders of police officers.

Deray McKesson, one of the Black Lives Matter hate group leaders she met with, had praised the looting of white people and endorsed cop killers Assata Shakur and Mumia Abu-Jamal. The Black Lives Matter hate group had specifically made a point of targeting white people in “white spaces” for harassment. It would go on to incite the mass murder of police officers in Dallas and other racist atrocities.

Despite all this, Hillary Clinton has never disavowed the racist hate group. Instead she doubled down on supporting the hate group and its icons at the Democratic National Convention.

Now, after Trump’s appeal to the black community, Hillary is desperately trying to divide us by race.

Despite Hillary’s latest hypocritical and self-serving accusations, Donald Trump has never held a meeting with leaders of a racist hate group. Hillary Clinton has. And she has refused all calls by police unions to end her support for a vicious hate group that has championed the release of cop killers and endorsed BDS against Israel.

When an 83-year-old great grandmother is viciously beaten by racist thugs and then set on fire, Hillary Clinton has nothing to say. She has remained silent about the wave of racist violence by her political allies that is sweeping this country and leaving victims battered or dead.

Hillary is trading on accusations of racism to distract attention from her ugly record of pandering to racists to get ahead. As Trump has said, “It’s the oldest play in the Democratic playbook. When Democratic policies fail, they are left with only this one tired argument. You’re racist, you’re racist, you’re racist!”

It’s not Hillary Clinton who has a consistent track record of opposing racists, but Donald Trump.

Trump’s first entry into presidential politics was a bid to block Pat Buchanan from gaining the Reform Party nomination. Trump accused Buchanan of anti-Semitism, racism and Nazi sympathies.

Hillary Clinton claimed that Trump had refused to disavow racist leader David Duke. But Trump had already rejected Duke back when he was considering a presidential campaign in 2000. “So the Reform Party now includes a Klansman—Mr. Duke, a Neo-Nazi—Mr. Buchanan, and a Communist—Ms. Fulani. This is not company I wish to keep.”

If only Hillary Clinton had been as consistent in rejecting the company of Communists, Nazis and assorted racists as Trump has been.

Instead Hillary Clinton met with Black Lives Matter racist DeRay McKesson who spends his time denouncing “whiteness.” And on the other side of the racial line, Hillary Clinton praised the “courage, tenacity and vision” of Margaret Sanger who had delivered a speech to the KKK and whose Negro Project had promoted racial eugenics. Sanger’s pamphlet, “What Every Girl Should Know,” had described Australian aborigines as “the lowest known species of the human family, just a step higher than the chimpanzee in brain development”. If this isn’t racism, I don’t know what is.

But according to Hillary Clinton, killing black babies and promoting hatred against white people isn’t racist. But criticizing what the Democrats have done to black communities is.

In her speech, Hillary Clinton denounced Trump’s criticisms of the Democratic exploitation of black communities as racist. According to Hillary Clinton, when Trump bemoaned poverty, lack of ownership and blight in black communities under Democratic rule, that was bigoted.

It’s the opposite of bigotry. Hillary Clinton is so threatened by Trump’s challenge to Democratic hegemony in the black community that she has been forced to resort to the most “tired” of arguments.

There is no defending the track record of the Democrats in black communities. All that Hillary can do is accuse those who point to the tragedy of the inner city of being racists.

The rest of Hillary Clinton’s accusations are equally absurd.

Hillary Clinton accused Trump of somehow being involved with anti-Semitism. This is the same man who said, “I want to thank my Jewish daughter. I have a Jewish daughter.”

The idea that Trump has anything in common with Richard Spencer, the anti-Semitic bigot who coined the term “Alt-Right,” is absurd. There are members of the Alt-Right using Trump to promote themselves. But Trump has no idea who or what they are. And, unlike Hillary, he has a track record of rejecting them.

But Hillary is rerunning her old “vast right-wing conspiracy” meme. Its purpose is to turn the tables on her critics. But her speech is a bizarre rant which claims that Putin has masterminded some sort of global nationalist conspiracy. But Putin isn’t interested in American nationalism. He doesn’t want a strong America. He wants a weak America. He wants the America of Hillary Clinton stretching out a reset button to one of his lackeys and asking the Russian tyranny to forgive us for George W. Bush.

Hillary Clinton denounces Trump as paranoid, but it’s her speech that is throbbing with unhinged paranoia, vague rumors and guilt by association. Even as she tries to claim the mantle of the optimistic candidate, her campaign runs on conspiracy theories and alliances with the vilest of racists.

The Obama years have been the biggest gift to racists of all shades and colors. During his time in office, both the black and white view of race relations has plummeted dramatically. If racist hate groups of both colors are in ascendance, it’s not because of Trump, but because of Obama.

And four to eight years of Hillary continuing this ugly legacy would see them grow even further.

Why would racists want Trump, who has denounced them, when they can have Hillary?

Why would Putin want a stronger America, when he can have more of the inept fumbling and appeasement of the Obama years?

Why would anyone believe Hillary Clinton’s paranoid conspiracy theories when they make no sense?

If Vladimir Putin had wanted to dictate our foreign policy, he couldn’t have done any better than Obama. If black and white racists had wanted to divide us by race, they couldn’t have done any better than Obama.

Hillary Clinton’s disgusting accusations are an attempt to divert attention from the real issues that Trump has raised, from black suffering under Democratic rule to Islamic terrorism.

As Trump has said, “People who speak out against radical Islam, and who warn about refugees, are not Islamophobes. They are decent American citizens who want to uphold our values as a tolerant society, and who want to keep the terrorists out of our country.”

Hillary Clinton wants to bring the terrorists to this country. She wants to continue destroying our national security the way that her mentor in the White House has been doing.

And she will tell any lie and launch any smear to crawl her way to power. Now she’s trying to play on racial divisions while trying to attribute her own tactics to Donald Trump.

Donald Trump: Hillary Clinton Attacking ‘Millions of Decent Americans’ with Racism Charge

August 25, 2016

Donald Trump: Hillary Clinton Attacking ‘Millions of Decent Americans’ with Racism Charge, Breitbart, Alex Swoyer, August 25, 2016

(Please see also, Donald Trump is Right: Hillary Clinton Is a Bigot. Here Are 10 Examples.– DM)

Trump-New-Hampshire-AP-640x480

Donald Trump addressed Hillary Clinton’s upcoming remarks on the “alt-right” movement during his campaign rally in New Hampshire on Thursday, saying it’s “the oldest play in the Democratic playbook” and that although Democrats always return to that same well, “the well has run dry.”

Trump stated:

The news reports are that Hillary Clinton is going to try to accuse this campaign, and the millions of decent Americans who support this campaign, of being racists. It’s the oldest play in the Democratic playbook. When Democratic policies fail, they are left with only this one tired argument. It’s the last refuge of the discredited politician. They keep going back to this same well, but the well has run dry.

“She’s attacking all of the decent people — of all backgrounds — that support this incredible, once in a life-time movement,” he added, saying she isn’t just attacking him.

Trump called on the voters — including African Americans and Hispanics — who have been disenfranchised by the Democratic Party to “reject the politicians who have failed them and vote for change.”

The Republican nominee said that four in 10 African American children are living in poverty and more than 58 percent of black youth aren’t working. “I’m for change. She doesn’t want change.”

“Every policy Hillary Clinton supports is a policy that has failed and betrayed communities of color in this country. But she just doesn’t care – she’s too busy raking in cash from the people rigging the system,” Trump charged.

Trump railed against Clinton’s controversial relationship between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation during her time as secretary of state, which some suggest shows a pay-for-play scheme, declaring that “It’s time the Clintons were held accountable for their inappropriate conduct.”

The crowd chanted, “Lock her up! Lock her up!” a number of times during the rally.

The New Yorker said it’s important to vote for him on Nov. 8 and not to allow Clinton to be elected as President of the United States. “No risk to America was too great.”

“We must vote on November 8th to keep the American government from being sold to the highest bidder,” he stressed. “Vote to save your country.”

Jeff Sessions Full Interview on Fox & Friends | Fox Bews (8/25/2016)

August 25, 2016

Jeff Sessions Full Interview on Fox & Friends | Fox Bews (8/25/2016) via YouTube

Watch: Hannity, Trump Console ‘Angel Moms’

August 24, 2016

Watch: Hannity, Trump Console ‘Angel Moms’

by Breitbart TV

23 Aug 2016

Source: Watch: Hannity, Trump Console ‘Angel Moms’ – Breitbart

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump and Fox News host Sean Hannity consoled “angel moms” who lost their children to crimes committed by illegal immigrants during a town hall event broadcast on Tuesday.