Both she and the Democrat party……….
Don’t Vote For Hillary. She’s Killing Black People.#BlacksForTrump
— Greg Hilliard (@UnityActivist) September 28, 2016
The parties can arrange their own moderators, keep the hacks out, the msm will fall all over themselves to air the debates nonetheless.
Lester Holt’s actions at the first presidential debate were inexcusable. And also unsurprising.
The day when media lefties were patient enough to believe that the system would work without being this blatant are over. They’ve been open this election about rejecting even the illusion of objectivity.
The only question is why do Republicans continue to allow mainstream media figures to moderate presidential debates? Lester Holt decided to debate Trump. But you can increasingly expect this kind of behavior from any media figure below a certain age to whom the concept of journalism is a dead and incomprehensible notion. Or rather, to them it means that it’s their duty to attack Republicans.
There will no doubt be a raft of fact-checking follow-ups on Monday night’s debate. Hillary partisans will claim she won. Trump partisans will insist he won. Not many people will have heard the debate with the same ears.
That’s where we are in America, 2016.
Just a few impressions.
1. Hillary skated big time. Lester Holt didn’t take her to task on anything embarrassing. That’s actually a key point, because it goes to the way many viewers “heard” and processed the debate.
If they had had a sense that Hillary received her fair share of “put-‘em-on-the-spot” questions from the moderator, they might go harder on Trump for his, um, unconventional performance.
But Holt gave her a pass, while bringing up red herrings designed to keep Trump talking about stupid stuff (e.g., the “birther” business, the “for or against the Iraq invasion” theme).
I don’t know if the media will ever get this, but that lack of even-handedness just makes Hillary look more cynical, complacent, and supercilious, when she’s being cynical, complacent, and supercilious. It drives people to Trump. He comes off looking like he’s a reactive but relatively straightforward guy, being poked for effect unfairly. (And if you don’t recognize the average American guy in that profile, there’s not much I can do for you.)
2. Speaking of the “was Trump for or against the Iraq invasion” theme: the truth about that matter appears to me to be more nuanced than either side of the debate acknowledges. Trump is too reductionist about it, but so are the MSM.
There’s a reason that matters. Again, the media, and too many of the right-wing pundits, still don’t get this, but 2016 is about taking down the rhetorical framework we have all been stuck with for the last 30 years. It’s a framework in which the mainstream media get to take complex or tenuous premises and elide them into gotcha premises, and demand answers from the politicians they don’t like, framed in their terms.
Obama was neck deep in it….fake MSM media nor politicized FBI wanted a serious handling of it.
The feckless GOPe didn’t fumble the ball, they hand wrapped it in pretty paper tied with a bow, and handed it to the Democrats with a stupid looking Cheshire cat smile.
From the moment the EmailGate scandal went public more than a year ago, it was obvious that the Federal Bureau of Investigation never had much enthusiasm for prosecuting Hillary Clinton or her friends. Under President Obama, the FBI grew so politicized that it became impossible for the Bureau to do its job – at least where high-ranking Democrats are concerned.
As I observed in early July, when Director James Comey announced that the FBI would not be seeking prosecution of anyone on Team Clinton over EmailGate, the Bureau had turned its back on its own traditions of floating above partisan politics in the pursuit of justice. “Malfeasance by the FBI, its bending to political winds, is a matter that should concern all Americans, regardless of their politics,” I stated, noting that it’s never a healthy turn of events in a democracy when your secret police force gets tarnished by politics.
Just how much Comey and his Bureau punted on EmailGate has become painfully obvious since then. Redacted FBI documents from that investigation, dumped on the Friday afternoon before the long Labor Day weekend, revealed that Hillary Clinton either willfully lied to the Bureau, repeatedly, about her email habits as secretary of state, or she is far too dumb to be our commander-in-chief.
Worse, the FBI completely ignored the appearance of highly classified signals intelligence in Hillary’s email, including information lifted verbatim from above-Top Secret NSA reports back in 2011. This crime, representing the worst compromise of classified information in EmailGate – that the public knows of, at least – was somehow deemed so uninteresting that nobody at the FBI bothered to ask anybody on Team Clinton about it.
This stunning omission appears highly curious to anybody versed in counterintelligence matters, not least since during Obama’s presidency, the FBI has prosecuted Americans for compromising information far less classified than what Clinton and her staff exposed on Hillary “unclassified” email server of bathroom infamy.
This week, however, we learned that there is actually no mystery at all here. The FBI was never able to get enough traction in its investigation of EmailGate to prosecute anybody since the Bureau had already granted immunity to key players in that scandal.
Granting immunity is a standard practice in investigations, and is sometimes unavoidable. Giving a pass to Bryan Pagliano, Hillary’s IT guru who set up her email and server, made some sense since he understands what happened here, technically speaking, and otherwise is a small fish. The wisdom of giving him a pass now seems debatable, though, since Pagliano has twice refused to testify before Congress about his part in EmailGate, blowing off subpoenas. Just this week the House Oversight Committee recommended that Pagliano be cited for contempt of Congress for his repeated no-shows. That vote was on strictly partisan lines, with not a single Democrat on the committee finding Pagliano’s ignoring of Congressional subpoenas to be worthy of censure.
Now it turns out the FBI granted immunity to much bigger fish in the Clinton political tank. Three more people got a pass from the Bureau in exchange for their cooperation: Hillary lawyer Heather Samuelson, State Department IT boss John Bental, and – by far the most consequential – Cheryl Mills, who has been a Clinton flunky-cum-factotum for decades.
Mills served as the State Department’s Chief of Staff and Counselor throughout Hillary’s tenure as our nation’s top diplomat. Granting her immunity in EmailGate, given her deep involvement in that scandal – including the destruction of tens of thousands of emails so they could not be handed over to the FBI – now seems curious, to say the least, particularly because Mills sat in on Hillary’s chat with the Bureau regarding EmailGate.
This was in fact so highly irregular that Jason Chaffetz, chair of the House Oversight Committee, pronounced himself “absolutely stunned” by the FBI’s granting of immunity to Cheryl Mills – which he learned of only on Friday. “No wonder they couldn’t prosecute a case,” Rep. Chaffetz observed of Comey’s Bureau: “They were handing out immunity deals like candy.”
You mean ”coffin Hillary” is no longer viable for the Dems who raise the dead on election day….?
TOP democrats are meeting to “consider” a replacement for Hillary Clinton after the presidential candidate fainted due to a bout of pneumonia at a 9/11 memorial service, sources have claimed.
Meanwhile planned campaign stops have been dropped by the presidential candidate as she modifies her schedule following doctor’s orders.
The 68-year-old was rushed out of a 9/11 commemoration service today suffering from a “medical episode”, according to a law enforcement witness.
A video later emerged of the Democratic presidential nominee, showing the dramatic moment when her “knees buckled” and she nearly crumpled to the pavement while waiting for a car to collect her.
Now sources have claimed Democratic Party insiders are rushing to consider a replacement candidate in light of Mrs Clinton’s poor health.
Emmy Award winning New York Journalist and MSNBC pundit David Shuster tweeted: “Clarification from dem operatives @HillaryClinton pneumonia: Expect emergency DNC meeting to CONSIDER replacement.”
Gohmert speaks the truth….
And her pervert husband isn’t any better….
WASHINGTON — Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert (R) joked during a speech Friday that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is “mentally impaired.”
“I do want to warn, since most people here are Christians — and I’m serious about this — a true believer knows what Jesus did,” he told attendees at the Values Voters Summit. “You don’t make fun of people who are impaired, have special needs. And whether you like her or not, Hillary Clinton has made clear she is mentally impaired, and this is not somebody you should be making fun of.”
I agree, and it qualifies her for prison……
Donald Trump said Tuesday that recently released FBI documents proved that Hillary Clinton “fails to meet the minimum standard for running for public office,” as both presidential candidates tried to appeal to military and retired voters in Southern swing states.
At a rally in Greenville, N.C., Trump said Clinton’s use of a private email server for her correspondence while secretary of state was “disqualifying,” a pointed escalation of his case against the Democratic nominee.
“It’s clear from the FBI report that Hillary Clinton lied about her handling of confidential information,” said Trump, who added, “This is like Watergate, only it’s worse.”
Late last week, the FBI published scores of pages summarizing interviews with Clinton and her top aides from the recently closed criminal investigation into her use of a private email server in the basement of her New York home.
Biden is the most stupid VP/Senator the US has ever had……….a totally incoherent maroon.
That’s the racialist aspect of the Democrat party, race matters to them, so much so that they’re own is of little significance in pursuit of the big vote, staying in power is the chief aim. They’ll bend their logic into pretzels to ensure their grasp on political power, they’re shameless.
NOTE: In a functioning republic built on the rule of law and unalienable rights, limited government and free market capitalism, it doesn’t matter what the color of the ears may be, just what passes between them.
Erasing White People from America isn't an accident.
It's the plan. They don't hide it. They're proud of it. pic.twitter.com/akUbFUudNx
— John Rivers (@JohnRiversToo) August 24, 2016
Pure politics by the stink-bomb-thrower-in-chief……
He will be rejected, thankfully, no appointment at this late hour in a sitting president’s term would ever be considered. Now if Hillary is elected…..
President Barack Obama today nominated Abid Riaz Qureshi to serve on the US District Court for the District of Columbia, often seen as a major feeder court for the US Circuit Court of Appeals.
“I am pleased to nominate Mr. Qureshi to serve on the United States District Court bench,” Obama said in a statement. “I am confident he will serve the American people with integrity and a steadfast commitment to justice.”
With the current freeze on confirmation for Obama’s judicial nominees – particularly would-be supreme court justice Merrick Garland, whose nomination to replace the late Antonin Scalia has been stymied by Republican lawmakers since March – it is unlikely that Qureshi will be confirmed before the end of Obama’s presidential term, but the nomination is still historic. Of the more than 3,000 federal judges currently serving in the US judiciary, not a single one is an observant Muslim.
“I commend President Obama for taking this important step in continuing to pick the best and brightest from every community to serve as part of our nation’s judiciary,” Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates, a legal advocacy organization, declared in a statement.
“A judiciary that reflects the rich diversity of our nation helps ensure the fair and just administration of the law, and it is vital for American Muslims to be included,” Khera continued. “Mr. Qureshi’s profound commitment to the rule of law and justice for people of all backgrounds makes him an exceptional nominee.”
When former Bush chief speechwriter Michael Gerson wrote a column for The Washington Post headlined “Cancel this reality show,” it sounded like just another anti-Trump column. Or is Gerson calling for a shutdown of conservative talk radio?
It’s understandable that establishment Republicans would despise the dynamic of conservative radio talkers trying to yank party leaders to the right. But shutting them down? Does that sound like reasonable moderation? Here’s how Gerson wraps up:
In this election, we have seen something remarkable. A candidate who reflects the views and values of conservative media was able — with a plurality and a fractured field — to seize the presidential nomination of the Republican Party. But the political universe of conservative talk radio does not constitute anything close to a majority of voters in the general election. In fact, this cartoon version of conservatism tends to alienate key groups of voters, including minorities, Republican women and the college-educated.
Much (not all, but much) of the new conservative establishment feeds outrage as its source of revenue and relevance. It is a model that has been good for Limbaugh and Fox News but bad for the GOP. Republicans are now caught in a complicated electoral dynamic. What their base, incited by conservative media, is demanding, the country is rejecting. A choice and a conflict are becoming unavoidable. Trump’s angry nativism — newly restated in Arizona with a few twists — is a talk-radio shtick, correctly viewed by most of the electorate as impractical and cruel. It is less a proposal than an offensive, unhealthy form of ideological entertainment. And this show needs to close.
Establishment republicans own the last 60-70 years of the dumbing down of society, from feckless efforts to no resistance at all to the onslaught of the Left’s continuous assault against the civil society. During the Reagan years, conservatives had to fight their own party, and losing to some extent because of them, the momentum in turning the tide against full throated statism.
With the Bush years, both Sr. and Jr., the government grew and GOPe hard heads solidified their rule of the party, rejecting Reaganism, while the civil society, from school boards on up to city councils and regional state apparatuses caved to the Leftists’ agenda.
You need a coherent sustained movement that whittles away at the arguments of the anti-American Left, the GOP elite were never equipped to do that, in fact, they made it their creed to object to doing just that, by throwing in with every tin hat loon leftist initiative, perhaps managing to some extent their excesses, but allowing the tide to continue in one way till the Left has solidified their rule.
We are now facing a systemic collapse from their (the Left’s and go-along GOPe) efforts.
I’m not a full throated Trump fan (I backed Cruz) but I’ll vote for him now, as well as forgive his far fetched blatherings and hurtful smears of Cruz, his wife and father (I don’t blame Ted if he doesn’t), for Trump and his surrogates have done far less to hurt this nation than the jackasses of the GOPe.
How dare they sit and lecture us….ever again.
We need to re-enact that law again……
Unlike modern presidents, Roosevelt did not view Islam as a force for good. Instead he had described Muslims as “enemies of civilization”, writing that, “The civilization of Europe, America and Australia exists today at all only because of the victories of civilized man over the enemies of civilization”, praising Charles Martel and John Sobieski for throwing back the “Moslem conquerors” whose depredations had caused Christianity to have “practically vanished from the two continents.”
The anti-immigration bill offended the Ottoman Empire, the rotting Caliphate of Islam soon to be defeated at the hands of America and the West, by banning the entry of “all polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”
This, as was pointed out at the time, would prohibit the entry of the “entire Mohammedan world” into the United States.
And indeed it would.
The battle had begun earlier when President Theodore Roosevelt had declared in his State of the Union address back in 1906 that Congress needed to have the power to “deal radically and efficiently with polygamy.” The Immigration Act of 1907, signed into law by President Theodore Roosevelt, had banned “polygamists, or persons who admit their belief in the practice of polygamy.”
It was the last part that was most significant because it made clear what had only been implied.
The Immigration Act of 1891 had merely banned polygamists. The newest law banned anyone who believed in the practice of polygamy. That group included every faithful believing Muslim.
The Ottoman Empire’s representatives argued that their immigrants believed in the practice of polygamy, but wouldn’t actually take more than one wife. This argument echoes the current contention that Muslim immigrants may believe in a Jihad against non-Muslims without actually engaging in terrorism. That type of argument proved far less convincing to Americans than it does today.
These amazing facts, uncovered by @rushetteny reveal part of the long controversial history of battles over Islamic migration into America.
Muslim immigration was still slight at the time and bans on polygamy had not been created to deliberately target them, but the Muslim practice of an act repulsive to most Americans even back then pitted their cries of discrimination and victimhood against the values of the nation. The Immigration Act of 1907 had been meant to select only those immigrants who would make good Americans.
And Muslims would not.
In his 1905 State of the Union address, President Theodore Roosevelt had spoken of the need “to keep out all immigrants who will not make good American citizens.”
I’ve been hammering away on this for some time now.
Shecky Green Vegas lounge acts are not going to do it for him….
During the 2014 general election, I sat aside my differences with the Republican Party’s more moderate and/or establishment wings, and did what I could to encourage people to vote GOP since control of the U.S. Senate was at stake.
Let’s just say the ROI for that resounding election victory has been underwhelming.
Republicans have rubber-stamped all of Obama’s administrative and lower court judicial appointments. They funded all of Obama’s schemes, and aside from show votes used none of their constitutional power of the purse to stop either Obama’s illegal amnesty or Obamacare. Instead, the GOP opted to file meaningless lawsuits and force taxpayers foot the legal bills for on both sides. Other than filling the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court created by Antonin Scalia’s untimely death, it’s tough to pinpoint exactly how things would be substantively different if Nancy Pelosi were speaker and Harry Reid the majority leader.
In short, Republicans made campaign promises their post-election courage couldn’t cash. And unless politics is nothing more to you than a my team versus your team type of sporting event, those of us who encouraged our audiences to rally behind them at the time did nothing but create unmet expectations.
I fear the same thing is happening in the 2016 election.
We’re beyond debating the merits, or lack thereof, of Donald Trump as the GOP nominee now. That die is cast, and that ship has long since sailed. People’s minds are likely all made up on both sides, and it’s time to just let the voters decide for themselves come November 8th.
This is really about the credibility of our movement, as well as the industry known as “conservative media.” For facts are coming to light, which at the very least cast serious doubt on the truthfulness of some of the fundamental claims/promises Trump made to our people that caused a chunk of them to flock to his candidacy.
A recent investigation into Trump’s holdings shows he may be upwards of $650 million in debt, which is more than twice what was previously speculated. If true, this would show his liquidity lacks the wherewithal to compete against Hillary Clinton. It would also explain why until his recent modest ad-buy, Clinton had outspent Trump $52 million to nothing in campaign advertising through August 9th. A year ago at the Iowa State Fair, Trump pledged to spend a billion dollars of his own money to win the presidency. Fast forward twelve months and Trump has spent only about $50 million of his fortune. A sizable sum, yes, but a meager pittance compared to the at least $992 million Romney and his allies spent to lose in 2012. In fact, what Trump has spent so far is only about 5% of that. Just take a look at Trump’s most recent FEC campaign disclosure for July, where the devil is most assuredly in the details:
The more he tacks towards the conservative (constitutional) position, the more I am open to actually voting for him.
The fact that the Democrat Party is a algorithm of radical nut-jobs who hate America, loathe its constitution (when they’re not using it to eviscerate what’s left of your freedoms), makes it a stark choice this election year.
NOTE: All the more necessary to keep pressuring him to take more conservative views on any given issue, trying to out-marx Hillary & Sanders is a losing proposition.
By Kristin Tate, contributor
“Maybe Trump is onto something…” a friend averred on Monday as we watched Donald Trump’s foreign policy speech unfold in Youngstown, Ohio.
This November, for the first time, my self-proclaimed “apathetic liberal-type” friend will consider voting Republican. For her, as for many young people over the past few months, the terrorist attacks in Orlando, San Bernardino and Nice roused her from her Bernie slumber to see that we live in a real world, with real enemies, and real consequences for inaction when it comes to standing up for our values.
The inaction is that our leaders fail to assign blame where it’s obviously due. When Omar Mateen attacked homosexuals while pledging his allegiance to ISIS, our leaders fell over themselves to tie the tragedy to mental illness, the ill effects of American foreign policy, repressed homosexuality, and American gun culture.
Mateen’s connection to ISIS was hastily downplayed or ignored. Google Mateen’s name in the mainstream press and political commentary, and you are sure to find statements decrying the repression of gays in America.
But it’s the Muslim countries that repress gays, churn out chauvinistic ideology, and spread these ideas around the world. All you have to do is look at what actually goes on in the Muslim world as opposed to what our leaders and press would wish to see in it. If you think Trump is a bigot, take a closer look at Muslim countries; or better yet, go there.
In Ohio, Trump brought a measure of much needed frankness to the national discourse about terrorism. “The United States defeated fascism, Nazism, and communism,” he observed. “Now, a different threat challenges our world: radical Islamic terrorism.” As Trump has intimated elsewhere, the problem with radical Islam is not just violence, but also hateful animus toward our country.
Young voters have long been the targets of “blame America first” narratives, authored by Washington politicians and the academic left. But in Youngstown, they were able to see, better than ever, a raw juxtaposition between the most famous ideas that America exports to the rest of the world and the most famous ideas that the Muslim world exports to America.
While Trump talked straight in Youngstown, our leaders and news media continue trying to blame American culture for the killings in Orlando and San Bernardino. But the current generation of young people — the most open-minded in history — cannot buy into this narrative of self-blaming forever.
Nothing rankles millennials like intolerance. The question before young voters in this election is therefore whether America’s culture of openness is advanced by a leader who will fight to celebrate and protect it, or a leader who is afraid to take a position for fear of being offensive. The choice is surprisingly stark.
It’s why it’s all the more imperative not to simply be a cheerleader for Trump, but be critical of his lefty positions, and steer him towards conservative views.
Hillary will continue the failed policies of the worst President in US history. She'll accept dirty money doing so! pic.twitter.com/fCSwEEBPr7
— vanguard ninja (@INTJutsu) August 3, 2016
One of the few times I can really appreciate something that Trump says.
This relationship with terrorists, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, alone, renders Obama ill fit to serve as president. If the marxist radical-in-chief wants to toss verbal hand grenades, there is plenty in store for the opposition.
Trump fires back at Obama as ‘perhaps the worst president’ in US history https://t.co/PC6XLErtNI
— Israel News (@IsraelNewsNow) August 3, 2016
This who follow this blog regularly already know that she was using her position for financial gain. Like the marxist she is.
That the media is only now just discovering the Hillary email/using Sec-State position for securing funding for her husband’s Clinton Foundation, tells me that they want the openly marxist Bernie Sanders for president.
This latest revelation confirms what we have suspected all along: that Hillary, through the guise of the Clinton Foundation, has indeed been trading influence within our government for donations. Doesn’t get much more corrupt than that.
It’s easy to become numb to all of the scandals surrounding presumptive Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton — even for those who are wide awake to the dishonest, self-serving fraud that she is.
So when a new revelation is enough to jolt even the mainstream media awake, you know it’s big. A newly-released batch of Hillary’s State Department emails reveal the new bombshell that the former secretary of state rewarded one of her large donors with a position on a sensitive government intelligence board — yeah, one involving tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues — despite having no relevant experience. Nepotism — not to mention compromising our nation’s intelligence and security — at its finest.
NOTE: This is the only scenario in which Donald Trump, or a can of orange juice wins for the republicans in November. Too bad it wasn’t true conservative, Reaganite, Ted Cruz.
Sanders is a classic Marxist self hating Jew……but that won’t matter to the Jew haters.
It’s the sole reason why a Ted Cruz or someone similarly minded was needed to run in this election against the anti-American Democrats, in order to take the fight to the Marxists and as well as help kick-start the Reagan Revolution. Trump, a NYC progressive populist can’t do that.
The Palestinian activist appointed by presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders to the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee is a “professional Israel-hater,” internationally acclaimed legal mind Alan Dershowitz told The Algemeiner on Tuesday.
Dershowitz, a fierce defender of Israel and avowed supporter of the Democratic Party, was referring to Arab American Institute (AAI) President James Zogby, whom Sanders tapped on Monday to help draft party policy.
Dershowitz, who said he’s debated Zogby on numerous occasions, explained why he is “not surprised” that the senator from Vermont contending for the Democratic nomination picked him to fill such an influential position. “Bernie Sanders is an ignoramus when it comes to the Middle East, and he is very strongly biased against Israel. He gets his information from hard-Left, anti-Israel sources, and he doesn’t think for himself,” he said.
Regarding another of Sanders’ anti-Israel appointees to the committee — philosopher Cornel West, a BDS proponent who wrote that the crimes of Hamas “pale in the face of the US-supported Israeli slaughter of innocent civilians,” and accused President Obama of being “most comfortable with upper middle-class white and Jewish men who consider themselves very smart, very savvy and very effective in getting what they want”– Dershowitz said, “Putting two Israel-bashers on the committee risks dividing the Democratic Party over an issue on which they’ve always been united.”