Why Should We All Have To Play By The Same Rules?

On Friday The Washington Free Beacon posted a story about a group in Colorado that was working toward a $12 an hour minimum wage.

The article reports:

Colorado Families for a Fair Wage, which obtained the signatures needed to place a measure requiring a $12 minimum wage on the November ballot, paid many of its petition handlers less than $12 an hour, according to paperwork filed with the state and obtained by in the Washington Times.

“According to a circulator and wage report filed with the Colorado Secretary of State’s office by proponents of increasing the minimum wage, 24 of the workers collecting signatures to get on the ballot were paid less than $12 an hour,” the Times reported. “The report was obtained Keep Colorado Working, the opposition campaign, in an open records request.”

Colorado Families for a Fair Wage is a coalition of liberal groups, including prominent labor unions, such as the AFL-CIO and American Federation of Teachers. The group denied the allegations that it failed to pay its employees adequate wages following the Washington Times report, blaming “clerical errors” in campaign filings for the gap in pay.

“Every person working on the minimum wage ‘$12 by 2020’ ballot initiative has earned a minimum of $12 an hour and more because it’s crucial that the paychecks of Colorado working families can cover housing, food and other basics, campaign manager Patty Kupfer said in a release. “We included pay policy language in our office policy document to specifically ensure that every worker would earn at least $12 an hour.”

The group said it will file amended paperwork with the secretary of state’s office to reflect that it paid all of its workers at least $12 an hour.

How embarrassing. Either they paid their workers less than the minimum wage they were working toward or the people they paid the proposed minimum wage were not competent enough to do their job right. Either way it’s embarrassing.

There is something being overlooked here, and I don’t know why. The minimum wage was never intended to support a family or an individual living on their own–it was intended to provide a gateway into the workforce to enable people to learn the real basic job skills–showing up on time, respecting authority, being curteous, and other basic fundementals. So what happened? Unions discovered that if the minimum wage increased, the unions could bargain for higher wages for their members. Note that the Colorado Families for a Fair Wage includes prominent labor unions. Because much of the American public does not understand the purpose of the minimum wage, the fact that raising the minimum wage significantly will put small businesses out of business and cause employees to lose hours or jobs is not considered by most people.

There is also the aspect of illegal immigration. As long as America has thousands of illegal immigrants who are willing to work under the table for below minimum wage, raising the minimum wage is going to do more harm than good. One of the problems in the battle to close our borders to illegal immigration is that the U. S. Chamber of Commerce is a major campaign contributor to politicians (particularly Republicans). The Chamber of Commerce is an organization of businessmen. These businessmen like the fact that illegal immigration is a source of cheap labor. As long as the Chamber of Commerce continues to pour money into political campaigns, our illegal immigration problem will continue. That is the way Washington currently works. Until people are elected to office at all levels who are not part of the current system and not interested in becoming part of the current system, illegal immigration will continue and because unions contribute heavily to Democratic campaigns, the minimum wage will probably be raised past the point where it makes economic sense. That is where we are.

A Few Random Notes About The Alt-Right

I guess I am a member of the alt-right. I left the Republican Party last Spring because I felt that the party was disingenuous in its treatment of Donald Trump and the duly-elected Chairman of the North Carolina Republican party. Donald Trump was not my choice in the Republican Primary (in North Carolina unaffiliated voters get to vote in whichever party primary they choose); however, I felt that the Republican Party should accept the choice of the voters. I watched the party do everything in its power to prevent the voice of the voters from being heard. The voice of the voters represented a serious threat to the party establishment and the powers that be. The Republican Party has still not fully supported Donald Trump, and I doubt they will. The Republican establishment would rather see Hillary Clinton elected and attempt to put an establishment Republican in the White House in four years.

So who is the alt-right? The alt-right are Americans who want to see the current government establishment change. Historically the Republican Party was the party of lower taxes and smaller government. Somewhere in recent years, the party has forgotten their roots. The Republican Party is now the party of bloated government as long as they get to control it. There are a few exceptions to this, but they are few and far between. In an effort to discredit those people who hold to the values of the former Republican Party, the establishment of both parties have begun labeling them alt-right with the implication that they are racists, bigots, and whatever other derogatory term comes to mind. I resent that. This is another example of pitting one American against another American for political purposes. If you oppose the political cronyism and favoritism that is currently a part of Washington polities, you must be a racist, bigot, etc. That is beyond ridiculous.

The slogan of Donald Trump that he ‘wants to take America back’ is not unrealistic. Right now Washington does not really care what the voters think. I am not sure that elections are not rigged–either through voter fraud or the rigging of electronic voting machines. The only way that Donald Trump wins this election is if it is an honest election or if his margin of victory is so large that cheating does not work. That fact alone should wake up voters to the fact that we have a serious problem. I won’t make any predictions about November–a lot can happen between now and then, but I will say that this new concept of labeling anyone who does not support either the Republican or Democratic establishment as alt-right is nothing more than a way to divide Americans so that they will not unite to take their country back.

My husband has added a few ideas to this article. He points out that the Republican platform is true to traditional Republican ideas and that there are people within the party that are working to restore those ideas. The problem is the establishment of both parties.

The Numbers Keep Going Down

This is an election season so all news reporting has to take that into consideration. Anything you read has to be checked against another source and then sorted through to figure out what you weren’t told. Sometimes it gets very frustrating. One of the items that has come up in this campaign is the U.S. economy. President Obama and Hillary Clinton say that it is great, and Donald Trump says it is not doing well. What do the numbers say?

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article yesterday that has some answers.

The article reports:

The U.S. economy expanded in the second quarter of 2016 with real GDP growing 1.1 percent, a lower rate than previously estimated, according to the second estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

“The downward revision to the percent change in real GDP primarily reflected downward revisions to state and local government spending and to private inventory investment and an upward revision to imports,” the bureau said.

Real GDP represents the inflation-adjusted value of goods and services produced in the economy. The second quarter growth of 1.1 percent, which includes performance from April, May, and June, was an increase from the 0.8 percent growth recorded in the first quarter of 2016.

Second quarter growth this year was lower than second quarter growth in 2015, when GDP expanded at 3.7 percent, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

“Today’s disappointing news that the economy expanded even slower than reported is another reminder that we cannot continue President Obama and Hillary Clinton’s failed economic policies for another four years,” said Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee. “Economists say Hillary Clinton’s tax plan alone will slow economic growth, reduce wages, and kill jobs.”

We have had eight years of Democratic policies running the economy. The excuse given by most Democrats is that President Obama started with a mess because the housing bubble had burst. However, when you look at the roots of the housing bubble, you are a little less likely to blame President Bush for the collapse (see Burning Down The House. If in the future YouTube takes down the video, I have embedded it in various articles in this blog–use the blog search engine to find it and watch it.) It is time to let an experienced businessman try his hand at running the American economy. That is the only hope the American workers have.

The Media Loves To Follow The Money In Politics (Sometimes)

Yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted a story about some recent revelations regarding money in politics. Oddly enough, they were one of the few news organizations reporting the information.

The article reports:

Leaked documents released a few days ago provide juicy insider details of how a fabulously rich businessman has been using his money to influence elections in Europe, underwrite an extremist group, target U.S. citizens who disagreed with him, dictate foreign policy, and try to sway a Supreme Court ruling, among other things. Pretty compelling stuff, right?

Not if it involves leftist billionaire George Soros. In this case, the mainstream press couldn’t care less.

On Saturday, a group called DC Leaks posted more than 2,500 documents going back to 2008 that it pilfered from Soros’ Open Society Foundations‘ servers. Since then, the mainstream media have shown zero interest in this gold mine of information.

We couldn’t find a single story on the New York Times, CNN, Washington Post, CBS News or other major news sites that even noted the existence of these leaked documents, let alone reported on what’s in them.

Indeed, the only news organization that appears to be diligently sifting through all the documents is the conservative Daily Caller, which as a result has filed a series of eye-opening reports.

Some of the information revealed by the documents:

As we noted in this space on Monday, the leaked documents show how Soros’ far-flung international organizations attempted to manipulate Europe’s 2014 elections. The “List of European Elections 2014 Projects” details over 90 Soros efforts he had under way that year.

The documents reveal that Soros has poured nearly $4 million into anti-Israel groups, with a goal of “challenging Israel’s racist and anti-democratic policies.”

Here at home, they show that Soros proposed paying the Center for American Politics $200,000 to conduct a smear campaign against conservative activists.

More recently, an October 2015 document came to light showing that Soros’ Open Society U.S. Programs had donated $650,000 to “invest in technical assistance and support for the groups at the core of the burgeoning #BlackLivesMatter movement.” Since then, several BLM protests have turned violent.

Not only is a non-American influencing American foreign policy and trying to influence American elections, he is directly funding a group that is fomenting violence in America.

The article further reports:

This year alone, Soros has given $7 million to the Clinton-supporting Priorities USA super-PAC, and a total of $25 million to support Democrats and their causes, according to Politico.

And when Soros speaks, Clinton listens. A separate email released by WikiLeaks shows Soros giving what read like step-by-step instructions to then-Secretary of State Clinton on how to deal with unrest in Albania in early 2011, including a list of people who should be considered as candidates to become an official mediator sent to that country. Days later, the EU dispatched one of the people on Soros’ list.

Thomas Lifson, writing in the American Thinker blog, said “Soros got the U.S. and other accomplices to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state…. How is this not huge news?”

Most American voters will never be aware of this story. They will calmly go to the polls in November unaware that George Soros is pulling Hillary Clinton’s strings. George Soros will be calling the shots in the White House if Hillary Clinton is elected. Is that good for America?

The Crash Of ObamaCare

On Monday The Washington Free Beacon posted an article about changes in ObamaCare.

The article reports:

Aetna, one of the largest health insurers in the United States, announced Monday it would be dropping out of 70 percent of the counties in which it offers coverage through Obamacare, also known as the Affordable Care Act.

According to Business Insider:

“The firm said that, after a review of its public health-exchange business, it determined that the nearly $200 million in pretax loss that it was sustaining on an annual basis was not worth the business.”

Aetna will continue to offer health care options through the public exchanges in Delaware, Iowa, Nebraska, and Virginia but its services have been reduced from 778 counties to 242.

UnitedHealth Care, another leading health insurer announced its decision to completely quit Obamacare by 2017 in April:

“Aetna’s and UnitedHealthcare’s decisions to scale back is problematic for customers because the number of insurers competing through the exchange is closely linked with the affordability of the plans.”

The collapse of ObamaCare is partially a result of the design of the program–it was designed to collapse so the Democrats could go to full government health insurance–and partially the result of the House of Representative refusing to fund reimbursements for insurance companies.

In May of this year, I reported:

Today The Los Angeles Times reported:

A federal judge ruled for House Republicans on Thursday in their suit against President Obama and declared his administration is unconstitutionally spending money to reimburse health insurers without obtaining an appropriation from Congress.

The judge’s ruling, though a setback for the administration, was put on hold immediately and stands a good chance of being overturned on appeal.

In North Carolina, there will only be one health insurance company left that will be operating through the ObamaCare health exchange. Stay tuned. The rise in ObamaCare premiums in most states is going to astronomical.

 

I Have No Idea What To Believe

I am not thrilled about my election choices in November. Donald Trump has foot in mouth disease and Hillary Clinton is as corrupt as they come. Great choice. However, there are some things to consider. The fact that the Democrats, the Republican establishment and the media oppose Trump probably indicates that he is the right man for the job. Donald Trump has also shown an ability to surround himself with very capable people.  Hillary Clinton is frightening because of the Supreme Court judges she would appoint, her stand on abortion, her stand on religious freedom, her healthcare policies, and her views on the Second Amendment. If Hillary is elected, tax dollars will routinely be used to fund abortion mills–something currently banned by the Hyde Amendment.

The reports by the major media show that the polls show that Hillary Clinton will win in November by a landslide. That seems rather odd because of the difference in attendance at Hillary Clinton events and Donald Trump events. Hillary can’t fill a small venue and Donald is overflowing in huge stadiums. So why isn’t that reflected in the polls? I don’t know.

Meanwhile, The Washington Examiner posted a story yesterday showing a poll with a different result.

The story reports:

Republican Donald Trump should win the presidency by a slim margin according to a model that has accurately predicted the popular vote since 1988.

Using several standards to make his prediction, Alan Abramowitz‘s “Time for Change” model done for the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics “Crystal Ball” shows Trump winning 51.4 percent to 48.6 percent for Hillary Clinton.

He added that the model shows a 66 percent chance of a Trump victory.

“Based on a predicted vote share of 48.6 percent for the incumbent party, these results indicate that Trump should be a clear but not overwhelming favorite to defeat Clinton: There should be about a 66 percent chance of a Republican victory,” Abramowitz added.

Later in the article, Abramowitz states that Hillary Clinton will win in November because Donald Trump’s unfavorable ratings are so high. It must be nice to be able to write a story that takes both sides of an issue.

The bottom line is simple. Our republic is on the line. Everyone needs to get out and vote. I really don’t want to explain to my grandchildren how we got a Supreme Court that doesn’t support individual freedom.

There Are More Questions Than Answers In This Story

Gateway Pundit reported yesterday that Julian Assange of Wikileaks suggested that Seth Rich, who was murdered in Washington, D.C., on July 10, was responsible for the leak of the DNC emails to wikileaks. Those emails resulted in the firing of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as the chairman of the Democratic National Committee. I honestly do not know what to think of this claim.

The article reports:

Seth Rich’s father Joel told reporters, “If it was a robbery — it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money — he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life.”

…On Tuesday Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward for information on the murder of DNC staffer Seth rich.

Now this…
Julian Assange suggested on Tuesday that Seth Rich was a Wikileaks informant.

There are a few things here that are interesting. Why did Wikileaks offer a reward? If it was a robbery, the thief was definitely inept. If Seth Rich leaked the emails, what was all the fuss about the Russians and their relationship with Donald Trump? Is it possible that Seth Rich leaked the emails because he was an honest man trying to reveal the truth?

The article also includes this statement:

Shortly after the killing, Redditors and social media users were pursuing a “lead” saying that Rich was en route to the FBI the morning of his murder, apparently intending to speak to special agents about an “ongoing court case” possibly involving the Clinton family.

This is very strange, and I don’t know if we will ever know the actual truth or find the culprit. It does seem odd that a number of people associated with the Clintons seem to meet untimely deaths.

 

 

Before You Buy Into The Accusation, Take A Look At The Accuser

I suspect that if you are reading this, you are as tired of this presidential election as I am. However, the media (and the Clinton campaign) have said so many outlandish things about Donald Trump, I feel obligated to respond to at least some of them. I would like to point out that Donald Trump has been in the public eye for at least thirty years, and although he has never been a poster child for modesty, humility, and Puritanism, he has had a rather reasonable reputation until he decided to run against Hillary Clinton. That alone is cause for reflection.

The latest Democratic talking point is that America will end if Donald Trump is elected–the seas will begin the rise again, we will bomb everyone, and the world will hate us. Pick any major media and you will find a story about one of the above. Well, it’s time to point out the background of one of the accusers.

Yesterday The Conservative Tribune posted an article about one of Donald Trump’s attackers–retired General John Allen. General Allen spoke in Philadelphia and has appeared on a few news shows since then.

The article reports General Allen’s statements about Donald Trump:

Allen apparently wasn’t just referring to Trump’s statement that he would reintroduce waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques, but that he would bomb the Islamic State group. Apparently, that’s an illegal order now, too.

“He’s talked about needing to torture. He’s talked about needing to murder the families of alleged terrorists,” Allen said. “He’s talked about carpet-bombing ISIL. Who do you think is going to be carpet-bombed when all that occurs? It’s going to be innocent families.”

“What we need to do is ensure that we don’t create an environment that puts us on a track conceivably where the United States military finds itself in a civil military crisis with a commander in chief who would have us do illegal things.”

Actually, that sounds better than the current rules of engagement.

Let’s look at General Allen’s record. The article reports:

Allen was, at one point, the White House coordinator for anti-Islamic State group efforts. Along with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Susan Rice, and the whole sick crew, he was responsible for the policy of treating the Islamic State as the “JV team” — a bunch of angry, stupid teens who had somehow found Kalashnikovs and were taking their angst out on the world.

He’s the one who helped construct a policy where a group with ultramodern weaponry and a Bronze Age ideology were considered to be no threat whatsoever.

That’s not all. He was also responsible for the funding and arming of so-called “moderate” Islamic rebels in Syria. Lo and behold, these were the rebel groups who often decided that their allegiance — as well as their funds and weaponry — belonged to the Islamic State group. Others merely surrendered their weapons.

It gets worse:

He’s one of the people behind the drone killing of terrorist imam Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, in Yemen. Now, granted, al-Awlaki was a detestable individual, but the American-born cleric had never been charged in court nor had his citizenship stripped. He was the first American citizen specifically targeted and killed without any due process. And this is a man who thinks enhanced interrogation techniques are going to cause a military revolt?

General Allen retired as the result of a sex scandal (he fits right in with the Clintons). This is the portrait of the latest accuser of Donald Trump.

 

 

An Uninformed Public Is Fair Game For The Media

The media is all abuzz right now claiming that Donald Trump disrespected the parents of a Muslim soldier who was killed in Iraq. The parents of the soldier were paraded in front of the public for whatever reason. What Trump said was probably unnecessary, but so was parading the parents in front of the public. (Just for the record, we should probably look at some of the comments Hillary has made about Patricia Smith.) At any rate, let’s look at these wonderful Muslim parents. There are a few things that the mainstream media seems to have overlooked.

Yesterday Breitbart posted an article about Khizr Khan and his background.

The article reports:

But, as Breitbart News showed on Monday midday, that clearly was not the case. Khizr Khan has all sorts of financial, legal, and political connections to the Clintons through his old law firm, the mega-D.C. firm Hogan Lovells LLP. That firm did Hillary Clinton’s taxes for years, starting when Khan still worked there involved in, according to his own website, matters “firm wide”—back in 2004. It also has represented, for years, the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States. Saudi Arabia, of course, is a Clinton Foundation donor which—along with the mega-bundlers of thousands upon thousands in political donations to both of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2016—plays right into the “Clinton Cash” narrative.

All of this information was publicly available, and accessible to anyone—including any of these reporters, and Breitbart News—with a basic Google search. Anyone interested in doing research about the subjects they are reporting on—otherwise known as responsible journalism—would have checked into these matters. But clearly, none in the mainstream media did—probably because, as Fox News’ Chad Pergram noted, Democrats “sense blood in the water over” the whole Khan controversy.

The article also points out that Khan now runs a law firm that financially benefits from opposition to Donald Trump’s policies on migration — specifically that he aims to represent aspiring EB5 visa holders, who pay large sums of money to enter the country, a program that the Senate Judiciary Committee has uncovered as having major flaws.

Somehow in their attacks on Donald Trump, the media overlooked the background of Khizr Khan.

This attack on Donald Trump while leaving out significant facts is only a foretaste of what is to come. The only defense against this sort of misinformation is to do your own research and ignore the major media.

I am truly sorry that the Khans lost their son, but I am also truly sorry that they are being used as political pawns while the truth about who they are and the things they support are being hidden.

The Script Of The Democratic Convention Was Eight Years Old

Duane Patterson, who produces the Hugh Hewitt show on Salem radio, posted an article at Hot Air on Saturday. The article is speculative, but it bears examining because of the way the pieces fit together.

The article deals with a timeline going back to 2008 when Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination for President and he and Hillary Clinton suddenly became best friends. If you look at the players in the DNC at that time and the events of the past two weeks, it is amazing that a lot of the names are the same and the positions rotated in a very interesting way.

In 2009, Tim Kaine became the chairman of the DNC at the request of President Obama. In 2011, he stepped down, at the request of President Obama, to run for the Virginia Senate seat held by Jim Webb. Kaine was not particularly interested in running for the seat, but was persuaded to run for the seat and won. Donna Brazille was the interim chairman after Kaine stepped down, and was expected to become chairman. However, President Obama moved Hillary Clinton’s former campaign co-chair, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz into the chairmanship of the DNC.

The article concludes:

Snopes notes that the timeline is basically correct, that all these events did take place. As for proving the backroom deal between Obama and Hillary, with the players in the trade being Kaine and Wasserman-Schultz, Snopes can’t prove or disprove it. But that’s the fun about the innertubes. Speculation can run rampant, especially on a weekend after a political convention that was manipulated to make sure that the Bernie Sanders people got screwed over every which way possible.

When you look back at this chain of events, post-DNC hacking scandal, it sure is a lot easier to understand why there was a thumb, a fist, hell, a side of beef, on the scale against Bernie Sanders and his supports in the 2016 primary cycle.

Bernie voters, you sad saps, you never had a chance. Now, we can reasonably suspect that the chance you didn’t have goes back eight years. We can also deduce that the Democratic Party is a top-down organization, not a grassroots organization. They claim to be, of course, but the power at the top has nothing to do with the will of the people in its base. It’s a club where only the opinions of a couple of members count.

Unfortunately, the Republican establishment probably tried something very similar to the scenario above to get Jeb Bush nominated, but they are simply not as good at corruption as the Democrats and wound up with Donald Trump. Regardless of how you feel about Donald Trump, he may be the person who will end the tyranny of the current political system.

Losing The First Amendment

Since the 1960’s (and possibly before that) our schools have been undermining the moral fiber of America. It began with teaching young children ‘situational ethics’ and introducing the idea that there really is not right and wrong–everything simply depends on the circumstances. The sexual revolution of the 1060’s further undermined the moral fiber of our culture. Meanwhile, colleges went from signing out of the dorm to go on a date to co-ed dorms. Many of the college students of the late 60’s had their traditional moral values destroyed during their college years. They then had children of their own and raised them accordingly. Our public (and at times, private) education system is largely responsible for destroying the moral fiber of America. Now California wants to pass a law that will accelerate the process and take away one refuge for parents who still believe in traditional morality and are raising their children that way.

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article about a new law being proposed by the California legislature.

The article explains:

California is considering a new bill that would remove a longstanding exemption from anti-discrimination lawsuits for religious colleges and universities.

The bill could potentially expose schools to civil rights lawsuits from students and employees, according to a report in the Associated Press.

Opponents of the bill, which include some schools, say it is an attack on religious liberty as the exemption allows them to craft campus policies in line with their faith. Religious institutions can currently assign housing through sex, and not on gender identity, and institute moral codes that include sexuality provisions.

How about creating a safe space for people who hold traditional values? A student does not have the right to attend any college he chooses–the college has the final say on who is admitted. By the same logic, if a parent or student does not like the social or moral policies or a college, they have the option of attending school somewhere else. The idea that a school has to bend to the will of a small minority that does not share its values and probably would not want to attend that school is somewhat illogical.

This is an infringement on the First Amendment rights of private schools and colleges. The problem occurs when these institutions accept federal or state money–‘free’ money always comes with strings attached.

The article reports:

Heads of religious colleges told the AP that the legislation would prevent them from signing an agreement with the schools to get state funding for low-income students.

The bill comes as red states have considered or approved laws that conservatives say strengthen religious freedoms. Supporters say such laws enable people to deny services that would violate religious beliefs, while opponents say they enable discrimination against LGBT individuals.

The proposed law illustrates two problems–first, the strings attached to any ‘free’ money, and second, the assault on those Americans who hold to traditional values. It is not my desire to discriminate in any way against members of the LGBT community, but in return, I expect them not to discriminate against my beliefs as well. The First Amendment says that the government cannot limit my freedom to practice my religion. The 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act was supposed to further insure that freedom. The fact that Congress thought it was necessary to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act actually tells us all we need to know about the current direction of America.

 

Bad News For Election Integrity

WNCN (CBS) is reporting that a federal court has overturned North Carolina’s voter identification law.

The article reports:

A federal appeals court has found that a North Carolina voter ID law was enacted “with discriminatory intent” and must be blocked.

How in the world does the appeals court know the intent of the people who passed the law? The law required photo identification to vote. The law also provided a way for people who did not currently have photo identification to obtain it free of charge. I few political groups in the state offered to provide transportation to those seeking photo identification. The supposedly ‘disenfranchised voters’ are the same people who use photo identification to cash checks, buy alcohol, enroll in government programs, etc. No one is being disenfranchised.

The article includes a quote from Francis De Luca, president of the Civitas Institute:

North Carolina’s common-sense voter ID law was passed to preserve the security and integrity of our elections process. North Carolina’s voters deserve the confidence that their votes will not be diluted by fraud. Just before a crucial presidential election, the liberal judges of the Fourth Circuit are once again legislating from the bench and seem to be looking for opportunities to overturn North Carolina law at every turn. The continual overreach of the courts like the Fourth Circuit undermines the belief in self-government through elected representatives and our democratic republic.

It is simply outrageous that the court cites race as a reason for overturning North Carolina’s voter ID law. No one has been able to point to a single example of a voter being disenfranchised as a result of this law. In fact, voter turnout has increased since the law was enacted.”

If voter fraud is prevented in North Carolina, Donald Trump wins. If voter fraud is allowed, Hillary Clinton wins. It seems as if the court has already voted.

The following quote from the article echoes that sentiment:

Rep. Tim Moore, N.C. Speaker of the House and President Pro Tempore Sen. Phil Berger also disagreed with the ruling and issued a joint statement saying that the ruling will allow “Democrat politicians” to steal the upcoming election.

Since today’s decision by three partisan Democrats ignores legal precedent, ignores the fact that other federal courts have used North Carolina’s law as a model, and ignores the fact that a majority of other states have similar protections in place, we can only wonder if the intent is to reopen the door for voter fraud, potentially allowing fellow Democrat politicians like Hillary Clinton and Roy Cooper to steal the election. We will obviously be appealing this politically-motivated decision to the Supreme Court.”

Stay tuned.

 

 

A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

The Conservative Treehouse posted an article today about the shenanigans going on at the Democratic Convention. With the help of the media, the Democrats are attempting to cover up the division in the party. Bernie Sanders supporters are not being treated well. Their signs are being taken away and they are no longer allowed to speak. This is a preview of how any American who does not support Hillary will be treated if she is elected President.

The article includes the following picture:

TheShadyBunchThat about says it all.

Some Things Spotted At The Democratic Party Convention

Some of the things spotted at the Democratic Party Convention–an eight-foot-tall, four-mile wall around the convention site (story and pictures here), photo identification needed to get in (so you need photo id to vote at the DNC Convention, but not in a general election), and finally, bathrooms for men and bathrooms for women (story and related tweets here).

Things not spotted at the Democratic Party Convention–American flags (story and pictures here).

This is a screenshot of the DNC Convention stage:

DNCStageThis is a screenshot of the RNC Convention stage:

RNCStageHave the Democrats forgotten who we are?

Is This Even Legal?

Lady Liberty 1885 posted an article today about some campaign donations accepted by North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper.

The article reports:

A review of Roy Cooper’s second quarter campaign finance filings with the NC Board of Elections reveals that a donation has come from one of the parties involved in suing North Carolina over House Bill 2 (HB2).

On May 2nd, 2016 Rachel Tiven was made the CEO of Lambda Legal, which is involved on multiple legal fronts involving HB2. In fact, Lambda Legal is involved in the HB2 related lawsuit, Carcaño v. McCrory.  Read  full complaint.

On May 4th, 2016, Tiven, who lists her address in NYC, donated the maximum amount of $5,100 to Roy Cooper’s campaign.

According to the 2nd quarter filings for the Cooper campaign, Tiven listed her occupation as “Attorney” with “Immigrant Justice Corps.” and not that of CEO of  Lambda Legal. According to Immigrant Justice Corps’ 2014 press release, Tiven was named as their new Executive Director.

In March of 2016, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced that he would not support HB2. I am sure that the fact that he will not defend HB2 has nothing to do with the fact that he has taken large campaign contributions form those organizations attacking HB2. Yeah, right.

The article further reports:

Cooper’s second quarter totals showed that $821,931 came from outside the state of North Carolina.

The top out of state donations were made by 277 donors in New York which totaled $276,930. California came in second with 231 donations to the tune of $92,073. Washington D.C. rounded out the top three, with 136 donations totaling $58,681.

These three states represent more than half of all of the out of state donations made in the second quarter.

Other NY Donations of note include:

04-07-16 George Soros $5,100
04-07-16 Alexander Soros $5,100
04-26-16 William E. Little Jr., $1,000
05-18-15 Lorne Michaels $1,000
05-18-16 George Little, $1,000
06-24-16 William E. Little Jr., $2,000

I am not in favor of limiting campaign donations in any way. However, I am very much in favor of letting the voters know where their candidates money is coming from. Roy Cooper’s list of out of state donors tells us all we need to know about who the man is working for.

Bias Where There Should Be No Bias

As a grandparent., I love Facebook. Two of my daughters are always posting great pictures of my grandchildren. I am also told that there are a lot of grandparents on Facebook–more grandparents than young adults. I also get some of my ideas for articles from Facebook friends. However, it is disturbing to find out that Facebook is blocking some of my conservative sources or some of my sources that might be damaging to Hillary Clinton.

The DC Caller posted an article about Facebook today. The article states:

Facebook admitted Sunday that it blocked links to WikiLeaks’ trove of emails that were hacked from the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

WikiLeaks took to Twitter Saturday night informing followers that Facebook was censoring content and offered people an alternative way to post links to Facebook from WikiLeaks.

The leaked emails gave Americans some insight into the behind-the-scenes political escapes of the Democratic Party. The emails revealed the collusion between the Democratic Party and the news media to stop Bernie Sanders (and eventually Donald Trump). For any ‘never Trump’ people in the Republican Party, you need to take a good look at the people who oppose him. Trump is opposed by establishment Republicans, Democrats, and the mainstream news media. All three of these groups have worked hard to create the system of political elitism that has threatened our representative republic. I think America has a better chance of surviving with Donald Trump leading than with Hillary Clinton leading.

It is sad that Facebook decided not to be evenhanded in its allowed posts, but I have seen conservative bloggers blocked when posting articles that made the political establishment look bad. Unfortunately, America has entered a period where we cannot depend on even social media to be even-handed.

There Is Nothing I Can Add To This Story

While the media was reporting on Ivanka Trump‘s dress and other important items, there was some interesting activity in the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the current DNC Chairwoman who was shown to be biased toward Hillary Clinton in leaked emails, has resigned her position as of the conclusion of the Democratic National Convention. But not to worry–she has a new job already lined up.

Townhall.com is reporting today:

Hillary Clinton has hired soon-to-be-former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. DWS will resign from her position effective at the conclusion of the Democratic National Convention. It was revealed that the DNC was effectively working to sabotage Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) during the Democratic primary, prompting calls for her to resign.

Clinton emailed supporters and said that Schultz would join the campaign as “honorary chair” of the 50-state program to ensure Democrats win elections nationwide. Wasserman Schultz will continue to serve as a Clinton surrogate.

The Clinton Mafia takes care of its own.

 

Watch The Spin

I have been traveling for the past two days and just arrived home, so I have some catching up to do. However, there is one aspect of the wikileaks emails that I noted in the small amount of news I have heard. The spin the Democrats are putting on the fact that the leaked emails make the Democratic National Committee look really bad is that the hacker was a Russian and the Russians support Donald Trump, therefore you should vote for Hillary. Talk about reach…

The New York Post posted a story today with more information learned from the leaked emails.

The New York Post reports:

Democratic Party bigwigs enlisted prominent media outlets to slant coverage to boost Hillary Clinton and sandbag Bernie Sanders, according to some of the 19,000 e-mails hacked from the Democratic National Committee’s servers and posted to WikiLeaks.

The messages reveal behind-the-scenes meetings and off-the-record exchanges between DNC operatives and staffers at newspapers, networks and news Web sites, including The Washington PostThe Wall Street Journal, CNN, MSNBC, Politico and RealClearPolitics.

In one case, an investigative reporter at Politico gave DNC officials a sneak peek at an article about Clinton’s state-party fund-raising — before his editor even saw the piece.

Keep this in mind as you watch the media report on Donald Trump. Do you think they are being any more honest?

Things That Make Elections Interesting

The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported yesterday that the Virginia Supreme Court struck down Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s executive order restoring voting rights to 206,000 felons.

The article reports:

The Supreme Court of Virginia on Friday struck down Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s executive order restoring voting rights to 206,000 felons, dealing a severe blow to what the governor has touted as one of his proudest achievements in office.

In a 4-3 ruling, the court declared McAuliffe’s order unconstitutional, saying it amounts to a unilateral rewrite and suspension of the state’s policy of lifetime disenfranchisement for felons.

The court ordered the Virginia Department of Elections to “cancel the registration of all felons who have been invalidly registered” under McAuliffe’s April 22 executive order and subsequent orders.

As of this week, 11,662 felons had registered to vote under McAuliffe’s orders. The court gave a cancellation deadline of Aug. 25.

This is not an article about whether or not convicted felons can vote, it is an article about whether or not a governor has the right to bypass the legislature and make that decision unilaterally.

The article states:

McAuliffe, a Democrat, took the sweeping action in April, saying he was doing away with an unusually restrictive voting policy that has a disproportionate impact on African-Americans. In a legal challenge, Republican leaders argued McAuliffe overstepped his power by issuing a blanket restoration order for violent and nonviolent felons with no case-by-case review.

The court majority found that McAuliffe did indeed overstep his authority.

“Never before have any of the prior 71 Virginia governors issued a clemency order of any kind — including pardons, reprieves, commutations, and restoration orders — to a class of unnamed felons without regard for the nature of the crimes or any other individual circumstances relevant to the request,” Chief Justice Donald W. Lemons wrote in the majority opinion.

“To be sure, no governor of this commonwealth, until now, has even suggested that such a power exists. And the only governors who have seriously considered the question concluded that no such power exists.”

In response, McAuliffe said he will “expeditiously” sign roughly 13,000 individual rights restoration orders for people who have already registered to vote. He said he’ll continue until rights are restored for all 200,000 people affected by the original order.

“Once again, the Virginia Supreme Court has placed Virginia as an outlier in the struggle for civil and human rights,” McAuliffe said in a written statement. “It is a disgrace that the Republican leadership of Virginia would file a lawsuit to deny more than 200,000 of their own citizens the right to vote. And I cannot accept that this overtly political action could succeed in suppressing the voices of many thousands of men and women who had rejoiced with their families earlier this year when their rights were restored.”

Make no mistake, the Governor is not simply filled with compassion for those convicted felons. For whatever reason, statistically convicted felons vote Democrat. Governor McAuliffe, a longtime friend and associate of the Clintons, wants to make sure he delivers Virginia in November. There is little doubt that Virginia will vote for Hillary (particularly with Tim Kaine as her running mate). Many northern Virginia voters depend on the Washington establishment for their jobs and won’t want to upset the status quo.

The article concludes:

The legal rebuke comes at an awkward time for McAuliffe, who is scheduled to speak at next week’s Democratic National Convention celebrating Clinton and her newly selected running mate, U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va.

Clinton praised McAuliffe after the order in April. When he was Virginia’s governor, Kaine declined to issue a blanket rights restoration order like the one pursued by McAuliffe, despite pressure from activists.

The Supreme Court ruling referenced Kaine’s position, saying Kaine “correctly understood” he did not have blanket restoration power.

Another Reason Your Votes Matter

On Friday, The Federalist posted an article about ObamaCare explaining where we are and where President Obama would like to go next in American healthcare. It really isn’t good news.

The article reports:

President Obama recently published an overview of the results of ObamaCare in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

It’s a pretty extraordinary article, because in important ways it acknowledges that ObamaCare has basically failed—and it lays the cards on the table for what we always knew was going to be his next step.

…Forcing insurers to cover people who are already sick and to charge them the same rates as healthy people has jacked up insurance premiums for everyone else. So because the law didn’t make insurance affordable, Congress has to make it affordable by heavily subsidizing it with even more of the taxpayers’ money.

Obama also somewhat vaguely acknowledges the problem of rising deductibles. One way of staunching the rise in premiums has been to offer plans with very high deductibles—the amount a person has to pay upfront before his insurance kicks in to cover the rest. This keeps the premiums affordable at the cost of making the actual care less affordable by whacking you with huge payments if you actually get sick. Last year, the New York Times acknowledged that under ObamaCare, “sky-high deductibles…are leaving some newly insured feeling nearly as vulnerable as they were before they had coverage…. ‘We have insurance, but can’t afford to use it.’”

Obviously ObamaCare is not working in a way that is helpful to the American people. So what happens next? Don’t say you weren’t warned–you were.

The article explains the next step:

Like I said, this was predictable and predicted from the very beginning, but now it’s all out in the open. ObamaCare was always just an exercise in planned obsolescence, cobbling together a system nobody really thought was going to work, just so they could exploit its failures to push for the socialized medicine they really wanted all along. It’s telling that in this article, Obama boasts that the Affordable Care Act has increased the number of people who are insured, but his own data shows that the biggest driver of that is an expansion of Medicaid, which is not insurance but welfare—the system he wants for everyone.

As I noted back in 2009, a decade-long exercise in deliberately wrecking private health insurance is the most callous and destructive way to pursue that goal.

If that surprises you, look at Venezuela. When has the Left ever shied away from smashing everything to pieces in pursuit of government power? So we shouldn’t expect anything different here.

If we are going to stop this runaway train, and it is not assured that we can, the only possible solution is to elect people in November who do not support socialized medicine. How do you find this people? You look at the voting records of anyone who was in Congress when ObamaCare was passed. You listen to the statements of the candidates.

I have one final note. ObamaCare was passed through a budget reconciliation process rather than as a standard bill. This was because that type of bill could not be filibustered in the Senate. No Republicans voted for HB3590, the predecessor to ObamaCare, or the reconciliation. Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts (who was voted in after Ted Kennedy’s death) never got a chance to vote on ObamaCare because the Attorney General of Massachusetts delayed the certification of the election until after any Senate vote would be taken. The shenanigans involved in passing ObamaCare in the first place were disgraceful. It is also disgraceful that the Republican House of Representatives has not made a serious effort to defund ObamaCare. We need to elect people who will end ObamaCare and bring the free market into healthcare. Then America will have a strong healthcare system that serves all Americans.

Sleight Of Hand To Move An Agenda Forward

The one thing that the Obama Administration has been really good at is directing the attention of the American people away from an actual problem and creating a crisis that creates the appearance of a need for more government power. The current supposed problem with the police is aimed at getting more federal control of local police forces. That is totally unconstitutional, but the Obama Administration has little use for the Constitution. There are very few people talking about the impact that the destruction of the black family unit (caused in part by America’s social welfare programs) has on our society. We need to look at some of the roots of the myth that white police target black Americans. It is a myth if you actually look at the statistics, but the media is not overly inclined to mention that fact.

The Washington Free Beacon posted a story yesterday which illustrates how President Obama is creating racial unrest rather than helping solve the problem. Someone in the administration seems to think that racial unrest will bring out the black vote in November and elect Hillary Clinton. As Rahm Emanual stated, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.” The Obama Administration would do well to remember that the violence during the 1968 election did not elect Democrats.

The article reports:

On November 24, 2014, President Obama betrayed the nation. Even as he went on national television to respond to the grand jury’s decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson for fatally shooting 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, the looting and arson that had followed Brown’s shooting in August were being reprised, destroying businesses and livelihoods over the next several hours. Obama had one job and one job only in his address that day: to defend the workings of the criminal-justice system and the rule of law. Instead, he turned his talk into a primer on police racism and criminal-justice bias. In so doing, he perverted his role as the leader of all Americans and as the country’s most visible symbol of the primacy of the law.

Obama gestured wanly toward the need to respect the grand jury’s decision and to protest peacefully. “We are a nation built on the rule of law. And so we need to accept that this decision was the grand jury’s to make,” he said. But his tone of voice and body language unmistakably conveyed his disagreement, if not disgust, with that decision. “There are Americans who are deeply disappointed, even angry. It’s an understandable reaction,” he said.

Understandable, so long as one ignores the evidence presented to the grand jury. The testimony of a half-dozen black observers at the scene had demolished the early incendiary reports that Wilson attacked Brown in cold blood and shot Brown in the back when his hands were up. Those early witnesses who had claimed gratuitous brutality on Wilson’s part contradicted themselves and were, in turn, contradicted by the physical evidence and by other witnesses, who corroborated Wilson’s testimony that Brown had attacked him and had tried to grab his gun. (Minutes before, the hefty Brown had thuggishly robbed a diminutive shopkeeper of a box of cigarillos. Wilson had received a report of that robbery and a description of Brown before stopping him.)

The President, in making the statement at that time, undermined law and order in America, cast doubt on the ability and fairness of the police, and sowed the seeds for the destruction and loss of life we are seeing now. The Obama Administration’s disrespect for law and order was evident at the beginning of his term when his Justice Department refused to charge the New Black Panthers for their actions during the election. In case you have forgotten, here is the video:

 

There was also the incident with the Cambridge police when, without a shred of evidence, he condemned the policeman who was simply doing his job. The chaos we are seeing now is the result of actions by the Obama Administration. It is a planned strategy. It will stop when people ignore the media and look at the facts. Unfortunately, that may not happen. It is truly sad that America’s first black president, who grew up in elite schools with no relationship to the civil rights struggle, has chosen to advance his agenda instead of helping other black people achieve the success he has known.

The Money In The 2012 Election

Below is a list of donors to Barack Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign. The list is from Open Secrets which tracks all donations made to candidates.

The article at Open Secrets reminds us:

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations’ PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Here is the list:

2012DonorsThis is Mitt Romney’s list of donors:

2012MittRomneyI don’t really love either list, but I would rather see a candidate get money from the private sector than government employees. Another aspect of these lists is that they probably reflect the experience of the candidates and the friends gained along the way–Mitt Romney is a businessman who moves in business circles; Barack Obama worked in government and at the University of Chicago and moved in political and academic circles. Growth in the private sector is good for the economy–growth in government takes money out of the private sector and out of the private economy. At any rate, these two lists illustrate a very basic difference between the two parties.

Confirmation Of What We Already Knew

Kimberley Strassel has written a book entitled The Intimidation Game. The book details the attack on conservative speech by elected Democrats during the last two elections. She posted an article on NewsBusters today detailing some of what she discovered in writing the book. One of the more disturbing things detailed in the book is the attack on conservative (or Tea Party) groups through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The fact that no one was held accountable for this abuse of power is an indication that it is time to create a tax code that no longer requires the existence of the IRS. For whatever reason, we have reached the point where the IRS has become a political weapon. That is an indication that the IRS needs to go. In 1974, the Second Article of Impeachment of Richard Nixon read as follows:

He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, endeavored to … cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

How far we have fallen.

The article at NewsBusters reports:

So Lerner, the IRS, Obama—they were all correct that the targeting fiasco started with a “line agent” in Cincinnati. They just neglected to mention that within twenty-four hours of that agent’s alert—and every minute thereafter—it was political types in Washington running the show.

When Koester talked about “media interest,” he was undoubtedly referring to the wall-to-wall coverage that had just followed the Citizens United decision. He’d likely seen the White House’s furious reaction to the Court’s decision to free up speech rights, and Obama’s dressing-down of the Supremes. He’d likely seen the Democratic Party and its media allies bang on daily about the evils of conservative “nonprofits.” He’d likely taken in the nonstop stories about the Tea Party gearing up in opposition to Obama, and how they were rushing into the (c)(4) realm. And he likely knew those groups were having an effect. Only a month earlier, Scott Brown had won that Senate race, against all odds. Koester was a prime example of how an executive branch—and a political party—can drive a story and make the bureaucracy take notice.

We know that one person in particular took notice: an ambitious partisan by the name of Lois Lerner.

Lerner shocked Washington with her May 2013 admission that her agency had harassed Americans. The shocking thing was that anyone was shocked.

Lerner to this day won’t cooperate with any real investigation; the nation has been denied the opportunity to hear her story. But e-mail is a wondrous thing. Between her records and the recollections of her colleagues, we have a vivid portrait of the former head of the IRS’s Exempt Organizations unit. She was a brassy, self-assured bureaucrat with Democratic leanings and a near-messianic belief in the need for more speech regulations.

I plan on reading the entire book, but Ms. Strassel’s comments in the article confirm what most Americans already knew–the IRS has been used by the Obama Administration to limit free speech. During the Nixon Administration, using the IRS as a political tool was an impeachable offense. Why? Because the media kept up a constant drum beat about the offense. Unfortunately conservatives do not have that media back-up. It is up to us to fight for our First Amendment rights. Unless more Americans wake up to what is happening, that will be a very long and hard fight.

Does This Surprise Anyone?

This story is from last year, but in view of recent events, I thought it might be a good idea to post it.

On August 30, 2015, Breitbart.com posted an article about a study conducted by the University of Chicago Crime Lab. Oddly enough, the inmates in the Cook County jail said that they get their guns on the streets from “personal connections” rather than outlets like gun shows and the Internet.

The article reports:

According to the Chicago-Tribune, Crime lab co-director Harold Pollack said the study shows that “some of the pathways [regarding guns] people are concerned about don’t seem so dominant.” He said very few inmates indicated using gun shows or the internet. Rather, they get the guns in undetectable ways on the street. He said the inmates know they run the risk of being caught by police but “were less concerned about getting caught by the cops than being put in the position of not having a gun to defend themselves and then getting shot.”

The vast majority of the inmates used handguns to commit their crimes or protect themselves, very few cited using “military-style assault weapons.” And they said their habit was to get rid of a gun after one year because of the “legal liability” of being caught with a gun that could be linked to crimes they or others committed.”

As for specifics regarding sources for purchasing guns, some of the inmates indicated that gangs have individuals with a Firearm Owners Identification Card who buy guns then sell them to gang members. Others indicated using “corrupt cops” who seize guns then “put them back on the street.”

None of the measures proposed by the Democrats to limit gun sales would have made a difference to these inmates–they would still be able to get guns. The Democratic sit-in was an attempt to manipulate the American voters. We are idiots if we fall for that attempt.

I Wish The Media Would Get The Facts Right

I just watched Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. I was a bit disappointed. Chris Wallace is generally a fairly even-handed newsman, but today he was not. He interviewed a Newt Gingrich about Donald Trump’s campaign and then a campaign spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The interviews were not at all even-handed. First of all, I like Newt Gingrich, and I respect him, but I have watched the mainstream media tear him down long enough to know that he may not be the best spokesman for Donald Trump–Newt Gingrich is a brilliant man, but his image needs repairing. Just the choice of Newt Gingrich to be interviewed to speak for Donald Trump is questionable. I am sure there were other choices. It was obvious that the Clinton spokesperson had not properly rehearsed his lines. He stumbled quite a few times when answering basic questions about Hillary’s honesty and other issues. Chris Wallace let most of those things slide, but when it came to questioning Newt Gingrich, Chris Wallace claimed that the statement that Hillary Clinton went to bed during the Benghazi attack was false. The record shows otherwise.

The Gateway Pundit posted an article today about Chris Wallace’s interviews on Fox News Sunday.

The article reports:

FOX News Sunday host Chris Wallace defended Hillary Clinton today like the rest of the liberal media from Donald Trump’s attacks this week.

Wallace said Hillary did not go home and sleep during the Benghazi attack – parroting what the rest of the media has been reporting this week.

The fact is Hillary Clinton DID GO HOME AND SLEEP during the Benghazi attacks and there are records to prove it.

According to official watch logs on September 11, 2012 during the Benghazi attack on the US consulate the first note of the attacks (not protest, another Hillary lie) was posted after 4 PM on that Tuesday afternoon. And Hillary Clinton was home by 10:30 PM as US forces continued to come under attack at the CIA complex in Benghazi.

…There were no official records of any activity by Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama after 10:30 that night. No calls to the Defense Department, no calls to the State Department, no calls to officials in Libya. Hillary was at home and in bed.

Before she went home though she plotted with Obama to blame the attack on a YouTube video – while the annex was still under attack!

The next morning Hillary and Barack blamed a YouTube video for the attack when she knew it was a terrorist attack.

This is what Donald Trump is up against. If voters are paying attention to facts, he will probably win this election. If voters are depending on the mainstream media for their information, Hillary Clinton will be President. That will not be good for the country.