Some Observations On The Presidential Debate Last Night

I think the interesting part of last night’s debate were the differences between what was discussed and what was not discussed. It is noteworthy that Hillary Clinton had to go back to a 1973 lawsuit to declare Donald Trump a racist. It has been reported that when Donald purchased his club in Palm Beach called Mar-a-Lago in 1985, he insisted on accepting Jews and blacks even though other clubs in Palm Beach to this day discriminate against blacks and Jews.

It was somehow overlooked that the birther charges in 2008 were closely aligned with those in the Clinton campaign. There was absolutely no reason to bring them up last night–they are totally irrelevant.

There was no discussion of how the foreign policy during the time Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State has thoroughly destabilized the Middle East.

There was no discussion of the fact that the press conference held by James Comey regarding Hillary Clinton’s emails clearly showed that she had been lying about her emails from the beginning and had carelessly handled classified information. James Comey chose not to pursue the case, but clearly presented the evidence.

Donald Trump was not active politically during the run-up to the Iraq War. Aside from the fact that the history of that war has been totally rewritten by the left, Hillary voted for the war–Donald made a few comments. It is noteworthy that there are videos of Donald Trump with Sean Hannity and Neil Cavuto showing opposition to the war. Somehow the moderator chose not to pay attention to that information.

The discussion of ‘stop and frisk’ was totally misleading. One judge declared it unconstitutional–the case was not appealed because New York City got a new mayor who did not support the policy. At that point the question was moot.

Just for the record, Hillary Clinton did support the Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement.

The good economy during the 1990’s was composed of two bubbles–the tech bubble and the housing bubble. During his presidency, Bill Clinton accelerated the policies that ultimately led to the 2008 recession (see YouTube).

This was not a fair debate–the moderator and Hillary Clinton debated Donald Trump. That seems a little unfair to me. However, I am not sure the Clinton campaign got the results they wanted.

We Need To Listen To The People On The Front Lines

Lifezette is reporting today that the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Council has endorsed Donald Trump for President.

The article reports:

The National ICE Council, the union representing 5,000 federal immigration officers and law enforcement support staff, decided to endorse the GOP nominee after carefully considering the impact a Hillary Clinton presidency would have on their officers. Saying that Clinton has embraced the “unconstitutional executive orders” of President Barack Obama, Chris Crane, president of the National ICE Council, said in a statement that these orders “have forced our officers to violate their oaths to uphold the law and placed every person living in America at risk — including increased risk of terrorism.”

According to the article, this is the first time the National ICE Council has endorsed a candidate in a national election. This is important. We need to listen to these people as they are on the front lines of our fight against domestic terrorism.

The article reports the following statement by Chris Crane, president of the National ICE Council:

“Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has promised the most radical immigration agenda proposal in U.S. history,” Crane added. “Her radical plan would result in the loss of thousands of innocent American lives, mass victimization and death for many attempting to immigrate to the United States, the total gutting of interior enforcement, the handcuffing of ICE officers, and an uncontrollable flood of illegal immigrants across U.S. borders.”

…After noting that only 5 percent of the council’s membership supported Clinton’s presidential bid, Crane lambasted the Democratic presidential nominee for catering to the special interest groups and “open-borders radicals” all in the name of “cheap labor, greed and votes.”

To be fair, the establishment Republicans are no better than the Democrats on open borders. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a major contributor to Republican candidates. Those candidates do not want to close our borders because many of the Chamber of Commerce members want cheap labor. If the Republican Party truly opposed open borders, those borders would be closed by now, regardless of who was President. There are some Republicans who have fought for real borders, but they are not in the majority.

The article at Lifezette concludes:

“America has been lied to about every aspect of immigration in the United States,” Crane concluded. “We can fix our broken immigration system, and we can do it in a way that honors America’s legacy as a land of immigrants, but Donald Trump is the only candidate who is willing to put politics aside so that we can achieve that goal.”

A Difficult Balance

Tonight I had the privilege of hearing two very knowledgeable speakers on the subject of immigration in America–Jim Robb, Vice President of Operations at Numbers USA and Ron Woodard, Director of NC Listen. It was a very informative evening, but I left with a realization that at some point in the near future, America was going to have to balance the interests of Americans with the desire to help immigrants. Right now we are not balancing those two things–our current immigration and refugee programs (or lack of them) are hurting Americans and need to be reevaluated.

One aspect of this problem is illustrated by two graphs at the non-partisan Center for Immigration Studies website:

centerforimmigrationThere is something seriously wrong with this picture.So what is going on? There are two groups who are happy with the current situation–for very different reasons. Democratic politicians want to create a permanent dependent class that will continue to elect Democrats in order to get government handouts. It was President Lyndon B. Johnson who stated as he worked to pass his expansive ‘Great Society‘ program, “”I’ll have those n—–s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” The other group is the Chamber of Commerce. This group has put the idea of cheap labor above the welfare of Americans. Businessmen who support excessive immigration in order to pay workers less (both legal and illegal immigrants) in order to make a bigger profit are not ethical and do not have the best interests of American workers in mind. I think both the Democratic Party and the Chamber of Commerce have lost their way.

Sane immigration policy is possible. It begins with closing the borders to all but legal immigrants who have passed thorough background checks, tracking people who have overstayed their visas (a group that would include the 911 hijackers), and deporting anyone who is arrested, caught driving under the influence, or commits any illegal act. Sane immigration would also include the U.S. Government determining who immigrates to the United States–not the United Nations. Right now the United Nations totally controls the American refugee program. We need to reclaim our sovereignty and our country’s borders.

Stacking The Deck In The Presidential Debates

Yesterday Lifezette posted a story about the bipartisan commission that is in charge of planning the debates of the presidential candidates.

The story reports:

The men and women who run the supposedly “nonpartisan” Commission on Presidential Debates have put their money where their mouths are — and it all has gone to Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The amount of money is small by the standards of a modern presidential campaign, but it is one-sided. A pair of Ph.D. candidates at Stanford University examined campaign finance reports and found that all of the $5,650 in contributions that commission members have made to presidential candidates during this election season have gone to Clinton.

Republican Donald Trump, who will meet Clinton in the first debate a week from Monday, received no donations from debate commission members. Green Party nominee Jill Stein and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who both learned Friday that they will be shut out of the first debate, also received nothing.

It gets even better. The article quotes one of the commission members:

Kevin Zeese, an adviser to the Stein campaign, told LifeZette the contributions are further evidence of a bipartisan conspiracy to rig the electoral system against third-party alternatives. And the fact that Clinton scooped up all of the contributions made by commission members this year fits with the fact that she has won support not only from her own party but many Establishment figures in the Republican Party, as well.

“Hillary Clinton has done a really good job of uniting the two parties,” he said. “It’s almost like one party.”

Has it occurred to the commission that the fact that ‘it’s almost like one party’ might be the problem? That is exactly the reason Donald Trump is doing so well–the establishment Republican party is indistinguishable from the Democrat party. The establishment Republican party is no longer the party of smaller government and lower spending–they are now the party of ‘we want to do the spending.’ Donald Trump is not a conservative, but at least he has some sort of business sense.

There is a book called Tragedy and Hope 101: The Illusion of Justice, Freedom, and Democracy that discusses the move to morph the two-party system in America into a system that appears to be a two-party system, but in reality is a one-party system. In this scenario, elections happen, but the same people are always in control. We are dangerously close to that place, and I believe that the election of Donald Trump might be a way to avoid going there. It is going to be a very interesting election–there are a lot of people who are very fond of the system the way it is and will fight with everything they have to make sure it does not change.

At any rate, are you willing to believe that the debates will be fair and unbiased?

 

The Ambush Was Handled Graciously

Gateway Pundit posted a story yesterday about Donald Trump’s visit to a black church in Flint, Michigan. CNN also posted a story on the event yesterday. The contrast is interesting. First of all, let’s talk about politics from the pulpit in America. It is no secret that Democratic candidates routinely speak and raise money in black churches. Republican candidates generally do not speak in churches because of concerns of the tax status of the churches. There is definitely a double standard.

So what happened when Donald Trump went into a black church in Flint, Michigan, to speak?

CNN reports:

The pastor who hosted Donald Trump at her church in Flint, Michigan, interrupted the Republican presidential nominee during his speech Wednesday to ask him to refrain from attacking his rival Hillary Clinton.

“Mr. Trump, I invited you here to thank us for what we’ve done in Flint, not give a political speech,” Rev. Faith Green Timmons of the Bethel United Methodist Church told Trump after walking to the podium while Trump was speaking.

Gateway Pundit gives us the rest of the story:

But prior to his visit to the church Pastor Timmons posted her intentions on Facebook.

She said,

Today is the day! We have a chance to show DONALD TRUMP than this nation is filled with intelligent, wise black citizens fo integrity many of whom live right here in FLINT, MICHIGAN. What he will see is how we are braving a manmade catastrophe. HE WILL NOT USE US, WE will EDUCATE HIM!!!

Mr. Trump handled the event graciously. He did remark later that he felt as if something was going on because the Pastor was extremely nervous.

It would be interesting to remind Pastor Timmons who created the manmade catastrophe. The Democrats have been in charge of Flint for a number of years and made the decision to stop buying water from Detroit and sign up with a regional water system; in the meantime, it was getting its municipal water from the Flint River, not noted for its pristine water quality.

The Democrats are getting support from the black churches. The Democrats are the people who have created a welfare system that has destroyed the black family, destroyed the work ethic in the black community and created generational poverty and dependence. At some point, I believe the black community and its churches will wake up to the damage done to them by Democratic policies. All of this was foreseeable–Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan predicted the outcome of the War of Poverty policies and the negative impact they would have on the black community fifty years ago. Remember, it was Democrat President Lyndon Baines Johnson who stated, “I’ll have those n—–s voting Democratic for the next 200 years” as he confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One regarding his underlying intentions for the “Great Society” programs.

Meanwhile, the campaigns continue.

A New Low In Presidential Campaigning

Below is an excerpt from an article posted at Hot Air today. Draw your own conclusions. I suspect this has been done before, but it is disgusting:

TrumpLeaks is an effort to uncover unreported video or audio of Donald Trump so voters can have access to the Donald Trump who existed before running for president and before his recent affinity for teleprompters. TrumpLeaks can provide some compensation to those who have usable, undoctored video or audio that has been legally obtained or is legally accessible.

Translated that means that David Brock, Hillary’s media hatchet man, has put out the word that his Correct the Record super PAC is ready to pay for dirt on Donald Trump.

The article reports:

This story is revealing in a couple of ways. First, Brock is effectively an arm of the Clinton campaign. If she found this offensive she could shut it down with a phone call. So next time you hear Clinton or the media claim she is taking the high road in this campaign, e.g. ‘we care about the issues that are important to Americans’ keep in mind that her people are eager to pay for dirt on her opponent.

Second, it was a big story when Trump off-handedly said he hoped Russia would find Hillary’s 30,000 missing emails. The Clinton campaign instantly ran with the claim that Trump was calling on a foreign government to conduct “espionage” against Hillary. That never made any sense given that Hillary’s long ago deleted emails would be on a defunct server now in the possession of the FBI. But the fact that it was nonsense didn’t stop the media from running with it for days. It will be interesting to see if the media even bothers to make the Clinton world effort to pay for dirt on Trump a story.

Second, the fact that this is being called TrumpLeaks suggests just how much WikiLeaks has Democratic insiders spooked. The DNC has already lost a party chairwoman, a CEO, a CFO and several other high ranking figures because of embarrassing leaks. Julian Assange promises there will be more to come.

Donald Trump may be smarter about what he writes down than Hillary.

For Your Consideration

I hope this isn’t true, but I have no reason to believe that it’s a lie. Free Republic posted a story today claiming that Hillary Clinton was wearing an earpiece last night during the candidate forum.

The article reports:

While Clinton was fielding questions from NBC’s Matt Lauer and the public Wednesday night on live television, a quiet buzz started circulating in New York law enforcement circles about Hillary’s left ear. NYPD sources confirm Clinton was wearing an ‘inductive earpiece,’ the same technology employed by almost all lead Broadway actors to receive forgotten lines and stealth off-stage cues from directors. The flesh-colored earbud is easily concealed. There are no wires running directly to the ear like you see with the units employed by Secret Service protection detail personnel.

The skin-tone piece Clinton was wearing, however, was somewhat different from the standard issued stealth earpiece and is much different in appearance from a hearing aid. This unit is considered a “micro” earbud which contains all the technology but is a fraction of the size with a very high price tag. In fact, most of the units this size, approximately 3mm or comparable to a small pearl stud earring, are normally issued to law enforcement or corporate security teams, sources said. At a size that small, the earbud is designed to sit inside the opening of the ear canal, almost invisible to anyone. However, the unit does move and shift along with its wearer and at times can slightly pop out of the canal and require a quick readjustment, experts said.

Ironically, the revelation that Clinton was wearing such a unit might have only been recognized because of astute NYPD officers attached to her security detail who are accustomed to seeing the stealth apparatus at stage shows, conventions and security personnel of VIPs and international dignitaries at the United nations and elsewhere in the five boroughs. Likewise, NYPD detectives employ a parallel technology to communicate during undercover Ops.

Based on experts familiar with the technology, the stealth earpiece operates on a bandwidth from 300 Hz to 4KHz. Many such units are powered by SONY. The range of the unit can be unlimited depending on how the back end is set up. Technically, you could receive cues from 100 feet away or from someone sitting in Washington D.C. while you sat in New York City, experts said. The set up and range is flexible based on need and use. The unit does not require Bluetooth to operate via short distances but long range operations would require Bluetooth, which is easily configured.

This is the picture:

hillaryearbudIf anyone has a better explanation of what this is, please leave a comment. I would love to hear that she wasn’t cheating, but her history makes that doubtful. The really sad part is that she seems to think she can do anything dishonest that she wants and either no one will know or no one will care.

 

If We Had An Honest Media, This Video Would Be Unnecessary

The following video was posted on YouTube yesterday. The video is an interview of Julian Assange. Regardless of how you feel about this man, it is a very interesting interview.

PJ Media posted an article that included the video yesterday.

The article includes the following:

Assange claimed that Clinton knew full well what the (C) was for —  because she has used it thousands of times herself. He dropped the bombshell at the end of his interview with Sean Hannity.

“In the FBI report released Friday, I agree with your analysis, it is very strange that was released Friday afternoon on a Labor weekend,” Assange said. “I do think it draws questions to what sort of game the FBI is trying to play. … Hillary Clinton says that she can’t remember what a ‘C’ in brackets stands for. Everyone in positions of government and in WikiLeaks knows it stands for classified, confidential. And in fact, we have already released thousands of cables by Hillary Clinton…with a ‘C’ in brackets right there,” said Assange while producing one of the documents. “Thousands of examples, where she herself has used a ‘C’ in brackets, and signed it off, and more than 22,000 times that she has received cables from others with this ‘C’ in brackets. So, it’s absolutely incredible for Clinton to lie. She is lying about not knowing what that is, but it’s a bit disturbing that James Comey goes along with that game.”

Here is the video:

 

Draw your own conclusions.

Does This Bother Anyone?

Fox News is reporting today that emails obtained by Citizens United as part of its ongoing Freedom of Information Act request to the State Department show collusion between Hillary Clinton and the Democrats of the Senate Committee that was investigating Benghazi.

This is a screen shot of the emails (taken from the Fox News article):

emailsBenghaziHearingSo Senator Menendez was not interested in finding out what actually happened at Behghazi–he was interested in advancing Hillary’s political ambitions. I know there were people on that committee that cared about the truth, but they were blocked by committee members that were playing politics.

The article reports:

The emails were obtained by the group Citizens United as part of its ongoing Freedom of Information Act request to the State Department for emails from Chelsea Clinton and Hillary Clinton’s closest aides.  

“This email chain provides a rare behind the scenes look at which Benghazi-related issues the Clinton camp had concerns about going into Secretary Clinton’s January 2013 testimony on Capitol Hill, and what they had apparently plotted out beforehand with a Democrat committee member to deal with those concerns,” Citizens United said in a statement. “Citizens United will continue to release all new Benghazi emails we receive through our FOIA lawsuits as they come in — the American people have a right to know the full picture.”

Fox News asked the Clinton campaign as well as Menendez’s office if they coordinated before the 2013 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing; what was meant by the term “wired;” and how the email exchange was consistent with the principle of independent congressional oversight. There was no immediate response from either.

In 2013, the New Jersey senator — who is now facing federal public corruption charges — at the time of the hearing was about to become chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, replacing John Kerry who was in line to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Menendez has denied any wrongdoing.

Washington no longer represents the interests of Americans. It is time to clean house.

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.