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.

 

Hypocrisy At Its Worst

In 2013, USA Today posted the results of a survey taken of members of Congress that owned guns. Oddly enough, many of those Democrats (26 or so) were involved in the sit-in protesting the fact that Congress was not willing to pass any laws impacting current gun laws. As I have previously mentioned, the Democrats filibustered two of the gun laws that were introduced, staged the sit-in, and used the sit-in as an opportunity to raise money. A website called Heatstreet has the full story.

We need to be very careful about passing any legislation that limits the Second Amendment rights of Americans. At a time when our borders are not secure and there are many people entering the country with ill intentions, Americans need to be trained in how and when to use firearms to protect themselves.

Keeping The Voters Uninformed

Hillary Clinton will probably be the Democratic nominee for President. If she is indicted, the ticket will probably be Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren. However, I doubt very seriously that Mrs. Clinton will face any serious charges for the corruption and mishandling of classified information that she is guilty of. A recent story at Breitbart illustrates how the news media will minimize the seriousness of some of Mrs. Clinton’s actions.

The story reports:

CNN Money’s “fact-checkers” Cristina Alesci and Laurie Frankel ended up with egg on their faces on Wednesday after they rated as “false” a well-established and proven Clinton Cash fact involving Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. approving the transfer of 20 percent of U.S. uranium to the Russian government, as nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Under the guise of “fact-checking” Donald Trump’s Wednesday speech, Alesci and Frankel purported to verify whether “Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20% of America’s uranium holdings to Russia while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.”

Well, I guess all fact-checkers are not created equal.

The article further reports:

Why Alesci and Frankel couldn’t confirm the $145 million in Clinton Foundation donations for themselves is curious. Indeed, in a 4,000-word front page story written over a year ago, the New York TimesPulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Jo Becker and Mike McIntire verified the Clinton Cash uranium revelation in stunning detail, including charts and graphs laying out the flow of millions of dollars from the nine investors in the uranium deal who flowed $145 million to Hillary’s family foundation.

The article goes on to list a number of large donations to the Clinton Foundation from people who increased their wealth dramatically during Mrs. Clinton’s time as Secretary of State. Much of that increased wealth came from international business transactions that the State Department needed to sign off on. Unfortunately, a lot of the information contained in emails related to these transactions was on Mrs. Clinton’s private server and is missing. What an incredible coincidence.

The American voters are either unaware of this or our moral compass has become so enured to political corruption that no one cares. Either way, it is not good for our country.

About That Democratic Sit-In

There are a few background things all of us need to remember about the Democratic sit-in in the House of Representatives.

The Hill posted an article today about the fund raising efforts the Democrats are relating to the sit in.

The article reports:

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sent a brief email shortly after the sit-in crossed into Thursday, signed by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.)

“This is an historically important moment! John Lewis has been leading a sit-in on the House floor for 11 long hours now. We’re fighting to prevent gun violence,” the email reads. “The Republicans refuse to lift a finger. It’s shameful. I need your help to defeat them once and for all.”
 
The email asks for 6,000 donations and gives several options to donate amounts between $1 and $250. 
 
It was at least the sixth such email from the DCCC as the sit-in gained steam. Several were signed by Lewis, a civil rights leader and Georgia representative who has lead many of the demonstrations on the House floor. 

As usual, follow the money. But wait! There’s more!

The Democrats are complaining about the Republican filibuster of the two anti-Second Amendment gun bills the Democrats wanted to pass. What about the Democratic filibuster of the two common-sense gun bills the Republicans wanted to pass? (further details here) This is political theater aimed at the uninformed voter. Don’t be that uninformed voter.

 

It’s Time To Elect People Who Have Read The U.S. Constitution

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted an article quoting a letter written by nineteen California legislators to the state attorney general.

The article reports:

California congressmen wrote a letter to state attorney general Kamala Harris claiming the freedom of speech “is not designed to protect fraud and deceit” of the likes being spread by oil company ExxonMobil about global warming.

Nineteen Democratic lawmakers told Harris her “investigation as to whether ExxonMobil lied about the truth of climate change and misled investors does not constitute an effort to silence speech or scientific research.

“The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it does not protect companies from defrauding the American people or improperly disclosing information to their shareholders,” lawmakers, including California Reps. Maxine Waters and Ted Lieu, wrote to Harris.

So these legislators want the attorney general to decide which speech is protected. Evidently they believe that only some speech is protected by the First Amendment. I think I have heard this story before in Animal Farm where all animals were equal, but some animals were more equal than others.

I Might Actually Watch This

The Hill is reporting today that Bernie Sanders has agreed to debate Donald Trump as a charity event.

The article reports what Donald Trump said on Jimmy Kimmel live:

Yes, I am,” he said on ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” “How much is he going to pay me? If he paid a nice sum toward a charity, I’d love to do that.

“If I debated him, we would have such high ratings and I think I should take that money and give it to some worthy charity,” the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee added.

Sanders, a Democratic presidential candidate, later accepted Trump’s offer, even offering a potential battleground site.

I think I would be willing to watch that debate.

Prepare For The Pre-Election Spin

The Washington Examiner today is reporting on a new Washington Post poll taken on the Presidential race. Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton by two percentage points (within the margin of error) in the poll,  but don’t look for that number early in the story.

The article at The Washington Examiner reports:

It’s not the headline, and it takes 219 words to get there, but a new Washington Post poll on the presidential race reveals that Republican Donald Trump leads Democrat Hillary Clinton among registered voters 46 percent to 44 percent.

Inside the Post’s story about the poll is this paragraph:

“At this point, the two candidates are in a statistical dead heat among registered voters, with Trump favored by 46 percent and Clinton favored by 44 percent. That represents an 11-point shift toward the presumptive Republican nominee since March. Among all adults, Clinton holds a six-point lead (48 percent to 42 percent), down from 18 points in March.”

This is going to be an interesting election. Leading in a poll of people who don’t vote really isn’t worth much. The challenge for the Democrats will be getting voters to register and vote. Many Republicans are angry enough at Washington to come out and vote for anyone. Democrats can’t really blame the Republicans for the mess we are in now–Obama has been President for eight years and Hillary Clinton looks like more of the same.

Some News From The Democratic Side

Last week the media reported that Bernie Sanders supporters booed Barbara Boxer at the Democratic Convention in Nevada. Well, that’s not exactly what happened. Yesterday Salon, a generally Democratic new outlet, posted a first-hand account of what actually happened. The Sanders supporters were not booing Barbara Boxer–they were booing the fact that the convention rules had been changed to marginalize their voice and their candidate.

The article reports:

…It wasn’t long before things took a turn. At 9:30, a full half hour before registration closed, Lange (Chairwoman, Roberta Lange) read the results of ballots that had been passed out to early arriving conventioneers regarding temporary rules for the convention, rules which would discount the results of the county convention (the second tier of the caucus process, where Bernie had won more delegates), rules which would require that all votes at the convention be decided by voice alone, and which ruled that the decision of the chairperson would be final. These temporary rules had passed with flying colors, which did not sit well with the Bernie delegates, many of whom had not been given ballots. Suddenly half the people of the room were on their feet, shouting “No!!!!” My son and I jumped to our feet as well, added our voices to the chorus. It felt good, all those voices of resistance vibrating through my body. I started to feel less like a cloud. I felt myself drop back into my body, surrounded by all these bodies yelling “No!”, feeling alive inside my skin.

Then people began to chant “Recount” and my son and I joined this call, too, throats aching, adrenaline coursing. Lange took the temporary rules to a voice vote. A hearty round of “Aye”s rose up from the Hillary side of the room, but when it was time for the “Nay” vote, the response was so loud, I felt it shake my every cell, felt it alter my heartbeat. The room was explosive with “Nay”s, roaring with it, and yet Lange decided in favor of the “Aye”s, which only set off more yelling. I thought about my dad, how once when I was a kid, I wanted to do something and my sister didn’t, and he said “If someone says no, you need to listen.” Lange definitely didn’t listen to all the “no”s in the room.

No wonder the Bernie Sanders supporters were booing.

The article continues:

From reports from my husband and other conventioneers, and from my own firsthand experience as my son and I wandered in and out of the hall as the day progressed, it appeared that Lange didn’t listen to much of anything the Bernie delegates had to say; she appeared not to count the votes from that side of the room; she ejected dozens of Bernie delegates who didn’t have a chance to defend their eligibility, and who, if they were allowed to stay, would have given Bernie more delegates than Hillary; she didn’t allow for a “minority report”; she cut off microphones when people challenged her.

When I read news stories about what happened that day, I don’t recognize much of what is being reported—while there was plenty of chaos, I witnessed no violence (nor did my husband or anyone else I knew at the convention). Bernie supporters were not trying to change the rules, as some journalists reported: they were justifiably outraged when the chairperson changed the rules without a majority vote, and then more outraged when, later, after a motion for a delegate recount, she shut the whole convention down with a pound of the gavel and threatened arrest to anyone who stayed in the room. So many of the news reports of the convention feel like gaslighting in that regard—stories trying to make it sound as if the Bernie delegates were a bunch of crazy nutjobs, when all they wanted was to be heard and counted.

The Hillary Clinton for President forces are ruthless. They really don’t care who they step on–even in their own party. I hope the Republicans remember this in November. I am not a Trump supporter, but I will vote for him before I will vote for Hillary. Most of all, I want an honest election.

Some Wisdom From John Bolton

I will continue to repeat that Donald Trump was not my first choice for President. However, he will become my first choice if he wins the Republican nomination (which I believe he will). I am not unique in the fact that I am planning to cast my vote in November against Hillary Clinton (four more years of President Obama) regardless of who the Republican nominee is (there are a few exceptions to that based on any shenanigans the establishment Republicans may pull at the convention). Evidently I am not the only person feeling that way.

A website called ETFNews posted an article yesterday quoting Ambassador John Bolton on the presidential race.

The article reports:

“I believe this is a binary choice,” Bolton said. “The next president will either be Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, unless Hillary gets indicted. Talk about a third-party candidate, I think, is badly misplaced. The idea of not voting at all is no better because, functionally, that’s a vote for Hillary. And it may have a really harmful effect on Senate and House races where Republicans are going to be fighting hard to maintain control.”

Bolton said the issue is of utmost importance because Hillary would give us at least another four years of Obama’s defeatist foreign policy.

“Hillary is extremely happy with the Obama foreign policy. It’s almost an urban legend now that somehow she would be tougher, more hawkish (than Obama). I really don’t see that,” Bolton said.

Ambassador Bolton is a man who has served at the highest levels of government and knows the people involved. All of us need to listen to him.

The article further reports:

Bolton, President George W. Bush’s ambassador to the United Nations from 2005 to 2006, had held out on endorsing anyone during the nomination fight, while saying he would support the Republican nominee. Reports say that he briefly considered running himself, although from his remarks he’s clearly given up that ghost.

He still has reservations about Trump, but says that they’re nowhere near as huge as the doubts he has about Hillary and her continuation of Obama’s foreign policy mistakes.

“It’s also important to demonstrate that Trump can can fulfill the most important job of the presidency, which is keeping the country safe,” Bolton said.

“Obviously, the economy’s important. There’s a lot of important issues, but if the country’s not safe, everything else is secondary.”

I agree. Not happily, but I agree.

If We Needed Proof It Was Rigged…

The 2016 Democratic Party Convention will be held in Philadelphia in late July. Even if Bernie Sanders manages to win 45 states, Hillary Clinton will be the nominee. It has to do with the superdelegates who I am sure have been wined, dined, and threatened by the Clinton family.

The Hill posted an article today that if you had any doubts will convince you that the outcome of the convention is pre-determined, regardless of how the Democratic voters voted.

The article reports:

“I think it’s gonna be a great convention, but of course the key to it is the Sanders people. Bernie’s gonna have his name placed in nomination; we’re gonna have a roll call; there’s gonna be a demonstration in support of Bernie; he’s gonna lose the roll call,” he said. “His supporters have to behave and not cause trouble. And I think they will, and I think Sen. Sanders will send them a strong message.”

This is the current delegate count (from Wikipedia):

DemocratDelegateCountNotice that without the superdelegates this is a close race. If you are a Democrat who voted for Bernie Sanders, did your vote count?

 

Republicans In Virginia Are Suing To Preserve An Honest Election In 2016

On April 25, I posted an article about the Executive Order issued by Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe giving convicted felons the right to vote. The Executive Order would add approximately 200,000 votes to the voter rolls. The majority of the felons would be expected to register and vote as Democrats. Evidently, Virginia Republicans have decided to fight the Executive Order.

ABC News is reporting today:

Republican lawmakers in Virginia will file a lawsuit challenging Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s decision to allow more than 200,000 convicted felons to vote in November, GOP leaders said Monday.

Republicans argue the governor has overstepped his constitutional authority with a clear political ploy designed to help the campaign of his friend and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in the important swing state this fall.

“Gov. McAuliffe’s flagrant disregard for the Constitution of Virginia and the rule of law must not go unchecked,” Senate Republican Leader Thomas Norment said in a statement. He added that McAuliffe’s predecessors and previous attorneys general examined this issue and concluded Virginia’s governor can’t issue blanket restorations.

A National Review article posted on April 25th points out:

It is estimated that McAuliffe’s action will add 3.8 percent to the 5.4 million registered voters in Virginia. That may not seem like a lot, but McAuliffe knows very well that Virginia today is a swing state with recent statewide elections that have been decided by a very small margin. In 2013, the current attorney general, Mark Herring (D.), won his race by only 907 votes. Former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell (R.) won his prior post as attorney general by only 360 votes in 2005. Even the Washington Post, which applauded McAuliffe’s action, acknowledged there is “no doubt” about the “political dimension” in this move by “a Democrat and longtime friend and fundraiser for Bill and Hillary Clinton” — namely, that it “grant[s] Democrats a crucial edge in a swing state ahead of November’s presidential election.”

If the Republicans expect to survive in Virginia, they need to fight back.

Following The Money

Hot Air is reporting today that an Associated Press review of speaking fees paid to Hillary Clinton showed that almost all of the companies that paid large fees had lobbied either the Obama Administration or the State Department.

The article reports:

Part of the premise of the AP’s research seems to be that people paying Clinton $200k plus per speech assumed her career in politics was not over when she left the State Department. As the AP puts it, “Their interests would follow Clinton to the White House should she win election this fall.”

Clinton has been under pressure to release transcripts of some of her speeches, especially by Bernie Sanders who has made it a regular part of his stump speech. Politico reported in February that Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street firms were nothing unusual but were very positive in a way that might not play well in a Democratic primary.

There is nothing wrong with being well paid for making speeches. However, buying influence is a different matter. I suspect Hillary Clinton is not the only Washington politician guilty of accepting large speaking fees from individuals or corporations attempting to influence policy. However, voters need to ask themselves whether they want to elect someone to the White House who has so obviously abused the system. The Clintons seem to have had the ability to leave the White House ‘broke’ and suddenly have a net worth that should make any Democrat blush. It really is time for them to ride quietly into the sunset.

The Battle For The Soul Of The North Carolina Republican Party

North Carolina is currently reflecting the battle going on in America for the soul of the Republican party. The establishment is pushing their agenda, and the grass roots are screaming to be heard. There is a reason that the two leading candidates are not the choice of the people regarded as Republican leaders. The grass roots are angry. They have been sending Republicans to Washington for a number of years now only to be brokenhearted about what the people they send do. There is very little difference between the Republican and Democratic parties right now, and Americans are looking for an alternative to both.

In North Carolina the battle is reflected in the treatment of the Republican State Chairman. Hasan Harnett who was elected last year at the state convention. He was not the choice of the establishment Republicans in the party. Hasan is a conservative, as is his vice-chairman, Michele Nix. Lately he has been locked out of his email and evidently his office. The Central Committee of the North Carolina Republican Party has not treated him well.

The Daily Haymaker has posted a number of articles on the events.

One article reports:

Leaders of two of the largest, most active Tea Party organizations have issued releases announcing their intention to protest at the NCGOP 2nd congressional district meeting in Sanford on Saturday, April 9.

Moore Tea Citizens and the Asheville Tea Party issued the following statement:

[…] It has been very obvious from the moment of Mr. Harnett’s election at the 2015 State Convention, that the Central Committee has been highly displeased that their establishment insider candidate, endorsed by Governor McCrory, Senators Richard Burr and Thom Tillis, was not the choice of the GOP base.

Conversely, The GOP party members who elected Mr. Harnett are not at all pleased with the NCGOP Central Committee for their non-transparent, secretive tactics thwarting Chairman Harnett attempts to be successful. These tactics include: denying him access to NCGOP headquarters, his email account, and false accusations of hacking the website.

The grassroots support for Chairman Harnett is based in his Conservative credentials and relationship with his GOP constituents. The grassroots contend that neither has been embraced by the party establishment elites.

The NCGOP war on the grassroots has also gained much media attention in both state and national news outlets such as The Wall Street Journal. This ‘rift’ has even caught the attention of talk show host Rush Limbaugh. If this is not resolved, it has the potential of damaging the outcome of our general elections in November.

[…]Liberty loving citizens who refuse to sit down, and shut up, please join us to support NCGOP Chairman Hasan Harnett. Chairman Harnett is a fine man and Patriot. He does not deserve this treatment from NCGOP party elites whose only interest is to protect their power, not represent WE THE PEOPLE.

Come and join the many so together we make a difference.

Another article in The Daily Haymaker reports:

If you’re a regular reader of this site, you are pretty well caught up on the details of the NCGOP saga.  Well, beleaguered party chairman Hasan Harnett has emerged from his bunker to rally his supporters and fire off a few volleys at his Central Committee foes: 

I understand the concerns about having a conflict with district conventions, but my main premise for pushing forward was to put the divisive infighting behind us so we can move forward in beating Democrats in the fall. Consequently, I am canceling the Executive Committee meeting on April 9th and am asking that you not sign the petitions to call for a special meeting on April 30th.

Likewise, I am a volunteer Chairman and must work for a living to provide for my family. The NCGOP staff was already notified on January 27th of my schedule. I am traveling out of the country on business starting April 23rd thru May 1st (see the date and time stamp below). The only Saturdays in April I am available are 4/2, 4/9, and 4/16 of which all of these dates have district conventions. Due to scheduling constraints, we should not have our next Executive Committee meeting until after the State Convention.

It is also apparent that the Central Committee is attempting to schedule an April 30th Executive Committee meeting. The sole premise of the Central Committee’s petition for the April 30th meeting is to remove your State Chairman during an election year. Who likes junk mail? The statements in the letter you received are nothing more than bald faced lies. Furthermore, the claims in that letter have no factual basis whatsoever and is why most of you have placed these petition letters in either your recycle bin or underneath your junk mail. If you already signed it, please email me requesting your signature be removed from the petition, and I will make sure it is eliminated. For anyone still contemplating, I urge you not to sign the petition for the April 30th Executive Committee meeting.

Instead, let us focus our energies on the ongoing District Conventions and upcoming State Convention. We are moving on because there really is no time to waste. We have an exciting year ahead of us and today is a new day. While there are a number of issues to address, I believe we can find the appropriate solutions together.

All of your feedback is greatly appreciated. Feel free to call, email or text me should you have additional thoughts.

Respectfully,

Hasan

This is a good move on Harnett’s part.  It frees up folks who were interested in giving the scheming Cotten gals an old-fashioned piece of their mind. 

And from a friend who attended a recent District Republican Committee Meeting:

I believe the National Convention outcome is behind the hoopla to remove Hasan. At the moment, Hasan gets to pick a slate of 30 Delegates and 30 Alternates. Presuming that we have a brokered convention in Cleveland, for whom those delegates vote could make a huge difference in the outcome. I suspect Hasan would pick people who support Cruz or Trump (I don’t know which), and the RNC has a huge problem with both of those people. Therefore, I believe it is the RNC and their state power brokers who originally backed Craig Collins for Chairman of the NC GOP who are behind all of this unrest.

A lot is at stake with the election of delegates to the National Convention. There is much behind the scenes jockeying to have delegates at the Convention who will support certain candidates, ESPECIALLY IF IT IS A “BROKERED” OR “CONTESTED ” ONE. The power players have their claws out.

We need to thwart this scheme, and hold to the will of the body!

NOW THAT I HAVE STATED WHAT I BELIEVE IS THE REAL PROBLEM, here are the concerns Constitutional Conservatives should have about how the District Convention was conducted. The folks who are constantly calling for party unity at all costs, the “Establishment Republicans,” are well versed in techniques to use in procedures to get their way. First, they know that Convention attendees are in many cases not committed enough to devote a great deal of time to do the Convention’s business. Many come to rally the party, hear speeches, meet candidates, have a good time, etc. Therefore, the first tactic is always to put off hearing the business they want to thwart until folks are getting anxious to go home, and then call for a count of attendance to check to see if the meeting still has a quorum. Thankfully, this tactic was not working last Saturday.

What did work was to keep moving for amendments to the motion to adopt the resolution requesting an investigation of the NCGOP Central Committee – to keep stirring in minutia – until people tired of the controversy and wanted to get this over so we could elect delegates and go home. When this point was reached, there were the usual calls for party unity, etc. (The irony is that the folks calling for unity tended to be firmly in the group that caused the dis-unity in the first place.)

I would like to restate that the people calling for unity are the people who have undercut Chairman Harnett since he was elected. It is difficult to respect their calls for unity when they are refusing to back their duly elected chairman. If the Republican party wants to be a viable party in the future, they need to do some serious housecleaning. If you want to be a Democrat, join the Democratic party. If you want to be a Republican, respect the grass roots–they are the ones who usually do the work.

 

We Need A Reality Check Here

The Hill is reporting today that after his recent primary victories in Washington, Alaska and Hawaii, Bernie Sanders has stated that he believes that the super delegates will switch from supporting Hillary to supporting him.

The article reports:

The latest delegate counts still put Sanders behind Clinton, however, with 1,004 pledged delegates to her 1,712.

Of those, 469 are superdelegates who have pledged to Clinton and only 29 have pledged to Sanders.

Sanders on Sunday said those superdelegates may begin to see the “reality” that he’s the best candidate to beat GOP front runner Donald Trump.

“I think when they begin to look at reality, and that is that we are beating Donald Trump by much larger margins than Secretary Clinton” Sanders said. “And then you’ve got superdelegates in states where we win by 40 or 50 points. I think their own constituents are going to say to them, ‘Hey, why don’t you support the people of our state and vote for Sanders?'”

There is absolutely nothing I can add to this article.

Is This Really What Democratic Voters Want?

The American Thinker posted an article today that includes the following quote from Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea was answering a question as she campaigned for her mother:

AUDIENCE MEMBER: “Is she planning on expanding Obamacare as people know it, ACA, to include people who are not fully documented? Because when you get ill, your illness will not ask you if you are a permanent resident or not.”

CLINTON: “It’s such an important question. Thank you for supporting my mom. My mom has very strong feelings that we must push as quickly as possible for comprehensive immigration reform, and this is a real difference between her’s and Senator Sanders’ record, she supported comprehensive immigration reform at every possible chance and she was one of the original supporters and sponsors of the DREAM Act. She does not believe that while we are working towards comprehensive immigration reform we should make people wait, like the families you are talking about. Which is why she thinks it’s so important to extend the Affordable Care Act to people who are living and working here, regardless of immigration status, regardless of citizenship status. While we’re pushing for comprehensive immigration reform and reminding Republicans who are currently running for president that a couple of years ago they actually supported comprehensive immigration reform – something they seem to have forgotten during this election cycle – that we do whatever we can to solve challenges in the education system and the health system and elsewhere.”

Okay. Let’s back up a little. Emergency rooms are not allowed to turn away people who need medical attention–regardless of whether or not they can pay for it and regardless of their legal status. To open up national health care to everyone who is here whether they are here legally or not is to commit financial suicide. This is not just about healthcare–this is about the financial survival of America. If this is done, America will lose the middle class. The middle class will be expected to bear the additional debt and tax burden that this will entail. Upward mobility in America will be a distant dream of the past. Eventually it will not only hurt the people who come here seeking a better life–they won’t find one; it will hurt the people who live here now. If you are planning to vote for Hillary, you might also plan to apologize to your children and grandchildren in the future as you explain why you didn’t do something to prevent the bankruptcy of America.

Just a note. While I was working the polls Tuesday, a woman came up to me and said that she thought ‘the rich’ should pay for new roads and bridges and new college buildings. I wonder if she realizes that because ‘the rich’ have tax accountants and people who help them legally avoid taxes, the burden will fall on the middle class. Ultimately, she will be paying for these things. Class warfare is a useful political tool, but it is not an honest one.

This Is No Way To Win An Election

I am a registered Republican. There are a few reasons for that. Last time I checked, there was no Conservative Party, and the Republican party was the closest I could come. The interesting thing about the Republican party is the independence of its members. If you look closely at the Democratic party, you find a conglomeration of various special interest groups and causes. These special interests tend to support each other and vote as a bloc. If you look closely at the Republican party right now, I am not sure what you find. There is an element of small government, fiscal conservatism, etc., but that is not the element that is in charge of the Republican party. Add to that the fact that Republicans tend not to march in lock step, and it gets truly interesting.

North Carolina is currently in the midst of a struggle that is a microcosm of the battle between the establishment and the grass roots that is taking place in the Republican party primary elections. The establishment is tearing its hair out at the possibility of a Donald Trump or Ted Cruz nomination. Either one of these candidates has the potential to end the crony capitalism the establishment Republicans and Democrats have set up in Washington in recent years.

Now, the battle has spilled over to North Carolina. The News Observer is reporting today that the Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party (who is not a favorite of the party establishment) has been shut out of his email account since Monday. There are a few other grass roots types that have also been shut out of their accounts.

The Daily Haymaker also posted an article about the emails. The Daily Haymaker article states:

State GOP chairman Hasan Harnett has fired the latest shot in an email to executive director Dallas Woodhouse, accountant Greg Fornshell, and to hundreds of GOP bigwigs across the state:

[…] Mr. Woodhouse/Fornshell, I am politely requesting you turn my NCGOP Google email immediately back on. I know you have disabled my Google Email account through Computer Plumber. I have called Greg Fornshell and sent text messages but he remains silent. I had also visited the NCGOP Headquarters in Raleigh and apparently Greg Fornshell slipped out of the office ahead of my arrival. I have contacted the Computer Plumber company who services our email account and they said I need to talk with Greg Fornshell. Pretty interesting. Who gave the command? From my perspective, it’s the same old playbook and routine. Dallas, since you run the staff I know you gave the command to Greg Fornshell to disable my account.

Greg Fornshell, you can hide behind the covering of Dallas Woodhouse because he told you to do it. Dallas, the question remains will you also hide behind Tom Starks, General Counsel of the NCGOP to attempt to usurp his authority again and again over me? Or was it the current Central Committee staying on their talking points to make another bogus decision against me? Evidently, having closed door meetings with you does not work because either you brush me off or you just don’t listen. Why are you playing these silly games? Is this a joke or something?

Why would you stoop so low as to disable the Chairman’s NCGOP Google Email account? Why are fighting me? I have brought sound ideas to the table and have bent over backwards to make great things happen for all of us at the NCGOP. It is apparent that my sincere help and service to the Republican Party is not appreciated or welcomed by you and the Central Committee. It is apparent that you and the Central Committee want to do your own thing by working around me as oppose to working with me.

Is the reason why my account is disabled because you and the Central Committee do not want me to succeed as Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party? Or will you try to hide behind a some bogus email virus attack to explain why my account is disabled? As Chairman, I require full access to my email account in order to carry out my day to day duties which includes fundraising so we can get Republicans elected. Therefore, shutting me out of my official NCGOP Google Email is suppose to accomplish what again? I really question your purpose and motive. I mean seriously, is this some form of ritual or hazing you would put the first black Chairman of the NCGOP State Party through? Or is it because I am not white enough for you? You keep pushing the limits. I guess time will only tell what your real plot and schemes are all about against me. No, worries. Like chess, I await your next move. […] 

Hasan Harnett was duly elected at last year’s GOP Convention in Raleigh. Since his election, the old guard Republicans in North Carolina have worked tirelessly to undermine him. I would like to quietly remind the establishment Republicans that the worker bees in the party and the enthusiasm tend to come from the grass roots. To play these silly games now is to work against your supposed goal of winning the next election.

Bernie Sanders Has Won The Democratic Kansas Caucuses

The Hill has just reported that Bernie Sanders has won the Democratic caucuses in Kansas.

The article reports:

The Democratic Party of Kansas projected the result with 90 percent of precincts reporting. It said 40,000 people participated in the caucuses, a larger turnout than 2008.

Sanders is running strong in another Midwestern state, Nebraska, and could be poised for two early Super Saturday wins.

Kansas, which will award its 33 pledged delegates proportionally, is the sixth state to be won by Sanders so far. He has also won New Hampshire, Vermont, Colorado, Minnesota and Oklahoma.

As I have stated previously, I am not a Democrat. However, I understand that the way the Democratic Primary is set up, the Super Delegates are already lined up for Hillary Clinton. She will get the nomination regardless of how many votes Bernie Sanders gets. This system was set up after George McGovern won the nomination and then lost in all but two places because he was so far out of the mainstream of American political thought. The system of Super Delegates was set up to avoid that happening again. Although I understand the logic in this, if I were a Democratic voter who supported Bernie Sanders, I would be livid. Either votes count or they don’t count. I am not a Trump supporter, but if he wins the primary elections, he deserves to be the nominee. If the establishment Republicans take it away from him, I will quite likely leave the Republican party. Again, either votes count or they don’t count. The rule applies to both political parties.

 

Some Observations About Yesterday’s Election

Yesterday a number of states held primary elections. Political junkies were watching carefully for clues to the future. I have chosen three articles that I think best explain where we are. The first article was posted by Andrew Malcolm at Investor’s Business Daily. The second article was posted at The Hill. The third article is from The Federalist. Before I continue, I would like to add one caution–this is the silly season. Most of what you are going to hear in the next two weeks is not true. Be very careful what you believe.

Investor’s Business Daily points out:

The bottom line — or one of them — is that not much has changed. No one new dropped out, which helps Trump by keeping his opposition divided heading into the big Fox News debate in Detroit Thursday evening.

What we do know for sure now is that the GOP is split by deep fissures heading into peak primary season. Rubio and Cruz think the other should drop out.

Kasich, who’s been getting in the 4%-5% range, called on the others to quit and declared: “We have absolutely exceeded expectations.”

The governor is holding on to very little except the prayer that lightning will give him a victory back home in Ohio on March 15 and, who knows, maybe some VP consideration from Trump as a reward for denying Cruz and Rubio enough votes to catch the billionaire.

Trump had a good night, although he under-performed his polling heading into the biggest voting day of this cycle so far. That and Rubio’s late surge to second in Virginia could be a sign the Florida senator’s mocking attacks are having some impact.

Rubio declared Tuesday evening: “Donald Trump will never be the nominee of the Republican Party. We are not going to turn over the party of Lincoln and Reagan to a con man.” He called Trump “a creature of the media, the same media that’s going to tear him to shreds if he ever becomes our nominee.”

Does anyone remember Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment?

The article from The Hill points out that the precinct that includes Liberty University did not follow the lead of Jerry Falwell Jr., the school’s president, and vote for Donald Trump. The total’s from that precinct are as follows: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) took first with 44 percent support in Liberty’s precinct and 513 votes, followed by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at 33 percent, Ben Carson at 14 percent and Trump at 8 percent.

The article at The Federalist made a number of observations. The first observation is that Trump underperformed:

He lost Texas to Cruz, as expected. But he lost it bigly — some 17 points. He also lost Oklahoma to Cruz. And then Cruz went ahead and won Alaska to boot. Minnesota went for Marco Rubio, his first state victory. Trump also underperformed in other states, such as Virginia. The Real Clear Politics average of polls headed into the contest was near 15 points. He won by 2.8% over Rubio. That meant Trump got 17 delegates to Rubio’s 16. His wins in Vermont and Arkansas were by similarly small margins.

The difference between the Republican and Democratic voter turnout is dramatic:

These Tuesday contests continued a pattern of record-breaking turnout for Republican primary voters and decreased turnout for Democratic voters (Colorado saw more Democratic voters than they had in 2008). Only Vermont didn’t have record-breaking turnout for its Republican primary, and it was still way up over the last contest. Many of the states whose contests were held on Super Tuesday hold open primaries, which means traditionally Democratic voters could be crossing over to vote for Trump or another candidate. No matter the cause, the excitement of both Trump voters and those seeking to stop him is palpable and contributing to the voter turnout.

One wonders if this is Democrats crossing over because they feel Trump cannot beat Hillary Clinton or if it is enthusiastic Trump supporters. At this point I have no idea.

The article at The Federalist also states:

And while Cruz has previously shown much strength, many of the upcoming primaries are in states with demographics more like Minnesota than Texas or Oklahoma. Cruz and Rubio have shown strength in states with closed primaries, where Democrats can’t switch over to vote for Trump.

Trump is dominating and on path to the nomination. No one else has a good path, except if they all keep fighting to keep Trump from getting the delegates he needs. Expect much more discussion about whether people need to get out or stay in.

The question for those who would like to see a Republican president elected in November is simple, “Will the Democrats who are voting for Trump in the primary elections vote for him in November?” I honestly do not know the answer to that question, but I suggest that the people running the Republican presidential campaigns find that answer quickly.

 

 

Karma Is Always Interesting

Someone much wiser than I once said, “Always keep your words soft and sweet, just in case you have to eat them.” That man was Andy Rooney. Eating your words is something no one likes to do, but in this age of digital information, everything a public figure has said can be easily discovered.

On Monday, Truth Revolt posted the following statement made by then Senator Joe Biden in 1992:

JoeBidenSCOTUSIf you follow the link above, it includes the C-SPAN video of Vice President Biden making this statement.