I signed up with “True the Vote”http://truethevote.org/
They have state-by-state hot line numbers for reporting election fraud.
As I have reported in the past, in 2012 my wife had a machine that reported Democratic selection no matter how often she select Republican. This is being reported in Texas now.
I suggested photographing you vote. This is illegal in some states. Is it illegal if the machine is crooked? Only a lawyer can say.
Jan Mel Poller
The objective of this libelous new report from the hard-Left money-making and incitement machine the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is made plain within it: “Before you book a spokesperson from an anti-Muslim extremist group or quote them in a story, research their background — detailed in this in-depth guide to 15 of the most visible anti-Muslim activists— and consider the consequences of giving them a platform.”
They wish to silence those who speak honestly about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat, blaming us for a supposed rise in “Islamophobia.” If they really want to stamp out suspicion of Islam, of course, they will move against not us, but the likes of Omar Mateen, Syed Rizwan Farook, Tashfeen Malik, Nidal Malik Hasan, Mohammed Abdulazeez, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and the myriad other Muslims who commit violence in the name of Islam and justify it by reference to Islamic teachings.
The SPLC doesn’t do that because its objective is not really to stop “Islamophobia” at all, but to create the illusion of a powerful and moneyed network of “Islamophobes,” who can only be stopped if you write a check to the SPLC. That’s what this is really all about.
In constructing this illusory edifice, the SPLC labels me and fourteen others “anti-Muslim extremists.” We are, of course, no more “anti-Muslim” than foes of the Nazis were anti-German, but note the word “extremists.” That’s the mainstream media and Obama administration’s term of choice for jihad terrorists. In what way are we “extremists”? Has anyone on the SPLC’s hit list (and given the SPLC’s track record of inciting violence against its targets, that is exactly what it is) ever blown anything or anyone up? Beheaded anyone? Boasted of our imminent conquest of any territory and the massacre of or enslavement of its people? No, all we have done is speak critically about jihad terror and Sharia oppression. The SPLC is trying to further the libel that we are the other side of the coin, the non-Muslim bin Ladens and Awlakis. Until we commit any terror attacks or conspire with others to do so, however, the SPLC’s libel is only that: a libel.
Below is Richard Baehr’s review of David Horowitz’s new book, The Left in Power: Clinton to Obama (reprinted from American Thinker with permission). The book is volume 7 of The Black Book of the American Left, a multi-volume collection of David Horowitz’s conservative writings that will, when completed, be the most ambitious effort ever undertaken to define the Left and its agenda. (Order HERE.) We encourage our readers to visit BlackBookOfTheAmericanLeft.com which features Horowitz’s introductions to Volumes 1-7 of this 9-volume series, along with their tables of contents, reviews and interviews with the author.
Every year, there is some report of the blissful ignorance of American history demonstrated by the supposedly best and brightest at elite American universities. Suffice it to say the collected writings of David Horowitz on the American Left, which constitute part of a solid foundation for understanding the last half century of American politics, are nowhere to be found on any college or high school reading list.
Horowitz’s latest book, The Left in Power: Clinton to Obama, is the seventh volume in his nine-volume collection, The Black Book of the American Left. This new volume provides a collection of his writings over the last quarter century, focusing primarily on the Left’s control in our government and culture. As Horowitz reveals, even during the Bush years, conservatives were on the defense and leftists controlled the narrative as they attempted to destroy Bush and his chances for re-election in 2004. Their primary mode of attack was to undermine America’s efforts in Iraq almost from the start of the conflict, when just months earlier a majority of Senate Democrats and near half of House Democrats had supported the President. The Left then destroyed Bush’s second term with bogus charges of racist neglect in the handling of Hurricane Katrina. There was plenty of incompetence in the response to Katrina, but local and state officials — all Democrats, of course, and many of them African American — were the principal operators on the ground during the crisis.
The immediate abandonment of support for the Iraq war effort was a signal event in American history, sending a message that a large part of the Democratic Party was not remotely concerned about the morale of our men and women fighting overseas. The weak effort by some Democrats to hold onto an ounce of patriotic resolve — “end the war, support the troops” — was designed more for campaign speeches than any meaningful attempt to convey national unity for the effort underway by our armed forces. So too, the obsession with Abu Ghraib gave the lie to the Democrats’ “support our troops” message, as a broad brush was used to paint the incident as somehow what you would expect from our military on a routine basis.
Horowitz outlines this narrative, faulting the Bush administration for failing to fight harder to present its story of why we went into Iraq and the risks if we had done nothing. Regrettably, the Bush administration never had a chance to get a better defense of the Iraq war out to the media. Most in the media considered the Bush administration illegitimate due to its narrow victory in the 2000 presidential contest, a lie to be sure. Unfortunately, it is almost certainly true that the media today are far more in the bag for the left than ten or twenty years ago and work harder at pushing the left’s agenda. The soft liberalism of Walter Cronkite has been replaced by cable and national network anchors who routinely bury stories embarrassing to their side and focus on those that can do damage to the other side. During the current Presidential election cycle, we have seen the most prestigious media organs explain why it is necessary and appropriate for them to be biased this year. It is a special time, they argue, because Trump is, in their view, a unique threat to the Republic.
On the other hand, the media have been loath to consider the damage to the country caused by Barack Obama — the loss of respect abroad for America’s will to fight, the degradation of our military readiness, the fraying of ties with allies, and the near obsessive outreach to America’s enemies that led to agreements such as the nuclear deal with Iran, best described as an abject surrender of American interests that will lead to the funding of fanatical nuclear regime. About 85% of those supposedly sensible pro-Israel Democrats walked the plank behind their great leader on that deal, with no visible regrets to date. There was simply too much political risk to oppose the first black president of their party. The media were happy to parrot the administration’s talking points for the nuclear deal, something the manipulators crowed over at the White House.
At least in the propaganda use of Abu Ghraib, the Left was honest in revealing what it thinks about the military. As Horowitz outlines in article after article, the Left is fighting a war that most Americans do not see, disguising its intentions through its aggressive, unceasing promotion of “progressive” policies “to make America a better place.” This commitment to deception emerges, Horowitz reveals, from the allegiance to the ideology of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” a formative doctrine for both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The progressive goal is to achieve a new society that has never been seen before in this country, though it has been promised and has catastrophically failed in many places around the globe. In America, the Left is not only unconcerned with selling their program to the public, but also, Horowitz argues, it is fearful of the result of voters knowing what it is pursuing. One prime example was the admission of MIT professor and Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber that health care law would never have made it through Congress if it had been presented honestly.
Protesters at the University of California Berkeley shut down a bridge, preventing white people from crossing it. The protesters then posted an “eviction notice” on a campus building, and finally paraded through the student union and the campus entrance, disrupting students who were trying to study and blocking traffic in a central intersection.
A group of about 100 students united to block one side of a bridge, chanting, “Go around! Go around!” to any white people in the area. One black protester told a white student trying to cross, “I’m telling you, this isn’t about you. This is about whiteness, this is not about you. We don’t care about you.”
This new “safe space” segregation forced white students to go around the bridge, crossing Strawberry Creek below it.
Members of the University of California Police Department (UCPD) gathered to provide safety, and they gave helpful directions to white people who were physically prevented from crossing the bridge.
A lead protester shouted profanities at UCPD, even as the police had gathered to guarantee her safety. “Berkeley, why the f**k do you let UCPD do what they want with our bodies?” the protester belted, perhaps referring to the Black Lives Matter claims that police abuse people of color. “I’m talking to you, UCPD, I don’t give a f**k about you!”
David Malpass, senior economic adviser to Republican nominee Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, said Trump should have “responded directly” against rival Hillary Clinton’s argument in the final debate that his tax plan would benefit the wealthy.
In the final presidential debate, Clinton said, “Donald’s plan has been analyzed to conclude it might lose 3.5 million jobs. Why? Because his whole plan is to cut taxes, to give the biggest tax breaks ever to the wealthy and to corporations, adding $20 trillion to our debt, and causing the kind of dislocation that we have seen before, because it truly will be trickle-down economics on steroids.”
PJM asked Malpass, a former New York Senate candidate, if Trump’s tax plan disproportionately benefits the wealthy and why Trump did not chose to keep the existing upper-income tax rates the same.
“She [Hillary Clinton] was wrong on that and he should have responded directly to that. There were lots of things going on in the debate at that time so the fact is that his plan has its biggest benefit for middle-class taxpayers and that’s done in two ways. One is the direct cut in tax rates through the brackets and the lowering of the rates, but then very important to the middle class is a higher participation rate, which means that people’s wages will go up. We’ve had this period for years now, nearly 15 years of declines in real median income with a very high top marginal tax rate and so that system is not working,” Malpass told PJM after a National Economists Club luncheon last week.
According to the Tax Foundation’s analysis, the Trump plan would give a large tax break to middle- and upper-income taxpayers. Under Trump’s plan, someone making under $25,000 and a family making less than $50,000 per year would not pay any income tax.
“Reagan addressed this all in great detail. There were lots of economic studies done that if you have a lower top marginal rate, the biggest share of the benefit goes into the middle class, which is what would happen here, so there should have been pushback on that. I think she was incorrect in that and, of course, that’s always a position of Democrats, that we should raise taxes on the rich because they won’t feel it and there won’t be an impact on anybody else in society. We know that’s not true,” Malpass said.
According to an analysis by economists and computer engineers at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, Trump’s tax plan would be better for the economy in the short term while Clinton’s would be better in the long run. The analysis estimated that Trump’s tax plan would create 1.7 million jobs, but there could be 682,000 fewer jobs by 2027 than in the current economy. As for Clinton’s tax plan, the analysts found that it would result in the loss of 282,000 jobs in 2018, but would add about 645,000 jobs in the long term assuming certain factors.
Debra Lipstadt’s scholarly analysis of the Holocaust and its ugly denial industry in her prize-winning 1993 Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory, spurred a libel suit by one of the chief soi-dixit ‘historians‘ of anti-Semitic and Nazi-affiliate lineage, the rancid David Irving.
The Irving v. Penguin Press Ltd trial caused a sensation not only in its natal Great Britain, but occasioned intense interest and shudders too in the United States, where Lipstadt lives and writes.
Historians, ethicists, and scholars alike feared the verdict, which could have cast a cruel shadow over future such cases and the reliability of history itself, were it to go in a direction that did not accord acknowledgment of the horrors to future investigators, remaining survivors and their offspring.
Though there is only fact and history behind all Holocaust witness, there is now, as Lipstadt chronicles, a growing shelf of denial that threatens to increase as Endlösung witnesses die out. The thesis of the book’s author is that such denial is simply pure anti-Semitic diatribe scarcely varnished by the not-even-gossamer of truth, veracity or historicity.
Irving sought to diminish and denigrate the claim of six million dead, the genocidal intent on the part of the Nazis, and indeed the very existence of gas chambers in the infamous death camps kitted out by the Germans and their brethren haters.
It is painful to experience the trial at the start, where the barristers determine that testimony at trial from survivors and even Lipstadt herself would be deleterious to winning, rather than a help, to the defense. This runs contrary to what most people instinctively want, so the film generates a tension of continuous “Unfair!” that adds to the fine legal arguments on both sides that stretch the tension taut for the defendant. Richard Evans’ brief played a major role in convicting Irving.
In an attempt to prevent the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) from falling apart, U.S. President Barack Obama continues to pursue the failed policy of appeasement and giving concessions to the Iranian regime. The latest round includes the easing of financial restrictions against sanctioned entities such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and paying a hefty ransom to free Americans held hostage by Iran.
There are two fundamental mistakes in the current administration’s approach toward Iran: First, it is assumed that that the nuclear deal will solve all the problems the international community is faced with in respect with Iran. And second, it is believed that doling out concessions to the government of Hassan Rouhani will strengthen the so-called “moderates” against the ambitions of the “hard-liners.”
Both beliefs have proven to be wrong since the nuclear deal was hammered and came into effect. As opposed to what the proponents of the appeasement policy hoped, the Iranian regime has become more aggressive in its illicit activities, including the funding and export of terrorism and the violation of human rights.
In the past month alone, U.S. ships off the coast of Yemen were attacked on several occasions by Houthis, a rebel group that is backed, funded and trained by the Iranian regime. Now thanks to the easing of sanctions, Tehran will be even better positioned to further funnel cash and weapons to the Houthis and its other terrorist proxies in Iraq and Lebanon — many of which have a known history of attacking and murdering U.S. troops — and to further aid the regime of Bashar al-Assad in slaughtering the people of Syria.
But aside from fueling its indirect enmities, the Iranian regime is also becoming bolder in its direct moves against the U.S. interests. Having tasted the hostage ransom business, Tehran has become more aggressive in its arrest and detention of foreign nationals. Last week, the Iranian regime sentenced two U.S. citizens to 10 years in prison under espionage charges, and earlier, a British woman was given a five-year prison sentence for unknown charges. The U.S. nationals were arrested by the IRGC, the same entity that recently dispatched boats to intercept and harass U.S. vessels in the strait of Hormuz, and the same entity that will be the main beneficiary of the easing of economic sanctions against Iran.
There are two main lessons to be drawn from the continued failed policy of the Obama administration toward Iran.
First, moderation under the clerical regime in Iran is a total myth. In fact, the same figures who are now in key positions under Rouhani’s “moderate” cabinet have been endemically involved in the Iranian regime’s crimes in the past three centuries.
To believe recent mainstream media polling releases, one would have to suspend reality enough to believe that John Podesta’s email leaks, the ongoing Project Veritas video series, a world on fire, and new revelations about Obamacare are driving the public to embrace Hillary Clinton as never before. Things are apparently so good for the former first lady that ABC has her with a 12-point lead, a margin not seen in a presidential election since 1984. CNN is less confident but still has her sporting a comfortable 5-point lead. Fox News has wavered between “too close to call” and the current 3-point edge that is contingent on her achieving President Obama’s D+7 support level from 2008, which borders on complete insanity.
The purpose of this article is to prove that the media is either lying to massively impact motivation or turnout for Trump or has absolutely no idea what the actual score is. The media don’t care if I know what they are doing with their nonstop analysis of new “chaos” within the Trump campaign. They are playing this sad song for the record number of independent voters who appear to be requesting ballots or voting early in battlegrounds across America.
The first clue is that in the same week, ABC and CNN have polls showing a massive lead and a comfortable lead, respectively. These two polls are seven points apart. Obama’s landslide win from 2008 was by a margin of 7.6%, and he still lost 22 states. Still, the enthusiasm and novelty of his campaign, combined with the natural pendulum swing that takes place after eight years of either party in the White House, left little doubt that he would win easily. Currently, ABC and CNN have the distance of Obama’s landslide margin between their polls.
For those keeping score at home, here is how these polls play out on a map:
A number of articles have pointed out the blatant double standard applied by the FBI and the Justice Department in the cases of retired Marine Corps general James Cartwright and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton. Cartwright, dogged by the FBI for years for leaking classified material, pleaded guilty last week to felony charges of lying to federal investigators and faces jail time and a huge fine when sentenced in January. Needless to say, he also lost his security clearance at the start of the investigation when still in uniform, and regardless of the sentencing, he has been publicly ruined. Clinton, who deliberately circumvented U.S. law and regulations for handling classified material, destroyed official government records, exposed thousands of sensitive documents to foreign hackers, obstructed justice, and lied to the American people and Congress, is probably just days away from being elected president.
The apparent double standard is so obvious that commentary about it has not been limited to the right. Even the determinedly pro-Clinton Washington Post noted that two sets of rules were applied by the government, and that Cartwright’s fall is at least in part a way for the FBI and Justice to maintain the fiction that they don’t play favorites because someone is well connected.
But generally speaking, the treatment of Cartwright and Clinton is so obviously disparate that the left has stayed away from it, concentrating instead on Donald Trump’s foibles and describing a virtually inevitable Hillary Clinton victory.
Inevitably, though, somebody had to try, and it came from the War on the Rocks website, a venue that previously tried to excuse FBI director James Comey’s refusal to refer the Clinton matter for prosecution. In “Clinton Cartwright Comparisons Don’t Hold Up,” the authors argue that Cartwright’s prosecution doesn’t reveal favoritism compared to Clinton. Rather, they contend that Cartwright lied to the FBI while Clinton did not, infuriating the feds and spurring his prosecution. Setting aside for now whether Clinton did lie to the FBI (and also the authors’ failure to note her open and obvious lying to Congress and the public), the article unintentionally puts in high relief the real disparity in treatment between Cartwright and Clinton. In fact, the FBI made no effort to catch Clinton in a lie and went out of their way to ensure that such a thing would not happen.
There is a trait campaigning groups have that is well known. Once they have achieved their objective, they continue. Usually it is because there are people with salaries at stake, pensions, perks and more.
Suddenly the SPLC seemed to spy a new fascism. The SPLC saw this new fascism in people who objected to people flying planes into skyscrapers, decapitating journalists and aid workers and blowing up the finish line of marathons.
One got the impression that it had become immensely useful for some people to be able to smear those concerned about Islamic fundamentalism, and try to make them akin to Nazis. The only other movements who find this equally useful are, of course, Islamic extremists.
Here is this “anti-racist” organisation, largely made up of white men who present themselves as being anti-racists, and yet who spend their time attacking Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a black immigrant woman. At the top of any list of “hate-groups,” the SPLC must in future be sure to place itself.
The SPLC’s list of “anti-Muslim activists” also includes a practising Muslim, Maajid Nawaz, one of the most principled and courageous people around calling out the extremists in his faith for their bigotry and hatred. He does so, like Hirsi Ali, at no small risk to himself.
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SLPC), based in Montgomery, Alabama, has struck again. The self-appointed boundary-markers and policemen of free discussion have issued what they call a “Field Guide” to help “guide” the media in “countering prominent anti-Muslim extremists.” It is hard to know where to start with such idiocy, so let us start from the beginning.
The SPLC was founded in 1971, ostensibly to fight for civil rights among other good causes. By the end of its first decade it was targeting the KKK and other racist organisations. So far so good. But like many a campaigning organisation, they experienced the happy blow of basically winning their argument. By the 1990s, there were mercifully few racist groups in America going about unchallenged. When a member of the KKK cropped up everybody in civil society pretty much understood that here was a bad person who should not be given a free pass.
Top Stories @ Fox News