RUTHFULLY YOURS

Today TruthRevolt unleashes Part 1 of a six part — that’s right, six-part — series from Firewall host Bill Whittle in response to the issues left untouched in the first presidential debate. Part 1 focuses on countering Hillary Clinton’s ECONOMIC proposals.

Transcript below:

Well, the first Trump-Clinton debate is behind us, and the thing that struck me so much about this first debate was not so much what Donald Trump said to Hillary Clinton, but rather what he did not say.

So let me give the Conservative response to many of the points that Madam Clinton made and went unanswered.

CLINTON: We also have to make the economy fairer. That starts with raising the national minimum wage and also guarantee, finally, equal pay for women’s work. I also want to see more companies do profit-sharing. If you help create the profits, you should be able to share in them, not just the executives at the top.

How are we going to do it? We’re going to do it by having the wealthy pay their fair share and close the corporate loopholes.

Wow, Hillary: so many falsehoods and so little time…

Let’s start with the $15 minimum wage.

Some cities, like Seattle, have instituted $15/hr minimum wage laws. It turns out that small business owners – the kind of people that pay minimum wage – did not reluctantly lurk to their underground money cavern and drag up more sacks of gold stolen from the workers. The minimum wage was never INTENDED to be a “living wage:” it is and should be for entry-level jobs for people who want to START their work resume in a minimum-wage job – not END it there.

As far as unequal pay for women – the 80 cents on the dollar argument — well that is a gigantic lie and you know it. It is true that if you average all the male salaries, and all the female salaries, men do make more then women, and the reason they make more than women is because they put in longer hours at higher-paying and often vastly more dangerous jobs. The idea that someone at Wal-Mart could say to a woman applicant that the job pays $35,000 a year – for men — but only $27,000 for you sweet cheeks is absurd and you know it. It’s also illegal, and has been for decades, but needless to say, knowledge of and obedience to the law doesn’t seem to be one of your primary virtues.

There is already evidence that voter fraud is being perpetrated in critical battleground states like Virginia and Colorado a month before Election Day.

Voter fraud is commonplace. Completely eliminating it is impossible. The most policymakers can do is create laws and policies that attempt to minimize it.

Voter fraud is unlawful interference with the electoral process in an effort to bring about a desired result. Voter fraud is also called vote fraud, election fraud, and electoral fraud. It refers to fraudulent voting, impersonation, intimidation, perjury, voter registration fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, bribery, destroying already cast ballots, and a multitude of crimes related to the electoral process.

Reasonable people can disagree over how serious a problem voter fraud is in today’s America, but the evidence it actually exists cannot be ignored.

This is where people on the Right and Left differ. Conservatives think fighting voter fraud is important; liberals and progressives don’t care — and many of them go further, arguing that voter fraud is an imaginary problem.

News of the illegal voting in Virginia and Colorado comes as Republican candidate Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed in campaign speeches that the system, including the electoral system, is “rigged.”

Trump has been issuing this warning about the election for months. After a series of anti-voter fraud laws were struck down in several states by federal courts, the candidate raised the possibility that people will vote over and over in the election, voting for which is already underway in many states.

“There’s a lot of dirty pool played at the election, meaning the election is rigged,” Trump said two months ago. “I would not be surprised. The voter ID, they’re fighting as hard as you can fight so that they don’t have to show voter ID. So, what’s the purpose of that?”

People will be able to vote “multiple times,” he said. “How about like 10 times. Why not? If you don’t have voter ID [requirements], you can just keep voting and voting and voting.”

In fact the Left has made it easy to commit voter fraud. Bill Clinton’s Motor-Voter law of 1993 opened the floodgates to fraud.

“Trump owes it to these forgotten Deplorables to prepare for the last two debates and to talk about them, and not himself. If he doesn’t, he will wreck their hopes, betray their trust, and walk away a loser as few others in history.But if Trump fights Hillary with a coherent plan that is the antithesis of the last eight years, rather than harping about his business reputation and obsessing with the trivial, he still might win a conservative Congress, a cadre of loyal conservative cabinet officers, a rare chance to remake the Supreme Court in a fashion not seen since the 1930s — and at 70 years of age make all his prior celebrity achievements of the past seem as nothing in comparison.”

In the first debate, Hillary stuck out her jaw on cybersecurity, the treatment of women, sermons on the need for restrained language, and talk about the shenanigans of the rich — and Trump passed on her e-mail scandals, her denigration of Bill’s women, her reckless smears like “deplorables,” and her pay-for-pay Clinton Foundation enrichment, obsessed instead with the irrelevant and insignificant.

In fact, the first presidential debate resembled the final scene out of the Caine Mutiny. Trump was melting down like the baited Captain Queeg (Humphrey Bogart), in his convoluted wild-goose-chase defenses of his arcane business career. Watching it was as painful as it was for the admiral judges in the movie who saw fellow officer Queeg reduced to empty shouting about strawberries.

Hillary Clinton egged him on in the role of the know-it-all, conniver of the same movie, the smug lieutenant Tom Keefer (Fred MacMurray), who had goaded Queeg, playacted sophisticated and learned — but ultimately proved a vain, empty, and unattractive vessel.

In sum, conservative viewers tuned in, in hopes of seeing Trump as Bull Halsey, the heroic admiral of the Navy’s Third Fleet in WWII, and they got instead Hollywood’s Captain Queeg.

Trump’s detours de nihilo, the constant unanswered race/class/gender jabs by a haughty Hillary, and Trump’s addictions to broken-off phrases, and loud empty superlative adjectives (tremendous, awesome, great, and fantastic) won’t win him the necessary extra 3–4 percent of women, independents, and establishment Never Trump Republicans. Trump’s bragging that he has “properties” in your state or that he found a way to creatively account his way out of income taxes does not come off as synonymous with a plan to make you well off, too.

Moderator Lester Holt did what all mainstream debate moderators of a now corrupt profession customarily do: Before the debate he leaked that they might possibly be conservative, feigned fairness, and then reestablished his left-wing credentials by focusing solely on fact-checking Trump, so that he wouldn’t be targeted later by leftist elites whose pique could lead to temporary ostracism from the people and places Holt values.

So, of course, he audited Trump and exempted Clinton, as if Trump’s businesses were as overtly crooked as the play-for-pay Clinton syndicate, or Trump’s supposed insensitivities to a pampered beauty queen (with a checkered past) were morally equivalent to Hillary’s denigration of Bill’s women who had claimed sexual assault or her eerie post facto chortling over getting a defendant, accused of raping a 12-year-old girl, off with lesser charges.

Most newsreaders know little more than how to news read. So we should not have been surprised that Holt’s audits of Trump on the legality of stop-and-frisk, or Holt’s denial that violent crime was up, was about as accurate as Candy Crowley’s hijacking of the second 2012 debate to rewrite what Barack Obama said into what she thought he should have said. Trump, in fact, was right that his microphone did not work properly and right that the media was biased — but wrong that bringing any of that up mattered in analyses of his debate performance.

The Clinton debate formula should have been clear: Bait and prod Trump to go into egocentric rants about his businesses, or a beauty queen, or another non-story, and then let the moderator massage the playing field, and let Hillary fill in dead time with empty platitudes (we are all racists/we need more solar panels/the wealthy don’t pay their fair share), and unfunded promises, while pandering along race, class, and gender lines.

Trump has to find a way to blow apart that script — largely by repressing his ego and simply not talking about any of his businesses or going down into the Clinton muck. Period.

Who cares about an ancient writ or a spat with a contractor?

Wouldn’t it be nice if just once, some of the people whom Soros pays to tell us that voter fraud doesn’t exist admitted they were wrong? What if government documents were produced to show at least 1,000 instances of voter fraud showing aliens registering or voting in a key swing state? Would they recant?

That’s asking too much. They earn their salaries by pretending voter fraud is a myth, and convincing others in the media to parrot their lies.

So today we learn that in the key swing state of Virginia, voter registration rolls have been polluted with an excess of a thousand aliens, and most certainly far more. This detailed study by the Public Interest Legal Foundation, or PILF, (which I assisted on) documents more than one thousand aliens on the voter rolls. It provides the government documents with the names.

Here’s the most frightening part: the sample is only eight Virginia counties and doesn’t include the behemoths of Arlington and Fairfax Counties. I’ll get to why that information is being concealed by election officials in a moment below.

In just eight Virginia counties, 1,046 alien non-citizens successfully registered to vote. Mind you, these are just the aliens who were accidentally caught because when they renewed their driver’s license, the told the truth they were a non-citizen.

That’s because of Motor Voter. Motor Voter, or the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, mandates that anyone who applies for a driver’s license must be offered voter registration. To register, they must merely mark a checkbox that they are a citizen and sign the form. It’s a yes-no question, and thousands are lying — just in Virginia.

Virginia has no citizenship verification requirements like other states do, so the vulnerabilities in Motor Voter are amplified. Voter ID is no solution either. These aliens are getting registered to vote when they are getting their photo ID cards!

Some groups like it this way. Soros-fueled organizations have brought lawsuits to stop states from verifying citizenship of registrants. The Advancement Project and Demos are the answers to the Jeopardy question: Who would ever be against verifying the citizenship of voters?

Another question – why would they fight steps to prevent foreign influence on American elections? – raises even more ominous possibilities.

The Virginia report by PILF contains the responses of just eight Virginia counties to public inspection requests under Motor Voter for list maintenance documents demonstrating aliens who have been removed from the rolls.

The report only reflects the eight counties who complied with the request, and only reflects the aliens who were caught. Without question, many many more aliens remain on the rolls who haven’t been caught. But at least now we have the names of people who were removed from the rolls by the hundreds for citizenship problems.

I’m not sure what Stephens is trying to do here…but if he is continuing his fatwa against Trump he fails…..If Trump did deliver this speech I would applaud enthusiastically….and i be that was not Stephens’ intent…..Just as Dorothy Rabinowitz’s fulsome endorsement of Hillary brought more people to Trump’s defense so will this column….rsk

“What follows is a draft of a speech Donald Trump is scheduled to deliver Tuesday, Oct. 4 in Prescott Valley, Ariz. We haven’t confirmed its authenticity because, like the rest of the corrupt media, we’re totally dishonest.

Thank you, everybody, thank you. It’s good to be back in Arizona. And you know we’re going to win, right? The polls say we’re going to win in Arizona, and we will.

The polls also say we’d lose the general election if it were held today. But they’re wrong. So wrong. You know how pollsters work? They guess who will show up to vote on election day, and then they poll these “likely voters.”

But let me tell you something. The pollsters have no clue. None. They don’t have a clue who the electorate is, and they don’t have a clue of what’s going on in America. Believe me, folks, on election day they’re going to find out.

The other day, in Colombia—I’m talking about the country in South America—they held a vote. A referendum. President Santos staked his reputation on a, quote-unquote, peace deal with the terrorists of the FARC.

Now the FARC, they’re the worst people in the world. They’ve killed tens of thousands of people. They make their money through drug trafficking and kidnapping. They’ve been terrorizing Colombians for 50 years.

Along comes Santos, and he makes this terrible deal that says to the FARC: We’re not going to send you to jail. We’re going to sentence your leaders to community service. We’re even going to guarantee you seats in the Congress.

And all the polls said the deal was going to win in a landslide. Obama and Kerry lined up behind it. Santos told Colombians they had no choice, that it was the only road to peace.

Guess what? The polls were wrong. The Colombians knew a bad deal when they saw one. They weren’t going to let killers get away with their crimes. The only deal they want with the FARC is the same deal Reagan got from Russia: We win, they lose.

Folks, it was the same story with the Brexit vote in June. All the polls said the Brits wouldn’t vote to leave the European Union. They did. All the experts said the sky would fall if the Brits voted to go. It didn’t. These geniuses said that Britain was too small to be the master of its own destiny. The British people believe otherwise, and I’m with them!

What happened in Britain, in Colombia, it’s going to happen here. Because, like them, we’re sick of it.

We’re sick of hearing ObamaCare is working when even the New York Times admits it’s a total disaster. We’re sick of hearing how great the economy is when it’s floating on a big wave of cheap credit that benefits Wall Street at the expense of savers. We’re sick of hearing how great the Iran deal is, then watching our sailors being humiliated while we secretly fork over pallets of cash.

You know what we’re also sick of? Liberal hypocrites.

I’m not supposed to say the name I’m about to say. Well, two words: Alicia. Machado.

We wrote Monday that many liberals believe that defeating Donald Trump justifies anything, and right on time comes the egregious Eric Schneiderman. The New York Attorney General delivered his own personal October surprise for Hillary Clinton by announcing a supposed scandal over Mr. Trump’s charitable foundation.

Mr. Schneiderman’s office, in a letter sent Friday and released Monday, ordered the Donald J. Trump Foundation to cease raising money in New York. According to the letter, the Trump outfit is not correctly registered in the state to solicit funds.

The AG gave the foundation 15 days to turn over reams of paper, including audited financial statements and annual financial reports going back many years. Mr. Schneiderman warned in his letter that failure to comply will be deemed a “fraud upon the people of the state of New York.”

The announcement is Mr. Schneiderman’s latest misuse of his prosecutorial authority to attack his political enemies. The AG’s office first announced it was “investigating” Mr. Trump in mid-September—the better to begin a round of bad headlines—and has also been touting its inquiry into Trump University. While it’s possible the Trump Foundation has violated in some way “section 172 of Article 7-A New York’s Executive Law,” it’s notable that the best Mr. Schneiderman could drum up by way of “fraud” was a paperwork technicality.

The bigger point is timing. Mr. Schneiderman’s cease-and-desist order, coming a month before a general election, smells like partisan politics. The AG has endorsed Mrs. Clinton and sits on the Democratic nominee’s New York “leadership council,” which the Clinton campaign describes as the “in-state leadership” for her campaign, charged with “amplifying the campaign’s national voice to New York families” and “aiding the campaign with rapid response.”

Mr. Schneiderman’s prosecution of her opponent certainly qualifies as “rapid.” He could easily have waited until Nov. 9 to divulge his investigation and unveil his order. If the Trump Foundation has been deficient with its paperwork for as long as the AG’s office says, a few more weeks of delay would hardly hurt.

“To the public it will appear that Schneiderman acted not in the interest of his client, the State, but for whatever influence his announcement might have on the election outcome,” NYU School of Law Professor Stephen Gillers told LawNewz.com, and Mr. Gillers is no conservative. CONTINUE AT SITE

In a nutshell, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Justice Department permitted Hillary Clinton’s aide Cheryl Mills — the subject of a criminal investigation, who had been given immunity from prosecution despite strong evidence that she had lied to investigators — to participate as a lawyer for Clinton, the principal subject of the same criminal investigation. This unheard-of accommodation was made in violation not only of rudimentary investigative protocols and attorney-ethics rules, but also of the federal criminal law.

Yet, the FBI and the Justice Department, the nation’s chief enforcers of the federal criminal law, tell us they were powerless to object.

Seriously?

In his testimony this week before the House Judiciary Committee, FBI director James Comey inveighed against critics who have slimed the Bureau as “weasels” over its handling of the Clinton e-mails investigation. I am not one of those people. After a quarter-century in the trenches with the Bureau as a prosecutor, I am one of those hopeless romantics who love the FBI and harbor real affection for the director himself.

I genuinely hate this case. I don’t mind disagreeing with the Bureau, a not infrequent occurrence in my former career. But I am hardwired to presume the FBI’s integrity. Thus, no matter how much irregularities in the Clinton investigation have rankled me, I’ve chalked them up to the Bureau’s being hamstrung. There was no chance on God’s green earth that President Obama and his Justice Department were ever going to permit an indictment of Hillary Clinton. Jim Comey says he didn’t make his final decision to recommend against prosecution until after Mrs. Clinton was interviewed at the end of the investigation, and that he did not coordinate that decision with his Obama-administration superiors. If he says so, that’s good enough for me. But it doesn’t mean the director made his decision detached from the dismal reality of the situation. And whatever one’s armchair-quarterback view on how he should have handled it, that reality was not of his making.

But just as Director Comey rightly objects to being regarded as a weasel, I don’t much like being regarded as an idiot . . . which is what I’d have to be to swallow some of this stuff.

The FBI absolutely has control over who may be present at an interview with a subject of an investigation. There are a variety of reasons for this, but the most basic one is that an interview never has to happen unless the FBI consents to it.

In his testimony, Comey kept stressing that Mrs. Clinton’s interview was “voluntary” — contending that since she was not required to submit to it, she could impose any conditions on her agreement to do so. That is nonsense. The interview was voluntary on both sides. The FBI is never required to indulge conditions that make a mockery of its serious business.

In this regard, Comey is like a guy who ties his own hands behind his back and then says he was powerless to defend himself. If Clinton declined to submit to an FBI interview unless Mills (or the similarly situated lawyer Heather Samuelson) was permitted to be present, the investigators could simply have handed her a grand-jury subpoena. They could then have politely directed her to a chamber where she would be compelled to answer questions — under oath and all by her lonesome, without any of her lawyer legion in attendance.

But, you see, in this investigation — unlike every other major criminal investigation in which the government tries to make the case rather than not make the case — the Justice Department declined to convene a grand jury.