RUTHFULLY YOURS

On Thursday, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, held a conference call with devastated staffers that put the rosiest possible frame on a calamitous picture.

The message to the dozens of mostly young, sleep-deprived and shell-shocked aides: We did everything we could have. We wouldn’t have changed a thing. You should still be proud.

Inside the Democratic National Committee headquarters, which sits half a mile south of the U.S. Capitol, eyes rolled and heads shook in frustration and disbelief.

Clinton’s loss at the hands of Donald Trump amounted to the most surprising outcome in the history of modern electoral politics. Of course things could’ve been done differently. And ignoring that fact wasn’t going to make the searing defeat any easier.

“We are pissed at them and state parties are pissed at them because they lost due to arrogance,” a top DNC staffer tells U.S. News, sharing the candid sentiment suffusing the high levels of the committee in exchange for anonymity.

It’s no surprise that the hierarchy of the Clinton campaign leadership was insular and self-assured. But DNC staffers say the team’s presumptuous, know-it-all attitude caused it to ignore early warning signs of electoral trouble inside the states, and demoralized DNC staff who felt largely marginalized or altogether neglected for most of the campaign.

There is always some level of tension between the sprawling bureaucracy of the party committee and the nominee’s campaign apparatus. But in the wake of Clinton’s loss, when intraparty finger-pointing is inevitable, some DNC staffers describe the relationship between the two entities as uniquely ineffectual, even after the displacement of unpopular chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. And they attribute it to one fundamental reason: Clinton’s campaign leaders always thought they knew best. The DNC was to do what it was told: Essentially, be seen and not heard.

On election night, DNC number crunchers’ first saw signs of trouble when tallies from Virginia began to roll in. Here was a state the Clinton camp expected to carry by nearly 10 points, and the early returns showed that wasn’t going to happen. She won it by 5, but the slimmer-than-expected margin made DNC staffers nervous, especially because they had warned the Clinton camp not to pull staff and resources from there. The campaign did anyway, slashing its advertising investment in August. Sure, they survived inside the commonwealth, but inside the DNC, the late call of Virginia for Clinton was a distressing warning of things to come.

If their projected margin in Virginia was cut in half, where else was their forecast wrong?

Florida was always expected to be a slog. But a shiver went down the DNC’s collective spine when a call came in from Scott Arceneaux, executive director of the Florida Democratic Party, saying, “We’ve got a problem.”

There’s a dark irony to the somewhat swirling media response to Trump’s victory. For months now, observers have been telling us that Trump’s army is motored more by feeling than reason. Trumpism is a movement based on ‘untrammelled emotion’ over ‘reason [and] empiricism’, said Andrew Sullivan. Trump makes ‘sly appeals to… human irrationality’, said Scott Adams, creator of the Dilbert cartoon. Like all of history’s demagogues, Trump conjures ‘vivid images and intense emotions’, said a writer for the Conversation. Especially in relation to security: apparently he plays on people’s feelings of ‘uncertainty or instability’.

Yet now, as Trump’s victory shocks the world, or at least that portion of it that lives in its own echo chamber, who is it that’s exhibiting ‘untrammelled emotion’? Who’s conjuring up ‘vivid images’ and ‘intense emotions’, particularly with regard to security? It isn’t Trump’s supporters, most of whom went from the ballot box back to their everyday lives. It’s the anti-Trump set. It’s those who spent months claiming Trump supporters lack the mental and moral equipment necessary for ‘reasoned deliberation’. Many of these rather elitist politicos and observers are behaving in a way that makes even the most hot-headed Trump cheerer look perfectly rational in comparison.

The emotionalism of their response has been intense. ‘“I feel hated”, I tell my husband, sobbing in front of the TV in my yoga pants and Hillary sweatshirt’, said an American columnist in the Guardian. Former UK foreign secretary Margaret Beckett says Trump’s victory feels like ‘the end of the world’ (bit rich coming from a woman who voted for the Iraq War in 2003). Emotion over reason is widespread: the Washington Post reports that ‘mobs of tearful students’ are protesting against Trump’s win; some American universities are providing counselling for those ‘traumatised’ by Trump; celebs including Miley Cyrus and Perez Hilton have issued videos of themselves weeping over Trump’s victory, which have been shared hundreds of thousands of times by similarly frazzled Hillary backers.

Even worse than the emotionalism is the apocalypticism. Trump conjures up ‘vivid images’ to exploit people’s feelings of ‘uncertainty’? Yes, he does, but not as intensively as anti-Trump observers have been doing. British historian Simon Schama said Trump’s victory will ‘hearten fascists all over the world’ and is reminiscent of Hitler’s rise. Trump’s victory is the ‘greatest calamity to befall the West since World War II’, says Guardian columnist Owen Jones, clearly having never experienced the deprivations of 1970s recession or 1980s class conflict. Cheap, history-exploiting Hitler comparisons are rife: protesters hold up pictures of Trump with a Hitler moustache while celebs cry over America becoming like ‘Germany in the 1930s’.

About that popular vote victory the Left is claiming over Donald Trump.

The latest tallies show that after millions of Americans citizens, fraudsters and non-citizens voted for president, Donald Trump won 59,704,886 votes and Hillary Clinton won 59,938,290.

That’s 233,304 more votes in Hillary’s column. But is this margin of popular victory the will of legally registered American voters?

In 2014, three political scientists from Old Dominion University and George Mason University looked back at earlier elections to study whether any of an estimated 19.4 million adult non-citizens in the US voted in the 2008 election. After much surveying, sampling and extrapolating, their best guess — the “adjusted estimate” — was to suggest that a whopping 1.2 million non-citizens cast ballots, and cast mainly Democrat ballots, in the 2008 election that brought Barack Obama into the White House.

The impact of such fraud, they write, included the following:

We find that there is reason to believe non-citizen voting changed one state’s Electoral College votes in 2008, delivering North Carolina to Obama, and that non-citizen votes have also led to Democratic victories in congressional races including a critical 2008 Senate race [Al Franken’s] that delivered for Democrats a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

No doubt there remains number-crunching to do on the 2016 election, especially when it comes to states and districts that were won by narrow margins of victory. It seems eminently fair, however, to deduce that Clinton’s margin of popular victory, typically and fittingly, was illegal.

Warren welcomes us to the Republic of Fear By James G. Wiles

As the dark night of Fascism descends across America, Fauxahontas yesterday addressed the barons of the AFL-CIO. She said:

“This wasn’t a pretty election. In fact, it was ugly, and we should not sugarcoat the reason why. Donald Trump ran a campaign that started with racial attacks and then rode the escalator down. He encouraged a toxic stew of hatred and fear. He attacked millions of Americans. And he regularly made statements that undermined core values of our democracy.

“And he won. He won — and now Latino and Muslim-American children are worried about what will happen to their families. LGBT couples are worried that their marriages could be dissolved by a Trump-Pence Supreme Court. Women are worried that their access to desperately needed health services will disappear. Millions of people in this country are worried, deeply worried. And they are right to be worried.”…

“We will stand up to bigotry. There is no compromise here,” she said. “In all its forms, we will fight back against attacks on Latinos, African Americans, women, Muslims, immigrants, disabled Americans-on anyone. Whether Donald Trump sits in a glass tower or sits in the White House, we will not give an inch on this, not now, not ever.”

The message is clear.

The Borking of Donald J. Trump has begun.

There can be no doubt that the voting process was rigged against Donald Trump in more ways than one. According to reports, fiscal criminal and youthful Nazi collaborator George Soros’ vast fortune was in play to swing the election Hillary’s way, including fomenting violence at Trump’s rallies (for which Trump himself was blamed). Clinton cash, illegally gained, bankrolled a promotional campaign that blitzed the nation. Dead voters, multiple voters, illegal voters, and opportunely-pardoned felons, loyal Democrats all, were evident at the polls in considerable force, like the zombies swarming the last bastion of civilization in the 2016 film Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. “Today’s voter lists,” writes former into-tech management consultant Paul Murphy, “are generally thought to include something like 1.8 million dead voters, 6.4 million illegals, 1.8 million ineligible felons, and perhaps 2.7 million people registered to vote in more than one state.” And of course the polls were skewed in Hillary’s favor through selective sampling techniques in what is known as a psyops strategy to influence the behavior of voters, creating the impression that Clinton was gathering momentum.

And yet Trump won against the odds, prompting the question: Were there really enough votes in flyover country and leftover country to offset the oleaginous corruption greasing Hillary’s route to the White House and to discount the vote-rich conurbations and coastal corridors, the mentally vacant celebrity class, the entire left-liberal elite, the fraudulent pollsters, the lying media, the deceased, the duped, the traumatic feminists, the compromised academics, the blizzard of snowflake students blanketing the eduscape, the Muslim fifth column, the disaffected Libertarians voting for nonsense candidates, and the turncoat Republicans who may as well have registered as Democratic operatives? This seems a rather implausible assumption.

I have a theory, which I will share with bemused readers. I believe the key factor in producing so improbable an electoral outcome was, frankly speaking, Israel, not the country itself but the all-powerful Cosmocrator who rules the universe, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For the Lord knew that the policies of Barack Obama’s administration had put Israel at critical risk in the most volatile region in the world, and that the leaders of Iran, taking a page from their ancestor Haman the Agagite, were plotting the wholesale destruction of the Jewish state. The Lord also knew that Hillary Clinton and the crime syndicate known as the Democratic Party would advance Iran’s genocidal project.

Neither did He forget the plight of the American people under a venal and iniquitous regime nor America’s covenantal vocation. Did not the Pilgrims see themselves as Israelites in the wilderness—“We shall find that the God of Israel is among us” John Winthrop preached in his 1630 sermon A Modell of Christian Charity—and did not the Declaration of Independence echo the Sinai covenant? Did not John Adams write in a letter to Thomas Jefferson “I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize man than any other nation” and did not Lincoln at Independence Hall in Philadelphia quote from the imprecatory Psalm 137? Were not Jerusalem and the New Jerusalem bound together? CONTINUE AT SITE