Displaying posts categorized under

POLITICS

Trump and the Jewish Vote By Karin McQuillan

“On our issues trump is perfect,” declares the grassroots organization Jewschoosetrump.org, calling on fellow Jews across the country to remember, a word resonant with religious and historical meaning for Jews.

It can’t be true–the American Jewish community has “forgotten,” or more accurately no longer chooses to remember, the existential threat to Israel, America, and Western civilization posed by Iran and the Iran Deal. (snip) Our children and grandchildren [will] ask us what were we thinking or were we even thinking when we ignored and denied the dangers facing us.

(snip) Are American Jewish leaders once again going to deny reality, hope for the best, engage in altruistic surrender and denial, and feel good and superior for caring first about others rather than the future of our children? This is pitiful and incredibly dangerous. Maybe a psychologist could figure out why our history has crippled our instinct for survival, but shame on us anyway.

(snip) It is an easy choice. We don’t even need to scrutinize destroyed emails and hidden speeches. Hillary is for the Iran Deal–she is proud of it and expresses support for Obama’s handling of Iran. Trump trashes the Iran Deal and vows to end it. This is reason enough for us as American Jews to choose Trump.

Although Jews are a “rare” minority in America, only 2% of Americans, they are concentrated in the swing state of Florida, as well as Ohio and Pennsylvania. Because of the importance of Florida, Jews could determine the Electoral College tally if the election is as close as expected.

Do we have a chance? The answer is a qualified yes. Jews voted Republican from Abraham Lincoln until FDR. Ronald Reagan broke through the FDR Jewish mindset and garnered almost 40% of the Jewish vote. In recent times, as few as 14% of Jews identified as Republican. That was before Barack Obama’s anti-Israel and anti-American passions led to policies that have destabilized the Middle East and promoted Iran as a hegemonic and soon to be nuclear power. As a result of the Democratic disaster in the Middle East, Romney won 30% of the Jewish vote. Things have gotten much, much worse since then, with Europe overrun by violent anti-western Muslims, and ISIS creating a terror threat in America.

The entire country is less Democratic thanks to Barack Obama, despite what voters are willing to admit to pollsters when asked simply if they approve of the President. Jews have fled the Democratic Party in even greater numbers, according to Gallup:

Donald Trump’s Moral Fervor By James Lewis

At a time when the “news” media betray their own hyped up values of objectivity and fairness, I am beginning to hear a growing voice of moral outrage in America – and it’s actually expressed in clear words, day after day, by the Republican nominee for president of the United States. That would be Donald Trump.

That last sentence is bound to set any lost and lonely lefty loony screaming with hysterical laughter, but hyenas are what they are. From the hyena’s point of view, Republicans are just another meat. The GOP establishment is shivering in the foxholes, and its members are losing voters as fast as Trump gains them. If Trump tells his supporters to vote against down-ballot Republicans, the establishment will reverse course. They count on our stupidity and our goodwill, but we are no longer stupid.

The Clintons and Obamas have made normal Americans despair, but the voters care. They care a lot. Americans who care haven’t had a voice in U.S. politics for a long time, but if normal people had given up on the stench from D.C., the Rasmussen polls would not be showing a neck-and-neck race. Enough Americans care to make this a game-changing election.

We have been deeply disappointed often by the One Party Machine. But we care enough to keep listening for that voice in the desert.

Rush Limbaugh keeps pointing out that the chief goal of the left is demoralizing Americans. He is right. If they can keep you home on election night, they win. They know how to kill off our best leaders. Saul Alinsky said it in his little book, the one Hillary wrote her B.A. thesis about, way back when.

(Hillary’s B.A. thesis is now only a click away, and it’s “must” reading for Americans. That thesis gives us the key to Hillary’s life. She was cult-indoctrinated at Wellesley College at an age when young people are notoriously vulnerable. She might have become a Scientologist, but she became a hard leftist instead. Hillary’s generation of ambitious feminists are now in jobs of power and influence, and most of them go along with the immiseration of women and children in the reactionary world of jihad. Hillary chose her lifelong path at Wellesley, and she has a one-track mind.)

Yes, Donald Trump is a flawed human being, as the hyena pack keeps yodeling in the night. But as far as I know, he is not a serial abuser like Bill Clinton, nor is he a feminist enabler of randy male misbehavior like Hillary.

Public piety, private contempt for Hillary Clinton and aides By Mercedes Schlapp –

In public, Hillary Clinton talks about how she would represent all Americans and pushes the “Stronger Together” campaign theme. But behind closed doors, there is no room for people of faith in her America. Privately, the Democratic nominee and her campaign advisers are pushing a liberal agenda hostile to religion and targeting faith organizations that do not adapt to their liberal “religion.”

The Clinton campaign is no friend of the cause of religious liberty. Internal emails exposed by WikiLeaks showed how her top campaign aides mock believers and view evangelicals and Catholics as backward in their beliefs. Mrs. Clinton herself even said publicly “deep-seated cultural codes and religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”
Well, her staff certainly seemed ready and willing to do just that, particularly Chief of Staff John Podesta.

Top Hillary Clinton advisers ridiculed individuals for raising their children Catholic, referring to Catholics as being “systematic in thought and severely backwards.” It was disturbing to read about how liberals characterize conservative Catholics as being responsible for an “amazing bastardization of faith.”

Catholics and evangelicals should be troubled by Mrs. Clinton’s hidden agenda to influence and alter the tenets of Christian and Catholic orthodoxy. Perhaps what is most disturbing is that Mrs. Clinton’s team will pander publicly on the stump to Catholics, Christians, Southerners and Hispanics, and then take a very different stance behind closed doors from the comfort of their keyboards. There they express vicious contempt for the very voters they need to win the election.

Clinton Aide Discussed ‘Quid Pro Quo’ Deal with FBI to Reclassify Emails By Rick Moran

Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard has seen some FBI documents that have potential bombshell information.

Senior Clinton aide Patrick Kennedy apparently tried to make a deal with the FBI to reclassify emails that were marked “classified” in exchange for approving overseas posts for FBI agents.

BREAKING: A senior State Dept official discussed a “quid pro quo” w/the FBI in exchange for reclassification of HRC emails, per FBI docs.
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) October 15, 2016

The FBI refused to play ball:

FBI officials, including CT Dir Michael Steinbach, nixed the arrangement and refused to change the classification of the HRC emails.
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) October 15, 2016

Kennedy also asked FBI to make one sensitive HRC email “B9” FOIA exempt so it was “never to be seen again,” per FBI docs.
— Stephen Hayes (@stephenfhayes) October 15, 2016

Patrick Kennedy was Clinton’s “fixer” at the State Department, helping to facilitate access to Clinton for Clinton Foundation donors. He was also the point man for Clinton in the Benghazi investigation and played an important role in the email scandal.

Andrew McCarthy:Podesta Leaks: The Obama-Clinton E-mails

Among the most noteworthy of the hacked e-mails from John Podesta’s accounts is an exchange in which Podesta consults Clinton consigliere Cheryl Mills about the private e-mail exchanges between President Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

As readers may recall, I have long maintained (see here and here) that the principal reason why Mrs. Clinton was not prosecuted, despite a mountain of evidence that she committed felony mishandling of classified information, is the fact that Obama engaged in the same kind of misconduct. The president’s use of a private, non-secure channel to discuss sensitive matters with high level officials may not have been systematic, as Mrs. Clinton’s was. (Obama’s disturbing use of an alias, however, suggests that Clinton was not the only one he was privately e-mailing.) Nevertheless, the fact that the president was e-mailing Clinton means he not only participated in her misconduct but also that the Obama-Clinton e-mails would have been admissible evidence in any criminal trial of Clinton.

For the parties to prove such culpable conduct on the president’s part in a high-profile criminal trial would have been profoundly embarrassing to him, to say the least. Therefore, it was never going to happen. As I’ve noted before, after exclaiming, “How is that not classified?” upon being shown an Obama-Clinton e-mail by the FBI, Hillary’s confidant Huma Abedin asked agents if she could have a copy of the exchange. She obviously realized that if Obama had been communicating on Clinton’s non-secure server system, no one else who had done so was going to be prosecuted for it.

We now know that Podesta was very concerned about the Obama-Clinton e-mails and turned to Mills for advice. His succinct e-mail to Mills is dated March 4, 2015 (at 8:41 p.m.), and he entitled it “Special Category.” He stated:

Bill Clinton received $1 million ‘birthday present’ from ISIS funder By James Lewis

The Gulf sheikhdom Qatar is a major ISIS and world terrorism sponsor. It is a little disturbing that the Sheikhs of Qatar gave Bill Clinton a one million dollar birthday present.

The WikiLeaks document dump of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta has revealed Qatar’s previous desire to give her husband a $1 million “birthday” present.

Thousands of emails leaked by WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s nonprofit organization continue to embarrass Democrat presidential hopeful Mrs. Clinton. The latest email thread shows an aide discussing conversations with ambassadors from Qatar, Brazil, Peru, Malawi, and Rwanda while in the nation’s capital.

“[Qatar] would like to see WJC ‘for five minutes’ in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC’s birthday in 2011,” an employee at The Clinton Foundationsaid to numerous aides, including Doug Brand. “Qatar would welcome our suggestions for investments in Haiti — particularly on education and health. They have allocated most of their $20 million but are happy to consider projects we suggest. I’m collecting input from CF Haiti team.”

Even more disturbing is that he took it, knowing very well that Arab politicians expect a good return on their bhaksheesh.

Trump Is Right to Point Out That Clinton Should Be Prosecuted His rhetoric is overblown, but he’s correct that Hillary should be held to account for criminal conduct. By Andrew C. McCarthy

With due respect, the estimable Charles Krauthammer is way off base in his weekly column, addressing Donald Trump’s “threat, if elected, to put Hillary Clinton in jail.” (The headline refers to this threat as a “promise,” but I don’t take that to be quite what Charles — or, for that matter, Trump — is saying.) I wrote about this topic right after Trump raised it in the second presidential debate, in response to Trump detractors who posited the claim that Krauthammer now advances: viz., Trump is criminalizing politics with threats to persecute political opponents. I generally agree with these detractors regarding the GOP nominee’s flaws and antics; on this, however, their comparisons of Trump to brutal dictators are so beyond the pale they make Trump seem tame.

Krauthammer is right that Trump has gone too far in his rhetoric. Yet, he overstates the case in suggesting that Trump is breaching important political boundaries. While he describes these as boundaries of “discourse” and “democratic decency,” Dr. K implies that they involve something even more fundamental, and thus that the breach is more perilous.

Mrs. Clinton appears to have committed serious crimes that undermined both national security and recordkeeping rules designed to promote accountability in government. If you want to talk about a truly profound threat to democratic norms, that’s the place to start. Obviously, these offenses are not just relevant but essential to the political case that should be made against Clinton, and would be by any opponent, not just by the unconventional, undisciplined Trump. Also pertinent is the fact that government officials who engage in Clinton’s type of misconduct do go to jail — to refrain from stating this would be to diminish the gravity of the crimes.

Moreover, even Krauthammer concedes that Clinton deserved to be prosecuted: “FBI director James Comey’s recommendation not to pursue charges was both troubling and puzzling.” Consequently, I don’t see why anyone, including Trump, should be faulted for asserting that there appears to be strong evidence that Mrs. Clinton has committed egregious offenses, which warrant prosecution and would call for imprisonment if she were convicted after a fair trial. Unless I am reading him wrong, that is Charles’s position on the matter — otherwise, why the dig at Comey?

Where Trump has overstepped is in his articulation of these points, not the fact that he is making them.

Political rhetoric inevitably involves a degree of exaggeration, and we must distinguish it from the realm of law-enforcement, in which officials are obliged to be circumspect. At the Republican convention, the most effective speech was New Jersey governor Chris Christie’s scathing indictment (in the rhetorical sense) of Mrs. Clinton’s misdeeds. It prompted the “lock her up!” chants that have punctuated Trump campaign appearances ever since. Now, when Americans say that someone ought to be “locked up” over this or that — which we say quite a lot — we are not urging an end run around the due-process protections that apply from investigation and indictment through trial and sentencing.

That goes without saying. During Obama’s 2008 campaign, his surrogate (and later his attorney general) Eric Holder called for a “reckoning” against Bush officials he depicted as guilty of war crimes and all manner of Constitution-shredding. I don’t think Mr. Holder was saying “jail now, trial later” — even if many on the left would have been delighted by such an arrangement.

Judicial Watch Releases New Hillary Clinton Email Answers Given under Oath

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released received responses under oath from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton concerning her email practices. Judicial Watch submitted twenty-five questions on August 30 to Clinton as ordered by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.

The new Clinton responses in the Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit before Judge Sullivan was first filed in September 2013 seeking records about the controversial employment status of Huma Abedin, former deputy chief of staff to Clinton. The lawsuit was reopened because of revelations about the clintonemail.com system (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:13-cv-01363)).

Judicial Watch has already taken the deposition testimony of seven Clinton aides and State Department officials.

Below is text from the document filed with the court today:

NON-PARTY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON’S RESPONSE

TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to the Court’s August 19, 2016 order and Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Non-Party Hillary Rodham Clinton hereby responds to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories dated August 30, 2016. The General Objections and the Objections to the Definitions set forth below are incorporated into each of the specific responses that follow. Any specific objections are in addition to the General Objections and Objections to the Definitions, and failure to reiterate a General Objection or Objection to the Definitions does not constitute a waiver of that or any other objection.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories on the ground that any discovery of Secretary Clinton is unwarranted in this case, for the reasons set forth in Secretary Clinton’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Depose Hillary Rodham Clinton, Clarence Finney, and John Bentel (Dkt. #102) and Surreply in Further Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Depose Hillary Rodham Clinton, Clarence Finney, and John Bentel (Dkt. #109), and as stated by Secretary Clinton’s counsel during the Court hearing on July 18, 2016. Secretary Clinton will answer the Interrogatories notwithstanding this objection, subject to the other objections stated herein.

Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories insofar as they request information outside the scope of permitted discovery in this case. The Court permitted discovery of Secretary Clinton on the topics of “the purpose for the creation and operation of the clintonemail.com system for State Department business,” as well as “the State Department’s approach and practice for processing FOIA requests that potentially implicated former Secretary Clinton’s and Ms. Abedin’s e-mails and State’s processing of the FOIA request that is the subject of this action.” Dkt. #124, at 14, 19 (internal quotation marks omitted). Secretary Clinton will answer the Interrogatories insofar as they seek non-privileged information related to those topics.

Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories insofar as they request information relating to events that occurred, or actions taken by Secretary Clinton, after her tenure as Secretary of State. Such post-tenure actions or events are not within the scope of the permitted topics of discovery set forth in General Objection No. 2.

Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories insofar as they request information about Secretary Clinton’s use of her clintonemail.com account to send and receive e-mails that were personal in nature, as such use is not within the scope of the permitted topics set forth in General Objection No. 2. Secretary Clinton will construe the Interrogatories to ask only about her use of her clintonemail.com account to send and receive e-mails related to State Department business.

Secretary Clinton objects to the Interrogatories insofar as they request information about management, retention, and/or preservation of federal records. This action arises under FOIA, which does not govern management, retention, or preservation of federal records. See Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 152 (1980). Accordingly, management, retention, and/or preservation of federal records are not within the scope of the permitted topics of discovery set forth in General Objection No. 2.

Secretary Clinton objects to Instruction No. 1 insofar as it purports to require Secretary Clinton to provide information that is not within her personal knowledge. The purpose of the limited discovery permitted by the Court is to obtain Secretary Clinton’s “personal knowledge of her purpose in using the [clintonemail.com] system.” Dkt. #124, at 16; see also id. at (directing Plaintiff “to propound questions that are relevant to Secretary Clinton’s unique first-hand knowledge”). Secretary Clinton is answering these Interrogatories based on her direct personal knowledge. She is not undertaking to provide information known only to other persons, including but not limited to her attorneys, representatives, persons acting under, by, or through her, or subject to her control or supervision, or other persons acting on her behalf.

Secretary Clinton objects to these Interrogatories to the extent that they call for the production of information that is privileged or otherwise protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege, protection, or immunity. Secretary Clinton will respond only to the extent privileged or otherwise protected information is not required and to the extent that the Interrogatory is not otherwise objectionable.

Trump and the Emasculated Voter There’s only one way to protect the nation from Hillary Clinton, and that is to vote for Donald Trump. David Gelernter

Some conservatives have watched their evaluations of Donald Trump’s character drop so low in recent days that on this vital question they no longer see a choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Accordingly, they are forced back onto politics and policy; and naturally Mr. Trump wins in a walk. If conservatives who argue that Mr. Trump is worse than Mrs. Clinton had a case, it would be a relief to vote for Mrs. Clinton or for no one. But they don’t, and one is therefore forced for the good of the nation to vote for Mr. Trump.

In his Mr. Nauseating video of last weekend, Mr. Trump showed us that he had all the class and cool of a misbegotten 12-year-old boy. Yet the video taught us nothing; no one had ever mistaken him for anything but an infantile vulgarian. This week’s allegations of actual abuse are different. If these stories are true (and I don’t know why they shouldn’t be), there is nothing to be said for Mr. Trump. Unfortunately, there is nothing to be said for Mrs. Clinton either. If we don’t take both facts into account, we are not morally serious.

Mrs. Clinton has nothing on Mr. Trump when it comes to character. She lies (“Wipe? Like with a cloth?”—cute and charming Mrs. C.) the way basketball stars shoot baskets—constantly, nonstop, because it’s the one thing she is best at and (naturally) it gives her pleasure to hear herself lie—swish!—right onto the evening news. And her specialist talent of all is the verbal kick in the groin of a Secret Service man or state trooper who has the nerve to talk to her as if she were merely human. She is no mere rock star; she is Hillary the Queen. She is so big, and you are so small, she can barely even see you from up there. What are you? A macromolecule?

I’ll vote for Mr. Trump—grimly. But there is no alternative, no shadow of a responsible alternative.

Mr. Trump’s candidacy is a message from the voters. He is the empty gin bottle they have chosen to toss through the window. The message begins with the fact that voters hear what the leaders and pundits don’t: the profound contempt for America and Americans that Mrs. Clinton and President Obama share and their frightening lack of emotional connection to this nation and its people.

Mr. Obama is arch, patronizing, so magnificently weary of having to explain it all, again and again, to the dummies surrounding him. Mrs. Clinton has told us proudly how thoroughly she prepared for the first debate and has prepared to be president. For her, it is all a matter of learning your lines. Her whole life has been memorized in advance. Mr. Obama is at least sincere. Mrs. Clinton is as phony as a three-dollar bill, as a Clinton Global Initiative.

Mr. Obama has governed like a third-rate tyrant. He’s been a stern baby sitter to an American public that is increasingly getting on his nerves. ObamaCare and the Iran treaty are his big achievements. That the public has always disliked them, and hates them worse as it knows them better, strikes him as so unspeakably irrelevant; he doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry. Do you ask 6-year-olds if they like going to school? Luckily, a few grown-ups have been set over the public to keep it in line. CONTINUE AT SITE

The Rigged Debates The Commission on Presidential Debates systematically screws over Republicans — but especially one named Donald Trump. Matthew Vadum

After three decades of political atrocities perpetrated against Republicans it is clear that the allegedly neutral Commission on Presidential Debates is irredeemably corrupt.

No one knows this better than GOP candidate Donald Trump who has been abused and undermined by the commission’s corrupt practices and unfair policies in both debates so far. It is no coincidence that the commission itself is filled with Hillary Clinton supporters and anti-Trump Republicans.

First there was moderator Lester Holt’s prosecutor-style approach to interacting with Trump at the first debate, asking ideologically loaded questions that conformed to the Left’s agenda, cutting him off repeatedly, and arguing with him, while treating Democrat Hillary Clinton with kid gloves. In the second debate moderators Martha Raddatz and Anderson Cooper tag-teamed Trump with some success.

Trump attacked the commission during a Wednesday campaign rally in Ocala, Florida. His speech served as a desperately needed reminder that it is well past time to drive a stake through the heart of this powerful tool of the nation’s political establishment whose Washington, D.C. headquarters, quite appropriately, is mere blocks from K Street, the public thoroughfare synonymous with lobbying and the corruption that so often accompanies it.

Conservatives hardly need to be reminded how roughly and unfairly the commission-selected debate moderators have treated Republican candidates over the years.

The most infamous incident at the debates in decades took place at the debate between President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney in 2012 that was moderated by Candy Crowley. Republicans looked on in stunned disbelief and horror when Crowley fact-checked a claim Romney made about Obama and got it wrong, thus unfairly negating Romney’s attack.

Many people including this writer believe Romney was set up by the Obama campaign and Crowley, perhaps with the connivance of the commission.

Romney said, “I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”