Displaying posts categorized under

POLITICS

Clinton’s new strategy: I may be a crook, but he is a racist By Silvio Canto, Jr.

What exactly made the Clinton campaign go “race card” on Trump?

It seems a bit early for such a card. After all, isn’t she supposed to be leading by 10 points and headed for a landslide?

Do you recall Reagan ’84, Nixon ’72, or even Clinton ’96 sounding so desperate or attacking their opponents like this? They usually said little or had their helpers engage in attacks.

So what’s going on? Let me give you a couple of theories:

1) The Clinton campaign must have internal polling that it is a lot closer than the national polls suggest, or at least some information that her lead is melting because of all the bad news. They may also (and that’s speculation on my part) have polling that shows that there is zero excitement in the African American communities for her campaign. In other words, she will get 90% but the turnout may be very low! I remember analyzing the 2016 Texas primary on Telemundo Dallas last spring and we spent much of the night talking about the lousy Hispanic turnout. Excitement and Hillary Clinton do not go together!

2) The Clinton campaign may fear some bad news coming. Julian Assange told the media that bad stuff is coming. He may be bluffing or engaging in self-promotion. However, the recent AP story suggests that Assange may put the bow on this scandal. My guess is that some emails may confirm that the State Department and the Clinton Foundation were just a bit too close for comfort. At some point, even the friendly media will call on her to answer some questions!

A CONSERVATIVE FOR HILLARY CLINTON- A “COMEYTATION” OF CHARGES

Hillary hatred is a reckless indulgence: Gabriel Schoenfeld
Clinton derangement syndrome is not only irrational, it threatens to elect Donald Trump.

To hear the Hillary haters tell it, the Democratic presidential nominee is suffering from a number of critical illnesses that render her unfit for office and which she is hiding from the public. Rudy Giuliani, now a leading Donald Trump surrogate, says the evidence for the various diagnoses is right there on the Internet.

Of course, leveling such an unfounded accusation is both reckless and nutty. Bush Derangement Syndrome was the name of the malady conservatives ascribed to those who heaped obloquy on our last Republican president. Now Hillary Derangement Syndrome has struck Giuliani and quite a few other Republicans hard.

This is by no means a new affliction. Ever since she entered public life as America’s first lady, a barrage of allegations, many fair but quite a few preposterous, have been hurled against President Clinton’s wife. Without any foundation, she is said to be implicated in the “murder” of her friend Vincent Foster, to have caused the fiasco inBenghazi, and to be covertly promoting the Muslim Brotherhood. Trump has gone so far as to call her “the devil,” to which his supporters responded with thunderous applause. For those of us not subsumed by Hillary hatred, the level of anger is a mystery. What accounts for it?

First and foremost, one must point to the deepening polarization of our politics, exacerbated in recent years by the strains and stresses of the post-9/11 era. Given how divided the country has become on fundamental issues, anyone seeking the White House in this environment would be subject to severe disapprobation from the other side.

But the extraordinary intensity of Hillary hatred suggests it is based upon impulses extending well beyond disagreement over policy. Any explanation must begin by acknowledging that Clinton herself has regularly poured gasoline on the fires burning around her.

Dishonesty is a case in point. According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll, among voters who dislike Hillary Clinton, 47% cite untrustworthiness, a number that is well-earned. Examples abound. Most recently, we have her pointblank false claim about her use of a private email server to conduct official business as secretary of State: “It was allowed.”

Experts Who Got Brexit Wrong Now Say Trump Can’t Win Is elite overconfidence surfacing again? By John Fund

Donald Trump says that the same experts and pollsters who incorrectly predicted that British voters would vote to stay in the European Union are now dismissing his chances to win the White House.

That’s mostly true. Before the Brexit vote, PredictWise, a website that aggregates data on the likelihood of events, found that there was a 21 percent chance of its being approved. Early on the night of June 23, when Britons voted, it pinned the chances of Brexit’s passing at only 12 percent. Over the last month, PredictWise has placed Trump’s chances of winning at between 19 percent and 30 percent. Other American prediction outlets give Trump only a 15 to 25 percent chance of victory.

Nigel Farage, who as head of UKIP (UK Independence Party) helped launch the campaign for the EU exit 20 years ago, thinks there is a parallel. Appearing at a Trump rally of 15,000 people in Jackson, Miss., Wednesday, Farage told the crowd:

We saw experts from all over the world . . . giving us Project Fear, telling us if we voted to be run by a bunch of unelected old men in Brussels, our economy would fall off a cliff, they told us there would be mass unemployment and investment would leave our country. . . . We saw the commentariat and the polling industry doing everything they could to demoralize our campaign.

Farage believes that it’s possible for a similar populist rebellion to succeed in America and elect Trump. He overstates the parallels, but he is spot-on when it comes to ridiculing the experts on Brexit. A new analysis by the Guardian, a left-leaning newspaper, concludes that British employment is up post-Brexit, retail sales have rebounded, the budget deficit is lower than it was last year, inflation remains low, the stock market is near an all-time high, and a weaker pound has boosted British tourism.

Column One: Trump and the American Dream by Caroline Glick

According to most polls taken since last month’s party conventions, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton enjoys an insurmountable lead over Republican nominee Donald Trump. Consequently, a number of commentators on both sides of the partisan divide have declared the race over. Clinton, they say, has won.

There are several problems with this conclusion.
First of all, the “official campaign,” won’t begin until September 26, when Clinton and Trump face off in their first presidential debate. Clinton is not a stellar debater and Trump, a seasoned entertainer, excels in these formats.

Second, recent polls indicate that Trump is closing the gap. Whereas until this past week Clinton enjoyed a 6-8 point lead in the polls, in two polls taken this week, her lead had contracted to a mere 1-3 points.

Third, it is quite possible that Clinton’s problems have only begun. Her peak popularity may be behind her. Since her nomination, barely a day has passed without another stunning exposé of apparently corrupt behavior on the part of Clinton and her closest advisers. This week’s AP report that half of Clinton’s non-official visitors during her tenure as secretary of state were donors to the Clinton Foundation was merely the latest blow.

The continuous drip of corruption stories will have a corrosive effect on Clinton’s support levels. If the revelations to come are as damaging as many have claimed, their impact on Clinton’s candidacy may be fatal.

In light of Clinton’s weaknesses, Trump’s main hurdle to winning the election may very well lie with the NeverTrump movement. That movement encompasses much of the Republican establishment – that is, the political class of centrist elected officials, opinion-shapers, former officials and ideologues. Its members have vowed not to vote for Trump even if it means that Clinton wins the White House. The fact that so many prominent Republican voices continue to oppose Trump even after he has been nominated hurts his ability to build support among swing voters.

As far as the NeverTrumpsters are concerned, Trump carried out a hostile takeover of their party.

Hillary’s Race War Disgusting lies, smears and hate. Daniel Greenfield

Hillary Clinton has met with leaders of a racist hate group responsible for torching cities and inciting the murders of police officers.

Deray McKesson, one of the Black Lives Matter hate group leaders she met with, had praised the looting of white people and endorsed cop killers Assata Shakur and Mumia Abu-Jamal. The Black Lives Matter hate group had specifically made a point of targeting white people in “white spaces” for harassment. It would go on to incite the mass murder of police officers in Dallas and other racist atrocities.

Despite all this, Hillary Clinton has never disavowed the racist hate group. Instead she doubled down on supporting the hate group and its icons at the Democratic National Convention.

Now, after Trump’s appeal to the black community, Hillary is desperately trying to divide us by race.

Despite Hillary’s latest hypocritical and self-serving accusations, Donald Trump has never held a meeting with leaders of a racist hate group. Hillary Clinton has. And she has refused all calls by police unions to end her support for a vicious hate group that has championed the release of cop killers and endorsed BDS against Israel.

When an 83-year-old great grandmother is viciously beaten by racist thugs and then set on fire, Hillary Clinton has nothing to say. She has remained silent about the wave of racist violence by her political allies that is sweeping this country and leaving victims battered or dead.

Hillary is trading on accusations of racism to distract attention from her ugly record of pandering to racists to get ahead. As Trump has said, “It’s the oldest play in the Democratic playbook. When Democratic policies fail, they are left with only this one tired argument. You’re racist, you’re racist, you’re racist!”

It’s not Hillary Clinton who has a consistent track record of opposing racists, but Donald Trump.

Hillary: Trump’s ‘Real Message’ Seems to be ‘Make America Hate Again’ By Bridget Johnson

In a speech largely aimed at moderate Republicans, Hillary Clinton declared that the “alt-right” running through Donald Trump’s campaign “is not conservatism as we have known it” and “is not Republicanism as we have known it.”

Speaking in Reno today, Clinton compared Donald Trump’s proposal for a religious test of immigrants to Islamic State policies, branded Russian President Vladimir Putin “the grand-godfather of this global brand of extreme nationalism,” and said Trump’s “real message seems to be ‘make America hate again.'”

“No one should have any illusions about what’s really going on here. The names may have changed, racists now call themselves racialists, white supremacists now call themselves white nationalists, the paranoid fringe now calls itself alt-right, but the hate burns just as bright,” Clinton said.

“Now Trump is trying to re-brand himself as well. But don’t be fooled. There’s an old Mexican proverb that says, ‘Tell me with whom you walk, and I will tell you who you are.’ So we know who Trump is.”

At the beginning of her address, Clinton panned Trump’s efforts in recent days to appeal to the African-American community.

“Trump has stood up in front of largely white audiences and described black communities in such insulting and ignorant terms. Poverty, rejection, horrible education, no housing, no homes, no ownership, crime at levels nobody has seen. Right now he said you can walk down the street and get shot. Those are his words,” she said. “But when I hear them, I think to myself, how sad. Donald Trump misses so much. He doesn’t see the success of black leaders in every field, the vibrancy of black-owned businesses, the strength of the black church. He doesn’t see the excellence of historically black colleges and universities or the pride of black parents watching their children thrive.”

Hillary and the culture of impunity By James G. Wiles

Pay to play, anyone?

So far, Team Hillary’s defense of what the New York Post on Wednesday called the “Dough Nation” scandal reminds me of Mark Twain’s joke about the girl back in Missouri who sought to excuse her illegitimate child on the ground that it was “so small.”

“Only 3%,” Hillary’s spokesman told Politico on Wednesday, of Mrs. Clinton’s total visitors while she was Secretary of State fall into the category of “nongovernmental visitors.” But half of those, it turns out, had previously made generous donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Yes, he said, but the Associated Press’ investigation only dealt with the first half of Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at Foggy Bottom.

So, you know, the AP’s story is ‘flawed”. Nothing to see here. Keep moving.

Malarkey.

This one’s got legs, folks. And there’s at least another 15,000 emails coming by mid-September.

Furthermore, NPR reported Thursday morning, the 750 emails released this week are heavily redacted. That means that the quid pro quo which Team Clinton, so far, is loudly proclaiming is not there may, in fact, be there. We just can’t see it yet.

In short, this truly is a presidential election without precedent. Even a leading Democratic columnist has had enough.

Mr. Trump’s call for a special prosecutor now puts the stakes in this year’s presidential race in sharp focus. No one believes, of course, that this attorney general will seek the appointment of a special prosecutor. But for Mrs. Clinton, Trump’s demand means that she will almost certainly face new federal investigation and, quite likely, prosecution if she loses the election.

This takes the 2016 race out of anything before seen in American history. It’s Hillary’s own fault, of course. But it still makes this contest uncomfortably like an election in a Third World country.

“You lose, you die.” Or at least end up in jail or have to flee the country.

Are we becoming Nigeria?

The Foreign Policy Establishment’s War on Trump By G. Murphy Donovan

You probably never heard of Max Boot, not that you missed much.

Like Ash Carter, Mister Boot is one of those defense intellectuals who makes a living from all things vicarious; consulting, “scholarship,” partisan journalism, political appointments, and think tank sinecures. The shorthand for the Boot stereotype in Washington is “Beltway bandit.”

Boot was born in Moscow and has served as one of Senator John McCain’s foreign policy advisors. You could do worse than think of Boot as a Russophobic wing nut. He also is a rabid advocate of regime change, global intervention, Russia-baiting, small wars for Islam, and other crackpot schemes such as “no-fly” zones in the Levant. Sound familiar? As a so-called “conservative” supporter of the Clintons, Max is now an official inductee into the no-fault school of foreign policy.

At the moment, Boot has a chair at the Council on Foreign Relations table. The CFR, when not thumping the globalist drum, is that venerable “non-profit,” icon that publishes the journal Foreign Affairs. By charter, the Council claims to be independent and “non-partisan.”

Most Beltway bandits cultivate a low political profile in Washington lest they offend one party or the other that might dispense contract or study monies. Boot has thrown the CFR “non-partisan” shibboleth under the bus and now squanders his personal gravitas and CFR reputation for the dump Trump movement. So much for “independence and non-partisanship” at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Voters may have chosen Trump, but guys like Max Boot and the CFR know better than to trust democracy, or the nation, to the wisdom of crowds.

Flying under a CFR banner, Boot has taken to the airways, notably Public Radio and print Media to trash Donald Trump in 2016.

Conservative and Neo-Con critiques of Trump are a hollow mix of adolescent speculations, ad vericundiam and ad hominem rants. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, Trump doesn’t have any military or foreign policy failures in his resume. Trump is damned for what he says while Hillary gets a pass from conservatives for the policy disasters she has wrought.

The 19th Amendment and the 2016 Election Dr. Robin McFee

“Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it”

George Santayana

One of my favorite quotations – it underscores why we endure many of the unnecessary political follies of contemporary society. We as a society don’t know a lot about our history, and/or don’t see the significance of trying to remedy that.

Here is a good “history” example – what is the significance of August 26th, 1920?

Clearly anyone knowing the answer likely indicates an individual who understands something about the Constitution, how the division of labor between the states and federal government come together concerning amendments, and perhaps a bit about our history as a society.

Sadly most people I have asked about the 19th Amendment, if they have any clue at all about the purpose of an Amendment in terms of the Constitution, think it was the law that overturned Prohibition, granting college students the right to play beer pong on campus.

History is poorly taught in the US, as multiple studies by various groups have revealed in the last 10 years. The Nation’s Report Card (1) 2014 study on 8th grader knowledge of US history, geography and civics revealed 29% of the students possessed below basic knowledge in US History. Only 18% were proficient. Let me repeat that….only 18% of 8th graders in the study were proficient about the history of their own country. This isn’t quantum physics talking about the building blocks of the universe, but US history is the building block of our foundation as good citizens. Geography and Civics did somewhat better, but not by much. The increase from 2010 wasn’t inspiring either. In addition, when history is taught, not surprisingly it is increasingly revisionist, and leaning more towards indoctrination than education.

After reading the study results, I became convinced Watter’s World was real, and that is a scary place. The folks he interviews get to vote. OMGosh maybe the Framers were right to be afraid, very afraid of the masses, especially the uneducated. Moreover, Dickens, not missing a beat warned Scrooge about the danger of ignorance.

Against this backdrop, sometimes I am surprised books about history, and great historic figures continue to make the NY Times bestseller list – examples include Thomas Jefferson and the Tripoli Pirates, Hamilton, The Bully Pulpit, Killing Lincoln, George Washington’s Secret Six, The Quartet, and others.

However, before we take comfort that book sales translate to a knowledgeable public, prepared to spend judiciously and wisely the most precious resource at our disposal – the vote, walk with me through a quick civics experience.

Hillary Clinton Dismisses Conflict of Interest Concerns Over Foundation, State Department By Laura Meckler

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton dismissed questions about conflicts of interest between the Clinton Foundation and her work as secretary of state, saying she made decisions based on the merits.

“My work as secretary of state was not influenced by any outside forces,” she told CNN’s Anderson Cooper Wednesday evening. “I made policy decisions based on what I thought was right, to keep Americans safe and protect U.S. interests abroad.”

In recent days, she has been under fire for meeting with foundation donors during her time in office, with Republican Donald Trump accusing her of creating a pay-to-play culture.

The foundation said last week it would not accept contributions from foreign or corporate donors if she is elected president. Asked why that set-up was acceptable when she headed the State Department, but not if she is president, Mrs. Clinton said, “Obviously if I am president there will be some unique circumstances and that’s why the foundation has laid out additional, unprecedented steps.”

She also dismissed a report from the Associated Press that found a large share of the meetings she had with non-governmental, non-foreign officials were with foundation donors.

“There’s a lot of smoke and there’s no fire,” she said. She said the AP analysis excluded nearly 2,000 meetings with world leaders and others with government officials. The private citizens she did meet with, Mrs. Clinton said, included leading figures such as the late Elie Wiesel and philanthropist Melinda Gates. She said it’s “absurd” to think that those meetings were “somehow due to connections with the foundation instead of their status as highly respected global leaders.”

“These are people I was proud to meet with, who any secretary of state would have been proud to meet with and hear about their work and their insight,” she said.

On a separate controversy, Mrs. Clinton declined to discuss a New York Times report that she told the FBI that she had been advised by former Secretary of State Colin Powell to use a personal email account. Mr. Powell replied that she was already using private email when he told her about his practices.

She said she appreciated Mr. Powell’s help but would not “litigate in public” their private conversations. CONTINUE AT SITE