Displaying posts categorized under

POLITICS

Peter Smith Fornicator vs. Perpetrator

“By the way, if anyone takes seriously the series of uncorroborated, unreported at the time, alleged unwanted groping on the part of Trump they will believe any old rope confected by the Clinton campaign in cahoots with the NYT. This Salem-like witch trial is already falling apart. Be clear. There is no rat-hole that the left and Hillary will not scamper down to gain power and the prizes it brings. They don’t have pesky standards to hold them back. And they don’t care what happens to all those ‘deplorables’; or to inner-city blacks or Latinos for that matter. They care about votes. ”

Can America and the world tolerate a lecherous leader, or would it be better served by a congenital liar, corruptocrat and hypocrite? If the polls are right, the latter option seems the more likely — along with higher taxes, more regulation and a stacked Supreme Court

The Senate convenes. Dominus Trumpus has the floor. “The barbarians are at the very gates of Rome,” he thunders. “We must send the legions forthwith.”

“You lecherous scoundrel,” comes the orchestrated response. “You didst do some noble ladies badly by your salty talk and, so they claim, by putting your paws on their p-part; only but two or three decades ago. [Here this Recorder has omitted spelling out an offensive word. Those flummoxed might refer to the praenomen of Miss Galore brought to fame by the noble scribe Flemingus in his famous work Aurum Digitum.]

Trumpus protests his innocence in vain. Never were the legions sent and Rome didst fall. And the headline of this sorry tale: “Risqué behaviour trumps national saviour.”

The opinion polls are moving decidedly against Mr Trump. It looks as though Mrs Clinton will prevail. Exactly what the US and the world will get is matter of conjecture. But a few things seem easy enough to guess.

Taxes will rise on those earning more than $250,000 a year in order to pay for government programs. This will be bad for the economy. Taxing the rich is an alluring prospect but it takes away private savings which, on the whole, are used for productive purposes. The poor will suffer most.

Environmental regulations will be ramped up. This will increase the cost of energy and impede economic development and growth. The miners and the poor will suffer most.

Borders will be far more open, including to Muslim refugees. This will depress wages, increase social welfare spending, create more terrorism and crime, further splinter social cohesion and sow the seeds of European-style Islamism in America. The poor and Jews will suffer most.

The Supreme Court will be stacked with activists. Christian institutions and churches, the non-politically-correct outspoken, gun owners, unborn babies and flag-displaying patriots will suffer most.

Michelle Obama’s Promotion of Misogyny and Date Rape By William A. Levinson

Michelle Obama laid into Donald Trump for his lewd locker room remarks about women as follows: “I can’t stop thinking about this. It has shaken me to my core in a way I could not have predicted” — whereupon the White House warned Trump to not retaliate against the First Lady.

“And the White House on Thursday advised that Trump continue to steer clear of the president’s wife, suggesting that an unprecedented attack on the first lady is a surefire way for the GOP nominee’s standing to plummet further.”

Well, Eric Schultz (and presumably Barack Obama), here is what you can do with your warning. Donald Trump’s statements, which were probably empty boasts in contrast to Bill Clinton’s well-known behavior, were indeed lewd and unacceptable. While two wrongs do not make a right, Michelle and Barack Obama have openly promoted rap artists who glorify misogyny, sexual objectification of women, and even date rape. That’s right; I am indeed calling out our country’s sorry excuse for a First Lady for her and her husband’s deplorable legitimization of the most despicable misogynistic language on earth.

In April 2016, the Obamas invited numerous rap artists to the White House to discuss Barack Obama’s “My Brother’s Keeper” initiative while recognizing them for their “artistic” contributions to minority communities. The rappers whom the Obamas promoted with these invitations include:

Rick Ross’s, “U.O.N.E.O.” glorifies date rape with the lyrics, “Put molly all in her champagne/ She ain’t even know it / I took her home and I enjoyed that/ She ain’t even know it.” While Ross denies that this was his intended meaning, “molly” is slang for Ecstasy, a well-known date rape drug, and the context of “molly” in his lyrics shows clearly that a man put it into a woman’s drink without her knowledge or consent so he could have sex with her. Ross’ “Same Hoes” is meanwhile not about agricultural implements as shown by its lyrics, which consist primarily of the F word, a variant of the N word, and “hoes.”
Common, whose “Go!” includes, “And a ooh baby she liked it raw and like rain when she came it poured” along with a variant of the N word and even more sexually explicit lyrics.
Jay Z, who proclaims, “I’ve got 99 problems and a b***h ain’t one.”
Michelle Obama called out Trump’s remarks with the words, “What message are our little girls hearing about who they should look like, how they should act?” Nicki Minaj, another rapper whom she and her husband brought to the White House, answers that question in “Hey Mama,” “Make sure mama crawls on her knees keep him pleased rub him down be a lady and a freak” and also “Yes I do the cooking/ Yes I do the cleaning/ Yes I keep the nana real sweet for your eating/ Yes you be the (boss) yes I be respecting.” It doesn’t take a feminist to dismiss these words as belonging in a fundamentalist “Islamic” country, assuming that they ever belonged anywhere at all.

The FBI/State Department scandal By J. Marsolo

The Watergate “smoking gun” was that Nixon suggested the CIA tell the FBI to back off the investigation because of national security reasons. The CIA was never instructed to do so and the FBI did its investigation. Here the Obama State Department “pressured” the FBI to alter documents so Hillary’s story would be believable, and State offered some goodies like slots in overseas embassies. The Obama State Department actually did what Nixon only dreamed and talked about.

On October 15, 2016, Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard reported:

“A senior State Department official repeatedly pressed the FBI to change the classification of emails stored on Hillary Clinton’s private server, according to FBI interview summaries set to be released in the coming days. Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary of state for management, discussed providing additional overseas slots for the FBI in exchange for revisions to classifications of the sensitive emails.”

In plain English, the Obama State Department asked the FBI to phony up the emails marked confidential so the emails were consistent with Hillary’s story. In return the FBI would get some juicy overseas slots. This shows what the Obama State Department thinks of the FBI: the Comey FBI can be bought with a couple of overseas slots.

There is no way that Patrick Kennedy, or anyone at State, would have made the move to the FBI to fix Hillary’s emails unless the move was approved by higher-ups. In these political conspiracies there are “buffers” between guys like Patrick Kennedy and the higher ups. The Obama State Department is run by John Kerry, who does what Obama tells him to do.

This begs for an investigation by an independent prosecutor, and the Senate and House Judiciary Committees should immediately subpoena Kennedy, Kerry, Comey, and the agents involved.

Comey should have revealed this in his July 5 news conference when he listed Hillary’s lies and extreme negligence but gave her a pass.

The FBI has been compromised by Hillary and Obama. Its once sterling reputation is shattered. Comey should have recommended indictment of Hillary along with those who made the offer to phony up the documents. If we had a Justice Department, there would be a grand jury right now issuing subpoenas to the FBI agents and Patrick Kennedy and John Kerry, and all other buffers between Kennedy and Hillary and Obama.

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.