State Dept. and Hillary Clinton

Judge: State Department Made ‘Clearly False’ Statements to Derail Clinton Lawsuits

Alex Wong/Getty Images
Alex Wong/Getty Images

During a hearing on Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth accused State Department officials of signing “clearly false” affidavits meant to thwart legal investigations into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

During the heated exchange, Lamberth said that he was left “shocked” and “dumbfounded” when he discovered that the Federal Bureau of Investigation granted former Clinton chief of staff Cheryl Mills immunity during the investigation of Clinton’s infamous e-mail server — especially because Lamberth himself had found that she had previously perjured herself.

“I had myself found that Cheryl Mills had committed perjury and lied under oath in a published opinion I had issued in a Judicial Watch case where I found her unworthy of belief, and I was quite shocked to find out she had been given immunity in — by the Justice Department in the Hillary Clinton email case,” Lamberth said.

Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz called the FBI’s actions “inconsistent with typical investigative strategy” in his report. He also said former FBI director James Comey “usurped the authority of Attorney General, and did not accurately describe the legal position of the Department prosecutors” in his summer 2016 announcement that “no reasonable prosecutor” would bring charges against Clinton.

When the State Department then immediately moved to dismiss the lawsuit against Clinton, Lamberth refused. On Friday, he said:

It was clear to me that at the time that I ruled initially, that false statements were made to me by career State Department officials, and it became more clear through discovery that the information that I was provided was clearly false regarding the adequacy of the search and this – what we now know turned out to be the Secretary’s email system.

I don’t know the details of what kind of IG inquiry there was into why these career officials at the State Department would have filed false affidavits with me. I don’t know the details of why the Justice Department lawyers did not know false affidavits were being filed with me, but I was very relieved that I did not accept them and that I allowed limited discovery into what had happened.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued a statement calling on President Trump to press the State Department for more information:

President Trump should ask why his State Department is still refusing to answer basic questions about the Clinton email scandal. Hillary Clinton’s and the State Department’s email cover up abused the FOIA, the courts, and the American people’s right to know.

The government’s independent Accountability Review Board found “systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels” at the Clinton State Department which produced “a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place.”

Clinton, of course, positioned the Benghazi attack, which cost four American lives, as “a political football” that was “aimed at undermining my credibility, my record, my accomplishments.”

The case is Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State, No. 1:14-cv-01242, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Full Story:

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

American Socialism

American socialism, 2018

By Michael N. Mattia

The 60-year experiment in the progressive government-run educational system in this country has cheated and defrauded not only those it purports to educate, but also the taxpayers who funded this sham.  It is apparent that no longer are American history, values, and civics taught.  Rather, in their place, the students at all levels of the educational system are being and have been indoctrinated with the communist-socialist-progressive philosophy of hatred of capitalism, envy and jealousy of the successful, denial of individual responsibility, and the belief that government can solve all of life’s problems.

Let us not forget that the German movement headed by Adolf Hitler was called the National Socialists (Nazis).  How reminiscent that the Antifa- and Democrat-supported rioters of today are dressed in black, many with face masks, like the blackshirts of Fascist Italy.  The only thing lacking are the logo armbands with the appropriate symbol.

Unfortunately, this radical philosophy and activity is being accepted and adopted by more and more so-called mainstream Democrats.  One needs simply pay attention to the daily news to become aware of these facts.  The Democratic appeal for violence against those who oppose them becomes louder and more strident every day.

Throughout history, this type of political activity has been embraced by basically two types of people.

The first is the person who seeks unbridled power over others and will use any means to achieve that end.  These people use the power of envy and jealousy to persuade, convince, and motivate the gullible to do their dirty work in order to gain power.  They will lie, cheat, and use the media to influence the masses by repeating over and over the “Big Lie.”  Once in power, they will resort to violence, re-education camps, and “disappearing” of opponents.  Some of the first to “disappear” will be their most dedicated initial supporters.

The second group is the vast majority of ill educated dupes who refuse to admit the base level of human nature and are naïve enough to believe the utopian siren song of “free everything for everyone” the leaders of the movement keep singing.  Too late will they come to realize that there is no such thing as “free” anything and that someone has to pay for it.  Only when they spend hours if not days in line to purchase a loaf of bread or a quart of milk that may not be there will they come to realize the fallacy of their beliefs.  By then, it is too late.  These people are the cannon fodder of the manipulators and potential dictators, who, because of their lack of knowledge and understanding of history, will be sacrificed by those who take the reins of power over the great unwashed masses.

When we try to highlight the dangers and pitfalls of socialism by whatever name is currently in vogue, we are not heard.  Despite pre-war Germany, the Soviet Union, Cuba, and even now the chaos of Venezuela, the young have been so indoctrinated and taught not to look at history that trying to reason with them is an exercise in futility.  Attempting to change their way of thinking, philosophy, or ideology in time to make a difference in their November voting preferences is really a waste of time.

The only solution to the problems they will cause is to somehow raise the awareness of conservatives and other true patriots at every corner of the country and convince them to get out and vote in November in massive numbers.  Defeating the socialist Democrats at the ballot box before they retake power is really the only hope for the country.

Full Story:

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Run Hillary, run

Ready for Hillary again?

By Monica Showalter

She persisted.

Failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton apparently is running for president again. She’s out to settle old scores with President Trump.

According to The Week:

Philippe Reines, who worked for Hillary Clinton going back to 2002 and was her senior adviser at the State Department, made the argument to Politico Friday that the former Democratic nominee might actually be the party’s best hope for defeating Trump in 2020. He said no other Democrat has “anywhere near a base of 32 million people,” especially not Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) or Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). The party, he feels, shouldn’t dismiss her as a failed candidate because she’s “smarter” and “tougher” than most, and she “could raise money easier than most.”

But it doesn’t sound like this is just wishful thinking on his part. He really thinks it could happen, saying the chances of Clinton running in 2020 are “not zero.”

Lucky us.

Like her 36-point approval rating, in the wake of her obvious campaign to spy on her rival, Donald Trump, and pin the whole thing on him as Russian collusion, has helped her in the public’s estimation. Or as if her unresolved use of an unauthorized private server in some guy’s bathtub, is great for her poll ratings. Or her Clinton Foundation pay-to-play shenanigans, which made her a very rich woman, are going to be a crowd-pleaser? Or is it the fact that she will be 74 when she takes to the hustings again, sliding into cough attacks, falling down stairs, failing to maintain a healthy weight level and still not telling the truth about her medical conditions going to rope them in?

Hillary indeed will be 74 if she campaigns again, and among the jurassic pickings proffered by the Democrats, that will make her the youngster of the bunch. Maybe it’s that.

Does the public really want to hear her arrogant hectoring voice again, or to see her menagerie of yes-women such as Cheryl Mills or Huma Abedin cocooning around her and wielding great unaccountable power, or watch more Central Park pantsuit dances? Does the public really want more Obama Economy, single-payer health care, and leading from behind? Does the public actually want more of Chelsea Clinton and her nasty, unpleasant tweets (if not power) in front of us?

The mind boggles.

If she runs, she’s quite likely to be defeated a second time, as President Trump trounces her on the strength of his economic revival. Yet the very idea of losing to President Trump as she did earlier must cheese her off daily, leaving her weeping and gnashing her teeth.

Her ego and delusions intact, she persists. I suspect President Trump will respond to such a scenario with: “Bring it on.”

Full Story:

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

liberals and conservatives

The root of where liberals and conservatives diverge

By Tim Jones

Liberalism has no limiting principles, especially when it comes to growing the size and scope of government and the welfare state.  Conservatism, on the other hand, wants the economy to grow unimpeded.  The only obstacle in its way are taxes and regulations imposed by the government.  This is where competition originates between the public and private sectors – bigger government or bigger economy – that pits the two sectors against each other.  One wants as many people as possible on the government payroll, whereas the other wants to see as many people as possible employed by private enterprises.

Everything about the Democrats flows from this premise.  Those who think they are the party of compassion and the underdog are sorely misguided and deluded by decades of the deceptive ideology of liberalism.

From the book Never Enough: America’s Limitless Welfare State by William Voegeli: “Liberalism, as we have seen, not only lacks a limiting principle but is fundamentally hostile to the idea of formulating one.  An accommodation with conservatives that does anything beyond trimming the welfare state at the margins will be one liberals are pre-programmed to detest.”

It’s no mistake that liberals have such an affinity for socialism, because it boils down to nothing other than the state’s control of the private sector.  This is why Democrats are veering farther and farther left.  Implementing socialism would give the state the victory over the private sector the Democrats so desperately want to see.

As for conservatives desiring the continuous growth of the economy, it is at the mercy of  economic policy coming out of Washington.  This puts the private sector at a big disadvantage against the public sector. But as long as Republicans can forcefully argue for pro-growth policies, as Donald Trump has been doing (and implementing them with a fair amount of success), it just might be possible to keep the ravenous wolves of the left from winning the competition between the private and public sectors.

From the inside cover of Never Enough:

It explores the roots and consequences of liberals’ aphasia about the welfare state’s ultimate size. It assesses what liberalism’s lack of a limiting principle says about the long-running argument between liberals and conservatives, and about the policy choices confronting America in a new century.  Never Enough argues that the failure to speak clearly and candidly about the welfare state’s limits has grave policy consequences.  The worst result, however, is the way it has jeopardized the experiment in self-government by encouraging Americans to regard their government as a vehicle for exploiting their fellow-citizens, rather than as a compact for respecting one another’s rights and safeguarding the opportunities of future generations.

Neither side seems to understand how much is too much in validating the pre-eminent value of our time: bigger (and more) is better.  Never Enough explores the question: at what point does the welfare state reach its endpoint, where its benefits and entitlements have been optimized?

The answer is simple: there isn’t one.  This is because, once again, liberalism by definition doesn’t have any limiting principles.  The one principle liberals do argue for is limiting how much a person or a company can make; however, this is a red herring because taxing a wealthy person’s or a company’s income is simply redistributing it – as welfare or as luxurious benefits and pensions. 

Although one might say “bigger is better” when it comes to both the public and private sectors, one should know the difference.  The difference is that with government, personal freedom is reduced because of the government’s powers of taxation, confiscation, and regulation.  Chalk that up against the freedom that comes for a person to make as much money as he can through ambition, hard work, talent, and dignity.

Full Story:

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

For the deplorables

A wake-up call for the deplorables

By Alicia Colon

Sometimes it’s important to preach to the choir, because I’m pretty sure only the choir shares my political opinion.  It is absolutely imperative that the deplorables come out in force in a few weeks because they will be able to do the impossible.  Just imagine what will happen in the midterm elections if the most powerful Democrats are ousted from office.  In California, that means Dianne Feinstein , Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters; in New York, that means Andrew Cuomo and Kirsten Gillibrand, and New York State would then have a Republican governor and senator.  Impossible, you may say, but if all who voted for Trump in 2016 came out in force and voted straight Republican, this might happen.  Unfortunately, with less than a month left, the RNC still hasn’t admitted that it hasn’t worked hard enough for GOP candidates in New York and California.

I had to look high and low to find out who was running for governor in New York for the GOP.  Actually, it has a very good candidate in Marc Molinaro, and I donated as much as I could to his website.  Likewise, Chele Farley, another good candidate, is running for senator against Kirsten Gillibrand.  I get frequent calls from the RNC urging me to donate, and I patiently explain that until the RNC starts supporting candidates in my state, I will continue to donate directly to their campaigns, not the RNC.

I have sent Twitter messages to the president asking him to campaign here, but so far there’s been no response.  His son, Donald Trump, Jr., is in Texas for Ted Cruz, but why is he ignoring his home state?  Since we can’t depend on the GOPe to drain the swamp, it’s up to us deplorables and…what was it Biden called some of us?  Oh, yes: the dregs of society.  That means we have to do our homework by supporting with donations those good candidates who need to air ads to combat the lies the Democrats are airing.

Ironically, it is the progressive website Politico that has summarized what the Democrats want to do if they take over Congress.  Like the Trump tax cuts?  They’ll be gone.  Like the increase in military funding?  Well, they plan to cut defense spending.  They will abolish ICE, so who will be arresting the MS-13 thugs in your neighborhood?  Woohoo, debt-free college and Medicare for All (even illegals are eligible), and you hardworking blue-collar workers will be paying for it.  Comparing the policies between the parties should be a slam dunk, but the ignorance of the electorate voting for socialist candidates is appalling.

So how does one combat that lack of knowledge?  Television ads on the networks that the low-info voters watch should have some impact, but these are highly expensive.

It’s up to us, to the millions of us, to donate even a little to the brave candidates opposing the swamp.  Here are their names and websites:

And wouldn’t we love to have this man in the Senate – John James?

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who should be gone, will be facing not a Republican, but another Democrat, Kevin de León, as the California primary system makes the top two vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of party.  Frankly, Feinstein is actually more moderate: de León is pro-sanctuary city status.

It’s up to us deplorables in each state to hunt down the worthy candidates to drain the swamp.  I haven’t included all, but feel free to add their names in comments, and let’s roll in November.

Full Story:

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Swamp Rats, Get with the Program!

Posted in Politics, Video | Tagged | Leave a comment

Puerto Rico city offices raided for corruption

Puerto Rico city offices raided for corruption, and why is San Juan’s mouthy mayor sounding so bland?

By Monica Showalter

In Puerto Rico, municipal offices not far from San Juan’s mayor were raided by dozens of FBI agents yesterday, with lawmen looking for evidence of fixed contracts and falsified documents.  An FBI spokesman told the Washington Examiner the operation was “pretty big” and the tips came from disgusted insiders.

According to the Examiner:

Agents were seen entering the Municipal Tower with dozens of empty boxes.  The federal agents deployed to the third, fourth, 14th, and 15th floors of the 16-floor building, Osorio said.  They were looking for any paper and electronic documents related to “corruption” inside the city administration’s purchasing and contracting departments.

This, in light of the island’s bankruptcy, wasted hurricane aid, and other evidence of fiscal mismanagement, is telling.

San Juan’s obnoxious mayor, Carmen Yulin Cruz Soto, whose office wasn’t raided but who runs the Centro de Gobierno municipal operation as the city’s top official, is the lefty mayor who tried to make so much political hay against President Trump during Hurricane Maria by accusing Trump’s his relief effort of being intentionally incompetent and racist.  Speaking to the cameras, Cruz said:

We are dying here and I cannot fathom the thought that the greatest nation in the world cannot figure out logistics for a small island of 100 miles by 35 miles long[.] … People are drinking off a creek.  So I am done being polite.  I am done being politically correct.  I am mad as hell[.] … So I am asking the members of the press, to send a mayday call all over the world.  We are dying here[.] … And if it doesn’t stop, and if we don’t get the food and the water into people’s hands, what we are going to see is something close to a genocide.

It was a page drawn straight out of the Democratic Party’s playbook – a bid to paint the Hurricane Maria aid effort as President Trump’s “Katrina.”  The Democrats have a lot of playbook moves they try to play over and over again – the Kavanaugh show, the kids at the border – and Katrina is one of their favorites.

As she yelled and made political hay for the Democrats, the aid sat in the docks undelivered, and the news stories are still dribbling out about Cruz’s own incompetence and uncooperativeness in the delivery of aid.

According to Wikipedia, citing press reports, this is how she acted:

Speaking on Fox News, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) director Brock Long responded to Cruz’s remarks saying that unity of command was the main thing needed for the relief effort to be successful, and suggested the mayor needed to go to the joint field office and “get plugged in”. Angel Perez Otero, mayor of Guaynabo, a neighboring city to San Juan, stated that his experience with that agency had been very good and criticized Cruz for not participating in meetings with them and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Responding to her statements, President Trump tweeted, “The mayor of San Juan, who was very complimentary only a few days ago, has now been told by Democrats that you must be nasty to Trump. Such poor leadership ability by the mayor of San Juan and others in Puerto Rico who are not able to get their workers to help.”

In short, obstinate, obnoxious, incompetent, and unhelpful.

Now the city government’s office has been raided for fraud and corruption in that “pretty big” operation, and Cruz is singing a different tune.  Instead of yelling, she’s talking cooperating.  She’s, as the FBI would colloquially say, “being good.”  According to the Examiner:

Cruz issued a statement on Twitter Tuesday morning saying all parties should cooperate with one another.

“At this time, members of the FBI are intervening in the Municipal Tower of SJ. My instructions as always are of total collaboration,” Cruz wrote, according to an unofficial translation. “I have no more information right now. We all have a duty to work together to clarify this situation.”

“If someone has done something wrong, they must be subjected to due process and face the consequences of their actions,” she added.

Why the disparity? Why the nicey-nice and the rule of law, after all that hullaballoo earlier?

Two things could be happening here.  Either she realizes she made an ass of herself during Hurricane Maria and now recognizes the importance of cooperating with federal authorities or, for those less inclined to be sympathetic, she’s sounding those cooperative notes because she doesn’t want too much attention to her own activities, too much trouble, much as President Trump suggested in his warnings about corruption in his tweets, and she knows she could easily get some, perhaps be implicated in the raids.

She’s lying low right now and sounding dulcet, no doubt on political calculations.  One wonders what big thing she might as a result be seeing coming down the pike.

Full Story:

Posted in Crime | Tagged | Leave a comment

Elizabeth Warren’s a RACIST FRAUD!

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Elizabeth Warren a fraud

Why liberals would rather be 1% American Indian than 99% white

By Ed Straker

The fake news media are now pronouncing that Elizabeth Warren is an American Indian because she claimed she produced a genetic test showing she was about 1%, or perhaps as little as 0.01%, American Indian.  (The actual data behind the alleged test have not been released, being about as opaque as Christine Blasey Ford’s polygraph results.)

The liberal media herald this as a vindication of Warren.  “Elizabeth Warren releases DNA test with ‘strong evidence’ of Native American ancestry,” reports Fortune magazine.  “Elizabeth Warren releases DNA test with ‘strong evidence’ of Native American ancestry,” claims the Clinton News Network.

Strong evidence?  A great, great, great grandmother, or possibly someone even more distant than that?  It’s ridiculous and also alarming, as the mainstream media parrot the Democratic talking points, even characterizing an obvious lie as the truth.

The point that everyone overlooks is, why, even if Warren is (finally) being truthful about her heritage, would someone who is 99% white and 1% (or less) American Indian want to be called American Indian?  Are there American Indians who are 1% white who want to be called white?  I think not.

That’s because in America, being a white person is considered bad, and minorities are considered virtuous.

In America today, white people are considered suspect racists at best, guilty until proven innocent.  Even if they aren’t consciously racist, we are told they may harbor unconscious racism, which conveniently can never be purged, or detected, but is always there – just like man-made global warming.

Minorities, however, are virtuous because they are by definition oppressed.  Any minority living in America is deemed to have been discriminated against by white people.  You just have to be careful about defining what a minority is.  A person from Slovakia or Ireland or Norway is not a minority.  These people are simply white.  Also defining Chinese-Americans as minorities is problematic, as they do not tend to underperform as other minorities from broken families and failing cultures often do.

But in general, that label of “oppressed” gives minorities a patina of virtuousness.  “People of Color” says it all – all who are not white, despite widely differing backgrounds, are identical in their virtuousness due to their oppression (past, present, and future) at the hands of white people.  When they speak out, the liberal media amplify their voices and give them authenticity (as long as they are not conservatives, in which case they are Uncle Toms or mentally ill).  The media breathlessly report stories every day about nonwhite lawyers, doctors, scientists, and engineers, in such crude ways that it seems pretty clear that the focus of the story is not social science, but identity politics.

And then there is the P.C. cultural propaganda that shows nonwhites and nonwhite culture to be superior to European-American norms.  In television, movies, and books, minority characters are always portrayed as brilliant, brave, and noble.  For the most part, white male characters have been reduced to playing villains.  In television commercials, white men are portrayed as idiots, while minorities are portrayed as “cool” and “hip.”  It starts early, in school textbooks, where a disproportionate share of children in stories who are bold and virtuous are non-white.  Every time I get an advertisement from my bank or insurance company, I am greeted by the image of a grinning non-white person.  It’s as if they no longer consider the possibility of marketing to white people, or as if they think they can market better to white people with nonwhite models, hoping their ascribed virtuousness will rub off on their company.

Under these circumstances, is it any wonder that a woman with one drop of American Indian blood would rather be American Indian than white?  Is it any surprise that the liberal media, which celebrate identity politics, would play along with this sham?

It’s merely a symptom of the deeper racial illness that infects American culture, which celebrates nonwhite identities over white ones.

Full Story:

Posted in Politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The violent left

The left and violence

By Elad Hakim

In a recent Washington Post op-ed, author Matthew Lenoe stated, “Trump and the movement that supports him (which now encompasses most of the Republican Party and its leadership) increasingly incline toward violence in ways that resemble modern authoritarian movements.”  Lenoe further stated:

Additionally, we are now witnessing similar distortions purveyed by Fox News and right-wing social media that are just as extreme as those that occurred in Germany during the rise of the Nazis and in Italy during the rise of the fascists.  Claims like the antifa representing a wave of left-wing terrorism threatening American democracy, and that Democrats are Communists (or Muslim terrorists) are slanderous distortions that scare people.

This false narrative of leftist terrorism that would justify right-wing violence is now in place.  The parallels with previous authoritarian movements are frightening.  The lesson is that the lies and those who sell them must be opposed, before it is too late.

Not only are Lenoe’s analogies offensive, but they also miss the point in light of recent events and comments by various Democrats.

For example, in June 2018, during a Keep Families Together protest and rally, Maxine Waters “urged her followers to generate mobs around Republicans wherever they see them.”  During a recent television interview, Hillary Clinton stated: “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about.”  Both messages strictly called for incivility.

These were echoed by other prominent Democrats.  During a campaign event in Georgia, former attorney general Eric Holder stated, “‘When they go low, we kick them.”  Along these same lines, Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) recommended that Americans “get up in the face” of politicians they disagree with.

Unfortunately, these calls for incivility have led some to act out.  For example, Senator Ted Cruz, Pam Bondi, and Sarah Sanders were publicly harassed.  Senator Rand Paul was assaulted by his neighbor.  Additional examples can be found here.

Despite these examples, Lenoe contends that the real threat of violence comes from the right:

The real threat of violence comes from the right. The Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism reports that right-wingers and white supremacists were responsible for 74 percent of the murders committed by political extremists in the United States over the past decade.

According to Lenoe, the behavior of President Trump and most of the Republican Party and its leaders is “increasingly inclined” toward violence.  Lenoe claims that Republicans provoke violence and blame it on others and asserts that such behavior is exactly how totalitarian regimes have gained power in the past.  He cites the threats against Dr. Ford (regarding the Kavanaugh matter) to support his assertion that Republicans are inclined toward violence.  Lenoe somehow fails to discuss the threats against Judge Kavanaugh, his wife, and his children.

Moreover, the present-day calls for resistance and incitement are coming directly from some prominent Democratic officials, not Republicans.  This is significant because these officials are elected by the people and are using positions of power to urge incitement in various forms by the people they serve and against the people they work for.

Full Story:

Posted in Crime, Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Trump won

Trump won, they didn’t

By Ethel C. Fenig

The second anniversary of Donald J. Trump’s (R) unexpected victory is approaching, but his “Resistance” opponents are still behaving as if they can unseat him.  And Trump keeps swatting them down as this absolutely delightful exchange with Leslie Stahl of “60 Minutes” demonstrates.

President Trump: “One thing I really learned, I never knew how dishonest the media was and I really mean it. I’m not saying that as a soundbite. I never knew how dishonest…”

Lesley Stahl: “I’m going to change the subject again.”

President Trump: When you ask me a question like separation. When I say Obama did it you don’t want to talk about it.

Lesley Stahl: No, no, I’m going to run your answer…

President Trump: I’m just telling you that you treated me much differently on the subject.

Lesley Stahl: I disagree but I don’t want to have that fight with you.

President Trump: It’s OK. Leslie, it’s OK. In the meantime, I’m President and you’re not.

For some reason, the media labelled the interview “contentious.”

Of course, when President Barack bluntly replied, “I won.” when questioned about his proposals, the media swooned.  Exactly five years ago, Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post sympathetically explained Obama’s problems dealing with those nasty Republicans who didn’t fall into line for him.

A visibly frustrated President Obama delivered a blunt message to Republicans with whom he had feuded over the government shutdown and the debt ceiling over the past month on Tuesday: Elections matter. I won; you lost. Deal with it.

That’s a paraphrase — obviously. Here’s what Obama actually said:

“You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election. Push to change it. But don’t break it. Don’t break what our predecessors spent over two centuries building. That’s not being faithful to what this country’s about.”

“Go out there and win an election.” That’s about as direct as you will ever hear a politician be about how he feels about his opposition and how they are conducting themselves. (It’s not the first time Obama has used the “I won” construct. Remember the health-care summit in early 2010 when Obama told Sen. John McCain “The election is over.”)

There are slightly under 2 1/2 years remaining of Trump’s first term; hopefully with another win, 6 1/2 years of Trump winning, Trump as president, liberals are not.


Full Story:

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Rep. Ratcliffe

Posted in Politics, Video | Tagged | Leave a comment

Mark Dice

Posted in Politics, Video | Tagged | Leave a comment

Latinos for Trump

Democratic Nightmare: Many Latinos Ignore Race Politics, Vote on Economy


Democrats are worried that their bet on Latino voting-power is failing amid President Donald Trump’s good economy, say media reports.

The Democrats’ bet seems to be failing because most second-generation and third-generation Latino voters are ignoring the Democrats’ racial-resentment pitch, and instead want to vote like other Americans: They primarily want to boost their jobs, families, schools, and neighborhoods, not fight other ethnic groups for a greater share of civic status and government aid.

“Hispanic voters were supposed to be the party’s future. It’s not working out that way,” said the headline on a article. The article continued:

The fact that Donald Trump is viewed in a relatively favorable light by as many as 1 in 4 Hispanic voters should be alarming for Democrats, but it’s not even their biggest problem. That would be turnout … more eligible Hispanic voters have decided to stay home rather than vote in every election since 1996. To make matters potentially worse, more than 40 percent of potential Hispanic voters are millennials, another dispirited demographic.

“The majority of Hispanics are unhappy with Trump, with 65 percent of registered voters holding an unfavorable view of the president,” says But, the continued:

Democrats need that displeasure to translate into high turnout at the polls, and running on an anti-Trump platform alone is not enough, according to Democratic strategists, who say the top three issues for Latino voters are wages, immigration and health care costs …

In a July research memo from the House Majority PAC, a group focused on helping Democrats win House seats, 53 percent of registered Hispanic voters said they were “certain” they will cast a ballot in November, which raised some alarm bells in the party, though the figure has climbed since then.

A low turnout in November among Hispanics is expected given that Trump’s color-blind economy has produced record-low unemployment for Hispanics and a record income-growth for Hispanics. The Wall Street Journal reported Sept. 12:

One demographic group stood out as American household incomes rose for a third straight year in 2017: Hispanics.

Median income for Hispanic households rose 3.7% in 2017, to $50,486, adjusted for inflation. That easily outpaced a 1.8% increase for all households, according to new census data released Wednesday.

The faster-than-average rise is due, in part, to the relatively large number of young Latinos who see rising income as they gain work experience in their 20 and 30s, and because of the reduced inflow of Hispanic unskilled illegal immigrants.

The Democrats’ Latino problem is highlighted in Florida’s 27th district, where a GOP Latino candidate is staying ahead of Donna Shalala, a former cabinet secretary for President Bill Clinton, and the former president of the University of Miami. According to the Miami Herald:

 Shalala, a Democrat running in a district that President Donald Trump lost by nearly 20 percentage points in 2016, is trailing Republican TV journalist Maria Elvira Salazar by 2 percentage points in a Mason Dixon-Telemundo 51 poll …

Salazar’s unique background as a journalist in a party dominated by President Donald Trump and her appeal with older, Spanish-speaking voters has enabled the GOP to remain competitive …

“The numbers look good, they’re great,” Salazar campaign manager Jose Luis Castillo said. “She’s focused on job creation, healthcare, the environment and education. These numbers really reflect that her message, her ideas and vision are continuing to resonate throughout with voters in District 27.”

The data clearly shows that many Latino voters dislike Trump — but by smaller margins than Democrats need.

An October 7 poll by Morning Consult showed that 20 percent of Hispanics (and 26 percent of whites) strongly approve of Trump’s performance, while 45 percent of Hispanics (and 41 percent of whites) strongly disapprove of Trump’s performance.

The poll of 2,189 registered voters showed that 32 percent of Hispanics, and 20 percent of whites, say the economy is their top issue. Healthcare was the top issue for 13 percent of Hispanics and 17 percent of whites.

Democrats have pushed hard to portray themselves as the friendly towards Hispanic immigration as if Americans with Latino ancestors want to see more poor Mexicans and Central Americans settle in their neighborhoods and schools. But when asked about immigration, 30 percent of Hispanics (and 45 percent of whites) trust GOP legislators above Democratic legislators.

Also, 34 percent of Hispanics and 43 percent of whites say a border wall should be a priority. Forty-seven percent of Hispanics and 40 percent of whites say the wall should not be built.

In 2016, Trump won at least 28 percent of the Hispanic vote, despite media pressure on Latinos to vote as an ethnic or racial bloc. The ballot-box results showed that many Latinos vote like white Americans in the privacy of their voting booths, even as they publicly declare solidarity with foreign Latinos when they are asked pro-immigration questions in semi-public polls.

In 2014, for example, a skewed poll funded by Mark Zuckerberg showed that a huge majority of Hispanics told pollsters they favored the 2014 “Gang of Eight” amnesty. Yet the same poll showed that 78 percent of Latinos wanted “substantially increased security among US-Mexican border.” Seventy-seven percent wanted companies to be required to check the work-eligibility of possible employees, and 76 percent wanted the federal government to track people who overstay their visas.

Full Story:

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Hillary Clinton Gives up Security Clearance

Hillary Clinton Gives up Security Clearance After Private Server Scandal

Hillary Loses Security Clearance
CreditCreditPablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has relinquished her security clearance over her handling of sensitive information stored on a private email server, according to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Cheryl Mills, a former top Clinton aide, along with four additional individuals, no longer have clearance, committee chairman Chuck Grassley said Friday afternoon. The Washington Times reports Clinton’s access to secret information “expired at the end of August,” while the four other “research assistants,” the names of which were redacted in a letter from the State Department, had their clearances terminated September 20.

The FBI began investigating the handling of classified material on Clinton’s private email server shortly after she announced her bid in April 2015. The issue had dogged Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, greatly contributing to the questions a majority of Americans have about her honesty and trustworthiness.

Still, Clinton had appeared to be heading for a sweeping victory over rival Donald Trump before Comey’s first letter to lawmakers, in which he stressed the FBI could not yet assess “whether or not this material may be significant,” or how long it might take to run down the new investigative leads.

The review involved material found on a computer belonging to Anthony Weiner, the disgraced former Democrat congressman and estranged husband of Clinton aide Huma Abedin. While Comey was vague in his initial description of the inquiry, he said Sunday that the FBI reviewed communications “to or from Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state.”

Based on such review, Comey told lawmakers the FBI was not changing the conclusion it reached this summer. Then, Comey said, “no reasonable prosecutor” would recommend Clinton face criminal charges for using a private email system while at the State Department.

In June of this year, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz issued a stinging rebuke to the FBI for its handling of the Clinton email investigation. The watchdog official’s report labeled Comey “insubordinate” and said his actions during the probe were “extraordinary.” However, the report did not find evidence that Comey was motivated by political bias or preference in his decisions to absolve Clinton.

Further, the report criticized Comey for publicly announcing his recommendation against criminal charges for Clinton. It also faults him for alerting Congress days before the 2016 election that the investigation was being reopened because of newly discovered emails.

Representatives for Clinton did not immediately respond to request for comment.

Full Story:

Posted in Crime | Tagged | Leave a comment