Archive for the ‘DNC’ Category

This summer, the Democratic Party faced a moment of truth right before their convention when they fired Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as their chair of the DNC. The woman picked to be the DNC’s interim chair, Donna Brazile, is apparently just as unprincipled as Ms. Wasserman-Schultz.

This article highlights the fact that the upper echelon of the DNC was on a mission to elect Hillary regardless of what they had to do. What’s telling is the paragraph that says “The Democratic National Committee is ‘clearing a path’ for Hillary Clinton to be its presidential nominee because its upper power echelons are populated with women, according to a female committee member who was in Las Vegas for Tuesday’s primary debate. Speaking on the condition that she isn’t identified, she told Daily Mail Online that the party is in the tank for Clinton, and the women who run the organization decided it ‘early on.'”

Thanks to the Daily Caller’s article on the latest Wikileaks dump, we now know that Donna Brazile, the interim chair of the DNC, is corrupt, too:

Donna Brazile, the current head of the Democratic National Committee, appears to have tipped the Clinton campaign off to a question about the death penalty that was going to be asked during a CNN town hall in March, newly released emails show. “From time to time I get the questions in advance,” Brazile wrote in an email to Clinton campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri on March 12.

Clinton Syndrome is already setting in. The chief symptom of Clinton Syndrome is the feeling for the need to take a long, hot shower after listening to the Clintons or their Clintonistas speak. Donna Brazile is definitely a Clintonista because she’s been part of a cabal to do whatever it takes to get Mrs. Clinton elected. Further, I feel the need for a long, hot shower after reading what Ms. Brazile has done to get Mrs. Clinton elected.

First, Ms. Brazile, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz rigged the Democratic primaries and Democratic presidential debates so Bernie Sanders couldn’t win. They scheduled the debates on Saturday nights so Bernie Sanders couldn’t gain name recognition. Next, they limited the number of debates, which protected Hillary from gaffes. (A political gaffe is, by definition, when you “accidentally tell the truth.”)

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are right. The system is rigged. What they didn’t get right, though, is that it’s the Democrats that rigged their presidential primaries so they didn’t have a chance. That’s thank directly to the actions Ms. Brazile and the DNC took.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This morning, Hillary Clinton appeared on Fox News Sunday. During the interview, Chris Wallace asked her about Patricia Smith’s statement at the Republican National Convention. That’s where Mrs. Smith said “I blame Hillary Clinton — I blame Hillary Clinton personally for the death of my son. That’s personally.”

Mrs. Clinton’s reply was “As other members of families who lost loved ones have said, that’s not what they heard — I don’t hold any ill feeling for someone who in that moment may not fully recall everything that was or wasn’t said.”

To provide proper context, Chris Wallace said “She and the father of Tyrone Woods both say that on the day that their sons’ bodies were returned to the United States, that you came up to them and you said it was all because of a video, not terrorism. Now, I know some of the other families disagree with this, and I know you deny it.”

I won’t mince words. Hillary Clinton is a liar. It isn’t that Patricia Smith doesn’t recall Hillary’s statements correctly. It isn’t that Tyrone Woods’ father recalls Mrs. Clinton’s statements incorrectly, either. Days after the attack, Hillary was still pretending that an obscure internet video caused the attack in Benghazi:

It’s clear that Mrs. Clinton’s mission was to insist that an obscure internet video caused the terrorists’ attack. Here’s what Mrs. Clinton said days after Christopher Stevens’ body had been returned to the United States:

I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. Let me state very clearly, and I hope it is obvious that the United States’ government had absolutely nothing to do with this video.

There’s no need to rely on Patricia Smith’s recollection or Charles Woods’ recollection. Hillary’s statements have been captured on video and they’re quite revealing. So are Susan Rice’s statements:

This article highlights Mrs. Clinton’s dishonesty. Here’s the date on the article:

Updated 5:51 AM ET, Sat September 15, 2012

Here’s the opening paragraph of the article:

The remains of U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans landed on U.S. soil Friday afternoon in flag-draped caskets.

On Sunday, September 16, 2012, Susan Rice went on all 5 Sunday morning talk shows to deliver a simple message. Here’s what she said on CBS’s Face the Nation:

Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is of the present is, in fact, it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had happened hours before in Cairo, where, as you know, there was a violent protest in front of our embassy, sparked by this hateful video.

The video captured Mrs. Clinton’s statements accurately. There’s no mistaking that she’s lied repeatedly about the internet video being the cause for the terrorist attacks in Benghazi.

Therefore, Mrs. Clinton’s statement that she doesn’t “hold any ill feeling for someone who in that moment may not recall everything that was said or wasn’t said” is insulting. There’s nothing wrong with Patricia Smith’s or Charles Woods’ hearing. What’s wrong is Mrs. Clinton’s repeated dishonesty.

The video doesn’t lie. Unfortunately, Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Rice lied repeatedly. What kind of politician hints that grieving parents are wrong when the politician knows what she’s said is utterly dishonest?

Finally, J.C. Watts gave the perfect definition of character during the 1996 Republican Convention when he said that “character is doing the right thing even when nobody’s looking.” Mrs. Clinton apparently fails that test.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Simply put, Kevin Sorbo is my new hero. He’s my hero for writing this post that questions why Michael Brown’s mother was invited to Hillary’s convention and that ridicules the entire Black Lives Matter movement and the hand-up-don’t-shoot myth. Considering the fact that he’s a Hollywood actor, that took courage.

It must’ve taken courage for Sorbo to write “Whatever questionable choices were made at the Republican National Convention last week, I didn’t hear of a single speaker whose sole accomplishment was raising a delinquent who attacked a cop. But as the country reels from the cold-blooded murder of five policemen in Dallas and three in Baton Rouge, Lezley McSpadden, mother of Mike Brown, America’s most famous cop-assaulting criminal, appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention.”

It must’ve taken courage for Sorbo to write “It would be a lot easier if they were not being targeted for assassination and mass murders by homicidal nuts ginned up by BLM. (Shooting deaths of police are up 78 percent so far this year.) And it would be a lot easier without a group, officially supported by the Democrats, leading marches down city streets, chanting, ‘What do we want? DEAD COPS! When do we want it? NOW!’ Why does the Democratic platform endorse Black Lives Matter? And, most importantly, why was Mike Brown’s mother on stage at the Democratic National Convention?”

That’s a great question, Mr. Sorbo. Why was Mike Brown’s mother invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention? What did she contribute to the convention other than to gin up the African-American vote? This is an even better question:

However half-heartedly, Hillary claims to oppose cop-killing, so why is she using her convention to promote the biggest lie in the pantheon of anti-cop lies, and to celebrate a man whose most famous act was to violently assault a police officer?

It’s obvious that Hillary isn’t pro-cop. If she were, she would’ve told Al Sharpton off for perpetuating the myth of hands-up-don’t-shoot. The Democratic Party isn’t pro-cop. Gov. Dayton accused a Hispanic police officer of being racist while insisting that Philando Castile would likely still be alive if he was white. Sorbo wasn’t done:

Because of the despicable lies put out by BLM agitators, Wilson had to give up his career, move his family and will be forced to live in fear for the rest of his life. The town of Ferguson was destroyed, businesses burned to the ground, police officers attacked, people injured, the National Guard called in, and massive taxpayer money expended to contain the riots. But at the Democratic Convention, Lezley McSpadden (mother of Mike Brown) was wildly cheered.

Sorbo closed by sticking in the dagger, figuratively speaking:

Donald Trump, along with every other Republican ever to run for president, is required to repeatedly “disavow” David Duke — someone he’s never met, never mentioned, never thought of— and certainly didn’t invite to speak at his convention.

But Hillary invites to her convention the mother of a man whose criminality destroyed a police officer’s life, tore the country apart and gave birth to a murderous cop-hating movement. Will a single reporter ask Hillary to disavow that?

In terms of rhetorical questions, that’s one of the smartest I’ve ever heard. The answer, of course, is that Hillary won’t get questioned about inviting the mother of a thug to speak at her convention, much less be asked to disavow that decision.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Democratic Party’s platform doesn’t mince words when it comes to energy. The Democratic Party’s platform calls for the elimination of all fossil fuels by 2050. That means that Hillary’s statement in May that she’ll try to put coal workers out of work isn’t just campaign trail happy talk. It’s the stated goal of the Democratic Party.

Political parties’ platforms aren’t often followed and can be frequently ignored. This time, it’s different. When was the last time that Democrats sided with labor over the environmental activists’ agenda? Let me know when you get back to the 1980s. BTW, Bill Clinton put millions of acres of federal land off limits for oil exploration. Now his wife is running for office. Anyone that thinks that Hillary isn’t as prone to pandering as Bill is kidding themselves. She isn’t as subtle or charming about it as Bill was but she’s still a world-class panderer. This wasn’t one of her finer moments, though:

Hillary talked quite openly about “clean, renewable energy” energy in that speech. It’s possible that Hillary thinks that she’s just pandering to the environmental activist wing of the Democratic Party. If that’s what she’s thinking, she didn’t do her homework.

This isn’t the old Democratic Party. When it comes to today’s Democratic Party on energy, these environmental activists are fascists. They aren’t interested in walking a mile in someone else’s shoes. They’re willing to take half-a-loaf but that doesn’t mean that they’re reasonable. They’re totally willing to shut down fossil fuels with a steadfast progress towards eliminating fossil fuels.

Voters in Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania need to ask themselves if they’re willing to cast a vote for a Democratic candidate who wants to cripple their state’s economy and hurt their neighbors or their relatives. That’s what’s at stake in this election.

During her acceptance speech, Hillary said that “we all do better when we all do better”, a phrase first coined by Paul Wellstone. I’d like to hear Hillary’s explanation on how this helps miners do better. It’s likely that Hillary used that line without meaning it. It’s even likely that she doesn’t care if everyone does better as long as she’s elected.

It’s time to reject the Democratic Party’s politics of division and their divisive candidate.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Polite people are saying that Tim Kaine is a perfect running mate for Hillary, then adding that he’s definitely qualified to be president if, God forbid, anything happened to Hillary. After reading this article, it’s painfully obvious that he’s nothing more than a mouthpiece who reads spin-script well but couldn’t think his way out of a wet paper bag.

Friday morning, Mike Pence appeared on Hugh Hewitt’s show. During the interview, Pence said “The speech last night was nothing new. It was just more of the same, more government, more of the same failed foreign policy” before adding “I mean, you’ve got to hand it to Hillary Clinton last night. She doubled down on their big government, liberal agenda, on a weak foreign policy on the world stage.”

Tim Kaine wouldn’t hear any of that, saying “The thing I thought was great is it set such a contrast with what we saw in Cleveland last week. The Cleveland convention was dark and depressing, and she said it was kind of midnight in America. And her speech was morning in America. It was about the everyday struggles that people have, but the fact that we don’t have a single issue in this country that our people can’t tackle, because we have the greatest pool of just human resources, human capital, human talent that any nation has ever had.”

First, to hear a Democrat say that “we don’t have a single issue in this country that our people can’t tackle” is more than a little bizarre after what we heard 4 years ago in Virginia:

Second, saying that Hillary’s speech was “morning in America” is proof that Democrats haven’t told the truth. ISIS is killing people in France, California and Orlando. Sen. Kaine, does that sound like “morning in America”? Police officers are getting shot in Dallas and Baton Rouge. Does that sound like morning in America, Sen. Kaine? The governor of Minnesota, who addressed the Convention, accused police officers of racism, saying that Philando Castile would probably still be alive if he was white. Sen. Kaine, is it morning in America when governors accuse Hispanic police officers of racism?

Terrorist attacks are happening in western Europe at a faster rate than ever before. Ditto within the United States, though not at as fast a rate as in western Europe. What part of that sounds like morning in America, Sen. Kaine?

Democrats might settle for that, saying that it’s the new normal. Conservatives reject that foolishness because we can do dramatically better with the right leadership. Stephen Miller nailed it with this statement:

Hillary Clinton says America is stronger together. But in Hillary Clinton’s America, millions of people are left out in the cold. She only stands together with the donors and special interests who’ve bankrolled her entire life. Excluded from Hillary Clinton’s America are the suffering people living in our inner cities, or the victims of open borders and drug cartels, or the people who’ve lost their jobs because of the Clintons’ trade deals, or any hardworking person who doesn’t have enough money to get a seat at Hillary Clinton’s table.

Simply put, Hillary Clinton is an elitist and a snob. Imagine the thinking that went into her statement on national TV that she and Bill left the White House “dead broke”:

I get it that Hillary thinks it’s morning in America. I get it that Sen. Kaine does, too. They’re both living around the Capitol, where everything is going beautifully. Living near DC, which hasn’t experienced the Obama economy, it’s easy to believe that life is fine. Beyond the Potomac, something that Mrs. Clinton and Sen. Kaine aren’t familiar with, things aren’t going nearly that well. Living near the White House explains why they think it’s morning in America. We don’t need a president that’s unfamiliar with flyover country’s hardships. We need someone who understands what people living in the Heartland are dealing with.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When it comes to presidential acceptance speeches, Hillary Clinton’s speech was as devoid of vision as it was devoid of honesty. When she recognized Bernie Sanders’ supporters, Hillary was in full pander mode. People shouldn’t believe Hillary when she said “You’ve put economic and social justice issues front and center, where they belong. And to all of your supporters here and around the country: I want you to know, I’ve heard you. Your cause is our cause. Our country needs your ideas, energy, and passion.”

Translation into Hillary-speak: I need your votes and if I have to pander a little, it’s worth it. I’ve wanted this office so long and I’ve broken so many promises. What’s one more?

Hillary was back in pander mode again when she said “Now we are clear-eyed about what our country is up against. But we are not afraid. We will rise to the challenge, just as we always have. We will not build a wall. Instead, we will build an economy where everyone who wants a good paying job can get one.”

Q1: If we’re so clear-eyed, why can’t this administration admit that Islamic jihadist terrorists are killing people in Orlando, San Bernardino and Nice, France? If we’re so clear-eyed, why do Democrats insist that the solution to these terrorist attacks can be solved with stricter gun control laws? If Democrats are so clear-eyed, how could Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton say that Philando Castile would still be alive if he’d been white?

This is another jaw-dropping statement:

We will not ban a religion. We will work with all Americans and our allies to fight and defeat terrorism.

It isn’t that I can’t believe Hillary would say this. It’s that I don’t believe that her administration is serious about defeating terrorists. If there’s anything that we’ve learned about Democrats and terrorists, it’s that they pull their punches far too often.

We have the most dynamic and diverse people in the world. We have the most tolerant and generous young people we’ve ever had. We have the most powerful military. The most innovative entrepreneurs. The most enduring values.

Mrs. Clinton, if we have the most powerful military, which I think is true, why couldn’t US military assets get there to rescue Christopher Stevens? Mrs. Clinton, our military is the most powerful military in the world but it’s been getting ripped apart by the administration you served in. Why should we trust you to fight for our military when you won’t fight for our diplomats?

This part is jaw-dropping:

Don’t let anyone tell you we don’t have what it takes. We do. And most of all, don’t believe anyone who says: “I alone can fix it.” Those were actually Donald Trump’s words in Cleveland. And they should set off alarm bells for all of us.

Remember this?

Then-candidate Obama sounded awfully narcissistic in saying this:

I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth.

Now Hillary is preaching the gospel of collectivism. Why didn’t she speak out against President Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty executive action? Isn’t our Constitution worth fighting over? After all, she spoke passionately about the Founding Fathers earlier in the speech.

If I wanted to critique Hillary’s entire speech, I’d need to write a Part II, which I’ll do in the morning. Check back then.

The messaging from Joe Biden’s and President Obama’s speeches seems to have been ‘We’re on the right path. Elect Hillary to President Obama’s third term.’ Karl Rove thinks that they missed an opportunity. According to his article in the WSJ, he thinks that Bill Clinton blew it, too. Rove cited a “June 26 Pew Research Center survey found that 24% of Americans are ‘satisfied with the way things are going in this country today’; 71% are ‘dissatisfied.'”

From that, Rove concluded that “President Bill Clinton’s speech Tuesday night didn’t significantly alter this dynamic. Even his political talents couldn’t transform his wife into a “change-agent,” a phrase he repeatedly invoked. If anything, Mr. Clinton reminded voters that Mrs. Clinton has been a political fixture for decades.” It’s pretty difficult for a president who left office 16 years ago to talk about his wife as a change agent. It’s especially difficult considering the fact that he left office but she hasn’t, except to run for president. It’s virtually impossible considering that the elites in the Democratic Party rigged the nominating contest in Hillary’s favor. (It’s impossible to think that the Democratic Party’s insiders would rig a system in the outsider’s favor, isn’t it?)

More than all of that, the truth is that this is going to be a national security election, thanks in part to increased ISIS attacks on western Europe and radicalized Muslims killing people in an Orlando night club. Hillary’s record on national security sucks. The Democrats’ “Birkenstock-and-granola wing” is still living in la-la land by thinking that ISIS won’t really hit us. There’s nothing serious about their thinking, if it can be called that.

The truth is that the Clinton campaign is still stuck too often in a defensive posture. Yesterday’s Trump press conference confirms that. Trump said that he’d appreciate it if Russia would turn over 33,000 emails that Hillary deleted because they were personal and not work-related. Charles Krauthammer exposed the folly of that defense:

Rather than criticizing Trump, the Clinton campaign took the bait:

After Donald Trump’s comments at his press conference today Hillary for America Senior Policy Advisor Jake Sullivan released the following statement:

“This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent. That’s not hyperbole, those are just the facts. This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue.”

I don’t know if that’s technically a Freudian slip or not but it’s essentially admitting that the emails Hillary deleted because they’re personal actually have national security, government-owned emails. If the Russians got Hillary’s yoga schedule or her helping Chelsea with wedding plans, that isn’t a matter of national security or espionage.

For all their supposed experience, that was still a rookie mistake.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Over 2,000 protesters have gathered outside the Democratic National Convention. They apparently didn’t get the memo that tonight’s theme was supposed to be Unity Night.

The article opened by saying “The convention begins: Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake gavels in the Democratic National Convention (though she forgot to rap the gavel initially and had to return to the podium). The mayor is opening instead of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who resigned her post as party chair amid the email leak scandal. Protesters marching on the arena, still, as convention opens.”

Saying that the Democratic Convention isn’t off to a strong start is understatement.

If this CNN/ORC poll is right, then Hillary will need a healthy bounce coming out of this week’s Democratic National Convention. If Debbie Wasserman-Schultz sticks around, that bounce will be virtually impossible to picture.

In the horserace poll, Donald Trump leads “Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House, topping her 44% to 39% in a four-way matchup including Gary Johnson (9%) and Jill Stein (3%) and by three points in a two-way head-to-head, 48% to 45%.” That’s the least bad news for Hillary.

There’s more. Another thing that the convention did is that it “helped Trump make strides in his personal image. A majority (52%) now say Trump is running for president for the good of the country rather than personal gain, just 44% say the same about Clinton.”

Meanwhile, the Democratic National Convention is off to a tough start for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. It’s so bad that she got booed by the Florida delegation’s meeting this morning:

Robbie Mook is making matters worse by insisting that the WikiLeaks email dump was instigated by Russian President Vladimir Putin:

Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook tells CNN’s ‘State Of The Union’ on Sunday morning that a vast conspiracy is behind the release of damaging DNC emails this week. He puts forward the theory that the Russians hacked the DNC, and then gave that information to Wikileaks, who released it at the perfect moment in order to help elect Donald Trump.

Sources are saying the Russians are releasing these emails for the purpose of actually Helping Donald Trump,” he said. “I don’t think it is coincidental that these emails are released on the eve of the [Democratic National] Convention.”

“And that is disturbing, I think we need to be concerned about that. We also saw last week at the Republican convention that Trump and his allies made changes to the Republican platform to make it more pro-Russian.”

Notice that he didn’t say that the emails were false. He just pulled a trick out of Hillary’s VRWC playbook.

This isn’t helping Hillary either:

He’s increased the share who call him honest and trustworthy (from 38% to 43%), and who would be proud to have him as president (from 32% to 39%). And nearly half now say he’s in touch with the problems ordinary Americans face in their daily lives (46% say so, 37% did before the convention).

This is just one poll so it’s best not to draw too many conclusions from it. Still, the Hillary campaign can’t like what they’ve seen in terms of Trump’s post-convention bounce.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

When Elizabeth Warren endorsed Hillary Clinton, Sen. Warren’s supporters accused her of selling out to Wall Street and Goldman-Sachs. They were right. Sen. Warren sold out to Wall Street without hesitation.

During her interview with Rachel Maddow, Sen. Warren said “I’m ready to get in this fight and work my heart out for Hillary Clinton to become the next president of the United States and to make sure that Donald Trump never gets any place close to the White House.” Tonight, Bernie Sanders became the final sellout. Tonight, the hard left learned that Sen. Sanders and Sen. Warren talked tough about fighting Wall Street but then endorsed Wall Street’s bought-and-paid-for candidate.

This isn’t shocking. The Democratic Party is the party that sells people out. Another example of the Democratic Party selling out the people is how Hillary Clinton is selling out police officers in the hopes of increasing minority turnout:

The mothers of several African-Americans killed by police or gun violence will be put in the spotlight at the Democratic National Convention. The Mothers of the Movement will put presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s embrace of the Black Lives Matter movement at center stage.

I wrote this post last week to highlight the police officers’ outrage with Mrs. Clinton. John McNesby, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 5 in Philadelphia, wrote this statement last week:

The Fraternal Order of Police is insulted and will not soon forget that the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton are excluding the widows and other family members of police officers killed in the line of duty who were victims of explicit and not implied racism.

Democrats aren’t hiding their motivation for inviting Mothers of the Movement:

Obama won more than 90 percent of black voters and well over half of women and younger voters in both 2008 and 2012, exit polling shows. Clinton has a strong lead over Trump among blacks, according to a June survey by Quinnipiac, and tends to carry big margins among female voters, but she has to shore up support among millennials and young voters, who are only slowly warming to her.

Hillary Clinton doesn’t stand with law enforcement. Period. She’s made statements about standing with law enforcement and that violence is never justified but when push comes to shove, Hillary will push law enforcement officers off the stage. Then she’ll invite Mothers of the Movement, the New Black Panther Party and #BlackLivesMatter onto that stage.

This weekend has provided Americans with lots of proof that Democrats will sell the American people out for their special interest allies. Let’s hope they decide they won’t tolerate the Party of Sellouts to live in the White House for another 4 years.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,