Search
Archives
Categories

Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Donald Trump wasted a valuable commodity this week — time. The week started right, with him winning the first third of the debate. Then he forgot his purpose and started chasing ghosts. The lesson that his advisors need to teach him is that he needs to focus on things that will help him connect with blue collar workers. The other thing that Mr. Trump must highlight is the Clinton Foundation’s pay-to-play scandal and the FBI’s faux investigation.

By highlighting the FBI’s faux investigation, Mr. Trump would connect with Bernie Sanders’ voters that think that the system is rigged. The FBI’s faux investigation would play well with suburban voters who think Mrs. Clinton isn’t trustworthy. It’d be great if he could flip those voters. At this point, Mr. Trump’s campaign would probably be satisfied if it drove Mrs. Clinton’s turnout with suburban voters down.

The Clintons are disgusting, immoral people who’ve lived in the mud their entire lives. Spending 5 more weeks there to win the presidency means nothing to them. Trump’s path to victory is to highlight the things that matter most to people. When in Ohio and Pennsylvania, Mr. Trump should highlight Mrs. Clinton’s statement that she’s going to put coal companies out of business. Wherever he goes, he needs to highlight his plan for energy independence, then contrast that with Mrs. Clinton’s green energy policies.

Part of Mr. Trump’s presentation on green energy should highlight the rigged game that Solyndra tapped into. Mostly, though, Trump should highlight the fact that coal-mining and fracking jobs are just waiting to be filled. Ask people if they want to subsidize Mrs. Clinton’s and President Obama’s special interest allies or whether they’d like to keep doing what’s worked for the last half-century.

If Trump gets back on message, he’ll put pressure on Mrs. Clinton because people want change. They don’t want Mrs. Clinton’s more-of-the-same policies.

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

The man that wrote this LTE, Brian Marsh, gives idiots a bad reputation. It’s stunning to think that Democrats think people are that stupid.

Marsh started his LTE by saying “Stewart Mills III, in talking about the Second Amendment, was quoted in the Dispatch as proclaiming: ‘It is an inalienable right given to us by God.'” Marsh then follows that up by saying “Nowhere in the Bible I read is there any mention of God addressing the topic of a right to gun ownership, and, the last time I checked, God did not write our Constitution or its amendments.”

First, Mills is right. The right to defend ourselves is as old as the Bible. The Declaration of Independence introduces the concept that our rights come from “Nature’s God”, not governments. It’s stunning that Marsh finds this concept radical. It’s been part of our nation’s foundation since 1776.
Then Marsh said this:

It’s sad to see someone so desperate for power that he will resort to fabricating his own “facts” in order to achieve it.

What’s sad is seeing how little Democrats know about the Constitution. Stewart Mills understands the Constitution. He isn’t making things up.

It’s also apparent that Marsh’s goal is to deflect attention away from Rick Nolan. Nolan wants this race to be about ‘Mills the One-Percenter’. Nolan doesn’t want this election to highlight Nolan’s time as a career politician. Nolan doesn’t want voters in the Eighth District to notice that he supports Resolution 54, the DFL’s anti-mining resolution, which I wrote about here:

Specifically, Resolution 54 says “Oppose sulfide ore mining, which is significantly different from taconite mining, poses unacceptable environmental risks, threatens multiple watersheds (Lake Superior, BWCA/VNP, Mississippi) and should not be allowed in the sulfur-bearing rock of Minnesota.”

Rick Nolan is a career politician who will say anything to stay in power. He isn’t about solving problems. He’ll say anything that will keep him in DC.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

This CBS report highlights the fact that Keith Lamont-Scott was a violent man. In fact, the report hints that the world is a better place without him. That isn’t a statement on whether Scott was carrying a gun when he was shot. It’s just a statement that he had a history of being a violent man.

The article opens with a statement that says “The black man killed by Charlotte police had a restraining order filed against him a year ago when he threatened to kill his wife and her son with a gun, according to court documents obtained Tuesday. Keith Scott’s wife filed the order on Oct. 5, saying that law enforcement officers who encounter him should be aware that he ‘carries a 9mm black’ gun.”

A man that’s threatened to murder his wife and son isn’t to be trusted.

Later in the article, it said “In the restraining order last fall, Rakeyia Scott sought to keep her husband away because ‘he hit my 8-year-old in the head a total of three times with his fist,’ she said in the restraining order document.” Still later in the report, it said this:

“He kicked me and threaten to kill us last night with his gun,” she said in the order filed in Gaston County, where the couple then lived. “He said he is a ‘killer’ and we should know that.”

Whenever the Democrats talk about African-Americans getting shot, the portray them as innocent victims who wouldn’t hurt a fly. Then they portray the officer as being a trigger-happy racist.

Consider this video of Hillary talking about the Lamont Scott shooting:

After unenthusiastically praising the police, Hillary went into the heart of her rant, saying “This much is certain. Too many people have lost their lives who shouldn’t have. Sabrina Fulton has become a friend of mine. Her son, Trayvon Martin, was killed not far from where we are today. Sabrina says that this is about saving our children and she’s absolutely right. We need to come together, work together, white, black, Latino, Asian, all of us, to turn the tide, stop the violence, build the trust.”

Mrs. Clinton just missed her Sister Soldjah moment. Time after time, the outrage over Ferguson, Baltimore and other places was built on fictions like ‘Hands up, don’t shoot’, only to have the myth demolished by verifiable forensic evidence.

This time, it’s likely that the black police officer who shot Keith Lamont Scott will be exonerated:

Homicide Unit Detectives interviewed multiple independent civilian witnesses at the scene and at police headquarters. Those witnesses confirmed that officers gave numerous loud verbal commands for Mr. Scott to drop the weapon and also confirmed that at no time did Mr. Scott comply with their commands.

A lab analysis conducted of the gun crime scene investigators recovered at the scene revealed the presence of Mr. Scott’s DNA and his fingerprints on the gun. It was also determined that the gun Mr. Scott possessed was loaded at the time of the encounter with the officers. The investigation also revealed that Mr. Scott was wearing an ankle holster at the time of the event.

Then there’s this:

It’s heartless for Democratic politicians to stoke racial tensions for political gain. What’s worse is those same Democratic politicians not speaking out against black-on-black violence.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Since the shooting of Keith Lamont Scott in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, NC, Scott’s widow has accused the officers involved in the Scott shooting of shooting him without justification. That’s another myth that’s being accepted as verified fact by Democratic politicians. This Washington Post article provides a timeline of events that give us an accurate picture of what’s truth.

For instance, the article says that “Due to the combination of illegal drugs and the gun Mr. Scott had in his possession, officers decided to take enforcement action for public safety concerns. Officers departed the immediate area to outfit themselves with marked duty vests and equipment that would clearly identify them as police officers. Upon returning, the officers again witnessed Mr. Scott in possession of a gun. The officers immediately identified themselves as police officers and gave clear, loud and repeated verbal commands to drop the gun. Mr. Scott refused to follow the officers repeated verbal commands.”

Additionally, the article says that “Mr. Scott then exited the vehicle with the gun and backed away from the vehicle while continuing to ignore officers’ repeated loud verbal commands to drop the gun. Officer Vinson perceived Mr. Scott’s actions and movements as an imminent physical threat to himself and the other officers. Officer Vinson fired his issued service weapon, striking Mr. Scott. Officers immediately rendered first aid and requested Medic to respond to the scene.”

Most importantly, this is part of the report:

Homicide Unit Detectives interviewed multiple independent civilian witnesses at the scene and at police headquarters. Those witnesses confirmed that officers gave numerous loud verbal commands for Mr. Scott to drop the weapon and also confirmed that at no time did Mr. Scott comply with their commands.

A lab analysis conducted of the gun crime scene investigators recovered at the scene revealed the presence of Mr. Scott’s DNA and his fingerprints on the gun. It was also determined that the gun Mr. Scott possessed was loaded at the time of the encounter with the officers. The investigation also revealed that Mr. Scott was wearing an ankle holster at the time of the event.

Finally, there’s this:

That’s the gun Scott allegedly wouldn’t drop when told to by police officers. That’s the gun that allegedly has Scott’s DNA on it. It’s important that a thorough investigation is completed of this incident so that we get past this election-season myth that police officers have suddenly turned into bloodthirsty killing machines.

Where there’s forensic evidence that a police officer shot a man without justification, prosecute that officer to the fullest extent of the law. It’s equally important that Democrats stop characterizing the police as bloodthirsty criminals. Their rhetoric might get innocent officers killed.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

I highlighted Salena Zito’s article in this post because she’d discovered something fascinating that others haven’t paid attention to. The centerpiece of that article was that Ms. Zito had noticed that Democrats in southwestern Pennsylvania were switching their party allegiances.

Ms. Zito noted that “every single person who walked into Lee Supply’s training room, from the CEO down to the janitor, was a registered Democrat. And every single person pledged not only to vote for Trump and Toomey but to ask family, neighbors and friends to do the same.” According to the article, 60 people switched parties that day. That’s interesting but it isn’t the type of information that’d lead me to think that it’d be enough to flip an election. It’s worth noting that the “informal voter-registration effort [was] conducted by Secure Energy for America,” not the Trump campaign or the RNC.

Ms. Zito’s first article for the NY Post contains the type of information that indicates that there’s a full-blown movement happening that might tip the election in Mr. Trump’s direction:

Four years ago, Christian Rickers was a delegate from Virginia for Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention; four months ago he voted for Bernie Sanders in the Virginia primary.
Now he’s a Trumpocrat. And he’s hoping to turn the Rust Belt red. This is a major turnaround for someone like Rickers. His earliest childhood memories include handing out leaflets for local Virginia Democratic candidates; as a teenager he attended that famous 1992 presidential debate when George H.W. Bush was captured looking at his watch. Right after, Rickers had his picture taken with a jubilant Bill Clinton.

He also served in current Democratic vice-presidential nominee Tim Kaine’s administration when he was governor — appointed by Kaine. “I basically came out of the womb a Democrat,” he said. But beginning next week he’ll be loading a flatbed in Pittsburgh filled with “Trumpocrat” bumper stickers, signs, magnets and contact sheets, with his sights set on Cleveland and all that rich geography in between. The reason: “It’s all about who has your back, and Donald Trump has the country’s back,” he said.

The choice isn’t ideologically based, “It is about economic prosperity, and heart and the understanding that, yes, the system is rigged and we need someone who will go in and change that,” he said.

Rickers’ plan is ambitious. The seasoned operative has identified 10 counties throughout Pennsylvania and five in Ohio’s Mahoning Valley, targeting 850,000 voters total. More than enough to make a difference in both states for Trump.

If anyone would have credibility with Bernie voters, it’s a former Bernie supporter. If Mr. Rickers is able to flip a significant portion of Bernie voters, then Hillary’s in trouble. That’s the big if, though. At this point, what Mr. Rickers has going for him is that Bernie’s voters don’t trust Mrs. Clinton. (Again, it’s worth noting that people, not the Trump campaign, are taking the initiative to do voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote drives. That’s why Hillary’s millions aren’t putting a dent in Trump’s support.)

Let’s see whether that’s a powerful position to start from.

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

Saying that this election isn’t like most elections is understatement on steroids. I thought I’d seen everything but I haven’t. Piers Morgan’s op-ed is spot on, which is something that I never thought I’d say.

Then again, I didn’t think I’d hear Piers Morgan say “Yet despite this unprecedented bombardment of mainstream abuse, Trump’s poll numbers keep rising and his chances of becoming President keep increasing. The reason, to me, is obvious: tens of millions of Americans just don’t agree with that withering verdict. They think Trump’s a fiery, flamboyant, super-rich, shoot-from-the-hip buccaneer on a mission to make America great again. They agree with him about illegal immigration, about big Government corruption, about Wall Street greed, about ‘crooked’ Hillary Clinton and most pertinently, about the threat of Islamic terrorism.”

This is an election of opposing factions. That’s indisputable in my estimation. One faction a) is complacent, b) believes in the status quo and c) thinks we’re in a narrative fight with ISIS:

It’s frightening to think that there’s videotape proof that the White House Press Secretary actually said it’s a narrative war and that we’re winning that fight. What’s almost as frightening is that the DC media criticized Donald Trump for calling the bomb that went off in New York City a bomb. What’s almost as frightening is that they didn’t post a single tweet when Mrs. Clinton also called Saturday night’s attack in New York City a bombing.

The reason why people are warming up to Mr. Trump is because he isn’t afraid to call a pressure cooker bomb explosion a bombing. Millennials immediately identified that pressure cooker bomb as a bomb. Then they saw Mrs. Clinton tap dance her way through her solution. I can picture millennials scratching their heads when they heard Mrs. Clinton say “We should also launch an intelligence surge to help identify and thwart attacks before they can be carried out.”

Meanwhile, Trump isn’t afraid to take a little heat to tell people that we can’t keep importing terrorists through the State Department’s refugee resettlement program. It’s like the first rule of holes; if you’re in one, stop digging.

We know that there are refugees here who have gotten radicalized. We know this because, in Minnesota, 3 Somali refugees were convicted of “ISIS-related terrorism charges.” Another 6 Somali refugees accepted plea deals on essentially the same charges.

With acts of terrorism accelerating both internationally and here at home, it isn’t surprising that people are flocking to Donald Trump. They don’t agree with all of Trump’s solutions but they definitely appreciate the fact that he’s willing to call a terrorist attack a terrorist attack, a terrorist a terrorist and an exploded pressure cooker bomb a bombing.

This is where Morgan delivered the kill shot to Mrs. Clinton:

But what neither she nor Obama offers the American people is any kind of plan to combat such attacks. They talk of how awful it all is, but studiously avoid advocating any real action for fear of upsetting or offending people.

The President doesn’t even like using the phrase ‘Islamic terrorism’, which is utterly absurd given that’s plainly what it is. In the face of such apparently weak, insipid, mealy-mouthed and frankly meaningless rhetoric, it’s hardly surprising that Trump emerges as a non-PC, no-nonsense voice of reason to many Americans.

Another way of putting it is that Americans want a leader. Mrs. Clinton isn’t a leader. She’s too cautious to be a leader.

The thing that’s selling Trump to the American people is that he’s speaking their language to them. He isn’t tap-dancing his way through a politically correct word salad to not offend someone. If Trump wins, something that’s still in doubt, I think it’ll be because the American people chose a leader.

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

According to this roll call vote, Rick Nolan voted against a bill that a) had broad bipartisan support and that b) would have held VA officials accountable. Why Nolan voted against accountability is inexplicable, especially in light of the fact that Nolan’s congressional website issues page on veterans insists that “America’s obligation to our veterans is permanent and sacred. We must leave no stone unturned to ensure that the men and women who have put themselves in harm’s way to protect and serve us have the very best medical care, counseling, housing, job training, and educational opportunities a grateful nation can provide.”

In light of this vote, Rep. Nolan’s statement should read “America’s obligation to our veterans is permanent and sacred except if it includes punishing VA employees who commit work-related felonies.” HR5620 would “provide for the removal or demotion of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs based on performance or misconduct, and for other purposes.”

Nolan was one of 116 votes against the bill. Other high-profile liberals that voted against passage of the bill were Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, Keith Ellison, Maxine Waters, Raul Grijalva, Luis ‘Open Borders’ Gutierrez, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Jim McDermott, Jan Schakowsky and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

As with other things, Nolan’s sacred promises come with an asterisk. That asterisk apparently applies when it involves holding government bureaucrats accountable. Apparently, Rep. Nolan’s sacred promise to veterans isn’t sacred whatsoever.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

It wouldn’t be right if one of Hillary’s liberal defenders didn’t write a story about how the coverage of HRC’s collapse was the product of “age-ism and sex-ism.” This morning’s article was written by Eleanor Clift, one of the most blindly partisan writers in DC.

When the article’s first paragraph starts by saying “When Hillary Clinton began mapping out her presidential campaign, she knew that clearing the hurdle to become the first woman commander in chief would be paramount. What she didn’t know or fully understand 18 months ago was how her age would work against her in subtle and cruel ways, and how ageism and sexism can combine in a double whammy undermining her candidacy”, it’s a safe bet it won’t be objective. It’ll be a compilation filled with spin and liberal ideology.

Here’s the simple truth. There’s a ton of media coverage of Mrs. Clinton’s fainting because a) she’s the first presidential candidate who’s fainted at a campaign event in recent history and b) the video of her fainting was published. The same reaction would’ve happened had Bill Clinton been the candidate that’d collapsed.

Further, considering the fact that the Clinton campaign switched stories multiple times, the average person didn’t buy the campaign’s spin. They weren’t doctors but they knew Mrs. Clinton wasn’t a healthy person.

That’s because the average person who saw Hillary faint while trying to get into that van knew that Mrs. Clinton was suffering from something other than a heat stroke. They might not have figured out that Mrs. Clinton likely had a neurological event but they knew she hadn’t fainted because of the heat at the event. The people didn’t buy the spin like the compliant media did, which is proof that the media’s reporting on Mrs. Clinton shouldn’t be trusted. Here’s a perfect example of that bias:

Unfounded rumors spread by Donald Trump and his allies about Clinton’s allegedly poor health and lack of stamina found their mark Sunday in a video gone viral that shows Clinton stumbling as aides help her into a waiting car.

Let’s rewrite this accurately:

Rumors spread by Donald Trump and his allies about Clinton’s well-documented severe health issues found their mark Sunday in a video gone viral that shows Clinton unconscious as aides help her into a waiting car.

Mrs. Clinton didn’t stumble. People who’ve fainted don’t stumble into a vehicle. They’re dragged into a vehicle. The agenda media’s devotion to Mrs. Clinton is unwavering. Thankfully, there are still enough people who question the Agenda Media’s ‘reporting’.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

The other night at NBC’s Commander-in-Chief Forum, Hillary Clinton potentially offered a glimpse of her debate performances. She potentially offered that glimpse by twisting herself into a pretzel. HRC is prone to that because she’s caught in an impossible situation. She’s caught in an impossible situation because she’s gotten caught lying about sending and receiving classified emails on her private email server.

The impossible situation started with a question that went like this “As a naval officer, I held a top secret, sensitive compartmentalized information clearance and that provided me access to materials and information that was highly sensitive to our war-fighting capabilities. Had I communicated this information not following prescribed protocols, I would have been prosecuted and imprisoned. Secretary Clinton, how can you expect those such as myself who were and are trusted with America’s most sensitive information to have any confidence in your leadership as president when you clearly corrupted our national security?”

Predictably, Mrs. Clinton started her oratorical gyrations, saying “Well I appreciate your concern and also your experience, but let me try to make the distinctions that I think are important for me to answer your question. First, as I said to Matt, you know and I know, classified material is designated. … And what we have here is the use of an unclassified system by hundreds of people in our government to send information that was not marked, there were no headers, there was no statement top secret, secret, or confidential. I communicated about classified material on a wholly separate system. I took it very seriously.”

Mrs. Clinton should consider herself fortunate because she lied with that reply. Classified material is supposed to be protected whether it’s got the markings on it or not. Also, we know from Jim Comey’s testimony that there were emails on Hillary’s server that contained classified material. It’s possible that Mrs. Clinton occasionally used “a wholly separate system” to communicate classified materials but she certainly didn’t use that separate system consistently, much less all the time.

Because she’s caught in that impossible position of defending the indefensible, there’s a high probability that she’ll corkscrew herself into the ground in the debates. Those are the types of replies that might create an election-shifting moment.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

This morning, Kellyanne Conway tweeted a link to this article about how Hillary is trying to shift to a more positive-sounding stump speech. The article re-exposes HRC as a liar who’ll say anything to get elected.

For instance, HRC told a black church “that she believes they deserve better than politicians ‘who think they can just show up at election time, say a few nice words and then earn your support.'” Presumably, she wasn’t talking about Democrats, who consistently show up at black churches in October of election years, then disappear for the next 22-23 months.

Democrats show up at black churches preaching that we’re our brothers’ and our sisters’ keepers, which is true. The question I’d pepper HRC with, though, is ‘Hillary, what type of Christian lies about what the law is on sending classified and top secret information? Why do you insist that it’s the markings on the documents that make them confidential or top secret? You were told when you joined the Senate Armed Services Committee that the content determined whether the information was confidential or top secret. Do you really expect us to believe that you’re a Godly lady when you’ve repeatedly lied about the emails and how many mobile devices you had. Hillary, did Christ teach us to lie to the families of murdered American patriots?’

The truth is that HRC knows that she isn’t liked and never will be liked. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out that she’s saying these things to soften her image. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that she’s been around too long to change her image. For the better part of a generation, large numbers of people, from across the political spectrum, have thought of her as a cold-hearted bitch driven by her quest for power. This is the quintessential Hillary:

She even looks like a cold-hearted bitch.