Archive for the ‘Hillary’ Category

During the 2016 general election campaign, Democrats criticized then-Candidate Trump for not saying he’d accept the results of the election. Immediately after she lost, Hillary Clinton started doing everything possible to undermine President Trump’s election. Of course, we now know that she had lots of help from deep state actors like Andrew McCabe, Jim Comey, Jim Clapper, John Brennan, Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.

It’s worth noting that Brennan accused President Trump of committing treason multiple times. Right after President Trump’s summit with Russia President Vladimir Putin, Brennan tweeted that “President Trump’s performance…rises to & exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ It was nothing short of treasonous.”

President Trump’s behavior wasn’t treasonous just like Hillary’s giving Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov the now-infamous reset button wasn’t treasonous. For the former director of the CIA to make such a statement is anti-patriotic.

Now that the Mueller report turned into a dud, Democrats want to relitigate that faux investigation, too. It’s increasingly apparent that Democrats have turned into what I call Relitigation Nation. If they don’t get the results they want, Democrats throw a hissy fit and insist that Republicans must be covering something up. This time, they’ve turned to a new version of smear campaigning under the guise of oversight hearings.

I’ve started talking about a new campaign, which I’ve titled ‘No More Euphemisms’. The Democrats’ thinly disguised oversight hearings are nothing of the sort. They’re the start of the Far-Far Left’s impeachment proceedings. Democrats have insisted on relitigating the conclusions of the Mueller report. The evidence doesn’t support obstruction of justice charges. There was no evidence that “any American” conspired with or collaborated with the Russian government.

Remember when Michelle infamously said that “for the first time in my life, I’m proud of America and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change”?

It’s impossible to escape the fact that Democrats are the sorest losers in politics. If they don’t get their way, they whine to high heaven. That isn’t what leaders do. That’s what sore losers do.

Finally, I won’t put up with Biden’s claim that re-electing President Trump will end America as it should be. The Obama-Biden administration tried to fundamentally transform the United States. No thanks! I prefer the president to enforce the laws of our nation consistently. I prefer an administration that doesn’t selectively ignore the laws it doesn’t like.

There’s no doubt that Democrats will cave on building President Trump’s wall. The only question is when it’ll happen. Democrats have already admitted that what’s in effect isn’t working. Further, Democrats can’t hide the fact that they’ve voted for border wall funding previously. In fact, rather prominent Democrats have voted for the wall, including President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin and Dianne Feinstein. In fact, that quintet voted to spend much more than the $5,700,000,000 that President Trump is asking for right now.

How can these Democrats continue to say no with this information floating around out there? Let’s remember something important about President Trump’s election. Voters signaled that they were tired of politics as usual. They demanded politicians that actually got things done. Thus far, Democrats have sounded like obstructionists.

President Trump has made counter-proposals. Democrats haven’t. They’ve just repeated their mantra that they’re for border security, too. I’m not saying that Republicans have done the right thing. They’ve failed, too.

Byron York’s article highlights the Democrats’ hypocrisy:

In 2006 Congress passed the Secure Fence Act, which mandated the construction of multilayer pedestrian fencing along about 600 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. It passed with big, bipartisan majorities: 283 votes in the House and 80 in the Senate. Some top Democrats who are still in the Senate today supported the fence: Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Ron Wyden, Debbie Stabenow, and Sherrod Brown. Just the next year, Congress made clear it didn’t really mean what it said. The new law was amended to make fence building optional.

In 2013, Congress got back into the fence game. The Gang of Eight comprehensive immigration reform bill included something called the “Southern Border Fencing Strategy.” It called for 700 miles of at least single-layer pedestrian fencing along the border. It wasn’t a standalone measure; the fence was to be part of a broader package of border security measures alongside provisions that would create a process by which the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants would ultimately gain a path to citizenship.

It’s just a matter of time before Democrats are forced to cave. They’ve been dealt a difficult hand despite what the MSM has written. At some point, they’ll have to do something that will upset their base. They can’t continue to play to the Democrats’ worst instincts.

When Democrats listen to their hard left wing, they lose bigtime. Democrats will lose because they’re liars. It’s painful to listen to this particular liar:

I just read President Reagan’s final speech from the Oval Office. Despite what Ms. Pelosi said, President Reagan never once mentioned the Statue of Liberty in that speech. That’s why I won’t trust her on border security.

When it comes to undermining the first step in democracy, aka elections, there’s no low too low that Democrats won’t accuse Republicans of. Byron York’s article chronicles the Democrats’ Stacy Abrams’ attempt to steal the Georgia gubernatorial election.

York wrote “Well before Election Day, Democrat Stacey Abrams accused her Republican opponent, Georgia secretary of state Brian Kemp, of using his office to throw minority voters off the rolls. ‘He disproportionately purged voters of color,’ Abrams said on The View about a week before the election. ‘That’s problematic because regardless of intent, the result is that racial bias has been injected into our system and undermines confidence in our democracy.'”

Those statements have a problem, though. They’re opinions. The Abrams campaign never supplied proof that these things happened. Instead, Abrams’ fellow Democrats raced to microphones to repeat Ms. Abrams’ allegations:

“I think that Stacey Abrams’ election is being stolen from her,” said New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker. “If Stacey Abrams doesn’t win in Georgia, they stole it,” said Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown. “If she had a fair election, she already would have won,” said Hillary Clinton.

Again, where’s the Democrats’ proof? The Democrats’ habit is to make wild accusations, then have the Fake Media amplify the accusations. Don’t have proof? That’s ok. We’ll repeat it often enough until people buy the Democrats’ BS. Here’s Sherrod Brown yapping to the National Action Network:

BTW, NAN was founded in 1991 by Reverend Al Sharpton.

Most Abrams supporters did not suggest that she actually won more votes than Kemp. Instead, they pointed to Georgia’s requirement that the winning candidate must receive more than 50 percent of the vote to avoid a runoff. The Abrams scenario was based on the hope that, somehow, Abrams might find an additional 17,000 or so more votes, while Kemp got no more, and then Kemp, while still substantially ahead in total votes, would have less than 50 percent of the total. If that happened, there would be a runoff with Abrams.

The only problem was, the numbers weren’t anywhere close to what Abrams needed.

Why let reality get in the way of undermining democracy? The Media Wing of the Democratic Party, aka Fake News, didn’t. As someone committed to accuracy, doing the required research and getting things right, I don’t have a problem labeling the Media Wing of the Democratic Party as Fake News. It isn’t like they’re searching for the truth. They’re working to further their agenda. Period.

Yes, they have First Amendment rights. They just don’t have any credibility with honest people. That territory is reserved for journalists like Salena Zito, Byron York and Ed Morrissey.

The US has reached a tipping point. Will we insist on honesty and principled patriotism? Or will we settle for the Democrats’ constant undermining of our system of government? I hope it’s the former.

Monday afternoon, Sen. Casey, (D-PA), removed his despicable campaign ad. This didn’t happen because Sen. Casey is a man of integrity. It happened because he isn’t a man of integrity.

First, it’s important to know what’s in the ad. According to the article, the “ad accuses Mr. Barletta of voting to let insurers refuse coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions. It features a woman, Stacie Ritter of Lancaster County, whose twin daughters were diagnosed with cancer saying, ‘if Lou Barletta has his way, kids like mine could be denied the care they need.'”

It isn’t difficult to figure out why Rep. Barletta, (R-PA), got upset with the ad. Rep. Barletta put this letter together to criticize his opponent:

Here’s a partial transcript of Rep. Barletta’s video:

What Bob Casey did with that commercial is one of the most hurtful, insensitive things I’ve ever experienced in my political career. Bob Casey knew that my 18-month-old grandson, who is a twin, has cancer. I told him and his wife a month ago. They knew what we were going through.”

In pulling his ad, Sen. Casey, (D-PA), published a statement that implies that the ad “involving children stricken with cancer were unintentional” and that “he takes Mr. Barletta at his word about the impact it had on his family.”

What’s interesting is that “the Democrat’s campaign is still running the ad in the rest of the state.” That’s the definition of a dirtbag. Sen. Casey’s ad implies that Rep. Barletta would advocate for policies that would hurt his 18-month-old grandson. Why would anyone think that pulling the ad in a small section of Pennsylvania will eliminate the Barlettas’ pain?

If I didn’t know better, I’d bet that Sen. Casey is just as tone-deaf as Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi. It takes some effort to reach that ‘level’ of insensitivity.

The NYTimes’ bias shines through in this article. It starts in a paragraph that says ‘In the lead-up to the report, Trump’s allies agreed that this was paramount. The central question in my opinion,’ David Bossie, Trump’s former deputy campaign manager, wrote this week on the Fox News website, ‘is did Hillary Clinton and her cronies get preferential treatment in her email server investigation for political reasons?’ And the report’s answer is clear: No.”

One of the findings of the 568-page report is that there is proof that Hillary’s emails were accessed by hostile actors. Contrary to Jim Comey’s declaration of July 5, 2016, that’s a violation of the Espionage Act. The fact that most of her top campaign people got immunity suggests that the FBI didn’t pursue them with the same vigor that Special Counsel Robert Mueller pursued Paul Manafort or Carter Page.

Then there’s this:

Federal investigators and prosecutors did not give preferential treatment to Clinton. They pursued the case on the merits. They were guided by, as the inspector general’s report puts it, “the prosecutor’s assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department practice.”

Right. Tell that to David Petraeus and Gen. Flynn. Mueller’s team couldn’t find the political mainstream if they were given a GPS and a year’s worth of gasoline. Mueller’s prosecutorial team looks more like Hillary Clinton’s donor list than a team of skilled prosecutors. Trey Gowdy and Bob Goodlatte disagree with the NY Times:

Chairman Goodlatte stated emphatically that well-established DOJ and FBI procedures weren’t followed in investigating Hillary. That says it all. Goodlatte then said that there’s a stark contrast in the procedures used in the Hillary email investigation and the Trump-Russia collusion investigation. No grand jury was impaneled for the Hillary ‘investigation’. There was a grand jury impaneled for the Trump-Russia investigation. Again, that says it all.

The most significant mistake in the investigation didn’t help Clinton. It hurt her, badly. It was James Comey’s decision to violate department policy and talk publicly about the investigation. If it weren’t for that decision, the polling data suggests Clinton would be president.

This is disgusting reporting. If Hillary had followed government procedures, there wouldn’t have been an investigation. Hillary acted like this nation’s laws didn’t apply to her. The fact that she’s now gotten bit by the FBI is karma. What comes around goes around.

After reading Scott Johnson’s post, a contrarian thought popped into my head. In his post, Scott quoted Andrew McCarthy as saying that the “Obama administration decided to use its counterintelligence powers to spy on the Trump campaign, using at least one covert informant, electronic monitoring of communications, and other intelligence-gathering tactics.” He then quoted McCarthy as saying “It ignored the norm against deploying such tactics against political opponents, not based on evidence of a Trump-Russia criminal conspiracy, but on speculation about the Trump campaign’s Russia contacts and Russia sympathies. Speculation by a government, an administration, and a Democratic-party nominee with their own abysmal histories of Russia contacts and Russia sympathies.”

Anyone that’s paid a minute of attention to this case knows that the Clinton Slush Fund, aka the Clinton Foundation, had ties to some nasty Russian companies and oligarchs. My question for the legal eagles and people from the intelligence community is whether it’s plausible to think that the Obama administration used its intelligence capabilities to find out if Trump had discovered a connection between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian government or Russian oligarchs close to the Kremlin.

It isn’t surprising that Hillary isn’t honest. She’s pandered most of her life, saying outrageous things. After losing to Donald Trump, though, she’s taken things to a higher level. Art Laffer and Stephen Moore wrote this op-ed to highlight how little she knows.

They wrote “Hillary Clinton is being universally panned by Republicans and Democrats for her rant last week in India against Trump voters. She boasted, ‘I won the places that represent two-thirds of America’s gross domestic product. So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward.'” Then they showed her how wrong she is, saying “Here’s the evidence. Of the 12 blue states that Hillary Clinton won by the largest percentage margins, Hawaii, California, Vermont, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, Illinois, Washington, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Delaware, all but three of them lost residents through domestic migration (excluding immigration) over the last 10 years. In fact combined, all 12 Hillary Clinton states lost an average of 6 percent of their populations to net out-migration over the past decade. California and New York alone lost 3 million people in the past 10 years.”

Then they wrote this:

Now let’s contrast the Hillary Clinton states with the 12 states that had the largest percentage margin vote for Donald Trump. Every one of them, save Wyoming, was a net population gainer — West Virginia, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Idaho, South Dakota, Kentucky, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Nebraska and Kansas.

It isn’t just that the states gained population, either:

IRS tax return data confirm that from 2006-2016 Hillary Clinton’s states lost $113.6 billion in combined wealth, whereas Donald Trump’s states gained $116.0 billion. The Hillary Clinton states are in a slow bleed. That is in no small part because the deep blue states that she carried have adopted the entire progressive playbook: High taxes rates. High welfare benefits. Heavy hand of regulation. Excessive minimum wages. War on fossil fuels. These states dutifully check all the progressive boxes.

And the U-Haul company can barely keep up with the demand for trucks and moving vans to get out of these worker paradises. A recent Gallup Poll asked Americans if they would want to move out of their current state of residency. Five states had more than 40 percent of its respondents answer yes: They were: Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, Rhode Island and Maryland. Hillary Clinton country.

Maryland is the only state with an economy that isn’t tanking. That’s because it’s supported by the federal government.

Connecticut has raised income and other taxes three times in the last four years and still has one of the most debilitating budget deficits in the nation. The pension systems are so many billions of dollars in the red, they are technically bankrupt.

Even when it comes to income inequality, the left’s favorite measure of progressive success, blue states carried by Mrs. Clinton fare worse than red states. According to a 2016 report by the Economic Policy institute, three of the states with the largest gaps between rich and poor are those progressive icons New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts. Sure, Boston, Manhattan and Silicon Valley are booming as the rich prosper. But outside these areas are deep pockets of poverty and wage stagnation.

Socialism and crony capitalism don’t work. They should be scrapped immediately.

Technorati: Hillary Clinton, Illinois, Connecticut, Maryland, Blue States, Outmigration, Capital Flight, Red States, Art Laffer, Stephen Moore, Inmigration, North Dakota, Tennessee, Florida, Texas, Job Growth, GDP, Republicans, Election 2016

Let’s start by saying that Oprah is the perfect Democrat. To use Peter Schweitzer’s book title, Oprah is the perfect do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do liberal. I find it rich that a celebrity like Seal would call Oprah out for her hypocrisy. That’s exactly what he did when he posted a pair of pictures, including one where Oprah was kissing disgraced TV mogul Harvey Weinstein. Then he added an all-caps caption that said “WHEN YOU HAVE BEEN PART OF THE PROBLEM FOR DECADES BUT SUDDELY THEY ALL THINK YOU’RE PART OF THE SOLUTION.”

Seal didn’t stop there. Then he added “Oh I forgot, that’s right…..you’d heard the rumours but you had no idea he was actually serially assaulting young starry-eyed actresses who in turn had no idea what they were getting into. My bad.”

Make no mistake. Oprah was attempting to associate herself with the #MeToo movement. She wasn’t wearing a black dress just because that was this year’s fashion statement attire. This is the picture that Seal posted:

Seal wasn’t the only one to call Oprah out:

Juanita Broaddrick, the now-75-year-old retired nurse, has alleged former President Bill Clinton raped her during his 1978 campaign for Arkansas governor, and that his wife Hillary Clinton helped him cover it up. She brought that allegation to Oprah’s attention. “Hey @Oprah #GoldenGlobes,” tweeted Broaddrick Monday. “Funny I’ve never heard you mention my name. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? Guess not. My rapist was/is your friend, Bill Clinton.”

This year in Hollywood, selective outrage is all the rage. In other words, #MeToo was just a PR stunt. Why hasn’t Hollywood fiercely criticized Bill Clinton? For that matter, why hasn’t Hollywood criticized Hillary for attacking the women that her philandering husband assaulted?

Since her speech, Oprah has been the object of lavish praise. That hasn’t changed the fact that she’s still living a fantasy life. What President Trump has proven is that, though he’s a multibillionaire, he’s still in touch with blue collar workers. Oprah hasn’t proven that by any stretch of the imagination.

Thus far, Oprah has proven that she’s a phony who wants to show she empathizes with the little people. That’s a rather elitist attitude. Couple that elitist attitude with the fact that she sat still while a predator stalked Hollywood and you’ve got a person without character.

Bret Stephens’ misguided thinking is on full display in this column. The fatal flaw in his thinking comes when he said “This is the fatal mistake of conservatives who’ve decided the best way to deal with Trump’s personality — the lying, narcissism, bullying, bigotry, crassness, name calling, ignorance, paranoia, incompetence and pettiness, is to pretend it doesn’t matter. “Character Doesn’t Count” has become a de facto G.O.P. motto. ‘Virtue Doesn’t Matter’ might be another.”

That’s badly misreading tons of Republicans’ thinking. The 2016 election was, in terms of integrity, a choice between the lesser of 2 evils. It isn’t that we didn’t recognize Donald Trump’s character flaws. It’s that we noticed that Hillary Clinton’s character imperfections were pretty disgusting, too.

To Mr. Stephens: when I’m left with a choice between a man with character flaws who appoints conservative judges, cuts taxes and regulations and stands up to the DC Swamp, vs. the woman who personifies the DC Swamp and the failed status quo, I’ll vote for the flawed man who appoints conservative judges every time because 7 years from now, we can hopefully elect a man or woman of integrity but we can’t get back those judicial appointments. When I think of Neil Gorsuch, I smile:

This shows why I don’t agree with Mr. Stephens:

Trump is normalizing all this; he is, to borrow another Moynihan phrase, “defining deviancy down.” A president who supposedly wants to put a wall between the U.S. and Latin America has imported a style of politics reminiscent of the cults of Juan Perón and Hugo Chávez.

Seriously? Stephens thinks that President Trump is the same as Hugo Chávez? That’s frightening.

I’ve agreed with a number of President Trump’s policies without hesitation. I won’t say that I’ve always appreciated the things he’s tweeted. Unlike Mr. Stephens, I’m perfectly capable of differentiating between policy and behavior.

It’s apparent that Democrats don’t understand that their unanimous vote against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has painted them into a political corner. Let’s start with by examining the difficult position Sen. Manchin painted himself into.

Sen. Manchin said “he’s repeatedly tried to find areas to reach across the aisle and vote with Republicans for Mr. Trump’s agenda, but said he couldn’t do it this time. ‘There’s some good in this bill. I acknowledge that,’ Mr. Manchin said on West Virginia talk radio, after host Hoppy Kercheval pointed to the tax cuts he said the state’s middle class residents stood to gain.” Why do I think that Sen. Manchin’s constituents will hold it against him for voting against their tax cuts? Why shouldn’t West Virginians, aka Mountaineers, hold it against Sen. Manchin for voting with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on the tax cuts?

Later, Sen. Manchin complained that “the bills seemed too skewed toward business, pointing to the permanent nature of corporate tax cuts, compared to the planned expiration of the reductions in the individual rate.” First, I’m reminded of President Reagan’s saying that you can’t be pro-jobs and hate the employer. Apparently, Sen. Manchin didn’t learn that lesson. Next, Sen. Manchin is whining about the Senate’s rules, which he’s repeatedly voted to approve. If the Senate’s rules weren’t so screwed up, the individual tax cuts could’ve been made permanent.

Sen. Manchin’s excuses sound like ‘the dog ate my homework’ excuses than legitimate excuses.

By contrast, Patrick Morrisey, Sen. Manchin’s likely opponent, will be able to vote for eliminating coal industry-hating regulations, great judges and never vote with Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren out of party loyalty. Hint: Anyone that thinks Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren plays well with coal miners should view this video:

Hillary lost West Virginia by 40+ points. What should frighten Sen. Manchin is that it wouldn’t surprise me if Hillary is more well liked than Sanders or Warren.

At a town-hall meeting in Missouri last week, Sen. Claire McCaskill framed her vote against the bill as disappointment that the plan favored corporations. She argued the bill betrayed the principles Mr. Trump had originally proposed. “This isn’t Trump’s bill,” she said at the event in suburban St. Louis. “Trump campaigned on the bill being about you.” But one resident told the St. Louis Public Radio before the event that he didn’t understand her opposition to the bill and hoped she’d explain it more. “I’m having a hard time finding a way that it does not benefit the people of Missouri,” said Dennis Hugo, a 32-year-old, self-described Libertarian.

Finally, there’s this:

In Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly, another Democrat, told his voters he met with Mr. Trump and Vice President Mike Pence over the tax bill. “From the beginning of this year’s tax reform effort, I’ve been willing to partner with Republicans, Democrats, and President Trump and his administration,” he wrote in an op-ed in the Indianapolis Star. “Despite this common ground, the bill produced by Sen. Mitch McConnell and Speaker Paul Ryan was the complete opposite of what the president and I had discussed,” Mr. Donnelly added.

In North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, who said last month she was open to voting for the bill, said that the $1.5 trillion in additional deficits piled up by the tax cuts swayed her to vote against it. But some voters in her state don’t see that as a reasonable opposition.

Sen. Heitkamp is gonna have a ton of difficulty peddling that excuse. There wasn’t a tax cut package that wasn’t going to pile up deficits according to the CBO’s scoring. That’s actually the least of Sen. Heitkamp’s worries. She, along with Sen. Donnelly, Sen. Tester, Sen. Baldwin, Sen. Casey and Sen. Brown, voted against significantly reducing the estate tax on farmers’ estates. The full expensing of equipment isn’t insignificant to farmers, either.

In DC, the spin will be that this helps corporations, not working people. In Indiana, Montana and North Dakota, big farms are incorporated. Saying that the Democrats’ messaging doesn’t exactly fit those states is understatement.

Technorati: Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Manchin, Joe Donnelly, Jon Tester, Death Tax, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Democrats, Election 2018