Democrat 2020 candidates may come to regret their enthusiasm for taking Trump out in a non-election manner so close to the actual voting event. They seem not to have confidence in winning without disrupting the system with their scam: as early impeachment enthusiast Rep. Al Green remarked, “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach the president, he will get reelected.”
It doesn’t help that several 2020 Dems also want to impeach Justice Kavanaugh, among them Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Julian Castro, Bernie Sanders and Beto.
You might get the impression that Democrats are incapable of losing graciously, and “impeach” has become their new favorite strategy of dealing with the opposition. Integrity in elections — trusting governance to those darn unpredictable voters — is just too chancy for today’s Dems. Also, Hillary Clinton’s continuing complaints about the election she lost nearly three years ago reinforce the public perception of Democrats as Poor Losers, which they certainly are.
On Tuesday, Speaker Pelosi announced the House would hold an impeachment inquiry — but the legislators would not vote on formal impeachment proceedings.
Here’s the New York Times article explaining how Democrat candidates would “promote a clear and exciting agenda” rather than concentrate on impeaching Trump — good luck with that!
]]>Democrats’ 2020 Campaign Message: Not Impeachment, They Insist, New York Times, September 28, 2019
After the 2016 election, Democratic leaders reached an all but unanimous conclusion: To defeat President Trump in 2020, they would have to do more than condemn his offensive behavior and far-right ideology, as Hillary Clinton had done. They would need, above all, to promote a clear and exciting agenda of their own.
They took that lesson to heart in the midterm elections and afterward, capturing the House of Representatives with a focus on health care and then attempting to impress the electorate by passing legislation on matters like campaign finance reform and the minimum wage. As Democratic presidential contenders pushed campaigns built on big ideas, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi resisted a chorus of calls for impeachment, even from some of her party’s leading 2020 candidates.
Yet 13 months before the next election, Democratic leaders are now steering into a protracted, head-on clash with Mr. Trump. By seeking the Ukrainian government’s help in tarring former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Mr. Trump left them no choice, they say, but to pursue an impeachment inquiry that could consume the country’s attention for months.
Ms. Pelosi has indicated she aims to move the process along with haste, in part to avoid an election-year conflagration, but the exact course of the inquiry is impossible to foresee.
All 19 Democratic presidential candidates now support the impeachment inquiry, and many Democrats are optimistic that voters will as well, because Mr. Trump is so unpopular and the allegations against him are grave and easily grasped. For now, Republicans are the party on the defensive, flummoxed by the cascading disclosures about Mr. Trump that have threatened to upend his re-election campaign.
But there is also a general recognition, at every level of the Democratic Party, that impeachment could complicate their candidates’ efforts to explain their policy ideas to the country and persuade voters they have a vision beyond ousting Mr. Trump. The party has been disappointed too many times, its leaders say, by betting that Mr. Trump’s violations of political and cultural norms would bring about his downfall.
On Friday evening, Ms. Pelosi declared at a conference of New Jersey Democrats in Atlantic City that she would not allow the 2020 election to become a campaign about impeachment. Insisting the inquiry “has nothing to do with the election,” she said the campaign would be fought on other terms.
“That’s about facts and the Constitution,” Ms. Pelosi said of the impeachment process. “The election is about all of the issues and policies that we have a difference of opinion with the Republicans on, and they are very drastic — and they have nothing to do with impeachment.” (Continues)
More than that, the Democrat shriek-out over a lawful action to remove aliens has demonstrated how little Dems care about Americans’ safety and quality of life. The presence of many millions of illegal aliens has brought more crime, decreased quality of education and lowered wages for citizen workers.
The truth is, Democrats have now outed themselves as preferring foreigners over American citizens. Hopefully voters will remember in 2020.
On Friday, Tucker Carlson considered the Democrats’ pro-lawbreaker reactions along with Buck Sexton, who helpfully enumerated the various crimes being committed by the illegal aliens and their friends in the Democrat party.
Too bad none of the treasonous pols will ever be held to account in any serious way.
Spare Audio:
]]>TUCKER CARLSON: After several weeks of delay, this weekend, starting tomorrow, the Trump administration is planning to do something that it ran on back in 2016, enforcing the immigration laws of this country.
ICE is expected to launch raids in several American sanctuary cities. It’ll be seeking people who’ve received final orders of removal from this country, from a court.
According to the President, most of these people have already been convicted of other more serious crimes.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: It’s not something I like doing, but people have come into our country illegally. We’re focused on criminals. We are focused on — if you look at MS-13. But when people come into our country, we take those people out and we take them out very legally. They all have papers, and it’s a process and I have an obligation to do it.
CARLSON: Now, the Democratic Party has been committed to keeping the borders open for — well, really all of Donald Trump’s presidency so far — but they usually hide their intentions at least a little bit. They’ll say that people deserve their day in court first or they will argue that only criminals ought to be deported.
But this case is unambiguous. Every person being targeted by ICE starting this weekend has already received a final order for removal. In other words, they’ve had their day in court. They’re not being held in ICE facilities at the border. Many of them have criminal convictions.
At this point, it’s a simple matter of enforcing America’s laws. Bill Clinton did it. Barack Obama did it. But that was before. So these Democrats have made their decision. American laws do not matter. Nobody should be deported, ever.
BETO O’ROURKE: These massive raids and internal enforcement operations, they are going to separate potentially thousands of families, many of whom have committed no crime against this country, pose no threat to the United States of America.
REP. OCASIO-CORTEZ: I’d hope that we can come together as a party and stand up against what should be seen, I think universally as a cruel regime.
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL: Innocent people who may be swept up and arrested in massive raids across the country.
MAYOR PETE BUTTIGIEG: If rumors start going on about raids, let alone if it starts actually happening, it immediately makes the community less safe.
SEN. CORY BOOKER: We could be using these law enforcement resources to really go after the folks that are a real threat to our communities. This is all kinds of wrong, and we’re better country than this.
SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: Families belong together. Every person in America has rights.
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: And so he is going to create, as he often does, this distraction. I agree with you — and do these raids, which is — it is a crime against humanity.
CARLSON: Telling people who’ve been told by a court, by a judge, they must legally leave the country, enforcing that is a crime against humanity, says Kamala Harris.
Hillary Clinton meanwhile, piped up from retirement or whatever she’s doing these days. The same woman who claims that Russian Facebook trolls are a threat to democracy, decided to actively assist smuggling people into this country.
She posted a guide to evading ICE on Twitter, and added “Por pavor comparte,” that’s “Please share” in Spanish.
In the State of California meanwhile, Governor Gavin Newsom has released an instructional video informing his States’ criminals on how they can avoid law enforcement. Watch.
GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM: I just want to say to folks that are anxious about a knock on the door, when we talk about knowing your rights, no abras la puerta. Without a warrant, you don’t have to open the door. Without a warrant, you do not have to open the door.
CARLSON: So picture a Republican Governor making a video used with taxpayer money telling voters how to — I don’t know — cheat on their taxes or how to buy illegal guns. What would the reaction be? Well, CNN of course, will call for them to be imprisoned. But it wouldn’t, because they care about the law, obviously, Republicans do.
On the left, a new reality is now explicit. Our laws and our Constitution are only valid if they’re in accord with current Democratic Party talking points. Otherwise, you can ignore them.
Buck Sexton is the host of “The Buck Sexton Show” and he joins us tonight. So Buck, you know, you hate to be continuously outraged over the same story. But every week, it seems to get crazier and crazier. And now we have lawmakers calling enforcement of the law a crime against humanity. Where does this end?
BUCK SEXTON: There’s a momentum to the insanity at this point, Tucker.
It’s quite clear that they are engaged in mass nullification of immigration law, that that is what is happening now. At any stage of the process, whether it’s in sanctuary cities, we’re talking about enforcement for people with final deportation orders. And this is all part of the con.
Initially, there were no caravans, and there was not going to be any problem, no crisis to the border. And then it was okay, there’s a lot of people at the border, but we just have to let people go through their process. And if they don’t get to stay after that, we promise we’ll be okay with them being sent home. And now we know that that was a lie all along, too.
They keep telling lies about this. And they’re honestly running out of room at this point. And that’s what — we’re facing nullification. And by the way, when you put up those lists, they’re getting very close to violating another statute over immigration — I’m sure they wouldn’t care – – which is aiding and abetting.
You can’t actually harbor illegal immigrants. You can’t actually employ illegal immigrants. There are all kinds of laws out there and some of these Democrats seem to think that they should do whatever they can to obstruct law enforcement efforts. They want to talk about danger to the public? This is dangerous.
CARLSON: It’s crazy. But it’s also unfair on one level, I mean, so they’re telling foreign nationals they don’t have to abide by American law. They can ignore our laws, but they’re telling me that I have to follow every American law. And if I step outside the bounds of those laws, I go to jail. It’s like, why am I paying my taxes? Sincerely? Why can’t I buy a silencer? Why am I paying attention to all these laws, when they’re telling residents of Guatemala and Honduras like they don’t have to follow the law? I’m not kidding.
SEXTON: There’s so much illegality that actually gets piled up when you look at the real statutes. It’s against the law to lie to federal officers at the border about what you’re fleeing. It’s against the law to lie about your age. It’s against the law to have a fake Social Security card. It’s against — you go down the list. It’s against the law to engage in document fraud.
There is an entire subset of U.S. Federal Law that is being violated all the time with impunity, and people seem to think on the Democratic side they can just ignore all of this.
CARLSON: At some point, somebody is going to make a defense in court along those lines. Like these people don’t have to follow the law. Why should I? That’s when things really will start to fall apart.
SEXTON: I wish the Democrats would just be honest about what they want. If no one should get deported, if nobody should have immigration law enforced against them, the people like AOC, the legislative body in charge of these laws, they should just say, “We want to be open borders.” Stop pretending that’s not what they want. It is so clearly is.
Facebook and Google manipulate what users see in order to effect their opinions. Dr. Robert Epstein has been researching the nefarious activities of the tech titans and [...]]]>
Facebook and Google manipulate what users see in order to effect their opinions. Dr. Robert Epstein has been researching the nefarious activities of the tech titans and appeared with Tucker several times to explain the risk to representative government. The quotes below come from a longer piece, Big Tech Threatens to Secretly Undermine America’s Elections.
CARLSON: So what would happen — I know that you’ve gamed this out to some large extent — how would a company potentially like Facebook or Google manipulate public opinion to achieve a desired result in an election?
EPSTEIN: Well I think they’re doing this all the time actually, because we’re well aware of the fact that they suppress material, sometimes they announce it, sometimes they don’t. We are aware of the fact that Google puts some items higher in search results than other items; well, if search results favor one candidate that shifts votes. I think we’re well aware of the fact that news feeds on Facebook sometimes seem to favor one political point of view over another, and that shifts votes. So I have an article coming out very soon about ten different ways that these big tech companies can shift millions of votes in November, in fact I calculate this November they’ll be able to shift upwards of 12 million votes just in the midterm elections.
On Monday’s program, Tucker cited a specific example of Google working to elect Hilary Clinton.
]]>TUCKER CARLSON: For two years, the alleged threat that Russia poses to our elections has been official Washington’s obsession. The usual business of government has come to a halt as Democrats and their allies in the press fret that Russian agents may be interfering with our democracy. The root of these fears: a handful of Russian ads on Facebook that almost no one saw, and a small number of efforts to hack Democratic Party email accounts.
Now, let’s assume that all these deeply worried people are sincere — that they really care about the integrity of our democracy. Then why has almost nobody said anything about the tech monopolies that dominate our exchange of information in this country? If a few dozen Facebook ads are enough to subvert an election, shouldn’t we be worried about Facebook itself, which controls literally billions of ads?
A couple of times on this show, social scientist Robert Epstein has pointed out that Google alone could determine the outcome of almost any American election, just by altering its search suggestions — we’d never know what happened.
“Oh,” say tech defenders, “Don’t worry. These are businesses. They exist to make money, not to push political agendas.”
It turns out that’s not true, and we can prove it. An email obtained exclusively by this show reveals that a senior Google employee deployed the company’s resources in 2016 to increase voter turnout in ways she believed would help Clinton win the election.
The email we obtained came from a woman named Eliana Murillo, the former head Google’s multicultural marketing department. She sent it on November 9, 2016; that was one day after the presidential election. Her email was subsequently forwarded by two Google vice presidents to more staff members in the company.
In her email, Murillo touts Google’s multi-faceted efforts to boost Hispanic voter turnout in the election. She notes that Latinos voted in record-breaking numbers, especially in states like Florida, Nevada and Arizona, the last of which she describes as quote, “a key state for us.” She bragged that the company used its power to ensure that millions of people saw certain hashtags and social media impressions, with the goal of influencing their behavior during the election.
Elsewhere in the email, Murillo says the company quote, “[Google] supported partners like Voto Latino to pay for rides to the polls in key states.” She describes this assistance as quote “a silent donation.” Murillo then says that Google helped Voto Latino create ad campaigns to promote its rides.
Now officially, Voto Latino is a non-partisan entity, but that’s a sham. Voto Latino is vocally partisan. Recently, the group declared that Hispanics — all Hispanics — are in President Trump’s quote “crosshairs,” and said they plan to respond by registering another million additional Hispanic voters in the next presidential cycle. Voto Latino is a group with clear political goals, goals that Google supported in 2016. We asked both Google and Voto Latino for clarification — what exactly did Murillo mean by a “silent donation.” This is potentially significant legal question; neither company responded to us.
At the end of her email, Murillo makes it clear that Google was working to get Hillary Clinton elected. This wasn’t a get out the vote effort — whatever they say — it was not aimed at all potential voters. It wasn’t even aimed at a balanced cross-section of subgroups. Google didn’t try to get out the vote among, say, Christian Arabs in Michigan, or Persian Jews in Los Angeles — they sometimes vote Republican.
It was aimed only at one group, a group that Google cynically assumed would vote exclusively for the Democratic Party. Furthermore, this mobilization effort was targeted not at the entire country but swing states vital to the Hillary campaign. This wasn’t an exercise in civics: this was political consulting. It was, in effect, an in-kind contribution to the Hillary Clinton for President campaign.
In the end, Google was disappointed. As Murillo herself conceded quote, “Ultimately, after all was said and done, the Latino community did come out to vote, and completely surprised us. We never anticipated that 29 percent of Latinos would vote for Trump. No one did. If you see a Latino Googler in the office, please give them a smile. They are probably hurting right now. You can rest assured that the Latinos of these blue states need your thoughts and prayers for them and their families. I had planned a vacation and thought I would be taking the time to celebrate. Now it will be time to reflect on how to continue to support my community through these difficult times.”
Nobody at the DNC was more upset by the results that Murillo. Google tried to get Hillary elected. They failed — this time. We reached out to Google. The company didn’t deny the email was real, or that it showed a clear political preference. Their only defense was that the activities it described were either non-partisan, or weren’t taken officially by the company. But of course, they were both. Plenty of people in Google knew what was going on, and we’ve seen no evidence that anyone at Google disapproved of it or tried to rein it in.
Two years later, Google is more powerful than it’s ever been, and the left has increasingly become radical in what it is willing to do to regain political power. What could Google be doing this election cycle to support its preferred candidates? What could they do in 2020? It’s a question almost nobody in Washington seems interested in even asking. They ought to be interested.
Actually, if I were a public conservative in Washington I would have weaponed up immediately after the [...]]]>
Actually, if I were a public conservative in Washington I would have weaponed up immediately after the attempted mass murder that nearly killed Republican Congressman Steve Scalise during a GOP team baseball practice. Only the presence of Scalise’s security detail because he is the House Majority Whip prevented a bloodbath of dead Republicans.
In fact, Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) said after the shooting that he would carry a concealed weapon, and it’s likely others do too.
It’s disturbing that the left has whipped itself into such extreme agitation with its Trump Derangement Syndrome that some appear on the verge of serious violence. With Hillary Clinton as their guide, some Democrats remain in denial about Donald Trump being president and elected fair and square. It’s ugly to watch, and we have no way to know how far the refusal to accept President Trump as legitimate will go.
Below, the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Virginia, where the owner forced Trump Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and her family to leave for being part of the administration. Perhaps the proprietor should rename her restaurant the Red Guard Cafe, after the marauding Chinese commie gangs of the 1960s for honesty in advertising.
So it’s reasonable for public Republicans to think about armed self-defense.
Trump aides urged to get a gun, Washington Examiner, by Paul Bedard, June 25, 2018
Facing a new wave of potentially dangerous threats, called for by a top Democratic lawmaker, legal and gun experts are calling on top Trump aides to get their concealed carry permit and back it up with a pistol.
“There are simply not enough police in D.C. or Virginia or Maryland to protect all Trump officials at their homes and when they go out to restaurants. Getting a concealed handgun permit would be helpful to protect themselves and their family,” said John R. Lott Jr., president of the influential Crime Prevention Research Center.
“High level officials in the Trump administration, especially if their faces are likely to be recognized by many in the public as a result of appearances on TV, might want to consider applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon in the District of Columbia, and/or other states they frequent, in view of the call by Rep. Maxine Waters for the public to ‘absolutely harass’ these officials in public places, and other recent events indicating the increased danger they are in,” added public interest law professor John Banzhaf.
Trump admin officials can get DC gun carry permits to defend themselves from the crazies who obey Maxine Walters. https://t.co/CBgTI1dyWn
— Emily Miller (@EmilyMiller) June 25, 2018
And Emily Miller, who wrote a book about the difficult process getting a gun permit in “Emily Gets Her Gun,” tweeted, “Trump admin officials can get DC gun carry permits to defend themselves from the crazies who obey Maxine Walters.”
Mark Smith, author of #Duped: How the Anti-gun Lobby Exploits the Parkland School Shooting – and How Gun Owners Can Fight Back, added, “While I do not think Maxine Waters wishes violence on anyone including on Trump supporters, the reality is her rhetoric that liberals should ‘harass’ Trump supporters could easily be misconstrued by someone predisposed to criminal violence as encouragement to commit violence on Trump supporters and staff.”
“High level officials in the Trump administration might want to apply for a license to carry a concealed weapon, in view of the call by Rep. Maxine Waters to ‘absolutely harass’ them in public places,” added public interest law professor John Banzhaf. GWUhttps://t.co/iTwJSoCJLv pic.twitter.com/BljX5sRfoF
— John Banzhaf (@ProfBanzhaf) June 25, 2018
(Continues)
Interestingly, citizens including Trump staffers can own firearms for their personal protection in part because of the important Heller decision by the Supreme Court in 2008.
At CPAC last February, Emily Miller interviewed Dick Heller, the man who persevered to get his Second Amendment rights.
]]>One can [...]]]>
One can imagine that the FBI Director was ferociously pressured to back down from his earlier accusations. And the switch created the desired headlines one day before the election that concerned voters could safely choose Hillary: she won’t be dragged from the Oval Office to be tried as a criminal!
The Sacramento Bee had a nicely artistic presentation:
The liberal press all headlined with the same not-so-subliminal message — Vote Democrat:
FBI SAYS REVIEW CLEARS CLINTON IN EMAIL INQUIRY
— New York TimesFBI won’t pursue charges against Clinton
— Washington PostFBI Affirms No Clinton Charges
—Wall Street JournalFBI clears Clinton but Anger Persists
— Los Angeles TimesClinton cleared in late twist
— Chicago TribuneFBI clears Clinton in email case
— Houston ChronicleAgain, no FBI e-mail charge
— Denver Post
So five out of eight newspapers (chosen by me as being typical major publications) used the verb “clear” which is broad and has the air of finality.
However, the truth is more complex than a brief headline can convey: Hillary may get a temporary reprieve on the email case now, but that doesn’t mean she is off the hook. As Congressman Trey Gowdy (a former prosecutor) remarked on Sunday, “Investigations are never over unless a statute of limitations has expired or unless jeopardy has attached.”
So if something more incriminating turns up, it’s game on.
Plus, the Clinton Foundation remains an object of FBI investigation and is rumored to be a stronger case. In fact, Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer appeared on a Fox Business show Monday and remarked, “The way it’s been explained to me by people in the FBI sphere is that basically they’re going to get one bite at this apple, so if you bring an email case prosecution, or were to do that and were to fail, the Clinton Foundation investigation just politically would be too much.”
Certainly the wikileaks story that Chelsea’s deluxe wedding was financed by the Foundation has refocused attention on family’s corrupt slush fund disguised as a do-gooder organization.
So Hillary in prison orange remains a possibility, albeit an unlikely one.
]]>Adding to a growing population of culturally misogynous Muslims [...]]]>
Adding to a growing population of culturally misogynous Muslims is dangerous for American women’s safety and well-being. Look at the problems Europe has had with Islamic rapefugees since the borders were opened by Chancellor Angela Merkel.
Germans have rejected the government policy of welcoming hordes of violent Muslims, particularly following the New Years sex attacks in Cologne and elsewhere.
What possible reason is there for Muslim immigration at all? As a group, they are remarkably resistant to assimilation. The architect of modern Singapore, the late Lee Kuan Yew, remarked, “I think we were progressing very nicely until the surge of Islam came … I would say today, we can integrate all religions and races except Islam.”
In another questionable choice, Hillary’s closest aide for 20 years has been Huma Abedin, a daughter of Muslim Brotherhood activists who herself worked at a pro-sharia (aka misogynous) magazine. Huma will likely be a major player in a Clinton2 White House — if she is not in jail. Is she a long-time sleeper agent of sharia, disguised by stylish clothes and a wacky marriage to a pervert congressman? The mainstream media is strangely uncurious about diverse Democrats.
More recently we have learned that the Clinton Foundation has sucked up many millions of dollars from the worst sharia holes on earth, where women are treated not like second-class citizens, but like property.
Author of Clinton Cash Peter Schweizer appeared on Fox News Saturday, and the list above of skanky contributors to the crime family foundation comes from that interview.
Below is a spare audio file of the interview:
TUCKER CARLSON: Peter Schweizer — he’s the author of Clinton Cash and inspired the investigation the FBI is now doing in the first place. He’s been interviewed multiple times by the Bureau. It’s great to see you this morning, so tell us how can she have received a million dollars from a foreign country — it just seems so out of bounds. What are the details?
PETER SCHWEIZER: Yeah, it’s completely out of bounds. When Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, as a condition of taking that job, Tucker, they agreed to do a number of things: have complete transparency, disclosing donors, donations from foreign governments had to have pre-approval. In this case that didn’t happen, they didn’t disclose it and now this is multiple violations in this regard. So you have Qatar, at a time when the Arab Spring is taking place, they’re very anxious about what US position is going to be, giving a million dollars to the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Foundation not disclosing that, as they had agreed to do.
CARLSON: They’re not required or they were not required by law to do that? I mean this was just a sort of gentlemen’s agreement she made?
SCHWEIZER: Well it was a written agreement with Barack Obama, to his credit, Barack Obama said in order for you to be Secretary of State, you need to do this. Hillary Clinton also said to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during her confirmation hearings there would be complete transparency, so they failed to live up with it, and the problem is, Tucker, of course they’re making promises now that there’s not going to be any more foreign money, Bill’s not going to give speeches. We got to take that with a grain of salt, or a grain of sand actually, in a way because they have not lived up to their previous commitments, and there’s no expectation that they would now.
CARLSON: Just to put this in context, I want to put a graphic on the screen of some of the money that the Clinton Foundation has taken from foreign governments, so one to five [million dollars] from Qatar, Saudi 10 to 25 million, Kuwait up to 10, UAE up to five, Brunei up to five, Oman up to five, Algeria up to half a million. I mean, among many other things you notice, these are all countries in which women don’t have a Western understanding of civil rights. If she’s president, how is she going to deal with these countries, knowing that she owes something to them?
SCHWEIZER: That’s right, Tucker; add on top of that the speaking fees, the millions of dollars and money from these same governments that ended up in the Clintons pockets. Look I mean this is a huge problem and as much as the Clintons want to say that this money was given with no strings attached, I think we all know that governments like Saudi Arabia don’t give money away for nothing; they expect something in return.
Does anyone think the Clintons won’t even more wealthy if they are allowed to sell the White House and America off for their own profit once again?
]]>Schweizer has stayed on the case and commented on the unfolding developments, particularly regarding Hillary’s detached style of management regarding her responsibilities. [...]]]>
Schweizer has stayed on the case and commented on the unfolding developments, particularly regarding Hillary’s detached style of management regarding her responsibilities. Earlier in the month, he remarked about one lesson from the Wikileaks revelations, that her organization is “staff-driven”:
SCHWEIZER: “That’s one of the stunning things that comes out in this. These are emails that are her senior staff and there are so many times when you know she is supposed to meet with somebody or talk with somebody, and Hillary simply says, well tell me when to call them and what to say. A lot of decisions are made without her input and it just shows that this is a very staff-driven organization. This is not somebody who is in a sense calling the shots. She’s relying on her staff what to say, when to say it and to set her policy.”
A hands-off management style is not what the nation needs in a president during these dangerous times, particularly when the Wikileaks emails have shown Hillary’s staff to be a corrupt team of weasels who will lie whenever a cover-up is required. And aides certainly shouldn’t be setting important policy, as they apparently did when Hillary was Secretary of State.
Schweizer appeared on Fox Sunday and discussed the latest news about the Clinton email scandal since FBI Director Comey reopened the case. Importantly, Schweizer pointed out the central role of Huma Abedin in everything Hillary Clinton does.
SCHWEIZER: “If you go look back at the interviews that were done by the FBI in the original email investigation, there’s some very very stunning quotes there from Department of State security personnel who are describing how Huma Abedin makes an enormous number of decisions related related to diplomatic factors and others, and to quote one of the security personnel, they had never seen a Secretary of State that dependent on a staff member. So if Huma is stepping away from the campaign, you wonder who’s gonna fill that role for Hillary Clinton.”
Here’s an audio version of the interview in case the YouTube disappears:
Huma is the daughter of an activist Muslim Brotherhood family who are well known in publishing and politics. Her mother, Saleha Abedin, is the editor in chief of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. Huma herself worked at the same publication which opposed western-style women’s rights, even though she was praised in an August puff piece from the Vogue fashion magazine as “Powerful, glamorous, and ubiquitous” — hardly the picture of a Muslim woman “liberated” by the veil.
Below, in 2010 Hillary Clinton spoke at the Dar al-Hekma college for women during a town hall meeting in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Huma’s mother Saleha Mahmood Abedin is standing on the right of Clinton (wearing glasses).
Interestingly, the late father Sayed wrote his PhD dissertation on the evil of President Thomas Jefferson going to war against the Barbary pirates to end the Muslim attacks on American shipping. Jefferson had paid the jizya tax — an element of sharia law — until he could construct a navy for the young American nation to defend itself on the seas.
Plus, it’s not like Huma has cut relations with her disreputable family: in fact her mother Saleha was spotted in September doing childcare duties of Huma’s son Jordan in New York City after she announced her divorce from Anthony Weiner.
Finally, Huma Abedin has been staying at home to get her away from the campaign and reporters since she is under investigation. But it’s hard to imagine a Hillary presidency without Huma at her side, whispering Islam-friendly things into her ear. We hope for a different outcome than a Muslim Brotherhood voice in the next White House.
]]>The Trump candidacy has uncorked voter [...]]]>
The Trump candidacy has uncorked voter dissatisfaction growing over decades of economic globalization for which there was no voice. Now that Donald Trump is expressing the popular rage, voters feel unleashed and vindicated.
Below, CNN’s elite political interpreters Dan Balz, Maeve Reston and John King tried to talk over Trump supporters behind them who suggested Clinton imprisonment.
]]>Las Vegas Crowd Chants ‘Lock Her Up’ as CNN Tries to Discuss Election, WashingtonFree Beacon, October 19, 2016
An on-site CNN panel had difficulty on Wednesday discussing the 2016 electoral map and what both presidential candidates should do in their third debate later that night when a crowd in Las Vegas began relentlessly chanting “lock her up” for at least a minute straight.
“Lock her up! Lock her up!” the crowd roared.
The Washington Post‘s Dan Balz tried to talk over them, but due to a faulty microphone, was initially unsuccessful.
“To be more subdued, to be a different Donald Trump,” Balz said while discussing what he thinks the Republican nominee should do to garner more support.
“To be a president?” CNN’s John King asked.
“Lock her up” has been a popular chant at Donald Trump rallies to reference Hillary Clinton’s email and Benghazi scandals that many Trump supporters argue should land her in jail.
The crowd continued chanting and shouting later in the segment.
The CNN exchange took place hours before the third and final presidential debate at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas.
This is not the first time a crowd chanted “lock her up” aimed at Clinton. Back in July, supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) said they started chanting “lock her up” during a breakfast at the Democratic National Convention.
The Washington Post used the language of criminality: Why was Trump lurking behind Clinton? How body language dominated the debate. October [...]]]>
The Washington Post used the language of criminality: Why was Trump lurking behind Clinton? How body language dominated the debate. October 10, 2016
A man who has been caught on tape gloating about groping women — and panting like a dog after a married woman — should not be seen stalking a woman in front of millions of television viewers. Not if he wants to improve his image, anyway.
But Donald Trump, looming behind Hillary Clinton like a mob boss, only reinforced his perception as a schoolyard bully in the second presidential debate Sunday night…
CNN’s body language expert Janine Driver called Trump’s movements a “pre-assault indicator.”
Candidate Trump did not sit and stay during the debate.
Do Democrats not understand how patronizing and ultimately harmful it is to their candidate to portray her as a tiny weakling who must be protected from a dominant man?
Hillary Clinton is running to be Commander in Chief, not school board member. If elected, she will be standing toe to toe with some very dangerous foreign leaders who want to take advantage of America’s growing weakness, as engineered by Obama.
Do liberals believe that Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un and other overseas autocrats are gentlemen with perfect manners?
No, they will try to dominate Hillary in every way possible. Just a month ago, the Red Chinese snubbed President Obama by not providing a staircase for him to exit Air Force One when he arrived in Hangzhou for a G20 meeting. He was forced to leave the airplane via a basic ramp in the rear as a result of the calculated insult.
You can be sure that America’s nuclear-armed enemies will not be any nicer to a female president. A commander in chief who understands how dominance figures into leadership may be a better choice.
Movement analyst Tonya Reiman appeared on Fox Business Monday to discuss her observations. She was asked by host Maria Bartiromo, “What would be your most important takeaway in terms of body language?”
“Don’t lurk over the other candidate,” she responded. “That was unbelievable — the hovering. For a man that size, it’s almost menacing to be hanging over her that way. And the other thing about that is, the reason you have a town hall is so that one person sits while the other stands and gets all the attention. So him walking around throughout the entire time took complete posture away from her, so nobody’s really listening to her because they’re watching him lurk.”
And if any women should be worried about “menacing” men in connection with this election, it should be the American women who will be endangered by the more than one million Syrians and other Muslims that Clinton has promised to resettle into this country during her first term.
]]>Monday’s Wall Street Journal has an article by Peter Schweizer, focused on Hillary’s efforts to help Moscow to get technology transfers which undermined US national security. Schweizer was the researcher who wrote the book Clinton Cash, which was the basis for the important documentary of the same name — watchable online at Breitbart: Clinton Cash Movie. The enormous size of the Clintons’ grift is astounding, in addition to the many dangers it created for America. Every voter should watch the Clinton Cash documentary.
KT McFarland appeared on Fox News on Monday and expressed her alarm about the level of public corruption in the Clinton Foundation:
KT MCFARLAND: To me that’s always been the more serious question about the Clintons is frankly the public corruption. When the Clintons left the White House, Secretary Clinton herself said we were dead broke, but then they set up the Clinton Foundation. She was the senator from the state of New York donations poured into the Clinton Foundation from foreign, governments, from foreign corporations and from wealthy foreign individuals, as well as American corporations and rich Americans. But then somehow when she was Secretary of State, certain decisions were made that favored those people who donated to the Clinton Foundation. Now the Clintons have said that’s just a coincidence. Their friends in the mainstream media have said, oh that’s a conspiracy theory to make that connection, but I as an American say, well i’d like to see the books. I’d like to see… let’s have a little sunlight on this. Was there a connection between decisions she made as Secretary of State and donations that went into the Clinton Foundation? Because if that’s the case, what happens when she’s president? I think what they ought to do is either show everybody the books of the Clinton Foundation, let auditors pour through it to make sure there’s no public corruption, or secondly close down the Clinton Foundation if she becomes elected.
Hillary Clinton also has a handy connection to the Muslim Brotherhood through her assistant Huma Abedin. Yet the Senator claims to be the defender of women’s rights, even as she vows to increase Muslim immigration.
Does Hillary believe in anything beyond self-agrandizement through her crime-family business?
UPDATE: here’s a video of Peter Schweizer being interviewed about the Clinton-Kremlin connection on the Hannity show Monday night:
]]>The Clinton Foundation, State and Kremlin Connections, Wall Street Journal, by Peter Schweizer, August 1, 2016
Why did Hillary’s State Department urge U.S. investors to fund Russian research for military uses
Hillary Clinton touts her tenure as secretary of state as a time of hardheaded realism and “commercial diplomacy” that advanced American national and commercial interests. But her handling of a major technology transfer initiative at the heart of Washington’s effort to “reset” relations with Russia raises serious questions about her record. Far from enhancing American national interests, Mrs. Clinton’s efforts in this area may have substantially undermined U.S. national security.
Consider Skolkovo, an “innovation city” of 30,000 people on the outskirts of Moscow, billed as Russia’s version of Silicon Valley—and a core piece of Mrs. Clinton’s quarterbacking of the Russian reset.
Following his 2009 visit to Moscow, President Obama announced the creation of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission. Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state directed the American side, and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov represented the Russians. The stated goal at the time: “identifying areas of cooperation and pursuing joint projects and actions that strengthen strategic stability, international security, economic well-being, and the development of ties between the Russian and American people.”
The Kremlin committed $5 billion over three years to fund Skolkovo. Mrs. Clinton’s State Department worked aggressively to attract U.S. investment partners and helped the Russian State Investment Fund, Rusnano, identify American tech companies worthy of Russian investment. Rusnano, which a scientific adviser to President Vladimir Putincalled “Putin’s child,” was created in 2007 and relies entirely on Russian state funding.
What could possibly go wrong?