Wednesday, August 10, 2016


Breitbart ^ | 9 Aug 2016 | Aaron Klein 

An email sent through Hillary Clinton’s private sever betrayed the name of the National Security Agency’s representative to the State Department.
The email was contained in a batch of 296 pages of Clinton’s correspondence released on Tuesday in response to a Judicial Watch lawsuit. The emails, reviewed in full by Breitbart Jerusalem, include 44 messages that were not previously released.
One email was sent to Clinton at her private email address from aide Cheryl Mills, stating the name of the NSA rep.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Clinton Body Count or Left-Wing Conspiracy? Three With Ties to DNC Mysteriously Die

Townhall ^ | 8/9/2016 | Rachel Alexander 

Since the DNC emails were leaked a few weeks ago, three people associated with the DNC have all been found dead under what could be questionable circumstances. Bernie Sanders supporters  suspect the Clintons were behind the deaths, just more episodes in the alleged “Clinton body count” dating back to the 1990s. Others dismiss the speculation as left-wing conspiracy nuts. But until the police have completed their investigations and the medical examiners have released autopsy reports, it is premature to make any determinations.

DNC staffer Seth Rich was mysteriously murdered in the streets of Washington, D.C., on July 10. ... his wallet, credit cards and watch were not taken.

Shawn Lucas ... served the DNC on July 3 with a complaint and summons in a fraud action on behalf of Sanders supporters. ... On August 2, he was found lying on the bathroom floor dead by his girlfriend when she came home that evening. ... [She] said he was in good health.

The former President of the United Nations General Assembly, John Ashe, mysteriously passed away on June 22, a few days before he was scheduled to begin pretrial meetings involving shady financial dealings regarding a former Clinton crony. Local police officers said he died from dropping a barbell on his throat while working out, but the UN oddly first claimed he died of a heart attack. ... was supposed to testify against Chinese real estate developer Ng Lap Seng, who was implicated in the “Chinagate” scandal for funneling money to the DNC for Bill Clinton through Arkansas restaurant owner Charlie Trie. Ashe was arrested last year for allegedly taking over $3 million in bribes from Chinese businessmen, including over half a million from Ng Lap Se....
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Trump’s Words, Hillary’s Deeds--And the media's glaring double standards.

Frontpagemagazine ^ | August 10, 2016 | Bruce Thornton 

Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

If you believe the media and pundits, Trump’s recent gaffes and Hillary’s bounce in the polls spell disaster for the Republicans come November, even though we’re still ten weeks from the election. The Republican NeverTrump (NT) crowd are particularly vociferous, mixing schadenfreude and hysteria in equal measures. Whether it’s his comments about NATO or his spat with the Democrat parents of a soldier killed in battle, Republican dudgeon has reached stratospheric heights we’ve rarely seen from them in the case of Obama or Hillary.
Make no mistake, Trump’s habit of defending his elevated self-regard rather than hammering Hillary’s record of failure is politically unwise, though we’ll know that for sure only after the election. So far, every gaffe seems to delight his supporters, if only because of the outsized criticism it evokes from the maligned Republican “establishment,” which continues to be hell-bent on proving that they do exist and they do find more in common with the Democrats than with their own party’s base. When have you heard any Democrat other than Pat Caddell go after Hillary with the same gusto as the NT folks attack Trump?
What I find more fascinating is the inconsistency of Trump’s Republican critics. The Donald’s crude rhetoric apparently disturbs them more than Hillary’s long catalogue of policy mistakes and abuse of power. As PJ Media’s Richard Fernandez suggests, too many Republicans are content to be the hapless Washington Generals to the Democrats’ Harlem Globetrotters, while the Republican base wants to see a real basketball game played by the same rules for both teams.
Take Trump’s criticism of the Khan family, whose son died in Iraq in 2004. Mr. Khan delivered a blistering attack on Trump at the Democratic Convention, the substance of which had nothing to do with his son’s death. After Trump predictably gave a scorched-earth response, we heard lectures about the inviolability of parents who have lost children in combat, how their sacrifice should always be respected, and how only a boorish narcissist would say things that disrespect their loss. Even if those parents were at the Democrat Convention solely to deliver a vicious partisan attack on the other party’s candidate, one should show forbearance.
But were these lessons delivered as passionately against the progressive media when they viciously attacked Patricia Smith, also a Gold Star parent whose son was killed while trying to defend his fellow Americans in Benghazi? National Review’s Jim Geraghty conveniently collected some of the more despicable comments after her speech at the Republican Convention. It was called a “cynical exploitation of grief” (The Nation), an “unabashed exploitation of private people’s grief” (Independent), “the weaponization of grief” (The New Yorker), and an “early dip into the gutter” (Washington Post). Did Hillary condemn these comments about a grieving Gold Star mother? Has Charles Krauthammer mentioned these violations of what he calls “the most sacred political rule of all: Never attack a Gold Star family”?
I know what the NT folks will say: Hillary did not personally attack Patricia Smith. She’s not responsible for the rhetoric of others. But she doesn’t have to be, not when she has legions of media “buffers,” to quote Willi Cicci in Godfather II, to do her dirty work. The real question is, who benefits? Patricia Smith delivered a powerful indictment of Hillary, on a topic that displays both her foreign policy incompetence and flawed character. So her credibility had to be undermined. Advantage Hillary.
But the point is not that both sides have been equally at fault in exploiting grieving parents for political gain. In fact, the incidents are very different. Khizr Khan’s motive was clearly to denigrate Donald Trump’s fitness for office by using standard Democrat Party talking points. Unlike Hillary, however, Trump didn’t vote for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq in 2002, which led to the Khans’ son’s deployment to Iraq. Trump has no personal responsibility for the events that led to his death. Indeed, he now claims he was opposed to the Iraq War. The Khans’ presence at the convention was purely political, and their grief served to juice the message with pathos.

Patricia Smith is a different story. Her son’s death was the consequence of decisions Hillary herself made or supported, and so her son was a victim of Hillary’s actions. Hillary had argued for the removal of Gadhafi, and as Secretary of State, she was ultimately responsible for keeping open a consular outpost with inadequate security in a lawless region filled with jihadist outfits. Worse yet, she lied about the cause of the attack, both to Patricia Smith personally and to the American people, when she said the four dead Americans were the result of “an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.”
We know now that during and immediately after the attacks she acknowledged to her daughter, the Libyan president, and the Egyptian Prime Minister that jihadist groups planned and carried out the attacks. And she has implied that Patricia Smith and Gold Star family members of two other Americans killed in Benghazi, Charles Woods and Kate Quigley, are lying about her telling them personally that the video was to blame. She has even implied that Patricia Smith is mentally impaired by grief.
So Trump’s impolitic quarrel with the Khans is evidence only of his insensitivity, thin skin, and lack of campaigning savvy. The attack on Patricia Smith carried out by media in the bag for Hillary is an attempt to divert attention away from Hillary’s deficiencies, which are much more salient for evaluating her fitness for office. Supporting the Libyan intervention bespeaks either massive ignorance of the region, or the willful sacrifice of our country’s security and interests in order to burnish her by then already tarnished foreign policy record. Her serial lying to the grieving parents and the country show her willingness to go to any lengths to cover up her mistakes in office and serve her ambition.
In other words, the attacks on Trump are based on style, the impressions created by his crude, unfiltered statements. “Words matter,” critics constantly preach, and they assume that his bombastic pronouncements are necessarily indicators of future policy. Indeed, words do matter, but in a democracy, as Demosthenes repeatedly warned the Athenians, “All words, apart from action, seem vain and idle.”  Deeds matter much more than words. Talk is cheap, particularly coming from politicians and diplomats. Have Trump’s critics forgotten Barack Obama’s seductive “no red state, no blue state,” racial-healing rhetoric in 2008? Did those words matter? Only for camouflaging his true intentions, which his actions as a community organizer, Illinois State Senator, and U.S. Senator had made abundantly clear. With Trump, the relationship of rhetoric to action at this point is unknowable.
With Hillary, on the other hand, we have a long, copious record of deeds we can evaluate. Her supporters can dismiss this record as a fiction created by the “vast, right-wing conspiracy,” but by now few other than die-hard partisans doubt her mendacity and lack of achievements. That’s why 68% of voters find her untrustworthy. Her penchant for lying, for example, was demonstrated yet again last week, when she twice contradicted FBI Director James Comey by claiming that she “never sent or received anything marked classified” over her private email server. Even the Hillary-friendly Washington Post’s fact-checker gave her his worst rating, four Pinocchios.
But “Trump lies too!” critics will respond. No doubt, but as yet his lies are crude versions of the exaggerations that most politicians indulge in while running for office. The big difference is, Trump’s lies are not designed to cover up malfeasance as a public official who has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution, and who ostensibly serves the interests and security of the country. Trump may be betraying his supporters by misrepresenting himself and his statements, but he has not as yet betrayed the public trust. Again, it is dishonest not to discriminate between a celebrity businessman whose primary aim is to make money and get attention, with a public official whose aim should be to respect the law and serve her fellow citizens.
Trump’s deficiencies of character and lack of knowledge displayed in his words may be predictive of his presidency. That is a risk worth weighing. But Hillary’s flaws have been manifested for years by her deeds. The risk that she will govern the same way is much more certain. So what should be the focus of criticism and concern, Trump’s words or Hillary’s deeds?

Latest Hillary Email Scandal Reveals State Department "Favors" To Clinton Foundation

ZeroHedge ^ | August 10, 2016 

In the latest installment over Hillary Clinton's email scandal, conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch released 296 pages of new emails from Hillary's personal server, most of which were not handed over as part of the 30,000 emails originally provided to the FBI. The emails were provided to Judicial Watch pursuant to a FOIA request. These new emails, among other things, demonstrate how the Clinton Foundation and it's top donors sought favors from the State Department within 3 months of Hillary taking the Secretary of State position.
According to an article in the Wall Street Journal:

"That the Clinton Foundation was calling in favors barely 3 months into Hillary Clinton's tenure at the State Department is deeply troubling, and it is yet another reminder of the conflicts of interest and unethical wheeling and dealing she’d bring to the White House," said Michael Short, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, in a statement Tuesday.
The first request for a "favor" came in April 2009, just 3 months after Hillary was confirmed as Secretary of State on January 21, 2009.
So why were these emails not included in the original disclosure to the FBI? Could it be possible that Hillary believes that using her position as Secretary of State to setup meetings between former U.S. Ambassadors and shady international businessmen is somehow "personal" in nature? Makes you wonder what else was excluded from the FBI disclosures that was purely "personal." Guess we'll just have to elect her to find out if we can trust her.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The FBI Always Gets Its Man (or Woman) and May Still Get Hillary ^ | August 10, 2016 | Ed Klein 

A month has passed since FBI Director James Comey ripped into Hillary Clinton for the “extremely careless” way she handled classified emails while she was secretary of state, but stopped short of recommending that criminal charges be brought against her.
However, that doesn’t mean Hillary is out of the FBI woods.
According to a source close to Comey, Hillary is still the target of an active FBI criminal investigation, but this time around, the media aren’t paying much attention.
With little public fanfare, Comey’s agents have been looking into Hillary’s relationship with foreign businessmen and governments who donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation and are suspected of having received favors from the secretary of state in return.
Such pay-to-play behavior falls under the category of “public corruption,” and Comey’s agents are trying to determine whether Hillary conducted a series of secret meetings with foreigner donors separate from her duties as secretary of state.
Several people interviewed by the FBI have confirmed that Hillary did just that on numerous occasions while she was at the State Department.
“There are a sizable number of agents on this case,” said the source. “I don’t know exactly how many. It’s fewer than were assigned to the email case, but it’s still dozens of agents. By any measure, it’s a major investigation.
“Comey is taking every precaution against leaks while the investigation is ongoing. He’s ordered all the agents on the case to sign nondisclosure agreements and submit to random lie detector tests.
“While this public-corruption investigation is going on, the FBI is also looking into new information that, as a result of Hillary’s carelessness, hostile states like Iran hacked into her email system and compromised U.S. intelligence sources and personnel.
“Hillary shouldn’t imagine that she’s free and clear. Comey may have pulled his punches the last time around because he didn’t think his case was winnable in a court of law, but it’s possible that new evidence could shock the country and make Hillary a very vulnerable presidential candidate.”

Emails reveal Hillary’s shocking pay-for-play scheme

NY Post ^ | August 9, 2016 | Daniel Halper and Bob Fredericks 

Hillary Clinton put the State Department up for sale, with top aides pulling strings and doing favors for fat-cat donors to the Clinton Foundation — including a shady billionaire, according to smoking-gun emails released Tuesday.
The stunning revelations include how wealthy contributors seeking influence or prestigious government gigs could fork over piles of cash to get access to Clinton’s inner circle, including top aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills.
Chagoury is a Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire who gave the Clinton Foundation between $1 million and $5 million. In 2009, he also pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative.
The construction magnate, a close pal of Bill Clinton’s, has financial interests around the world. He was convicted in Switzerland in 2000 of money laundering and paid a $66 million fine in a plea deal.
Abedin’s quick response to Band paid dividends down the road.
In June 2011, Band formed the Teneo consulting firm, with Bill Clinton as the paid honorary chairman. And in 2012, Abedin won permission to work as a $15,000-a-month consultant for Teneo in a special arrangement that allowed her to remain on the State Department payroll.
The disclosures came in a batch of 296 pages of State Department documents released by Judicial Watch, a watchdog group that has been fighting in court to recover Clinton’s emails through the Freedom of Information Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Icahn: "Extremely Important For Country To See Trump Win,"

Real Clear Politics ^ | Aug. 9, 2016 | Ian Schwartz 

In a wide-ranging interview on CNBC Wednesday afternoon investor Carl Icahn weighed in on the economy, Donald Trump's presidential campaign and his speech on the economy, the future of the dollar, why the American worker should vote for Trump and much more. Icahn said Trump's speech on the economy was "right on" and he should win "hands down." He also said Trump will appeal to the Archie Bunker's of the world.
"I think it's extremely important for this country to see Trump win," he said. "I have nothing against Hillary Clinton. You know, I'm not going to get into personal thing about her. I said that several times about my PAC. I'm not getting into personalities."
"I look at things simply and I made a lot of money just looking at simple truths," Icahn said Tuesday. "This is a simple truth. We have a massive problem and Donald is addressing it. The Democrats are not. Donald gave a speech that was to my mind right on about it. And if he sticks with that economic theme, he should definitely win hands down because I don't know why you wouldn't vote for him."
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Manufactured Controversy: Trump Didn’t Urge Assassination of Clinton

Regated ^ | 8/9/2016 | M D Anderson 

Here we go again…
On Tuesday, Republican Nominee Donald Trump held a rally in Wilmington, North Carolina. Trump spent much of his speech criticizing Democratic Nominee Hillary Clinton’s political positions, specifically her stance on the Second Amendment. This criticism led to a discussion about the potential Supreme Court justices Clinton might appoint if she were elected. Trump made the following comment that has led to, yet another, a media blitzkrieg:
“Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day. If Hillary gets to put her judges, right now we’re tied you see what’s going on, because Scalia, this was not supposed to happen. Justice Scalia was going to be around for ten more years at least.”
Instead of interpreting the statement as it was literally meant–that groups like the National Rifle Association and millions of law-abiding gun owners could turn out and vote for Trump, lobby against Clinton’s Supreme Court picks, etc.–the mainstream press, along with Clinton allies, asserted that Trump was calling for Clinton’s assassination.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama’s forgiveness of gun crimes amid push for controls ‘incredible hypocrisy'!

The Washington Times ^ | August 9, 2016 | David Sherfinski & Stephen Dinan 

Richard Reid was already a two-time felon when authorities searched his Delaware apartment and found marijuana, crack cocaine divided into sales-size plastic bags, powder cocaine, a scale — and a loaded .32 caliber handgun, an unloaded .25 caliber pistol and ammunition for two other types of weapons.
Last week, President Obama commuted Reid’s 25-year sentence and made him one of the hundreds of drug users and dealers who the White House says have done enough time.
But at the same time, Mr. Obama forgave scores of gun crimes convictions for the offenders, raising thorny questions about whether the White House is serious about keeping guns out of “the wrong hands” — a refrain of the Obama administration in the wake of mass shootings.
Mr. Obama forgave six of Reid’s gun crimes, in addition to the drug trafficking and possession offenses for which he was convicted in 2007.
He is one of 107 federal inmates who have had gun crimes convictions pardoned or sentences commuted during this administration, including a number who used firearms while dealing drugs or who carried them despite having felonies on their records. Still others were caught lying to gun dealers or carrying weapons with the registration numbers filed off — suggesting an even deeper level of gun crime.
“This is the most incredible hypocrisy,” said Erich Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. “The president has commuted the sentences of dangerous criminals who were convicted of gun-related charges. But then, he does everything in his power to block law-abiding gun owners from purchasing firearms.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

WATCH, FLASHBACK: Hillary Apologizes For Inciting Supporters To “Assassinate” Obama! ^ | 8/09/16 | Infidel Ali 

"WATCH, FLASHBACK: Hillary Apologizes For Inciting Supporters To “Assassinate” Obama Like “Robert Kennedy” Was" It’s being claimed by his unhinged haters that Donald Trump today was inciting his supporters to assassinate Hillary Clinton, which is exactly what Hillary was accused of during her 2008 Presidential campaign. Hillary’s comments were called “beyond the pale” by DEMOCRATS. Which sure doesn’t sound like they reflect the judgement and temperment of a person qualified to be President.
Excerpted from The New York Times, May 24, 2008: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defended staying in the Democratic nominating contest on Friday by pointing out that her husband had not wrapped up the nomination until June 1992, adding, “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”
Her remarks were met with quick criticism from the campaign of Senator Barack Obama, and within hours of making them Mrs. Clinton expressed regret, saying, “The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy,” referring to the recent diagnosis of Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s brain tumor. She added, “And I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

On Immigration, Hillary Will Finish Barack’s Job

Patriot News Daily ^ | 8/7/2016 | Staff 

Make no mistake about it, Hillary Clinton is to Barack Obama’s left on the issue of illegal immigration. On no other single issue is the contrast between her and Donald Trump more apparent. He wants to build a wall across the Mexican border, deploy a system of mass deportations, and streamline the legal immigration process to discourage otherwise law-abiding immigrants from breaking the law. His border policy emanates from a broader America First ideology that is seen as backwards and even dangerous by Hillary Clinton.
Her policy, as she reiterated this week in Washington, is much different. Unbelievably, she is promising to go even further than Obama when it comes to decriminalizing illegal entry.
“I will need people across our country to make it clear to their elected representatives that they are going to be held accountable for how they are going to act on immigration reform,” said Clinton. “I’ve already talked to some of my former colleagues in the Senate. This will be fast-tracked.”
What will be fast-tracked? A piece of immigration legislation that would essentially represent the end of America’s borders. Clinton has promised that she will not deport anyone who is not a violent criminal, removing even the timeline exception included in Obama’s executive policy. In other words, where his amnesty for children and families does not extend past an arrival date of January 2014, Clinton’s will come right up to the present. And it will go far beyond children or their parents.
If Clinton gets in office, our immigration law will essentially read: “As long as you’re not a felon, come on over. No need to sign in. Stop by the first welfare office you see for more information (and some terrific prizes!).”
After eight years of Obama’s radical agenda, it’s tempting to view Hillary Clinton as something of a moderate. But let’s not be fooled. Clinton may not have Obama’s socialist soul, but she’s got the moves down. And she certainly understands that illegal immigration is a necessary ingredient in tomorrow’s Democratic Party. She doesn’t actually care, personally, about the Mexicans pouring across the border, but she’s exhilarated about exploiting this issue for her own personal gain.
That would be fine if the issue in question wasn’t actively destroying our country.
But it is, and you can already see the effects. You can see it in the cultural reaction to that “America First” slogan. Who would have thought, even fifteen years ago, that patriotism would become a dirty word? Who could have known that multiculturalism would not have room for the culture that was already here?
Well, we all knew, didn’t we? And we know what’s coming if we don’t get this border problem under control, don’t we?
So let’s not be surprised when it arrives.

Rudy Giuliani to Clinton Campaign, Press: Are you out of your mind? ^ | August 9, 2016 | Alex Swoyer 

Rudy Giuliani went to bat for Donald Trump during the Republican nominee's campaign rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina on Tuesday night after Hillary Clinton's campaign alleged Trump suggested gun owners assassinate her if she's elected president. "I want to tell you how dishonest and how rigged and how corrupt this system is," Giuliani began. "I have to do it to get it out of the way because I'm really actually disgusted." He went on:
I listened to Donald Trump's speech in Wilmington and what he said very clearly was that if Hillary Clinton were elected president she would get to appoint judges to the Supreme Court and among the other things that they would do to destroy us would be to do away with the Second Amendment and your right to bear arms.
"Now, is there anybody here that doubts that?"And then he said, 'and you have the power to do something about it,' and what he meant by that was you have the power to vote against her," Giuliani added. "The Clinton people -- this is how corrupt they are --they spin out that what he meant by that was that it was a joke and what he meant by that was is that they would kill her."
"Now ok, now to buy that you have to be corrupt, because if you said that to me, I would say to you, 'Are you out of your mind,'" he jabbed. "It proves that most of the press is in the tank for Hillary Clinton. They will buy any lie, any distortion, any spin that the Clintons put out and they've been doing it since he was Governor of Arkansas."
"We're not going to allow the Washington politicians to get us off course," Giuliani declared.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

A Good Joke About Political Murder

Frontpage Mag ^ | 8/10/16 | Daniel Greenfield 

A few years after his failed presidential campaign, John Kerry went on Bill Maher and joked about killing President Bush.
After Maher riffed that Kerry could have gone to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone, Kerry replied, “Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.”
There was no media outrage. The event is remembered only on conservative websites.
And barely even there.
At least back when Kerry had joked about the assassination of Dan Quayle, he had been forced to briefly apologize for it. But less than a decade later the media bias had become so pervasive that joking about murdering Republican politicians had become so socially acceptable that it wasn’t even worth mentioning.
We are talking only about Republican politicians of course. That is why the media reacted with hysterical outrage to its latest manufactured Trump scandal. Not only did Trump not say what the media has accused him of saying, but the media has no problem when Democrats openly called and call for the assassination of Republican presidents and presidential candidates.
During Trump’s candidacy a fine roster of media folks covering the gamut from the New York Times to VICE to the Nightly Show have joked about killing Trump or about his assassination. Anyone objecting to that sort of good clean progressive fun would have been a humorless spoilsport.
Trump’s remark however is being denounced in the press as everything from a threat to sedition.
What did Trump actually say? When you go to the tape, it turns out that he said nothing.
The entire thunderstorm of outrage is based on taking Trump’s back and forth speaking style, radically different from those of ordinary politicians, and then removing the context of his discussion about the Second Amendment. The only thing Trump did was suggest that maybe there would be another option beyond the Supreme Court for protecting the Second Amendment. The crowd does gasp and laugh, but Trump offers no sign that he’s delivering a joke or saying anything at all subversive. As is so often the case, others were projecting their own expectations on Trump. Trump didn’t even notice their reactions.
But what if Trump had indeed joked about Hillary Clinton’s assassination? For that matter, what if he had been serious about it?
Just ask the next leader of the Senate Democrats.
New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi, who like so many local Democrats has been sentenced to prison on corruption charges, described Senator Schumer as the man who would "put a bullet between the president’s eyes, if he could get away with it." The president in question was obviously a Republican.
The left and its media auxiliaries shrug their shoulders when it comes to jokes or even threats about a Republican in the White House. Bush choking on a pretzel was a particular subject of political comedy. But make a joke about Hillary Clinton gasping over the hot sauce she claims to carry in her purse and it’s a horrifying threat.
“You know what man? I am, I am going to literally, if she gets elected president, I am going to hang out on the grassy knoll all the time, just loaded and ready, because you know what? It’s for my country. It’s for my country,” riffed Christopher Titus about Sarah Palin.
That was half a year after the media had lost its collective minds and attempted to blame Palin’s political map, or rather the bullseyes on it, for a mentally ill man shooting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.
Fellow comedian Orlando Jones had a more recent gag about killing Sarah Palin.
A former top Secret Service official anonymously told the media that Trump’s non-joke about Hillary Clinton, invented out of whole cloth by the media, was “close to the edge” and might be referred to Federal officials for potential legal action.
It goes without saying that Kerry’s gag about beating Bush to death with a rock was not referred to anyone or anything.
And that’s fine.
Americans do not live in a monarchy. Freedom of speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. The trouble is that it doesn’t anymore. Instead it only protects inappropriate speech when it’s popular with the prevailing political elites of the left.
A joke about killing a president is only wrong if he’s a Democrat. It’s especially wrong if he’s further to the left than just the average Democrat. The only standards that exist are those of political allegiances.
The media’s hysteria is meant to police speech based on its own political allegiances. If Hillary Clinton had joked about Trump being shot to death by illegal aliens, the media would have cheerfully celebrated it with handcrafted headlines about how wonderfully daring she was. Then, if outrage had mounted, fact checks would have been deployed to explain that she never really meant what she actually said.
It might very well be possible to have a society in which nobody makes death threats about politicians. But that is not the society that the media wants. Instead it wants a way of life in which jokes about murdering Republicans are hilarious and gags about Democrats dying are sedition, treason, incitement to violence, veiled threats and possibly even threats not dressed up in a big black burka.
And that’s not America. It’s a dictatorship with occasional elections.
Americans do not believe that becoming a politician entitles one to the privileges of lese majeste. Our political humor was never tame. It was often edgy. That was how we knew that we were a free people.
But our new elites have conceived of a new form of lese majeste, one that does not accrue to our new monarchs based on their titles, but based on their politics. The left has conceived of and implemented a society in which it is a mortal crime to insult the left. And like most naked emperors it is highly sensitive to even the faintest implication of a slur on its imaginary honor. Its ritualized hysteria over Trump is an expression of its ugly totalitarian impulses and its intolerance to any perceived slight.
There is a long ugly history of the left threatening sanctions for speech. This is yet another episode in that history.
The left invents its own speech nightmares, brings them to life and then demands that something be done about them. Having invented a Trump threat, the left demands that someone do something about the threat that it invented. But if indeed the Secret Service were to take action against Trump, it ought to haul in Secretary of State John Kerry from his latest jaunt and every wit and writer who fantasized about Bush biting the big one. And then it would be the left crying about censorship.
Like all tyrants, the left must learn that no amount of terror or intimidation will win it immunity from the free speech of free men. Its politics do not make it special. They do not give it the moral authority to threaten without being threatened, to censor without being censored and to break the rules without having everyone else break the rules.
This is not about a threat. It’s about political correctness. Political correctness is the privilege that the left claims to police speech. This is not an argument about the Second Amendment, but the First.
The grim joke is that the only political murder victim here is still the Bill of Rights.

Does US media owe it to Donald Trump to be objective? Yes they do!

Mediatel Newsline ^ | 8/10/2016 | Raymond Snoddy 

American journalists wedded to a tradition of objectivity and impartiality that can seem suffocating to the British sensibility are asking themselves two big questions: How the hell can we be objective about Donald Trump - and should we be?
It is shades of Brexit all over again but on a gigantic scale - the winner of the US Presidential election gets their hands on the American nuclear button.
In the UK referendum campaign many national newspapers were ludicrously biased and became cheerleaders for leaving the European Union in a way that would shock many American journalists.
The BBC faced a more subtle challenge - and had to wrestle with its honourable tradition of impartiality, not always successfully or appropriately in the Brexit case.
But mainstream US journalism, once you get away from the crazy radio talk show hosts, takes objectivity very seriously and you sometimes feel they need at least two on-the-record quotes before they will claim that California is hot in the summer.
But how can you be objective about a man who says he wouldn't necessarily support a NATO ally under attack, who is an admirer of President Putin, who disrespects the family of a dead Muslim military officer and who wants to build a wall across the entire south of the US to keep out Mexicans?
(full story at link, in the next post)
You be objective.
A whole huge amount of Americans, strongly agree with Mr. Trump on all of those issues.
Cover the issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...



Her Maddness


Easier Today?


Short Ciruited


Praetorian Guard


Mean Things




The Economy


Gun Owners


The Bump


The Flag Bearer


Room and Board


8 Years of Obama


Premiums Increase