Saturday, October 15, 2016

WSJ: 'Nation Now Has Proof' of Hillary Scandals, But Leftist Media 'Devote Its Front Pages to ...

Brietbart ^ | October 14, 2016 

Complete Headline: WSJ: 'Nation Now Has Proof' of Hillary Scandals, But Leftist Media 'Devote Its Front Pages to the Trump Story'
The Wall Street Journal's Potomac Watch columnist Kimberley Strassel details the "devastating case against a Clinton presidency" that can be made by reviewing the WikiLeaks documents combined with what is already known in the public record. Strassel notes that although "the nation now has proof of pretty much everything [Hillary Clinton] has been accused of," the media "has almost uniformly ignored the flurry of bombshells, preferring to devote its front pages" to the story that Donald Trump "made lewd remarks a decade ago and now stands accused of groping women."
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

Trump and the Politics of Polling

Canada Free Press ^ | 10/15/16 | Jim O'Neill 

Trump: They've betrayed our workers, they've betrayed our borders and, most of all, they've betrayed our freedoms
There’s something missing in the polling. There’s an avalanche of negative media coverage but still thousands rally for Trump.—Gov. Mike Pence “Pence: ‘There’s Something Missing in the Polling These Days’”
“There’s something awfully screwy going on around here.” Elmer Fudd
If you are still relying on the MSM for your “news” then you my friend have a very skewed idea of reality.
For example: after days, weeks, months of Trump’s record-breaking rallies in locations all across the nation, we are supposed to believe that Clinton leads Trump in the polls. Excuse me? What planet are these polls being taken on?

Rescue America: by leaving the Obamas, the Clintons & the fictionally-aggrieved in the gutter!

Canada Free Press ^ | 10/15/16 | Judi McLeod 

The hour is late, but take heart, America: Restore a beloved and noble America to where she rightfully belongs: as the only world leader capable of saving a fast declining west
From the front lines of the hard fought patriot battleground comes the REAL NEWS of our time, It’s the news that takes We the People over the top called: Out-voting the frauds.
Let history record that It’s a message that found light in the trenches even as frantic Dems played in the gutter digging up manufactured scandals against Donald J. Trump, destined to boomerang back as soon as they hit sunlight, moth-bitten, 30-year old ones that match the dead leaving graves as live Hillary Clinton voters.

Does Hillary Clinton Believe in Anything?

Townhall.com ^ | October 15, 2016 | John C. Goodman 


What does Hillary Clinton really believe? Does she have strong beliefs about anything? A new raft of emails from the Clinton camp give us reason to doubt.
The documents show the Clinton advisors carefully and meticulously messaging the Clinton position on a wide range of issues -- on everything from the Keystone pipeline to the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA). As they emailed back and forth, the advisors carefully weighed the costs and benefits (in terms of votes, campaign contributions and favorable or unfavorable publicity) of nuanced positions.
On a great many issues, Clinton has changed her positon – including gay marriage, the TPPA and the pipeline – over the nine-year period covered by the emails. The Clinton advisors anguish over how to position theses changes without appearing to be “cynically” chasing votes or giving the appearance of “putting a finger to the wind.”
But there appears to be no email exchange where anyone discusses what Clinton actually believes about any issue at all. As the New York Times reported:
The private discussions among her advisers about policy — on trade, on the Black Lives Matter movement, on Wall Street regulation — often revolved around the political advantages and pitfalls of different positions, while there was little or no discussion about what Mrs. Clinton actually believed. Mrs. Clinton’s team at times seemed consumed with positioning and optics.
Here is something readers need to know about voting. If you want to maximize your vote total, a poor way of doing it is to choose the position that most voters favor on every issue. It really doesn’t matter very much what a particular voter thinks about a wide range of issues. What matters is what he thinks about the one or two issues that determine how he votes. These are called “vote-determining” issues.
Take partial birth abortion or (what is similar) the practice of killing a fetus just moments before it is to be delivered as a health living baby. Most voters are against these practices, but for most this is not a vote determining issue. It is vote determining for some people, however. Given an opponent who opposes almost all abortion, you might think that Clinton’s best strategy is to move to the moderate, middle ground. But if she did that she would lose support from women who want no restrictions whatsoever. So, no matter what her opponent’s position, Hillary is forced to take an extreme position – one that almost no one agrees with other than radical feminists.
A similar result holds for many other issues. A nuanced, middle of the road approach to Black Lives Matter probably wouldn’t move a single vote. Among the people for whom this is a vote-determining issue, you either back the Blue (as Donald Trump does) or you sympathize with the victims (as Hillary does) or you get no additional votes at all. Ditto for the Pacific trade agreement. Hillary would actually lose votes if she called for a “better agreement.” To check mate Trump, she has to oppose what she once called the “gold standard of trade agreements” in its entirety.
Kimberley Strassel sums up the bottom line of all this in the Wall Street Journal:
Mrs. Clinton has been exposed to have no core, to be someone who constantly changes her position to maximize political gain. Leaked speeches prove that she has two positions (public and private) on banks; two positions on the wealthy; two positions on borders; two positions on energy. Her team had endless discussions about what positions she should adopt to appease “the Red Army”—i.e. “the base of the Democratic Party.”
Most disappoint of all is Clinton’s approach to education, another area where her position has been shifting through time. Once a supporter of charter schools, her stance has been inching ever closer to the teacher union view of the world, as the campaign season has progressed.
Stanford University study found that charter schools significantly improve the performance of children in urban areas and this is especially true for black, Hispanic, low-income and special needs students in math and in reading. Even the very liberal New York Times editorial pageendorses charter schools. Yet I have seen no mention of how charter schools benefit students in Clinton emails so far.
Oh, but of course. The kids don’t get to vote.

The Meaning of the American Presidency: An Elephant to the Rescue

Townhall.com ^ | October 15, 2016 | Callista Gingrich 


This extraordinary presidential campaign has generated so much news and attention that even children are wondering what is happening.
Trying to explain to young people the importance of the presidency and its vital role in our lives can be challenging.
That is one reason why Ellis the Elephant, our favorite history-loving pachyderm, has discovered America’s greatest presidents in his newest adventure, Hail to the Chief.
Presidential campaigns are a great time to introduce young Americans to a more patriotic understanding of America and its great tradition of freedom, self-government, and the rule of law.
Our presidential history reminds us that there’s no single resume or personality that qualifies someone to be commander-in-chief. Instead, our best leaders have fit the roles Americans believed they needed their president to play at the time.
In Hail to the Chief, Ellis begins with our very first president. George Washington was a giant in American life--the commanding general of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, a man of integrity and virtue, and one of the wealthiest men in the nation.
Abraham Lincoln, in contrast, was born in a log cabin, and prior to becoming president, was a self-taught prairie lawyer and a single-term Congressman.
Ronald Reagan was a radio sportscaster and an actor in TV movies before he became governor of California and then one of our country’s most successful presidents.
So for voters struggling to picture an outsider in the White House, or parents trying to explain this extraordinary election to their children, Ellis offers a useful lesson. Throughout our history, Americans have chosen some exceptional leaders--tough and energetic figures who have inspired the nation. We have also selected some unlikely presidents, who offered the country unique leadership when it was urgently needed.
In Hail to the Chief, Ellis discovers one such example in Andrew Jackson, who rose from humble beginnings to rock the political establishment in Washington, D.C. with his populist campaign for president. Jackson was a tough, blunt, and strong-willed leader with no political background who came to office promising to shake things up. Indeed, some adults might find themselves drawing comparisons to Donald Trump’s campaign today.
As our country prepares to choose it’s 45th president, history, like the tale of Jackson’s raucous inaugural party, is a good way to help young and old alike understand that we have chosen many different kinds of leaders for the job, each with unique strengths and weaknesses. But each has made important contributions to our nation.
Unfortunately, we have some real work to do when it comes to passing this history on to the next generation of Americans.
The results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress show that students score worse in American history than in any other subject--at every grade level and often overwhelmingly so. Just 20 percent of fourth-graders, 18 percent of eighth-graders and 12 percent of twelfth-graders are at grade-level proficiency in American history.
This election is a perfect occasion for each of us to begin repairing this lack of knowledge about our presidential past with the young people in our own lives. Hail to the Chief is an excellent starting place, since it highlights the stories of some of our greatest presidents. But adults looking to inspire an interest in presidential history also have a wealth of opportunities in our presidential homes and museums, from the extraordinary Mount Vernon in Virginia to the wonderful Reagan Library in California.
By helping to share the stories of America’s presidents with the young people in your life, you might spark some interesting conversations about the present, as well as a passion for learning about our past.

Is Donald Trump bouncing back in the polls? Second survey shows GOP nominee leading Clinton

The International Business Times ^ | October 14, 2016 | Harriet Sinclair 

Could the Republican be recovering from the scandals that have knocked his numbers?

Donald Trump appears to have bounced back from trailing numbers in the polls, with his first lead in a national poll following the various scandals that have dogged him over the past two weeks.
In the latest national four-way poll by Rasmussen Reports, Trump is now leading Hillary Clinton by two points, with a total of 43 to her 41, while Gary Johnson is on six points and Jill Stein is on two.
A national two-way poll by LA Times/USC tracking has Clinton and Trump on equal footing, which shows a marked difference from polls released at the beginning of the week, in which Clinton was leading Trump by as much as 14 points.
Trump had suffered several setbacks on the campaign trail that were reflected in the polls, including accusations he had not paid certain taxes for 18 years, leaked footage from 2005 that showed him making lewd comments about groping women, and allegations published by The New York Times by women who accused the GOP nominee of assault.
Trump, who has dismissed the allegations as "ludicrous", has since seen election rhetoric revolve around the women's allegations, also addressing them during the second presidential debate and suggesting the topic was distraction from the real issues of the day.
However, national averages still have Clinton in the lead, while the LA Times poll has been questioned, as it often shows Trump leading where others have shown the opposite - due to the different methods it uses to take polling data.
"A lot of readers have noticed that our USC/Los Angeles Times Daybreak tracking poll is different from other polls," explained David Lauter, LA Times/Chicago Tribune Washington Bureau chief last weekend, as he answered questions in a story about why their poll is an outlier.
The poll tracks 3,000 voters each day until election day. The other difference is in the questions it asks.
"The Daybreak poll asks people to estimate, on a scale of 0 to 100, how likely they are to vote for each of the two major candidates," wrote Lauter. The estimates are then combined to make the daily forecast.
However, this poll had the most accurate margin in predicting the Obama win in 2012, so it is not wise to dismiss anything as impossible in the run-up to November.

Clinton’s Felonious E-Mails

Canada Free Press ^ | 10/1/5/16 | Mike Ford 

Conversation about this being a mistake, accident, or minor error in judgment, is a flat out lie. This lie should be rolled into an obstruction of justice charge -- yet another felony
The constant “drip, drip drip,” regarding former Secretary of State Clinton’s e-mail is starting to sound like so much inside baseball. Secretary Clinton continues to stand on her statement that none of the e-mail she sent or received had classified markings. Other folks in the conversation comment that many of the e-mails Secretary Clinton wrote and received were “born classified,” at the time she wrote or received them. Director Comey’s assertion that he could not prove “intent” and therefore couldn’t charge Mrs Clinton, is garbage, pure and simple. First of all, for that particular violation, “intent” is not required. Secondly, the very existence of certain information on Mrs Clinton’s unauthorized, private server, is in and of itself, proof of intent.


Clinton Foundation Internal Audit: "We May Have Misled the IRS!"

Breitbart ^ | 14 Oct 2016 | Joel B. Pollak 

An internal audit commissioned by the Clinton Foundation in 2011 revealed that the Clinton’s family charity may have misled the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) when it claimed, under penalty of perjury, that it was enforcing a policy against conflicts of interest.

The audit — apparently requested by Chelsea Clinton, revealed by Wikileaks, and posted by the Daily Caller — was conducted by the law firm Simpson Thatcher & Bartlett. It addressed deficiencies in the Clinton Foundation’s structure and oversight, including the potential for conflicts of interest due to the Hillary Clinton’s role as Secretary of State.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

What we've learned from WikiLeaks: Team Clinton treats reporters like butlers and maids!

FoxNews.com ^ | October 14, 2016 | L. Brent Bozell III, Tim Graham 

After binging for hundreds of minutes on the Donald Trump sex-talk tape, the liberal networks are now tiptoeing around the Wikileaks revelations, but spinning it as some kind of Russian conspiracy. ..
Maggie Haberman of the New York Times was singled out as a pliant recycler of their narratives: “We have has [sic] a very good relationship with Maggie Haberman of Politico over the last year. We have had her tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed...
CNBC’s Becky Quick – who also moderated the CNBC GOP debate – promised John Podesta after Sylvia Mathews Burwell as nominated as HHS secretary: “I will make sure to defend her when things get further along in the nomination process.”
Ken Vogel at Politico sent a story on Clinton fundraising to DNC national press secretary Mark Paustenbach for a pre-publication review. Now, checking for confirmation of some numbers or confirming a quote — that's OK. But the entire story? That is journalistic malpractice. The Democrats have Politico on a leash...
Mark Ambinder at The Atlantic, a former political reporter/consultant for ABC and CBS, may been the most obedient to Reines. In July 2009, Hillary was delivering a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations. Ambinder wanted an advance copy of the speech. Reines insisted on conditions. "You must describe her tone as 'muscular,' and you must note that her most prominent underlings at the State Department (George Mitchell, Richard Holbrooke) would be seated in front of her to convey her command of the staff."
“Got it,” Ambinder shot back. Later that day, he published a story doing Hillary’s bidding right at the top, touting a “muscular speech” Hillary would deliver that day in front of her rival “power centers” in the State Department.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

Bill Clinton received $1 million ‘birthday present’ from ISIS funder!

American Thinker ^ | October 15, 2016 | James Lewis 

The Gulf sheikhdom Qatar is a major ISIS and world terrorism sponsor. It is a little disturbing that the Sheikhs of Qatar gave Bill Clinton a one million dollar birthday present.
The WikiLeaks document dump of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta has revealed Qatar’s previous desire to give her husband a $1 million “birthday” present.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Wikileaks Releases Another 850 Podesta Emails In Part 8 Of Data Dump; Total Is Now 11,019

Zero Hedge ^ | 10/15/2016 | Tyler Durden 

Another day, another data dump. In what has become a daily routine, one which forces the Clinton campaign to bring up ever starker (most sexual) scandals involving Trump to provide a media distraction, moments ago Wikileaks released yet another roughly 1,150 emails in Part 8 of its ongoing Podesta Email dump, which brings the total number of released emails to 10,169.

With another 39,000 or so emails left until election day, we expect the emergence of another Trump "sexual assault" accuser to emerge momentarily, just as we predicted yesterday and were proven right not once but twice. After all the public must be distracted from what truly matters.
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...

Why do women’s groups treat Bill Clinton and Donald Trump differently?

mcclatchydc.com ^ | 10/14/2016 | Anita Kumar and Lesley Clark 

Groups that advocate for women’s rights are lashing out at Donald Trump for allegations of groping women and bragging about sexual assaults.
But some of those same groups did not think former President Bill Clinton’s allegations of sexual misconduct nearly two decades ago were disqualifying in the same way.
At least three women – Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey – accused Clinton of unwanted sexual advances. Another five, including White House intern Monica Lewinsky, said they had had consensual affairs with him. Clinton was impeached on charges of lying about the Lewinsky affair before a grand jury and of obstruction of justice, but was acquitted and served his full presidential term.
Women’s groups largely stayed supportive.
“Feminists have, all along, muffled, disguised, excused and denied the worst aspects of the president’s behavior with women,” said a lengthy Vanity Fair article from 1998.
“Feminism sort of died in that period,” New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd told Yahoo recently. “Because the feminists had to come along with Bill Clinton’s retrogressive behavior with women in order to protect the progressive policies for women that Bill Clinton had as president.”
Clinton’s female supporters stood by him, especially as he denied allegations of misconduct, as has Trump. Later, after Clinton admitted to some of the allegations of consensual sex, they did criticize him but still supported him.
(Excerpt) Read more at mcclatchydc.com ...