Sunday, October 23, 2016

Defeating Hillary: The Moral Mandate

Townhall.com ^ | October 16, 2016 | Kevin McCullough 

This past week, a talk radio colleague created a stir when she asserted that those who were refusing to vote for Donald Trump on moral grounds were both misguided but also hypocritical.
She went so far as to describe those that did not choose to support the only candidate who can defeat Hillary Clinton as in essence supporting the expansion of abortion.
Laura Ingraham was correct in her assertions.
Though I do not make any assumption of intent to do so, I very much agree that those who refuse to stop Hillary, are assisting her efforts. On the campaign trail this year she has pledged to quadruple the current tax-payer funding of Planned Parenthood. We currently send more than one half billion tax dollars to the organization that kills 387,000 children per year (and increasingly in turn makes more money from the selling of their body parts.) Hillary has pledged to quadruple these efforts.
So if you’re comfortable with Hillary Clinton spending two billion of our tax dollars (money you work hard for to feed your kids with) to kill upwards of 1.2 million children, then do nothing.
But the moral mandate to oppose Clinton goes far beyond the killing of unborn children.
Her economic policies would continue the choking regulations on small businesses. Doing so means fewer jobs are created. Fewer people feeding their families. Fewer people doing good with their tithes and charitable giving. Fewer resources to ever help those who have fallen through the cracks. She has no plan to address the issues of the urban centers. She has not met and formulated action plans with community leaders in Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and DC. She has no plan to help end addiction, dependency, and entitlement drains. She is fine with allowing those who are suffering to continue to suffer, so long as they vote for her. This approach is morally wrong, not merely fiscally.
Her national security positions are impossible to trust. She openly flaunted national security concerns by installing and using a nearly completely unsecured server. Her shrug-of-the-shoulder approach to classified information being left vulnerable on her server stood in sharp contrast to nearly every military or intelligence official who has had their statuses revoked for much smaller infractions. Considering also that the FBI agents who worked the case investigating her unanimously felt she should never be given a security clearance again should be telling. Considering that the six DOJ attorneys who worked her case believed she should’ve been prosecuted should seal the deal as to whether the moral trust the nation will have to put in it’s top intelligence officer. Indifference to the law is as immoral as breaking it. Her willingness to ignore the plight of the boys in Benghazi, lie to their families faces and ask Congress “what difference it made” also speaks to her willful and immoral lack of care for those in her charge. She is morally compromised, and demonstrated it while serving in government.
Her approach to the rule of law speaks loudly to the lack of moral code she would continue to encourage at higher office. Everything from encouraging Black Lives Matter to go further in disturbing law and order in their protests, to making smarmy and arrogant jokes while wholesale denying things we later found out to be true speaks to her own willingness to skirt any law that is inconvenient for her. She is without equal in public brazenness and overly prideful in defying lawful orders, subpoenas, and court instruction. Not ironically those are usually issued because of an earlier refusal to comply with written laws.
Lastly and perhaps the most important reason that she must be opposed on moral grounds is very simple: we’re not merely electing one person to one position. The president will bring with them nearly 3000 bureaucrats. Which leads those not committed to stopping Hillary to answer some tough questions.
For instance, what's the rigorous intellectual difference between what Laura Ingraham said and what conservatives have argued about democrats who claim to be pro-life but refuse to raise a finger to stop
Every argument made to vote for Bush in 2000 once Keyes and Bauer were out of the running was "he's better than Gore... even if imperfect." Every argument made for McCain was that while he may have not been a perfect conservative we would get more from him than Obama. The same for Romney.
You fight the battle for purity in the primary, but you should fight for the survival of civilization in the general.
It's not just Trump v Clinton. It's Pence v. Kaine. It's it's Christie vs. Lynch. It's Ken Blackwell vs. Cheryl Mills. It's a cabinet of competence vs a cabinet of corruption.
To continue to pretend that "doing nothing" is in some way being pro-life at this time is rigorously intellectually, and mathematically false.
It makes me uncomfortable to have to level such confrontation in writing. I have so many cherished friends who likely disagree with me here. But what I’ve said is true.
If you are not committed to stopping Hillary—especially on moral grounds—then you are helping her win.
And if good people choose to do nothing, then evil prospers.
Sir Edmund Burke would be the first to say so.

Is Voter Fraud a Real Problem? [Florida 2012 -180,000 NON-US citizens registered]

US News ^ | June 13, 2012 | Jeffrey Phelps 

Florida Republican Gov. Rick Scott and the U.S. Justice Department are locked in a heated battle over the state's efforts to remove suspected illegal immigrants from voter rolls. The drive is aimed, the state says, at countering voter fraud.
Last month, Florida election officials announced that by cross-referencing voter rolls with driver's licenses and other materials, they believed 2,600 registered voters were in fact not U.S. citizens, and that they were looking into the records of another 180,000 registered voters.
Suspected noncitizens were then sent letters requiring them to confirm their citizenship in order to retain their voter rights. Critics of the initiative said the measure was effectively a voting purge targeting black and Hispanic communities--87 percent of the 2,600 voters are minorities--which tend to vote Democratic.
The U.S. Department of Justice said it would take legal action to stop the voter purge, arguing Florida's actions were in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the National Voter Registration Act. State officials double downed on their efforts, with Scott announcing on Fox News Tuesday that his administration would be suing the federal government over the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's refusal to share its immigration database with election officials, which, he said, would help Florida have "fair, honest elections."
Voter fraud has long been a concern of activists who argue that people can easily register under the names of deceased citizens, double register, or even vote without citizenship, thus compromising the democratic system Americans hold dear. "I have the job to do to defend the right of legitimate voters," Scott said.
Yet critics say that voter fraud is an exaggerated and even nonexistent issue, and that measures like those being taken in Florida only disenfranchise certain communities for political reasons. Is voter fraud a real problem?

Here is the Debate Club's take: see link above.

There Are No “Reasonable Restrictions” on the Second Amendment, Hillary Clinton!

Canada Free Press ^ | 10/23/16 | Greg Penglis 

I guarantee you Hillary Clinton will continue Obama's legacy!

All rights come from God. We are born with them. They are unalienable, which means no power on Earth can take them away. They stay with us for life. All rights are individual, and they are absolute within the context of the right. If rights are not absolute, then they aren’t a right at all. If one aspect of a right can be shed, then so can the whole right. If a right can be “interpreted,” then it can be interpreted out of existence. One right that is universal and a natural right is the right of self-preservation. Included in that is the right of self-defense.

Implicit in that is the right to possess the implements to defend oneself. It is because rights are absolute that the right to the implements of self defense can not be touched by government. Because if the implements (arms) could be touched (infringed), then the right wouldn’t be absolute, and therefore wouldn’t be a right at all. Which is why there is no such thing as a “reasonable restriction” on a right.

Hillary's Bright Shining Lies

American Thinker ^ | October 23, 2016 | Howard Hide 

Let us give credit where it is due: She is polished, refined, well-rehearsed, and expert at hitting all of the focus group-tested notes. Her performance in the third debate was a masterful culmination of forty years of preparation for such a time as this.
We conservatives and Alt-Right deplorables are acutely aware of the appalling corruption of the Clintons, from the pay-to-play Clinton Foundation money laundering scheme to the tens of thousands of deleted emails, and from the anti-Islam video as pretext for a riot in Benghazi, Libya to the trail of mysterious deaths of dozens of people who ran afoul of the Clintons.
But the most effective lies in Hillary's arsenal, the ones that could get her over the top and into the White House, may be the most conventional ones that are hiding in plain sight, the ones that are not criminally prosecutable; the platitudes and pejoratives that simply capitalize on the economic ignorance of the American people, thanks to fifty or more years of progressive dominance of our education system, and the transformation of our society away from business ownership and toward corporate or government employment. Put another way: What she just said may not technically be a "lie," but seriously, do people really/still believe that?
Following are a few of the worst offenders during the Las Vegas debate:

"[W]e need a Supreme Court that will … stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system."


(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

I Don’t Recall, I Am Not Responsible, But Vote for Me for President!

Townhall.com ^ | October 23, 2016 | Bruce Bialosky 

In an election that seems to not want to focus on the issues of the campaign, let us at least focus on important matters regarding this election. Ms. Clinton, who has disappeared from the Mainstream Media, has asked Americans to support her while she has consistently displayed attributes no one would want in a Girl Scout leader -- let alone a president.
Leadership means something. We all know that there are times when our leaders have fall guys; i.e., people who fall on their swords to protect the top leader or, in this case, our president. Going into a voting booth, you want to have an idea that the person in charge will not cower in the face of responsibility. Leadership means taking responsibility.
There are three incidents of major proportion that show Hillary Clinton shirks responsibility or states she flat out does not remember anything about the actions of her underlings.
First, Ms. Clinton told the FBI 40 times that should could not recall the matters about which she was asked. This would not be a big deal if the questions were about yoga or her daughter’s wedding, but they were about significant questions regarding her decision making and duties as Secretary of State.
I reviewed the 40 items she could not recall and, to be fair to Ms. Clinton, a few of the items were procedural that you or I would have forgotten. But others were not. She tells us that cybersecurity is of upmost importance to her, but cannot remember any briefings or training regarding record retention or handling of classified information. There was a series of questions the FBI asked about specific emails that were redacted to us. It would seem these were chosen because of their significance and being of a highly-classified nature. Yet Ms. Clinton cannot remember any of them. She also seems to have forgotten who Sidney Blumenthal was and her communications with him.
It appears that there are a large number of these items that Ms. Clinton cannot seem to remember that would give voters pause as to whether she told the truth to the FBI or whether she has early-onset dementia.
Second, there are the responses to the questions from Judicial Watch which were under oath and were ordered by a federal judge. If you take the time to read them (please don’t; I will save you the pain) you learn something that is really clear: if Hillary Clinton is elected president of the United States, we will be marred in a malaise of legalese. Surely her responses should be reviewed by her lawyers, but the question is whether she even read the responses before they were submitted. This is a continuation of the legal tactic -- “baffle them with horse manure” --that her husband perfected while in office and Obama has perpetuated. The average citizen soon will have to have an attorney just to deal with any matters with its government.
But again the most common statement in her answers was “Secretary Clinton does not recall.” If it were not such a serious matter you would think this lady was either highly medicated or a stoner. Her memory of the official matters she dealt with is dismal. But somehow she remembers Colin Powell telling her to use a private email account at a cocktail party.
It would seem at this point the easier question to ask the former secretary of state is what she remembers at all from her term as secretary of state.
The one aspect of being a leader that is most important is knowing when to delegate and knowing how to put limits on that delegating. President Carter was famous for supposedly controlling who played on the White House tennis court. Then there are extremes the other way.
Ms. Clinton famously was unaware of the security requests from her people in Libya (oh, that old canard). There were 600 requests or expressions of concern for improving the security there that Secretary Clinton said never reached her desk.
There are two distinct problems here. Ms. Clinton spoke of her close relationship with Ambassador Chris Stevens. It is hard to believe that with all those levels of concern coming from Libya that Stevens never brought them directly to the attention of Ms. Clinton.
The second is the level of mismanagement. There is delegation and then there is irresponsibly being out of touch with your underlings. There is setting proper parameters for when things should hit your desk. There is woeful ignorance. This was Libya, after all; not the Bahamas.
We still do not know what orders were given out to embassies in the Middle East and Northern Africa after the riots in Cairo prior to Benghazi. Why was the ambassador not moved to safer accommodations? What other procedures were put in place after Benghazi for other embassies? These answers would give us a level of confidence in Clinton’s decision making ability. We are left with none.
Secretary Clinton took responsibility for Benghazi, but then she disavowed any knowledge of any decisions that led up to the disaster and stated they were made below her pay grade.
Ms. Clinton wants us to hire her to run possibly the largest organization in the world. In the most significant situations of leadership with which she has been challenged, she has either failed in regard to proper management of her personnel or completely has no memory of her decisions. She sounds very much like John Stumpf, the now-retired CEO of Wells Fargo.
Not the attributes you want in the president of the United States.

Without Trump We Are Done

Townhall.com ^ | October 23, 2016 | Bryan Crabtree 


We live in a country rapidly losing its sovereignty and its soul. Porous borders, freedom-killing regulations and more fierce foreign competition threaten our prosperity, security and culture.
Trump is not the savior. He may not be the solution. But, his election, or lack thereof, will represent the core of our soul and values.
Trump represents the opposite of current trend of failure. He’s a successful businessman who doesn’t believe in political correctness. His message is clear: ‘our government is corrupt, operated by incompetent people and our media is even worse.’
I agree with him. In the past three to five years, my health care quality has declined, costs have skyrocketed and, in my work/personal life, I've spent most of my time filling out paperwork instead of innovating and creating. As with many Americans, I end each day feeling overwhelmed and underperforming. This choking and meaningless busy work and declining quality of care is the direct result of liberal policies such as ‘Dodd-Frank’ and ‘Obamacare.’
I am not saying Trump will solve these problems. My point is that this is a ‘choice election.’ He represents the future of this country. If he’s elected, the people will have effectively taken our country back from career politicians, corrupt bureaucrats and ‘big-money’ special interests. If he loses, then we have little hope of changing our trajectory of decline, because the people have lost the resolve and the cognition to recognize the challenges that we face.
The only people who win with burdensome regulations and liberal social policy are big corporations and the establishment politicians. They have the legal resources to cheat the system they created at the expense of middle-class Americans and small businesses.
If Clinton wins, there is little chance we’ll ever see an outside, ‘game-changing’ candidate again in our lifetime. This means our corrupt media wins and establishment politics are deeply rooted in our way of life. Cheaters and liars prevail over truth-tellers. This alone is a ‘canary in the coal mine.’
As a result, we will continue to see more burdensome regulations that empower countries like Mexico, China and India to take our jobs. As these nations become more wealthy, they will replace us as innovators and leaders in the World.
With our porous borders, our biggest import will be poverty. Our country will be unassimilated, more crime-ridden and there will be an increasing degree of civil unrest. Productive talent and minds will become expatriates or will join the corruption in order to afford living the so-called ‘American dream.’
Recently, my doctor told me that “I am no longer your doctor, Bryan.” This is because of Obamacare. In order to meet the regulations of Obamacare, insurers must provide less expensive drugs and fewer care options in order to subsidize those who have free health care.
In a recent experience at the emergency room, I was stunned at how people who were capable of laughing and talking were waiting to see a doctor at 3 a.m/ in the morning. I was there because of excruciating pain. With no restrictions on abuse, there is no way to contain costs. Americans are collectively losing personal responsibility. ‘If I don’t have to pay for it, I’ll take all I can get.’ This mentality results in politicians bribing voters for votes in exchange for ‘handouts.’
In financial transactions, there is so much fraud and abuse, small business owners spend enormous amounts of time and money completing forms, waiting on security codes, updating passwords and arguing with ‘out of country’ call centers trying to solve basic problems. Over-broad financial and employment regulations by the federal government have created a system of ‘compliance-mentality’ where seemingly no one helps anyone solve problems. We are losing our ability to think and be creative in favor of being compliant to useless regulations.
With open borders, we have imported the struggles of many third-world nations bringing a higher degree of crime and civil unrest. Over 60 million residents of our country struggle with or don’t speak English. This means we are losing our ability to affectively assimilate and communicate with almost one-fifth of our country. As a result, the American dream is being lost because it cannot be understood and valued as it once was.
Many Americans are becoming lazy. In losing our resolve (collectively) we are ceding control of our future to the world and weakening our position of leadership. Our global leadership has resulted in an era of the most peace the World has ever known. If we continue to put the global economic interests of our allies ahead of our own, we will cease to have the resources to help anyone.
If voters chose Trump over Clinton, it may not change our path; but there is hope. If voters chose Clinton over Trump, then America as we know it is ‘done.’ The choice of Clinton will mean that the we no longer value our constitutional rights or freedoms, we accept corruption in our government and third-world values have penetrated the core of our soul as a nation.

Professor with Remarkable Track Record Predicts a Trump Election Win!

Fox News Insider ^ | 10/22/2016 | unknown 

Saturday on Fox & Friends, Tucker Carlson sat down with a college professor with a remarkable record of predicting election outcomes.
Professor Helmut Norpoth, from Stony Brook University in New York State, has correctly predicted the outcomes of the last five presidential elections.

This year, he steadfastly believes Donald Trump will win the election.
Norpoth said he uses two "models" to make his prediction:
One is the "primary" model, where he compares a candidate's strength in their respective primaries.

"The candidate who does better in his party's primary beats the other guy who does less well," Norpoth said.

Looking at New Hampshire and South Carolina's primaries, Norpoth projected that Trump would be the general election favorite because of the strength of his showing, versus Hillary Clinton.

The second model he created is called the "swing of the pendulum" model. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at insider.foxnews.com ...

Hillary’s New Constitution Clinton explains how she’ll gut the First and Second Amendments!

Wall Street Journal ^ | Oct. 22, 2016 | WSJ editorial 

Donald Trump is no legal scholar, but at Wednesday’s presidential debate he showed a superior grasp of the U.S. Constitution than did Hillary Clinton. Amid the overwrought liberal fainting about Mr. Trump’s bluster over accepting the election result (see below), Mrs. Clinton revealed a view of the Supreme Court that is far more threatening to American liberty.

Start with her answer to moderator Chris Wallace’s question about the role of the courts. “The Supreme Court should represent all of us. That’s how I see the Court,” she said. “And the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on our behalf of our rights as Americans.”
Where to begin with that one? The Supreme Court doesn’t—or shouldn’t—“represent” anyone. In the U.S. system that’s the job of the elected branches. The courts are appointed, not elected, so they can be nonpartisan adjudicators of competing legal claims.
Mrs. Clinton is suggesting that the Court should be a super-legislature that vindicates the will of what she calls “the American people,” which apparently excludes “the powerful.” But last we checked, the Constitution protects everyone, even the powerful. The law is supposed to protect individual rights, not an abstraction called “the people.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...

Gregg Jarrett: Why is the legal standard for Hillary different than the one for you and me?

Fox News ^ | 10/22/2016 | Gregg Jarrett 

Hillary Clinton will never “face the dock,” as lawyers are prone to say. But Harold T. Martin III will.

On Thursday, when federal prosecutors announced charges against Martin under the Espionage Act for mishandling classified documents, people wondered, “but what about Hillary Clinton?”

Fair question.
In principle, both did the same thing. Martin, as a National Security Agency contractor, stored classified documents in his home, which was unauthorized. Clinton, as Secretary of State, stored classified documents on her personal server in her home. Again, unauthorized. On its face, it seems pretty much the same.

Legally, the big difference is this: Martin admitted he knew the documents were classified and admitted that what he did was wrong and illegal. Game over.

He should have “lawyered up” before opening his mouth. Or consulted Clinton . . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...