Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

If voter fraud isn’t real, please explain this

original article: Voter Fraud Is Real. Here’s The Proof
October 13, 2016 by John Gibbs

Data suggests millions of voter registrations are fraudulent or invalid. That’s enough to tip an election, easily.

This week, liberals have been repeating their frequent claim that voter fraud doesn’t exist. A recent Salon article argues that “voter fraud just isn’t a problem in Pennsylvania,” despite evidence to the contrary. Another article argues that voter fraud is entirely in the imagination of those who use voter ID laws to deny minorities the right to vote.

Yet as the election approaches, more and more cases of voter fraud are beginning to surface. In Colorado, multiple instances were found of dead people attempting to vote. Stunningly, “a woman named Sara Sosa who died in 2009 cast ballots in 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013.” In Virginia, it was found that nearly 20 voter applications were turned in under the names of dead people.

In Texas, authorities are investigating criminals who are using the technique of “vote harvesting” to illegally procure votes for their candidates. “Harvesting” is the practice of illegally obtaining the signatures of valid voters in order to vote in their name without their consent for the candidate(s) the criminal supports.

These are just some instances of voter fraud we know about. It would be silly to assume cases that have been discovered are the only cases of fraud. Indeed according to a Pew Charitable Trust report from February 2012, one in eight voter registrations are “significantly inaccurate or no longer valid.” Since there are 146 million Americans registered to vote, this translates to a stunning 18 million invalid voter registrations on the books. Further, “More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters, and approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.” Numbers of this scale obviously provide ripe opportunity for fraud.

Don’t Let Data Contradict My Narrative

Yet in spite of all this, a report by the Brennan Center at New York University claims voter fraud is a myth. It argues that North Carolina, which passed comprehensive measures to prevent voter fraud, “failed to identify even a single individual who has ever been charged with committing in-person voter fraud in North Carolina.” However, this faulty reasoning does not point to the lack of in-person voter fraud, but rather to lack of enforcement mechanisms to identify and prosecute in-person voter fraud.

The science of criminal justice tells us that many crimes go unreported, and the more “victimless” the crime, the more this happens. The fact is, a person attempting to commit voter fraud is very unlikely to be caught, which increases the incentive to commit the crime.

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is a sophisticated, comprehensive effort to catalog “the number and types of crimes not reported to law enforcement authorities.” However, it tends to deal mostly in violent crimes. As complex as the NCVS is, gathering accurate data for unreported victimless crimes such as voter fraud is even harder, since 1) outside of the criminal, no one may know a crime has taken place, and 2) there is no direct victim to report the crime in the first place. Yet we are expected to believe that, unlike violent crime, voter fraud is limited only to the cases that are actually reported and prosecuted? This is a senseless position.

Further, the Brennan Center report argues that because prosecutor Kris Kobach’s review of 84 million votes cast in 22 states found only 14 instances of fraud referred for prosecution (which amounts to a 0.00000017 percent fraud rate), voter fraud is so statistically small that it’s a non-issue. Let’s follow this logic. Does the fact that 109 people were cited for jaywalking in Seattle in 2009 mean that only 109 people jaywalked in Seattle that year? Does the fact that 103,733 people were cited for driving without a seatbelt in Tennessee in 2015 mean that only that many people were driving without seatbelt in Tennessee in 2015?

Absolutely not. This can be proven easily because in 2014, the previous year, only 29,470 people were cited. The disparity is largely due to increased enforcement efforts in 2015. In other words, increasing enforcement of the crime revealed a much larger number of people committing the crime.

The exact same is true for voter fraud. We have no reason to believe that the low number of prosecutions means only that exact amount of voter fraud is happening. Rather, it could mean a lack of enforcement is failing to reveal the bulk of the violations that are occurring. Thus, as with many types of crimes, especially victimless crimes, the real number of cases is likely significantly higher than the number reported.

How to Effectively Target Voter Fraud

So now that we know voter fraud is a serious issue, what are some solutions to this problem? States like Michigan have Poll Challenger programs, where observers from both parties may be present at voter check-in tables at precincts. They check each voter’s ID against a database of registered voters for that precinct to ensure the person attempting to vote is actually legally qualified to vote in that precinct. If there’s a discrepancy, the poll challenger may officially challenge the ballot. Other states should implement similar programs.

States should sponsor initiatives to remove dead voters and correct the registrations of people registered in multiple states (make them choose just one state). Since many local jurisdictions are reluctant to clean their voter rolls, federal or state oversight with teeth may be necessary.

Further, voter ID laws, such as the one implemented by North Carolina, but (wrongly) struck down by three liberal judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit— one appointed by Bill Clinton and the other two appointed by President Obama—are needed to ensure there’s no cheating with votes. States should continue to press the issue regardless of recent setbacks by liberal activist judges.

Finally, some have claimed that strong voter ID laws are racist, because they disproportionately impact minorities and would prevent minorities from voting. As a black person, I’m naturally interested in this claim. Thankfully, it turns out to be false. The Heritage Foundation has shown that black voter turnout actually increased after North Carolina passed its voter ID law.

Not only was the claimed negative outcome false, but the reasoning was faulty as well. The fact that the law disproportionately impacts minorities does not mean that it is discriminatory. It means, unfortunately, that fewer minorities are in compliance with common-sense safeguards to protect the integrity of our elections (i.e., having a driver’s license or photo ID).

To mitigate this concern, states can offer a service that will take people without valid ID to their local government office to apply for proper ID, free of charge. Users could schedule the pickup with their smartphone or a phone call. That way there will be as few barriers as possible to those who want to vote and are capable of obtaining a valid ID, but cannot due to transportation concerns (a reason often given by those who claim voter ID laws hurt minorities).

So let us not believe false claims that voter fraud doesn’t exist. It’s real, and we must work to stop it, while making sure those who are eligible to vote but without proper ID are accommodated fairly.


When voter fraud doesn’t count as fraud (because the perpetrators say so)

corruption, cover up, criminal, elections, ethics, fraud, ideology, pandering, political correctness, politics, scandal, voter fraud

Advertisements

Filed under: corruption, cover up, criminal, elections, ethics, fraud, ideology, pandering, political correctness, politics, scandal, voter fraud

Who gets absolute moral authority?

original article: Malkin: Who gets absolute moral authority?
July 20, 2016 by Michelle Malkin

My 12-year-old son couldn’t remember the phrase “take a walk down memory lane” last week, instead describing a stroll through “nostalgia road.” I knew it would come in handy.

Put on your hiking boots and join me for an educational trip down good ol’ nostalgia road.

It seems like yesterday when Champion of Wimmin Maureen Dowd, bemoaning the lack of sympathy for anti-war mom Cindy Sheehan, declared in The New York Times that “the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.”

No ifs, ands or other hedging qualifiers. Absolutely absolute.

And it was just a blink of an eye ago that the same New York Times spilled barrels of adulatory ink on the 9/11 widows known as the Jersey Girls. Remember them? The quartet of Democratic women parlayed their post-terror attack plight into powerful roles as Bush-bashing citizen lobbyists.

Their story, the lib narrative-shaping paper of record reported, was a “tale of a political education, and a sisterhood born of grief.”

Moms and widows deserved special consideration in the public square, the argument went a decade ago. Their experience and their testimony warranted respect, deference and the national spotlight.

But then, as now, only a special class of victims is entitled to cash in the Absolute Moral Authority card. Not all parents and spouses who have lost loved ones can join the Club of the Unquestioned and Unassailable.

On Monday night at the Republican National Convention, Pat Smith shared her own tale of a political education born of grief after her diplomat son, Sean Smith, died in the Benghazi terrorist attack. Hillary Clinton, she passionately insisted, “deserves to be in stripes!”

GQ sports writer Nathaniel Friedman showed his compassion for Smith’s loss and pain by tweeting, “I don’t care how many children Pat Smith lost I would like to beat her to death.”

MSNBC host Chris Matthews, who had helped make Cindy Sheehan a media star and urged her to run for Congress based on her status as a grieving war mom, fumed that Pat Smith had “ruined” the entire convention with her heartfelt testimony. The smug Democratic political operative turned TV bloviator, who had also elevated the Jersey Girls’ celebrity status with multiple bookings on his show, couldn’t bear to speak Smith’s name:

“I don’t care what that woman up there, the mother, has felt. Her emotions are her own, but for the country in choosing a leader, it’s wrong to have someone get up there and tell a lie about Hillary Clinton.”

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., chimed in on the same network that he was disgusted with how the GOP convention was using Smith to “exploit a tragedy.”

GOP-bashers heaped similar derision on father Jamiel Shaw Sr. and mothers Sabine Durden and Mary Ann Mendoza, who all spoke at the convention about losing children to criminals who had slipped illegally through open borders and revolving deportation doors. “Progressives” sneered at Shaw as an “Uncle Tom” for pointing out that Latino gangbangers targeted his black son because of his race. The intolerant tolerance mob also accused Durden of being “fooled” and Durden and Mendoza of being “exploited for apocalyptic theater.”

Will these horrified hang-wringers be as outspokenly offended next week when the Democratic National Convention dedicates an entire evening to the so-called Mothers of the Movement?

Among the sainted moms of the Black Lives Matter movement who will speak on Hillary Clinton’s behalf are Gwen Carr, mother of Eric Garner; Sybrina Fulton, mother of Trayvon Martin; Maria Hamilton, mother of Dontre Hamilton; Lucia McBath, mother of Jordan Davis; Lesley McSpadden, mother of Michael Brown; Cleopatra Pendleton-Cowley, mother of Hadiya Pendleton; and Geneva Reed-Veal, mother of Sandra Bland.

Each of these cases lumped under supposedly unjustified gun violence and systemic racism is complicated and distinct. For starters, Bland hanged herself when her friends and family wouldn’t bail her out of jail after she had kicked a police officer. Two of the “children” involved in police shootings (Brown and Hamilton) had assaulted cops during their fatal encounters.

But drop all questions and doubts. “These mothers have worked tirelessly to raise awareness around the issues that surround their children’s deaths,” the liberal Huffington Post reports.

Because these women endorse race-baiting, gun-grabbing narratives and left-wing candidates, no one working in the mainstream media will ever challenge their parental prerogative to participate in politics on behalf of their loved ones.

Moms who have lost their children to Democratic incompetence, corruption and open-borders treachery are out of luck. The dealers of Absolute Moral Authority play with a loaded deck.

anti-war, bias, campaign, corruption, culture, Democrats, elections, elitism, fraud, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, lies, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, scandal, tragedy, troops, victimization

Filed under: anti-war, bias, campaign, corruption, culture, Democrats, elections, elitism, fraud, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, lies, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, scandal, tragedy, troops, victimization

Are main stream pundits out of touch?

original article: Glenn Reynolds: How David Brooks created Donald Trump
March 21, 2016 by Glenn Reynolds

Political establishment denounced bourgeois Tea Party. Now, they must face raucous working-class Trumpsters.

Last week, in assessing the rise of Donald Trump, New York Times columnist David Brooks engaged in an uncharacteristic bit of self-reflection:

“Trump voters,” he wrote, “are a coalition of the dispossessed. They have suffered lost jobs, lost wages, lost dreams. The American system is not working for them, so naturally they are looking for something else. Moreover, many in the media, especially me, did not understand how they would express their alienation.We expected Trump to fizzle because we were not socially intermingled with his supporters and did not listen carefully enough. For me, it’s a lesson that I have to change the way I do my job if I’m going to report accurately on this country.” (Emphasis added.)

Well, it’s a lesson for a lot of people in the punditocracy, of whom Brooks — who famously endorsed Barack Obama after viewing his sharply creased pants — is just one. And if Brooks et al. had paid attention, the roots of the Trump phenomenon wouldn’t have been so difficult to fathom.

Brooks is, of course, horrified at Trump and his supporters, whom he finds childish, thuggish and contemptuous of the things that David Brooks likes about today’s America. It’s clear that he’d like a social/political revolution that was more refined, better-mannered, more focused on the Constitution and, well, more bourgeois as opposed to in-your-face and working class.

The thing is, we had that movement. It was the Tea Party movement. Unlike Brooks, I actually ventured out to “intermingle” with Tea Partiers at various events that I covered for PJTV.com, contributing commentary to the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Examiner. As I reported from one event in Nashville, “Pundits claim the tea partiers are angry — and they are — but the most striking thing about the atmosphere in Nashville was how cheerful everyone seemed to be. I spoke with dozens of people, and the responses were surprisingly similar. Hardly any had ever been involved in politics before. Having gotten started, they were finding it to be not just worthwhile, but actually fun. Laughter rang out frequently, and when new-media mogul Andrew Breitbart held forth on a TV interview, a crowd gathered and broke into spontaneous applause. A year ago (2009), many told me, they were depressed about the future of America. Watching television pundits talk about President Obama’s transformative plans for big government, they felt alone, isolated and helpless. That changed when protests, organized by bloggers, met Mr. Obama a year ago in Denver, Colo., Mesa, Ariz., and Seattle, Wash. Then came CNBC talker Rick Santelli’s famous on-air rant on Feb. 19, 2009, which gave the tea-party movement its name. Tea partiers are still angry at federal deficits, at Washington’s habit of rewarding failure with handouts and punishing success with taxes and regulation, and the general incompetence that has marked the first year of the Obama presidency. But they’re no longer depressed.”

One of the most famous things about the Tea Partiers was that — as befits a relentlessly bourgeois protest movement — they left things cleaner than they found them. Rich Lowry reported from Washington, DC: “Just as stunning as the tableaux of the massive throngs lining the reflecting pool were the images of the spotless grounds afterward. If someone had told attendees they were expected to mow the grass before they left, surely some of them would have hitched flatbed trailers to their vehicles for the trip to Washington and gladly brought mowers along with them. This was the revolt of the bourgeois, of the responsible, of the orderly, of people profoundly at peace with the traditional mores of American society. The spark that lit the tea-party movement was the rant by CNBC commentator Rick Santelli, who inveighed in early 2009 against an Obama-administration program to subsidize ‘the losers’ mortgages.’ He was speaking for people who hadn’t borrowed beyond their means or tried to get rich quick by flipping houses, for the people who, in their thrift and enterprise, ‘carry the water instead of drink the water.’ The tea party’s detractors want to paint it as radical, when at bottom it represents the self-reliant, industrious heart of American life.”

In San Francisco, too, tea party protesters met pro-Obama activists and picked up their trash. “John,” author of The City Square blog wrote: “As Obama supporters moved along in the line to get into the fundraiser, they left behind an impressive amount of trash … Tea Partiers shouted ‘pick up your garbage’ and ‘this is San Francisco, what about recycling?’ There was no response. They chanted ‘Obama leaves a mess.’ Still no response. Eventually, a tea partier (wearing the black cowboy hat) crosses over and starts to pick up the trash on his own. Other tea partiers join him. Another manages to find a trash bag. Soon the trash is being collected.”

Yet the tea party movement was smeared as racistdenounced as fascist, harassed with impunity by the IRS and generally treated with contempt by the political establishment — and by pundits like Brooks, who declared “I’m not a fan of this movement.” After handing the GOP big legislative victories in 2010 and 2014, it was largely betrayed by the Republicans in Congress, who broke their promises to shrink government and block Obama’s initiatives.

So now we have Trump instead, who tells people to punch counterprotesters instead of picking up their trash.

When politeness and orderliness are met with contempt and betrayal, do not be surprised if the response is something less polite, and less orderly. Brooks closes his Trump column with Psalm 73, but a more appropriate verse is Hosea 8:7 “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind.” Trump’s ascendance is a symptom of a colossal failure among America’s political leaders, of which Brooks’ mean-spirited insularity is only a tiny part. God help us all.

bias, elections, elitism, news media, politics, relativism, unintended consequences

Filed under: bias, elections, elitism, news media, politics, relativism, unintended consequences

For Trump detractors and supporters

Bill Whittle has some great points to make about Trump. Whatever your opinion of him we should at least recognize Trump is a wild card. And that should invite a closer look into this candidate.

campaign, elections, elitism, ideology, philosophy, politics, Republicans, video

Filed under: campaign, elections, elitism, ideology, philosophy, politics, Republicans, video

The Clintons are a war on women

Possibly the most famous sexual predator not in prison is named Bill. No, not Cosby, his name is Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is a war on women. Any widely accepted definition of abuse of women should include the former philandering president. So how do we square Hillary’s recent comments on hearing, believing, and supporting abused women with Hillary’s own efforts to utterly destroy any woman who accuses her husband of sexual predation? Watch The Run Down address the particulars of the question.

buse, campaign, civil rights, corruption, cover up, criminal, culture, Democrats, elections, elitism, ethics, feminism, fraud, government, hypocrisy, ideology, pandering, politics, propaganda, relativism, scandal, sex, tragedy, victimization, video

Filed under: abuse, campaign, civil rights, corruption, cover up, criminal, culture, Democrats, elections, elitism, ethics, feminism, fraud, government, hypocrisy, ideology, pandering, politics, propaganda, relativism, scandal, sex, tragedy, victimization, video

Does Hillary Clinton know about Protestants?

Let’s see if you can follow the logic. First, Catholics are supposed to oppose abortion and birth control. Second, many Republicans oppose abortion. Therefore Republicans oppose birth control or all Republicans are Catholic.

If you see a flaw in that reasoning you may be capable of independent thought, in which case you can see through Hillary Clinton’s glib propaganda in defense of Planned Parenthood. It’s not even artful propaganda. It’s shallow, mindless drivel offered by a supposedly smart woman in an attempt to turn the tables on Republicans in light of the recent scandal Planned Parenthood found itself in. To defend Planned Parenthood and to help deflect attention away from the astonishing undercover videos, Mrs. Clinton is trying to help her liberal base make logical connections that make no sense whatsoever. If she can suggest all Republicans oppose birth control I can suggest she doesn’t know Protestants exist.

original article: Hillary Clinton Again Defends Planned Parenthood Selling Aborted Babies, Lies About Pro-Lifers
September 23, 2015 by STEVEN ERTELT

Abortion advocate Hillary Clinton is trying to turn the tables on the pro-life Republican presidential candidates who have gone after her for defending Planned Parenthood even after it was caught selling aborted babies and their body parts. Now, Clinton is trying to go on offense by making false claims that they oppose contraception.

Clinton recently had a long interview with the Des Moines Register editorial board in which she dismissed and refused to answer questions about how Planned Parenthood sells aborted baby body parts.

“I will continue to defend Planned Parenthood, because services that Planned Parenthood provides are broad, and necessary for millions of American women. Five hundred thousand breast screening exams. A lot of other screening programs that are carried out. Family planning and contraceptive testing for HIV AIDS.

“The Republican have made it clear in recent years that they are not only opposed to abortion, which they have been for quite some time. They’re increasingly opposed to family planning and contraception. This is a direct assault on a woman’s right to choose health care. Forget about abortion, which is something that a limited number of Planned Parenthood facilities perform, with not a penny of federal money.

“The money they want to cut off…is money that goes to health services. That is why it’s important that we continue to try to educate the public and draw a very clear line in defense of Planned Parenthood.”

Never mind that not only do pro-life Republicans support contraception they have pushed to support the sale of non-abortifacient birth control over the counter. Clinton’s claim that pro-life republicans oppose birth control is patently false — as polling data showsRepublicans support contraception.

Clinton ignores the 10 videos showing Planned Parenthood apparently violating multiple federal laws in order to maximize the profit it makes selling aborted babies and their body parts.

She also ignores Planned Parenthood’s own figures showing it doing more and more abortions. The abortion giant Planned Parenthood released its 2013 annual report and the new numbers indicate it did more abortions than the year before — killing 327,653 babies in abortions while taking in millions in taxpayer funds.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America  released its 2013-2014 Annual Report and Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League, broke down the numbers.The report indicates Planned Parenthood did 327,653 abortions in 2013, an increase over the 327,166 abortions it did in 2012.

While it remains America’s biggest abortion corporation, the “nonprofit” continued to make money — bringing in $305.4 million last year and $305.3 million this year. Planned Parenthood continued to receive over a half-billion dollars in taxpayer money, as it took in $540 million in 2012 and $528 million in 2013.

“Despite this lack of increase in its primary business, Planned Parenthood continued to receive over a half-billion dollars in taxpayer money,” Sedlak said. “It has such a tremendous publicity machine that it convinced corporate and private donors to increase donations by more than $75 million (from $315.4 million to $391.8 million).”

“The increased donations, plus an increase of $28 million in “other operating revenue” and the reduction in costs from closing clinics, led to a near-record $127.1 million in profits for the largest abortion chain in the nation. This was the second highest reported annual profit in Planned Parenthood’s history,” he explained to LifeNews.

Some other takeaways from Planned Parenthood’s own figures:

  • In 2013, abortions made up 94% of Planned Parenthood’s pregnancy services.
  • For every adoption referral, Planned Parenthood performed 174 abortions.
  • While abortions rose, Planned Parenthood adoption referrals dropped 14% in one year, and prenatal care services dropped 4%.
  • Planned Parenthood’s cancer prevention services are down 17% over one year, and contraceptive services dropped by 4%.
  • During fiscal year 2013-2014, Planned Parenthood received more than $528 million in taxpayer funding, or more than $1.4 million per day, in the form of government grants, contracts, and Medicaid reimbursements.
  • Taxpayer funding accounts for 41% of Planned Parenthood’s overall revenue.
  • Planned Parenthood reported more than $127 million in excess revenue, and more than $1.4 billion in net assets.

While it did more abortions, Planned Parenthood’s contraceptive business declined from 3,724.558 customers in 2012 to 3,577,348 customers in 2013.

abortion, bias, campaign, Democrats, elections, false, fraud, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, lies, pandering, politics, pro-life, progressive, prolife, propaganda, scandal

Filed under: abortion, bias, campaign, Democrats, elections, false, fraud, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, lies, pandering, politics, pro-life, progressive, prolife, propaganda, scandal

Carson knows something the media doesn’t – opinion does not make law

In light of Dr. Ben Carson’s recent comments about a Muslim being elected president of the United States three important points need to be brought to the forefront.

First, as One News Now’s Bryan Fischer thankfully pointed out the U.S. Constitution does specify that a religious test shall not be used for public office in the U.S. But there is nothing anywhere in the universe that states PEOPLE cannot use what ever test they please to determine who they will vote for, for any office. As Fisher explains the Constitution’s ban on religious tests applies to the federal government, for federal office. You and I, and Dr. Carson, can impose any religious test we may wish.

Second, Dr. Carson was stating facts about Sharia law (what it actually states about killing gays or oppressing women or suppressing speech) (facts which CAIR needs to explain) and he was stating his OPINION about the kind of person he would want as president of the United States. Somehow we are supposed to act like Carson claimed the constitution doesn’t allow for Muslims to run for office. He said nothing of the kind! It’s not surprising to see the main stream media deliberately misrepresent Dr. Carson’s comments in this way, but Carly Fiorina should know better. She may be an anti-establishment candidate, but she’s certainly comfortable using the news media to pander.

Third, Carson was not proposing a new law forbidding Muslims from running for office nor was the claiming any such law currently exists. I realize it’s common place for the political left to think in terms of law. When the people don’t voluntarily do what liberals think they should do, liberals eagerly promote and implement new laws to force the people to comply. That’s how illiberal “liberals” are today. That’s how they roll. So when Carson states his legitimate and well founded opinion about who the American people should (or in this case should not) prefer for the highest office in the land, of course a left leaning news media and Democrats think he was talking about the law. He wasn’t. Anyone actually paying attention and who doesn’t have a vested interest in purposefully misunderstanding Carson can plainly see he was not saying the law forbids Muslims from holding public office in America. He was merely stating Sharia is in direct conflict with the law of our land and that he was very uncomfortable with the prospect of anyone holding such beliefs becoming POTUS. And he has every right to that opinion. He also has the benefit of being right about it.

I expect the liberal news media to slander conservatives and all Republicans with Nazi comparisons, constant accusations of racism, sexism, and any number of phobias, then turn around and defend Muslims at any hint of unfavorable fact. The liberal press goes out of its way to correct “misunderstandings” when their beloved politician or candidate or policy is criticized, so I don’t expect them to defend Carson’s obvious meaning by these comments. But shame on you Carly Fiorina for using the MSM to trash Dr. Carson like that and perpetuate a phony scandal.

bias, campaign, diversity, elections, government, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, islam, law, left wing, liberalism, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism, scandal

Filed under: bias, campaign, diversity, elections, government, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, islam, law, left wing, liberalism, pandering, political correctness, progressive, propaganda, relativism, scandal

Radical Netroots Nation denies white lives matter. And they’re racist.

The radical left wing group Netroots Nation had Democrat presidential candidate Martin O’Malley speak at a recent event. In the 20 minute video there is plenty of protesting for unknown reasons – it’s not like there were any Republicans on stage. But near the end of this recording O’Malley tries to appeal to the most basic tenets of common sense and common decency: all lives matter. He begins with the obligatory “black lives matter” and proceeds with “white lives matter” on his way to “all lives matter”. But when he mentions white lives matter, you might be surprised to find out the people of Netroots Nation don’t actually agree with that.

At the 20 minute mark O’Malley begins the lives matter routine but the audience can clearly be heard shouting “NO” when he says white lives matter.

Now, before anyone tries to say Netroots Nation didn’t actually deny white lives matter, please offer me a scenario in which white Southerners could EVER say “NO” to “black lives matter” and not have such a comment deemed racist. If anything should be met with universal agreement it would be that “all lives matter”. But Netroots doesn’t believe this.

Some argue that saying “all lives matter” diminishes the importance of the issue of blacks being killed by police. Never mind the fact police kill more whites than blacks. We’re talking about people who make a living fomenting racial strife, we can’t have inconvenient truths mentioned here.

The fact is “black lives matter” is an exclusive thing. Its supporters often object to the fact any other lives matter too. If you object to someone saying all lives matter you are elevating the value of the lives one group over another. You can claim you’re merely trying to promote awareness about injustice (and if that injustice is that cops kill blacks because of racism, you got some ‘splainin to do, and some contradicting evidence) but you need to justify why the implication that other lives DON’T matter isn’t really part of the package.

Let me ask a question raising a related point. Some claim the Confederate flag is about heritage, not racism. Most other people say that flag is about racism, pure and simple, and that other opinion is illegitimate. As it stands, I happen to agree with the majority on this one point: the Confederate flag stands for racism, no matter what anyone else wants it to mean. (I don’t agree with censoring it or removing the flags from historical markers or video games – because I don’t agree with hiding history or with infringing upon free speech). But since we don’t let the proponents of the Confederate flag define what that flag means, why should we let the black-lives-matter crowd define what that phrase means?

In most of American politics if something can be construed as racist or discriminatory in some way (especially if someone says they are offended) our society bends over backwards to accommodate and eliminate the offensive material, with apologies and all. The mere accusation of racism takes over any other considerations. The phrase black lives matter is harmless enough (though still exclusive, elitist, and actually anti-diversity) but to object to “all lives matter” and insist only “black lives matter” can be spoken is downright racist. I see no reason to object to all lives matter; well no good reason. There are race-pimping, opportunistic reasons to do that, sure, but I don’t consider those reasons good for America.

And I see no reason to deny the racist nature of insisting only black lives matter. If you object to saying all lives matter, and insist only the “black lives matter” mantra be permitted, you’re racist. Pure and simple. And so is Netroots Nation. I don’t care if some people want the phrase to mean something else. We live in an age where words and ideas can be redefined at whim, but where racism trumps everything else.

No one is saying racism doesn’t exist anymore. Now, Institutionalized Racism is a different thing. I don’t see any Jim Crow laws in effect anymore. I don’t see any water fountains or rest rooms or lunch counters set off to the side for blacks only (mandated by law, I remind you). I don’t see any laws in place specifically designed to make things tougher for blacks. If you do, show me. If you oppose voter ID but have no objection to the legal requirement of marriage licenses your argument is invalid. On the other hand, I see plenty of laws in place to make things easier for blacks. I see plenty of government programs set up with the assumption black people are incompetent rubes who can’t survive without government telling them what to do. All a person of color has to do is yell racism and all attention is diverted away from facts, and any wrong doing or mistakes made by the POC are ignored. There’s a word for that: it’s called privilege. And as Bob Parks eloquently explains, some people get paid to find racism so they find it even when it isn’t there.

Besides, we have good reason to question whether Netroots Nation or other progressives really believe black lives matter. Apparently some don’t.

bigotry, bullies, campaign, culture, Democrats, discrimination, elections, elitism, extremism, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, politics, progressive, propaganda, protests, relativism, video

Filed under: bigotry, bullies, campaign, culture, Democrats, discrimination, elections, elitism, extremism, hate speech, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, pandering, philosophy, political correctness, politics, progressive, propaganda, protests, relativism, video

Which politician can’t figure out meetings, a fax machine, or how to get her own tea?

Is this what being in touch with the American people looks like? Smart power indeed!

original article: Email bombshells from Hillary’s secret account show she didn’t know when cabinet meetings were held, was dumbfounded by a fax machine and emailed aides to fetch her iced tea
July 1, 2015 by DAVID MARTOSKO

Hillary Clinton’s emails have been a subject of partisan finger-pointing and hand-wringing since the revelation in April that she had used a private home-brew server to store her messages during the four years she was secretary of state.
And on Tuesday the State Department released the first in a series of document-dumps comprising about 3,000 of the 55,000 pages Clinton turned over to State late last year.
They describe the ordinary and the shocking – everything from meeting recaps to the involvement in the agency of Sidney Blumenthal, Clinton’s 2008 election hatchet-man who had officially been exiled from the administration.
They also paint the onetime first lady and New York senator as technologically maladroit – she was all thumbs with an office fax machine – and distant enough from her husband Bill that their aides kept each informed about the other’s doings.
She used her email to let aides know she was thirsty. ‘Pls call Sarah and ask her if she can get me some iced tea,’ one message read.

And then there’s ‘Santa’ Nikkels– the Chappaqua, N.Y. hairdresser on Clinton’s meeting schedule who kept her from making it to the airport on time.

‘I’m seeing Santa at 8:30,’ she wrote her deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin six months after taking office, ‘so [we] won’t take off until closer to 9:30.’

Buried in the din of thousands of people devouring the emails Tuesday night, though, was something more ominous for Clinton insiders: news that the State Department had decided to treat some two dozen of the messages as ‘classified’ – ruling as lawyers vetted the material that some of it was too sensitive to expose publicly.

Clinton and her campaign surrogates insisted beginning in April that her private email server was never a national security risk and never housed classified documents.

But State spokesman Alex Gerlach acknowledged Tuesday night that ‘portions of 25 emails were subsequently upgraded’ to the classification level ‘confidential’ – a notch below ‘secret.’

WHO'S SANTA? The mysterious character in the Clinton saga could be a hairdresser, a trainer, a Secret Service agent or even a dog-sitter but the State Department isn't saying 

WHO’S SANTA? The mysterious character in the Clinton saga could be a hairdresser, a trainer, a Secret Service agent or even a dog-sitter but the State Department isn’t saying

THIRSTY: Hillary Clinton got so comfortable with email that by late 2009 she was using it to tell aides to bring her iced tea 

THIRSTY: Hillary Clinton got so comfortable with email that by late 2009 she was using it to tell aides to bring her iced tea

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton checks her Blackberry phone alongside Korean Foreign Minister Kim Sung-hwan in November 2011 while on an official trip to South Korea 

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton checks her Blackberry phone alongside Korean Foreign Minister Kim Sung-hwan in November 2011 while on an official trip to South Korea

‘It is routine to upgrade information to classified status during the FOIA [Freedom Of Information Act] process,’ he said.

The emails show that there was nothing routine, however, about the relationship between Clinton’s State Department and her ‘old friend’ Sidney Blumenthal, the man who flung spears at Barack Obama on her behalf throughout the bruising 2008 Democratic presidential campaign season.

Blumenthal was unofficially exiled from the Obama administration because the White House saw him as untrustworthy. Hillary tried, unsuccessfuly, to hire him anyway.

When she hit a dead end, Clinton put him on payroll with her family foundation at a rate of $10,000 per month.

From that perch, he sent Hillary a steady stream of intelligence briefings on Libya, including some around the time of the deadly 2012 terror attacks.

During an Iowa campaign stop in May, Clinton told reporters that Blumenthal had sent her ‘unsolicited emails’ containing advice.

But in 2009 she was in regular contact with him to ask for his counsel, the latest released emails show.

‘Are you still awake?’ she emailed him at 10:35 one October night. ‘I will call if you are.’

3,000 pages of Hillary Clinton’s emails released

WHAT'S THAT SCREECHING SOUND? It took 15 minutes for a Clinton senior staffer to teach her why it?s a bad idea to take a fax machine's handset off the hook when someone is trying to send a fax 

WHAT’S THAT SCREECHING SOUND? It took 15 minutes for a Clinton senior staffer to teach her why it?s a bad idea to take a fax machine’s handset off the hook when someone is trying to send a fax

JUST LIKE US! Clinton and her deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin discussed weighty matters of state like which private jet to reserve for a trip

JUST LIKE US! Clinton and her deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin discussed weighty matters of state like which private jet to reserve for a trip

Clinton has also sought to downplay any thought that she was actually using information from Blumenthal in her work.

But on at least one occasion, she passed his thoughts to her most senior aides.

‘The speechwriting crew is taking Sid’s points below and massaging them into a set of remarks,’ her policy planning chief Jake Sullivan told her in an email.

The ‘Sid’ factor threatens to proide Clinton’s opponents with ammunition against her in 2016.

He was gathering intelligence for her on the sly, outside the regular chain of command, and with no legal oversight. He was also being paid by the same Clinton Foundation that was simultaneously accepting multimillion-dollar donations from foreign companies and governments.

Blumenthal also tried to get Hillary interested in an ultimately unsuccessful scheme to elect former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to the presidency of the European Council. ‘Tony is somewhat downcast on his chances,’ Blumenthal wrote, suggesting Clinton might ‘weigh in’ with top European diplomats on his behalf.

‘Your part in this may yet be important,’ he wrote.

State Department released first set of Clinton emails in May

Emailer: While her husband does not use the medium, according to his staff, Hillary did
Huma Abedin who is Hillary Clinton's vice chairwoman of her 2016 campaign for President

Correspondence: The majority of the emails loop in Huma Abedin who is Hillary Clinton’s vice chairwoman of her 2016 campaign for President

Blumenthal’s deep-burrowed connections in Clintonland are old news, but the number of people who managed to keep Clinton’s private email address a secret is surprising.

Despite the collective shock inside the D.C. beltway when news of the off-the-books account surfaced, many of Washington’s most influential Democrats were already in on it.

Political operative David Axelrod had her email address almost from the start, specifically asking her chief of staff for it in 2009, but claimed just weeks ago that he was unaware of it.

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel wrote to her at the now-infamous ‘HDR22@clintonemail.com.’

So did outgoing Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski; socialite 1-percenter Lynn Forester de Rothschild; Bill Clinton-era former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger; former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s wife Cherie; retired U.S. Army General Wesley Clark; liberal think tank chief John Podesta of the Center for American Progress; and lawyer-lobbyist Lanny Davis – who was later shamed for taking millions from West African strongmen.

In one of the odder exchanges, Clinton urged Podesta to ‘please wear socks to bed to keep your feet warm’.

WHAT WE LEARNED FROM HILLARY CLINTON’S STATE DEPARTMENT EMAILS RELEASED TUESDAY

1. Many of Washington’s most influential Democrats had Hillary’s secret address, including political operatives like David Axelrod, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski and liberal think tank chief John Podesta

2. Bill and Hillary Clinton apparently communicated through surrogates, with one Bill insider telling Hillary’s chief of staff to let her know her husband had accepted a role as UN Special Envoy to Haiti

3. The State Department’s top diplomatic protocol officer crowed to Hillary that an email contest run by political consultant Paul Begala helped her retire $500,000 of her campaign debt from the 2008 presidential race

4. Hillary’s deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin pressed her to make tough decisions, like whether to delay a trip departure for three hours so she could take a larger private jet

5. The State Department was worried that reporters would discover Sidney Blumenthal, a Hillary campaign hatchet-man banned from the agency by President Obama, was still secretly advising her – and Blumenthal managed to spill he beans to an Associated Press reporter without knowing who he was talking to

6. Despite later claiming Blumenthal’s frequent email memos were ‘unsolicited’ and of little value, Hillary later made some of his suggestions part of her foreign policy speeches

7. In June 2009 Hillary learned from a radio broadcast that President Obama was about to hold a cabinet meeting; she emailed her scheduler to ask ‘Can I go?’

DISTANT: When Bill Clinton accepted a United Nations offer to serve as a special envoy to Haiti, he never told his wife. The news reached her after Bill's aide told Hillary's aide

DISTANT: When Bill Clinton accepted a United Nations offer to serve as a special envoy to Haiti, he never told his wife. The news reached her after Bill’s aide told Hillary’s aide

Also in the loop was Brian Greenspun, the publisher of the Las Vegas Sun – a newspaper that endorsed Clinton in 2008.

The Sun published a story shortly after Clinton launched her campaign, advising her on how to avoid repeating her Democratic primary collapse of eight years ago.

‘Excite Latinos and Asian-Americans,’ the paper’s reporter wrote, and ‘Take advantage of the Harry Reid machine.’

The emails released Tuesday night cover the calendar year 2009, when there was not yet any inkling of what would happen three years later in the Libyan city of Benghazi.

Republicans have bet a slice of their election credibility on the premise that Clinton’s incompetence opened the door to the 2012 terror attack there that killed a U.S. ambassador; and that her Machiavellian scheming was central to a cover-up of the nature of the attack just weeks before Obama stood for re-election.

Even when State Department lawyers have vetted every page, journalists and lawmakers may never know what Clinton deleted from the public record.

She claimed in April that she scrubbed the server of more than 31,000 emails which she deemed ‘personal’ in nature.

Twitter let out a collective guffaw Tuesday night in the direction of a December 2009 email exchange between Clinton and Abedin – who invested 15 minutes trying to teach her boss how the handset on a fax machine worked.

Exclusive: Santa's Hair Salon in Chappaqua, which the emails disclosed was used by Hillary.
Exclusive: Santa's Hair Salon in Chappaqua, which the emails disclosed was used by Hillary.

Exclusive: Santa’s Hair Salon in Chappaqua, which the emails disclosed was used by Hillary.

Arm's length: Bill Clinton in Oslo, Norway, today with Norwegian foreign minister Boerge Brende. The emails show he and Hillary often communicated to each other through their aides.

Arm’s length: Bill Clinton in Oslo, Norway, today with Norwegian foreign minister Boerge Brende. The emails show he and Hillary often communicated to each other through their aides.

‘Can you hang up the fax line?’ Abedin wrote. ‘They will call again and try fax.’

‘I thought it was supposed to be off [the] hook to work?’ Clinton responded.

‘Yes,’ Abedin wrote, ‘but hang up one more time. So they can establish the line.’

‘I did,’ Clinton replied.

‘Just pick up [the] phone and hang it up. And leave it hung up,’ Abedin shot back.

‘I’ve done it twice now,’ replied a befuddled Hillary.

It was Abedin who emailed Clinton in July 2009 to ask her about her preferred travel arrangements when a private jet wasn’t available as planned.

What to do? Wait an extra three hours for a 19-passenger Gulfstream III aircraft, or settle for the six-seat Learjet that’s fueled and ready?

‘The g3 is delayed till 5pm wheels up,’ Abedin wrote her. ‘There is a lear available at 2pm with 6 seats. Do u want to just leave at 5?’

In other instances it was chief of staff Cheryl Mills who shed light on Clinton’s life.

When former president Bill Clinton agreed to serve as the United Nations Special Envoy to Haiti following a devastating 2009 earthquake, he didn’t tell her.

It was Bill’s trusted aide Doug Band who told Mills: ‘Wjc [Bill] just told SecGen [Ban Ki-moon] that he would do Haiti special envoy,’ Band wrote her.

‘Wjc said he was going to call hrc [Hillary] but hasn’t had time.’

Mills ricocheted the message to her own deputy in two minutes’ time.

‘You need to walk this to HRC if she is not gone,’ Mills wrote aide Nora Toiv. ‘I am also going to give WH [the White House] heads up.’

While nothing in Tuesday night’s release validates the GOP’s hope for evidence that Hillary is crooked or misused her office, another top State Department official may have violated federal election law.

How many want to be president? The emails revealed that Tony Blair (second from left with his wife Cherie in 1998) felt his bid to be president of the European Council was floundering. Sidney Blumenthal urged Hillary to support her and former President Clinton's old friend in his campaign, which ultimately failed

How many want to be president? The emails revealed that Tony Blair (second from left with his wife Cherie in 1998) felt his bid to be president of the European Council was floundering. Sidney Blumenthal urged Hillary to support her and former President Clinton’s old friend in his campaign, which ultimately failed

Chief Protocol Officer Capricia Penavic Marshall emailed Democratic political consultant Paul Begala – and another recipient whose name the State Department redacted – to thank him for helping raise a half-million dollars to pay Clinton’s bills from her failed presidential run.

‘We raised $500K from the email contest!!,’ Marshall wrote. ‘You all are amazing – the world adores you! You put a serious hole in hrc debt!’

Federal law forbids government employees from using taxpayer-funded resources, including office computers and other devices, in connection with political fundraising – even if the money collected goes to retire old campaign costs.

‘What we learned tonight is troubling,’ Republican National Committee chairman Reice Priebus said in a statement Tuesday night.

‘Administration officials knew more than previously disclosed, Sidney Blumenthal was involved with more than just providing Libya off-the-books intelligence, and State Department officials were possibly fundraising on government accounts.’

Priebus called the revelations ‘just the tip of the iceberg’ and joined congressional Republicans in demanding that she hand over to independent investigators the actual computer hardware that once held the messages.

In correspondence with the House Select Committee on Benghazi, Clinton’s attorney has insisted that’s not going to happen.

 

campaign, Democrats, elections, humor, politics, progressive, scandal

Filed under: campaign, Democrats, elections, humor, politics, progressive, scandal

IRS destroyed evidence in anti-Tea Party probe

original article: Watchdog to reveal evidence was destroyed during probe of IRS targeting
June 24, 2015 by Fox News

A congressional hearing Thursday morning is expected to reveal evidence was destroyed during the investigation into the IRS targeting scandal, months after the agency was told to preserve documents, Fox News is told.

J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration, is expected to tell the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee his office found no direct evidence the destruction was intentional.

But the destruction nevertheless defied a preservation order, and is sure to raise suspicions over motive.

The IG will specifically reveal that IRS employees erased computer backup tapes a month after officials discovered thousands of emails related to the tax agency’s Tea Party scandal had been lost.

As many as 24,000 emails were lost because 422 backup tapes were erased.

George says those tapes “most likely” contained emails to and from former IRS official Lois Lerner, who has emerged as a central figure in congressional investigations.

A source familiar with the matter told Fox News that the hearing will show the evidence was destroyed 10 months after a preservation order for the emails; seven months after a subpoena; and one month after IRS officials realized there were potential problems locating certain emails.

Fox News is told the destruction of evidence also occurred about three weeks before IRS Commissioner John Koskinen testified to Congress that they would provide documents to Congress.

Further, the IG is expected to conclusively testify that the IRS never looked at five of the six potential places where the emails might have been stored.

An IRS spokeswoman told the Associated Press Wednesday evening the agency had no immediate comment.

George set off a firestorm in May 2013 with an audit that said IRS agents improperly singled out Tea Party and other conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status during the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Several hundred groups had their applications delayed for a year or more. Some were asked inappropriate questions about donors and group activities, the inspector general’s report said.

Lerner used to head the IRS division that processes applications for tax-exempt status. In June 2014, the IRS told Congress it had lost an unknown number of Lerner’s emails when her computer hard drive crashed in 2011.

The IRS had discovered that the emails were lost in February 2014. A total of 422 computer backup tapes were erased a month later, George says in his testimony, and those tapes probably contained additional Lerner emails.

The IRS says it has produced 78,000 Lerner emails, many of which have been made public by congressional investigators. IRS officials said no more could be recovered.
George, however, said the IRS never examined backup tapes that ultimately produced more than 1,000 additional emails.

George started investigating the lost emails last year after the IRS announced they were destroyed. His testimony before the Oversight Committee summarizes the results of the investigation.

George says the workers who erased the computer tapes were unaware of a 2013 directive from the agency’s chief technology officer to halt the destruction of email backup tapes.

“The investigation uncovered testimony and e-mail traffic between IRS employees that indicate that the involved employees did not know about, comprehend or follow the chief technology officer’s May 22, 2013, e-mail directive to halt the destruction of e-mail backup media due to ‘the current environment’ and ongoing investigations,” George says in his testimony.

After George’s initial report, much of the agency’s top leadership was forced to retire or resign, including Lerner. The Justice Department and several congressional committees launched investigations.

Lerner emerged as a central figure in the controversy after she refused to answer questions at two House Oversight hearings, invoking her Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate herself at both hearings. At the first hearing, Lerner made a statement saying she had done nothing wrong.

Last year, the House voted mostly along party lines to hold her in contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions at the hearings. The U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia declined to prosecute her.

abuse, bias, bureaucracy, campaign, censorship, corruption, cover up, criminal, Democrats, discrimination, elections, government, hypocrisy, left wing, liberalism, politics, progressive, scandal

Filed under: abuse, bias, bureaucracy, campaign, censorship, corruption, cover up, criminal, Democrats, discrimination, elections, government, hypocrisy, left wing, liberalism, politics, progressive, scandal

Pages

Categories

December 2017
M T W T F S S
« Nov    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031