Really? Hillary Claims Trump is an 'Assault on Truth and Reason'

At this year's Wellesley College commencement speech, in a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle black, Hillary Clinton said Trump was an 'assault on truth and reason'.



This woman couldn't tell the truth if it was written out for her ahead of time.

In 1996, the then-writer for the New York Times, Pulitzer Prize winner, and frequent guest on Meet the Press, William Safire, wrote an essay titled "A Blizzard of Lies" (referenced below).  In it, he called Hillary a "congenital liar".  In the 20+ years since, she has never proven him wrong.  Comments made during last year's campaign were literally a new blizzard of lies with Politifact detailing two pages of them.

So, in my opinion, the assault on truth and reason would have been just as virulent if Hillary had won the presidency.  Perhaps she should rerun the audio of her speech while taking a good long look in the mirror.

References:

Essay;Blizzard of Lies - The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/08/opinion/essay-blizzard-of-lies.html

Source of Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfnMCxBXcsg

Politifact: All False statements involving Hillary Clinton:http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/?page=1

The lie that is Hillary: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/19/hillary-clintons-long-list-of-lies/

Hillary's Biggest Lie: Recalling Hillary Clinton's claim of 'landing under sniper fire' in Bosnia: https://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+clinton+lie+about+bosnia&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Interersting Facts From Latest WaPo/ABC Trump Poll

With only a week left before Donald Trump completes his "First 100 Days", the Washington Post/ABC News teams released the results of their last polling on Trump (and, also Hillary).  The lead story appears to be that Trump has the lowest `100-day approval' of any President in modern history.  While the average approval of those "modern" Presidents is 69%, Trump's number is just 42%. Of course, the biggest dig on Trump from these two liberal-leaning news agencies is the fact that Obama had a 69% approval as most of his predecessors did.  I guess, from this, we are supposed to regret that Obama isn't still President.

What isn't talked about in the Washington Post polling story is the fact that if the election was rerun today, Hillary would still lose to Trump: 43% to 40%. Another buried but interesting tidbit is the fact that only 4% of Trump voters regret voting for him, while 15% of Hillary voters regret voting for her. As a result, if the election was rerun, Trump would have won the popular vote.

And, guess what?  The Russians had nothing to do with these polling results!

References:

Nearing 100 days, Trump’s approval at record lows but his base is holding: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/nearing-100-days-trumps-approval-at-record-lows-but-his-base-is-holding/2017/04/22/a513a466-26b4-11e7-b503-9d616bd5a305_story.html?utm_term=.0b34eccf70dd

ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-100-days-honeymoon-regrets-poll/story?id=46943338

Wash Post poll hides: Trump still beats Clinton, 43%-40%: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wash-post-poll-hides-trump-still-beats-clinton-43-40/article/2621016

Hillary's Misplaced Claims as to Why She Lost

In a recent interview, Hillary Clinton stated that she lost the election because of Comey, Wikileaks, and misogyny.  Yes, that right,  misogyny.  Not because she was simply a bad candidate.

In the case of FBI Director Comey, she need only look inward to find a justification for his investigation into her conducting classified State Department business on a private email server in her home.  Comey was just the messenger who eventually cleared her.  And, many still think she was wrongly cleared of what should have been considered a crime.

Then, there's the Wikileaks dumping of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) hacked emails. If she wants to blame anyone, she should blame her own Democratic party.  The DNC was warned months in advance that there could be hacking of that server.  The whole incident could have been minimized if the DNC had acted quickly to block any hacking.  Instead they waited months to do so.

Then, there's this bull about misogyny.   Clearly, she wants the world to believe that she lost because this country is sexist, and she was a victim.  The only problem is that, except for college educated white women, she substantially lost the women's vote.  This conclusion is based on a post election analysis by the website FiveThirtyEight.com.  For example, among white women without a college degree, she only garnered 34% of the vote compared to 62% for Trump.  And, even among college degreed white woman her win margin was only 51% to 45%.

The simple fact is that Hillary lost because she was a bad candidate with the wrong message for America.  To many, she was just another 4-year iteration of the Obama presidency. For myself and others, it was President Obama that created the Trump victory.

References:

Hillary Clinton blames Comey, WikiLeaks and 'misogyny' for 2016 loss: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/07/hillary-clinton-blames-comey-wikileaks-and-misogyny-for-2016-loss.html

FBI Chief Jim Comey Clears Hillary Clinton—and Puts Himself in the Crosshairs: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/06/fbi-director-james-comey-clears-hillary-clinton-on-new-emails.html

CNN: Sources: US officials warned DNC of hack months before the party acted: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/democratic-convention-dnc-emails-russia/

Clinton Couldn’t Win Over White Women: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-couldnt-win-over-white-women/

Why did Hillary Clinton lose? Simple. She ran a bad campaign: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-hillary-clinton-lost-bad-campaign-perspec-20161114-story.html

CNN's SE Cupp: Hillary Was 'Singularly Terrible Candidate' For Dems: http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/se-cup-hillary-clinton-democrats-bad-candidate/2016/11/09/id/758076/

And the worst candidate of 2016 was ... Hillary Clinton: http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/and-the-worst-candidate-of-was-hillary-clinton/collection_f8f936de-1636-5546-9f08-e1290b573934.html

What Doesn't Make Sense About the Russian Hack

In January, and before Trump was inaugurated, the CIA, FBI, and the NSA issued a joint report on the Russian hacking of the DNC email server and Podesta emails and came to this conclusion:

“Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging him."

Putting the words "most likely" aside and the fact that those words imply a weak argument, the statement suggests that Putin was angry at Clinton back in 2011.  Yet, supposedly, the Russians didn't start hacking the DNC server until 4 years later in 2015.  This was followed by the release of those emails a year later during the late election cycle.

What doesn't make sense is that, if Putin truly wanted to damage Hillary Clinton, why wait 4 years to do so?  From everything we know about her private server, there was very little security and loads of information damaging to Hillary Clinton.  Also, it was operational since 2008.  An analysis by the Associated Press said the server was open to "low skilled hackers".  For Russia's first class hackers, Hillary's server would have been a cakewalk.  In addition, the exposure of the classified data in those emails and other State Department related emails would have done far more damage to Hillary Clinton, both politically and personally, than the peripheral data on the DNC server. Also, any one receiving an email had to know it wasn't from the State Department's server because her address was stupidly hdr22@clintonemail.com.  A simple domain name search by a trained hacker would have been able to locate that server's IP address and allow it to be hacked.

Personally, I think the CIA, FBI, and NSA's conclusion is flawed and probably political in nature.

References:

U.S. intelligence says Putin wanted to damage Clinton, help Trump: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/6/us-intelligence-says-putin-wanted-damage-clinton/

Revealed: Hillary's private server was open to 'low-skilled-hackers' who could take it over remotely because its 'amateur hour' operators ignored official warnings: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3270758/Hillary-s-private-server-open-low-skilled-hackers-remotely-operators-ignored-official-warnings-vulnerable.html

What does the 22 in Hillary Clinton's private email account hdr22@clintonemail.com mean? https://www.quora.com/What-does-the-22-in-Hillary-Clintons-private-email-account-hdr22-clintonemail-com-mean

Why Clinton’s Private Email Server Was Such a Security Fail: https://www.wired.com/2015/03/clintons-email-server-vulnerable/

Biden: Middle Class Sunk Hillary's Campaign?

In a PBS interview, Joe Biden stated that Hillary lost because she didn't "talk" to the middle class.  His actual statement was:

"What happened was that this was the first campaign that I can recall where my party did not talk about what it always stood for -- and that was how to maintain a burgeoning middle class..."

The problem I have with that statement, is the phrase, "burgeoning middle class" The middle class isn't growing, it is shrinking; and those in the middle class know it. Pew Research found that the middle class has fallen from 62% of our population in 1970 to just 43% in 2014.  And, Democrats still fail to understand that it is their policies that have weakened those in this coveted social class.  For example, when you heavily raise the minimum wage, money is drained away from the middle class to give those at the bottom a larger-than-normal raise.  In another example, the affordability clause of the employer mandate of Obamacare states that when an employer must offer health insurance, it cannot cost any more than 9.56% of an employee's household income.  So again, the middle class is hurt because in order to limit the cost of insurance for low-end workers, other classes of workers, such as the middle class, are forced to pay more for their insurance.

In my opinion, Hillary lost because people in the middle class did not benefit from Democrat governance under Barack Obama.  It wasn't because of "talk".  Talk is cheap.  It is always actions that ultimately matter, not words.

References:

Joe Biden indirectly knocks Clinton's failed campaign: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/joe-biden-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/index.html?sr=twcnni033117joe-biden-donald-trump-hillary-clinton1152AMVODtopPhoto&linkId=36046121

The American Middle Class Is Losing Ground | Pew Research Center: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/09/the-american-middle-class-is-losing-ground/

ObamaCare Employer Mandate: "Coverage offered to employees must be considered affordable (can’t cost more than 9.56% of employee household income) and must provide minimum value (must have an average cost sharing of 60%). If coverage isn’t affordable employees can use the Marketplace and the employer can be fined" http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-employer-mandate/
 
pb

Democrats Plot a Tax Revolt Over Trump

Back in December, a writer for Time.com wrote that the 65 million people who voted for Hillary Clinton shouldn't pay their federal income tax until the country drops the electoral college, in favor of a system based on the popular vote alone.  Apparently, some think the idea is a good one, but not just for the electoral college issue.  Some people believe they should give their tax money to Planned Parenthood.  Others say don't pay taxes as a rejection of Trump's border wall.  Then, there are those willing to be potential tax evaders over the repeal of ObamaCare.  What about free college?  Gun control? Or, any other liberal agenda item one can think of?

The trouble is that a good amount of the taxes being collected go to the social programs that liberals love.  Payroll and self-employment tax helps fund Medicare and Social Security.  Other taxes help those with low incomes and support such housing programs and ObamaPhones.  Then, there's Head Start, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and the list goes on.

It is simply idiotic for a bunch of liberals who voted for Hillary, along with a lot of those social programs, to not pay taxes as a way to show support for the same programs.  By the way.  They may  also want to think about when the IRS slaps a 25% penalty on their outstanding debt. Or goes after their wages, bank accounts, or property.  Of course, there is always possible jail time. The IRS has ten years in which to collect from the date not paid.  That will be well past the time Trump could still be in office.

Hillary lost. Get over it.  No amount of laying on the floor, kicking and screaming will change that.  Not paying taxes won't change it either.

References:

Time: 65 Million Americans Should Threaten to Not Pay Taxes: http://time.com/4590994/popular-vote-tax-pledge/

We will not pay: the Americans withholding their taxes to fight Trump: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/15/tax-refusing-pay-protest-trump

 The Consequences of Unpaid Taxes: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/15/tax-refusing-pay-protest-trump

What the Pre-Election Polls Aren't Saying About Russian Hack

Several Democrats have vowed not to attend the Trump inauguration on the basis that they believe Trump isn't a legitimate President.  Democrat Congressman John Lewis said exactly that, in a "Meet the Press" interview and followed up that comment with this:

"I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected. And they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton."

The problem with that statement is that the pre-election polls don't support it.

According to the WikiLeaks website, the release of hacked DNC emails started on July 22, 2016.  If the release of those emails had an impact on the election we should have seen it in this polling chart  from RealClear Politics:

Clearly, there was a spike in the polls for Trump on July 25; just 3 days after the release of the first  batch of emails.  However,  that spike was short lived with Trump quickly falling behind again.  More importantly, Hillary saw no drop in the polls following the release of the first batch of emails.  She then continued to lead Trump throughout the release of additional emails.  Simply, there is no there, there, to support the claim that Hillary's campaign was "destroyed" by Russian hacking.

This is just more FakeNews being promoted by sore-loser John Lewis and all the other sore-loser Democrats.

References:

Citing Russian meddling, Rep. John Lewis says Trump not a 'legitimate president' http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-john-lewis-trump-20170113-story.html

WikiLeaks: Starting on Friday 22 July 2016 at 10:30am EDT, WikiLeaks released over 2 publications 44,053 emails and 17,761 attachments from the top of the US Democratic National Committee: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/

Polls: General Election: Trump vs. Clinton: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

No Shock that John Lewis Calls Trump Presidency Illegitimate

I get it.  Democrats are mentally "grief-stricken" over Hillary Clinton's loss.  Most are in a state of "denial" which is the first of the 5 stages of recovery from that "mental" condition.  No one better exemplifies this more than Georgia Congressman John Lewis, who said that Trump was not a  "legitimate President" in this recent "Meet the Press" interview:

But, this was not a shock or surprise for Lewis.  In October,  the Clinton campaign ran this ad in which he was solely featured and where he said “She’s smart, she’s gifted. She is a leader. She is a fighter for what is right, what is fair, and what is just":



Obviously, Lewis was an "impassioned" supporter of Hillary Clinton. By default, it is safe to assume that he is just as impassioned about the Trump presidency.  Sadly, he will have to live with the results of this election, and by not accepting this Presidency, his actions, as a U.S. Congressman may be clouded by what appears to be his total disregard of our 45th President.

References:

The 5 Stages of Grief & Loss: http://psychcentral.com/lib/the-5-stages-of-loss-and-grief/

John Lewis Praises Hillary in Campaign Video: http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/10/07/john-lewis-featured-in-hillary-clinton-video-new-america/

New York's Tuition-Free College Madness

During their runs for the White House, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders promised tuition-free college.  Now, with Trump's victory, that seemed to become a distant dream.  That is, until Democratic Governor Cuomo of New York tepped up and proposed that the state legislature make it a reality for up to one million eligible families who have children in the State, who want to attend state colleges.  He promises that the program will only cost $163 million a year; when fully phased in over 3 years.

Now, one thing I've learned about Democrats like Cuomo, is that they are terrible at math.  They almost always underestimate the true cost of any new entitlement program.  Once more, this appears to be the case for this tuition-free entitlement program.  Here's why.  The in-state annual cost of tuition for a New York public college student is $6,470.  Divide that into Cuomo's proposed $163 million a year and you end up with 25,193 students who could benefit from the program.  Yet, a million families would be eligible?  That's just 2-1/2% of all eligible families.  Also, when you talk about eligible families, you are not taking into account that some families could have more than one eligible child.

However, here's the biggest problem with any talk about free tuition.  As a country, we waste billions of dollars on college education.   Most students enrolled in a 4 year colleges don't graduate in 4 years.  In addition, the 6-year graduation rate for state colleges is still only 57%.  In other words, those that don't graduate in either 4 or 6 years, will be -- a waste of money.  Of course, under Cuomo's plan, that will be a waste of taxpayer's money.  But, its not just about money.  ACT (American College Testing) found that 60% of high school students that took their test were not qualified or prepared for college.  Yet, somehow, 66% of high school graduates go on to college.

There is also a bigger problem with college education in this country.  All too many workers have degrees that are worthless.  Career Builder, in 2014, found that 51% of those college students who graduated that year and found emplooyment, were working in jobs that didn't require a degree, which that brings me to another point.  Too much emphasis is placed on a college education.  What we should be doing is getting people into trade schools for professions that are desperately in need of trained job seekers.  This is where tuition-free education would carry more bang for the buck. Further, if you want to provide 4 years of college tuition, make sure it is targeted to students that are enrolled in programs that will provide the type of expertise that is so often lacking in the country.

References:

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo Announces Free College Plan With Bernie Sanders: http://time.com/4621407/free-college-andrew-cuomo-bernie-sanders-new-york/

Bernie Sanders is wrong: College is not a right: http://theweek.com/articles/553857/bernie-sanders-wrong-college-not-right

National Center for educational Statistics: College Graduation Rates: https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40

ACT Shows 60% of High School Seniors Not College-ready: http://www.governing.com/news/state/mct-seniors-not-college-ready.html

Most High School Seniors Aren't College Or Career Ready, Says 'Nation's Report Card': http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/04/27/475628214/most-high-school-seniors-arent-college-or-career-ready-says-nations-report-card

Fewer U.S. Graduates Opt for College After High School: Last October, just 65.9 percent of people who had graduated from high school the previous spring had enrolled in college, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said this week. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/26/business/fewer-us-high-school-graduates-opt-for-college.html

51 Percent of Employed 2014 College Grads Are in Jobs That Don’t Require a Degree, Finds CareerBuilder Survey: http://www.careerbuilder.com/share/aboutus/pressreleasesdetail.aspx?sd=10%2F9%2F2014&id=pr846&ed=10%2F9%2F2099

America's Skilled Trades Dilemma: Shortages Loom As Most-In-Demand Group Of Workers Ages:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/emsi/2013/03/07/americas-skilled-trades-dilemma-shortages-loom-as-most-in-demand-group-of-workers-ages/#3939ec4c4545

The Democrats and the Politics of Victims and Villians

I used to be a Democrat.  I grew up knowing nothing else because the extended families of both of my parents were all Democrats.  I firmly believed in the Democratic politics of "inclusion" and that the party embodied the words at the base of the Statue of Liberty:

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me..."

 I left the party when I realized that the so-called party of "inclusion" was actually a party of "exclusion" by only identifying with the victims in society.  If there are victims, then there are villains.  Hillary Clinton was the embodiment of that type of politics.  She stated that half of Trump supporters -- more than 30 million people -- were deplorable and were misogynists, racists, white supremacists,  and any other "ist" she could conjure up.  The victims of all those deplorable villains were women, blacks, gays, immigrants, Muslims, Hispanics, and many more.  She also villainized Wall Street and the banks by blaming them for the recession. She aligned herself with Black Lives Matter, and by doing so, effectively implied that all cops were racists.  Then, too, the poor were only poor because they were the victims of the rich. All this is merely an attempt to divide the country. 

Those who don't believe in same-sex marriage or abortion, are not automatically villains to those of us who are gay or women who support pro-choice.  But Democrats and Hillary think they are.  I believe this is one of the reasons that Democrats have lost so much legislative control.  They are purveyors of negativity. There is nothing at all positive about their message.  As a result, most American's -- those in the middle class -- can't see what's in it for them if they vote for a Democrat.  Of course, this is just my opinion but, something to consider.

References:

The Democratic Party Is Not One of Inclusiveness: http://time.com/4423975/democratic-party-divided/

Dem blame game rages over Clinton loss: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/308600-dem-blame-game-rages-over-clinton-loss

Democrats must drop identity politics: http://www.denverpost.com/2016/11/15/democrats-must-drop-identity-politics/

Dems hit new low in state legislatures: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/306736-dems-hit-new-low-in-state-legislatures

Obama’s legacy is a devastated Democratic Party: http://nypost.com/2016/12/25/obamas-legacy-is-a-devastated-democratic-party/

pb

Really? Most Americans Wanted Hillary President?

On more than one occasion, I have heard the claim that "most of" or a "majority of" Americans wanted Hillary to be president because she won the popular vote. That claim is wrong on many levels.

First of all, Hillary -- like anyone else who has run for the presidency -- knows that you have to win the electoral vote to win the election.  She probably would be the President-elect with both the electoral and popular vote if she had campaigned more often in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, but she took those typically "blue states" for granted. She ignored them.

Yes, she did win the popular vote, but only because of California.  Without the votes in that state, for both her and Trump, "the Donald" would have won by 1.4 million.  The simple fact, is that Trump won the popular vote in 30 of the 50 states.  Also understand that Hillary did not win most of the votes or even the "majority" of votes.  She won 48% of the popular vote which gives her a plurality and not a majority.  That's important, because in winning only 48% of the vote, it means that 52%  voted against her.

There is something else to consider as well. The 2016 turnout was the lowest in 20 years, with only 55.4% of eligible voters participating.  If, in fact, there was a higher turnout, Hillary may have, again, won both the popular vote and the electoral vote.  However, she was not a desirable candidate, and too many previous Obama-voters stayed home. 

Finally, there's this. Hillary won only 48% of the 55.4% of the voters who turned out. Therefore less than 27% of the country actually voted for her.  Not "most of" or a "majority of" Americans wanted her as President.

Can we please move on!

References:

It's Official: Clinton's Popular Vote Win Came Entirely From California: http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/its-official-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/

Voter turnout at 20-year low in 2016: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/

Hillary Clinton’s campaign was crippled by voters who stayed home: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/09/hillary-clintons-campaign-was-crippled-by-voters-who-stayed-home/?utm_term=.f98a53c907c1

Politico: How Hillary blew Michigan, and the election: http://hotair.com/archives/2016/12/14/politico-how-hillary-blew-michigan-and-the-election/

Plurality (voting) - Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_(voting)

Could Some Democrat Electors Vote For Trump?

It is highly possible that the campaign to have Republican electors switch their votes to Hillary may actually backfire.  In fact, some Democrat electors may actually wind up voting for Trump as a result of "voting their own conscience".  Some may actually feel that flooding electors with emails, phone calls, and threats, including death threats, an abhorrent tactic. Added to that you have TV ads by a bunch of Hollywood actors attempting to undermine the electoral process.

Imagine if the situation were reversed and it was the Democrats getting a torrent of calls, e-mails, and threats?  If this campaign to pressure electors is successful, then strong arm tactics will become commonplace in every Presidential election going forward.   I think some Democrat electors will see that possibility, and may end up voting for Trump in order to "spite" and thwart this switch-the-vote campaign.
If so, and Trump gets more than the expected 306 electoral votes, a lot of people will be laughing their behind's off.  Hopefully, this current attempt to reverse the electoral process will end right here.

References:

Video: Republican electors still getting death threats: https://www.google.com/search?q=electors+death+threats&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

GOP electors harassed, threatened as foes maneuver to block Donald Trump: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/22/gop-electors-harassed-threatened-foes-maneuver-blo/

Celebrities beg electors to be 'heroes' and vote against Trump: Plead with electoral college members to “vote their conscience”: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-trump-s-electoral-college-win-all-but-1481829256-htmlstory.html
 
pb

The Left is Still in Denial as to Why Hillary Lost

The political left and the left-wing media are still in disbelief that Hillary Clinton lost the election.  But, instead of looking inwards for answers, they continue to float the idea that "conspiracies" were responsible.

Just a few days ago, the New York Magazine reported that a group of  "prominent computer scientists and election lawyers" believed that the loss was a result of hacked voting machines in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania -- citing irregularities such as lower vote counts where voting machines were used. Then in that same article, the confidence in their hacking theory is immediately tempered by this statement:

"While it’s important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review."

Just last Friday, the Washington Post theorized that in fact a Russian propaganda effort threw the election; along with the hacking of emails from the Clinton camp and the Democratic National Committee.  However, as above, the veracity of that story was also weakened when the following was written:

"There is no way to know whether the Russian campaign proved decisive in electing Trump, but researchers portray it as part of a broadly effective strategy of sowing distrust in U.S. democracy and its leaders."

The only problem with the above "speculation" is that team Clinton members never disavowed any of the hacked emails as not being "real".  All they ever said was that they were being released because Putin wants Trump to be President.  Hillary's campaign chief, John Podesta, even "suggests" that Trump had before-hand knowledge of the email hack and data dump in the last few weeks.  "Suggests" is not a proven fact, but Time.com thought the story was fit to print.

Recently, there has been a lot of talk about "fake news". The implication is that somehow, the political right is the primary "faker" of news stories intended to hurt Hillary Clinton.  Well, the above stories are only a few from the mainstream media that are solely based on speculation and not fact, in an effort to undermine President-elect Donald Trump. Maybe the agencies writing these types of stories should think about the fact that a lot of people may only read a paragraph or two of a long story and come to the conclusion the voting machines were hacked; not reading further to understand that this was simply an unproven assumption.  Obviously, "fake news" comes in all flavors.

References:

Experts Urge Clinton Campaign to Challenge Election Results in 3 Swing States: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/11/activists-urge-hillary-clinton-to-challenge-election-results.html

Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/russian-propaganda-effort-helped-spread-fake-news-during-election-experts-say/2016/11/24/793903b6-8a40-4ca9-b712-716af66098fe_story.html

Clinton Refuses to Disavow Hacked Excerpts From Paid Speeches: http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/clinton-refuses-to-disavow/2016/10/08/id/752349/

Hillary Clinton Adviser Suggests Donald Trump Campaign Knew About Hacked Emails: http://time.com/4528049/hillary-clinton-john-podesta-emails-hackers-russia/

For the Second Time in 16 Years the Electoral Colloge is in Question

As it stands right now, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote but lost the election because of the way we count Electoral votes.  Currently, she received 600,000 more popular votes than Donald Trump.  But lets look a little deeper into the issue of the popular vote.

As of this writing, they are still counting votes in Michigan and New Hampshire.  Even so, it looks as if Trump will win Michigan on the basis of that popular vote.  Hillary should win New Hampshire.  Therefore, when all is said and done, Trump will have won the popular vote in a total of 30 states; versus 20 states for Hillary.  But, losing the popular vote overall really comes down to two states -- California and New York -- where combined, Trump lost by a massive 4.25 million votes.   And, this  demonstrates why the framers of our Constitution established the Electoral College.

Essentially, they understood that large states and large groups of people could dominate the political process.  So, they were obsessed with equalizing power among the states and insuring that the voices of smaller states were also being heard.  Much of this "obsession" was best stated by the founder Thomas Jefferson in these words: "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.".

To that point, the Constitution mandated that states be broken up into Congressional Districts to insure that the many voices in any given state could be heard.  The framers established a U.S. Senate where every state, regardless of size, was equalized on the basis of having just two Senators.  In amending the Constitution, a simple majority of 51% could have been the norm.  But, again, to insure the process wasn't dominated by a few big states, any change to the Constitution requires a two-thirds approval vote in both the House of Representatives and in the U.S. Senate.  Following that requirement, two-thirds of the states must also approve the change.

This, then, brings us to how the Electoral College was established.  Again, in the interest of fairness among both large and small states, each state -- regardless of size -- automatically gets 3 Electoral votes.  In addition, each state is apportioned the balance of their electoral votes based on the number of congressional districts in that state.  Thus, a small state such as Maine gets a total of 4 electoral votes rather that just the one it would have based on population alone. This is not a great equalizer against a big state like California that has 55 votes, but collectively, the small states are then able to make a difference.

We surely can abandon the Electoral College with an amendment to the Constitution.  But, in doing so, liberal California and liberal New York would always have a major say in every presidential election.  And, that is exactly what the framers didn't want to happen.  In fact, because California and New York are becoming increasingly left wing (Democrat), I think we will see more and more incidents of candidates winning the popular vote and then losing to the electoral college.  It is no wonder that the only person wanting to kill the electoral college is a Democratic Senator from California, Barbara Boxer, who just submitted a bill to do just that.  Of course, with both Houses of Congress being controlled by Republicans, it has as much chance of getting passed as my chances are of winning a Nobel prize.

References:

Clinton & Trump’s Popular Vote Count: State-by-State: And, a video explaining how the Electoral College is works: http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/clinton-trump-popular-vote-who-won-what-was-hillary-donald-total-votes-count-electoral-college-2016-presidential-election-percentage-latest-update-states-winning/

Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/presidents-winning-without-popular-vote/ 

Thomas Jefferson Quote: "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.": https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/democracy-nothing-more-mob-rule

U.S. Electoral Vote Assignments by States: http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/namerica/usstates/electorl.htm

California Sen. Barbara Boxer files long shot bill to scrap the Electoral College system: http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-boxer-files-longshot-bill-to-scrap-the-1479234745-htmlstory.html

Trump Didn't Beat Hillary. Hillary Beat Hillary!

Over the next few weeks, expect a flood of analysis as to how Trump won; and, of course, how Hillary lost.  But, one thing we already know is that the coalition voters that Obama put together fell apart. Note this chart that appeared in an article by Jason Easley at the PoliticusUSA website:

Simply, Trump under performed both John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012 in total votes.  And, as such, he probably should have lost. However, more importantly, Hillary lost many of the votes that Obama garnered in 2008 and 2012.   While Hillary managed to win the popular vote by a couple hundred thousand votes, she captured those votes in all the wrong places; leaving Trump to win the electoral college and the Presidency.

In addition, as CNN is reporting,  Hillary greatly under performed among Latinos, Blacks, and younger voters:

Even more astonishing is that Trump did surprisingly well among both Blacks and Latinos.  Two groups that supposedly hated him.  Then, as the website 538 is reporting, Trump beat Hillary among white women who voted 53% for Trump against 43% for Hillary.  But, Hillary did much better with college educated women: 51% to 45%.  Still, the supposedly misogynist Trump did well against Hillary for the women's vote.

For whatever the reason or reasons,  Hillary just couldn't put together the votes to win.  To me, her flaws greatly outweighed those of Trump. The media may be responsible, also, for publishing big polling leads that she commanded during the closing days of the campaign.  Often big reported leads are a form of voter suppression.  Some voters tend to stay home if they think their candidate is a shoo-in and doesn't need the extra votes.

As bad a candidate as Trump was, he still beat Hillary.  One can only wonder what the results would have been if someone more electable than Trump ran against her.  Perhaps a landslide!

References:

CNN: Trump stomps all over the Democrats' Blue [Fire] Wall: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-blue-wall/

5 Reasons Why Trump Won the Election: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/11/09/5-Reasons-Why-Trump-Won-Election

Source of Top Graphic: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/11/09/graph-shows-hillary-clinton-lost-democrats-vote.html

Source of 2nd Graphic: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/clinton-votes-african-americans-latinos-women-white-voters/

Clinton Couldn’t Win Over White Women: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-couldnt-win-over-white-women/

Google Search: Hillary has double digit lead: https://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+has+10+point+lead&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#safe=off&q=hillary+has+double+digit+lead 

pb

Hillary's Disasterous New Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia

One of the supposed accomplishments of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was her negotiation of the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) with Russia that was signed in 2011.  She personally touts this on the campaign trail. So, does her running mate Tim Kaine. Husband Bill, proudly and verbally pats her on the back for this good work.   Her campaign started running ads in early September that said “Hillary oversaw hard-nosed negotiations with the Russians for a new START treaty to greatly reduce our countries’ nuclear stockpiles."

Well, here's the truth.  Little noticed, on October 1, the State Department gave a report card on the New START treaty.  While both the U.S. and Russia were to maintain nuclear weapon stockpiles at or below 1,550 by 2018, Russia now has 1,796.  That's more than they had at the time the treaty was agreed to.  At the same time, the U.S. has taken our stockpiles from 1,800 to 1,367.

So, being "hard-nosed" equates to us rolling over and weakening our strategic position, as Russia ignores the ink on the treaty without paying a single penalty for building up arms.  And, don't forget, Hillary also worked on the Iran nuke deal.  She'll really make a tough president, alright!

References:

Clinton, Kaine go too far in touting a nuclear deal with Russia: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/04/clinton-kaine-go-too-far-in-touting-a-nuclear-deal-with-russia/

Jake Tapper Video: Clinton Ad Misleads on Russian Nuclear Agreement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_rFK8QKchc

The Russian Nuclear Weapons Buildup and the Future of the New START Treaty: http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/11/02/the_russian_nuclear_weapons_buildup_110294.html

Russia’s Nuclear Surge: Putin Adding Nukes While Obama Cuts: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/07/russia-s-nuclear-surge-putin-adding-nukes-while-obama-cuts.html

The Damnatio Memoriae of Huma Abedin

In Latin, the words "damnatio memoriae" literally means to "condemn memory to damnation".  In reality, it is to strike the name of someone or something forever.  It is someone or something that is so reviled, the name should never be spoken again.  History is littered with incidents of "damnatio memoriae".  In this country, Benedict Arnold achieved such notoriety with his image and name being stricken from the United States Military Academy.  He is now only referred to as a "Major General. Born 1740". Most recently, we are seeing the "damnatio memoriae" of the Confederate flag. 

This brings us to Huma Abedin and the emails that were found on a laptop that was shared between herself and her disgusting husband Anthony Weiner.  Following that disclosure, Hillary has never spoken her name again.   Instead, she refers to the Vice Chairwoman of her campaign as "one of her staffers".  Wow!  What a demotion!  She might as well be one of the volunteers handing out bumper stickers at one of Hillary's campaign events. On top of that, Huma has been relegated to civilian life and appears to be completely off the campaign trail.

I think the "damnatio memoriae" of Huma demonstrates that there is something "there", there, in the FBI investigation.  If Hillary believed that Huma did nothing wrong, she would be defending her previous closest friend. But instead, it appears that Huma has been thrown under the bus; with perhaps, the bus backing over her once again for good measure.

References:

Damnatio memoriae: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_memoriae

Huma Abedin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huma_Abedin

The Rise and Fall of Huma Abedin: From Hillary's Most Trusted Adviser to Just 'One of My Staffers': http://ijr.com/wildfire/2016/11/725459-the-rise-and-fall-of-huma-abedin-from-hillarys-most-trusted-adviser-to-just-one-of-my-staffers/

Huma Abedin just 'one of Hillary Clinton's staffers' after aide left behind on Ohio trip: 

Huma Abedin lies low amid email probe: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/01/politics/huma-abedin-anthony-weiner-hillary-clinton-email-fbi/index.html

Merrick Garland---if Hillary Wins and the Senate Flips

I have always thought that Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court was nothing but a political move.  While Garland is "supremely" qualified, he is too moderate for either Barack Obama's or Hillary Clinton's tastes.  Don't be surprised if his nomination is pulled by Obama if Hillary wins, thereby leaving the nomination process in her hands.  If the Senate flips to Democratic control, there will be nothing stopping her from seating a young, far left nominee that will affect the high court for decades to come.

Both Obama and Hillary are very aware of what the Supreme Court means to an extremely liberal administration.  The very left-leaning Obama and his "pen" actions on executive orders have yielded just a 45% win rate in the court. Compare that to an average win rate of more than 60% for all other administrations in the last 50 years.  Obama was so liberal that the 4 liberal Justices on the court sided with their conservative counterparts by handing down a total of 44 unanimous decisions against him.

The Republican Senate probably made a horrible tactical decision by not approving the appointment of Garland; especially since they have known for months that a potential loser like Trump was their party's nominee. Now, there is a distinct possibility that the first liberal court since before 1970, can wind up being more extreme than ever imagined.  At stake will be decisions on gun control, late term abortions, extreme air and clean water rulings, and every liberal direction Hillary Clinton can take us.  When she takes office, she will quickly begin her run for a second term, by showing her suppporters that she means to take care of business for them.  A more liberal Supreme Court will assist by not blocking her actions.

References:

Merrick Garland’s instinct for the middle could put him in the court’s most influential spot: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/merrick-garlands-instinct-is-for-the-middle/2016/03/16/59a82132-eb91-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html?tid=a_inl

What If the Supreme Court Were Liberal?: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/what-if-the-supreme-court-were-liberal/477018/

Obama Has Lost In The Supreme Court More Than Any Modern President: http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/obama-has-lost-in-the-supreme-court-more-than-any-modern-president/

After 45 years of conservative rulings, here’s what a liberal Supreme Court would do: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/after-45-years-of-conservative-rulings-heres-what-a-liberal-supreme-court-would-do/2016/02/19/efa63ad4-d589-11e5-b195-2e29a4e13425_story.html?utm_term=.457a9e4162ae

Hillary's Political Jiu Jitsu In This Latest FBI Investigation

Hillary Clinton is a trained, licensed, and former practicing lawyer.  As such, she knows that no investigative agency, such as the FBI, is ever going to release evidence in a case prior to the conclusion of an investigation because, to do so, could prejudice a potential trial or possible exoneration.

But, hours after it was revealed that the FBI had reopened the investigation of Hillary's emails based on newly found evidence on a Weiner/Abedin laptop, Hillary called for the complete release of any and all evidence the FBI is holding.  Of course, the makes her look as if she has nothing to hide and implies innocence.  I wish she used the same "get it all out" judgement when she BleachBit all her emails on her personal server.  This is simply Clinton politics as usual and she knows it.  And, she damn well knows that FBI Director Comey will never do what she is asking him to do because that would be unethical.  Of course, "ethics" has never been one of Hillary's strong points.

Further, she is also fond of referring to the FBI action as a "review" rather than an investigation.  It sounds much less serious that way.  Another, political and very lawyerly tactic.

Lastly, the evidence that the FBI suspects is there, must be particularly damning for them to announce these actions just 10 days before the election.  Logically, one can assume that the heat they're taking now may pale in comparison to whatever heat they may receive for not disclosing this highly explosive investigation until after the election.  

References:

Clinton calls on FBI to release 'full and complete facts' of email review: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/fbi-reviewing-new-emails-in-clinton-probe-director-tells-senate-judiciary-committee/

pb

Obama on Hillary: Now and in 2008

In a joint campaign stop, President Obama said this about Hillary Clinton:

"And that’s why I can say with confidence there has never been a man or a woman—not me, not Bill, nobody—more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America.”

 Apparently, the President forgot this little video from his 2008 campaign against Hillary:

Reference:

Obama: Hillary Clinton Most Qualified Presidential Candidate Ever: http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2016/07/27/obama-hillary-clinton-most-qualified-presidential-candidate-ever

pb