Recently in News Category
Even the New York Times has been forced to address the Democrat dirty tricks revealed by Project Veritas. The NYT goes to great lengths to downplay the seriousness of the revelations and impugn Project Veritas, but they do link to the videos.
Hillary Clinton's campaign and the party committee moved to distance themselves from the behavior described in the videos, and the committee said the two men were no longer assisting it. The party also cast doubt on the veracity of the released videos, which were produced by Project Veritas, a conservative group led by the activist James O'Keefe that has been heavily criticized as using deceptive editing.
No mention that Hillary herself "has been heavily criticized" for deception. I love the use of the passive voice there... the NYT gets to undermine the credibility of Project Veritas without naming or quoting any sources. "Has been heavily criticized" by whom? Let us know the source of the criticism so we can judge the source's motives and credibility for ourselves.
At least they don't bury the lede:
A Democratic operative, wearing a checkered blue shirt and a tie, spoke calmly, explaining exactly how agents could infiltrate the rallies of Donald J. Trump and cause mayhem among the Republican's nominee team, his security staff and supporters.
Creating an explosive reaction, said the operative, Scott Foval, was "the whole point of it."
Mr. Foval and Robert Creamer, another operative working for the Democratic National Committee, were the unwitting stars of undercover videos released this week in which they and others were captured discussing unseemly tactics like instigating violence at Mr. Trump's rallies and arranging for fraudulent voting.
The Democrats paid people to instigate violence at Trump's rallies, and then publically hammered Trump for the violence at his rallies.
Of course now no one in the Democrat National Committee knows anything about it. Is Brazile the source for the "heavy criticism"? She's devoted to electing Hillary.
"We do not believe, or have any evidence to suggest, that the activities articulated in the video actually occurred," said Donna Brazile, the interim Democratic chairwoman. The Clinton campaign similarly denounced the tactics, while chiding Project Veritas, saying it has "been known to offering misleading video out of context."
The evidence that the "activities" occurred is that there was violence at some of Trump's rallies! Trump's rally in Chicago was cancelled because of a riot! People were injured!
For hours, the Chicago police, along with university officers, the federal authorities and others, were out here in force. A Chicago police spokesman said that city law enforcement authorities were not consulted and had no role in canceling the event. The spokesman said there had been five arrests, two by the Chicago police, two by the university's police and one by the Illinois State Police. The fire department said three people, including a police officer, were injured. ...
Arguments and small skirmishes broke out along the streets. At one point, the police rushed in, separating people.
At least one man was hit on the head with a police baton, witnesses said, and blood could be seen coming from a gash on his face. A woman, also bloodied, was led away by police.
Chris Wallace did a good job -- the best of any of the moderators this year. He asked both candidates tough questions.
Hillary evaded many tough questions, which is par for the course.
Trump should learn how to evade better... instead he tends to topics that are damaging to him. There's a reason politicians evade.
I don't have the energy to write much more than that. I doubt this debate did much to convince anyone of anything. If there's a real October surprise bombshell it will probably come soon, now that the candidates don't have another opportunity to respond to the public broadly.
Nate Silver looks at the gender gap in 2016 presidential polls. Cue up all the suggestions to disenfranchise one gender or the other.
Here's a quick way to estimate it. In the polls I cited above, Clinton is doing 10 points better among women than among the electorate overall. So we'll add 10 points to her current polls-only margin in every state to forecast her performance if women were the only ones who could vote. In addition to the states where Clinton is already leading Trump, that would put her ahead in Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and the 2nd congressional districts in Maine and Nebraska. Clinton would win 458 electoral votes to just 80 for Trump.
If men were the only voters, conversely, we'd have to subtract 10 points from Clinton's current margin in every state -- which would yield an awfully red map. Trump would win everything that could plausibly be called a swing state, with Clinton hanging on only to the West Coast, parts of the Northeast, Illinois and New Mexico. That would yield 350 electoral votes for Trump to 188 for Clinton.
Twitter has suspended the account of @Instapundit, a.k.a. Glenn Reynolds, for recommending that people trapped by rioters use their cars to escape and protect their own lives. Here's the offending tweet:
Perhaps Professor Reynolds should have written "keep driving", or something less intemperate. Of course it would be illegal and immoral to use deadly force against a peaceful protester, but the protests in Charlotte have been quite violent.
It's both lawful and moral to use deadly force to protect your life and property.
Zero Hedge (yeah, I know, not always the most temperate source) has an excellent report about how David Brock is laundering money through Media Matters and various "charities" to enrich himself. This is probably just the tip of the iceberg for the Democrat-dominated "non-profit" sector -- if you think Brock is the only one doing this, you're delusional.
The Left's web of "charities" is intentionally incestuous and opaque for the purpose of graft, from the Clinton Global Initiative on down. Is it any wonder that they're freaking out about the possibility of a Republican president who isn't hesitant about smashing the status quo? It's hard to imagine a Trump presidency letting this all slide as "business as usual", no matter what President Bush ignored a decade ago.
Say, for example, you donate $1,062,857 to Media Matters for America. This is how David Brock would have used your charitable donation in 2014:
Media Matters would receive your $1,062,857 donation
- The Bonner Group would earn a $132,857 commission
- Media Matters would retain $930,000
Next, Media Matters would give what's left of your entire donation, $930,000, to the Franklin Education Forum
- The Bonner Group would 'earn' a $116,250 commission
- The Franklin Education Forum would retain $813,750
The Franklin Education Forum would then forward the remaining $813,750 to The Franklin Forum
- The Bonner Group would 'earn' a $101,718 commission
- The Franklin Forum would retain $712,031
In the end, Brock's solicitor would have pocketed $350,825, almost a third of your initial donation! That's a far cry from the advertised 12.5% commission.
As bizarre as that scenario may sound, this is exactly what David Brock did in 2014.
This is beyond parody: upon realizing that its systems were hacked, the DNC sent out a single new password to people by email.
- Why send out a new password using email that you know has already been hacked?
- Why do multiple people get the same password?
Scott Adams says that Donald Trump doesn't wear v-neck sweaters.
You can criticize Donald Trump on many dimensions. You can say he's not really a great businessman. You can say he's offensive. You can say he lies. You can hate his position on issues. You can say he has insufficient policy details. And lots more. But I think we all agree that Melania never asks Donald to go back to the store because he's too dumb to buy the right kind of soap on the first try.
Hillary Clinton says that people under FBI investigation should have their rights preemptively curtailed. Uh, like her?
"If the FBI is watching you for suspected terrorist links," Hillary Clinton said today in her supposedly apolitical speech, "you shouldn't be able to just go buy a gun."
If we're going to do this, let's be consistent.
If the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation of your suspected illegal use of a home email server to transmit classified intelligence, you shouldn't be allowed to just go and run for president. Obviously. The idea that we would allow a person who can't be trusted with our most vital secrets to hold the most powerful office in the nation is absurd. It's just not safe.
Chick-fil-a is one of our favorite fast-food places, so it's great to see them helping out blood donors in Orlando in the aftermath of the Pulse massacre.
In a shocking move, the Orlando location at University and Rouse Road fired up its grills on Sunday. The chain is notorious for not being open, ever, on the first day of the week. Employees cooked up hundreds of their famous chicken sandwiches. They brewed dozens of gallons of sweet tea.Chick-fil-A-logo-vec
Then, instead of making a single dime, they crated the product of their labor to the One Blood donation center. The food and drinks were handed out, free of charge, to all the people who had lined up to donate blood.
So far, the only mentions of the incident have been from individuals on Facebook. They have posted photos thanking the restaurant for their thoughtfulness and generosity.
America is a generous country, and it doesn't take government arm-twisting to help those in need. Good for you, Chick-fil-a!
Despite President Obama's denunciation of our civil right as Americans to keep and bear arms, it's obvious that that Orlando murderer would have been stopped in his tracks if a few of the Pulse patrons had been armed. There's no way he could have shot 100+ people and killed 50 if anyone else inside the club had a gun.
Our prayers are with the victims and their families.
"Honestly, do you think the White House has spent more time in the past 90 days managing its school bathroom mandate for transgender students or trying figuring out how to make TSA security lines work with adequate efficiency this travel season? The answer is obvious."
Denial is rampant in this administration. Its approach to management is to deny problems exist and to shift focus to one left-wing cause or another. I have no doubt the TSA strategy will be to shift blame, whine about funding shortages and deny that things are as bad as they are. I suspect after a congressional probe, we will actually find that much of the TSA problems in the summer of 2016 were made worse by the Obama administration's obsession with regulations, grievances and union rules that took precedence over efficiency, customer service and getting a job done.
What's the point of a technocrat who can't run things efficiently?
Larry O'Connor has pictures and video of the anti-Trump protests in New Mexico last night. Most interesting to me right now are the euphemisms the media is using to describe the mayhem.
Here's CNN's contribution to the cause: (emphasis mine)Protesters lit fires, smashed a door and threw rocks outside a Donald Trump rally Tuesday night in New Mexico -- the latest scuffle to follow the presumptive Republican nominee's campaign.
Scuffle? Look at that paragraph again. Arson, vandalism, violence and assault summed up by CNN with the quaint little word "scuffle." Just a little scuffle folks, nothing to see here:
And yes, watch that video above and you'll see that the thugs were waving Mexican flags, but you won't see that reported either
How many people will believe that these riots are Trump's fault?
Liberals will try to imply that violence by anti-Trump rioters is somehow Trump's fault, but they can't sell that theory. Most people dislike riots and rioters just as much today as they did in 1968. Trump has risen to the top of the political heap in large part because of the enemies he has made. During the primaries, the more he was denounced by liberal reporters, the more votes he got. The same will happen in the general election if voters see that he is besieged by left-wing rioters.
Earlier this month, three Democratic senators obtained a letter from the State Department suggesting that reports about 2,100 classified emails were found in Clinton's account may have exaggerated the import of that claim. A top State official suggested there was nothing wrong with Clinton handling about 2,000 of those messages in unclassified channels because they were only classified in order to prevent the release of those messages to the public following FOIA requests.
To the best of my knowledge, a desire to avoid compliance with an FOIA request is not a justification for classifying information.
So says Sanders campaign spokesman Michael Briggs. Strangely, the editorial begins with a slap at Donald Trump and his supporters, who play no apparent role in the conflict between Sanders and Hillary that is tearing the Democrats apart.
The Sanders campaign has been noticeably silent about the events on social media - the main way the candidate communicates with his supporters.
When asked by reporters, his campaign spokesman, Michael Briggs, insists that Sanders does not "condone violence or encourage violence or even threats of violence." Then in the next breath, his campaign abdicates all responsibility for what happened in Nevada, offers excuses and shifts the blame.
Briggs says the campaign "had no role in encouraging the activity that the party is complaining about." He even implied to The New York Times that Democratic Party itself is partly responsible for the tense atmosphere because it's not doing a good enough job of being welcoming to "people who have been energized and excited by (the Sanders) campaign."
Sanders is no noble that he doesn't "even" condone or encourage threats of violence! How can you question his integrity? He had no role in any of this!
Abolitionist Harriet Tubman will be replacing President Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill. Sounds good to me... I've got no particular attachment to Jackson -- he was a slaveholder, creator of the Trial of Tears, and the founder of the Democratic Party.
Surprisingly, none of the news articles about Tubman note her party affiliation or her choice of weapon.
It's hard to think of a stronger endorsement for Trump than the numerous Wall Streeters who don't like him.
"I can't find connective tissue between the financial sector and Trump," said one senior industry official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid being seen publicly questioning Trump. ...
"Wall Street works in close collaboration between policymakers and markets, and Trump is a disrupter," said Peter Kenny, a 20-year Wall Street veteran. "Just because he's a billionaire does not mean that he is part of the team."
What's more, the short snippet about Trump's relationship with Deutsche Bank strikes me as complimentary.
Trump had personally guaranteed $40 million of Deutsche's $640 million construction loan for the project. When a payment came due in November 2008, the billionaire asked for an extension. Deutsche refused, and Trump sued for $3 billion, condemning the bank's "predatory lending practices."
Deutsche countersued and did not hold back in asking that Trump's suit be thrown out. "Trump is no stranger to an overdue debt," the company said in one filing. "This suit is classic Trump."
Trump and Deutsche Bank, which declined to comment for this article, finally reached an agreement in August 2010 that extended the loan for five years. It has since been paid off.
Eventually both sides patched things up. Trump and his daughter Ivanka are building a $200 million luxury hotel at the Old Post Office Pavilion in the District. Trump has said he is investing $42 million of his own money into the project.
There is just one loan: $170 million from Deutsche Bank.
I wonder if Trump will be able to mend fences with the Republican elites and general voters who don't like him now?
Barring indictment for Hillary or shenanigans at the Republican convention, it looks like 2016 will be Trump vs. Hillary.
Trump isn't my favorite, but I'm not panicking about his nomination. I'm pretty tired of the Republican elites who have squandered the past 16 years. Let's shake things up! Trump: safer than a civil war or Constitutional convention.
The first victim of the Uber gunman threw herself in front of children when the gunman opened fire and gave police crucial information to track him down.
Tiana Carruthers was outside her Kalamazoo, Michigan, apartment with several youngsters on a playground at around 5:00pm on Saturday when the suspect, who's been named as Jason Dalton, pulled up in his Chevrolet.
Sensing trouble, the mother put herself between the attacker and the children, and was shot multiple times as a result, but survived and was able to give the police vital evidence that helped them catch the suspected killer.
Said Donald Trump as he concluded his victory speech last night in Nevada. That's exactly the sentiment that many voters want to hear. Trump isn't my first choice for the nomination, but I have to admit, his nationalism gets my blood pumping. I don't think he's really conservative -- most recently I've condemned his lack of support for strong encryption -- and I'm anxious about the policies he'll actually enact when he's president.
Wait, did I just write "when"? I guess I did. Yeah, I think it's pretty likely at this point. Of course, I didn't think America could possibly re-elect Obama after his disastrous first term, so my record of predictions is pretty bad. It's more a gut thing than a prediction: Trump will destroy Hillary, just like he dominated the Republican nomination process.
Even though I am skeptical about Trump's conservatism, this is the best kind of civil war for America to have: a political war. With the level of discontent and disconnect between the elites and the average citizen, the election of Donald Trump might cause enough institutional destruction to force our government to come back into alignment with us. Much preferable to a shooting war.