Reasons Democrats might be reeling even more

Perez purges progressives from the DNC in favor of Hillary-supporting fundraisers.

After Hillary’s loss, the DNC increases Hillary support

Perez puts in more Hillary-backed members to the Rules and Bylaws of the DNC

A 19 October 2017 article on details how Hillary’s supporters are once again performing an end run on the Sanders and other camps within the Democrat party.

A shake-up is underway at the Democratic National Committee as several key longtime officials have lost their posts, exposing a still-raw rift in the party and igniting anger among those in its progressive wing who see retaliation for their opposition to DNC Chairman Tom Perez.

The ousters come ahead of the DNC’s first meeting, in Las Vegas, Nevada, since Perez took over as chairman with a pledge this year to unite a party that had become badly divided during the brutal Bernie Sanders-Hillary Clinton 2016 primary race.

Complaints began immediately after party officials saw a list of Perez’s appointments to DNC committees and his roster of 75 “at-large” members, who are chosen by the chair.

The removal and demotion of a handful of veteran operatives stood out, as did what critics charge is the over-representation of Clinton-backed members on the Rules and Bylaws Committee, which helps set the terms for the party’s presidential primary, though other Sanders and Ellison backers remain represented.

Those who have been pushed out include:

  • Ray Buckley, the New Hampshire Democratic chairman and longtime DNC official who ran against Perez for chair before backing Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn. Buckley lost his spots on the Executive Committee and DNC Rules Committee.
  • James Zogby, the president of the Arab American Institute and prominent Sanders backer, is no longer co-chair of the Resolutions Committee and is off the Executive Committee, a spot he has held since 2001.
  • Alice Germond, the party’s longtime former secretary and a vocal Ellison backer, who was removed from her at-large appointment to the DNC.
  • Barbra Casbar Siperstein, who supported Ellison and Buckley, was tossed from the Executive Committee.

The moves exposed a rift in the partnership between Perez and his deputy chair, Ellison, who have publicly broadcast their “bromance” since Perez tapped Ellison for the post in a show of unity after their hard-fought race this year for the party’s chairmanship.

“I’m concerned about the optics, and I’m concerned about the impact,” Zogby said of the changes. “I want to heal the wound of 2016.”

Buckley said that while he understands Perez, as chairman, can do as he pleases, “it’s all just very disappointing.”

Germond has been on the DNC since the 1980s and was a vocal backer of Ellison for DNC chairman.

“It is quite unusual for a former party officer who has been serving on the DNC for forever to just be left out in the cold without even a call from the chairman,” Germond said. “So I assumed it had something to do with myself support for Keith.”

“I understand that I fought very hard for Keith Ellison. And I understand that to the winners go the spoils,” she added.

The DNC denied any retaliation, saying that the changes were an effort to diversify and freshen the party’s leadership and that all the party’s officers had a chance to offer input. They touted new additions like Marisa Richmond, a millennial black transgender activist, and the first Dreamer member, Ellie Perez, to point to the DNC’s efforts at diversity.

“This year’s slate of at-large DNC member nominees reflects the unprecedented diversity of our party’s coalition,” said DNC spokesperson Michael Tyler.

(

It seems very likely that many Democrats will soon be disillusioned with their party. This is also reported on the Daily Wire, Vox, the Washington Post, and other outlets.

Ravel suggests suing all who engage in a (formerly) free press

Obama’s Chair of the Federal Election Commission wants “fake news” to be regulated

The Washington Examiner reports in an 18 October 2017 article how Ann Ravel wants to suppress free speech under the guise of stopping “fake news.”

Political content on the internet, paid or not, should face substantial federal regulation to eliminate undefined “disinformation,” and users of platforms and news feeds, from Facebook, to Twitter, to the Drudge Report and even New York Times, could be punished for sharing “fake news” from those sites, the former Democratic chair of the FEC is urging.

In a broad proposal that adds threatening libel suits to regulatory plans already pushed by Democrats on the Federal Election Commission, ex-chair Ann Ravel believes that there is support for expanded regulation in the wake of reports foreign governments spent $100,000 on 2016 political ads on Facebook.

She would include “fake news,” not just paid ads, to be regulated, though it’s never defined other than the Democrat’s description of “disinformation.” And anybody who shares or retweets it could face a libel suit.

She would also use regulation to “improve voter competence,” according to the new proposal titled Fool Me Once: The Case for Government Regulation of ‘Fake News.’ Ravel, who now lectures at Berkeley Law, still has allies on the FEC who support internet regulation. The paper was co-written by Abby K. Wood, an associate professor at the University of Southern California, and Irina Dykhne, a student at USC Gould School of Law.

The proposal immediately came under fire from from the Republican FEC commissioner who for years has been warning of the left’s effort to regulate political talk they don’t like, especially on conservative newsfeeds like Drudge.

Lee Goodman told Secrets, “Ann’s proposal is full blown regulation of all political content, even discussion of issues, posted at any time, for free or for a fee, on any online platform, from Facebook to the”

He was especially critical of the undefined nature of “disinformation” to be regulated and the first-ever call for libel suits to snuff out talk Ravel doesn’t like.

In their proposal, the trio wrote, “after a social media user clicks ‘share’ on a disputed item (if the platforms do not remove them and only label them as disputed), government can require that the user be reminded of the definition of libel against a public figure. Libel of public figures requires ‘actual malice,’ defined as knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Sharing an item that has been flagged as untrue might trigger liability under libel laws.”

Goodman said, “A fatal flaw of Ann’s proposal is that it cannot define what is, or is not, ‘disinformation’ in a political message. Nevertheless, it proposes to tag threats of libel lawsuits and liability to thousands of American citizens who might want to retweet or forward a message that somebody else subjectively considers to be ‘disinformational.’ I call that the big chill.”

(Read more at Washington Examiner)

One question that I have centers on the anonymous sources that the Washington Post and New York Times, will they have to face these libel suits for each of the incorrect stories? Will they face additional suits for each time their paper refers to those incorrect stories? Will other mainstream media sources be sued for repeating incorrect stories (that is, will they charge the LA Times, instead of the end users on Twitter, Drudge, Facebook, and other outlets)?

British Newspaper Finds The Controversial Russian Lawyer Was Tied To Fusion GPS

Russian Lawyer Who Met Trump Junior Tied To Fusion GPS

A 11 July 2017 article in The Independent claims that the Russian lawyer (Natalia Veselnitskaya) embroiled in the Trump Junior meeting situation had ties to opposition research firm Fusion GPS.

“In a statement, Mark Corallo added: ‘Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with Fusion GPS, a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives to develop opposition research on the President and which commissioned the phony Steele dossier.’

Fusion GPS, which is based in Washington DC and was established by former Wall Street Journal reporters Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, found itself in the spotlight earlier this year after it emerged it was behind an ‘oppo research’ dossier containing unproven and often salacious allegations about Mr Trump.

The company had originally been hired by Republican rivals of Mr Trump during the primary campaign. After he secured the party’s nomination, the company was instead paid by Democratic financial supporters of Ms Clinton. In the summer of 2016, GPS hired former British intelligence agent, Christopher Steele, to help their work.”

(Read more at The Independent)

You know that, if we switched the players in this game around so that it was someone from the Hillary camp meeting with the Ukrainians, the press would either actively ignore the story or start screaming “Entrapment!”

Relevant Tweets

Since this part of the story will probably not be actively pursued by the media, we can only guess how the true story will play out. Therefore, the following tweets present a wide set of leads.





Hillary used the IRS to intimidate a minion for her family foundation

Hillary’s Minion’s try to take on the tactics of Minion Lerner

A 25 April 2016 Daily Caller article indicates that Hillary Clinton’s minions started playing from the playbook of Barack Obama and his minion Lois Lerner.

“Hillary Clinton’s Department of State aides allegedly threatened a South Asian prime minister’s son with an IRS audit in an attempt to stop a Bangladesh government investigation of a close friend and donor of Clinton’s, The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Investigative Group learned.

A Bangladesh government commission was investigating multiple charges of financial mismanagement at Grameen Bank, beginning in May 2012. Muhammad Yunus, a major Clinton Foundation donor, served as managing director of the bank.

Sajeeb Wazed Joy, son of Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and permanent U.S. resident, recalled the account of the threatened IRS audit to TheDCNF. The allegations mark the first known instance in the U.S. that Clinton’s Department of State used IRS power to intimidate a close relative of a friendly nation’s head of state on behalf of a Clinton Foundation donor.

Wazed told TheDCNF it was ‘astounding and mind boggling’ that senior State Department officials between 2010 and 2012 repeatedly pressured him to influence his mother to drop the commission investigation.

The commission report was released in early 2013.

‘They threatened me with the possibility of an audit by the Internal Revenue Service,’ he said. ‘I have been here legally for 17 years and never had a problem. But they said, ‘well, you know, you might get audited.’

‘They would say over and over again, ‘Yunus has powerful friends’ and we all knew they were talking of Secretary Clinton. Everybody knew it was Mrs. Clinton,’ Wazed told TheDCNF.

The Prime Minister originally disclosed in general terms the pressure exerted on her son at a February reception in Munich.

‘Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has said her son Sajeeb Wazed Joy had to face pressure from the US State Department to keep Muhammad Yunus as the Grameen Bank managing director, the Dhaka Tribune reported.

‘Hillary Clinton phoned me and exerted the same pressure. Even the U.S. State Department summoned my son Joy three times and told him that we would face trouble,’ Hasina added.

Hasina said State Department officials told Joy that Clinton would not take the matter lightly.

‘Convince your mother,’ she recalled Joy quoting officials.

However, Hasina never provided details of the ordeal her son faced until his interview with TheDCNF.

The World Bank also decided to rescind a $1.2 billion loan to Bangladesh while the IRS was pressuring Joy in 2012. The money was requested in order to build a key bridge near the capital city of Dhaka. The World Bank leveled bribery charges against two Canadian officials, but a Canadian court later acquitted both individuals.

Former Bangladesh Foreign Minister Dipu Moni, who twice met with then-Secretary of State Clinton, told TheDCNF it was apparent there were links between the World Bank loan cancellation and Yunus. Moni now is chairwoman of the parliamentary committee on foreign affairs.

‘Whether there was any abuse by the U.S. Government or the secretary of state, that I cannot say,’ Moni said. ‘I can only say we saw two facts: One was the communications from the State Department, and then the other one was the withdrawal of World Bank’s loan.’

But she was more direct about Yunus’ role in the World Bank cancellation.

‘Professor Yunus obviously tried to punish or tried to retaliate and punish the government of Bangladesh, especially [Prime Minister] Sheikh Hasina,’ she said. ‘He knew how important the Padma [bridge] was for our economy, for our people’s government, and it would revive the whole of south of Bangladesh.’

‘Obviously, he tried to use that to get out of the situation he was in, and he wanted to punish the government,’ she said.

Wade claimed he received threats from all levels of the State Department.

‘The threats came from all levels. It came from the U.S. Embassy in Bangladesh to pretty senior officials within the State Department.’

Wade regularly met many State Department officials as he lived near the nation’s capital. He considered many to be friends and colleagues, but the tone and substance of the discussions radically changed beginning in 2010. “

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

Along with Hillary’s Russian uranium deal, isn’t this the type of wheeling and dealing that Hillary was denying during the campaign? Doesn’t this validate everything that Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump were saying about her?

A victory for equality under the law is cast as bullying by the left

Judicial Watch press release on the 27 December 2016 ruling

On 27 December 2016, Judicial Watch provided the following press release:

“Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding today’s ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a case that would require Secretary of State John Kerry to seek the help of the attorney general in recovering additional Hillary Clinton emails:

The courts seem to be fed up with the Obama administration’s refusal to enforce the rule of law on the Clinton emails.  Today’s appeals court ruling rejects the Obama State Department’s excuses justifying its failure to ask the attorney general, as the law requires, to pursue the recovery of the Clinton emails.  This ruling means that the Trump Justice Department will have to decide if it wants to finally enforce the rule of law and try to retrieve all the emails Clinton and her aides unlawfully took with them when they left the State Department.

The appellate ruling reverses a decision in which the District Court declared “moot” a Judicial Watch’s lawsuit challenging the failure of Secretary of State John Kerry to comply with the Federal Records Act (FRA) in seeking to recover the emails of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other high level State Department officials who used non-“” email accounts to conduct official business (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. John F. Kerry (No. 16-5015)). According to the FRA, if an agency head becomes aware of “any actual, impending, or threatened unlawful removal . . . or destruction of [agency] records,” he or she “shall notify the Archivist . . . and with the assistance of the Archivist shall initiate action through the Attorney General for the recovery of [those] records.”
An appellate panel found:

Appellants sought the only relief provided by the Federal Records Act—an enforcement action through the Attorney General. But nothing the Department did (either before or after those complaints were filed) gave appellants what they wanted. Instead of proceeding through the Attorney General, the Department asked the former Secretary to return her emails voluntarily and similarly requested that the FBI share any records it obtained.  Even though those efforts bore some fruit, the Department has not explained why shaking the tree harder—e.g., by following the statutory mandate to seek action by the Attorney General—might not bear more still. It is therefore abundantly clear that, in terms of assuring government recovery of emails, appellants have not ‘been given everything [they] asked for.’  Absent a showing that the requested enforcement action could not shake loose a few more emails, the case is not moot.

In May 2015 Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit after the State Department failed to take action following a letter to Kerry ‘notifying him of the unlawful removal of the Clinton emails and requesting that he initiate enforcement action pursuant to the FRA,’ including working through the Attorney General to recover the emails.  Judicial Watch’s lawsuit subsequently was consolidated with a later lawsuit by Cause of Action Institute.  This ruling reverses a January 2016 decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissing the case and remands it.”

When liberals talk about any action taken in response to Hillary’s illegal server, her handling of classified information, or any other related phase of this mess, they want to refer to prosecution and investigation as “harassment” (refer to the part of this post that links to Mother Jones).  Odd how liberals seem to want exempt the political class from the law.  If anyone finds fault with the Trump administration, will the same standard remain in place?

Of course, I don’t want Republicans to be as openly corrupt as Democrats.  Truthfully, I would like to see all politicians held to a high standard.

The Hill reports on appeals court reopening cases centering on Hillary’s emails

In a 28 December 2016 article by The Hill, all parties to the lawsuit come to the fore.

“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Tuesday reversed a lower court’s ruling that the State Department’s review of Clinton’s emails was sufficient — and that no intervention by the Justice Department was needed.

Watchdog groups Judicial Watch and Cause of Action filed separate suits in 2015 seeking to force Secretary of State John Kerry and U.S. Archivist David Ferriero to refer the email issue to the Department of Justice to file a federal records suit to recover the emails.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg had previously ruled that state’s efforts to recover the documents — tens of thousands of which Clinton turned over voluntarily in 2014 — were sufficient and threw out the cases.

But the three-judge appeals court panel on Tuesday said that State had not done enough.

‘Even though those efforts bore some fruit, the Department has not explained why shaking the tree harder — e.g., by following the statutory mandate to seek action by the Attorney General — might not bear more still,’ D.C. Circuit Judge Stephen Williams, a Ronald Reagan appointee, wrote in the court’s opinion. ‘It is therefore abundantly clear that, in terms of assuring government recovery of emails, appellants have not ‘been given everything [they] asked for.

‘Absent a showing that the requested enforcement action could not shake loose a few more emails, the case is not moot.’ “

(Read more at The Hill)

Thank heavens that some within Obama’s courts find more allegiance to the law than they do to the Democrat party.

OneNewsNow gets a statement from Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch

Chris Farrell of Judicial Watch spoke with OneNewsNow, as shown by a 30 December 2016 article.

“Judicial Watch maintains that it has won a major court ruling from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in a case that would require Secretary of State John Kerry to seek the help of the Attorney General in recovering Clinton’s additional emails.

Chris Farrell, who serves as director of Research and Investigation at Judicial Watch, is confident that the email scandal is not going away anytime soon.

‘We’re going to get to the bottom of this,’ Farrell assured. ‘It doesn’t matter whether the public’s attention has shifted to something else, [and] it doesn’t matter because Mrs. Clinton wasn’t elected. That’s not what we’re asking about. Those records belong to the American public – and we’re going to fight to get them back.

Farrell also insists that all of these questions that are being asked in this civil proceeding could reveal information that incoming Attorney General Jeff Sessions may be compelled to act on.

‘The national security crimes that Mrs. Clinton committed, those of the circle around her people – like Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills – there’s a national security crime involved,’ Farrell argued ‘There [are] serious fundraising questions concerning the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton Global Initiative – their supposed charities which are really just money-laundering operations and influence-buying rackets.’ “

(Read the rest at OneNewsNow)

One does have to wonder how many felonious hands are in this soup of illegal servers, mishandled state secrets, and other criminal activity.  Will Hillary be rooming with Huma, Cheryl, and a number of other Democrat operatives?

Hyperbole by leftists at Mother Jones

In a piece published on Mother Jones titled: Judicial Watch Wants to Salt the Earth Over Hillary Clinton’s Corpse, one writer concludes his article in a way that would have everyone believe that Judicial Watch (and the coopted and corrupt Justice Department) should just let poor Hillary alone now that she has forever lost the last seat of power she can ever lose.

” Judicial Watch was founded for the purpose of destroying Bill Clinton, and then switched effortlessly to a new mission of destroying Hillary Clinton. It took more than 20 years, but they finally won. Victory is theirs. Bill Clinton has been out of office for years and Hillary Clinton will never be president of the United States.

But they just can’t stop. Maybe there are more emails! Somewhere there’s a smoking gun! There just has to be. I swear, 20 years from now, on the day after the funeral of whichever Clinton lives the longest, Judicial Watch will be filing lawsuits against their estate demanding more emails.”

So there it is: the party that tried to bury it’s Dixiecrat past by painting itself as the hippie-dippy representative of the common man has changed again. Now it is the home of the above-the-law Establishment-crats.

Hillary Drills Down on Defeat in Electoral College

A record four electors change their votes from Hillary — Three more try

In quite a turn-around from what had been expected by the mainstream media, Hillary Clinton has found a way to garner more defeat from this election. As reported in a 19 December 2016 MartketWatch article, four electors successfully changed their vote from Hillary Clinton. An additional two attempted to change their vote, but were unsuccessful.

“The 2016 presidential election continues to defy expectations as ‘faithless electors’ emerged among Democrats refusing to support Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

In the run-up to the vote of the Electorial College, all eyes had been on whether any Republican electors would refuse to vote for Donald Trump. There had reports of last-ditch lobbying asking electors to switch from Trump to Clinton.

Instead, it has been Democratic electors who were balking.

In Washington state, three Democratic electors voted for Colin Powell and one for Faith Spotted Eagle, who has been fighting the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota, instead of Clinton.

In Minnesota, elector Muhammad Abdurrahman didn’t vote for Clinton and was replaced by an alternate who did. According to the Los Angeles Times, Abdurrahman was a delegate for Bernie Sanders at the Democratic National Convention.

In Maine, elector David Bright tried to vote for Sanders but was rebuffed and ended up voting for Clinton, according to the Associated Press.”

Only in Colorado – a Clinton elector tries to vote for Kasich to get Republicans to revolt

Through a 19 December 2016 report from the Denver Post, we learn of a screwy plan to unseat Trump … by having a Democrat vote for Kasich.

Nine Colorado presidential electors on Monday cast their votes for Hillary Clinton, winner of the general election in the state, but only after one broke ranks and was replaced.

In what usually is a ceremonial affair that rubber stamps the popular vote in all 50 states, Monday’s meeting of Colorado’s Electoral College delegates was derailed moments after it began. Attorneys phoned in a judge in a last-ditch effort to unbind electors from the popular vote and allow them to vote as they pleased.

By the time votes finally were cast at about 12:45 p.m. — 45 minutes after the ceremony was scheduled to begin — it was clear that the broader national effort to block Donald Trump from being elected was destined to fail.

But Micheal Baca, a Democratic Colorado elector who was among the leaders of that effort, cast a vote for Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich, anyway — just moments after he took an oath to vote for Clinton. He was one of six so-called “faithless electors” across the country Monday.

The scene at the Colorado capitol dissolved into a chorus of boos and shouts as the tally was announced and officials moved to replace Baca, as allowed under procedures outlined in a court hearing last week.

It will be interesting to see how Obama and Hillary blame this on the Russians.  Following are tweets primarily from papers local to the defections (both successful and not).





// relevant Bible verse

For the past month, Hillary has done everything to nullify the election. Therefore, this is fitting.

Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary. (Galatians 6:7-9 NASB)

Fake News: Promoted (and Practiced) by Democrats


Democrats’ Words on “Fake” News

Hillary’s Complaint Starts a Whirlwind

In a 9 December 2016 Daily Mail article, Hillary launched the current Democrat wave of action when she complained about the effects of “fake news.”

“An epidemic of fake news is putting lives at risk, Hillary Clinton warned yesterday.

The failed Democratic presidential candidate said that false stories could have ‘real world consequences’.

She called on companies including Facebook and Google to ‘step up’ and take action.

Fake news – false stories and conspiracies propagated on the internet – became a major issue during the presidential campaign.

During a speech on Capitol Hill Mrs Clinton said: ‘It’s now clear that so-called fake news can have real world consequences.

‘This isn’t about politics or partisanship. Lives are at risk. Lives of ordinary people just trying to go about their days, to do their jobs, contribute to their communities.

‘It’s imperative that leaders from the private sector and the public sector step up to protect our democracy and innocent lives.’ ”

(Read more at the Daily Mail)

For Hillary Clinton or any of the Obama administration to complain about “fake” news after their weeks of insisting that Benghazi fell due to “an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with,”
demonstrates the utter depravity of Democrats.  They figure, connive, and say what they will since they think Americans are too dumb or too completely bought to hold them to account.



Democrat Representative Eliot Engel admits “I haven’t heard from from intelligence sources”

The Washington Free Beacon reported in a 12 December 2016 article that the ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee had not been briefed by the CIA as late as Monday:

“The CIA reportedly found that the Russia hacks were part of an effort to help put Donald Trump in the White House, a conclusion that the president-elect strongly rejects.

‘Did you hear from intelligence sources that Russia’s intent was to put Donald Trump in the White House?’ CNN host Carol Costello asked Engel on Monday.

‘I haven’t heard from intelligence sources,’ Engel said. ‘I only know what I’m reading in the newspapers, but intelligence sources have not contacted members of Congress. I’m calling on the intelligence sources to brief the members of Congress to give us a thorough briefing as to what they know and why they came to the conclusion that they came with.’ ”

(Read the entire article at The Washington Free Beacon)

It seems almost as if the Democrats have introduced their own operative into the CIA so that they can get him (or her or zer) to spout the party line.


Main Stream Media toes the Democrat line

New York Times claims CIA story about Russian hacking of US elections is built on evidence

The “news” organization who allowed Hillary to edit their stories and whose writers blatantly abandoned journalistic standards (the New York Times) now claims in a 11 December 2016 story that recent reports from the CIA come from a “swell of evidence.”

“American spy and law enforcement agencies were united in the belief, in the weeks before the presidential election, that the Russian government had deployed computer hackers to sow chaos during the campaign. But they had conflicting views about the specific goals of the subterfuge.

Last week, Central Intelligence Agency officials presented lawmakers with a stunning new judgment that upended the debate: Russia, they said, had intervened with the primary aim of helping make Donald J. Trump president.

The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence — evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments — that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome.

It is unclear why the C.I.A. did not produce this formal assessment before the election, although several officials said that parts of it had been made available to President Obama in the presidential daily briefing in the weeks before the vote. But the conclusion that Moscow ran an operation to help install the next president is one of the most consequential analyses by American spy agencies in years.

Mr. Trump’s response has been to dismiss the reports by citing another famous intelligence assessment — the botched 2002 conclusion that the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, had weapons of mass destruction — and portraying American spies as bumbling and biased.

‘I think it’s ridiculous. I think it’s just another excuse. I don’t believe it,’ Mr. Trump said on Sunday in an interview on Fox News. Some top Republican congressmen have said the same, although with less bombastic language, arguing that there is no clear proof that the Russians tried to rig the election for Mr. Trump.

Yet there is a loud chorus of bipartisan voices, including Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, going public to accuse the Russians of election interference.”

American intelligence officials believe that Russia also penetrated databases housing Republican National Committee data, but chose to release documents only on the Democrats. The committee has denied that it was hacked.

(Read as much as you can stand at the New York Times)

One part of this article that the New York Times never fact-checked was the claim that the RNC was hacked. As reported by numerous venues, RNC Chair Reince Priebus denied that the Republican National Committee had been hacked during the election season.


Main Stream Media points out inconsistencies in the “fake” news narrative

USA Today points to differences in the FBI and CIA assessments

A 12 December 2016 USA Today asked the following questions and answers:

Q: On what points of the new Russian assessment do the CIA and other intelligence authorities differ with the FBI?

A: The FBI does not dispute that the CIA’s assessment could be accurate, said a U.S. official with knowledge of the matter. The difference lies in the institutional standards the agencies require in reaching such conclusions. While the CIA develops assessments based on a broad interpretation of available data, the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, requires a standard of proof that could sustain a possible criminal prosecution.

There have been differences, the official said, in how much weight to ascribe a range of possible motives: Were the Russians specifically seeking to tilt the election in favor of Trump? Was the effort designed to damage Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s future ability to govern, believing that she was destined to win? Or was the operation a hedging of bets to sow confusion and undermine confidence in the process?

Of the assessment that the Republican Party systems were likely breached, the official said the picture is not entirely clear. While not dismissing the intelligence community’s conclusion, the official said a more definitive determination has not yet been reached.

Q: Is there suspicion that Russian hackers may have tampered with votes?

A: No. Federal officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and FBI Director James Comey, have said that the decentralized nature of voting systems across the U.S. poses a difficult target for hackers.

‘In our judgment, it would be very difficult to alter a ballot count in any one place and have a significant consequence,’ Johnson said in an interview last month with USA TODAY.”

(Read the rest at USA Today)

At least this Q&A correctly points out that the American system of voting makes it almost impossible to hack all of the component voting systems.


Reuters reports top intelligence office does not endorse the CIA report on Russian hacking

Reuters reported on 13 December 2016 that the office overseeing intelligence efforts has not come on-board with the Obama administration and CIA regarding their assessment of Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election.

“The overseers of the U.S. intelligence community have not embraced a CIA assessment that Russian cyber attacks were aimed at helping Republican President-elect Donald Trump win the 2016 election, three American officials said on Monday.

While the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) does not dispute the CIA’s analysis of Russian hacking operations, it has not endorsed their assessment because of a lack of conclusive evidence that Moscow intended to boost Trump over Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton, said the officials, who declined to be named.

The position of the ODNI, which oversees the 17 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community, could give Trump fresh ammunition to dispute the CIA assessment, which he rejected as “ridiculous” in weekend remarks, and press his assertion that no evidence implicates Russia in the cyber attacks.

Trump’s rejection of the CIA’s judgment marks the latest in a string of disputes over Russia’s international conduct that have erupted between the president-elect and the intelligence community he will soon command.

An ODNI spokesman declined to comment on the issue.

‘ODNI is not arguing that the agency (CIA) is wrong, only that they can’t prove intent,’ said one of the three U.S. officials. ‘Of course they can’t, absent agents in on the decision-making in Moscow.’

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, whose evidentiary standards require it to make cases that can stand up in court, declined to accept the CIA’s analysis – a deductive assessment of the available intelligence – for the same reason, the three officials said.”

(Read more at Reuters)

Former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Debunks Claims of Russian Involvement in US elections

In a 10 December 2016 post, Former UK ambassador Craig Murray responded:

“I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption.

The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.”

The Washington Times lists ten stories originating from main stream media that proved false

A 6 December 2016 article by The Washington Times reminds us of the main stream media’s part in promoting the lies invented by Democrats:

“Since ‘fake news’ is all the rage within the mainstream media, here’s the top 10 ‘real’ news stories they reported on — and some downright propagandized — that turned out to be, well, fake. It’s the reason this new narrative of ‘fake news’ will never catch on, and why Americans’ trust in the press is at an all-time low.

  1. If you like your health care plan, you can keep it

In selling his health care overhaul, on at least 37 separate occasions, President Barack Obama pledged that Americans would be allowed to keep the plans they liked. In 2013, about 4 million Americans got cancellation letters, and PolitiFact labeled the statement the lie of the year.

But that didn’t stop reporters from writing repeated stories beforehand on how great Obamacare would be, even though, the administration knew at the time they were making the statements, some health coverage would be lost.

  • Hands Up, Don’t Shoot‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ didn’t happen in Ferguson, Missouri, but that didn’t stop the narrative from spreading throughout the news media and in Black Lives Matter protests. Faulty witness accounts spread the rumor that Michael Brown had his hands raised in surrender, and mouthed the words ‘don’t shoot’ before being shot by cop Darren Wilson.

    A grand jury couldn’t confirm the narrative, and neither could the Department of Justice in its own investigation of the shooting. What was confirmed was that Brown fought with the officer and tried to take his gun. The popular ‘hands up’ slogan couldn’t be corroborated by any ballistic evidence, reliable witness statements, or DNA samples.

    According to the DOJ report: ‘Although some witnesses state that Brown held his hands up at shoulder level with his palms facing outward for a brief moment, these same witnesses describe Brown then dropping his hands and ‘charging’ at Wilson.’

    It was all a lie.

  • The Iran deal was negotiated with moderate Iranians, not the radical mullahsThis was the narrative in the mainstream media while the deal was being made. It was not until an insightful New York Times Magazine piece did we see how the Obama administration snowballed the press with its lies.

    ‘All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,’ Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told The Times in May. ‘Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change.

    ‘They literally know nothing,’ he said.

    That’s how Mr. Rhodes was able to shape the narrative that the U.S. was negotiating with moderate Iranians, not the hardliners. In The Times piece, Mr. Rhodes admits the administration wasn’t ‘betting on’ moderates taking charge in Iran, but that he was just selling the deal to a gullible press in order to further his boss’s legacy.

  • Bowe Bergdahl exchange was hard-fought/negotiatedIn 2014, the Obama administration allowed five detainees at Guantanamo Bay to be transferred to Qatar in exchange for the release of Army Sgt Bowe Bergdahl, who was being held by the Taliban. The exchange was lauded by the press and at the Rose Garden, where President Obama held a ceremony saying Mr. Bergdahl was ‘never forgotten.’

    ‘Sergeant Bergdahl has missed birthdays, and holidays and simple moments with family and friends which all of us take for granted. But while Bowe was gone, he was never forgotten’ — not by his family or his hometown in Idaho or the military, Mr. Obama said. ‘And he wasn’t forgotten by his country, because the United States of America does not ever leave our men and women in uniform behind.’

    It was later revealed Mr. Bergdahl deserted his unit, and that’s why he was captured by the Taliban. He’s been ordered to face a general court martial on two charges, which could impose a lifetime sentence. Mr. Bergdahl has requested a pardon from Mr. Obama.

  • Benghazi attack inspired by online viral videoAccording to the Benghazi Report released this year by Congress, the Obama administration knew almost immediately after the attack on the American consulate it was one of terrorism, but were unwilling to admit it to the American public. The media was all too willing to swallow the administration’s weak lie the attack — which happened on Sept. 11 — was a spontaneous event spurred by protests of an online video that was offensive to the Prophet Muhammad.
  • Climate change will produce more storms like Hurricane KatrinaIn the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the media and liberals like Al Gore were predicting more storms in our future because of the rapid pace of climate change.

    In 2006 CBS’s Hannah Storm predicted Katrina-like storms would happen ‘all along our Atlantic and Gulf coastlines,’ and CBS anchor Russ Mitchell said there was ‘no end in sight’ for big hurricanes a month after Katrina hit landfall.

    On Sept. 18, 2005, NBC Nightly News anchor John Seigenthaler said, ‘scientists studying the earth’s climate say we are experiencing stronger hurricanes in this century, a trend that’s likely to continue.’

    Guess what? The U.S. hasn’t experienced a storm like Katrina since it hit more than a decade ago.

  • Cuba has great health care; murderous dictator Fidel Castro was goodAfter the death of Fidel Castro this month, the mainstream media went out of its way to romanticize the leadership of the murderous dictator — saying although the country was communist, he was a great orator who inspired his people and healthcare and literacy improved under his watch.

    ‘How Cubans Live as Long as Americans at a Tenth a Cost,’ an Atlantic headline read on Nov. 29, four days after Mr. Castro’s death. ‘Lessons of physical prosperity in a despotic regime.’

    The Los Angeles Times wrote in an opinion piece: ‘Fidel Castro, human rights violator that he was, did plenty of good for Cuba.’

    Oh really? Mr. Castro oppressed his people for 59 years, torturing and killing an estimated 15,000 of his own citizens who opposed him. His reign was so idyllic, over an eighth of the island’s population chose to go into exile, with about 700,000 coming into the U.S. prior to 1980.

  • Myth of the killer cop epidemicIf you were to listen to the Black Lives Matter movement and it’s sympathizers in the media, you would think that white police officers were out targeting and killing black men at an unprecedented tick. Black Lives Matter, and all of its umbrella organizations, has claimed that every 28 hours a black man is killed by a police officer.

    The figure comes from an April 2013 report called ‘Operation Ghetto Storm,’ by the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement. The report ‘is a window offering a cold, hard, and fact-based view into the thinking and practice of a government and society that will spare no cost to control the lives of Black people,’ the preface reads.

    The Washington Post’s fact-checker gave the claim four Pinocchios, saying the victims studied in the report were not all unarmed, and they were not all killed by the police. The group was including those who rushed and or ambushed police in their report as well as those killed by ‘police officers, security guards or vigilantes.’ As you can imagine, the term vigilantes was loosely defined.

    A Harvard study has also disproved Black Lives Matter’s notion that there’s racial bias in police shootings.

    The paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, which examined thousands of incidents at 10 large police departments in California, Florida and Texas, concluded that police were no more likely to shoot non-whites than whites after factoring in extenuating circumstances.

  • Donald Trump’s adviser Steve Bannon is a white supremacistThere is absolutely no evidence of this, but the mainstream media loves to splash the idea around — or at least infer that Mr. Bannon, because of his association with alt-right website Breitbart, is a white supremacist, racist, bigoted, xenophobe, etc.

    ‘White nationalists see advocate in Steve Bannon who will hold Trump to his campaign promises,’ a CNN headline read.

    ‘Steve ‘Turn on the Hate’ Bannon in the White House,’ The New York Times editorial board wrote.

    The New York Daily News added fuel to the fire writing: ‘Here’s why white supremacist groups love Stephen Bannon.’

    It’s all in an effort to smear the man who won Mr. Trump the White House, and therefore the president-elect himself.

  • Donald Trump can’t win the White HouseMr. Trump’s campaign manager Kellyanne Conway said during a Harvard University panel last week that the mainstream media’s narrative saying Mr. Trump could never get the 270 electoral college votes he needed to win the White House was the biggest fake news of them all.

    And she was right.

    Going into Nov. 8, here’s a sampling of the mainstream media’s headlines — heck, Newsweek thought Hillary Clinton had it such in the bag they printed out copies of their magazine ahead of time with the title: ‘Madam President.’

    NBC: ‘On eve of election day, Clinton maintains her lead over Trump’

    Washington Post: ‘Hillary Clinton has enough electoral votes to win the White House in final Fix map’

    New York Times: ‘Inside Donald Trump’s Last Stand: An Anxious Nominee Seeks Assurance’

    CNN: ‘CNN’s Poll of Polls show Clinton leading Trump by a 4-point margin’ “


I almost started my own “fake” news list starting with Major Nidal Hasan’s attack being called “workplace violence” by Obama, then I saw this:


Don’t forget that Democrats have been very friendly to Russia in the past

In 2012, Obama mocks Romney for not being friendly to Russia

As a gentle reminder, you might refer to how Obama chided Romney for seeing Russia as an enemy when Obama said:

“”Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that al Qaeda is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said ‘Russia.’  The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.””

Let’s also not forget that Obama did much to both placate and strengthen the Russians by:

Obama to Medvedev: “I will be more flexible”

In 2012, Obama to Russians: “I will be more flexible after election”

Remember back to the 2012 Presidential race when President Obama was caught by a hot mike as he told a Russian representative to wait until after the election as reported in a 26 March 2012 Reuters aticle).

“President Barack Obama was caught on camera on Monday assuring outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he will have ‘more flexibility’ to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election.

Obama, during talks in Seoul, urged Moscow to give him ‘space’ until after the November ballot, and Medvedev said he would relay the message to incoming Russian president Vladimir Putin.

The unusually frank exchange came as Obama and Medvedev huddled together on the eve of a global nuclear security summit in the South Korean capital, unaware their words were being picked up by microphones as reporters were led into the room.

U.S. plans for an anti-missile shield have bedeviled relations between Washington and Moscow despite Obama’s ‘reset’ in ties between the former Cold War foes. Obama’s Republican opponents have accused him of being too open to concessions to Russia on the issue.”

One has to wonder what Ukraine would look like had Obama not been re-elected and given more “space” to allow Russians to act.  Now he accuses Trump of being pro-Russian.



Ted Kennedy asked the Russians to flip the Reagan Revolution

A 27 August 2009 Forbes article shared how Senator Ted Kennedy tried to work with Russians to undermine the election of Ronald Reagan.

“Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.

‘On 9-10 May of this year,’ the May 14 memorandum explained, ‘Sen. Edward Kennedy’s close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow.’ (Tunney was Kennedy’s law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) ‘The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.’

Kennedy’s message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. ‘The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” the memorandum stated. ‘These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.]

Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.

First he offered to visit Moscow. ‘The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA.’ Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.

Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. ‘A direct appeal … to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country. … If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. … The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side.’

Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.

Kennedy’s motives? ‘Like other rational people,’ the memorandum explained, ‘[Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations.’ But that high-minded concern represented only one of Kennedy’s motives.

‘Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988,’ the memorandum continued. ‘Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.’

Kennedy proved eager to deal with Andropov–the leader of the Soviet Union, a former director of the KGB and a principal mover in both the crushing of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution and the suppression of the 1968 Prague Spring–at least in part to advance his own political prospects.

In 1992, Tim Sebastian published a story about the memorandum in the London Times. Here in the U.S., Sebastian’s story received no attention. In his 2006 book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism, historian Paul Kengor reprinted the memorandum in full. ‘The media,’ Kengor says, ‘ignored the revelation.’

‘The document,’ Kengor continues, ‘has stood the test of time. I scrutinized it more carefully than anything I’ve ever dealt with as a scholar. I showed the document to numerous authorities who deal with Soviet archival material. No one has debunked the memorandum or shown it to be a forgery. Kennedy’s office did not deny it.’

Why bring all this up now? No evidence exists that Andropov ever acted on the memorandum–within eight months, the Soviet leader would be dead–and now that Kennedy himself has died even many of the former senator’s opponents find themselves grieving. Yet precisely because Kennedy represented such a commanding figure–perhaps the most compelling liberal of our day–we need to consider his record in full.”



So How Do We Avoid “Fake” News?

To keep from being tainted by “fake” news, please take in these considerations:

  1. Consider the source — Look at the history of that source of information. If that source has made false claims (like the New York Times) or tends to report from one point of view (as the New York Times reports from the left and Mark 1:1 posts from a Christian conservative position), then take that in mind while proceeding to the next step.
  2. Consider your audience — If you are compiling blog posts that might be used as source material for people arguing against the liberal left, consider news sources esteemed by the left (like the New York Times). If you are writing a term paper for a liberal professor, consider the snob power of the New York Times or a peer-reviewed journal.
  3. Consider the content of the story — Does the story fall outside the realm of possibility?  If it does, take a pause (but keep looking).  Does the story (or versions of it) appear in other publications?  If not, consider widening your search.
  4. Consider the other side of the story — Consider opposing views.  Think about how their views might effect or help the view of the story you want to communicate.

With all of that in mind, you might consider how the story matches with the overall message of your life.


The Central Truth: The Word of God

Getting the true message out has always been a central point for God and his people.

What Jesus, Paul, Moses, Isaiah, and Jeremiah have to say about false prophets

Because the spiritual wealth of all of us works as a central consideration to God, Christ made it clear that all we need for spiritual growth is the will to diligently ask, seek, and search for it.

Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he? If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him! (Matthew 7:7-11 NASB)

On the other hand, when we search for spiritual growth, we must be on the lookout for those who want to have us follow other gods.

If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall follow the Lord your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has counseled rebellion against the Lord your God who brought you from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, to seduce you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NASB)

Additionally, we must be on guard for our own tendency to seek out comfort.

For this is a rebellious people, false sons, Sons who refuse to listen To the instruction of the Lord; Who say to the seers, “You must not see visions”; And to the prophets, “You must not prophesy to us what is right, Speak to us pleasant words, Prophesy illusions. (Isaiah 30:9-10 NASB)

Along the same line, we should not let ourselves be tricked by false prophets (since God has made the true message very evident through His Word).

For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. Behold, I have told you in advance. So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them. For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather. (Matthew 24:24-28 NASB)

As students of the real message, we must abandon things that do not contribute to the real message. That is to say that we must seek to be a slave to Christ and not to deceive to get our own way.

Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting. (Romans 16:17-18 NASB)

Just as we should avoid really “fake” messages around us (so that we can communicate a real message to those around us), we must be on the lookout for fake messengers.

I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them. Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears. (Acts 20:29-31 NASB)

On the good side, we can know the real message and the real messengers by the acts and results they produce.

You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits. (Matthew 7:16-20 NASB)

Most of all, we must be able to examine God’s Word and apply it to our life.

Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. (Acts 17:11 NASB)

Christians should not take part in illegality

Christians should not clandestinely break laws

Admittedly, it is my firm conviction that nobody should be shackled with the Johnson Amendment.  However, if we are to scrub this law from the books, then we must follow Dr. M.L. King’s example.  Break it openly, suffer the results, and point out how it violates the Constitution and natural law. Therefore, I could hardly contain my disappointment in fellow Christians who (though probably well-meaning and wanting to extend special help to those in need) stooped to Satan’s methods when purporting to work for God’s church.

(in car)
So, prayerfully, you’ll go in and just hit straight Democratic ticket.
(at table)
He could possibly make the check to you. You cash the check and just bring the cash … Yeah, yeah
Reporter: So we would want to keep all this on the DL (down low) then? We wouldn’t want … This isn’t something that we could, we would, do press or …
Johnson: Absolutely not.

We’ve got people to get on school buses and go to Indianapolis and the state houses and we just need you to show up. They didn’t even know what they were going down there for, all they know is the pastor asked them.

Mack: It really comes back to anything this city, or in this area in Gary, Hammond, and Chicago and the church. It’s going to be the driving force for anything that happens. We put politicians in office.
Narrator: Our journalists met Reverend Marlon Mack of Sweet Home Missionary Baptist Church in Gary, Indiana on the night of the state’s primary election in May. He was attending a victory for local Democrats.
Reporter: Getting the, you know, the bodies from point A to point B, from the pews to the polls.
Mack: We make our vans available, we do voter registrations in our churches. Get people ready so we make our vans  available to take people to polling places. We have training people to help people fill out absentee ballots.  All of those types of things within our churches …

It really does sort-of depend on what community you’re in.  You’re going to see that more in economically marginalized communities or minority communities, where basically the church is all they have.

Narrator: We posed as political consultants and Reverend Mack was more than happy to tell us about his political influence.  We scheduled a meeting with Reverend Mack and a friend of his (Reverend Marion Jackson) to see what they would be up to on election day.
Johnson: We’ve got people to get on school buses and go to Indianapolis and the state houses and we just need you to show up. They didn’t even know what they were going down there for, all they know is the pastor asked them. We support Bayh. We actually do support him. I’ve been on him for years. I’ve known him and I know he’s a good man. Some other things he’s done since he’s been in office. So nobody has to persuade us to vote for him. The thing is, I keep repeating this: “Get out people to the polls.” If we get out people to the polls, they know who to vote for. It’s not going to be: “Oh, who do I vote for” because we’re going to tell them who to vote for. We will. We won’t get up and just announce it, but everybody knows. Like everybody in my church, they know who I’m voting for, they know who my candidate is and most church congregations take the pastor’s lead.
Reporter: So it’s also a matter of the door itself … who you guys let. So it’s not technically an endorsement but the fact that they say, okay, the pastor. And that not a 501C (violation).
Johnson: Well, it’s an endorsement.
Narrator: IRS code provides that 501 (c) 3 organizations cannot “Participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of/in opposition to any candidate for public office.”  Pastors and church staff should not be using church resources to engage in political campaigns.
Reporter: So, how do you plan to get people to the polls then this year, as of right now?
Mack: I mean bottom line is, hey, we need you to do this.
Johnson: We mobilize people. We go pick our people up.
Mack: Yeah, we need you to go. We need you to do this. We know we aren’t supposed to tell you who to vote for, but we’ll tell you why you should vote for this person and why it matters.
Johnson: My thing is this, when I make my announcement, we had church yesterday, what I do is tell people who I am going to vote for. I say, “I’m voting for Hillary Clinton” and that’s automatically telling my congregation to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Narrator: Reverend Mack and Reverend Johnson told us many times that they were sure their community would follow their lead at the polls as long as they had the funds.
Mack: We have church vans. We have churches that make their vans available.
Reporter: Sp you can use money for gas?
Mack: That’s right. And pay drivers.
Johnson: The drivers and then if they wanted to stop and get …
Mack: They have to feed a few people.
Reporter: So the drivers aren’t volunteers?
Johnson: They are volunteers …
Reporter: But you can get more if you had bus drivers?  You pay them, you get more?
Johnson: See, we’re still working with an impoverished area. If I tell a guy, “I need you to drive all day,” he’ll say “Well, pastor, look.  I can give you a couple of hours, but I need to do something else, you know. I’m trying to make it.” But if I tell them I can have you drive all day and this is what I’m going to be able to give you for driving all day. And plus I’ll give you something to eat.
Mack: Even that could possibly work because just in case we do need to get people to our church before they go to the polls, load up on them. We may have something inside the church that we can say, now listen, when you go to the polls … This is what’s at stake, this is what we need to do. We need to make sure that this person has our best interest at heart. This person supports this and that doesn’t help us. And, you know, and just have doughnuts and coffee, even if it’s just that.
Johnson: Pizza, chicken, it’s like a rally, it’s a campaign rally before you go out. It’s really like a full fledged campaign rally in individual churches.
Reporter: So people … they’re hungry, they can’t spend a day, they need to go out and get resources and food for themselves.
Johnson: But if you have some of that stuff for them they aren’t going anywhere. They going to do exactly what you direct them to do.
Narrator: They were hoping that our journalists would connect them with a donor to fund their “get out the vote” efforts. And there was a very specific way they wanted the donation to be made.
Johnson: It’s got to be passed confidential through the pastor.
Reporter: So let me understand just from the, how it would happen transactionally.
Mack: He could possibly make the check to you. You cash the check and just bring the cash. Or he could make the check to a particular church and then it works out as a charitable donation, mainly because it looks like he just gave a donation to the church. … But if he writes it to the church, then it’s just a donation to the church.
Reporter: Because then there might be a, oh you got a check, how did you spend the money? It would have to make sure it went to the church.
Johnson: Yeah, there would be a paper trail.  The simplest way would be, so you don’t have to worry about anyone of that, he would make the check to you guys. You guys would cash it and give it to us as a charitable donation to the church.
Reporter: And that could be anonymous.
Johnson: Right, anonymous. A charitable donation will never get you into any trouble either and it won’t get us in any trouble. Let’s say some Republican decides he wants to find out and then we’ve got this check trail.
Mack: He writes a check to the church, okay, why is he writing a check to a church in Gary, Indiana? As opposed to just giving, writing a check to you guys whom he has a professional relationship, which could simply be consulting fees.
Reporter: So we would want to keep all this on the DL (Down Low) then? We wouldn’t want …
Mack: Yeah, yeah.
Reporter: This isn’t something that we could, we would do press or …
Johnson: Absolutely not.
Narrator: And what was wrong about the payments being made public?
Johnson: See, then you open us up with, let me tell you what happens if you do that, … Then some Republicans come araound, we would have to do the same thing, because we would be seen as being biased towards the Democratic Party. So this eliminates that, you wouldn’t put us in a position where we would have to work with people like Trump. Or some other people that we don’t really support, our people don’t support them. But we would have to just go through the motions, like we did with you guys.
Mack: I mean literally, we can have twenty vans roll up.
Johnson: And you see all these vans rolling to the polls. With the name of the church and the pastor’s name on the side. And they know that the pastor’s providing that. They know who they’re voting for. They know who they’re supporting.
Narrator: It’s Election Day and we decided to send some journalists to Gary, Indiana to see if we could be told who to vote for.
Reporter: Are you Reverend Mack?
Mack: Yeah.
Reporter: Oh, hi. My dad is from Georgia and he’s actually voting for Trump that’s why I’ve been so on the fence about it.
Mack: Why?
Reporter: He says that he likes his business experience and that he says what he means all the time I guess, I don’t know.
Mack: That’s not always a good thing. If someone’s impulsive and they act on their feelings. For Christ’s sake this guy’s gonna have the nuclear launch codes – he’s gonna wake up “screw Iran!” and starts a war. That’s not always a good thing. We need leadership who does have the courage to stand for their convictions but also has the self-control to think beyond their immediate actions.
Reporter: So should I just vote straight ticket Democrat?
Mack: That would be nice … you’re heading to the polls and don’t really have a lot of information to deal with issues … that would be probably the best bet. So, prayerfully, you’ll go in and just hit straight Democratic ticket.
Narrator: I guess you wouldn’t want anyone making a mistake and voting for the person of their own choice

Liberal wrath becomes a front-page event (Part 1)

Democrat fans of Hillary burn the American flag (picture by The Sun)

 After the election

A British take on the American tantrums

Following the collapse of the various polls slanted to favor 2016 Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton, paid protestors and disillusioned millineals took to the streets of major American cities to voice their displeasure with a democratic republic (as shown in the excerpts from a 9 November 2016 article by The Sun.

Police said at least 500 people swarmed on streets in and around UCLA, some shouting ‘f**k Trump’ and others chanting ‘Not my president!’

There were no immediate arrests.

Smaller demonstrators were held at University of California campuses and neighbourhoods in Berkeley, Irvine and Davis and at San Jose State.

In Oakland, more than 100 protesters took to downtown streets. KNTV-TV reported that protesters burned Trump in effigy, smashed windows of the Oakland Tribune newsroom and set tires and trash on fire.

The California Highway Patrol says a woman was struck by a car during the protest and severely injured.

In Oregon, dozens of people blocked traffic in downtown Portland and forced a delay for trains on two light rail lines.”

Odd that it takes a newspaper from Britain to point out that the groups consist of sometimes “dozens” or other times “hundreds.” It seems that many American news sources avoid mentioning the numbers of protesters (just as they avoided mentioning the tens of thousands at Trump rallies or the dozens at Kaine rallies).

Liberals across America protest the choice of the people

Reuters documents through a 10 November 2016 article how liberals have stooped to committing public violence by the hundreds in a few of the major cities of America:

“A second round of protests was planned across the United States on Thursday a day after thousands of demonstrators took to the streets of big cities after Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential election.

An anti-Trump rally was planned at New York City’s Union Square Park for a second straight night and organizers urged demonstrators to join events in Washington D.C., Baltimore, the University of Wisconsin and elsewhere.

There were protests in at least 10 cities on Wednesday, including one that filled streets in midtown Manhattan with demonstrators marching to Trump Tower, the president-elect’s gilded home on Fifth Avenue. Many chanted ‘Not my president!’ and blasted his campaign rhetoric about immigrants, Muslims and other groups.

Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and a high-profile Trump supporter, said the demonstrators were ‘a bunch of spoiled cry-babies.’

‘If you’re looking at the real left-wing loonies on the campus, it’s the professors not the students,’ Giuliani said on Fox News on Thursday. ‘So these are the ones who are more influenced by the professors.’

He said he would encourage Trump to listen to these voices and tell them to wait a year.

‘Calm down, things are not as bad as you think,’ Giuliani said.

More demonstrations are planned heading into the weekend, according to organizers’ online posts. One urged protesters to rally in Washington, D.C., on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20.

On Wednesday night, protests in Los Angeles and Oakland, California, each drew several thousand people. More than a dozen people were arrested by Los Angeles police when demonstrators tried to block a major highway intersection, a local CBS affiliate reported.

The Oakland demonstrators also blocked traffic, threw objects at police and smashed store front windows. Police responded by throwing chemical irritants at the protesters, according to a Reuters witness.


Protesters also gathered in Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Portland, Oregon, and Austin, Texas, late on Wednesday.

Some 1,800 people gathered outside the Trump International Hotel and Tower in downtown Chicago, shouting slogans including ‘No Trump! No KKK! No racist USA.’ There were no immediate reports of arrests or violence there.

‘I’m just really terrified about what is happening in this country,’ said Adriana Rizzo, 22, in Chicago, who was holding a sign that read: ‘Enjoy your rights while you can.’

In Seattle, police responded to a shooting with multiple victims near the scene of an anti-Trump protest. Authorities said it was unrelated to the demonstration.

A Trump campaign representative did not respond to requests for comment on the protests. Trump said in his victory speech he would be president for all Americans, saying: ‘It is time for us to come together as one united people.’

Among the demonstrators earlier on Wednesday were hundreds of high school and college students who walked out of class in cities including Seattle, Phoenix and San Francisco’s Bay Area.

About 300 mostly Latino high school students marched to City Hall in Los Angeles where they chanted in Spanish “the people united will never be defeated.’ Some waved signs with slogans such as ‘Immigrants Make America Great.’

Many of those students were members of the ‘Dreamers’ generation – children whose parents entered the United States with them illegally, school officials said, and who fear deportation under a Trump administration.”

Doesn’t this sound a lot like the wrath from the Soros-funded groups like Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, and the National Action Network?  Of course, after the release of the Veritas Action videos where Democrat operatives Scott Foval and Bob Creamer admitted to arranging for violence during protests, who would expect less? 

Kent County GOP headquarters vandalized

A 9 November 2016 article by Channel 8 Wood.TV from Grand Rapids told of the wrench thrown into the window of the Kent county Republican party:

“The Kent County GOP headquarters in Grand Rapids was vandalized following the election.

John Burri told 24 Hour News 8 he was going to the main office on Lake Michigan Drive to get a new Donald Trump sign after his was stolen overnight when he discovered that a window had been smashed by a wrench.

The wrench didn’t go through the window, but did leave some large cracks.

Kent GOP members said despite an election that’s divided the country, it’s time to work together.”

This comes from the side that predicted riots after a Trump loss, probed Trump as to whether he would accept a defeat, and even classifies resistance to their views as “hate.”  Remember “love trumps hate?” Which side has beaten old men, smashed property, and promoted assassination recently?


Richmond Republican headquarters

The NBC affiliate in Richmond provided a 9 November 2016 article which explained:

Hundreds of anti-Trump protesters gathered in Richmond Wednesday night, a day after the presidential election. NBC12’s Mike Valerio was covering the protests when someone attacked him.

‘You created this, you understand that?!’ yelled the unknown assailant.

‘We’re not about that!’ yelled another protester as they pulled the assailant away from Mike Valerio.

Protesters flooded the street, shutting down roads and chanting anti-Trump messages.

During the protests, the Republican headquarters in downtown Richmond was vandalized, with windows smashed after someone threw a pumpkin at the door. The doorbell was also broken, and graffiti was painted on the building.

Protesters marched onto Interstate 95 around 10 p.m., blocking southbound traffic. Police had removed all the protesters and reopened the lanes by 10:30 p.m.

More protesters blocked off I-195 later in the evening. Police say the protesters sat down on the interstate and refused to move.

According to Richmond Police, 10 protesters were arrested and charged with unlawful assembly and for being pedestrians on an interstate. All of the protesters arrested were between the ages of 20 to 26. Traffic was back open by 12:15 a.m.

Also overnight, two monuments on Monument Avenue were vandalized.

Although one picture caption within this article remarked on “thousands” of protestors (while only showing about 20), the body of this article does the rare act for American news sources when it points to the “(h)undreds of anti-Trump protestors.”

Nonetheless, putting aside the magnitude of the riots, why doesn’t President Obama or Secretary Clinton call for an end to the riots?

Man beaten by “compassionate” Hillary supporters

The following video (taken in Chicago) shows a group of black Hillary supporters who beat an old white who they identify as being a Trump supporter. The video ends with the thugs stealing the man’s car and dragging him as he holds to the car.

During the campaign

Alamance County Republican party headquarters were vandalized

According to a 4 November 2016 WTVD article, it was reported that a photo of the vandal who destroyed parts of the Alamance County Republican party headquarters has been released:

“The Alamance County Republican Party headquarters has been vandalized.

Dallas Woodhouse, executive director of the North Carolina Republican Party, sent ABC11 photos that show the headquarters on Ramada Road in Burlington with graffiti spray-painted on walls, signs, and doors.

‘F*** Trump’ was written on a wall, and ‘NA’ spray-painted on the door. ‘Republican’ is crossed out in paint on a sign.

Anyone with information should contact the Burlington Police Department at (336) 229-3503 or anonymously to the Alamance County-wide Crimestoppers at (336) 229-7100. Crimestoppers is a partnership between the public, the media, and the police to fight against crime that may provide a reward of up to $2,500 for information that leads to an arrest.

‘It’s an unfortunate thing. Really, it’s sad that someone wants to express themselves that way as opposed to having a civil discussion and talking about where we have differences,’ said Alamance County GOP Chairman Ben York.

Burlington residents also expressed disappointment.

‘I mean, it’s like people don’t have any respect for nothing anymore. Not for anybody’s property and it’s just really, really terrible to see people do something like this for an election,’ offered resident David Woodruff.

Last month, someone threw a bottle filled with flammable liquid through the front window of the Orange County Republican Party headquarters in Hillsborough.”

Republican HQ in North Carolina firebombed

The CBS affiliate WNCN reported in a 16 October 2016 article that the Orange County Republican headquarters in Hillsborough was hit with a Molotov cocktail and spray painted.

“The Republican Party headquarters in Orange County was vandalized and firebombed with what police described as a ‘Molotov cocktail’ overnight, Hillsborough officials said Sunday.

The building at 347 Ja-Max Drive was hit with graffiti and ‘flammable material’ in a bottle was thrown through a window starting a fire inside, Hillsborough police said in an email.

Graffiti that said ‘Nazi Republicans leave town or else’ was spray painted in black paint on the side of a building next to the Republican headquarters, according to police.

That graffiti ncluded a swastika and was discovered before 9 a.m. by a nearby business owner, officials said.

‘The flammable substance appears to have ignited inside the building, burned some furniture and damaged the building’s interior before going out,’ said police, who describe the object as a Molotov cocktail.

No one was hurt and no damage estimates were available. Police are working with the ATF to investigate and the FBI was added to the investigation, officials said in an update late Sunday.

The North Carolina Republican Party released a statement Sunday afternoon calling the incident a ‘vicious attack’ and ‘hate crime’ and said they would increase security at events and offices.

Denver Republican headquarters vandalized

The Denver Post reveals through a 4 November 2016 article how vandals broke windows and spray painted the Colorado Republican party headquarters:

“A brick wall on the side of Donald Trump’s campaign office in Denver was vandalized late Thursday or early Friday by a perpetrator or perpetrators who wrote foul language and called the Republican presidential nominee a ‘thief’ and ‘pervert’ in big, block letters. The building’s windows were also defaced.

Sonny Jackson, Denver police spokesman, said a call was made at 7:20 a.m. about anti-Trump graffiti.

‘It’s an anti message. We’ll investigate it using all the tools we have at our disposal including viewing (footage from security cameras) to determine who did this,’ Jackson said.

Later, at about 9 p.m. Friday, Trump staffers reported a rock tossed through a window of the same headquarters. Television footage from the scene showed a hole slightly bigger than a softball in the window.

This isn’t Denver’s first case of political graffiti this election season. Earlier this year, a mural portraying Democrat Bernie Sanders in the city’s Five Points neighborhood was marked with the words ‘loser,’ ‘sellout’ and ‘traitor’ after he endorsed Hillary Clinton.

The Trump campaign had no comment.

A prayer by Solomon

Trump prayer team

A prayer by Solomon, a Godly ruler

Give the king Your judgments, O God, And Your righteousness to the king’s son. May he judge Your people with righteousness And Your afflicted with justice. Let the mountains bring peace to the people, And the hills, in righteousness. May he vindicate the afflicted of the people, Save the children of the needy And crush the oppressor. (Psalms 72:1‭-‬4 NASB)

Although I make no pretensions that my favorite candidate during the Fall 2016 presidential contest (Trump) has problems, I hope and pray that whoever wins might be willing to submit to God (rather than submitting to some “spirit cooking” thing).

Note added on 9 November 2016

Regarding the “spirit cooking” mess that appeared online during the waning days of the campaign, everyone needs to step back and just let the Clinton campaign members be private citizens.  By that, I mean that these people should have the right to speak as freely as all Americans (including mocking speech) and blow off steam in ways that do not impact others in any real sense.

Nonetheless, many of us had our curiosity piqued by the Wikileaks letter to Podesta which mentioned “spirit cooking.”  Of the resources that I investigated on the subject, the most credible source (a 4 November 2016 article in New York Mag) provided a little background:

“If you’re wondering why the Drudge Report thinks Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta practices black magic, the short answer is: World-renowned performance artist Marina Abramovic once invited him to dinner.

As for the long answer: Late Thursday night, someone discovered this dispatch from the latest WikiLeaks dump of Podesta’s hacked emails:

Dear Tony,

I am so looking forward to the Spirit Cooking dinner at my place.

Do you think you will be able to let me know if your brother is joining?

All my love,


The Tony addressed here is John’s brother, a powerful lobbyist and, as Spin’s Andy Cush notes, a prominent collector of contemporary art. The message here is, ostensibly, a dinner invitation that makes playful reference to one of Abramovic’s past works.”

Although the mock sacrifice central to this performance seems as offensive to anyone who takes their religion seriously as Donald Trump’s recorded comments might have seemed to Miley Cyrus, who cares what private citizens do (as long as they don’t force the involvement of unwilling participants)?

Democrat Voter Fraud and Voter Invalidation Continues

Terry McAuliffe kisses up

Virginia Governor McAuliffe uses extraordinary (and possibly court-defying) means to give 60K felons voting rights

The Daily Caller described in a 6 November 2016 article how Democrat Terry McAuliffe used a computerized system to grant voting rights to as many as 60,000 felons (possibly in defiance of court-mandated rules):

“Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe has granted voting rights to as many as 60,000 convicted felons just in time for them to register to vote, nearly five times more than previously reported and enough to win the state for his long-time friend, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

McAuliffe sought to allow all of Virginia’s estimated 200,000 felons to vote, but state courts said each individual felon’s circumstances must be weighed. To get around that, McAuliffe used a mechanical autopen to rapidly sign thousands of letters, as if he had personally reviewed them, even as his office was saying the total was 13,000.

Now, The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group has learned that McAuliffe — who managed Clinton’s unsuccessful 2008 presidential campaign — churned out five times as many letters before the registration deadline than publicly claimed.

Virginia’s recent political history has seen multiple races that were decided by tiny margins. The 2014 U.S. Senate race, for example, was decided by only 17,000 votes, while the attorney general’s race came down to a mere 165 votes.

She also said that, while McAuliffe claimed to only be restoring voting rights of felons who had completed their sentences, his use of the autopen might not satisfy the court’s specific vetting requirement.

‘I think the General Assembly caucus that brought suit made it abundantly clear that you must look at each person and evaluate each individual person’s record: have they served their time, have they paid their restoration if it was due, have they finished their probation, are they citizens, have they not been arrested for some other crime,’ Wheeler said.

‘The code of Virginia requires that each person is treated as an individual rather than as a bulk because each individual has a different set of circumstances and those should be evaluated,’ she said.”

I guess the silver lining for this might be that Hillary could move to Virginia once everything is done and not have to worry about not being able to vote (once she serves her time).


Broward County Elections Officials Filling Out Absentee Ballots Behind Closed Doors

According to a 4 November 2016 article at DCwhispers, Broward county officials were caught filling out absentee ballots:

A blockbuster turn of events is now unfolding in the critical swing state of Florida.

According to information in a signed affidavit from a former Secretary of Elections Department employee in Broward County, Florida, Democrat Party election officials were filling out absentee ballots in a secret backroom.

If this were Republican county officials, would this have been the centerpiece of the nightly news for the mainstream media? Should Democrat votes be thrown out in Florida?


Election Fraud in Broward County: Officials Caught Ballot Stuffing, Destroying Ballots

A 4 November 2016 article by People’s Pundit Daily points out the misdeeds and political maneuvers of Broward County Florida Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes:

“According to multiple sources and witnesses, Broward County Supervisor of Elections Brenda Snipes and employees are engaging in mass voter fraud in multiple forms. While People’s Pundit Daily has uncovered instances of election fraud in other counties around the state–including Pasco and Lee–Broward is large enough that it could potentially swing the state.

It has been widely reported that black turnout in the state–and in other battleground states such as North Carolina and Ohio–is way down from 2012 levels. In the past few days, the Clinton campaign and their Democratic surrogates have been touting ‘a surge’ in turnout among black voters in Broward County, which is overseen by Snipes.

But according to our multiple sources, there has been no real improvement in enthusiasm on the ground, but rather bold voter fraud schemes carried out by employees at the Supervisor of Elections. The election fraud scheme is mutli-pronged and includes destroying ballots selectively and what is traditionally known as ballot-stuffing, or filling in absentee ballots.

‘There is no authentic surge,’ a source at the Broward County Supervisor of Elections told People’s Pundit Daily. ‘They’ve been at this [filling out absentee ballots] for days, working 4 to 5 employees some 16 hours a day each. There’s no telling how many ballots we are talking about. As many as they can each write in 16 hours a piece.’

Sources confirm Snipes was breaking the law and opened more than 153,000 ballots cast by mail in private, claiming employees were tearing up and disposing of those that were votes in support of Donald J. Trump. The law prohibits the opening of ballots without the supervision of a canvassing board appointed to oversee and certify elections precisely because of this possibility.

The Republican Party of Florida earlier in the week caught wind of this and accused Broward County election officials of voter fraud when they received a letter Wednesday afternoon from Republican state party chairman Blaise Ingoglia.”

(Read the full article at People’s Pundit Daily)


Know-nothing actress interviews the POTUS and he implies that illegal immigrants can vote

If you click on the following video once, a shortened version of the interview conducted by Gina Rodriguez will play.  Refresh this web page (or just select the “replay” button after the shortened version has completed) and you will get the whole, vacuous, sycophantic show.

The transcript (supplied by mrcTV) for the portion shown in the video above appears below:

Rodriguez: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens — and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country — are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?
Obama: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.
Rodriguez: This has been a huge fear presented especially during this election.
Obama: And the reason that fear is promoted is because they don’t want people voting. People are discouraged from voting and part of what is important for Latino citizens is to make your voice heard, because you’re not just speaking for yourself. You’re speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school…
Rodriguez: Your entire community.
Obama: … who may not have a voice. Who can’t legally vote. But they’re counting on you to make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard.

Additionally, mrcTV points out the following:

Rodriguez, for her part, seems to be pretty confused about whether illegal alien “DREAMers” can vote, so I’ll help her out: they can’t. Persons who are in the United States illegally can’t lawfully cast a ballot, and doing so is a form of voter fraud. So there’s that.

But Obama’s response to her question is even more problematic, and for a host of reasons. First, while the president does briefly mention (kind of) that only legal citizens can vote, he doesn’t verbally re-enforce the fact that undocumented aliens can’t vote, and that they shouldn’t take illegal actions to try.

Obama also encouraged Latino citizens to elect politicians who will support and reward illegal immigration. But not only does he openly state that illegal aliens who are living in clear violation of U.S. law are “counting on” legal citizens to vote for pro-amnesty politicians, but the president also suggests that not doing so would be a betrayal of one’s fellow Hispanics.

In fact, Obama actually suggests that a person with illegal alien family members has an even greater reason to vote than an American citizen whose relatives aren’t living in direct opposition to the law.

This rhetoric not only encourages people to elect lawmakers who will openly flout our nation’s laws (which seems antithetical, yet unsurprising), it also assumes that all Latino citizens support illegal immigration – which isn’t true. (Case in point: here’s a legal Mexican-born immigrant who disagrees with it pretty strongly.)

In fact, Gallup noted in a 2015 poll that Hispanic support for a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens has dropped nearly 10 percentage points since 2006. A more recent poll showed only 18 percent of Hispanics said they favored increasing the number of immigrants allowed into the U.S. in general.

If you care to watch, here’s the full interview between Rodriguez and Obama (which covers other exciting topics like why Americans should fear the “Powers that Be” and unsubstantiated horror stories of black people being bullied at the polls).

In addition to the observation that Obama wants us to reward politicians who enable illegal immigration, it should be noted that Obama does not respond to Rodriguez’s confusion.  Therefore, his failure to correct Rodriguez seems to suggest that he agrees with her supposition of the universal citizenship of people who “contribute to the country.”


Multiple states run sting operations on groups committing voter fraud

LifeZette reports in a 6 November 2016 article on stings carried out by Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana state police against groups committing voter fraud:

“Pennsylvania state police have raided two offices of a voter registration group, just as the election approaches in what could be a crucial state.

Police raided the Philadelphia office of FieldWorks LLC’s office on Thursday after raiding another office in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, just days earlier.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the police used a warrant seeking forms that could be used to ‘construct fraudulent voter registration forms” and “completed voter registration forms containing same or similar identifying information of individuals on multiple forms.’

The Washington-based group has pledged to work with state police, the Inquirer reported.

State Attorney General Bruce Beemer suggested to the Inquirer that the group was employing registrants who were cutting corners to meet quotas. One way to do that is to re-register existing voters with subtle spelling differences in their names.

That technique sounds familiar, because FieldWorks did it in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, according to Logan Churchwell, communications director for True the Vote, the voter-fraud watchdog.

Churchwell says the systems are so weak to find duplicate registrations, even though they are supposed to work, that it happens all the time. Such registration fraud, he said, is easy to commit, and prosecutors don’t have time to go after all the cases.

In Indiana, another group was investigated by Indiana State Police. Police raided offices of Patriot Majority U.S., a nonprofit advocacy organization, which signs up voters in urban and black areas.

Liberals immediately cried foul, and reminded people that Indiana’s governor is Mike Pence, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s running mate.

They won’t be able to make that argument in Pennsylvania, which has a Democratic governor and a Democratic state election officer.”

(Read the full story on LifeZette)

It seems odd that the biggest groups committing voter fraud seem always to be on the “progressive” side. Rather than cheat, why don’t they put their efforts into convincing the electorate that they are right?