Hillary reeling

I am beginning to dread Hillary Clinton quitting the presidential race. Here I have been gleefully looking forward to reporting on her many criminal acts, not just the classified emails crimes, but bribery, and many other acts – depending on how far back you want to go. But now, things have gotten so bad that Michael Walsh of PJ Media is chortling, “The betting windows are now open: Hillary! Clinton’s Last Day As a Presidential Candidate. Get your markers down.”

He links to an article by Philip Bump of the Washington Post, examining how Hillary’s poll numbers are crashing in ‘”the states that matter,” and how her net approval/disapproval numbers are in the tank. In summary:

Recent surveys suggest that Hillary Clinton may be more reliant on the non-white vote in November 2016 than you might have assumed.

A poll released Sunday from NBC/Marist reinforces one from last week by Quinnipiac University that found her to be as unpopular as Donald Trump in key swing states. In Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton's net favorability — those who view her positively minus those who don't — was negative-23 and negative-20, respectively.

Among Democrats, we'll point out, the numbers were much, much higher, which comports with her first-place position in caucus/primary polling in those states. But among all voters? It sinks, matching what Quinnipiac found in Colorado, Iowa and, to a lesser extent, Virginia. (snip)

Part of this, as we've explained before, is that Clinton's favorability tends to swell when she's not running for office and dip when she is. (snip)

CNN also broke out Clinton's favorability by demographic. She's very, very popular among Democrats and very, very unpopular among Republicans. Among independents? Let's say very unpopular, with only one "very."

Donald Trump, the other presidential candidate whose net favorability/unfavorability rating is in negative territory, is on the attack on the criminality front:

Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email address on a private server crossed lines that former General David Petraeus never did.

"The fact is that what she has done is criminal," Trump told CNN's Jake Tapper on Sunday in a phone interview on "State of the Union."

Trump compared Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, to Petraeus, the former top U.S. military official in Iraq and Afghanistan and Central Intelligence Agency director who resigned amid allegations he allowed his mistress access to classified information.

"What she did is far worse than what General Petraeus did and he's gone down in disgrace," Trump said. "What he did is not as bad as what Hillary Clinton did, and it's similar. But it's not as bad. I mean, she got rid of her server, he never did anything like that."

The former general pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of mishandling classified information.

He’s absolutely right, of course.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading.....

Will Someone Please Explain Diversity to Me?

I'm old, and recently it seems that a lot of what is going on in the world, and most especially America, confuses me.  No, I don't have Alzheimer's or senile dementia.  It just confuses me that so many adults, especially politicians, can't see things clearly.

Take the newest huge liberal cause: diversity.  When I was younger, we had affirmative action, which meant that minorities who were not as well-qualified as a white person for acceptance at a college, to be hired for a job, or to be promoted got all of this because of the color of their skin.  Evidently that didn't work out as well as it should have, because now we have the major problem of diversity, or the lack thereof.

Central Washington University, who just won a prestigious award for diversity, defines it thus: individual differences (e.g., personality, learning styles, and life experiences) and group/social differences (e.g., race/ethnicity, class, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin , and ability as well as cultural, political, religious, and other affiliations).

A study I read said that only about 30% of America's companies have diversity departments.  Who could possibly keep track of all of those things?  If we want to be truly diverse, what about including physical differences: weight, height, vision, body shape, degree and type of disability, etc.?  And what about intellectual differences?  Why isn't anyone screaming about equal rights for all the people who could be included in one of those groups?  Shouldn't Central Washington University include the items enumerated above in their definition?

Television isn't totally diverse.  There is BET (Black Entertainment Television) and other channels to meet the needs of other groups.  However, there isn't a WET (White Entertainment Television) channel.  It simply wouldn't be permitted, because it wouldn't be inclusive or diverse.  Almost all shows seem to have some blacks and at least one LGBT person, whether they fit into the plot or not.  That is, of course, with the exception of Empire, where a white person is rarely seen.  Maybe that's part of a reverse diversity plan, where stations that are not black or another minority have to have a percentage of their shows for only minorities.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

House readies vote on denying funds to sanctuary cities

House Republicans have put the finishing touches on a bill that would deny millions of dollars in federal funding to cities that refuse to enforce federal immigration laws.

Washington Examiner:

The legislation was added Monday to the House schedule, and according to a spokesman from the office of the Majority Leader. The earliest that vote could come is Thursday, since the House Rules Committee will meet Wednesday evening to agree on rules for debate and voting on the legislation. 

The "Enforce the law for Sanctuary Cities Act," would withhold several kinds of federal grants for police and immigration services in cities that intentionally ignore immigration laws. 

The legislation is sponsored by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and while he first proposed the measure in 2011, it has become a sudden priority for the GOP leadership in the wake of the the July 1 shooting death of Kate Steinle on a San Francisco pier. 

The House measure could cost sanctuary cities tens of millions of dollars in policing grants and grants to help cities cope with the influx criminal illegal immigrants. Specifically, it would shut down grants that states use under a criminal alien assistance program, and cut grants under the Community-Oriented Policing Services program to states with policies that go against federal immigration law. 

States that prohibit law enforcement from gathering information about citizenship or immigration status would also be denied funding.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading...

TAKEDOWN: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left has Sabotaged Family and Marriage

As Samuel Johnson famously wrote, we need to be reminded more than we need to be instructed.  And it is precisely to remind us of the central role that marriage and family play in our civilization – and of the left’s never-ending efforts to undermine this role – that the superb historian and commentator Paul Kengor has written TAKEDOWN.

His timing couldn’t be better.  Thanks to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that there’s a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage – a ruling whose net effect is to legalize same-sex marriage throughout the U.S. – marriage and family once again are at the top of our national political arena.  Good.  That’s where they belong.

In TAKEDOWN, Kengor reminds us that marriage and family have been under attack from the left since 1848, when Marx and Engels called for “Abolition of the family!” in their Communist Manifesto and predicted that “the bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course.”

Kengor goes on to recount how Marx’s political and intellectual successors have been working hard ever since to undermine the traditional concepts of marriage and family.  That the left views marriage and family as the central obstacle to achieving its ultimate objective of totalitarian control isn’t some new-fangled thesis that Kengor proposes and then argues; it’s an historical fact that Kengor reports and documents in relentless, almost exhausting detail.

Indeed, this is the extraordinary value of TAKEDOWN.  It provides the most detailed catalog ever assembled of the left’s attacks on marriage and family.  From Marx and his co-author Engels to Russia’s Bolsheviks to a group I’d never head of before called the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxists to some of the more recent and well-known leftists like Herbert Marcuse, Kate Millett, Betty Friedan – and President Obama’s communist mentor, Frank Marshall Davis – the depth of their contempt for marriage and family is astonishing.

And it’s this cataloging that enables us to see that the recent triumph of same-sex marriage isn’t a standalone, self-contained victory.  Rather, it’s the culmination of nearly two centuries of relentless attack.  Kengor is furious but fair:

Same-sex marriage is hardly a Marxist plot, a latent communist conspiracy.  It is, however, a crucial final blow to marriage[.] ... To reiterate, this is not a grand communist conspiracy.  I am not laying the entirety of the culture’s collapse at the feet of communists[.] ... [But] what the Left has steadfastly said and written and done to marriage and family over the last two centuries cannot be ignored[.] ... 

Advocates of gay marriage, the vast majority of whom never have been advocates of communism, are now dupes to that deeper process, whether they know it or not.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading.... .

New York City: DeBlasio presiding over rapid decline in NY city quality of life

New York City has never been a paradise, but for 20 years previous to the election of Mayor Bill de Blasio, quality of life had risen dramatically as a result of what's known as "broken windows" policing - enforcing minor crimes to take people off the streets and prevent them from committing major offenses.

But now, with the far left wing mayor leading the charge, more and more minor crimes are not being enforced. Predictably, this has led to a surge in violent crime and an invasion by vagrants and homeless people that hasn't been seen since the pre-Guiliana days.

New York Daily News:

This urinating vagrant turned a busy stretch of Broadway into his own private bathroom yesterday – an offense that would result in a mere summons if Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito and her pals get their way. 

Wrapped in rags and a Mets blanket the hobo wandered into traffic at around 10:30 a.m. and relieved himself as cabs, cars and buses whizzed by between West 83rd and 84th streets on the Upper West Side. 

He finished his business at a nearby garbage bin, then strolled back to the front of a Victoria’s Secret store at Broadway and 85th Street, where he camped out for the rest of the day. 

Mark-Viverito in April announced plans to decriminalize public urination along with five other low-level offenses: biking on the sidewalk, public consumption of alcohol, being in a park after dark, failure to obey a park sign and jumping subway turnstiles. 

Police Commissioner Bill Bratton — who in the early ’90s implemented a “broken windows” approach to policing to dramatically cut crime — is against the new plan, saying such offenses lead to more serious crimes. 

Bill Caprese, 38, who lives on 82nd Street with his 6-year-old daughter, was appalled by the street urinator. 

“It’s absolutely a failure of government. It’s a total abject failure,” he said. “The mayor could fix it. The governor could fix it. We need asylums.”

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

D.C Metro Murder Undermines Liberal Talking Points

The brutal killing of Kevin Sutherland in the Washington, D.C., subway on July 4, does much to undermine popular leftist tropes, in this case, race, crime, guns and drugs, just as the murder of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco challenges liberal immigration policies.  Sutherland was beaten and stabbed to death on a Metro train by a drug addled African-American teenager in the middle of the day in front of about a dozen other stunned passengers. 

Sutherland’s killer, 18 year old Jasper Spires, shares many characteristics with more famous and lionized Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, except that while the latter two were shot to death by armed men in the midst of physical assaults, Spires took full advantage of his unarmed victim (and other passengers) to complete his crime and survive, and is now in custody.  The mainstream media and leftist politicians have mostly downplayed the incident, since Spires cannot be caricatured as a victim of white racism.  Indeed, the problem for the media is that in almost every respect, this encounter shows the utter inanity and hypocrisy of many of their favored talking points and positions. 

Of course, D.C.’s only major newspaper, the Washington Post, could hardly overlook the killing, but has done its level best to downplay things.  The Post first reported the murder in its local Metro section, though such a brutal public killing on Independence Day would probably been front-page news had circumstances been more to the news editors’ liking.  That article noted that Sutherland was a vibrant, well-liked recent transplant to the city, but did not include a picture or indicate that he was white and probably gay (it did suggest he was an LGBT activist), but it did show a photo of Spires.  A follow-up article made the front page, but the tone of reportage has been of the “that’s too bad” variety, not outrage.   The online version of that article shows photos of both the perp and victim.

The killing undercuts a half-dozen leftist talking points, and shows the hypocrisy redolent in the outrage expressed by politicians (like President Obama), race baiters like Al Sharpton, and countless media elites. 

Two days before murdering Sutherland, Spires was arrested by D.C. cops for violently attempting to rob another man, and assaulted police as they tried to take him in.  Had he been killed by police in that incident, the recent high school grad, who also briefly attended a private college in North Carolina, would no doubt been treated by the press and the President like Martin, Brown or Freddy Gray up the road in Baltimore, as a promising young man who became a tragic victim of the police war against young black men.  But Spires appears to have been uninjured by police despite his combativeness and small (5’5”) stature.  Local prosecutors then reduced charges and the police released him.  Spires stopped by a D.C. police station and picked up his personal belongings from that arrest shortly before killing Sutherland.  Not only does this demolish the idea that police are out to get guys like Spires, it demonstrates just how lax the justice system is about dealing with violent criminals, whatever their race. 

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

America, the Beautiful

I have picked up the vibe that even some millennial white conservative interviewers think it a bit weird (uncle Tom-ish) that I do not harbor at least a slight resentment against whites and America. The foundation of public school education is America sucks; having screwed over everyone from Native-Americans, to women, blacks, and every other minority.

As a black man in my sixties, yes, I have encountered racism. But for the most part, whites and America have been extremely good to me.

When I was a boy in the hood of Baltimore, several white politicians awarded me scholarships to pursue my dream of becoming a graphic artist. During and after college several so-called “evil white men” according to a NY Times article, employed me, treated me well, and furthered my career.

And yet, when I say I love my country and am proud to be an American, Leftists/Democrats look at me cross-eyed, accuse me of disloyalty to my race. I am supposed to be mad, feel resentful and victimized. Sorry, but I can't go there, embracing hate and a victim mindset.

Leftist/Democrat actress Janeane Garofalo said phenomenally successful proud American blacks Herman Cain and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas must be suffering with Stockholm syndrome. Process that for a moment folks.

In typical Leftist arrogance, Garofalo who claims to be an advocate for black empowerment, dislikes and even persecutes self-motivated blacks who successfully achieved their American Dream. How dare they achieve success without her beloved big government lowered standards or providing special concessions due to race. Obviously, Ms. Garafalo has a problem with such “uppity blacks” who do not want or need her foul-smelling racist superiority shrouded in faux compassion. Wouldn't a true advocate for blacks celebrate the achievements of Herman Cain and Justice Thomas?

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading.....

Choosing Misery: The Culture of Victimhood and Ingratitude

Attention all armchair crusaders, warriors of the web, and victims of life, the universe, and everything:

Take a break from your e-rantings, your Twitter manifestos, and your Justrage railings. Stop screaming at your screens for a moment – they can wait, and the odds of them walking away are slim. Put down your Frappuccino, your Doritos, and your frozen pizza.

This is meant for you.

Not long ago, I happened upon an article on society’s newest scourge – one more aggressive than a microaggression, more fearsome than a raging Bull Connor, and more phallic than a good five-cent cigar – creeping sexism.

Terrified yet?  Collect your thoughts, change your underwear, and get back to your screens as soon as you can.  

Beware of this great evil – one that would leave Brother Number One aghast and in tears.  Here is the root of our nation’s problems:

Referring to mixed-gender groups as “you guys.”

Yes, that’s it!  That’s what’s killing our economy, molesting our innocents, and driving us ever closer to the sulfurous abyss.

...Now, here is the real problem: that every self-righteous, mollycoddled twit with a keyboard considers it a duty to spew forth inane writings addressing the endless list of so-called social inequities.

I have been inspired to join the fray, only I won't be waging war against those standing in the way of universal equality and tolerance.  My war will be fought against the irate, status-updating, post-sharing keyboard warriors who perpetuate this culture of blind, banal fury because they are so desperate to feel alive and with purpose that they seek to create an adversary where none naturally exists.

Heavens, I am cruel, and the world has been cruel and unfair to us, hasn't it, my victimized friends?

Or has it?

Perhaps all of these causes that keep too many of us energized, falsely ennobled, and indignant; that appear to give us some greater sense of use and purpose (while conveniently requiring no sacrifice at all), allow us to ignore the facts that very few of us in this land of privilege face or have faced any real struggles, that our lives are hollow and lonely, and that millions of us contribute nothing to society but vitriol.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

Hillary's High Water Mark

Can polling data this early tell us anything about Hillary’s prospects in November 2016?  Hillary is an old political figure who has been in the public eye for the last 23 years.  Americans can learn very little new about Hillary, and the bland, familiar political rhetoric about new ideas and change and progress are so dull and predictable that few voters could possibly be influenced that that sort of glop.

Americans have formed an opinion of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and it is hard to see how anything can change that opinion in the next 18 months.  While polls taken months or years ago are unserious in the sense that only the truly politically wired think about elections that far away, recent polls show that  most Americans do not intend to vote for Hillary in 2016.

The relative jockeying of the potential Republican nominees tends to hide this fact.  So when polls show that Hillary runs ahead of most Republicans today, that appears to reflect a marginal shift in poll results among the particular Republican candidates, most of whom are not really familiar to Americans today.  Ignore the poll results for these Republicans and look only at the support for Hillary in these trial heats, and something interesting emerges: Hillary’s polling percentages are never a majority of respondents.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading.....

Social Services and the Free Lunch Fallacy

Americans love fine-sounding expensive social welfare programs. In New York City, where I live, it is almost axiomatic that government should build ever more affordable housing, force "greedy" landlords to subsidize tenants, supply shelters for the homeless and just about any nostrum that would somehow "help" the needy. Such addiction is even worse nationally where the public clamors for "free" medical care, non-stop "investing" in children, and guaranteeing millions of children free meals no matter how obese. Economists insist that there's no free lunch but don't broach that unpleasant reality to millions of American parents.

The key to understanding this rapacious appetite is the public imperviousness to costs. It is not that Americans cannot grasp costs. Millions do it every day -- a shopper knows that a half gallon of 2% milk for $1.99 is a bargain but he is unlikely to buy ten gallons regardless of the deal. Splurging on the cheap milk means less money left over for other groceries, consuming ten gallons may take months and thereby risks spoilage, and ten containers will fill the entire refrigerator while transporting all them home may be difficult.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading.....

ObamaCare's Failure Will End It?

Reading Marc A. Thiessen's column at the Washington Post yesterday, this passage rang a big bell:

It is going to take months to rebuild it. That raises a question: If the federal government can't manage a simple Web site, how on earth is it going to manage the health care of millions of Americans?

Good question, but hasn't it been asked a million times before about failed or failing federal programs, be that Medicaid, welfare, or farm subsidies, to name a few? How about the postal service or the VA? Both conspicuously inefficient operations and failures in their own ways. And on state levels, who doesn't gripe about the DMV?

Yet... have any of these gone away?

It could be that Republicans are overestimating the power of failure as it pertains to government. This could well be scary-true of ObamaCare.

There's an underlying assumption among Washington Republicans that ObamaCare will fail of its own gross deficiencies. Just get out of the way and watch it fall. But that logic defies history.

Government programs don't fail; they either have more money thrown at them to "fix the problems" that "inadequate" funding causes (checkout public education) or they're "reinvented," meaning politicians and bureaucrats -- with the help of think tanks -- jigger a program or agency to improve it, only down the road to announce that the rejiggered program isn't working due to deficient funding or needs yet again to be reinvented.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading.....

Mitt's Royal Slam

What's the explanation for Mitt Romney's unparalleled breakout?  A few weeks ago, the Romney campaign was regarded as dead in the water.  The polls (with the exception of Rasmussen) had the campaign uniformly down, giving Obama up to half a dozen points.  Voter interest was phlegmatic at best.  A combined Chicago-media offensive appeared to have put Romney on the ropes.  The consensus was that Obama would cruise to another victory, one paralleling and perhaps even exceeding his triumph over John McCain four years ago.

Today, little more than an electoral-cycle heartbeat later, the situation is utterly reversed.  The big mo belongs to Romney.  The polls, excepting a few weird left-wing holdouts of the Reuters variety, show Romney with comfortable leads ranging from 2% to 5%.  The swing states are trending in his direction.  The expectations of the GOP are those of the 3^rd Army roaring into the Reich.  As for Obama, he has displayed every sign of a man on the run -- desperation moves, incipient hysteria, vast and expensive efforts to magnify minor Romney gaffes, appeals to Big Bird and Gloria Allred.  His expression in the debates was that of a man facing his karma, more haggard and haunted with each appearance.  At least one person in the campaign knows full well that the game is up.

This remarkable turnaround is unmatched in recent American political history, and as such, it requires an explanation.  Not many have been floated as of yet.  The most popular so far holds that Anne and Tagg Romney, acting as Mitt's consiglieres, pushed aside most the campaign's professional political operatives in a successful effort to encourage "Mitt to be Mitt."

Everyone involved denies that anything of the sort occurred, and that may well be the truth.  Occam's razor applies to politics as much as any other field, and the simplest and best explanation in this case is that no large-scale change occurred within the campaign or without -- that in fact, things are unfolding pretty much as they were planned to.  That it's happening this way because it was meant to.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading...

Obama's Second-Term Agenda: Poison for Suburban Women

RadNet, the country's largest imaging and diagnostic company, comments in its most recent investor presentation that mammogram volumes have been adversely affected by the weak economy and a "government taskforce changing the recommended age from 40+ to 50+."

The government taskforce comment is meaningful.  It means that during President Obama's first term, an HHS-supported advisory board recommended that women's health care be rationed.  This is the same entity that more recently recommended that men do without the PSA test, the standard prostate cancer screening procedure.  Admittedly, this is a different HHS-supported independent advisory board, but maybe Mitt Romney was on to something when he voiced concern about ObamaCare rationing our health care through its own IPAB.

RadNet's comment about government's negative impact on mammogram volumes certainly clears the fog created by the Obama campaign's relentless suggestion of a Republican "war on women."  Seen in this light, President Obama's "war on women" scare tactics are a smokescreen, particularly if women have already had their mammograms rationed.

Although both presidential campaigns seek the support of suburban women, President Obama is not talking to them.  He is talking to Planned Parenthood customers.  Suburban women are typically economically established, educated heads of households.  They are typically involved in schools, church, and community.  Not to state the obvious, but they also live in the suburbs, which are incidentally where Target stores sell birth control for nine dollars a month. 

On the contrary, Planned Parenthood's customer base is young and urban -- 75 percent of abortions are by teens and twenty-somethings.  As someone who mentioned the abortion giant five times in one debate and as a regular Planned Parenthood benefactor, the president knows that suburban women are not Planned Parenthood regulars.  Still unanswered is what, if anything, the president will do for suburban women.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading...

Why Romney is Winning the Women's Vote

It is a poorly kept secret among students of female psychology that women are not attracted so much to beautiful men as they are attracted to men who are accompanied by beautiful women.

That is not to say that appearances don't matter to the ladies.  Of course they do.  The macho man in a tank top or the smooth-talking metrosexual guy in an Yves St. Laurent suit will garner that interested second look.  A handsome face, a good body, a whiff of money -- these are all promising entries in a man's résumé.

But in the mating and dating world, the advantages of a pleasing exterior don't go as far for guys as they do for girls.  It's great for a guy to be the eye candy at the party.  But in most cases, eye candy or not, the guy has still got an interview ahead (perhaps several) before he can land that coveted position with his lady of choice.

Now, on the other hand, suppose that you are lucky enough to be accompanied one evening by a beautiful woman.  Suppose you sashay into that party, larger than life, with your beautiful (let's say) blonde in a flashy red dress, clinging to your arm, and suppose (here's the killer) that as you enter the room, she is laughing at something you just said!  Well, then...you, my friend, have been certified.  Your lovely companion has placed your name at the top of all the lists in the room.  Those other guys have got a flashy résumé -- you've got a golden reference letter.

What you do with it, of course, is up to you.

Via: American Thinker

Comtinue Reading...

Barack Obama is a Liar

Calling someone a liar is a serious accusation. This is why, aside from the unwritten contract allowing for mutual prevarication, politicians are so reluctant to do it. And not just anyone is a liar. Legend has it that our first president said, "I cannot tell a lie," but, being only human, G.W. no doubt could and certainly did, at some point. A liar, however, is someone who lives and breathes the lie; someone who specializes in the art of artifice; someone to whom lying is his first recourse, not his last. Such a man is Barack Obama.

In four years, Obama has gone from "change you can believe in" to a man you simply cannot believe. And it's not just Benghazi-gate, although that's a good place to start. With the recently revealed emails showing that the White House was told a mere two hours after the attack that it was a terrorist act, no reasonable person can still conclude that the Obama administration was honest in its aftermath. And the claim that the violence was sparked by some anti-Islamic film wasn't just a lie - it was a liar's lie.

It was dumb.

It was obvious that it would eventually blow up in the administration's face and make Benghazi into the scandal it has now become. But such things are only obvious to the intellect; at issue here are instincts.

Of course, since the Obama administration had failed to provide requested security for our Libyan diplomats despite previous attacks on their consulate and the approach of 9/11's anniversary, the president had a vested political interest in suppressing the truth. This made the Benghazi-gate lie one of callousness and convenience, not malice. But then there is the matter of Hampton University in Virginia.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading...