Which is The 'Less Insufferable' - Our Choice

Our Political Predicament

9/20/2016 - Thomas Sowell Townhall.com

There is no point denying or sugar-coating the plain fact that the voters this election year face a choice between two of the worst candidates in living memory. A professor at Morgan State University summarized the situation by saying that the upcoming debates may enable voters to decide which is the "less insufferable" candidate to be President of the United States.

My own take on this election is that the voter is in a situation much like that of an American fighter pilot in World War II, whose plane has been hit by enemy fire out over the Pacific Ocean and is beginning to burst into flames.

If he bails out, there is no guarantee that his parachute will open. But even if he lands safely in the ocean, he may be eaten by sharks. If he comes down on land, he may be captured by the Japanese and tortured and/or killed.

In other words, there are huge and potentially fatal risks. But, if he remains in the plane, he is doomed for certain. To me, Donald Trump represents multiple and potentially fatal risks. But Hillary Clinton is a certainty of disaster. Her vaunted "experience" is an experience of having repeatedly made decisions that turned out to be not merely wrong but catastrophic.

The most obvious example has been her role as Secretary of State during the Obama administration's decision to undermine and help destroy the governments of two nations -- Egypt and Libya -- that were no threat whatever to Americans or to America's interests.

The net result was that two Middle East nations that were at least neutral toward the United States, in contrast to others who are hostile and belligerent, were turned into countries where Islamic extremists created turmoil, and one in which Islamic terrorists killed the American ambassador and those who came to his aid.

President Obama and Secretary Clinton inherited an Iraq where terrorists had been soundly defeated, thanks to General David Petraeus' "surge" campaign, which both had opposed when they were in the Senate.

But the Obama administration turned victory into defeat by pulling American troops out of Iraq, against the advice of top military leaders, setting the stage for the emergence of ISIS and its triumphant barbarism that attracted adherents who began waging a terrorist war inside Western nations, including the United States.

A whole series of disastrous military and foreign policy decisions have led to public criticisms by an extraordinary succession of former Secretaries of Defense and top generals who had served under the Obama administration. Such public criticisms of any administration, by its own former high officials, are virtually unheard of.

One of these Secretaries of Defense, Robert Gates -- who has served under several administrations of both parties -- criticized Donald Trump as well. Secretary Gates said: "The world we confront is too perilous and too complex to have as president a man who believes that he, and he alone, has all the answers and has no need to listen to anyone."

Secretary Gates called Trump "beyond repair." He also criticized Hillary Clinton, so this was no partisan attack. Unfortunately -- perhaps tragically -- she and Trump are our only alternatives this election year. On the domestic front, as well, Trump is an uncertainty, while Hillary is a guaranteed catastrophe. Given the advanced ages of various Supreme Court justices, whoever becomes the next President of the United States can expect to have enough appointments to that court to determine the future of American law -- and American freedom -- for decades after that President's term of office is over.

Hillary Clinton has already said that she wants to see the current Supreme Court's decision overturned in a case where they ruled, by a 5 to 4 vote, that both corporations and labor unions have free speech rights. On other issues as well, she has advocated curtailments on free speech. And without free speech, there is no effective limit on what any administration can do.

On racial issues, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly pushed the idea that blacks are besieged by enemies on all sides, and need her to protect them -- in exchange for their votes. Trump has at least supported charter schools, which are one of the few avenues through which the next generation of blacks can get a decent education.

There are no good choices, but nevertheless we must choose.

Politically - Demographically America At A Tipping Point

Last Chance for the 'Deplorables'

9/13/2016 - Pat Buchanan Townhall.com

Speaking to 1,000 of the overprivileged at an LGBT fundraiser, where the chairs ponied up $250,000 each and Barbra Streisand sang, Hillary Clinton gave New York's social liberals what they came to hear.

"You could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?" smirked Clinton to cheers and laughter. "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it." They are "irredeemable," but they are "not America."

This was no verbal slip. Clinton had invited the press in to cover the LGBT gala at Cipriani Wall Street where the cheap seats went for $1,200. And she had tried out her new lines earlier on Israeli TV:

"You can take Trump supporters and put them in two baskets." First there are "the deplorables, the racists, and the haters, and the people who ... think somehow he's going to restore an America that no longer exists. So, just eliminate them from your thinking..."

And who might be in the other basket backing Donald Trump?

They are people, said Clinton, "who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them. ... These are people we have to understand and empathize with."

In short, Trump's support consists of one-half xenophobes, bigots and racists, and one-half losers we should pity.

And she is running on the slogan "Stronger Together." Her remarks echo those of Barack Obama in 2008 to San Francisco fat cats puzzled about those strange Pennsylvanians.

They are "bitter," said Obama, they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustration."

In short, Pennsylvania is a backwater of alienated Bible-banging gun nuts and bigots suspicious of outsiders and foreigners.

But who really are these folks our new class detests, sneers at and pities? As African-Americans are 90 percent behind Clinton, it is not black folks. Nor is it Hispanics, who are solidly in the Clinton camp.

Nor would Clinton tolerate such slurs directed at Third World immigrants who are making America better by making us more diverse than that old "America that no longer exists."

No, the folks Obama and Clinton detest, disparage, and pity are the white working- and middle-class folks Richard Nixon celebrated as Middle Americans and the Silent Majority.

They are the folks who brought America through the Depression, won World War II, and carried us through the Cold War from Truman in 1945 to victory with Ronald Reagan in 1989.

These are the Trump supporters. They reside mostly in red states like West Virginia, Kentucky and Middle Pennsylvania, and Southern, Plains and Mountain states that have provided a disproportionate share of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who fought and died to guarantee the freedom of plutocratic LGBT lovers to laugh at and mock them at $2,400-a-plate dinners.

Yet, there is truth in what Clinton said about eliminating "from your thinking" people who believe Trump can "restore an America that no longer exists."

For the last chance to restore America, as Trump himself told Christian Broadcasting's "Brody File" on Friday, Sept. 9, is slipping away:

"I think this will be the last election if I don't win ... because you're going to have people flowing across the border, you're going to have illegal immigrants coming in and they're going to be legalized and they're going to be able to vote, and once that all happens, you can forget it."

Politically and demographically, America is at a tipping point.

Minorities are now 40 percent of the population and will be 30 percent of the electorate in November. If past trends hold, 4 of 5 will vote for Clinton. Meanwhile, white folks, who normally vote 60 percent Republican, will fall to 70 percent of the electorate, the lowest ever, and will decline in every subsequent presidential year.

The passing of the greatest generation and silent generation, and, soon, the baby-boom generation, is turning former red states like Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Arizona and Nevada purple, and putting crucial states like Florida and Ohio in peril.

What has happened to America is astonishing. A country 90 percent Christian after World War II has been secularized by a dictatorial Supreme Court with only feeble protest and resistance.

A nation, 90 percent of whose population traced their roots to Europe, will have been changed by mass immigration and an invasion across its Southern border into a predominantly Third World country by 2042. What will then be left of the old America to conserve?

No wonder Clinton was so giddy at the LGBT bash. They are taking America away from the "haters," as they look down in moral supremacy on the pitiable Middle Americans who are passing away.

But a question arises for 2017. Why should Middle America, given what she thinks of us, render a President Hillary Clinton and her regime any more allegiance or loyalty than Colin Kaepernick renders to the America he so abhor?

Join The Right Army - A Simple Choice

The Deplorables vs. The Deportables

9/16/2016 - Wayne Allyn Root Townhall.com

Elections are won and lost with branding. Every winning candidate needs a theme that excites voters, triggers an emotional response and perhaps most importantly, one that is memorable.

Thanks to Hillary, we’ve got it.

Trump's army is “THE DEPLORABLES.” These are working class and middle class Americans- law-abiding, salt-of-the-earth people, who work long hours, pay virtually all the taxes, and refuse to ever accept handouts. We believe in personal responsibility and the American Dream of mobility, opportunity and prosperity. We know it only comes from the individual, not government.

Hillary's army is “THE DEPORTABLES.” Her ranks of supporters are made up of freeloaders, foreigners and illegals who commit many of our crimes, and eat up the budget with welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, free meals at school, Obamacare, Obama phones, “earned” income tax credits (for illegals who don’t report any income), income tax refunds (by illegals with stolen taxpayer IDs) and the costs of police, courts and prison.

The country is going down the tubes thanks to Hillary’s voters. They pay nothing into the system, but they take everything out…and then some.

But Hillary and her fellow liberals are liars. They love to cover-up the facts. They claim "illegal immigrants are a net positive for America." And of course there’s the other famous lie- “they come here out of love of family. “

Hillary loves and protects millions of illegals. She won’t build a wall. She won’t deport them- not even the murderers and rapists who make up 30% of our prison population. She defends Sanctuary cities. She would claim “they are coming out of love.” It’s time to debunk that myth right here and now with facts direct from my new book "ANGRY WHITE MALE."

Yes, illegals pour across our porous border “out of love.” But unfortunately it’s a love of our generous welfare system. Illegal immigrants not only collect welfare, they collect more in welfare benefits than native-born Americans.

The average immigrant household consumes 33 percent more cash welfare, 57 percent more food assistance, and 44 percent more Medicaid dollars than the average native household.

So we are letting people flood across the border to bankrupt our country, to overwhelm our economic system, to create shortages and economic crisis for native-born Americans. As Donald Trump would say, how stupid can we be?

Based on the federal government’s own figures, illegal immigrant households receive an average of $5,692 in welfare benefits each year vs. $4,431 for American households. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/illegal-immigrant-households-get-5692-in-welfare-1261-more-than-american-families/article/2590744

All immigrant households- both legal and illegal- receive welfare benefits 41% higher than Americans.

Overall 51% of households headed by immigrants receive welfare vs. 30% of native-born American households.

We are told day and night that Hispanic immigrants are hard-working. I agree. We are told they take the jobs no Americans want. That may be true. We are told they work for low wages. That is true. But those low wages at menial jobs are being supplemented by the middle class. They aren’t living on those low wages. They are living on low wages, PLUS massive welfare payments.

Here’s a remarkable fact- Mexican and Central American immigrants collect the highest welfare of any group of immigrants in America, with an average annual household welfare benefit of $8,251, 86% higher than households of native-born Americans. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/illegal-immigrant-households-get-5692-in-welfare-1261-more-than-american-families/article/2590744

Where does all the money come from to pay for all this? It comes from one source- the predominantly white middle class. Not only are these millions of illegal aliens taking away American jobs; suppressing our middle class wages because they are desperate and willing to work for low wages; but they are able to survive on low or minimum wages because they supplement their low incomes with welfare benefits.

Those benefits are paid for with much higher taxes on the middle class; much higher health insurance cost on the middle class; much higher property taxes on the middle class; much higher sales taxes on the middle class; and much higher national debt- which will be paid back by even higher taxes on the children and grandchildren of the American middle class, who will be made poorer.

This is the murder of the middle class.

It is a national disgrace and disaster. But one thing it’s not is a coincidence, or bad luck, or bad timing. This is a plan. The predominantly white middle class is the target. This is about income redistribution, social justice and revenge. This is about filling the country with foreigners who are dependent on welfare from big government, and therefore can always be counted on to vote Democrat for higher taxes, bigger welfare checks and ever-bigger government.

To write this, to report this, isn’t “racism.” This is simply the truth about what is happening to America and the predominantly white middle class. It doesn’t make any group “bad.” It’s not an attack on Hispanics. It’s not an attack on foreigners.

I’m simply reporting the facts. This is happening. One group- guilty white liberals- are trying to “fundamentally change America.” And it’s working. Another group is being targeted and destroyed on a daily basis- the predominantly white middle class.

This isn’t guesswork. It’s not my opinion. It’s real, it’s happening. It’s the reason for the angry white male phenomenon. And it’s the very foundation of The Donald Trump phenomenon

Who's side are you on? It’s a simple choice. The future of America depends on your decision…

Trump’s DEPLORABLES…or Hillary’s DEPORTABLES.

Lawlessness Breeds Lawlessness -Does The Public Care?

Hillary Clinton and the FBI

9/8/2016 - Judge Andrew Napolitano Townhall.com

On Sept. 2, the FBI released a lengthy explanation of its investigation of Hillary Clinton and a summary of the evidence amassed against her. It also released a summary of Clinton's July FBI interrogation.

The interrogation was in some respects standard and in others very troubling. It was standard in that she was confronted with emails she had sent or received and was asked whether she recalled them, and her judgment about them was challenged. The FBI was looking for gross negligence in her behavior about securing state secrets.

The failure to secure state secrets that have been entrusted to one for safekeeping is known as espionage, and espionage is the rare federal crime that does not require prosecutors to prove the defendant's intent. They need only prove the defendant's gross negligence.

At one point during the interrogation, FBI agents attempted to trick her, as the law permits them to do. Before the interrogation began, agents took the hard copy of an innocuous email Clinton had sent to an aide and marked it "secret." Then, at her interrogation, they asked Clinton whether she recognized the email and its contents. She said she did not recognize it, but she questioned the "secret" denomination and pointed out to the agents that nothing remotely secret was in the email.

By examining the contents of the email to see whether it contained state secrets, which it clearly did not, Clinton demonstrated an awareness of the law -- namely, that it is the contents of a document or email that cause it to be protected by federal secrecy statutes, not the denomination put on it by the sender.

This added to the case against her because she later told the FBI that she had never paid attention to whether a document contained state secrets or not. In the strange world of espionage prosecution, this denial of intent is an admission of guilt, as it is profoundly the job of the secretary of state to recognize state secrets and to keep them in their secure government-protected venues, and the grossly negligent failure to do so is criminal.

The FBI notes of the interrogation recount that Clinton professed serious memory lapses 39 times. She also professed ignorance over what "C" means in the margin of a government document. "C" in the margin means "confidential," which is one of the three levels of federal state secrets. The other two levels are "secret" and "top secret." Under federal law, Clinton was required to keep in secure government venues all documents in those three categories. The FBI found that she had failed to do so hundreds of times.

By denying that she had paid attention to notes in margins designating the presence of secrets, by denying that she recognized a secret when she saw one and by denying that the location of planned drone strikes is secret (an obvious secret with which FBI agents confronted her), she succeeded in avoiding incriminating herself.

But by saving herself from indictment, she may have doomed her campaign for president. In this dangerous world, how can a person seeking the presidency be so dumb or ignorant or indifferent or reckless or deceptive about what is a secret and what is not?

The records released last week also reveal that the FBI must have been restrained from the outset from conducting an aggressive investigation. It did not present any evidence to a grand jury. It did not ask a grand jury for any subpoenas, and hence it didn't serve any. It did not ask a judge for any search warrants, and hence it didn't serve any. The data and hardware it gathered in the case were given to it in response to simple requests it made.

I counted five times in the report where the FBI lamented that it did not have what it needed. This is the FBI's own fault. This tepid FBI behavior is novel in modern federal law enforcement. It is inimical to public safety and the rule of law. It is close to misconduct in office by high-ranking FBI officials.

Someone restrained the FBI.

The FBI did not ask Clinton aggressive follow-up questions. Her interrogators just blithely accepted her answers. They failed to present her with documents she had signed that would have contradicted what she was telling them -- particularly, an oath she signed on her first day in office promising to recognize state secrets when she came upon them and to keep them in secure venues. And agents violated Department of Justice policy by not recording her interrogation when her lawyers told them she would not answer questions if her answers were recorded.

Now the FBI has interjected itself into the presidential campaign by releasing these documents. Notwithstanding the mountain of evidence pointing to Clinton's guilt, it is highly improper and grossly unfair to release evidence gathered against a person who will not be prosecuted. Moreover, it is tendentious to release only part of the evidence -- only what agents want the public to see -- rather than the complete file. Yet all this evidence is secret under DOJ regulations. Had any of it been intended for or presented to a grand jury, the release of it would have been criminal.

What happened here? The FBI seriously dropped the ball, and Clinton was more concerned about being indicted than she was about losing the race for the presidency.

It is apparent that some in FBI management blindly followed what they were told to do -- exonerate Hillary Clinton. There is no other explanation for the FBI's failure from the outset to use ordinary law enforcement tools available to it. Yet some in the FBI are not professionally satisfied by this outcome. They know that a strong case for prosecution and for guilt is being ignored for political reasons.

What else do they know?

Multiculturalism Eventually Leads to Chaos

Multiculturalism: A Failed Concept

6/29/2016 - Walter E. Williams Townhall.com

German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that multiculturalism has "utterly failed," adding that it was an illusion to think Germans and foreign workers could "live happily side by side." The failure of multiculturalism is also seen in Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, Belgium and other European countries. Immigrants coming from Africa and the Middle East refuse to assimilate and instead seek to import the failed cultures they fled.

Leftist diversity advocates and multiculturalists are right to argue that people of all races, religions and cultures should be equal in the eyes of the law. But their argument borders on idiocy when they argue that one set of cultural values cannot be judged superior to another and that to do so is Eurocentrism.

That's unbridled nonsense. Ask a diversity/multiculturalism advocate: Is forcible female genital mutilation, as practiced in nearly 30 sub-Saharan African and Middle Eastern countries, a morally equivalent cultural value? Slavery is practiced in northern Sudan. In most of the Middle East, there are numerous limits placed on women, such as prohibitions on driving, employment and education. Under Islamic law, in some countries, female adulterers face death by stoning, and thieves are punished by having their hand severed. In some African and Middle Eastern countries, homosexuality is a crime, in some cases punishable by death. Are all these cultural values morally equivalent to those of the West?

The vital achievement of the West was the concept of individual rights, which saw its birth with the Magna Carta in 1215. The idea emerged that individuals have certain inalienable rights. Individuals do not exist to serve government; governments exist to protect their rights. But it was not until the 19th century that ideas of liberty received broad recognition. In the West, it was mostly through the works of British philosophers, such as John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill.

Personal liberty implies toleration of differences among people, whether those differences are racial, sexual, ideological or political. Liberty also implies a willingness to permit others who disagree with you to go their separate ways. This is not the vision of the new immigrants. In some parts of Britain, Christians are threatened with violence for merely handing out Bibles. Trying to convert Muslims to Christianity is seen as a hate crime. Women are accosted by Muslim men for "improper" dress. Many women are sexually assaulted. In many European countries, "no-go zones" -- where civil authorities will not enter -- in which Shariah is practiced have been established. According to the Express, "London, Paris, Stockholm and Berlin are among the major European cities that feature on a bombshell list of 900 lawless zones with large immigrant populations."

Both in Europe and in the U.S., multiculturalism is a leftist elitist vision with its roots in academia. The intellectual elite, courts and government agencies push an agenda that is anything but a defense of individual rights, freedom from conformity and a live-and-let-live philosophy. Instead, multiculturalism/diversity is an agenda for all kinds of conformity -- conformity in ideas, actions and speech. It calls for re-education programs where diversity managers indoctrinate students, faculty members, employees, managers and executives on what's politically correct thinking. Part of that lesson is nonjudgmentalism, where one is taught that one lifestyle is just as worthy as another and all cultures and their values are morally equivalent.

Western values are superior to all others. But one need not be a Westerner to hold Western values. A person can be Chinese, Japanese, Jewish, African or Arab and hold Western values. By the way, it is no accident that Western values of reason and individual rights have produced unprecedented health, life expectancy, wealth and comfort for the ordinary person. There's an indisputable positive relationship between liberty and standards of living. There is also indisputable evidence that we in the West are unwilling to defend ourselves from barbarians. Just look at our response to the recent Orlando massacre, in which we've focused our energies on guns rather than on terrorists.

A 10 Point Plan of Immigration Transformation

Trump’s Immigration Plan is a Winner

9/2/2016 - Dan Celia Townhall.com

We now know what Donald Trump’s immigration plan looks like, after a strong primetime speech and a historic visit to Mexico. That’s more than we can say about Hillary Clinton’s immigration plan. Or, for that matter, her proposals for the economy or any other points she has bounced around in campaign conversation. 

After being ridiculed by both the current and former presidents of Mexico and after being embroiled in name-calling and sharp disagreements on immigration, how many politicians today would travel to Mexico to sit with that president and have a very presidential conversation?

I would submit to you that we have politicians who have no leadership skills and no backbone, and as we have seen, this is a disastrous combination for the people of America. Donald Trump’s visit to Mexico and his speech in Arizona should reinforce why the American people are so ready for Trump. He is not a politician, and America is sick and tired of polished politicians.

Some will argue that Trump has softened his immigration stance a bit, but I would argue that it’s more solidified than ever. We have more detail—and conviction—than we did four months ago.

Realistically, how many will disagree that criminals who are here illegally shouldn’t be deported? Not to mention that, under Trump’s economic plan, legal immigration will be more important than ever. We will need people who are willing to work toward their own prosperity and who are willing to work to see the American economy grow.

A Thriving Economy

Hopefully, under Trump’s economic plan, we will witness a thriving economy, one that needs both skilled and unskilled laborers—an economy where workers are paid a fair wage and where people can seize a piece of the opportunity available to them in the United States of America.

What the left fails to do is keep the conversation centered on the word “illegal.” It reminds me of the day we decided it was politically incorrect to call China “Communist China.” No longer do we identify this dictatorial, oppressive regime for what it is.

This PC policy on China is one of many reasons I, too, am sick and tired of politicians refusing to call things as they are. Maybe their ideological blinders don’t allow this uncluttered, unclouded vision. I hope this is not the case. Still, we have raised up so many spineless leaders, both in the corporate world and in politics, that Republican Party elites can’t stomach someone who doesn’t conduct themselves with the flair of British royalty.

After all, this would be the only thing that would fit with what they believe is right for America. They are perfectly OK with Hillary Clinton becoming president because Donald Trump doesn’t quite fit that royalty mold. These elitists have total disregard for the American people and just can’t bring themselves to embrace what might be right for our citizens.

Necessary Convictions

Can someone please tell the royal elitist never-Trumpers that the primaries are over and either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump—with his immigration policy, economic policy and conservative Supreme Court justices—will be president? And to stop pretending that a non-vote for Trump is not a vote for Hillary Clinton?

It’s safe to say that most people agree that we must secure our borders and take whatever steps are necessary to do so. It’s difficult to agree on secure borders without realizing that Donald Trump is the only candidate that has the spine, conviction and love for America to do what is necessary.

Granted, some don’t believe that Trump’s plan for immigration is the right plan for America. The same people are likely to support the idea of “sanctuary cities” and the idea that criminals should be allowed to live here illegally without the threat of being deported or jailed. For that matter, they don’t believe it’s in America’s best interest to have a legal process by which people are allowed to enter this country—like it’s been for the last 150 years.

Growing the Economy

If the above describes where you are, then vote for Hillary Clinton. After all, you may believe that a Trump administration will negatively impact the economy. But it can’t get much worse than it is under current conditions. Wages are decreasing, a 2 percent growth in Gross Domestic Product is the norm, the poverty rate has increased steadily for the past seven years, and inner-city youth unemployment has been in the high teens since 2008.

Still, if you like the status quo, an Obama/Clinton lack of immigration policy will be just fine. However, in an administration where conditions are changing, the economy is thriving, jobs are plentiful, a living wage is possible, and prosperity is an opportunity for every American, legal immigration will be not only plentiful but necessary.

This is where Trump’s plans for immigration and the economy can take us. This is not just about immigration—it’s just one piece of an overall plan that will be about confidence in business, the opportunity for businesses to expand and grow, and where the government creates opportunity and an environment for growth instead of stagnation.

If we are wise, we will choose the path toward growth. With Trump’s proposal, America can thrive under both an immigration policy and an economic plan that will support the statements he shared with the country last night.

Clinton offers neither. No detail, no conviction, no truth.