Friday, October 21, 2016

Noonan: Donald Noodnick. The Amnesia President. Campaign Thoughts! Watch The Back of Your Head Donald.

At 83, I do not consider myself to have been a hater. Neither has my purpose in life been to hurt feelings. Politically speaking, I simply have tried to point out how misguided and actually dangerous I believe are some ideas held by my liberal friends. Also, I want to make sure anyone willing to read and/or listen to my thoughts, about what a disaster of a president Obama has proven to be, have that opportunity. and what a disaster a Hillary presidency is also likely to be. (See 1 and 1a below.)

Meanwhile, Peggy Nonan considers Donald a "noodnick " and a nutty one at that. (See 1b below.)

Meanwhile, are we about to elect a woman for president who cannot remember anything? (See 1c below.)

This article suggests HRC already broker her campaign promise regarding not adding to our debt.  Anyone who believed that comment is a damn fool so I do not believe she broke her pledge.  Rather,  it was always just another Hillary Whopper! (See 1d below.)
The political hack running for president was hacked and her evil supporter was found to be engaged in assisting the disruption of Trump's campaign activities. (See 2 and 2a below.)
Just some thoughts about what has been going on lately, regarding the campaign.

a) Anyone who believes Trump is not going to accept the election results is simply dreaming. On the other hand I believe he wanted to take the spotlight away from the sex/language story and he has every right to retain his legal rights to challenge an outright theft.

The problem is, Donald created another issue that is biting him from one that already was and which was timed to do just that.

I believe our voter rolls are probably screwed up but doubt the election is rigged because of these errors.

b) The real reason the election is rigged is not the vote but the way the press decided it wanted Trump to oppose Clinton because he would be the weaker candidate.  They gave him a lot of initial free press (rope) in the hope he would hang himself.

I suspect they got worried when he proved more of a threat than they thought he would and thus, they really piled on in order to destroy him.  They did so by totally focusing on him and basically ignoring the damaging WikiLeak releases that reveal what we all know.  Hillary is a crook, sold her position of influence for dollars which increased their personal fortune and received help from Obama and the various agencies he staffed with people of questionable ethics.

I believe there is enough evidence Obama also was up to his eyeballs in violating laws in order to protect Hillary so she will protect his legacy. We now know Obama knew Hillary was using a system that did not protect classified documents, or worse, and thus employed his own disguised e mail address in replies.

Furthermore, last night when The Catholic Al Smith Dinner concluded, the press focused only on Trump and smeared him while totally ignoring HRC's untoward comments and that she too was booed etc.

c) As I have said before and repeat, we have allowed campaigns to cost too much and last too long.  The consequence is that we end increasingly bored and less informed.

d) One final thought. Democracy is ugly. When there is a lack of party discipline and back room activity, too many candidates seeking the brass ring  and the mass media are so controlled by large corporations more interested in entertainment than education, whatever generally happens is more negative than positive.

Consequently, this creates a very unhealthy condition because citizens become increasingly discouraged, turned off by events and thus, less supportive of the government.

The circus that ensues, among other reasons, also might be why we have begun to flush up unqualified candidates because those who are capable cannot get recognition since the focus is on drama, the inconsequential all the way to the bizarre etc.
PREDICTION: Should Trump lose the election, I believe Hillary might seek to destroy his real estate empire.  It has never proven profitable to be one of the Clinton's enemy because you could become their target.  Watch the back of your head Donald.
Have a great weekend.
1)You're looking at the most political liar in American history.

I have been broadcasting for 31 years and writing for longer than that. I do not recall ever saying on radio or in print that a president is doing lasting damage to our country. I did not like the presidencies of Jimmy Carter (the last Democrat I voted for) or Bill Clinton. Nor did I care for the “compassionate conservatism” of George W. Bush. In modern political parlance “compassionate” is a euphemism for ever-expanding government.

But I have never written or broadcast that our country was being seriously damaged by a president. 

So it is with great sadness that I write that President Barack Obama has done and continues to do major damage to America . The only question is whether this can ever be undone.

This is equally true domestically and internationally.

Domestically, his policies have had a grave impact on the American economy.
 He has overseen the weakest recovery from a recession in modern American history.

He has mired the country in unprecedented levels of debt: about $6.5 trillion — that is 6,500 billion — in five years (this after calling his predecessor “unpatriotic” for adding
nearly $5 trillion in eight years). 

He has fashioned a country in which more Americans now receive government aid —
  means-tested, let alone non-means-tested — than work full-time.

He has no method of paying for this debt other than printing more money — thereby surreptitiously taxing everyone through inflation, including the poor he claims to be helping, and cheapening the dollar to the point that some countries are talking about another reserve currency — and saddling the next generations with enormous debts.

With his 2,500-page Affordable Care Act he has made it impossible for hundreds of  thousands, soon millions, of Americans to keep their individual or employer-sponsored group health insurance; he has stymied American medical innovation with an utterly destructive tax on medical devices; and he has caused hundreds of thousands of workers to lose full-time jobs because of the health-care costs imposed by Obamacare on employers.

His Internal Revenue Service used its unparalleled power to stymie political dissent. No one has been held accountable.

His ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were murdered by terrorists in Benghazi, Libya .. No one has been blamed. The only blame the Obama administration
has leveled was on a video maker in California who had nothing to do with the assault. In this president’s White House the buck stops nowhere.

Among presidents in modern American history,he has also been a uniquely divisive force. 

It began with his forcing Obamacare through Congress —the only major legislation in American history to be passed with no votes from the opposition party.

Though he has had a unique opportunity to do so, he has not only not helped heal racial tensions, he has exacerbated them. His intrusions into the Trayvon Martin affair (“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon”) and into the confrontation between a white police officer and a black Harvard professor (the police “acted stupidly”) were unwarranted, irresponsible, demagogic, and, most of all, divisive.

He should have been reassuring black Americans that America is in fact the least racist country in the world — something he should know as well as anybody, having been raised only by whites and being the first (half-breed) black elected the leader of a white-majority nation.

Instead, he echoed the inflammatory speech of professional race-baiters such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.He has also divided the country by economic class, using classic Marxist language against “the rich” and “corporate profits.”

Regarding America in the world, he has been, if possible, even more damaging.  The United States is at its weakest, has fewer allies, and has less military and diplomatic influence than at any time since before World War II.

One wonders if there is a remaining ally nation that trusts him. And worse, no American enemy fears him. If you are a free movement (the democratic Iranian and Syrian oppositions) or a free country (Israel), you have little or no reason to believe that you have a steadfast ally in the United States .

Even non-democratic allies no longer trust America. Barack Obama has alienated our most  important and longest standing Arab allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia . Both the anti–Muslim Brotherhood and the anti-Iran Arab states have lost respect for him.   And his complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq has left that country with weekly bloodbaths.

Virtually nothing Barack Obama has done has left America or the world better since
 he became president. Nearly everything he has touched has been made worse.

He did, however, promise before the 2008 election that “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America ..” That is the one promise he has kept.

1a) A Frightening Preview of Hillary's America
By Daniel Greenfield

Dark and unaccountable.

Hillary Clinton, of all people, summed up this debate and this election best.
“What kind of country are we going to be?”
The Evita of Arkansas is a compulsive liar who has never told the truth in her life. But this time around she was right. This election does not come down to the personalities. It comes down to the kind of country we are going to have. And in the third debate, the one that took a break from the petty haranguing of media lackeys like Lester Holt and Martha Raddatz, the issues took center stage.
The core issue came into focus with the very first question asked by Chris Wallace. Wallace asked Hillary and Trump if their vision for the Supreme Court was based on the Constitution or not. Hillary launched into a spiel about a Supreme Court that would stand for class warfare and gay rights. The only time she mentioned the Constitution was when she insisted that the Senate was constitutionally obligated to confirm Obama’s nominee. That is her vision of the Constitution; a document that grants her power to reshape the country without regard to the Founders or any previously existing rights or freedoms.
It fell to Trump to speak of justices who would “interpret the Constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted”. And that is the core issue. Personalities and politicians come and go. Today’s trending topic has been forgotten a day later. Outrages explode like fireworks and then fizzle out.
The weapons of mass distraction have been deployed and detonated. They keep going off in blasts of media gunpowder to divert our attention from whether we will live under the Constitution or under the Hillary. Will we have the rights and freedom bound into the Constitution or corruption justified with cant about the need to defend the oppressed by giving unlimited power to the oppressors.
The final debate finally focused on the issues. Instead of leading with the scandals, it asked about gun control, amnesty and open borders. It asked what kind of country are we going to be?
And, are we going to be a country at all or an open border weeping undocumented migrants destroying what’s left of the middle class as the masterminds rob the country blind while preaching piously to us about all the poor Syrians, Mexicans and LGBT youth they want to protect?
Americans have had a preview of the country that Hillary Clinton would create under Obama. They received yet another preview of it at a final debate in which Hillary echoed Obama’s Orwellian language in which endless spending was dubbed “investing” and in which government would save the middle class by regulating and taxing it out of existence for the greater good of the officially oppressed.
Hillary Clinton promised free college and cradle to grave education that would be debt free. Americans would be the ones plummeting deeper and deeper into debt to pay for degrees in gender studies. She promised viewers pie in the sky to be paid for by higher taxes on the rich. But as Trump pointed out, that’s the class that her donors come from. Did Warren Buffett and George Soros invest all that money into her victory just to pay higher taxes? Did they do it right after they bought the Brooklyn Bridge?
Or will Americans buy the bridge believing Hillary’s promise that she “will not add a penny to the debt”?
The only way Hillary can hope to do that is to appoint Bernie Madoff to be her Treasury Secretary.
When Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump wrangled over tax hikes or tax cuts, the debate is whether crooks like the Clintons should have a massive pot of taxpayer money to “invest” into their donors.
But beneath it is the same big question; do we live under the Constitution or under the Hillary?
In Hillary Country, just like in Obama Country, there are always more “investments” to make and you had better pay your “fair share”. There are always special identity group interests that need money. There are always more regulations, taxes, fines and fees. And it’s all for the children.
The ones that Hillary will grimace at when the cameras are on her and nudge away with the point of her shoe when the little red light turns off.
But there is no lie that Hillary Clinton will not tell and no lie that her pet media fact checkers will not back her up on. Obama doubled the national debt and yet Hillary insists that, “We're actually on the path to eliminating the national debt”. That might be true only insofar as we’re approaching the point that no one will lend us any money. We’re headed toward a $20 trillion national debt.
And Hillary’s plans won’t add a penny to the national debt. They’ll add hundreds of trillions of pennies.
Hillary talked of bringing “our country together” and not “pitting of people one against the other” and instead “we celebrate our diversity”. If she does half as good a job as Obama, these celebrations of diversity will climax with race riots across America. How exactly does Hillary plan to unite with the “deplorables” of the country? How has Hillary united anyone in the country except in disdain?
Hillary Clinton’s entire campaign pitch is based on demonizing Trump and his supporters. She believes that if she convinces enough voters that Trump is the devil, they may hold their noses and accept the return of the corrupt Clinton dynasty and everything that it represents. That gamble is what we are seeing on the news. It is what we heard at the debate. Hillary cannot win on her own merits.
She warned at the final debate of the “dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system”. It’s hard to imagine a bigger source of dark, accountable money than a foundation being used as an international slush fund that has been beyond unaccountable.
But it’s Hillary’s vision of government that is dark and unaccountable. From the beginning of the debate, she made it clear that she does not wish to be accountable to the Constitution. Her email cover up made it painfully clear that she does not want to be accountable to the American people. Instead Hillary would like everyone in the country to be accountable to her. A mass of regulations and enforcers will force everyone to be accountable to the dark and unaccountable force in the White House.
“It really does come down to what kind of country we are going to have,” Hillary repeated.
It does indeed. Americans have had a preview of the kind of country that Hillary would bring into being.
Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.
1b)Imagine a Sane Donald Trump
You know he’s a nut. What if he weren’t?
 ByPeggy Noonan

Look, he’s a nut and you know he’s a nut. I go to battleground states and talk to anyone, everyone. They all know Donald Trump’s a nut. Some will vote for him anyway. Many are in madman-versus-criminal mode, living with (or making) their final decision. They got the blues. Everyone does. They’re worried about the whole edifice: If this is where we are, where are we going?

I get the Reagan fantasy—big guy with a nonstandard résumé comes in from the outside, cleans out the stables, saves the day. But it’s a fantasy and does not apply to this moment. I get the Jacksonian fantasy—crude, rude populist comes in from the hinterlands and upends a decadent establishment to the huzzahs of normal people with mud on their boots. But it’s a fantasy, and doesn’t apply.

Because he’s not a grizzled general who bears on his face the scars of a British sword, and not a shining citizen-patriot. He’s a screwball. Do you need examples? You do not, because you’re already thinking of them. For a year you’ve been observing the TV funhouse that is his brain.

I offer an observation from Newt Gingrich, Trump friend and supporter, on David Drucker’s Washington Examiner podcast. Mr. Gingrich lauded Mr. Trump because he “thinks big” and is a transformational character. But he spoke too of Trump’s essential nature. The GOP nominee “reacts very intensely, almost uncontrollably” to “anything which attacks his own sense of integrity or his own sense of respectability.” “There’s . . . a part of his personality that sometimes gets involved in petty things that make no sense.” He found it “frankly pathetic” that Mr. Trump got mad because Paul Ryan didn’t call to congratulate him after the second debate.

Mr. Gingrich said he hopes this will change. But people don’t change the fundamentals of their nature at age 70.
Mr. Trump’s great historical role was to reveal to the Republican Party what half of its own base really thinks about the big issues. The party’s leaders didn’t know! They were shocked, so much that they indulged in sheer denial and made believe it wasn’t happening.

The party’s leaders accept more or less open borders and like big trade deals. Half the base does not! It is longtime GOP doctrine to cut entitlement spending. Half the base doesn’t want to, not right now! Republican leaders have what might be called assertive foreign-policy impulses. When Mr. Trump insulted George W. Bush and nation-building and said he’d opposed the Iraq invasion, the crowds, taking him at his word, cheered. He was, as they say, declaring that he didn’t want to invade the world and invite the world. Not only did half the base cheer him, at least half the remaining half joined in when the primaries ended.

The Republican Party will now begin the long process of redefining itself or continue its long national collapse. This is an epochal event. It happened because Donald Trump intuited where things were and are going.

Since I am more in accord with Mr. Trump’s stands than not, I am particularly sorry that as an individual human being he’s a nut.

Which gives rise to a question, for me a poignant one.

What if there had been a Sane Donald Trump?

Oh my God, Sane Trump would have won in a landslide.

Sane Donald Trump, just to start, would look normal and happy, not grim and glowering. He would be able to hear and act on good advice. He would explain his positions with clarity and depth, not with the impatient half-grasping of a notion that marks real Donald Trump’s public persona.

Sane Donald Trump would have looked at a dubious, anxious and therefore standoffish Republican establishment and not insulted them, diminished them, done tweetstorms against them. Instead he would have said, “Come into my tent. It’s a new one, I admit, but it’s yuge and has gold faucets and there’s a place just for you. What do you need? That I be less excitable and dramatic? Done. That I not act, toward women, like a pig? Done, and I accept your critique. That I explain the moral and practical underpinnings of my stand on refugees from terror nations? I’d be happy to. My well-hidden secret is that I love everyone and hear the common rhythm of their beating hearts.”
Sane Donald Trump would have given an anxious country more ease, not more anxiety. He would have demonstrated that he can govern himself. He would have suggested through his actions, while still being entertaining, funny and outsize, that yes, he understands the stakes and yes, since America is always claiming to be the leader of the world—We are No. 1!—a certain attendant gravity is required of one who’d be its leader.

Sane Donald Trump would have explained his immigration proposals with a kind of loving logic—we must secure our borders for a host of serious reasons, and here they are. But we are grateful for our legal immigrants, and by the way, if you want to hear real love for America then go talk to them, for they experience more freshly than we what a wonderful place this is. In time, after we’ve fully secured our borders and the air of emergency is gone, we will turn to regularizing the situation of everyone here, because Americans are not only kindly, they’re practical, and want everyone paying taxes.

Sane Donald Trump would have spoken at great and compelling length of how the huge, complicated trade agreements created the past quarter-century can be improved upon with an eye to helping the American worker. Ideology, he might say, is the pleasant diversion of the unworried, but a nation that no longer knows how to make steel cannot be a great nation. And we are a great nation.

Sane Donald Trump would have argued that controlling entitlement spending is a necessary thing but not, in fact, this moment’s priority. People have been battered since the crash, in many ways, and nothing feels stable now. Beyond that no one right now trusts Washington to be fair and wise in these matters. Confidence-building measures are necessary. Let’s take on the smaller task of turning around Veterans Affairs and see if we can’t make that work.
Sane Donald Trump would have known of America’s hidden fractures, and would have insisted that a healthy moderate-populist movement cannot begin as or devolve into a nationalist, identity-politics movement. Those who look down on other groups, races or religions can start their own party. He, the famous brander, would even offer them a name: the Idiot Party.

Sane Donald Trump would not treat the political process of the world’s greatest democracy as if it were, as somebody said, the next-to-last episode of a reality-TV series. That’s the episode that leaves you wondering how the season will end—who will scream, who will leave the drunken party in a huff, who will accuse whom of being a whore. I guess that’s what “I’ll keep you in suspense” as to whether he’ll accept the election result was about. We’re being teed up. The explosive season finale is Nov. 8. Maybe he’ll leave in a huff. Maybe he’ll call everyone whores.

Does he know he’s playing with fire? No. Because he’s a nut.

Sane Donald Trump for president. Too bad he doesn’t exist.


Surprise: A New Email Scandal Lie Emerges From Hillary Testimony

By Guy Benson

Now that the final debate is more fully in the rear view mirror, let's revisit the scandal Mrs. Clinton barely discussed in Las Vegas.  She'll hide behind the "does not recall" obfuscations she offered to Judicial Watch under oath, but let's consider the context and the source: This is just another lie from a compulsive liar, lying about her national security-endangering email scandal for which nobody has been held accountable -- to the reported chagrin of the career FBI agents and DOJ lawyers who worked the case.  Via the Washington Examinerhere we go again:
Responding to a set of questions under oath last week, Clinton said through her lawyer that she did not recall discussing her server with Bryan Pagliano, the IT aide whose immunity deal was the first to emerge publicly from the year-long FBI probe. "Secretary Clinton states that she does not recall having communications with Bryan Pagliano concerning or relating to the management, preservation, deletion, or destruction of any emails in her email account," Clinton testified through her lawyer, David Kendall, after raising objections to the question. But emails provided to conservative-leaning Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act show Clinton included Pagliano in discussions about her Blackberry, iPad and server when her network experienced problems in 2012..."Let me take a look at the server to see if it offers any insight," Pagliano wrote in an email to Clinton after she complained to him and Cooper of the "troubles" plaguing her Blackberry. The new records were among the roughly 15,000 emails FBI agents turned over to the State Department at the conclusion of their investigation.
Her testimony was that she "does not recall" ever communicating with Bryan Pagliano, the IT tech who set up and operated her bootleg, unsecureimproper server.  That doesn't pass the smell test on its face.  She never communicated with the guy who was running this scheme for her?  Buying that story requires a "willful suspension of disbelief," as Clinton once said in a nasty partisan confrontation with David Petraeus (approximately 1,000 official emails with whom her team wrongfully deleted and withheld from the State Department, about which Clinton then lied).  Beyond the smell test, these newly-released emails identify at least one instance in which Clinton personally emailed Pagliano, seeking assistance when her system was on the fritz (relatedly, you may remember that during a separate bout of server technical difficulties, the State Department actually disabled its official system's virtual defenses in order to try to accommodate her issue).  Sec. Clinton reached out to Pagliano for help, and he replied that he was working on the issue.  Does anyonebelieve this was the only time the two interacted?  It's a safe bet that she can't recall that either.  Meanwhile, experts are casting doubts on former State Department official Patrick Kennedy's tale about why he was in touch with an FBI official about email classifications, which he insists was not a quid pro quo offer:
A top former Justice Department privacy officer on Wednesday called it “extremely unlikely” that a senior U.S. diplomat would normally discuss the nuances of classification levels of one of Hillary Clinton’s emails about Benghazi with the deputy assistant director of the FBI’s international operations bureau. Patrick Kennedy, the State Department’s under secretary of management, was accused this week of offering a possible quid pro quo with the FBI in May 2015 to regarding the classification of an email about the 2012 attack on a diplomatic compound in northern Libya. In exchange for keeping the email unclassified, FBI documents released this week suggested, the State Department would agree to host more FBI agents in Iraq...the Justice Department’s former information and privacy director, Dan Metcalfe, on Wednesday said it was “extremely unlikely” that the Kennedy would seek advice on this particular classification issue from now-retired FBI agent Brian McCauley, who at the time was the bureau’s deputy assistant director for international operations.Instead, Metcalfe suggested, Kennedy likely called [McCauley] knowing the FBI wanted more agents in Iraq, but had been stymied in the past.
In other words, Kennedy's attempted machinations were basically exactly that they looked like: A political effort to protect Hillary Clinton, via mutual backscratching.  Nice try, Patrick -- who seems to feature prominently in Hillary scandals with curious frequency. Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy, whom we've quoted on various elements of this scandal, opines that the apparently attempted quid pro quoarrangement may be suspicious, but doesn't amount to bribery.  He builds the case that the criminality lies elsewhere. A Wall Street Journal editorial published this week details how the stench around this element of Hillary's email scandal continues to get more noxious:
The latest FBI document release on Monday contains interviews with officials revealing that in spring 2015 Undersecretary of State PatrickKennedy contacted an FBI official to coax the FBI to downgrade from classified to unclassified a Benghazi-related email that had sat on Mrs. Clinton’s server. At the time Mrs. Clinton was still insisting she’d never transmitted classified information...Democrats claim this is all nothing more than State employees engaging in the usual “interagency dispute” over classification—which has been Mrs. Clinton’s defense from the start.But there is nothing usual about the State department calling in “shadow” lawyers to handle emails, intimidating FOIA staff or proposing deals with FBI officials to deep-six documents in State basements. These are the actions of bureaucrats and political appointees seeking to hide from the public the mishandling of sensitive information by the Democratic nominee for President...Speaking of the White House, the latest WikiLeaks release contains an email from Clinton aide Phillipe Reines to campaign staffers in March 2015. Mr. Reines is responding to a New York Times headline, “Obama Says He Didn’t Know Hillary Clinton Was Using Private Email Address.” “One of us should connect with the WH just so they know that the email will show his statement to not make sense,” he wrote. This is the latest evidence that Mr. Obama was aware of, and corresponded with, Mrs. Clinton on her private email server."
Obama new about it, then denied he knew about it -- a lie that even surprised Clinton's aides, according to hacked emails. Perhaps he was the "VERY VIP" individual whose identity and/or email address Hillary's assistant IT manager sought to strip off of emails in advance of their release. In any case, all of this simple fuels the overwhelming public sentiment that Mrs. Clinton is dishonest and untrustworthy. In this week's  Quinnipiac poll, a 49 percent plurality called Hillary unfit to be president -- a terrible number for a woman who's campaigning on her experience and qualifications. Fortunately for Democrats, her opponent is the man they were rooting for in the GOP primary, and whose "unfit" rating in that same poll was an unelectable (38/58).  Last but not least, even if Clinton had sworn that she'd never conversed with Pagliano about the management of her secret server, without any "recollection" fudging, would that have mattered?  Probably not.  Remember, Clinton appears to have lied to the FBI about violating protocols by using personal computers in the secure areas (SCIF's) of her residences:
HRC told the FBI she had no computers in the SCIF at her house. But they found that she did.

That contradiction resulted in...absolutely nothing.  Just like everything else she's done. Being a Clinton means never, ever being held accountable.  

1d) The Atlantic: Clinton Has Already Broken Her First Campaign Promise

Hillary Clinton has a pledge she likes to make on the campaign trail, one she repeated a few times during Wednesday night's final presidential debate: "I will not add a penny to the debt," reports The Washington Post.

Clinton is promising to pay for her proposed hundreds of billions in new spending by taxing the wealthy, for example. So while she may not add a penny to the spending deficit, inaction on attacking the country's near $20 trillion debt would add another $9 trillion to it over the next 10 years, The Atlantic reported.
SPECIAL:Trump's Ex Wife Threatens To Speak Out AboTrump's Ex Wife Threatens To Speak Out - Donald Refuses To Be Intimidated."She had to have misspoke. The alternative would be absurd," Dean Baker, a liberal economist told The Atlantic. "Clearly, she is going to add to the debt."
So to actually make good on her campaign promise, a President Clinton and Congress would need to execute hundreds of billions in spending cuts or tax increases, neither of which Clinton is proposing.

"She doesn't have that, and no one could actually even be expected to have that. We are going to add to the debt."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++2) Report: Classified Info From Hillary's Email Found On Romanian Server

There is now more evidence that Hillary Clinton's server was hacked.
The Washington Examiner reports that the FBI's notes on their investigation on Clinton's server reveal that an unidentified company found a file that is believed to be from Clinton's emails – and partly written by Russia – on a Romanian server that had "the names of known or suspected jihadists in Libya" on it.

The file was found as result of Judicial Watch's efforts to find evidence that Clinton's email server was hacked.
The Examiner's report continues:
A Romanian hacker breached [Sidney] Blumenthal's inbox in 2013 and exposed Clinton's private email address for the first time, forcing her to change her username. Clinton's allies have argued that hack did not compromise any of Clinton's files.
However, the potentially classified file "did not come from Blumenthal's server," the witness said. Upon discovering the list of names, the individual who had been hired to conduct the online investigation "became concerned he had found a classified document and stopped the project."
Throughout the campaign, Hillary Clinton has constantly maintained that "there is no evidence my system was hacked." But as the Daily Wire has reported, the FBI has concluded that Clinton's server was indeed hacked and the hacker "logged into the compromised email, read messages, and browsed attachments using a service called Tor." The information that was likely compromised included "conducting missile-armed drone strikes against terrorists."

Based on the FBI notes, it would appear that the file with names of Islamic terrorists winding up on a Romanian server is another example of Clinton's email server being hacked.
If Clinton were to be confronted on this, she would likely just say she can't recall. She has a penchant for doing that.
2a) Document: George Soros Group Paid Activists to Disrupt Trump Event
The Democracy Alliance, a George Soros-backed umbrella group of wealthy left-wing political donors, paid activists to disrupt at least one event for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, according to a document from the group’s conference in Santa Monica in April 2016.

Under the heading “Case Study: Racial Justice,” the Democracy Alliance document says (emphasis added):
Through our rapid response fund Solidaire has remained nimble, providing agile support in moments of uprising, helping ensure activists have the materials, food, supplies, stipends and bail funds to sustain and escalate their disruption of business as usual. In support of the assertion that black lives matter, 2015 saw us lend our backing to:
  • the uprising in Baltimore
  • a transgender delegation to the Movement for Black Lives Convening in Cleveland
  • response to pro-Confederate backlash in Georgia
  • an action to disrupt the International Conference of Police Chiefs in Chicago
  • actions in Ohio on the one-year anniversary of the killings of Tamir Rice and Tanisha Anderson
  • disruption of a Donald Trump fundraiser in New York City
  • occupation of the 4th Police Precinct in Minneapolis
In addition, the document lists a line item of $9,200 spent on “SURJ – Disrupting Trump.” SURJ apparently stands for “Showing Up for Racial Justice,” an organization that describes itself as “a national network of groups and individuals organizing White people for racial justice.”
Democracy Alliance document (screen shot)
Democracy Alliance document (screen shot)
It is unclear whether the $9,200 was meant to cover one disruption, or several.
The Facebook page for SURJ includes a profile photo exhorting visitors to “SHOW UP AGAINST WHITE TERROR” (original emphasis), and also includes two videos of protest actions in New York.
The first video is a local news story from December 2015 reporting that activists had defaced the statue of Christopher Columbus in Manhattan’s Columbus Circle to protest against Donald Trump.
The second video is a self-produced documentary about a protest against Trump at a Republican event in New York in April 2016. The link for that video is either disabled or has been made inaccessible to the public. Video and photos of the event survive on Twitter, however (language warning).

The people have made it to entrance of Grand Hyatt!! 

The revelation about Soros’s link to the disruptions comes after conservative filmmaker James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas exposed an effort by Democrats to incite violence at Trump rallies and other Republican events for more than a year.
The effort centered around a consulting firm called Democracy Partners, with deep ties to the Hillary Clinton campaign and to the White House. Since the story broke Monday, Democracy Partners consultant Scott Foval has been fired, and the group’s co-founder, Robert Creamer, has been forced to resign.
The Washington Free Beacon, which first exposed the inner workings of the Democracy Alliance, describes it as a “secretive dark money group backed by George Soros and other liberal mega-donors.” In addition to Soros, major participants include mega-donors such as Tom Steyer, the financier-turned-climate activist who is entertaining a run for California governor in 2018.
Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. His new book, See No Evil: 19 Hard Truths the Left Can’t Handle, is available from Regnery through Amazon. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

No comments: