The Media's Campaign Help to Trump

I was struck today by just how much the mainstream media is helping Donald Trump.  I saw an article about the latest poll in Iowa which has Trump and Dr. Ben Carson tied among Iowa Republicans.  The article (from the MSM) about the poll started by breathlessly proclaiming that for the first time in six weeks Trump was "not in the lead" in Iowa.  Now, for those of you who have not seen the latest poll, Trump and Carson each have 23% of the vote with Carly Fiorina third at 10%.  What has happened in this latest poll is that Carson has surged, not that Trump has fallen off.  It is worth noting that Carson is doing so well, because it tells me that many in Iowa like the "outsider" message, but they are not as enamored of Trump's brash style.  At least they are looking for a calmer, more courteous person for whom to vote.  Carson easily fits that bill.

Anyway, I am one who would prefer Carson's style.  Nevertheless, when I read the mainstream media article crowing about how Trump is no longer alone in first place, I have to say that I was annoyed.  The idiots in the liberal media act as if the Republican primary voters care what the main outposts of liberal thought (is that an oxymoron?) have to say.  Why should these idiots be exalting in Trump's being tied for the lead?  As the MSM has bashed Trump, I have come to like him more just for standing up to them and telling them where to get off.  If that is my reaction, it is probably also the reaction of many in the Republican party.  The MSM is helping Trump.

 

Another 150 Clinton Emails Had Clasified Info

Ed Henry at Fox News is reporting that another 150 emails in Hillary Clinton's private, unsecured email system had classified information in them.  That brings the total to right around 500 emails with classified information improperly stored on the unsecured Clinton system.

Things just keep getting worse for Hillary.  Simply put, there is no way that the presence of classified information on her unsecured email system was a mistake or even the result of sloppiness.  Someone might slip up and put one or two bits of classified information on the unsecured email system.  There could be a dispute about the classified nature of even a few dozen emails.  There is no way, however, that 500 emails with classified information could end up on the private unsecured Clinton system absent a policy decision by Hillary to use that system despite the laws and regulations against such use.  And remember, the 500 classified emails have been discovered after review of less than one - quarter of the total number of emails that Hillary turned over to the State Department.  If the proportions continue, there may be more than 2000 classified emails on Hillary's private unsecured system.  And, of course, we have no idea how much classified info was included in the 30,000 emails that Hillary ordered wiped from the system as "personal".

It is amazing to think that the head of the State Department felt it appropriate to ignore federal law so she could use her own server instead of the secure government system.  Hillary had to know that the Russians, the Chinese and many others were probably hacking into here emails and getting access to national security information.  How could Hillary think that her political need for secrecy from others in the government outweighed the national security interests of the USA?

We really are at the point where a grand jury needs to be empaneled to hear the evidence against Hillary Clinton.  Unless there is something exculpatory about which we have not heard, she ought to be indicted for improper handling of classified information.

 

Obama's in Denial, no wait....in Denali

This morning, the media hype for president Obama's trip to Alaska is in full bloom.  The AP calls the trip "historic" since it is the first trip by a president to the Arctic portions of Alaska.  Get that?  It's not the first presidential trip to Alaska; that was long ago.  It's just the first trip to parts of Alaska that are usually covered with snow and ice.  How historic!  By the AP's logic, if Obama uses the bathroom in one of the places he visits, it will be historic since no other US president has ever done that before.  Other news stories are spread across the media telling us all that Obama's visit will highlight the "ravages" wrought to Alaska by global warming.  Ravages?  Do they ever think about what they are writing?  There are no ravages.  Some aspects of climate have changed as there was warming until the mid 1990s (but not since them), but that is hardly a ravage.  Think of it this way: for a long, long time, Florida was hit by hurricanes almost every year.  Now, for a decade or so, no severe storms have hit that state.  Is that one of the ravages of climate change?  Across America the number of tornados has been at all time lows for the last three years.  Is that one of the ravages of climate change?  Remember, severe weather events like hurricanes and tornados were inevitably going to rise according to the global warming crowd.  Instead, they almost disappeared as temperatures held steady.  So they were off by more than a bit.

Obama's response to all the data that now shows that there really is no global warming and certainly no man made global warming, is to travel on his plane to Alaska to highlight global warming.  That's the plane that spews all sorts of what the global warming crowd calls carbon pollution.  In Obama's view, it's fine if he has an enormous carbon footprint; the rules he wants to impose will only apply to the little people, not him.

Obama is in denial about global warming.  It really doesn't exist and he can't accept reality.

 

Some Other Name Changes

President Obama renamed Mt. McKinley today.  The peak which had honored the president who was assassinated over 100 years ago will now be called Denali which is a native word meaning "the high one". 

We could debate the merits of changing the names of well known locations to pander to local political groups, but that is not the point.  Instead, maybe we should consider some other possibilities.

Another location named for a president who was assassinated is John F. Kennedy airport in New York City.  Maybe Obama should rename that something that the locals would find more descriptive like "Dirty, Overwhelming Traffic, and Confusing Airport".  It could be DOTCA for short.

Illinois could change the slogan on its license plates from land of Lincoln to "land of corruption and excessive debt".

You get the idea.

 

But He's Right -- Doesn't That Matter?

Donald Trump called Huma Abedin's husband, disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner, a "perv".  Today CNN is writing an article about how Trump is "defiantly" sticking to the "charge".  The Clinton campaign is denouncing the charge as unfair.

Before we go any further, let's start with the facts:

1.  Weiner is, in fact, a perv.  While his wife was pregnant with their child (and a bit before that too), Weiner was sending naked pictures of himself across the internet.  He was sexting with women who he met online.  He appeared to be planning to meet them.  While their are worse things Weiner could have done, it is fair to call him a perv.

2.  Weiner pretty much admitted by his conduct that he is a perv.  When the story came out, he resigned his seat in Congress.  Let's not forget that.

3.  Weiner's wife who is also Hillary Clinton's closest aide stood by him.  (Maybe Hillary told Huma how well that had worked when Bill had his affairs.)

4.  Trump said that Huma had an email account on Hillary's private unsecured server and she might have put classified information on that account just like Hillary did with her own.  Then he pointed out the her husband is a perv and she might be sharing the classified info with him too.

So was what Trump said wrong?  I don't think so.  Weiner is indeed a perv, and he is married to Hillary's closest aide.  She might share sensitive info with him; who knows?

The funny thing about the whole matter is that CNN writes about it like Trump was wrong to call Weiner a perv.  It's unbelievable!  We all know the old line that CNN stands for Clinton news network, but even for CNN it is a stretch to take false offense at anyone calling Weiner a perv.  What's next?  Will CNN condemn someone else for calling Bill Clinton a philanderer?  Will we see articles condemning people who insensitively call Hillary a liar?  Why?  She's clearly a liar.

In many ways, this is much like the early days of the Obama administration when all opposition to our president was labeled "racist" when it clearly wasn't.  This is all just a ploy to try to get opponents of Hillary to shut up.  But does CNN really think that tactic will work with Donald Trump?  It's hilarious just how out of touch with reality CNN really is.

 

Hillary's New Strategy Doesn't Seem To Be Working

A little over a week ago, Hillary Clinton adopted a new strategy.  She began saying outrageous things about Republicans so that she could be in the news about something other than her illegal email activities, her illegal disclosure of classified national security information or her slush fund/foundation.  Hillary has called Republicans terrorists, Nazis, and other choice names.  There's been coverage in the media, just as she hoped.  It is not working, however.

The Iowa Poll was released today.  It is taken by Bloomberg and the Des Moines Register.  Hillary is still leading among Democrats, but here's the problem:  her lead over Bernie Sanders is down to 37 to 30%.  That's right, the "inevitable nominee" Hillary Clinton can only get 37% of the vote in a poll in Iowa against an aged, white haired Socialist and some other non-entities.  Three months ago, Hillary's numbers were 20 points higher.

We can all see the trend here, and it isn't good for Hillary.  But forget the trend.  If the race remains basically a two person fight, Hillary would probably lose if she only got 37% of the vote.  That's how bad things have gotten for Mrs. Clinton.

In order to abandon Hillary, the Democrats involved necessarily decided they could no longer support her.  Sure, there could be a sudden surge of support for Sanders, but his numbers did not go up as much as Hillary's went down.  Does she really think that people will come back to her if she just says outrageous things about the GOP?  Won't she need to have an answer for the email/foundation/corruption charges?  We'll see, but it's looking more and more like it's going to be back to Chappaqua (or prison) for Hillary.

 

The Terrorist Manifesto

Hillary Clinton has been going on and on about how Republicans are terrorists and Nazis because they are pro-life.  In addition, Hillary has called restrictions passed on abortions during the last four months of pregnancy "dangerous" and "extreme".  Those are her words, not mine.  So what does that mean?

Well, before we get too far, I need to supply a bit of background.  In the case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme established the right for a mother to choose to have an abortion.  The right, however, is not absolute.  The unfettered right to abortion lasts only for so long as the fetus clearly could not survive outside of the mother's womb.  The justices said that such a fetus has no rights that might outweigh the mother's rights.  On the other hand, the justices also said that during the last part of a pregnancy, when the baby could survive outside of the womb, the baby has the right to life which makes abortion during that time illegal barring extraordinary circumstances.  The justices said this late period when abortion is essentially prohibited ran during the last three months of the pregnancy.  In the 42 years since that case was decided, however, medical science has progressed to the point where a fetus has a very good chance of survival starting with the sixth month of pregnancy.  That means that during months 6,7,8 and 9 of a pregnancy, the baby's right to life make abortion essentially illegal.

A few months ago, Wisconsin joined the list of states that make abortions after the end of the fifth month illegal.  In other words, Wisconsin codified the logic used by the court in Roe v. Wade.  This is the law that Hillary called "dangerous" and "extreme".  This was not a restriction on a woman's right to an abortion; she has five months during which to decide to abort.  This law just says that once the baby can survive as an individual separate from the mother, that a doctor may not just kill the baby on the order of the mother.  This is no different than a law that says the police can't kill a man walking down the street just because someone else says they should.  For Hillary, however, this is a dangerous and extreme law and people who support it are "terrorists" or "Nazis".

If there is anyone who resembles a terrorist in this discussion it is Hillary herself.  She sees no problem in killing an innocent child to make her political points.