Alt-left calls conservatives white nationalists
It’s an old trick of the left to accuse conservatives of being racist, and to play the race card, or even an entire pack of race cards. This used to be more civil years ago, such as on the ill-fated talk show called “Showdown” where the liberal co-host, New York Daily News columnist Richard G. Carter would accuse co-host Morton Downey Jr. of “racialism” for his politically incorrect comments about the left’s racism. Now it’s advanced to another level, conservatives don’t just show their “racialism” or are merely racist anymore. Now the alt-left has resorted to just calling them white nationalists. When the lies and smears go too over the top, even the majority of liberals won’t believe them.
The latest is a spectacle of smear I read today, linked from Real Clear Politics. This was a CNN Opinion article by Ruth Ben-Ghiat titled “Why Steve Bannon’s white nationalism should scare America.” Note the lack of a question mark at the end of that title, or the use of a word like alleged white nationalism, etc. It is stated as fact, as if it’s well known or easily proven, that Steve Bannon espouses white nationalism. Seeing that well-written clickbait title, I had to read it. But I realized before reading it, given the title states as fact that Steve Bannon espouses white nationalism, I would have to look for any evidence in the article for the allegation of white nationalism against Bannon.
There was no evidence whatsoever. Not a shred. Not one iota to use Barack Obama’s favorite word. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Ben-Ghiat made claim of expertise in knowing what white nationalism is, and make a claim that Bannon has been practicing it in his role with Breitbart News. She wrote, “As a historian of fascism, I can tell you that Breitbart has been serving up a textbook-worthy campaign of racist indoctrination. Don’t buy into it further.” As a historian of the alt-left, I can say the likes of Ben-Ghiat have played the race card for ages. She would have more credibility telling us she stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.
Other than claim of expertise in fascism and translating that to knowledge of racism, Ben-Ghiat simply called him a white nationalist several times in the article without providing any real proof of it. She also cited, as if it hold any credibility anymore, the alt-left Southern Poverty Law Center, which has created an entire industry, and owns a multi-million corporate headquarters in Montgomery, Alabama to show for it, of trying to brand mainstream conservatives as racists, alt-right, and white nationalists. Basically, they make millions doing what Ben-Ghiat does for far less writing for CNN Opinion.
Anyone who doesn’t toe the politically correct view of the alt-left is not only just a racist, but a white nationalist. Everyone put in the “basket of deplorables” by Hillary Clinton is included. That probably includes you too. The alt-left never has to prove any of these allegations, just merely stating them is enough. This needs to be understood, and in the coming weeks and months when we repeatedly hear the empty and unproven claims of racism and white nationalism in the Trump administration, we’ll know the alt-left, and it’s allies in the liberal media, are up to their old tricks. And you should know it too.
Donald Trump falls behind in the polls due to distractions from years ago
So this is what the presidential campaign of 2016 comes down to, an 11-year-old video of Donald Trump making some crude and crass comments about women, that he calls “locker room talk” and has apologized for it? Much like George Allen’s stupid “macaca” gaffe in the 2006 Virginia Senate race, the media and the Democrats will turn an entire campaign’s focus on one stupid moment by the GOP nominee because they are so deathly afraid of having a campaign based on issues. Democrats are unlikely to win when campaigns are decided by real issues, most of which they find themselves on the losing side. And if the locker room talk video is not enough, they probably have something else to release that Trump said at some other point to manufacture more outrage with.
David Horowitz has reminded us repeatedly in his writings, that politics is war by other means. Democrats seems to take this far more seriously than Republican activists, and they play much better hardball than Republicans do. Democrats, and their willing accomplices in the liberal media, always make much better use of any baggage or scandals the GOP carries than does the other side with Democrat baggage. Look at all the baggage that Hillary carries, from the 1990s Clinton scandals to email-gate to Benghazi and so much more in between, and yet for the last week the campaign’s focus is on an 11-year-old video of Trump engaging in so-called locker room talk. But the real question is, where are the voters and why are so many voters, according to the polls, allowing their assessment of the choice in this election to be swayed so heavily by this distraction?
And that is really what this is, a distraction. Nasty comments made by the candidate 11 years ago, that he has sincerely apologized for. But why should this possibly decide the election? Are voters that easily swayed, to elect Hillary as president, despite all the very legitimate questions about her fitness for the presidency, because Donald Trump made some stupid comments 11 years ago?
Campaigns are always going to be fought over negative issues, and baggage in the candidate’s backgrounds, and hardball political operatives on both sides will always be looking for dirt to discredit the other party’s nominee in the general election. But voters should decide the outcome of the election, right? And shouldn’t voters decide who wins by the real issues of the campaign, and not these distractions? So why it is then, that so many voters seem to be willing to decide this election based on that 11-year-old video?
This election is about real issues, after all, regardless of whether those issues decide the outcome of the election. If Hillary wins the election via the benefit of almost nothing but the destruction of Trump from his past baggage, she will have no mandate on any issues. Hillary will have been elected because voters didn’t think she was quite as odious as Donald Trump. But in the meantime, there are Supreme Court seats to be filled in the next president’s term, U.S. Attorneys and judges to be appointed, and the next attorney general. There are public policies on the economy, taxes, foreign policy, etc. as well. Hillary and her left-of-center views may not have majority approval from the American voters, but they will prevail if she wins the presidency. If voters decide Trump’s comments 11 years ago are so outrageous, Hillary’s views will largely determine the policy directions of the federal government for the next four-to-eight years under a Clinton presidency.
We as the voters should be far more concerned with who will appoint the replacement for Justice Scalia, and who will be the next attorney general, than what Trump said 11 years ago. There is so much at stake in this presidential election. There is far too much at stake to let it because decided by distractions. Are we the voters going to fall for this bill of goods the Clinton campaign and the media are trying to sell us? Or are we going to remember there are real issues involved and vote accordingly? Only the results on Election Day will answer that question. We have a choice. We can vote for the candidate, although imperfect, who is better suited to make those decisions and bring prosperity back to our economy. Or we can vote the candidate who is better at mud-slinging the opposition. The future of the country depends on us making the right choice.
Have Americans learned from eight years of Obama?
Forget about #NeverTrump for this election cycle, the relevant hashtags are #NeverHillary and #NeverDemocrats. It can’t be any more clear to any voter with half a brain that we should not be elected Crooked Hillary as president, and after eight years of the worst president in the history of the country, Barack Obama, we should never, ever, never, ever elect another liberal Democrat as president again. But have the American people really learned this lesson? There are many reasons to have doubt.
The polls shows that Hillary Clinton has a chance to win this year’s presidential election against Republican nominee Donald Trump. But how can Hillary even be in this race, given her own background of corruption and dishonesty, and her affiliation with the Obama Administration, and coming immediately after the last almost eight years of this disastrous Obama presidency?
Given that just over half the country voted for Barack Obama as president in the last two elections, and they might well do it again if Obama wasn’t Constitutionally barred from seeking a third term, it has to be concluded that tens of millions of Americans don’t realize what a mistake they made in voting for Obama in the last two elections. The polls that show Obama’s approval rating no lower than the high 40s in percentages show that tens of millions of Americans don’t realize how much of a profound mistake it was to elect Obama twice as president, and just how much damage his policies have done to our country.
It is important that Americans understand, because many think they do and actually do not, and truly understand just exactly what Barack Obama is about and how he has come to be inspired to pursue the Anti-American policies he has pursued for two terms as president. While there are many books and videos on the subject, the best book to read is Dinesh D’Souza’s book The Roots of Obama’s Rage as well as the movie he made about Obama, titled 2016: Obama’s America. If everyone read that book and watched that movie with an open mind, they would truly understand what Barack Obama is truly all about.
Obama is clearly the worst president in the history of the country, and in many ways, electing Hillary Clinton (who has been a disciple of Saul Alinsky just like Barack Obama) would be a third term of Obama. Hillary as president would continue the hard line march to the far left that Obama pushed forward on steroids during his two terms as president. The failed, big government, excessively regulating policies that have thwarted the economy from recovering from the recession under Obama, would be continued under Hillary Clinton as president.
The lesson should be clear, we need real change, and it will not change under Crooked Hillary. If we want a true recovery from the recession, if we want a foreign policy based on American interests and not one of nation building, siding with groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, and engaging in more failed international meals-on-wheels missions that involve spreading our military resources thinner around the world on a smaller defense department budget, we need to elect Donald Trump our next president. If we want to rebuild the military, protect and defend our country, and respect our law enforcement officers, Hillary can not be the next president. Have we really learned the lesson of letting the far left under Obama run this country for the last two presidential terms? The elections results this November will answer that question.
Electoral map shows Hillary leading in the presidential race
North Carolina alone illustrates the challenge for the Trump campaign, a state that Barack Obama won in 2008 and Mitt Romney barely won in 2012, it’s a must win to get elected this year. The latest CBS News/YouGov poll in the state shows Hillary Clinton leading by two percent, 44 to 42 percent, over The Donald. The newest PPP survey of North Carolina has Trump leading 48 to 46 percent. Trump should have an edge in North Carolina, but right now it is a toss-up.
The neighboring state of Virginia is more solidly leaning in favor of Clinton, who has a 4 percent lead in the Real Clear Politics (RCP) average of polls. Virginia voted for Obama in both 2008 and 2012 and looks likely to be in the Clinton column this year.
The state of Florida, which was won by Obama in the last two elections, also looks favorable for Hillary, who leads by 3.4 percent in the RCP average and 8 percent in the latest Quinnipiac poll. Four of the five polls of Florida, in the RCP average, show Clinton leading by three percent or more. It is clear, if the election were held today, Florida would be voting for the Democrat nominee for president.
Pennsylvania is truly a toss-up state right now, and that may be good news for Trump, since the state has been won by the Democrats in the last three elections. While Clinton leads by just a half point in the RCP average, Pennsylvania is a state where Trump can win many traditionally Democrat-learning swing voters and win the state in November. If Trump can hold some of the close states that usually lean Republican, such as North Carolina and Indiana, and win some of the “light blue” states like Pennsylvania, he has a chance at beating Hillary in the Electoral College.
New Hampshire has been very closed, and based largely on turnout in the last several elections, but Hillary is holding a rather large 6.5 percent lead in the RCP average. While New Hampshire casts only four electoral votes, those four votes were key for George W. Bush reaching 270 electoral votes in 2000. Odds are, the candidate that wins New Hampshire will win the election, and right now it’s not looking good for Trump in New Hampshire.
Ohio, considered by most a swing state, should be a toss-up right now. But it leans in favor of Hillary by 2.7 percent in the RCP average, which includes a CBS News/YouGov survey showing Clinton leading by five percent, and the last Quinnipiac poll showing them tied at 40 percent each. Ohio is a state that Trump should be able to win, and needs to win, in order to become president. But if attacks ads from Priorities USA against Trump as anywhere near as effective as they were again Mitt Romney in 2012, where they clearly helped Obama in Ohio, Hillary Clinton will win both Ohio and the presidency this coming November.
Michigan is one of the states the Trump campaign supposedly will put into play, despite it having been a “blue” state in most recent elections. But the polling data says otherwise, where the last four polls listed by RCP shows Hillary Clinton leading by an average of more than 10 percent in those four surveys. Michigan is clearly going to be in the Clinton column in November.
Iowa has been close in the last few presidential elections, and this year should be no different. Lacking recent polling data for the state, it only seems reasonable at this point to consider the state a toss-up. The last survey listed by RCP, a PPP poll, show Trump and Clinton tied at 42 percent in Iowa.
While many consider Colorado as becoming a “blue” state, and it has voted Democrat in recent presidential elections, a recent CBS News/YouGov poll show it a toss-up, with Clinton leading by one percent, 40 to 39 percent over Donald Trump. Colorado could be a key pickup for Trump if he can win the state, as it could off-season losing another state elsewhere.
Arizona is closer than it should be, and like North Carolina, illustrates the weakness of the Trump campaign right now. That could change, but the Trump campaign will need to do the changing. Clinton holds a one percent lead in the RCP average for Arizona. That average includes one poll where Trump leads by four percent, one that has Hillary leading by seven percent, and a third older poll showing them tied. Arizona is a must win state for Trump, and if Hillary somehow wins it, it becomes almost impossible for Trump to win this election. The mere notion that Arizona is a toss-up, which it is, shows that Trump has some real challenges in winning this election.
As the map shows, the toss-up states are worth 61 electoral votes, and that includes Arizona and North Carolina (26 electoral votes) that Mitt Romney won in 2012. The fact that any states won by Mitt Romney are in play in this election at this time, shows serious weakness electorally for Donald Trump. The remaining 35 electoral votes (Pennsylvania, Iowa, and Colorado) of the states that are toss-ups were won Obama in the last two elections.
But the real challenge for Trump is the 297 electoral votes in the states that are leaning in favor of Hillary Clinton right now. Even if Trump won all those toss-up states, and holds on to the 180 electoral votes of the states that lean toward him now, he would only win 241 electoral votes, falling short of the needed 270. Trump would have to, at minimum, also win New Hampshire and Florida (33 electoral votes) to have a shot at reaching 270.
The Donald is going to have to spent a lot of time and resources in Florida and New Hampshire while holding on to many of the other close states where Hillary Clinton has a chance. It’s an uphill climb for Trump, but the electoral map looks much better for Clinton right now. But, we have nothing but time between now and November, and a lot can still change.
Phil Roe votes consistently in favor of Big Government
Congressman Phil Roe (R-TN), who represents the first district of Tennessee, claims to be all about people and not politics. Cong. Roe claims to be conservative, including fiscally conservative. But his voting record in Congress proves otherwise. As Congress and our current president have stomped on the accelerator taking us rapidly closer to $20 trillion in national debt, Cong. Roe has been part of the problem, voting for federal spending out of control.
We the people elected a Republican majority to Congress in 2010, and expanded that majority in the 2014 mid-term elections. But despite that, the Congress passed the Ryan-Murray budget, co-sponsored by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), with 169 Republican votes and 163 Democrat votes in 2013. Roe was one of the Republicans voting in favor of the Ryan-Murray budget, which passed by a 332-94 vote.
Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) called the budget a “terrible plan” and said “it makes promises to the American people that are false. Today the Democrats realized they were right all along, that we would never hold the line on the sequester.” Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) were among the Republicans that voted against the plan, while Roe voted in favor of it.
One terrible provision of the Ryan-Murray budget involved cutting the cost of living adjustments for our retired military veterans, cutting their monthly retirement checks. This reduction in what is owed to the very people who risked so much in service to us, and protecting our country, is entirely unacceptable. And Phil Roe, who talks a good game about standing up for veterans, voted in favor of this cut in their retirement benefits. Phil Roe should be ashamed of having cast this vote. It is one thing for liberal Democrats, who loathe the military as Bill Clinton wrote in the late 1960s to cast this vote, but quite another for one who claims to be a Republican and support our veterans.
Heritage Action, The Club for Growth, and FreedomWorks all opposed the terrible Ryan-Murray budget plan because it fails to cut spending where it needs to be cut, fails to balance the budget, and it fails to enact key reforms needed to reduce government to proper Constitutional levels and balance the budget. Ryan-Murray is a liberal big government at its worst, and Phil Roe voted for it.
After the so-called government shutdown charade in 2014, in which very little of the government was shut down, Phil Roe voted in favor of the gigantic omnibus spending bill that Congress passed after that episode. This was one of many such continuing resolutions, that fully funded big government and Obamacare, that Roe voted for, in direction opposition to the interests of his constituents and the country at large, but in favor of the special interests and K Street lobbyist he dutifully serves in Congress.
Roe voted in favor of reauthorizing BrandUSA in 2014, which is nothing more than a tourism slush fund that uses federal taxing authority to finance profits. Additionally, he voted in favor of T-HUD appropriations in 2012, increasing funds for Amtrak, the Essential Air Service, community development block grants, and other wasteful spending. Roe also voted in favor of the 2011 debt ceiling deal, which increased the debt by $2.4 trillion – the largest increase in American history that undermined GOP unity behind a balanced budget.
It is no coincidence that Roe has a 60 percent liberty score, as compiled by Conservative Review, based on his voting record in Congress. He consistently votes for the big government agenda with Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Paul Ryan. Phil Roe is a big government Republican through and through that votes in favor of big government spending, on behalf of the special interests and his lobbyist friends on K Street just about every time. He represents them, not the voters of his district, contrary to his “people, not politics” political slogan. Roe is all about politics, the politics of serving the Washington DC political establishment, not the voters who sent him to Washington. It’s time for voters to embrace change and send someone else to Congress in Washington. If we don’t change who we elect to public office, we can’t expect anything to change.