Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

(s)Elections
See other (s)Elections Articles

Title: Was Hillary Clinton’s Nomination Legitimate? Six Reasons to Say No
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern ... inton-illegitimate-nomination/
Published: Jan 16, 2017
Author: JOHN HAYWARD
Post Date: 2017-01-16 07:36:31 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 651
Comments: 2

Democrats are consoling themselves by claiming Donald Trump’s election is illegitimate, but they’ll do themselves and the nation a favor if they consider their own faults — including the top-to-bottom corruption in their own party and political strategy.

1. The Democrats’ rigged primary: Democrats should begin by accepting the obvious truth of a rigged primary revealed by WikiLeaks. The party’s key leaders — not the party’s voters — picked and promoted Hillary Clinton, meaning she was secretly coronated before the primary ever began. Her rival Bernie Sanders never had a chance. The “nomination” contest was theater designed to make Sanders voters accept Clinton. His voters ought to be furious at Sanders for playing along with this farce, which he most certainly did.

When Party elders shriek about nefarious Russian interference in the election process, they’re trying to distract from what the leaked DNC emails actually said, and the fact that we now know those emails are 100 percent genuine, despite early Democrat statements to the contrary. One of those shrieking claims came from Donna Brazile, who was directly involved in doctoring a primary debate by leaking questions to Clinton, not to Sanders.

2. The Democrat superdelegate system: Then there’s the openly rigged element of the Democratic primary, the superdelegate system. It is a political instrument specifically designed to shut down insurgencies and make the interests of Democrat voters secondary to the judgment of party elites, and the powerful lobbyists who manipulate them. Hillary Clinton was chosen by special-interest donors who had already spent a fortune currying favor with her, as demonstrated by the instantaneous collapse of the Clinton “charities”, the instant the Clintons had no more favors to sell.

3. The Democrat money machine: Building a titanic campaign war chest was the paramount concern of the Democrats in 2016, because they thought it — and their media allies — would give them an unbreakable headlock over the public debate. So Joe Biden was told he could not afford to get into the race. Same for Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, who barely raised enough cash to pay for a Philly cheese sandwich. Their financial kneecapping allowed Clinton to suck up hundreds of millions in campaign cash, sometimes in legally questionable ways, even as she railed against the influence of money in politics.

4. The media was part of Clinton’s campaign: It’s fun to watch Democrats wail about Russian spies using WikiLeaks to influence the election, when it’s clear the mainstream media was able to downplay the actual contents of those emails enough to keep most voters in the dark. Sure, outfits like Breitbart News did everything we could to report those revelations, but that’s nothing compared to the influence wielded by the establishment media when it gets a “narrative” avalanche rolling.

Wikileaks: Clinton Workers Polled Voters On Obama Ties To Drugs, Islam In 2008; Audio Excerpt Autoplay: On | Off Of course the establishment media was an active participant in the rigged primary scandal. Those leaked emails from the DNC and Clinton campaign chief John Podesta reflected very, very poorly on the press. That’s something Democrats could fix – there’s no reason for illegitimate behind-the-scenes coordination between their candidates and the media.

Democrat voters also should demand an end to the incestuous relationship between the media and Democratic politics because it has become as much a liability. Sure, it’s helpful to have the media in your hip pocket, but the value of that advantage is severely degraded when the public knows about it, and has lost faith in the establishment press as a result. Worse, the media enabled a weak, out-of-touch candidates like Clinton to capture the Party nomination.

5. The law was bent and broken to keep Clinton in the game: Democrat voters also should be questioning the legitimacy of Clinton’s nomination because the rule of law was corrupted to preserve her political viability.

Her candidacy should have ended when the email server story broke. (Really, it should have ended with the publication of Clinton Cash, but the Democrats incorrectly believed their controlled media could insulate her from the fallout of those astounding revelations.)

The politicized Obama Justice Department did Democrats no favors by staving off indictments that would have taken Clinton out of the game, or by slow- walking the email investigation until her replacement became prohibitively difficult. The Obama administration perfected tactics for dragging scandal investigations out until they became “old news,” but they miscalculated and prolonged Clinton’s email scandal until it blew up like a string of demolition charges throughout the 2016 election.

Before they began howling about Russian espionage, Democrats were pushing the narrative that FBI Director James Comey sabotaged Clinton’s election hopes by speaking at length about her “extremely careless” actions when he announced no charges would be recommended, and then kneecapped her again by reviving the Clinton investigation briefly during the last days of the presidential campaign.

As with their narrative about WikiLeaks, Democrats are complaining that Clinton was “sabotaged” because people revealed the truth about her. They’re saying their presidential candidate could only win if damaging facts were concealed, false media narratives were perpetuated, and special exemptions from the law were granted to her. That sounds like the very definition of an illegitimate candidacy.

6. Democrats try to hack the electorate: We might also challenge the legitimacy of a political strategy that relies so heavily upon using immigration to hack the demographics of the American electorate. Before Clinton’s defeat shocked them into silence, liberal analysts were beginning to churn out a fresh wave of “Emerging Democratic Majority” pieces about how native-born GOP voters would never win a national election again. One of the reasons Democrats subjected the Electoral College to one of their post- election tantrums is that the EC makes it harder for them to hack the presidential vote with mass immigration. That’s the true significance of the observation that Clinton’s popular-vote “victory” came entirely from California.

Before the 2016 election went down, it was commonly observed that Republicans might have won the previous two presidential contests if they were still running with Ronald Reagan’s electorate; this observation was used to mock Trump as foolish for pursuing an obsolete electoral strategy that could never work in the new, demographically-upgraded America.

That observation also lies behind the Democrats’ decision to downplay the economic concerns of struggling Americans, and to largely ignore the distastefully un-diverse electorates of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania in favor of outreach to immigrants, racial subgroups, gays, professionals, unmarried women, and other element of the hoped-for ‘Emerging Democratic Majority.’ If Democrats didn’t believe they had a reserve army of immigrant voters for Clinton, they might have nominated Biden or Sanders to instead win ordinary Americans to their side. Amusingly, if those immigrants didn’t exist, American voters’ incomes would be higher — and fewer would have been angry enough to shift their votes to the GOP’s candidate.

To sum it all up, everything about Clinton’s nomination and campaign stinks to high heaven.

That’s why Democrats should try to reform their own corrupt party before they lose again in 2020, if only because they can’t overthrow the Constitution or persuade the military to install their next candidate. As President Barack Obama would say if the shoe was on the other foot, reform of the Democratic Party is the legitimate thing to do.

As for Republicans, they know that there are many other techniques that Democrats use to hack the electorate, including the Democrats’ control over the media and education systems. That’s why Republicans should work hard and fast to disable all of them, permanently, because they have a sworn duty to protect the legitimacy of our voting system.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Ada (#0) (Edited)

Democrats are consoling themselves by claiming Donald Trump’s election is illegitimate, but they’ll do themselves and the nation a favor if they consider their own faults — including the top-to-bottom corruption in their own party and political strategy.

Excerpts from 4um Refs. Post #19 and Post #20:

The abortion plank in the 2016 Democratic platform effectively marginalizes the voices of 21 million [or more] pro-life Democrats.

Hillary Clinton has promised to make repealing the Hyde Amendment a key priority if she becomes president. This year’s Democratic Party platform for the first time ever called for its repeal. ... the platform calls for the repeal of the Hyde and Helms amendments, which prevent taxpayer funds from being used to pay for abortions. ... A commitment to religious liberty in the context of abortion, which was included in the 2012 platform, has been removed.

One-third of Democrats, or about 23 million, are pro-life, according to Democrats for Life. ... “Most Americans don’t want public funding of abortion at home or abroad.”

A Marist poll published in July found that 62 percent of Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion, including 63 percent of women, 45 percent of those who say they are “pro-choice,” and 44 percent [1/3+] of Democrats.

Abortion is also among the reasons Democrats lost their majority in the House of Representatives. In the key states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, for example, Democrats held the majority of seats until Republicans were able to associate the Affordable Care Act with “the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.” ... 88% of those seats went to Republicans after Democrats were tied to the assertion that Obamacare funded abortion.

The Democratic Party's abortion stances have already caused many to leave the party, and many more will drop out because of the platform wording. The percentage of extreme abortion rights advocates is increasing in the party, but only because the total number of Democrats has shrunk to its lowest level since the Hoover administration.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2017-01-17   10:40:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: All (#1) (Edited)

Hillary Clinton has promised to make repealing the Hyde Amendment a key priority if she becomes president. This year’s Democratic Party platform for the first time ever called for its repeal. ... the platform calls for the repeal of the Hyde and Helms amendments, which prevent taxpayer funds from being used to pay for abortions [here and abroad]. ... A commitment to religious liberty in the context of abortion, which was included in the 2012 platform, has been removed.

Additional excerpts from 4um Ref. Post #20 re: States' Rights, etc.

Notice that the Democratic platform states the party’s opposition not just to the Hyde Amendment, but to “federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion.” The list of laws and policies the platform covers transcends Hyde and is enormous.

It would include the Helms Amendment, an even older policy dating from 1973 that prevents U.S. foreign assistance from paying for abortions performed overseas (which number in the millions). It would also include the Smith Amendment, which bars health insurance plans that cover elective abortion from participating in the Federal Employee Health Benefits program. And the Dornan Amendment, which covers congressionally appropriated funds for the District of Columbia.

That’s not to mention state abortion limits, and even laws and policies that have nothing to do with funding but only address the most basic health and safety standards for abortion facilities or even informed consent.

Claim: Religious Freedom Threatens Civil Rights - ncregister.com

SEP. 27, 2016

the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (USCCR) issued a new report that has only deepened the acrimony and sowed fears that people of faith are being smeared as bigots.

The report, “Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles With Civil Liberties,” ... concludes that antidiscrimination laws should be given greater weight in such cases and framed religious freedom as a threat to civil rights. ... when the report was released on Sept. 7, it was the intemperate comments by Martin Castro, the chairman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, which left many religious-freedom advocates shaken and dismayed.

“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,” said Castro, an Obama appointee, in a separate statement that marked the report’s release. ["any form of intolerance" i.e. Christian opposition to taxpayer funded Abortion, for example]

‘Partisan Talking Point’

Richard Garnett, an expert on the U.S. Constitution at the University of Notre Dame Law School, dismissed Castro’s statement as a “partisan talking point.”

“The key point that Chairman Castro’s statement fails to appreciate is that ‘religious freedom’ is not in tension or competition with ‘civil rights’ — it is a civil right,” Garnett told the Register.

“Of course, we often face the challenge, in a pluralistic and changing society, of balancing rights and interests. This challenge is not helped by painting and dismissing those with different views as bigots.” [Ref. Supreme Court Finds Obamas Religious Tactics Unconstitutional - 5.5 min. YouTube Published on Jan 3, 2017; Trey Gowdy on the Constitution and issues of Religious Freedom + States' Rights]

Is anti-Christian bigot Martin Castro Hillary’s speechwriter? - Tom O'Halloran

SEPTEMBER 14, 2016

quoting Martin Castro, who claims that “the phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance.”‘

You read that right.

And who is Martin Castro? None other than the chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. He heads the government agency charged with protecting our rights, yet Castro glibly equates the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty to bigotry.

“In our nation’s past religion has been used to justify slavery and later, Jim Crow laws,” Castro said. “We now see ‘religious liberty’ arguments sneaking their way back into our political and constitutional discourse — just like the concept of ‘state rights’ — in an effort to undermine the rights of some Americans.

This twisted thinking came just days before the September 11 memorial ceremony ... And within the same time frame, Democrat presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton [on Sept. 9] referred to Donald Trump supporters using nearly identical harsh terms, declaring, “You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables… the racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, you name it.”

As Hillary’s political prospects plunge, are her skittish speechwriters helping themselves to Martin Castro’s reprehensible prose, or has the anti-Christian bigot taken a side job with Hillary Clinton’s sinking campaign?

Sidenote comment at the linked Source:

The Castro regime in Cuba, so beloved by Barack Obama [and] Jeff Flake is headed by atheistic Communists. Is Martin Castro a relative?

Introductory article + 2 videos on another legal angle of the suspect "Cuba-Castro" connection:

Hispanic Dems push Hillary for a seat at the table - thehill.com

BY RAFAEL BERNAL - 07/31/16

Hispanic Democrats are demanding that Hillary Clinton appoint Latinos to her administration in high-profile roles, as they look to move beyond their disappointment that she didn't tap a Hispanic running mate. ... Clinton considered Labor Secretary Tom Perez and Housing Secretary Julian Castro for vice president before deciding on Sen. Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat who speaks fluent Spanish.

Julian Castro Hatch Act - Video Dailymotion; 1 minute - Publication date : 07/19/2016

OSC - Julian Castro Violated Hatch Act July 19, 2016 - YouTube; 4 minutes - Josh Earnest Q & A:

Published on Jul 19, 2016

OSC, Office of Special Council has determined Julian Castro Housing Secretary (HUD) violated federal law by promoting Hillary Clinton's candidacy in an interview earlier this year.

Apparently, Castro's announcements amid the meeting impermissibly blended his own political perspectives with Hud's official office business. more here - https://osc.gov/News/pr16-20.pdf

2 4um Refs.

Election Therapy From My Basket of Deplorables - Excerpts:

The country had signaled strongly in the last two midterms that they were not happy. The Dems’ answer was to give them more of the same from a person they did not like or trust.

Preaching — and pandering — with a message of inclusion, the Democrats have instead become a party where incivility and bad manners are taken for granted, rudeness is routine, religion is mocked and there is absolutely no respect for a differing opinion. This did not go down well in the Midwest, where Trump flipped three blue states and 44 electoral votes.

The rudeness reached its peak when Vice President-elect Mike Pence was booed by attendees of “Hamilton” and then pompously lectured by the cast. This may play well with the New York theater crowd but is considered boorish and unacceptable by those of us taught to respect the office of the president and vice president, if not the occupants.

"Deplorables Unite" - (Do you hear the people sing) Trump Anthem with Lyrics - 3.75 min. YouTube Published there on Sep 20, 2016

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2017-01-17   13:10:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest