Category: Hillary Clinton

Yes, #BlackLivesMatter Is About Hate

Posted on Comments

“With Election Day only weeks away, it is possible the chaos in the Tarheel State is part of a left-wing get-out-the-vote effort to foment unrest in the state’s black communities. . . .
“Riots, of course, are the stock in trade of radical speculator George Soros, the preeminent funder of the Left who has given generously to Black Lives Matter. Soros has a long history of underwriting violence and civil unrest not just in America but all over the world.”
— Matthew Vadum, “Charlotte Burning,” Sept. 22, 2016

“Seriously, what are you supposed to do if an angry mob surrounds your car and you’re trapped? I guess you can sit and wait for help to arrive, and pray that help arrives in time. But when the angry mob is also trying to throw white people in fires, the help might be too busy to get there in time to save you. So really, what the hell do you do?”
— The Lonely Conservative, “If Your Car Is Surrounded By A Rioting Gang Of Thugs What Do You Do?” Sept. 22, 2016

It should not be necessary, after a year of CNN-inspired race riots, to explain that #BlackLivesMatter is not a spontaneous grassroots movement about curbing police brutality. The movement launched last year is led by professional activists, funded by a network of “progressive” tax-exempt foundations (connected to billionaire George Soros) in consultation with Democrat Party operatives. A major goal of #BlackLivesMatter is purely political — i.e., driving black voter turnout to help elect Hillary Clinton and other Democrats — and also to influence public policy, to undermine law enforcement and, arguably, to infringe free speech protections. (Glenn Reynolds has been suspended from USA Today for his “run them down” tweet.) By inciting riots in the black community, the Left simultaneously incites fear in the white community, and when white people condemn the kind of criminal violence #BlackLivesMatter inspires — first in Ferguson, then in Baltimore, most recently in Charlotte — this response is labeled “racism.” No one can credibly claim Professor Reynolds is a racist, and yet his “run them down” tweet made him a target of the Thought Police, and the online progressive bully mob turned its rage against him. Thus are the limits of discourse increasingly narrowed in a way that favors the Democrat Party.

This is not an accident.

These consequences of the #BlackLivesMatter movement — which the Democrat Party’s media machine, particularly CNN, have helped promote — were predictable, and it is therefore not a paranoid “conspiracy theory” to assume that these consequences are entirely intentional. It would be naïve in the extreme to suppose that the professional activists who descended on Ferguson, Missouri, in August 2014 didn’t know what they were doing, or what the results would be. Militant anarchists produce violent chaos, racial mau-mauing begets hostility, and history provides enough lessons about where such movements lead that only fools could believe that the sponsors of #BlackLivesMatter (including CNN and the Democrat Party) did not foresee the consequences.

 

That message to truck drivers (including my brother Kirby) to “avoid the area near I85 and I77 if at all possible” was sent out Wednesday night after a criminal mob descended on the freeway in downtown Charlotte, intent on perpetrating violence. As Professor Reynolds pointed out in his statement to USA Today, his “run them down” tweet was in response to a local TV reporter’s interview with a driver whose truck had been looted by the vandal horde: “She is still inside her truck as people loot her cargo and burn it. She fears for her life. . . . ‘I understand they want to make a statement but they are hurting innocent people trying to make a living.’ . . . This was an absolutely horrifying interview. She kept asking me where police are. She’s trapped inside as people destroy her truck and cargo.” It was this threat to an innocent civilian — a female truck driver, surrounded by a mob of dangerous thugs, with no police protection amid the violent riot #BlackLivesMatter activists had deliberately provoked — that brought back a vivid memory of the past for Professor Reynolds: “I remember Reginald Denny, a truck driver who was beaten nearly to death by a mob during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.”

 

Young people have no memory of the 1992 riots, which were arguably caused by CNN’s dishonest editing of the video in which Rodney King was arrested by Los Angeles police. If you watched the full-length video, and knew that Rodney King was under the influence of PCP at the time he was confronted by police after a high-speed pursuit, you realized that the baton-wielding police were dealing with a dangerously violent suspect who had already been tazed and was still resisting arrest. How are police to handcuff a suspect who is resisting arrest? When a criminal is apprehended and refuses to comply with the commands of officers armed with pistols, this always creates a life-or-death situation for police, because a struggling suspect may attempt to grab the officer’s weapon. Does “social justice” require police suffer death or injury rather than to use their batons to subdue a violent criminal? This was what anyone with common sense could see, once the full video of the Rodney King arrest was shown and the relevant facts had been reported. However, because CNN had spent several days repeatedly broadcasting a deceptively edited version of the video before the full version was finally shown, they created a false impression of the situation that led to the L.A. riots in which the truck driver Reginald Denny was nearly killed.

History teaches us lessons, and anyone old enough to remember 1992 knew what the consequences of #BlackLivesMatter would be. Are we to believe that #BlackLivesMatter leaders, and their accomplices at CNN and in the Democrat Party, did not also foresee this result?

 

Let’s be clear that these riots are anti-cop and pro-criminal. The Charlotte riot was about the police shooting of Keith Scott:

A public records search shows that Scott was convicted in April 2004 of a misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge in Mecklenburg County. Other charges stemming from that date were dismissed: felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and misdemeanors assault on a child under 12, assault on a female and communicating threats.
In April 2015 in Gaston County Court, Scott was found guilty of driving while intoxicated.
In 1992, Scott was charged in Charleston County, S.C., with several different crimes on different dates, including carrying a concealed weapon (not a gun), simple assault and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He pleaded guilty to all charges.
Scott also was charged with aggravated assault in 1992 and assault with intent to kill in 1995. Both charges were reduced, but the disposition of the cases is unclear.
According to Bexar County, Texas, records, Scott was sentenced in March 2005 to 15 months in a state jail for evading arrest. In July of that year, records show, he was sentenced to seven years in prison on a conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokesman said Scott completed his sentence and was released from prison in 2011.

Keith Scott was a career criminal with a record in three states. He had a history of armed violence. His victims included women and children. Certainly, he was not a symbolic hero of “social justice.”

#BlackLivesMatter is a racial hate movement, organized with the assistance of the Democrat Party and its media apparatus, with the goal of exploiting hatred in order to elect Hillary Clinton president.

Rioting May Tip Presidential Scales
in Crucial North Carolina
— Bloomberg News

Charlotte protesters ‘hate white people,’
NC Congressman Robert Pittenger says
— Charlotte News-Observer

“Run them down”? Or vote Republican. Same difference.




 

Andrea Dworkin Accused Hillary Clinton of ‘Betraying Younger Women’

Posted on Comments

Andrea Dworkin on the Monica Lewinsky scandal in January 1998:

We are talking about a man who, in a predatory way, is using women, particularly young women. In this case, a woman who was working as an intern, for no money, because of her devotion to the Democratic Party and to him. In an alcove next to the Oval Office, he simply unzips his pants and she sexually services him.
Bill Clinton’s fixation on oral sex — non-reciprocal oral sex — consistently puts women in states of submission to him. It’s the most fetishistic, heartless, cold sexual exchange that one could imagine.
People are characterizing this as a sexual scandal, but it’s an abuse-of-power scandal. It corroborates what both Paula Jones and Gennifer Flowers have said, and it’s a disaster for this particular young woman, Monica. I think there probably are many more of them, but I don’t know how many will come forward. . . .
The second issue that concerns me is what Hillary Clinton is doing, which I think is appalling. She is covering up for a man who has a history of exploiting women. If there is one thing being a feminist has to mean it’s that you don’t do that. You don’t use your intellect and your creativity to protect a man’s exploitation of other women. She’s done it before and she’s doing it again.
Ever since she went to the White House as First Lady, her life has been going down the tubes. She had to give up her profession and she’s been the staunch wife standing by her husband, no matter what vile things he does to humiliate her. It’s pathetic. She should pack her bags and leave.
Women of Hillary’s age — my age — have a responsibility not to let the men who are our peers exploit and destroy younger women. It breaks my heart to see Hillary on television. It’s a performance and as such it’s a lie. Whatever kind of deal they made in their marriage, I don’t believe it included the public humiliation of her. And this has to be the most towering humiliation of all.
I had great hopes for her at the beginning. I though: “How wonderful — a feminist in the White House. She’s so smart.” But I have not understood the choices she’s made and I have not been able to respect them. In protecting her husband, she is betraying younger women.

Today’s 18-year-old voter was just a baby when Andrea Dworkin wrote that. Maybe somebody should asks today’s young “feminists” about it.

 

Report: Hillary Clinton Is Funding Her Campaign by Stealing From the Poor

Posted on Comments

 

Your latest “Crooked Hillary” update:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is stealing from her poorest supporters by purposefully and repeatedly overcharging them after they make what’s supposed to be a one-time small donation through her official campaign website, multiple sources tell the Observer.
The overcharges are occurring so often that the fraud department at one of the nation’s biggest banks receives up to 100 phone calls a day from Clinton’s small donors asking for refunds for unauthorized charges to their bankcards made by Clinton’s campaign. One elderly Clinton donor, who has been a victim of this fraud scheme, has filed a complaint with her state’s attorney general and a representative from the office told her that they had forwarded her case to the Federal Election Commission.
“We get up to a hundred calls a day from Hillary’s low-income supporters complaining about multiple unauthorized charges,” a source, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of job security, from the Wells Fargo fraud department told the Observer. The source claims that the Clinton campaign has been pulling this stunt since Spring of this year. The Hillary for America campaign will overcharge small donors by repeatedly charging small amounts such as $20 to the bankcards of donors who made a one-time donation. . . .
“We don’t investigate fraudulent charges unless they are over $100,” the fraud specialist explained. “The Clinton campaign knows this, that’s why we don’t see any charges over the $100 amount, they’ll stop the charges just below $100. We’ll see her campaign overcharge donors by $20, $40 or $60 but never more than $100.”

Is anyone surprised that Hillary’s poll numbers are collapsing?

(Via Memeorandum.)

 

Hillary Is ‘Freakishly Unpopular,’ @MattYglesias Painfully Voxplains

Posted on Comments

Harvard-educated liberal genius Matthew Yglesias.

That people don’t like Hillary Clinton is hardly news to anyone who has paid attention to American politics since 1992, but among the Manhattan-based, Ivy League-educated liberal elite, the well-known problem of Hillary’s unpopularity was something they hoped could be changed by such P.R. strategies as having her dance with Ellen DeGeneres. The Clinton machine was able to steamroller past Bernie Sanders in the Democrat primaries, and when the Republicans nominated Donald Trump, all the “experts” believed that Trump’s deficiencies as a candidate would render irrelevant whatever remained of Hillary’s unpopularity.

 

Alas, no. The most recent polls show a clear trend toward Trump who, in the span of five weeks, has gained more than 4 points in the Real Clear Politics average of national polls (from 39.9% on Aug. 9 to 44% as of today), while Hillary has lost 2.6 points in barely three weeks, falling from 48.4% on Aug. 27 to 45.8% as of today. That was before the release of the latest Fox News poll, which has Trump leading Clinton 46%-45%. Skeptics may laugh that off, but even the CBS/New York Times poll has Hillary clinging to a bare 2-point lead, which means that Democrats need someone to explain to them how badly their hope is sagging. Cue the Juice Box Mafia’s Harvard-educated Voxplainer, Matthew Yglesias:

Hillary Clinton’s ongoing campaign to paint Donald Trump as unacceptable in the eyes of most Americans is working. It’s just not good enough. That’s the message of the spate of recent polls showing a dramatically tightened race that Trump may even be narrowly winning.
The truth is that Trump is not doing well. Even Trump’s very best recent polls . . . show him receiving fewer votes than Republican candidates usually get. . . .
The problem is that Clinton herself is doing worse. Because despite her campaign’s emphasis on Trump’s weirdness and unpopularity, that isn’t the only force shaping this race. It’s profoundly unusual across two other dimensions — the strength of third party candidates and the weakness of the frontrunner — that will probably prevent Clinton from ever opening up a sustained comfortable lead unless she can do something to make herself better-liked.
Clinton is a freakishly unpopular frontrunner
Despite a couple of days’ worth of bad polls, Clinton still leads in national polling averages. It remains the case that if the election were held tomorrow, she would win.
In that context, her 42-56 favorable/unfavorable split in national polling is truly, freakishly bad. . . .
Lambasting Trump while being unpopular herself would be a clear winning strategy in a zero-sum head-to-head race. But in a four-sided race, where the two lesser candidates aren’t receiving much scrutiny from the press or the campaigns, it tends to have the side consequence of pressing a lot of people to [Libertarian candidate Gary] Johnson or [Green candidate Jill] Stein. . . .

You can read the rest if you enjoy watching a liberal intellectual squirm in embarrassed agony, as I’m sure you do. Yglesias deeply wants to offer an ideological explanation of Hillary’s woeful unpopularity, to say that it is the Democrat’s lack of progressive credibility that is preventing her from pulling away from Trump, but that’s not really the problem at all. The brilliance of Trump’s stock phrases — e.g., “Crooked Hillary” and the “rigged system” — is that it cuts across simple Left/Right categories to reach the kind of grassroots resentment of well-connected political insiders which has been fueling American populism since Thomas Jefferson went after John Adams’ Federalists in 1800. All the “experts” have so underestimated Trump’s mass appeal for so long that if and when the Republican does pull into a clear and sustained lead over Hillary, the Elite Pundit Class will be exposed as frauds and fools. This would be such a truly beautiful sight to behold. Their gloom would likely be as hilarious as anything since the 1988 flop of Mike Dukakis.

(Hat-tip: Memeorandum.)

UPDATE: Pain? You want to see liberals writhe in pain? Trump is beating Hillary by eight points in Iowa and leading by 3 in Ohio.




 

#DNCLeaks: The Benghazi-ISIS Connection (Why Democrats Are Wrong)

Posted on

“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing do to with. It’s hard for the American people to make sense of that, because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”
— Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Sept. 14, 2012, while standing over the caskets of the four Americans killed at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya

Why did ISIS emerge as a major terrorist threat in 2013? This is a question that Democrats don’t want Americans to consider a consequence of President Obama’s policies, as it quite obviously is. Nor does anyone in the Hillary Clinton campaign want to discuss how the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was connected to the rise of ISIS, although this connection is equally obvious.

The connection involves the so-called “Arab Spring” uprisings of 2011 that were supported by Clinton’s State Department. A major goal of the “Arab Spring” was the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad’s Ba’athist regime in Syria. In the wake of the successful U.S.-backed overthrow of Libyan dictator Moammar Ghaddafi, the Obama administration sought to recover the weapons it had provided to the Libyan rebels, and transfer them (via Turkey) to the rebels fighting in Syria, where Assad had managed to retain power. It was for this purpose — seeking a weapons “buyback” deal with a group of Libyan rebels — that U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens traveled to Benghazi on that fateful day in September 2012 when he was ambushed and murdered. The offer of a meeting with rebel leaders, it turned out, was the bait for a deadly trap. The anti-Ghaddafi rebel forces in Libya were dominated by Islamic radicals, including al-Qaeda operatives and, in just the same way, the anti-Assad forces in Syria came to be dominated by the radical Muslims of ISIS — and the Obama administration’s policies helped make this happen.

Concealing this truth about the policies that Hillary Clinton had approved and implemented was why she lied about Benghazi, promoting a false narrative about “an awful internet video” in order to distract from the reality of what had actually happened in Libya, and what was also happening in Syria. In its effort to arm the anti-Assad rebels, weapons were being shipped from Libya to Turkey, and then transported to Syria. ISIS was not the intended recipients of these weapons, but the situation in northern Syria was so unstable that many of these weapons certainly did end up in ISIS possession and, furthermore, the U.S.-backed uprising against Assad created the “perfect storm” of anarchy within which ISIS subsequently established its Raqqah-based “caliphate.”

All of this is background to the leaked 2014 email in which Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Policy Director Mike Ryan tries to provide a defensible explanation for the rise of ISIS. The 2003 invasion of Iraq “created the atmosphere for a Jordanian to start a Muslim sectarian war, which ultimately created ISIS,” Ryan wrote:

He goes on to disclose that Zarqawi entered Iraq during the invasion to establish a religious caliphate for just Sunni Muslims and to start a sectarian war against Shias.
The Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Maliki and supported by the U.S. made the situation worse, because Maliki was discriminatory towards Sunnis and helped rally extremists to Zarqawi.
“Malaki’s prejudicial governing style worsened after U.S. troops left Iraq, helping quickly deteriorate the situation further,” Ryan concludes.

(Hat-tip: Instapundit.) Ryan’s explanation is simply a lie — deceit by omission, at the very least — because it wasn’t Zarqawi, who was killed in Iraq in 2006, who created the situation that developed in Syria in 2013. Ryan’s explanation was a typical Democrat “blame Bush” excuse that ignores both (a) Obama’s disastrous decision to rapidly decrease U.S. troop strength in Iraq, and (b) the equally disastrous policy of arming the anti-Assad rebels in Syria. Ryan’s version of the ISIS story conveniently skips over the seven-year gap between Zarqawi’s death and the emergence of ISIS as a major threat in order to conceal the role that the Obama administration’s policies played in the rise of ISIS. Just a few relevant highlights from the Wikipedia article on ISIS:

In August 2011, following the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War, ISI, under the leadership of [Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi, delegated a mission into Syria, which under the name Jabhat an-Nusrah li-Ahli ash-Sham (or al-Nusra Front) established a large presence in Sunni-majority Al-Raqqah, Idlib, Deir ez-Zor, and Aleppo provinces. . . . .
In August [2011], al-Baghdadi began sending Syrian and Iraqi ISI members experienced in guerilla warfare across the border into Syria to establish an organisation there. Led by a Syrian known as Abu Muhammad al-Julani, this group began to recruit fighters and establish cells throughout the country. . . .
On 8 April 2013, al-Baghdadi released an audio statement in which he announced that the al-Nusra Front had been established, financed, and supported by the Islamic State of Iraq, and that the two groups were merging under the name “Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham”. . . .
Meanwhile, the ISIL campaign to free imprisoned ISIL members culminated in simultaneous raids on Taji and Abu Ghraib prisons in July 2013, freeing more than 500 prisoners, many of them veterans of the Iraqi insurgency. . . .
On 29 June 2014, the organisation proclaimed itself to be a worldwide caliphate.

Now, from the Wikipedia article on Syrian Civil War:

On 11 January 2013, Islamist groups, including al-Nusra Front, took full control of the Taftanaz air base in the Idlib Governorate. . . . The leader of the al-Nusra Front said the amount of weapons they took was a “game changer”. . . .
On 2 March, intense clashes between rebels and the Syrian Army erupted in the city of Raqqah, with many reportedly killed on both sides. . . . By 3 March, rebels had overrun Raqqah’s central prison, allowing them to free hundreds of prisoners . . .
By 6 March, the rebels had captured the city of Raqqah, effectively making it the first provincial capital to be lost by the Assad government.

It is these events between 2011 and 2014, during Obama’s presidency, that Mike Ryan dishonestly omitted from his email to Democrats. After the death of Zarqawi and the 2007 U.S. troop “surge” in Iraq, this ragtag coalition of Sunni extremists was not a threat beyond a few places in western Iraq. However, once the U.S.-backed “Arab Spring” uprising destabilized neighboring Syria — at the same time Obama had withdrawn U.S. troops from Iraq — this created a new opportunity for al-Baghdadi.

 

“What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Democrats don’t want to talk about the policy decisions that brought about the disaster in Benghazi, which is connected to the disasters in Iraq and Syria. Fiddling around with rival factions in Muslim countries is no substitute for exerting our own military strength directly in defense of our own interests. The Obama/Clinton policy was always naïve — as naïve, in its own way, as the idea that we could “make Anglo-Saxon republicans out of obscure desert savages,” as Kevin D. Williamson once described Bush-era “War on Terror” policy. It is not usually necessary for the U.S. to deploy 150,000 troops, to invade other countries and topple dictatorships, in order to influence foreign affairs. However, if we are never willing to deploy any troops, our influence will be minimal, our allies will have no reason to trust that we will defend them, and our adversaries will despise our cowardice.




 

The Objective Truth of @fmanjoo and the New York Times’ Partisan Bias

Posted on Comments

What is the truth about Hillary Clinton’s health and why should Americans trust the media to tell us the truth? This was a question raised last month by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani in an interview on Fox News Sunday with host Shannon Bream:

“She has an entire media empire that…fails to point out several signs of illness by her. All you got to do is go online.”
Bream countered that Clinton’s campaign has vehemently denied the unsubstantiated claims she is in poor health, releasing medical records last year to prove her fitness.
“Go online and put down, ‘Hillary Clinton illness,’ and take a look at the videos yourself,” Giuliani responded. . . .
Giuliani’s comments on Sunday came after a week in which Trump himself questioned Clinton’s “physical and mental stamina.”
The Democratic nominee’s campaign has accused Trump and his team of “peddling deranged conspiracy theories in a desperate attempt to change the subject – this time with absurd and debunked claims about Hillary Clinton’s health.”

In response, Farhad Manjoo of the New York Times took to Twitter to advocate that search results for videos about Hillary’s health should be suppressed: “Google should fix this. It shouldn’t give quarter to conspiracy theorists.” Is it Farhad Manjoo’s job to help elect Democrats?

Well, yes — yes it is. This is why New York Times pays his salary, because electing Democrats is what the New York Times is about. Sure, Farhad Manjoo is supposed to be writing about technology, but if you check his online archive at the New York Times, you find that this is very light work — he published exactly eight bylined articles during the month of August, and writing two articles a week isn’t what I’d call a full-time job. So what does Farhad Manjoo do with all his spare time? Check out his Twitter feed, and you’ll find an incessant barrage of anti-Trump, pro-Hillary messages. Basically, Farhad Manjoo’s actual job these days is to crank out Hillary Clinton campaign propaganda on social media, while occasionally contributing a tech article to the New York Times.

So, three weeks after Farhad Manjoo called for the suppression of “conspiracy theorists” who claimed Hillary Clinton has serious health problems, we now know for a fact that Hillary Clinton has serious health problems. Does anyone expect the New York Times to discipline Farhad Manjoo for this behavior? Of course not. This is his job, you see — everybody employed by the New York Times is expected to do everything they can to elect Hillary Clinton president. Citing Farhad Manjoo’s tweet, former CBS News reporter Cheryl Attkisson wrote:

Rather than reporting the facts, many in the media have taken it upon themselves to shout down the questions and to controversialize those asking them. . . .
[Farhad Manjoo] was advocating that a conspiracy be committed to stop people from researching Clinton’s health, which he labeled a conspiracy. Many others in the media also chimed in using the “conspiracy theory” moniker. It’s designed to convince the public to tune out the discussion, in much the same way as other common astroturf terms such as “debunked,” “bonkers,” “tin-foil hat,” “shoddy,” “discredited,” “quack,” “bogus,” “denier,” and “crank.”
Left-wing apparatus Vox chimed in with an article titled: “The bonkers conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton’s health.” The pro-Hillary Clinton smear machine, Media Matters, chided NBC News for “mainstreaming conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton’s health.” Vice picked up the theme writing, “How conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton’s health went mainstream.” CNN published an article “Debunking conspiracy theories” about her health. CNN media critic Brian Stelter urged the media: “Do Not Give Oxygen To ‘Conspiracy Theories’ That Hillary Clinton Is ‘Secretly Ill’.” HuffPost wrote, “Let’s call the conspiracy theories about Clinton’s health what they are…” ThinkProgress joined in with, “Trump campaign embraces conspiracy theory…” From MSNBC: “Trump, allies push conspiracy theory about Clinton’s health.” NPR: “Trump adds fuel to conspiracy theory about Clinton’s health.” You get the idea. Everybody’s on the same page.

Whatever the truth about Hillary Clinton’s health may be, the truth about the mainstream media is that they are partisan Democrats, and that their “news” coverage is actually Democrat Party propaganda, so that they are essentially being paid to campaign for Hillary Clinton. Maybe the reason videos by “conspiracy theorists” are popular is because journalists are so blinded by partisan bias that they can’t be trusted to do honest reporting.

This is why journalists get scooped by guys with cell-phone videos:

Video from the 9/11 ceremony, uploaded to Twitter on Sunday morning, appeared to show the Democratic presidential candidate being helped into a black van by aides and US Secret Service agents. The man who filmed the video, New Jersey resident Zdenek Gazda, 50, told BuzzFeed News he was at the memorial when he spotted Clinton being led away.
“I take two pictures before she passed me,” said Gazda, who said he moved to the US 24 years ago from what was then Czechoslovakia and is a Clinton supporter. “She looked like everything was fine and everything was good.”
“I just saw the secretary waiting for the van and the van came and she can’t walk inside and she gets helped,” he said. “She lost her shoe and everything.”
Campaign staff initially refused to tell reporters traveling with the Democratic presidential candidate what had prompted the early departure, after Fox News reported that Clinton had experienced a “medical episode.”
She arrived at the memorial at 8:18 a.m. and left unexpectedly after about an hour and a half, according to pool reports.

Zdenek Gazda has better news judgment than most reporters covering the campaign, who are apparently willing to write whatever Clinton staff tell them to write. If the Clinton campaign staff denounce questions about Hillary’s health as “conspiracy theories,” then we can expect a dozen headlines repeating that label, and no one in the press corps will bother to ask serious questions about Hillary’s health, because to do so would be to join the “conspiracy theorists.” If Hillary was suffering periodic seizures and episodes of delirium, so that she was only able to get through the day with the help of a doctor treating her with ibogaine, the one thing we know is that the New York Times would never report this news.

(Hat-tip: Ed Driscoll at Instapundit.)




 

Hillary and the Clinton News Network

Posted on

The great thing about having the media as part of your campaign team is that they willingly lend credibility to your most implausible excuses:

Hillary Clinton said Monday night she’s “met a high standard of transparency” about her health and didn’t think the pneumonia was “going to be that big a deal.”
Clinton said she felt dizzy and lost her balance Sunday, but did not lose consciousness, and is now “feeling so much better.”
“I was supposed to rest five days — that’s what they told me on Friday — and I didn’t follow that very wise advice,” Clinton told CNN’s Anderson Cooper in a phone interview.
“So I just want to get this over and done with and get back on the trail as soon as possible,” she said. . . .
“Obviously I should have gotten some rest sooner — I probably would have been better off if I just pulled down my schedule on Friday, but like a lot of people, I thought that I could just keep going forward and power through it. And obviously that didn’t work out so well,” she said.

Let’s face it — as long as Hillary Clinton has a pulse, CNN will consider her a viable candidate and continue acting as her public-relations agency.

 

How Sick Is Hillary?

Posted on Comments

The Democrat nominee’s health has become a legitimate issue in the presidential campaign. Her coughing fit at a Labor Day rally in Cleveland was at first dismissed as a random incident, but after she appeared to collapse Sunday after a 9-11 remembrance in New York, the Clinton campaign admitted the former Secretary of State has pneumonia, and she took a day off to recuperate. Now some Democrats are worried, and are wondering why the campaign hid Hillary’s problem so long:

As Hillary Clinton’s health moves from the fringes to the center of the 2016 presidential campaign, there’s a lot we still don’t know about her scare this weekend.
Here’s what we do know: Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday. During a Sept. 11 memorial event on Sunday at Ground Zero, she was unsteady and clearly needed help getting into a van after becoming “overheated and dehydrated.” And Clinton canceled a planned to trip to California for Monday while she rests at home. . . .
Clinton suffered a coughing attack last week during an appearance in Cleveland, which she dismissed as seasonal allergies. She received her pneumonia diagnosis on Friday, but the public was not told about it until hours after the incident at the memorial, raising questions about whether Clinton had any plans to ever inform the public. Between the diagnosis and the near-collapse, Clinton appeared at two fundraisers, ran a national security working session, and held a press conference.
Clinton’s campaign appears to have, at best, withheld information from the public and — at worst — misled them by aggressively batting down “conspiracy theories” that her coughing fit was anything more than allergies. Opponents are already seeing the incident as proof of their claims that Clinton has been hiding health issues. And others may now be more incredulous of the campaign’s statements on her health.

(Via Memeorandum.)