Category: Democrats

Amid Dow Boom, Liberal Media Gloom

Posted on 3 Comments

In the weeks leading up to the Nov. 8 election, Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) warned of economic disaster if Donald Trump won.

“Economists: A Trump win would tank the markets,” was the Oct. 21 headline at Politico, and on Nov. 6 — two days before the election, when some polls showed Hillary Clinton’s numbers had sagged — the headline at Huffington Post was, “Donald Trump Has Caused A Historic Drop In The Stock Market,” with writer Ben Walsh warning:

Deporting some 11 million undocumented immigrants, building a wall along the border with America’s third biggest trading partner, starting a trade war with Mexico and China that would destroy 4 million U.S. jobs: These are all deeply harmful economic policies.
Moody’s says Trump’s policies would throw the U.S. economy into the longest recession since the Great Depression. Citigroup thinks a Trump win could cause a global depression. By a different measure, Trump in the White House would cause the American economy to shrink by $1 trillion over five years, according to British research firm Oxford Economics.

As Democrat campaign propaganda, this may have been effective, but as financial journalism, it has proven woefully incorrect. The day after Trump’s stunning victory, the Dow gained more than 250 points, and by Nov. 22, hit a record high above 19,000 points. This “Trump boom” shows no sign of fading. The Dow jumped 100 points after the opening bell this morning and, as of 11 a.m., was at 19,260. And yet the media are still looking for gloom amid the economic sunshine:

“It’s hard to know how President-elect Trump will be in 54 days or 53 days when he is President Trump,” Joann Weiner, director of the department of economics at George Washington University, told Circa.
“I think the biggest worry for anyone getting out of college is, ‘Will these policies tip the economy into a recession?'”

What liberals don’t seem to understand . . . Well, they don’t really understand anything very well, but they especially don’t understand economics, having paid little if any attention to the subject, except to seek justification for their crypto-Marxist antipathy to profit.

Communist protesters at the GOP convention in July.

It’s bad for companies to earn profits, the liberal believes in his heart, because profits are the result of capitalist greed, and this is bad for women and children and racial minorities and spotted owls. Liberal hostility toward capitalism — expressed in a discourse where “big business” and “corporate America” are used as pejorative terms — is an emotional reflex, closely related to the liberal’s hatred of America. Anything that is distinctly American, including college football and the U.S. military, must be a force for evil in the world, the liberal believes.

“They always blame America first,” as Jeanne Kirkpatrick said of the Democrats’ typical stance during the Cold War and, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Democrats have devoted themselves to destroying the America that sent the Bolshevik dream to “the ash-heap of history.” Instead of honestly admitting the destructive purpose, however, Democrats now speak in poll-tested phrases about “Hope and Change,” promising to “fundamentally transform” America — into what?

Questions like that don’t get asked often enough. What was so bad about the America that twice elected Ronald Reagan by landslide margins? If Democrats believe the America of 1984 was evil, why?

The problem with Republicans is that they are too polite. It would be rude to confront the phony “journalists” at CNN, to crowd one of those liars into a corner and ask: “Why do you hate America so much?”

No, Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) don’t want to admit the real nature of their own irrational prejudices, and Republicans are too polite to call them out on it. Has anyone in the Republican Party asked, for example, how much federal aid to education goes to elite private schools like Swarthmore College (annual tuition $49,104), where students enroll in “Queering God: Feminist and Queer Theology”? Why should the devout Catholic or Baptist be taxed to support such nonsense? Where are the GOP senators and congressmen demanding to know what kind of “education” taxpayers are being required to subsidize?

Because the Republicans are too polite (or too stupid) to call attention to what’s going on in our taxpayer-funded schools, a generation of young people has been indoctrinated in the anti-American prejudices of the Democrats who control university campuses. Meanwhile, Democrat operatives in the teachers unions who run the K-12 education system ensure there is No Child Left Believing in Christianity or Capitalism. Public schools teach atheism and universities teach “Queer Theology,” and nowhere in the educational process does a child ever encounter the arguments of Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek or Thomas Sowell. Therefore, in their continuing crusade to “fundamentally transform” America, the Democrats are always moving to the left. If a Democrat wins the White House — Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama — he will appoint a left-wing administration to implement a left-wing policy. However, when Democrats lose elections, they invariably interpret their defeat as evidence that they aren’t far-left enough.

This post-election demand for a “Radical Vision to Defeat Trump” comes from Zack Exley, whose resumé includes six years as a labor-union organizer, a stint with MoveOn.org, a gig with the doomed 2004 John Kerry presidential campaign and, most recently working for Bernie Sanders — the avowed socialist who would have won the Democrat nomination, were it not for the blatant cheating of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Zack Exley speaks for the majority of Democrat voters, the mobs of dangerous lunatics who riot in the streets, openly avow their Marxist hatred of capitalism, and proclaim “America Was Never Great.”

If Trump succeeds, these fringe-kook extremists will lead the Democrats into political oblivion. If Trump fails . . . Well, good-bye, America.



 

‘Hashtag He’s Your President’

Posted on 3 Comments

 

Inside their liberal echo chamber, hermetically sealed by epistemic closure, Democrats never have to consider the possibility that they’re wrong. Their friends at the New York Times and CNN all agree with them, as does every professor at Columbia, Yale and other major universities, and every celebrity in Hollywood. Democrats never talk to anyone who disagrees with them, because people who disagree with Democrats are not merely wrong, but also ignorant and evil.

How, then, do Democrats explain the fact that 62 million Americans voted for Donald Trump? There are five A’s in “RAAAAACISM,” which was the topic Democrats wanted to discuss yesterday at Harvard University:

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — The raw, lingering emotion of the 2016 presidential campaign erupted into a shouting match here Thursday as top strategists of Hillary Clinton’s campaign accused their Republican counterparts of fueling and legitimizing racism to elect Donald Trump.
The extraordinary exchange came at a postmortem session sponsored by Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, where top operatives from both campaigns sat across a conference table from each other.
As Trump’s team basked in the glow of its victory and singled out for praise its campaign’s chief executive, Stephen K. Bannon, who was absent, the row of grim-faced Clinton aides who sat opposite them bristled.
Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri condemned Bannon, who previously ran Breitbart, a news site popular with the alt-right, a small movement known for espousing racist views.
“If providing a platform for white supremacists makes me a brilliant tactician, I am proud to have lost,” she said. “I would rather lose than win the way you guys did.”
Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s campaign manager, fumed: “Do you think I ran a campaign where white supremacists had a platform?”
“You did, Kellyanne. You did,” interjected Palmieri, who choked up at various points of the session.
“Do you think you could have just had a decent message for white, working-class voters?” Conway asked. “How about, it’s Hillary Clinton, she doesn’t connect with people? How about, they have nothing in common with her? How about, she doesn’t have an economic message?”
Joel Benenson, Clinton’s chief strategist, piled on: “There were dog whistles sent out to people. . . . Look at your rallies. He delivered it.”
At which point, Conway accused Clinton’s team of being sore losers. “Guys, I can tell you are angry, but wow,” she said. “Hashtag he’s your president. How’s that? Will you ever accept the election results? Will you tell your protesters that he’s their president, too?”

The Alt-Right Dog-Whistle Theory, as we may call it, serves a valuable psychological function for Democrats. If the people who voted for Trump were racist — “RAAAAACIST!” — then (a) Trump’s election can be dismissed as morally illegitimate, and (b) the Democrats can avoid the question of whether their policies are wrong. Inside their echo chamber, Democrats cling desperately to this kind of rationalization, because the only alternative would be an embarrassing admission of failure.

(Via Memeorandum.)

UPDATE: Jennifer Palmieri is a pro-abortion anti-Christian bigot:

Palmeiri is famous for her WikiLeaks emails where she trashed Catholics and knocked Bill Clinton for not being someone she wants to spend time with. . . .
Another WikiLeaks email showed Palmeiri was involved in and confirmed that the Clinton camp conspired to withhold emails from State Department investigators during their recent investigation.

In case you forgot about this October revelation:

In a new Wikileaks disclosure, key figures in the Clinton campaign reveal a visceral anti-Catholicism, attacking Rupert Murdoch for raising his children Catholic and calling conservative Catholicism “an amazing bastardization of the faith.” . . .
In an email message to [Clinton campaign chairman John] Podesta and Palmieri, [Center for American Progress operative] Halpin cites a New Yorker article on media mogul Rupert Murdoch and the fact that he and then-managing editor for the Wall Street Journal, Robert Thompson, were raising their kids Catholic.
“Friggin’ Murdoch baptized his kids in the Jordan where John the Baptist baptized Jesus,” he lamented. . . .
In her response, Jennifer Palmieri wrote, “I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they became evangelicals.”

Democrats are liars, and Jennifer Palmieri is an expert at dishonest euphemism, referring to women’s “right to access the full range of reproductive health care” to mask the Democrats’ pro-abortion agenda. You can read here about how Podesta boasted of creating a bogus “Catholic” group to promote abortion and homosexuality.

Democrats hate babies. Democrats hate Catholics. Democrats hate Jesus.

Democrats used to love Catholics, when Catholics helped elect Democrats like John F. Kennedy who, among other things, supported Vietnamese Catholics fighting against Communism. By 1972, however, Democrats hated Catholics and supported Communists in Vietnam. Of course, I’m old enough to remember when Democrats were the party of the working class, whereas now Democrats are the party of Hollywood, George Soros and every whiny liberal arts major at Oberlin College.




 

 

RELATED:

 


War on Women: Democrats Ready to Throw Nancy Pelosi Under the Bus?

Posted on 3 Comments

 

The irony here is rather delicious:

In the aftermath of Democrats’ demoralizing election defeat, Representative Nancy Pelosi’s bid to return as minority leader has been transformed into a larger debate about what has gone wrong with a party that eight years ago controlled Congress and the White House.
Ms. Pelosi, a 76-year-old San Francisco progressive, is expected to easily win re-election when her colleagues vote on Wednesday. But she has become a stand-in for complaints that Democrats have failed to offer a compelling, broad-based economic message to the working-class voters in the Midwest and South who helped them capture the House 10 years ago and made Ms. Pelosi the first woman speaker.
Representative Tim Ryan, who represents a blue-collar district in northeastern Ohio, has mounted an unexpected challenge to Ms. Pelosi and given voice to the message that House Democrats must broaden their appeal beyond the three liberal states — California, Massachusetts and New York — that now account for a third of their members.
Mr. Ryan argues that his party can only rebuild if it re-establishes itself as the party of the working class.
“We’ve lost that brand, and that’s the brand that gets you elected,” said Mr. Ryan, who is also thought by colleagues to be considering running for governor of Ohio in 2018.

Democrats talking about the popular vote — which Clinton won by a margin of more than 2 million votes — fail to acknowledge that this reflects lopsided majorities in a handful of ultra-liberal states. Clinton carried California by 3.4 million votes, New York by 2.5 million votes, Massachusetts by 900,000 votes, and Illinois by 800,000 votes. Pandering to liberal elites, Clinton ran up her totals in urban areas to gain a margin of more than 6 million votes in four states with 115 Electoral College votes. Meanwhile, Trump appealed to those who have spent the past eight years bitterly clinging to their guns and Bibles, to paraphrase a certain Harvard Law graduate’s putdown of Americans who have to work for a living. This “basket of deplorables,” to quote a certain Yale Law graduate’s description, turned out to include a surprising number of voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa.

Democrats have become a party for decadent elitists who cannot hide their contempt for the opinions and values of anyone who can’t afford to send their kids to Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Oberlin, Occidental, etc. Donald Trump got the votes of every ordinary American smart enough to understand that limousine liberals like Nancy Pelosi (who “is among the richest members of Congress, with an estimated net worth of approximately $58 million”) don’t give a damn about them.

 

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

Noting quite so perfectly demonstrated Hillary Clinton’s absolute disdain for ordinary Americans than her willingness to lie to them about what happened to the four Americans killed in Benghazi. These “little old liberal white ladies,” as Kevin Williamson called them, get plenty of support from commies who burn the American flag, from college kids who love Fidel Castro, and from wealthy celebrity feminists like Gloria Steinem. Democrats are then shocked to discover that this does not endear them to patriotic Americans who work for a living.

“The American flag has represented this imperialist, white supremacist, hegemonic masculinity.”
— Isaiah Young, American University

Exit polls show Trump beat Clinton by a 26-point margin among voters who had served in the U.S. military, and his margin was 14 points among voters who attend church on a weekly basis. Nancy Pelosi received the Margaret Sanger Award from Planned Parenthood, in recognition of her work to ensure that American taxpayers continue funding America’s largest abortion provider. Do you think that might have something to do with Democrats losing support among Catholic working-class voters in the industrial Midwest? I think maybe it does.

A picture is worth a thousand words, they say. Democrats kill babies. Democrats burn the American flag. Democrats hate Jesus.

Democrats still don’t understand why they keep losing:

“I think a lot of people are unsure if we want the faces of the party to be Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi: liberals from New York and California. It was different with a Democratic president — he was the face of the party, but now they will be,” the Democrat said.
One Democratic member said that while they like and admire Pelosi, they thought the election results meant it was time for her to step aside: “I just don’t think you can look at the election and say we should keep doing what we’ve been doing.”

Fifty-eight million dead babies could not be reached for comment.



 

 


‘Little Old Liberal White Ladies’

Posted on 3 Comments

Kevin Williamson hits it brutally hard:

The Democratic party is an odd apparatus in which most of the power is held by sanctimonious little old liberal white ladies with graduate degrees and very high incomes — Hillary Rodham Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, Randi Weingarten — while the manpower, the vote-power, and the money-power (often in the form of union dues) comes from a disproportionately young and non-white base made up of people who, if they are doing well, might earn one-tenth of the half-million dollars a year Weingarten was paid as the boss of the teachers’ union. . . .
The Democratic base is not made up of little old liberal white ladies with seven-, eight-, and nine-figure bank balances, but the party’s leadership is.

(Via Memeorandum.)

 

‘No One Left to Lie To’

Posted on 3 Comments

 

Memory is a strange thing, and perhaps my memory is particularly strange, due to my adolescent adventures in freelance pharmaceuticals. People sometimes talk about teenagers “experimenting” with drugs. If so, I was the Enrico Fermi of drug experimentation. My college dorm room was to dope what the Manhattan Project was to nuclear physics, and I was Robert Oppenheimer. The findings of my research could be expressed in a simple formula:

Psilocybin + Cocaine = Insanity

Trust me on this one, kids. Anyone foolish enough to attempt to replicate that particular experiment will never completely recover. Once you’ve had the Total Hallucinogenic Freakout, you’re never really the same again, because once you’ve seen The Other Side, you can’t un-see it.

Anyway, the neural pathways of my memory function in an unusual way, so that sometimes I’ll be writing and a phrase or image will pop into my mind and — CAZART! — it’s like I’m re-living a past experience, complete with the exact emotional reaction I felt at that time. Today, while composing a brief response to something somebody wrote on Medium.com, I had a flashback to the title of Christopher Hitchen’s 1999 book No One Left to Lie To. He died a few years ago, but not before I had a chance to hang out with him in D.C., when Marty Beckerman and I spent a good hour (and probably $25) buying Hitch rounds of Johnny Walker Black, just so he would keep telling jokes. God rest his atheist soul, but Hitch could tell a joke better than anyone I ever met. It was not so much the content of his jokes, as it was the form — Hitch had a brilliant delivery and, having heard him do a stand-up performance at the “PlameGate Two” benefit, I insisted that he tell his best jokes for Marty. But I digress . . .

No One Left to Lie To flashed into my mind while I was explaining my own deep resentment of how Bill Clinton screwed me over:

By the way, I used to be a Democrat — a hard-core “yellow dog” who voted for Walter Mondale in 1984, and who proudly put a Clinton-Gore bumper sticker on my car in 1992. What happened? Well, Bill Clinton happened. No sooner had he finished taking the oath of office than he began to enact policies that were anathema to the core values of millions of people who voted for him. Behind his façade of down-home “moderation,” Bill Clinton was a proponent of the 1960s anti-American atheist radicalism of the New Left, and his wife was even more deeply committed to this agenda of the left-wing cultural elite.
Well, I was a Democrat, but I was never a complete fool. Being bamboozled — played for a chump in a political three-card monte hustle — pi–ed me off.
You’re never going to f–k me over twice, and after I take your knife out of my back, I’m gonna remember who put it there. . . .

You can read the whole thing at Medium.com. Oh, how I hated that swindling liar! The fact that he bamboozled me — someone who prides himself on his street-smart cynicism — was simply unforgivable. Say what you will about the GOP, but when the Republicans screw you over, at least they don’t insult you by calling it “social justice.”



 

‘The Rocky Horror Democrat Party’: Making History, Losing Elections

Posted on 1 Comment

 

Maybe they figured that having elected a half-Kenyan to the White House proved that Democrats could elect any random weirdo to any office anywhere, but 2016 proved them wrong. This year, Democrats decided Hope and Change meant nominating hopeless sex-change candidates.

Misty Snow, Utah Democrat (left); Misty Plowright, Colorado Democrat (right).

If you could choose any state in America where you might want to run a shemale candidate for the United States States, Utah probably wouldn’t be your first choice, nor anywhere in the top 40. Yet the Democrats nominated a transgender candidate named Misty Snow to challenge Republican Sen. Mike Lee. Snow, who “doesn’t want to reveal her birth name” (probably because his/“her” family is embarrassed by his/“her” existence) is a 31-year-old grocery store clerk. How that experience qualified him/“her” for public office, I’m not sure, but Misty is a progressive who “modeled her campaign after Bernie Sanders‘ presidential bid,” advocating a $15 minimum wage and free college tuition for everybody. And lost, big-time. Misty’s preferred pronoun is “loser.”

Misty Snow may not be a real woman, but he/“she” is a real loser. Snow got even fewer votes in Utah than that other Democrat loser, Hillary Clinton, who lost the state to Donald Trump in a 46%-28% blowout.

Meanwhile, in neighboring Colorado, Democrats nominated another shemale candidate, Misty Plowright, as their congressional candidate to challenge five-term Republican Rep. Jim Lamborn in the 5th District:

A self-proclaimed nerd and politics junkie, Plowright is unpolished and unguarded, but passionate, as she talks about her run for U.S. Congress as the first openly transgender person to gain a major party’s nomination for a congressional seat in Colorado.
Plowright, a 33-year-old IT consultant who previously worked for Microsoft, joined the race because she was inspired by Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ call for a political revolution, and because she believes Republican U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn is out of touch with the district’s libertarian, live-and-let-live attitude.
“He doesn’t listen to any of his constituents,” she said. “He doesn’t even engage with them.”

Yes, Congressman Lamborn is so “out of touch” with voters in his district that he stomped Plowright in a 2-to-1 landslide (62%-31%).

Notice that both of these trans-Democrats are (a) young, (b) white and (c) Bernie Sanders-style “progressives.” Coincidence? I think not. Democrat Party rhetoric in the past decade has focused so relentlessly on demonizing “white heterosexual males” as the stereotype of Republican evil that any young “progressive” is likely to take it for granted that being white is bad, being male is wrong and being heterosexual — why, heterosexuality is a form of prejudice: How dare you refuse to join the “LGBTQIA community”? The incessant pounding drumbeat of Democrat Party propaganda — “Sexist! Racist! Homophobe!” — is intended to inspire hatred of Republicans by depicting the GOP as bigoted, but what is the psychological effect of this propaganda on young Democrats who happen also to be both white and male? Well, the white male Democrat is not only inspired to hate himself, but also he realizes that he can never hope to represent his party, because his party does not represent him.

No white male can be the official public “face” of the Democrat Party in the 21st century, which was why the party leadership conspired with the Clinton campaign to ensure that Democrats nominate a female candidate to succeed the half-Kenyan president. An old white guy like Bernie Sanders was unacceptable to the party bosses. It’s as if there were now a sign in the lobby at the Democrat Party headquarters declaring: “Welcome to America’s future — no white males permitted here.”

 

More than half a century ago, a teenager from Arkansas named Bill Clinton was inspired by the example of President John F. Kennedy to believe that he, too, could be president one day. In America today, the example of Barack Obama inspires young white boys to hate themselves. Democrats tell white boys they can never be president. “This is not your country, white boy” — such is the essence of the Democrat Party’s message in the 21st century, and if anyone dares object to the party’s anti-white, anti-male, anti-heterosexual rhetoric, the liberal response is to start shouting angry accusations: “Racist! Sexist! Homophobe!”

The only way a white boy can purge himself of the guilt and shame heaped upon him by liberals is to (a) vote Democrat and (b) be gay.

Or (c) “transgender,” as the case may be. In 21st-century America, every white boy can dream of growing up to be a Democrat woman.

Exactly why this political experiment failed in 2016 is something the Smart People™ who run the Democrat Party haven’t figured out yet.

Also, the next time Democrats are in a crucial battle for control of the Senate, they should definitely nominate a homosexual candidate in a key state like Kentucky — which worked so well for them in 2016, right?

 

So, looking ahead to 2018, I hope Democrat primary voters will pick LGBTQIA “progressive” candidates in Nebraska, Nevada, Tennessee, Wyoming and every other state where there is no Democrat incumbent fighting for political survival in a mid-term election.

Could there be a more perfect formula for Democrat defeat? In a system of representative government, politicians are elected not merely to make choices on public policy, but also generally to represent the interests of the people who elect them. Politicians have constituents.

The majority of voters in Kentucky (and every other state) are heterosexual. Why, then, should Democrats expect Kentucky voters to elect gay radicals who support anti-heterosexual policies? The correct answer is progressive ideology. Democrats are committed to destroying America by any means necessary, and if you hate America — if you hate yourself for being born here, or if you hate yourself for being a white heterosexual male — vote Democrat. Such is the political psychology of the Democrat Party in the 21st century, anyway, and I don’t know why they seem so surprised when they lose elections.

It’s astounding.
Time is fleeting.
Madness takes its toll . . .



 

Democrats Surrender to ‘Fear Itself’

Posted on 4 Comments

 

Republicans are celebrating Happy Fun Victory Week with such amusements as video of Democrats saying Donald Trump would never be president. Democrats, meanwhile, are surrendering to despair. Now that the election is over, liberals are just beginning to notice the extent of losses Democrats have suffered at the state level during the Obama Era:

Let’s be frank. After this week’s electoral explosion, liberalism faces years in the wilderness. It’s not just that the president-elect is Donald Trump. It’s that a Democratic Party that as recently as Monday imagined it had forged an electoral coalition sufficiently solid to stand for decades now lies in shambles. In 2018, the party must defend an astonishing 25 seats in their Senate caucus, many of them in states that Trump carried. “It’s going to be a disaster,” said one Democratic strategist — and that was back when people thought Hillary Clinton was a shoo-in. Republicans control a record 69 of 99 state legislative chambers, and wound up with at least 33 governorships, the most since 1922. In short, the Democrats’ exile is likely to be lengthy.

It would be a stupid blunder for conservative, however, to think that the current “shambles” of the Democrat Party means we’re on our way to the Permanent Republican Majority once envisioned by Karl Rove. Such complacent hubris is exactly how the Bush era ended in political disaster — voters handing Congress over to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid’s Democrats in 2006, Barack Obama winning the presidency in 2008. Both the Trump administration and GOP leaders in Congress will have to work hard — and be smart — to retain the support of the 60 million Americans who voted Republican on Nov. 8.

Well, these sober-minded reflections should not dampen our good cheer, and Happy Fun Victory Week means we can enjoy the schadenfreude of watching liberals in agony over their unexpected defeat.

This post-election IUD panic is insane — a consequence of Democrat propaganda during the campaign, as I explain in my latest column:

Back in 1984, when I was a young Democrat, I voted for Walter Mondale for president, and wasn’t happy that he lost. Back then, however, we didn’t have Twitter or Facebook, so we couldn’t instantaneously broadcast our expressions of despair to the world. Old folks back then (I was 25) didn’t give a damn about my opinion, but now every young kid with a laptop can play Internet pundit and they’re pushing the panic button: “OMG! Trump! Get an IUD before it’s too late!”
Who told you this? Where did this absurd meme originate? Didn’t your parents warn you against believing everything you read on the Internet? Was it true, as Gabriella Paiella of New York Magazine told readers mere hours after Hillary conceded defeat, that “everyone” was urging women to get IUDs? No, it started with Erin Gloria Ryan, who majored in English at Notre Dame, Class of ’05, and hit the panic button Nov. 2, before Election Day. . . .

Read the whole thing at The Patriarch Tree. Once upon a time, a Democrat told America that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Now the only thing Democrats offer America is . . . fear itself.



 

 

Hillary Finds Her Scapegoat

Posted on 4 Comments

 

This was predictable:

Hillary Clinton on Saturday cast blame for her surprise election loss on the announcement by the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, days before the election that he had revived the inquiry into her use of a private email server.
In her most extensive remarks since she conceded the race to Donald J. Trump early Wednesday, Mrs. Clinton told donors on a 30-minute conference call that Mr. Comey’s decision to send a letter to Congress about the inquiry 11 days before Election Day had thrust the controversy back into the news and had prevented her from ending the campaign with an optimistic closing argument.
“There are lots of reasons why an election like this is not successful,” Mrs. Clinton said, according to a donor who relayed the remarks. But, she added, “our analysis is that Comey’s letter raising doubts that were groundless, baseless, proven to be, stopped our momentum.”
Mrs. Clinton said a second letter from Mr. Comey, clearing her once again, which came two days before Election Day, had been even more damaging. In that letter, Mr. Comey said an examination of a new trove of emails, which had been found on the computer of Anthony D. Weiner, the estranged husband of one of her top aides, had not caused him to change his earlier conclusion that Mrs. Clinton should face no charges over her handling of classified information.
Her campaign said the seemingly positive outcome had only hurt it with voters who did not trust Mrs. Clinton and were receptive to Mr. Trump’s claims of a “rigged system.” In particular, white suburban women who had been on the fence were reminded of the email imbroglio and broke decidedly in Mr. Trump’s favor, aides said. . . .

You can read the rest. Hillary’s claim is both true and false. On the one hand, it is certainly true that the FBI letter caused renewed attention to the former Secretary of State’s email scandal. My Oct. 30 headline was “SHOCKING: TRUMP SURGES IN POLL; HILLARY DOOMED BY F.B.I. PROBE?” On the other hand, blaming FBI director Comey is wrong, because this implies that Hillary was innocent of wrongdoing, when it is plainly evident that the whole purpose of her private email server was to allow her a secret way to conduct business that benefited the Clinton Foundation. She deliberately tried to evade federal law and she got caught, period. Her attempts to create an “innocent” explanation of the email scandal were classic Clintonian deceit.

The real problem is that, like all other Democrats, Hillary Clinton believes very deeply in her own moral superiority. Being a liberal means being on the side of the angels, every Democrat believes, and this sense of political righteousness endows them with a certainty that nothing they do can ever be wrong. Democrats believe they are good people — smarter and better than everybody else — and they are working for a good cause, and therefore the rules don’t apply to them. This mentality makes Democrats very dangerous, because what is morality without rules?

Well, she lost, and so we’ll be spared the experience of seeing her prove what a bad president she would be. What the future holds in a Trump presidency, I don’t know, but the Clintons are history. Thank God.



 

 

RELATED: