Hillary Clinton « Black Man Thinkin'

It’s Not About Trump; Their Issue is with YOU!

Tags: 2016 Election, Donald Trump, exit polling, GOP establishment, GOP voter anger, Hillary Clinton, John Boehner, John McCain, Kevin McCarthy, marco rubio, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan

Comments: 2 Comments

Published on: March 6, 2016

My “pen” is largely silent during the 2016 presidential campaign and I would prefer it remain so; few things distract more from, while doing less to meet, this nation’s challenges than the two-year kabuki dance of those seeking the presidency. However, something so brazenly foul now occurs that it compels me to comment.

Donald Trump’s tour de force, seeking a major presidential party nomination, is shocking…to everyone except Trump. When he opted out of the 2012 campaign, Trump declared:

This decision does not come easily or without regret; especially when my potential candidacy continues to be validated by ranking at the top of the Republican contenders in polls across the country.

I maintain the strong conviction that if I were to run, I would be able to win the primary and, ultimately, the general election. I have spent the past several months unofficially campaigning and recognize that running for public office cannot be done half-heartedly. Ultimately, however, business is my greatest passion and I am not ready to leave the private sector.

Five years later, Trump looks prophetic, as he closes on the Republican Party Presidential Nomination. He also looks every bit the target, as the number, and intensity, of his critics mount, even as he succeeds.

This is no reference to Trump’s critics within the electorate; every presidential candidate has “enemy” voters. But Trump’s most ardent enemies are neither Republican voters nor Democrat…anyone. Rather, they are Republican elected officials and operatives who attack him publicly, personally, relentlessly, and almost as a matter of party honor. Some declare that a Trump presidency would destroy the party, and one of Trump’s rivals (at least temporarily) abandoned his effort either to win the nomination or to have a national political future by transforming his campaign into a kamikaze mission against the Donald.

However, even as some GOP’ers call for “All Hands on Deck” against Trump”, he is likely not their target at all…

For this differs from earlier “stop the outsider” efforts. Democrats acquiesced and welcomed “outsider” Jimmy Carter into their national fold – after determining no one could beat him – in 1976; Republicans similarly warmed to Ronald Reagan’s “inevitability”, four years later. However, resistance to Trump increases the closer he comes to the nomination, with major players openly declaring non-support of the party should Trump prevail.

The GOP has used their vaunted “deep bench” of “establishment-friendly” candidates, not as attackers of the opposition party, but as damsels tied to the tracks, hoping to derail the Trump Train. One should wonder why the GOP spends more time trying to change the mind of its base, than it spends countering the Democrat message.

And wonder also whose drug-induced state concocted this…

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IVbBoFVWms[/youtube]

Romney’s curious “address” – neither to announce his own candidacy nor supporting another’s – is part of an anti-Trump effort that includes plans to block any Trump nomination at the party’s convention. Interestingly, John McCain is in on the plot, declaring Trump unfit for the presidency… And those who doubt the GOP establishment’s hand in this likely still believe they can keep their preferred health plan and doctor. Again, one should wonder why.

Those willing to consider more than the current election cycle may recognize that these recent antics are part of Republican Party behavior that, for (at least) the last 7 years, demonstrates, strikingly, the party’s disdainful view of, and resultant estrangement from, those who support its stated principles. Consider the following:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXudI0ibo-k[/youtube]

Romney’s Trump attack echoes Democrat Party attacks on Romney from four years ago, and Romney’s 2016 Trump condemnation is a 180° departure from his praise of the Donald in 2012:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlD4hwzGhdY[/youtube]

Though the nation rejected these men, who kept the GOP from occupying the White House, the GOP welcomes, even encourages, their denigration of their current front-runner. Curious indeed.

• Marco Rubio’s only primary win occurred in liberal Minnesota; he appears unlikely to win the March 15 primary in his home state of Florida. Yet, the party supports him, though voters snubbed him in 24 of 25 contests. Again, curious indeed.

• And when Super Tuesday exit polling showed Trump the victor but not the desired nominee, the party did not challenge that cognitive dissonance by reminding the press, and others, that 9 of the 11 Super Tuesday states held open primaries in which non-Republicans could vote, that Democrats encouraged their members to take part in Republican primaries?

The party did not challenge characterizations of those exit polls as voter discontent, even as Republican voter turnout hit record levels, with high enthusiasm, as even more disrespectful of their voters than of their candidate field…because they are not willing to defend their voters…

Because the party is unhappy with them.

They are unhappy that voters, beginning with the 2010 election and in response to the Obama agenda, sent conservatives to Congress; that these conservatives are not “go along to get along” people and proved so unwilling to put party before principle that it drove John Boehner into retirement. They are unhappy that Virginia voters made Eric Cantor the first sitting House Majority Leader to ever lose a primary election. Unhappy that Kevin McCarthy’s tacit admission that establishment Republicans valued the Benghazi hearings more as a way to damage Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers than to show the truth about why four Americans died, ostensibly cost him the Speakership.

Washington, D.C. establishment Republicans are losing control of their voters, and they are unhappy about that. Unhappy about a trend, since the 2010 midterm elections, that sees voters increasingly imposing their will upon the politicians’ best-laid plans. Against this backdrop, Trump is not a problem for the GOP as much as he is symptomatic of the voter problem they already have.

Consequently, stopping Trump is not about Trump at all; it is about regaining control of their constituency – YOU. A constituency at odds with them over Obamacare, joblessness, illegal immigration, the homosexual agenda, taxes, and deficits/debt; a constituency that is close to recalling that D.C. has no power save that which they authorize. A constituency that has already felled trees within the establishment, and which must be corralled before they clear more dead wood from the nation’s capitol.

D.C. Republicans cannot regain voter control without a presidential candidate that the party establishment can control (this is why they find Rubio appealing). Trump owes them nothing and needs nothing from them; he is, inarguably, not a man given to another’s control. Should he partner with an increasingly uncontrolled voter base, then everything establishment Republicans have built for themselves, via the federal government, is at risk.

By the way, Democrats do not rest easy about the GOP turmoil. Non D.C. Republicans currently occupy 31 of the nation’s 50 governor’s mansions, and control 67 of its 99 state legislative bodies, both significant increases since Obama’s 2009 inauguration. If the D.C. Republicans cannot get their constituents back in line, and Democrat voters tire of seeing neither their party nor their views represented, then the elephants trumpeting against left-leaning D.C. Republicans will seem mild, compared to the mule kick the left could receive from disgruntled Democrats.

Almost Paris-“tine”…and Headed Our Way

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Politics

Tags: Barack Obama, Charlie Hebdo, Francois Hollande, Hillary Clinton, ISIS, Islam, Islamic State, Paris attacks, secularism, Terrorism

Comments: Comments Off

Published on: November 15, 2015

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjuGqC5kZHs[/youtube]

The only surprise is…that anyone would be surprised.

A current Islamic objective is for Muslims to dwell throughout the world. The goal of Islam, from its founding, is Muslim supremacy wherever any follower of Mohammed may dwell. And quite a few Muslims dwell in France.

In 1967, France’s Muslim population reached 1,000,000 people. By 1994, the number had increased 200%, to 3 million, with accompanying assimilation “issues”. By 2010, that number had increased, by more than half, to 4.7 million, about 7.5% of France’s population; in Paris, Muslims were 15% of the city’s residents. This SHOULD not be a problem. Usually, it WOULD not be a problem. But Islam is most unusual.

By 2011, Muslims had established 751 “no-go zones” in France, that the French, especially women, were wise to avoid. The government knew of their existence, locations, and boundaries, yet would not alter its “diversity” policies to make those areas safe for all of France’s people. By 2013, other clashes between France’s secularism and Muslim tradition were apparent.

While France’s multiculturalism worked for Muslims, it became disastrous for France’s Jews. Though less than one percent of the French population, Jews were targets in 40% of French race crimes; in 2013, France led the world in the number of anti-Semitic attacks, with a number that had increased seven-fold since the 1990’s. The children of Israel got the message: by the time of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, Jews were getting out of France.

Nevertheless, in September, French President Francois Hollande, acting in concert with Germany, proposed a “permanent and compulsory home mechanism in Europe” for Syrian refugees. Apparently, one of those for whom Hollande proposed a new home helped kill the more than 120 who already called France home. By the way, the Islamic State claims responsibility for the November 13 carnage. Between taking out Russian aircraft and attacking major cities, it seems Obama’s JV squad has broken “containment”.

Victims lay on the pavement outside a Paris restaurant, Friday, Nov. 13, 2015. Police officials in France on Friday report multiple terror incidents, leaving many dead. It was unclear at this stage if the events are linked. (AP Photo/Thibault Camus)

Perhaps now is a good time for some reminders about this “religion of peace”.

Unlike the other major monotheistic world faiths, Islam has a thirst for conquest. While it is now unpopular to recall, the fact remains that the Christian Crusades were not preemptive attacks upon Islam, but rather responses to more than four centuries of Muslim violence against Christianity and Judaism in North Africa and Europe. Spain’s history with Islam is likely part of why it is not a preferred destination for today’s Syrian Muslim refugees, even as other Western European nations opened their arms.

Despite ancient military successes, Muslims did not fare well in modern conventional military operations against infidels. Israel mopped them up in 1948, 1967, and 1973 despite being outnumbered.

Israel Rolls Tanks in 1973 Arab-Israeli War.

More recently, they have been soundly defeated by Western forces, led by the United States, so long as America’s political leaders maintained their resolve. The Islamic State’s current apparent military prowess is less due to their ability and more to the unwillingness of Western powers, who are much stronger, to kill them.

Iraqi Soldiers Surrender to U.S.-led Coalition Forces

Nevertheless, and likely in response to the lack of military success, Islam – which has in no way renounced its goal – developed an alternative attack plan, one that requires no conventional armies, but is no less lethal and humiliating to Islam’s enemies. The attack comes in stages:

Stage 1: Infiltration

– Muslims move to non-Muslim countries in large numbers, and initiate visible, though often subtle, cultural conflicts

• Stage 2: Consolidation of Power – Muslims (immigrants & host country converts) demand employment, educational, social services, and legal accommodations

• Stage 3: Open War with Host Culture – Employ violence to impose Sharia law, reject the host government, subjugate other religions and customs

• Stage 4: Totalitarian Islamic Theocracy – Islam assumes role as the sole religious-political-judicial-cultural ideology

Muslim conquest of France now seems well into Stage 3, with other Western European nations being just an explosion and/or shooting away from a similar circumstance. As for the United States, the current presidential administration seems intent on accelerating Islam’s attack stages in America. In parts of Michigan, only a lawsuit has kept cities like Dearborn from Stage 3.

Interestingly, the secularism that France has championed since 1905 is the very reason they now respond ineffectively to attacks upon its capital city twice this calendar year; it renders French society unable to defend itself, even more than other Western European nations. God’s removal from France removed the will to defend their sovereignty; instead of being a country of French people who welcome others to their culture, they are a people Muslims believe will bend to Islam.

Simply put, when a society has no God, even those whose beliefs are radical and wrong can infiltrate, overwhelm, and defeat them. Charlie Hebdo cartoonist Joann Sfar, in his reaction to the worldwide outpouring of prayers in the wake of the terrorist attacks on Paris, gives insight into how close France may be to total defeat:

It can be no more clear. There is no small number of French people who see no need for God at this, or any other, time. Faith has turned away from the immortal and eternal, and to things that can defend neither their lives nor their values against a determined adversary.

Therefore, the terrorist violence in France is likely not over. What is more, without God, the “merciless” response, promised by the French president, can only coarsen the French people, even as it emboldens their Islamic attackers.

…and, keep in mind, prominent “leaders”, whether in or seeking the Oval office, wish to remove American reliance upon God, even as they welcome, to this country, the same people who wreak havoc throughout Europe and elsewhere.

France is already at Stage 3. How long Americans will wait until they transform the fight, against their government, to worship God into a fight, against a sworn enemy, that they can only win with God.

For What Will Liberals Be Hobby Lobby-ing Next?

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Politics

Tags: birth control, EWTN, Harry Reid, HHS Contraception Mandate, Hillary Clinton, Hobby Lobby, Supreme Court, Terry O'Neill, Wheaton College

Comments: Comments Off

Published on: July 3, 2014

Those interested in the Hobby Lobby decision (U.S. Supreme Court Case Number 12-6294, Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al., Applicants v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.), announced 30 June 2014, should know of these:

1. Sterilization Surgery for Women,
2. Surgical Sterilization Implant for Women,
3. Sterilization Surgery for Men,
4. Implantable Rod,
5. IUD Copper,
6. IUD w/ Progestin,
7. Shot/Injection,
8. Oral Contraceptives (Combined Pill) “The Pill”,
9. Oral Contraceptives (Progestin only) “The MiniPill”,
10. Oral Contraceptives Extended/Continuous Use “The Pill”,
11. Patch,
12. Vaginal Contraceptive Ring,
13. Diaphragm with Spermicide,
14. Sponge with Spermicide,
15. Cervical Cap with Spermicide,
16. Male Condom,
17. Female Condom,
18. Spermicide Alone,
19. Plan B, Plan B One Step, Next Choice, and
20. Ella

which are the 20 FDA-approved birth control methods for women. Why? First, because Hobby Lobby always covered 16 of them in its health insurance plan for female employees…and still does. Next, because the methods to which Hobby Lobby objected:

5. IUD Copper,
6. IUD w/ Progestin,
19. Plan B, Plan B One Step, Next Choice, and
20. Ella

are abortifacients, or methods that do, or can, end a pregnancy rather than prevent it. Further, Plan B and Ella are “emergency contraception”, not intended for use as primary birth control, and IUDs are an unpopular method with minor to serious side effects.

Hobby Lobby’s owners opposed neither the safest, nor most popular, methods of birth control approved for women; they opposed ones that could kill an unborn child, because paying for that violated their religious beliefs.

In advocating for their religious liberty, Hobby Lobby’s owners:

• Kept costs low for female employees by continuing to pay for the safest and most popular birth control methods,
• Maintained basic health care for women by covering 80% of FDA-approved methods, with the others available or “make-able”, for little to no cost,
• Opposed no law (the mandate was not part of Obamacare, but an HHS-issued regulation, neither reviewed nor approved by Congress), and
• Stayed out of women’s health decisions. Hobby Lobby only cares about which contraception methods it funds, not which methods women choose.

Nevertheless, when Hobby Lobby prevailed, leading Liberals made fantastic claims:

“It’s very troubling that a sales clerk at Hobby Lobby who need contraception, which is pretty expensive, is not going to get that service through her employer’s health care plan because her employer doesn’t think she should be using contraception”

“Apartheid in South Africa was justified on religious grounds. The Southern Baptist Convention justified slavery and later Jim Crow and segregation on religious grounds. We don’t accept that as a society anymore and we should not accept plain out gender bigotry. Withholding basic health care from women is bigotry plain and simple. We should not accept it.” — Terry O’Neill, President, National Organization for Women

“Today, the Supreme Court took an outrageous step against the rights of America’s women, setting a dangerous precedent that could permit for-profit corporations to pick and choose which laws to obey.” — House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

“Employers have no business intruding in the private health care decisions women make with their doctors. … If the Supreme Court will not protect women’s access to health care, then Democrats will.” — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Not surprisingly, the Obama White House joined in the fantasy chorus, saying the “…decision jeopardizes the health of women employed by these companies”, and others fanned the flames of a “War on Women” resulting from the decision. Simply put, these statements and assertions have no basis in fact.

The real problem is not that Liberals are lying; it is that the lies are so overt and blatant. The Court was clear that Affordable Care Act did not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), but that HHS regulations, made law by no one, did, as stated on page 2 of the decision:

Held: As applied to closely held corporations, the HHS regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate RFRA. Pp. 16–49.

Consequently, Hobby Lobby was not picking which laws it would or would not follow. Then there was this from page 8:

Under RFRA, a Government action that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise must serve a compelling government interest, and we assume that the HHS regulations satisfy this requirement. But in order for the HHS mandate to be sustained, it must also constitute the least restrictive means of serving that interest, and the mandate plainly fails that test. There are other ways in which Congress or HHS could equally ensure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here and, indeed, to all FDA-approved contraceptives.

Meaning the government had other ways to implement this policy. So why attempt to do so by attacking religious liberties, while hiding behind women’s skirts? And not only did the administration lose this decision, the defeat was quickly followed by stays of mandate granted to the Catholic broadcaster EWTN, Wheaton College, and 6 other Catholic Groups.

Again, why the overt attack on the rights of religious groups and others that are anti-abortion, when their positions do not oppose Obamacare? And why the wildly inaccurate statements later, as though the rights of anyone, apart from those with religious convictions, were ever at risk?

If one walks into a Hobby Lobby Store and asks a female employee, “How did this case impact your contraception care in your health plan?”, the answer will likely be, “It didn’t, and I never thought it would as long as my employers won.”

Yet the internet, and social media, are rife with screams of how women are wronged…..

Though 80% of FDA birth control methods were always available…

Though the four methods opposed were either the least popular among women, or not considered primary birth control for anyone…

Though no law was challenged, just a regulation with which the people’s representatives (Congress) had no involvement…

There is an agenda afoot, one unfriendly to freedoms which are the bedrock of liberty in the U.S. So, it can now be well said, regarding their pursuit of policy, that Liberals will lie blatantly. The only question is, “About what will they lie about next?”

The Non-Case That Won’t Be Going Away…Anytime Soon

by Black Man Thinkin'

Categories: ... 'bout Politics

Tags: betrayal, bridgegate, Chris Christie, Christie 2012 RNC keynote speech, Christie Obama hug, Hillary Clinton, Hoboken mayor, New Jersey, obama, Port Authority, Romney

Comments: 5 Comments

Published on: February 6, 2014

Here’s the deal: This past August, a governor’s close aide e-mails one of the governor’s appointees, saying “traffic problems” should occur in a specific city. The appointee makes some calls and, on September 9th, voila, problems emerge. The city’s mayor contacts the governor’s administration to complain. The appointee e-mails the aide and another official, misleading them about what caused the problem.

An appointee of the neighboring state’s governor then orders the problem stopped. In the midst of this, the governor is re-elected by a wide margin. After joking about the incident, the governor says he knew nothing about its cause.

And then it all blows up for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie…

Since October, all manner of things continue to swirl about: subpoenas, hearings, impeachment threats. The appointee who made calls to cause the traffic problems resigned, and Christie fired the aide who sent the “traffic problems” e-mail. The appointee who resigned recently said Christie knew about the lane closures when they occurred…as though traffic could halt on the world’s busiest bridge and Christie – and a few million other people – would not know.

Add to that, Hoboken’s mayor accused Christie’s administration of bullying her over Hurricane Sandy relief funds, but her story doesn’t add up, and there is no corroboration. Now, concerns about her diary entries pertaining to a 2013 wrongful termination suit damage her credibility, including the fact she was accused of perjury in that case.

The DNC ran a Superbowl online ad about the re-inventing drama of the governor’s troubles, reading in part, “And it’s only the first quarter. It’s going to be a long game.” That could be true for Christie’s attackers as well: as Democrats and the press yell “Fire!”, it is not that easy to see even smoke in this “scandal”. As ABC News notes, “there has been no evidence linking him directly to the scandal.”

So why is the press spending so much time on what they admit is a non-story, especially when we have more Obamacare train wrecks occurring, “traitors” nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and a Texas Democrat struggling with the truth about her own life story?

Because none of those other items pose a threat to the presidential aspirations of one Hillary Rodham Clinton.

A UK publication said it, straight out: Republicans can’t blame Clinton for Benghazi while absolving Christie of Bridgegate. How that statement could be made with a straight face goes a long way toward explaining the liberal mind, and not only in the US. Somehow:

It is unlikely that many reasonable people will see an interstate traffic jam as equal to an international terror attack, but the effort to show equivalence be made. If it is not, then how can a woman who lost to Barack Obama in 2008 prevail against anyone who would hang her involvement in his failing presidency around her neck, as Christie might?

Therefore, the strategy Obama employed against Mitt Romney in 2012 comes against Chris Christie in 2016…even though it is only 2014…and even though the party presidential primary elections remain 2 years away…and even though neither Christie nor Clinton have announced their candidacy for the nation’s highest elected office. The “Kill Romney” strategy irrelevancies and deceptions to distract people from the Obama record and focus them on an illusory version of his opponent’s history. The strategy was arguably effective, but the 2012 election was closer than many might think.

However, Democrats may believe the margin was narrow because they did not seek to “Kill Romney” soon enough. To correct that error, they seek Christie’s blood nearly two years before the presidential primaries, and are employing a full-court press. At the state level, New Jersey Assembly Deputy Speaker John Wisniewski, a Democrat has issued subpoenas and launched investigations. At the federal level, Obama’s HUD Inspector General is looking into whether Christie misused Hurricane Sandy relief funds. Interestingly, Republicans are tacitly on board for Christie’s demise, running their own investigation of Christie.

It’s not difficult to appreciate the Democrat motivation for attacking Christie; they seek the “Clinton Coronation” they failed to deliver in 2008. Six years ago, Hillary Clinton ran a great campaign: she knew the issues, had good messaging, the best political strategists, and made no mistakes. All things were ready for her to win…except the fact that Democrat voters, wanted someone else, and leading Democrats jumped off the Clinton bandwagon. Now, the party wants to make up for its “betrayal”.

The Republican motivation for killing Christie may not seem obvious until you remember the Obama praise and “bro hug”

Bro Hug

(which Christie says did not happen), which get credit for helping the president win re-election. Before that, there was Christie’s keynote address at the 2012 Republican National Convention address, which appeared to support his own presidential aspirations more than support the party’s nominee, Mitt Romney. At least in the eyes of the GOP establishment, Chris Christie simply is not as “part of the family”.

Consequently, the issue of betrayal will keep “bridge-gate” with us for some time to come. Republicans will use it to punish Christie for his betrayal in 2012; Democrats will use it to whitewash their betrayal of Hillary Clinton in 2008 and, in the Democrats’ calculus, no Christie means Hillary can’t lose.

So, the long knives are out for Christie on the Democrat side, and revenge-minded Republicans have a few stilettos of their own. The political class does not want a Chris Christie presidency: the Democrats want to apologize to Hillary Clinton for 2008 by nominating her in 2016, and the GOP…well, no one knows who they want…but it ain’t Chris Christie.

However, if Hillary Clinton couldn’t beat Barack Obama with a near-perfect campaign in 2008, who can she beat in 2016, when she has to answer for Obama’s policies?

page 1 of 1

ARTICLE ARCHIVES