More “Clinton Speak” From Hillary

Hillary Clinton Delivering Campaign Speach

Hillary Clinton Delivering Campaign Speech

America got another dose of “Clinton Speak” on 2 July when Chuck Todd interviewed Hillary Clinton on Meet The Press, and asked her:

CHUCK TODD: “Let me ask you this, your husband made an unannounced visit to the attorney general on the tarmac in Arizona. I’m curious of your initial reaction when you found out the news”

First, its telling that Todd asked about her initial reaction, and she spoke to her initial reaction. The interview was days after Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch held their secret meeting. Why didn’t Todd ask her about what she knew now? Why not ask her what her husband told her regarding the meeting? Why not ask about the questions that she asked her husband as to what he was thinking?

Because of the question, Hillary had an easy “Clinton Speak” answer:

HILLARY CLINTON: “Well, I learned about it in the news and it was a short, chance meeting at an airport tarmac and on both of their planes, as I understand it, were landing on the same tarmac at about the same time and the Attorney General’s husband was there. They said hello. They talked about grandkids, which is very much on our minds these days, golf, their mutual friend and former attorney general Janet Reno. It was purely social. They did not veer off of speaking about those kinds of, you know, very common exchanges.”

Hillary should be the world’s authority on what happened. It involved her husband, impacted an FBI investigation the she was the target for, was headline news for most of a week, and cast shadows on her presidential election bid.

Instead, she finished with her understanding from the news reports:

HILLARY CLINTON: “Well I think, you know, hindsight is 20/20. Both the Attorney General and my husband have said they wouldn’t do it again, even though it was from all accounts that I have heard and seen, an exchange of pleasantries”

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer from the Clintons? Could it be because they have so much to hide?

Please follow and like us:

A Sense of Belonging Why Trump Resonates

KC Chiefs vs Redskins FedEx Field 8 Dec 13

KC Chiefs vs Redskins FedEx Field 8 Dec 13

Humans are a social species and are ingrained with a need to belong, and its one of the reasons Trumps campaign is so powerful. Belonging is essential to humanity. We crave the others companionship, and form nearly infinite groups to soothe that craving.

Churches, national citizenship, sports teams, law enforcement organizations, the brother hood of arms, PTA, trade organizations, political parties, unions, civic organizations, political organizations, fan clubs, and rod and gun clubs name but a few.

The importance of our need to belong cant be overstated. Democrat Politicians are masters at using the same desires to belong to divide the country. They try to push each American into ever-smaller groups and to pit those groups against each other. White vs black, haves vs have-nots, LBGT vs non-LGBT, law enforcement vs oppressed, religious vs secular, majority vs minority, working vs unemployed, business owners vs employees, citizens vs immigrant, and the list goes on.

Instead of using groups to divide, Trump is harnessing that need in his quest to become President by uniting Americans. His campaigns slogan is Make America Great Again. So far, its gotten him past a Republican Primary field as large and talented as any in history. Why does it resonate?

First, any American who loves this country wants it to be great.

Second, most Americans recognize that the Democrat Party has been assaulting our country’s greatness for many years. Barack Obama just accelerated that assault, on both social and international levels.

Third, any US citizen who identifies as an American first feels that powerful unifying identity to belong to a group, other Americans.

Fourth, just like NFL football fans unify around their teams draft picks, new star players, and fresh coaches because they want their teams to win, Americans who love our country want it to win. Donald Trump hits that note in his message. You will get tired of winning once Im President because we will win at everything.

Americans love to win, and we love our Country. Trump does to.

Please follow and like us:

12 Reasons Why Trump And Cruz May Need Each Other

Rally Against Big Government, Washington D.C.

Rally Against Big Government, Washington D.C.

Donald Trump likely needs Ted Cruz, and Ted Cruz likely needs Donald Trump to win the White House in November. The Republican campaign has gotten personal, but they may each need the other before the convention ends. Given the radical leftist vent dominating today’s Democrat Politicians, America will need them both to restore our Constitutional Republic.

Why Cruz Needs Trump:

  1. Trumps campaign is bringing new voters to the GOP. He’s tapped into the blue dog working class democrats that propelled Ronald Reagan to victory. They’re essential for the general election, but many may not vote for Cruz alone.
  2. The Trump campaign believes that his campaign potentially opens up states like NY, and New Jersey that otherwise are solid Blue. The more states that are in play, the better the odds come November.
  3. Trumps campaign is a huge anti-establishment movement wave. The GOP needs to harness that energy.
  4. Trumps won most of states and delegates so far. He is the most likely to reach 1237 before the convention, and to win on the first ballot.
  5. Trump has lots of money to fund him. Freedom from financial corruption is unique to his campaign, and a powerful factor.

Why Trump Needs Cruz

  1. Cruz’s policy positions are much more detailed and thought out. His tax plan for instance is implementable, and wont drive up the debt.
  2. Cruz won the second most states and delegates so far. He is the most likely to reach 1237 in a second vote if needed at the convention. He’s also supported by significant part of the rank and file GOP, but many may not vote for Trump alone.
  3. Cruz has a massive, state-by-state organization and ground game, which Trump lacks. Such an organization is essential to win the general election, and his campaign is tactically way ahead of Trumps.
  4. Cruz can provide list of solid SCOTUS nominees, to replace devastating loss of Justice Scalia. Will be a big motivator for many GOP rank and file.

Why Each Needs The Other

  1. Each may need to other to prevent the GOP establishment from stealing the nomination in Cleveland.
  2. Together, they’ve received over 65% of all votes cast so far, and over 80% of all delegates. The GOP must come out of the convention united behind its nominee. The potential for that to happen without Cruz and Trump calling for it is unlikely.
  3. Success in November should kick off a long-term strategy to keep Democrats out of the White House for decades. It will take changing the GOP, thinking long term, sound conservative policies, and educating the population on why liberal policies are so destructive. The Establishment proved that it wont deliver, so it must returned to its limited government roots. That will take time, and failure is not an option.

UPDATE:

  • Now that Donald Trump is sure to capture the GOP nomination, the calls for Ted Cruz to support his campaign are mounting, and for good reason.
Please follow and like us:

Infographic: Where Does Hillary’s Email Scandal End?

Hillary Clinton, and the Democrat Party, are entering a very treacherous time while Hillary faces the pending FBI Primary over her illegal home-brew email server scandal. Her presidential ambitions, hinge on whether or not the FBI brings a case to the Justice Department, and subsequently, what the Justice Department does with that case. The potential paths, and likely implications, are traced through this Pitfalls Infographic:

Infographic Depicting Potential Events/Actions That Could Greatly Hinder Or Block Hillary Clinton's Nomination

Infographic Depicting Potential Events/Actions That Could Greatly Hinder Or Block Hillary Clinton’s Nomination

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Presidential power to pardon, is a wildcard, as shown in the infographic. Per the Constitution:

The President…shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 1

The Constitution provides the President the power to pardon once the offense is committed. It does not require a trial, conviction, etc. In theory, President Obama could have already pardoned Hillary Clinton, protecting her from any Justice Department prosecution. Whether such an event could be kept from the public, and for how long is unknown.

The damage to America that such a pardon would do is likely lost on President Obama. He is now motivated by his legacy, and continuing his radical leftist agenda once his presidency ends. Would he pardon Hillary Clinton if doing so achieved these objectives? Is it possible that he would use a pardon to get Hillary out of the way and open the door to a Joe Biden nomination? Only time will tell, but it appears a near certainty that the FBI will bring a case to the Justice Department. I’ve written why she is undoubtedly guilty of serious felonies.

Related Blogs:
Clinton Speak and Hillary’s Illegal Server

Why Criminal Risk Exposure From Hillary’s Home-Brew Server Is Increasing

What The Media Continues To Miss About Hillary’s Emails

The Massive Risk Posed By Hillary’s Emails

Clinton Email Releases the Key to Servers Legality

Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Latest Analysis

Latest (Prepping theBattle-space):

Hillary May Be Mortally Wounded Even Without Indictment

Hillary May Not Be the Democrat Nominee (Doug Schoen)

Democrats May Turn to Biden

Please follow and like us:

What if Romney or McCain Were Running Part 2?

What if Romney or McCain were Running in the 2016 GOP Primaries? Mitt Romney unleashed a blistering condemnation of Donald Trump, the GOP front-runner, on Thursday, followed quickly by John McCain’s piling on. They speak from positions as elected Republicans, but also as the previous two Republican Presidential nominees, both of who were defeated in the general election by President Obama. It raises an interesting question: how would their nomination runs stack up in comparison to the 2016 GOP primaries?

So far, 15 states held their GOP nominating contests, with the 16th going today. CHART 1 compares the state-by-state vote totals between 2008, 2012 and 2016. Those comparisons show that the votes cast in all but 2 (Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia) of the second 15 contests in 2016 exceed the totals from either 2008 or 2012.

CHART 1: More Total Votes Were Cast In 13 of the second 15 Contests In 2016 Compare To Either 2012 Or 2008. Only Puerto Rico and The District of Columbia Are Outliers

CHART 1: More Total Votes Were Cast In 13 of the second 15 Contests In 2016 Compare To Either 2012 Or 2008. Only Puerto Rico and The District of Columbia Are Outliers

When the total votes from all 15 states are compared, as shown in CHART 2, the magnitude of 2016’s turn out is revealed. So far, 7.3 million more votes were cast in 2016 than in 2012 (up 57.7%), and 7.49 million more than in 2008 (up 59.6%). So how would Romney or McCain be doing if they ran in 2016 with the same vote totals from their winning 2012 and 2008 campaigns?

CHART 2: Total Votes Cast In First 30 GOP Nomination Contests: 2016 (20,053,961), 2012 (12,716,683), 2008 (12,522,162)

CHART 2: Total Votes Cast In First 30 GOP Nomination Contests: 2016 (20,053,961), 2012 (12,716,683), 2008 (12,522,162)

CHART 3 compares the winning candidate’s vote totals from each of the second 15 nominating contests. The data shows that with the same votes, the winner in 2016 would have won in 2008 and 2012 in 11 of the 15 states. When the first 15 contests are added in, the 2016 contest winners would have taken 23 of the first 30 contests compared against 2012 and 2008 winners combined.

CHART 3: 11 Of 15 States Had More Votes Cast In 2016 For The Winner Than In 2012 Or 2008 Combined. 23 Of The First 30 Contests Had More Votes Cast In 2016 Than 2012 Or 2008 Combined.

CHART 3: 11 Of 15 States Had More Votes Cast In 2016 For The Winner Than In 2012 Or 2008 Combined. 23 Of The First 30 Contests Had More Votes Cast In 2016 Than 2012 Or 2008 Combined.

TABLE 1 shows the raw vote totals for the second 15 GOP contests, and breaks out those won by Mitt Romney in 2012 and John McCain in 2008 in blue. Head to head, Romney would have lost all but three of the second 15 states. When the first 15 states are added in, Romney would have lost 25 of the first 30 GOP contests (Vermont, Kentucky, Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, and North Caroline). He would have likely dropped out by now.

Table 1: Mitt Romney Would Have Only Won 4 Of The Second 15 Contests, McCain Only 2.

Table 1: Mitt Romney Would Have Only Won 4 Of The Second 15 Contests, McCain Only 2.

When McCain’s totals are put to the test, he fares even worse. He would have been defeated in all but three contests out of the first 30 (Vermont, District of Columbia, and Kentucky), and also would have likely dropped out.

So what does this tell us?

  • First, it indicates that the 2016 GOP turnout is very high, up over 57% so far compared to the last two nominating contests. The GOP will need millions more votes in the general election to win than Romney got in 2012. So far, those voters are turning out.
  • Second, its now clear that both Romney and McCain would have been soundly defeated if they had run in 2016 and received their winning votes from 2012 and 2008 respectively. As a result, their moral positions as beaten GOP candidates is heavily blunted.
  • Republican voters soundly defeated establishment candidates. They are speaking, but the GOP establishment refuses to listen. The Trump and Cruz campaigns, along with their voters and the establishment must come together this fall in order to defeat whomever the democrat candidate is.
  • The opposite voting pattern is occurring in the Democrat Race, and the front runner has serious legal problems.

Data from USElectionAtlas.Org

Please follow and like us:

How Energized Are Democrat Voters In 2016?

How energized are Democrat voters in the 2016 primaries so far? My last Blog showed that the GOP turnout has blown away both 2012 and 2008 so far, but what about the Democrats?

Using the same comparisons as used for the GOP, CHART 1 shows that the opposite trend prevails in the Democrat primaries. Voter turnout in 2016 is below the 2008 turnout in 11 of the 14 states shown.

Notes:

  • No totals from 2012 are shown, as President Obama was unchallenged as the incumbent president.
  • Iowa isn’t in the chart due to the State Democrat party’s reluctance to release an official vote total.
CHART 1: 2016 Compared With 2008 Vote Totals. More Votes Were Cast in 11 of 14 Contests in 2008.

CHART 1: 2016 Compared With 2008 Vote Totals. More Votes Were Cast in 11 of 14 Contests in 2008.

When the total votes from all 14 states are compared, as shown in CHART 2, the size of 2016’s Democrat turn out is revealed as lagging far behind 2008. So far, 2.6 million fewer votes were cast in 2016 than in 2012.

CHART 2: 2.6 Million More Votes Were Cast In 2008 In These 14 States Than In 2016.

CHART 2: 2.6 Million More Votes Were Cast In 2008 In These 14 States Than In 2016.

So how would Hillary Clinton be doing if she ran against the winner’s totals from 2008?

CHART 3 compares the winning candidate vote totals from each of the first 14 states, minus Iowa as noted. The data shows that the winner in 2016 would have lost with the same votes in 2008 in 9 of the 14 states.

CHART 3: The Winners In 2016 Would Have Only Carried Only 5 of 14 States vs 2008

CHART 3: The Winners In 2016 Would Have Only Carried Only 5 of 14 States vs 2008

TABLE 1 shows the raw vote totals, and breaks out the states won by then Senator Obama in 2008, and Hillary Clinton, the 2016 front-runner, in blue. Barack Obama would have won 5 states vs. the 9 he actually won in 2008. Hillary Clinton would have won only 5 states, vs. the 9 she has won so far in 2016.

TABLE 1: The 2016 Willer's Votes Would Have Only Carried 4 of 14 States vs. 2008.

TABLE 1: The 2016 Winner’s Votes Would Have Only Carried 5 of 14 States vs. 2008.

So what does this data mean?

First, it indicates that the 2016 Democrat turnout is lagging way behind 2008. Going into this weekends contests, Democrat votes were 2.6 million fewer than in 2008. Added with the GOP increased turnout, there is a delta of 6.3 million votes in favor of Republicans. Some of that delta is the result of democrat and independent voters moving into the Republican primaries.

Second, if the general election follows the path of the primaries, it bodes well for the eventual Republican nominee. The challenge for the GOP is to keep the energy up, carry every primary vote into November, and to unite the party.

Please follow and like us:

What If Romney or McCain Were Running In 2016?

What if Romney or McCain were Running in the 2016 GOP Primaries? Mitt Romney unleashed a blistering condemnation of Donald Trump, the GOP front-runner, on Thursday, followed quickly by John McCain’s piling on. They speak from positions as elected Republicans, but also as the previous two Republican Presidential nominees, both of who were defeated in the general election by President Obama. It raises an interesting question: how would their nomination runs stack up in comparison to the 2016 GOP primaries?

So far, 15 states held their GOP nominating contests, with the 16th going today. CHART 1 compares the state-by-state vote totals between 2008, 2012 and 2016. Those comparisons show that the votes cast in each of the 15 states in 2016 exceed the totals from either 2008 or 2012.

More Total Votes Were Cast In Each Of The First 15 States In 2016 Than In Either 2012 Or 2008.

CHART 1: More Total Votes Were Cast In Each Of The First 15 States In 2016 Than In Either 2012 Or 2008.

When the total votes from all 15 states are compared, as shown in CHART 2, the magnitude of 2016’s turn out is revealed. So far, 3.87 million more votes were cast in 2016 than in 2012, and 3.72 million more than in 2008. So how would Romney or McCain be doing?

Total Votes Cast In First 15 State Contests: 2016 (9,665,126), 2012 (5,797,112), 2008 (5,946,814)

CHART 2: Total Votes Cast In First 15 State Contests: 2016 (9,665,126), 2012 (5,797,112), 2008 (5,946,814)

CHART 3 compares the winning candidate’s vote totals from each of the first 15 states. The data shows that with the same votes, the winner in 2016 would have won in 2008 and 2012 in 12 of the 15 states.

12 of 15 States Had More Votes Cast In 2016 For The Winner Than In 2012 or 2008.

CHART 3: 12 of 15 States Had More Votes Cast In 2016 For The Winner Than In 2012 or 2008.

TABLE 1 shows the raw vote totals, and breaks out the states won by Mitt Romney in 2012 and John McCain in 2008 in blue. South Carolina’s winner (Newt Gingrich) in 2012 beat Donald Trump, the 2016 winner. That means that Romney would have lost all but one state: Vermont.

Slide1

TABLE 1: 12 of 15 State Vote Totals In 2016 Exceed Those Of 2012 or 2008.

When McCain’s totals are put to the test, interestingly the same result occurs. He would have been defeated in all but one state, Vermont. A second state, Arkansas, also exceeded the 2016 winner’s total, but in 2008 that state was won by Mike Huckabee.

So what does this data mean?

  • First, it indicates that the 2016 GOP turnout is very high. The GOP will need millions more votes in the general election to win than Romney got in 2012. So far, those voters are turning out.
  • Second, although there is no way to be sure, it looks like both Romney and McCain would have been soundly defeated if they had run this year. As a result, their moral positions as beaten GOP candidates is far less impactful.

If they are unhappy with Donald Trump’s success so far, they have but themselves to blame. If either had captured the Nation’s support and won, Trump would not likely be on the Nation’s radar screen today!

Data from USElectionAtlas.Org

Please follow and like us:

What Rubio Failed to State in Response to Christie

Conventional Wisdom is the Marco Rubio Crashed and Burned due to a repetitive statement at Saturday's debate.

Conventional Wisdom is that Marco Rubio Crashed and Burned due to a repetitive statement at Saturday’s debate.

Marco Rubio got hammered in the media, and by many of the GOP candidates because of his poor debate performance Saturday. Criticism stems from his so-called robotic responses in the debate. Ironically, what Rubio said is exactly right, and its right on two levels. He said:

And let’s dispel once for once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing.

Rubio said essentially that same statement three more times. Admittedly, each one seemingly more out of place. The fourth time he said it was in response to a challenge by Governor Chris Christie that Marco doesn’t have the experience necessary to be president. Marco Rubio reverted back to that same comment:

I think anyone who believes Barack Obama isn’t doing what he’s doing on purpose doesn’t understand what were dealing with here.

As mentioned, there are two messages in that phrase.

The first message is precisely what Rubio stated.

  1. Barack Obama meant the harm that he’s inflicted on America!

We all know that before he was elected Obama ran on fundamentally changing America. He had to dislike our country to feel compelled to fundamentally alter it. You have to fundamentally change it from something into something else. He ran on passingObama care. He wanted to do that. It was intentional. Hillary Clinton tried and couldn’t get it done. Bill Clinton tried and couldn’t did get it done. Barack Obama did. He’s done immense damage to our military. He’s done immense damage to our relationships with our allies. He’s elevated our enemies. He made a deal with Iran essentially insuring that they’re going to get a nuclear weapon. It’s only a matter of time. He’s done immeasurable damage from his executive orders, to the $10 trillion that he’s added to our national debt, to setting back race relations 50 years. These are leftist progressive ideological results, based upon clear intent as taught by radical leftist Saul Alinsky.

The second message in Rubio’s 4 statements must be inferred because unfortunately, to Marco Rubio’s detriment, he didn’t come out and state it. Perhaps he will in a future debate? Regardless, it’s absolutely as true as 1 above and would have rebutted Chris Christie’s attack that Rubio shouldn’t be president since he wasn’t a governor with executive experience.

  1. Barack Obama was neither a governor nor an executive. He never formally led anything. He was barely a US senator for more than about 179 days before he started running for president. Despite no qualifications beyond being a “community organizer” Obama was wildly effective in instituting his radical agenda.

I think what Marco Rubio was trying to say is that he has every bit, if not more experience than Barack Obama had when he took the oath of office. He is every bit as committed ideologically in opposition to Obama, and will be just as effective in undoing the damage Obama inflicted and will put America back on the right path.

I’m not a Rubio supporter. He’s not my number one pick, but if it was a choice between Marco Rubio and any of the other establishment candidates it’s not even close.

Please follow and like us:

Is Conservative Talk Radio Turning On Trump?

AM 630 Talk Radio

AM 630 Talk Radio

Have we witnessed the first evidence of a chink in Donald Trump’s venerable campaign armor?

Trump entered the GOP Presidential Nomination race and vaulted from laughable entrant in June of 2015 to front-runner within a little over 30 days. Establishment Republicans and the media attacked Trump from the beginning. It took months of sustained front-runner status for them to conclude that he was going to stay in the race, and that his motivation wasnt publicity, as first speculated.

Despite making numerous statements that the establishment touted as campaign ending, he continued to hold a steady national lead among the GOP field. Trump appeared immune to attacks, blunders and condemnation. The one place that he was not universally condemned however was in conservative talk radio.

Four people specifically avoided the Oklahoma Land Rush to stop Trump. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Laura Ingraham maintained an even keeled assessment of Trump. They neither endorsed, nor condemned him, but analyzed his ability to dominate media cycles, drown out fellow candidates, and silence critics while taking the fight to his opponents. The result was Trump had top cover within the listening audience, to make his case. Many gave him the benefit of the doubt, and so his support base grew within conservative ranks, but also among independents and some democrat demographics, such as blue-collar workers. Trumps honeymoon with the above four talk radio hosts began to erode in December.

When Ted Cruzs numbers began to steadily rise in Iowa and nationally in early November, Trump moved in to put him down, as he had with Bush in the summer, and Carson in the fall. This time the talk radio reaction was different. The big fourdid not provide nearly the top cover that they had in previous months. They began to question Trump, and at times sided with Ted Cruz. Mark Levin became openly critical, condemning the ludicrous Trump charge that Cruz was ineligible to run for president for example.

The impactmay have played out in Iowa, where Trump lost to Ted Cruz by three points, despite the polls, including entrance polls, predictinga Trump victory.

Both Cruz and Rubio exceeded polling expectations in Iowa, in the highest GOP turnout in history. Trump sagged! Clearly both Cruz and Rubio had strong ground games, which Trumps campaign did not. That likely played a factor as well, but the impact of conservative talk radio on this election should not be underestimated.

The Establishment GOP is reaping the consequences from years of ignoring the will of its base. Rush Limbaugh led the analysisexposing the betrayal. Donald Trump benefited from a retaliatory anger, but the bloom may be off the conservative media rose, and if so, only time will tell if he can capture the nomination without it.

Please follow and like us: