If This Was Trump/Family/Associates Doing ANY Of This...

1. But Instead It's "Quid Pro Joe", source article here
   
   
   
   
2. Or this:
   
   
   
3. Or this:
   
   
   
4. "Emoluments Clause"? Hillary and Bill said, "Hold My Beer":
   
   
   
5. Or this:
   

There are plenty more instances where the Democrats have been the kings and queens of accusing their opponents of the exact.same.(or worse) things they themselves are guilty of. I just don't have time to list them all. DYOR. Open your eyes, friends.

We're Still Here

Sorta. But yeah.

Been a topsy-turvy last several years, but this blog is still here, as is our primary sister blog, After Abortion, and I want to leave up a reference to the "Lumina - a ray of light in abortion's darkness" blog by Theresa Bonopartis. Just go there, to that link. Every day. God bless her, she's stayed strong and vividly helping women in the moment, day by day, all these most recent years when we at After Abortion blog just haven't been able to keep up the daily commitment (and not even a monthly or annual one either).

There are other projects we have each felt a strong grace, a sometimes not-so-subtle push to take on. No idea in heaven how to really do these things, but if they're meant to happen, they will.

But as for the blogging, we'll get back to this, eventually, God willing. We will.

Prayers for all our readers, and then some.

Jon Stewart Defines A Left Hypocrisy

Even Jon Stewart thinks it's hypocrisy for the left to think all Trump voters are racist.

Charles Krauthammer Does What George Will Has Not

At least, not that I'm aware.

"Donald Trump won fair and square and, as Hillary Clinton said in her concession speech, is owed an open mind and a chance to lead. It is therefore incumbent upon conservatives (like me) who have been highly critical of Trump to think through how to make a success of the coming years of Republican rule.

"It begins by recognizing Trump’s remarkable political instincts. As Paul Ryan noted in his morning-after olive-branch news conference, Trump heard “a voice out in this country that no one else heard.” He spoke to and for a working class squeezed and ruined by rapid technological and economic transformation.

"One of the principal tasks for the now-dominant GOP is to craft a governing agenda that actually alters their lives and prospects. In the end, it was this constituency of those left behind by the new globalized digital economy that delivered the presidency to Trump.

"Nonetheless...[the] most overlooked factor in the election is the continuing deep and widespread dissatisfaction with Obamaism...The problem was never with Obama himself, but with his policies. Before each of those losing elections Obama would campaign, saying that his name wasn’t on the ballot but his policies — and now his legacy — were. The voters made clear what they thought of his policies and legacy.

"Simply put, from the beginning of his presidency, Obama overreached ideologically, most spectacularly with his signature legislative achievement — Obamacare. The spike in Obamacare premiums and deductibles just two weeks before Tuesday’s election proved a particularly damaging reminder of what Obamaism had wrought.

"Hence the other principal task for the now dominant GOP: undo Obamaism. Begin with cancelling Obama’s executive orders on everything from immigration to climate change. Then overturn his more elaborate legislative adventures into overweening liberalism, starting, of course, with Obamacare.

"The promise of a Trump presidency is that, if he can successfully work with a Republican Congress, it could turn Obamaism into a historical parenthesis. Republicans would then have a chance to enact the Reaganite agenda that has been incubating while in exile from the White House.

"For years, Washington gridlock has been attributed to GOP obstructionism. On the contrary, serious legislation, such as Medicare reform passed by the GOP House of Representatives, was either strangled in the Senate by Democratic leader Harry Reid or died by veto on President Obama’s desk. [my emphasis]

"Beyond the undoing, there’s now the prospect of doing. Serious border enforcement, including a wall, for example. That’s not only a good in itself, it would offer leverage in a grand bargain that would include eventual legalization of resident illegal immigrants, an idea supported (according to the exit polls) by more than seven in 10 voters.
...
"The key to success for a Trump presidency is for the Reaganite and populist elements in the party to be willing to advance each other’s goals, even at the cost of ideological purity. This will require far-reaching negotiations between a Trump White House and a GOP Congress. The Republicans have gained control of all the political branches. They have the means to deliver. They now have to show that they can."

"Shiny Objects", Shiny Words

The New York Times falls all over itself trying to re-train liberals how to appeal to the ignored, white (and non-white), angry voters of both parties, and fools 60 million people still (but fortunately, not 60 million of the rest of us). Note my bolded highlights in particular:

The End of Identity Liberalism
By MARK LILLA, NOV. 18, 2016

"The standard liberal answer for nearly a generation now has been that we should become aware of and 'celebrate' our differences. Which is a splendid principle of moral pedagogy — but disastrous as a foundation for democratic politics in our ideological age. In recent years American liberalism has slipped into a kind of moral panic about racial, gender and sexual identity that has distorted liberalism’s message and prevented it from becoming a unifying force capable of governing.

One of the many lessons of the recent presidential election campaign and its repugnant outcome is that the age of identity liberalism must be brought to an end. Hillary Clinton was at her best and most uplifting when she spoke about American interests in world affairs and how they relate to our understanding of democracy. But when it came to life at home, she tended on the campaign trail to lose that large vision and slip into the rhetoric of diversity, calling out explicitly to African-American, Latino, L.G.B.T. and women voters at every stop. This was a strategic mistake. If you are going to mention groups in America, you had better mention all of them. If you don’t, those left out will notice and feel excluded. Which, as the data show, was exactly what happened with the white working class and those with strong religious convictions. Fully two-thirds of white voters without college degrees voted for Donald Trump, as did over 80 percent of white evangelicals.
...
"A convenient liberal interpretation of the recent presidential election would have it that Mr. Trump won in large part because he managed to transform economic disadvantage into racial rage — the “whitelash” thesis. This is convenient because it sanctions a conviction of moral superiority and allows liberals to ignore what those voters said were their overriding concerns. It also encourages the fantasy that the Republican right is doomed to demographic extinction in the long run — which means liberals have only to wait for the country to fall into their laps. The surprisingly high percentage of the Latino vote that went to Mr. Trump should remind us that the longer ethnic groups are here in this country, the more politically diverse they become.

"Finally, the whitelash thesis is convenient because it absolves liberals of not recognizing how their own obsession with diversity has encouraged white, rural, religious Americans to think of themselves as a disadvantaged group whose identity is being threatened or ignored. Such people are not actually reacting against the reality of our diverse America (they tend, after all, to live in homogeneous areas of the country). But they are reacting against the omnipresent rhetoric of identity, which is what they mean by 'political correctness.' Liberals should bear in mind that the first identity movement in American politics was the Ku Klux Klan, which still exists. Those who play the identity game should be prepared to lose it.

"We need a post-identity liberalism, and it should draw from the past successes of pre-identity liberalism. Such a liberalism would concentrate on widening its base by appealing to Americans as Americans and emphasizing the issues that affect a vast majority of them. It would speak to the nation as a nation of citizens who are in this together and must help one another. As for narrower issues that are highly charged symbolically and can drive potential allies away, especially those touching on sexuality and religion, such a liberalism would work quietly, sensitively and with a proper sense of scale. (To paraphrase Bernie Sanders, America is sick and tired of hearing about liberals’ damn bathrooms.)

"Teachers committed to such a liberalism would refocus attention on their main political responsibility in a democracy: to form committed citizens aware of their system of government and the major forces and events in our history. A post-identity liberalism would also emphasize that democracy is not only about rights; it also confers duties on its citizens, such as the duties to keep informed and vote. A post-identity liberal press would begin educating itself about parts of the country that have been ignored, and about what matters there, especially religion. And it would take seriously its responsibility to educate Americans about the major forces shaping world politics, especially their historical dimension."

Talk about double-speak. Let me reiterate the still-deaf-dumb-blind parts of that, so that all can understand, perhaps, how those who voted for Trump hear the reality of that piece:

This liberal New York Times writer laments that liberalism hasn't proved itself "capable of governing." Governing? You're still focused on being "The Governing Class"? Isn't that supposed to be done "by the people, for the people"? How about becoming capable of actually "helping", "leading" all Americans to stand on their own two feet and pursue the real American dream?

He says liberals "better mention all of them." Just mentioning us, is mere lip service.

"...they are reacting against the omnipresent rhetoric of identity..." No, they're reacting against the loss of their jobs, their freedoms, their rights, their ability to survive and thrive and pursue happiness.

He repeats liberalism's actual goal: "widening its base." Not for helping the base, but so the base helps them.

How? By "emphasizing the issues that affect a vast majority of them," by "speak[ing] to" them. Words, words, more (of the same) words.

He says the "new" liberalism "would emphasize that democracy...confers duties on its citizens...to keep informed and vote." Meaning, we were pitifully uninformed if we voted for Trump while the rest of you reneged on your duty if you stayed home instead of voting for Hillary because our liberal media convinced you she was going to win in a 99% landslide anyway.

And this "new" liberalism "would take seriously its responsibility to educate Americans." Meaning, we're clearly not already educated enough, as evidenced by the fact that we voted Trump in as President.

"Governing." "Mention them." "Emphasizing." "Speak to." "Do your duty to keep informed and vote." "Educate you."

Firstly, since when do teachers have a "main political responsibility...to form committed, aware citizens", while other citizens, like parents, preachers, priests, friends and coworkers, are perhaps labeled as racist/deplorable/etc. when we do the same on the Republican side? The writer is saying teachers didn't do their job, to form you, me, our kids and grandkids as "aware, committed citizens," because Hillary didn't get elected. How about that?

Note how none of this advocates actually "doing" anything for those who "felt excluded" by the elites/academics/intellectuals?

This liberal New York Times writer is advocating that liberals should pay lip service to and merely acknowledge the angry white (and other/Latino/legal immigrant) voters mainly because not doing so cost them the election, not because it's the right thing to do.

Uuhhh-mazing.

The more things change, the more (liberal) things stay the same. Liberals think if they call it something other than "the identity game", you'll be fooled. It's still the same game: "Tell the people what they want to hear, then do whatever we know is best for them."

The liberal elites still think we are just idiots. Remember, for them, "shiny objects" are nothing more than "shiny words."

"Stop making people suicidal. Stop telling people they’re going to be killed. Stop. Stop. Stop."

"...Stop terrifying children. Stop giving racism free advertising. Stop trying to convince Americans that all the other Americans hate them. Stop. Stop. Stop."

Scott Alexander is a doctor working in "mental health [who] so far [has] had two patients express Trump-related suicidal ideation."

Never heard of him before, but it seems like we all should hear from him, now. He's not a Trump voter or fan, thinks he's "super-terrible". His blog, Slate Star Codex, is a slant anagram of his real name, but he's brilliant in this discussion. A more succinctly-stated, well-documented-proof-ful piece, I don't know if you'll find, than this, entitled:

"You Are Still Crying Wolf"

Go read the entire thing, beginning to end.

Addressed to the mainstream media, to most Democrats/leftists/and/or uber-liberals, anarchists, anti-Trumpsters of all stripes:

"A New York Times article from last September that went viral only recently: Crying Wolf, Then Confronting Trump. It asks whether Democrats have “cried wolf” so many times that nobody believes them anymore. And so:

When “honorable and decent men” like McCain and Romney “are reflexively dubbed racists simply for opposing Democratic policies, the result is a G.O.P. electorate that doesn’t listen to admonitions when the genuine article is in their midst”.

"I have a different perspective. Back in October 2015, I wrote that the picture of Trump as 'the white power candidate' and 'the first openly white supremacist candidate to have a shot at the Presidency in the modern era' was overblown. I said that 'the media narrative that Trump is doing some kind of special appeal-to-white-voters voodoo is unsupported by any polling data, and predicted that:

"If Trump were the Republican nominee, he could probably count on equal or greater support from minorities as Romney or McCain before him."

"Now the votes are in, and Trump got greater support from minorities than Romney or McCain before him. You can read the Washington Post article, Trump Got More Votes From People Of Color Than Romney Did, or look at the raw data (source)

"Trump made gains among blacks. He made gains among Latinos. He made gains among Asians. The only major racial group where he didn’t get a gain of greater than 5% was white people. I want to repeat that: the group where Trump’s message resonated least over what we would predict from a generic Republican was the white population.

"Nor was there some surge in white turnout. I don’t think we have official numbers yet, but by eyeballing what data we have it looks very much like whites turned out in equal or lesser numbers this year than in 2012, 2008, and so on...

"The media responded to all of this freely available data with articles like White Flight From Reality: Inside The Racist Panic That Fueled Donald Trump’s Victory and Make No Mistake: Donald Trump’s Win Represents A Racist “Whitelash”.

"I stick to my thesis from October 2015. There is no evidence that Donald Trump is more racist than any past Republican candidate (or any other 70 year old white guy, for that matter). All this stuff about how he’s 'the candidate of the KKK' and 'the vanguard of a new white supremacist movement' is made up. It’s a catastrophic distraction from the dozens of other undeniable problems with Trump that could have convinced voters to abandon him. That it came to dominate the election cycle should be considered a horrifying indictment of our political discourse, in the same way that it would be a horrifying indictment of our political discourse if the entire Republican campaign had been based around the theory that Hillary Clinton was a secret Satanist. Yes, calling Romney a racist was crying wolf. But you are still crying wolf." [my emphases]

He goes on to document the massive evidence against President-elect Donald Trump actually being or supporting or accepting racism/bigotry in any/all of its forms.

Have you got the cojones to read it all and actually learn what the mainstream media didn't tell you, when they had the innumerable chances?

Remember: the left and mainstream media--especially the ones we now have proof have been in the tank for the Democrats and especially Hillary Clinton, tipping their palms on that side of the scales to convince you and me, the American public, even right up to about 10pm on the night of the election itself that Hillary was a 1,000% lock--that left and that mainstream media thought Donald Trump was a complete joke and gave him all the free airtime 1) because it skyrocketed their ratings and 2) because they believed they could get us, the Stupid, Uneducated American Voters, to support a Joke Candidate through the primaries and thus wipe out all the "Serious Republican Candidates" so that Hillary would have no "real" competition in the general election and they, the left and the mainstream media, would be able to destroy the Joke Candidate then with all the Access Hollywood/accusing women/leaked tax return coverage they'd saved up for the general election.

Do you really think Hillary's campaign, with their finely-honed, 30-years-experienced, oppo-dirt-digging machine, and the mainstream media, which was digging furiously through its media vaults instead of covering the real news, didn't uncover all that before the GOP nomination was clinched? Ever ask yourselves why they and the mainstream media didn't bring all this up in the primaries? They wanted Trump to win the GOP nomination, because they were convinced he would be the easiest to destroy.

Scott Alexander takes the entire "Trump is racist/hater and will kill/deport/ban/concentration-encamp/separate-you-from-your-family" liberal dogma and completely buzzsaws it with facts.

Want to learn what Trump has actually said, in its entirety, regarding blacks, Hispanics, Mexicans, Muslims, the LGBTQ community, or how Bill Clinton's 1996 immigration platform was so similar to Trump's? Go read it.

"I notice that people accusing Trump of racism use the word 'openly' like a tic. He’s never just 'racist' or 'white supremacist'. He’s always 'openly racist' and 'openly white supremacist'. Trump is openly racist, openly racist, openly racist, openly racist, openly racist, openly racist, openly racist. Trump is running on pure white supremacy, has thrown off the last pretense that his campaign is not about bigotry, has the slogan Make American Openly White Supremacist Again, is an openly white supremacist nominee, etc, etc, etc. And I’ve seen a few dozen articles like this where people say that 'the bright side of a Trump victory is that finally America admitted its racism out in the open so nobody can pretend it’s not there anymore.'

"This, I think, is the first level of crying wolf. What if, one day, there is a candidate who hates black people so much that he doesn’t go on a campaign stop to a traditionally black church in Detroit, talk about all of the contributions black people have made to America, promise to fight for black people, and say that his campaign is about opposing racism in all its forms? What if there’s a candidate who does something more like, say, go to a KKK meeting and say that black people are inferior and only whites are real Americans? We might want to use words like 'openly racist' or 'openly white supremacist' to describe him. And at that point, nobody will listen, because we wasted 'openly white supremacist' on the guy who tweets pictures of himself eating a taco on Cinco de Mayo while saying 'I love Hispanics!'” [my emphasis]

And learn about this:

"[Notice] that the evidence on the side of Trump being against David Duke includes twenty years of unambiguous statements to that effect. And the evidence of Trump not being against David Duke includes one statement along the lines of 'I don’t know who he is but I’ll look into it' on an interview one time which he later blamed on a bad earpiece and said he totally disavowed.

"This gets back to my doubts about 'dog whistles'. Dog whistling seems to be the theory that if you want to know what someone really believes, you have to throw away decades of consistent statements supporting the side of an issue that everyone else in the world supports, and instead pay attention only to one weird out-of-character non-statement which implies he supports a totally taboo position which is perhaps literally the most unpopular thing it is possible to think.

"And then you have to imagine some of the most brilliant rhetoricians and persuaders in the world are calculating that it’s worth risking exposure this taboo belief in order to win support from a tiny group with five-digit membership [the KKK] whose support nobody wants, by sending a secret message, which inevitably every single media outlet in the world instantly picks up on and makes the focus of all their coverage for the rest of the election."

And this fear-mongering came directly from the very top, Obama himself and the "Wannabee-Crown-Me-Now" top, Hillary Herself. Remember this? It's still up--live--even today on the Clinton campaign website!

It's amazing that it remained on her website even after it was outed that Hillary and the whole left had been Frog-Punked.

Or learn about this (and Alexander has links to every one of these true incidents):

"Oh, also, I looked on right-wing sites to see if there are complaints of harassment and attacks by Hillary supporters, and there are. Among the stories I was able to confirm on moderately trustworthy news sites that had investigated them somewhat (a higher standard than the SLPC holds their reports to) are ones about how Hillary supporters have beaten up people for wearing Trump hats, screamed encouragement as a mob beat up a man who they thought voted Trump, knocked over elderly people, beaten up a high school girl for supporting Trump on Instagram, defaced monuments with graffiti saying 'DIE WHITES DIE', advocated raping Melania Trump, kicked a black homeless woman who was holding a Trump sign, attacked a pregnant woman stuck in her car, with a baseball bat, screamed at children who vote Trump in a mock school election, etc, etc, etc.

"But please, keep talking about how somebody finding a swastika scrawled in a school bathroom means that every single Trump supporter is scum and Trump’s whole campaign was based on hatred."

Or this:

"Like Snopes, I am not sure if the reports of eight transgender people committing suicide due to the election results are true or false. But if they’re true, it seems really relevant that Trump denounced North Carolina’s anti-transgender bathroom law, and proudly proclaimed he would let Caitlyn Jenner use whatever bathroom she wanted in Trump Tower, making him by far the most pro-transgender Republican president in history."

And finally this:

"Stop fearmongering. Somewhere in America, there are still like three or four people who believe the media, and those people are cowering in their houses waiting for the death squads.

"Stop crying wolf. God forbid, one day we might have somebody who doesn’t give speeches about how diversity makes this country great and how he wants to fight for minorities, who doesn’t pose holding a rainbow flag and state that he proudly supports transgender people, who doesn’t outperform his party among minority voters, who wasn’t the leader of the Salute to Israel Parade, and who doesn’t offer minorities major cabinet positions. And we won’t be able to call that guy an 'openly white supremacist Nazi homophobe', because we already wasted all those terms this year.

"Stop talking about dog whistles. The kabbalistic similarities between 'dog-whistling' and 'wolf-crying' are too obvious to ignore.

"Stop writing articles breathlessly following everything the KKK says. Stop writing several times more articles about the KKK than there are actual Klansmen. Remember that thing where Trump started out as a random joke, and then the media covered him way more than any other candidate because he was so outrageous, and gave him what was essentially free advertising, and then he became President-elect of the United States? Is the lesson you learned from this experience that you need 24-7 coverage of the Ku Klux Klan?

"Stop responding to everyone who worries about Wall Street or globalism or the elite with 'I THINK YOU MEAN JEWS. BECAUSE JEWS ARE THE ELITES. ALL ELITES AND GLOBALISTS ARE JEWS. IF YOU’RE WORRIED ABOUT THE ELITE, IT’S DEFINITELY JEWS YOU SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT. IF YOU FEEL SCREWED BY WALL STREET, THEN THE PEOPLE WHO SCREWED YOU WERE THE JEWS. IT’S THE JEWS WHO ARE DOING ALL THIS, MAKE SURE TO REMEMBER THAT. DEFINITELY TRANSLATE YOUR HATRED TOWARDS A VAGUE ESTABLISHMENT INTO HATRED OF JEWS, BECAUSE THEY’RE TOTALLY THE ONES YOU’RE THINKING OF.' This means you, Vox. Someday those three or four people who still believe the media are going to read this stuff and immediately join the Nazi Party, and nobody will be able to blame them.

"Stop saying that being against crime is a dog whistle for racism. Have you ever met a crime victim? They don’t like crime. I work with people from a poor area, and a lot of them have been raped, or permanently disabled, or had people close to them murdered. You know what these people have in common? They don’t like crime. When you say 'the only reason someone could talk about law and order is that they secretly hate black people, because, y’know, all criminals are black', not only are you an idiot, you’re a racist. Also, I judge you for not having read the polls saying that nonwhites are way more concerned about crime than white people are.

"Stop turning everything into identity politics. The only thing the media has been able to do for the last five years is shout 'IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS IDENTITY POLITICS!' at everything, and then when the right wing finally says 'Um, i…den-tity….poli-tics?' you freak out and figure that the only way they could have possibly learned that phrase is from the KKK.

"Stop calling Trump voters racist. A metaphor: we have freedom of speech not because all speech is good, but because the temptation to ban speech is so great that, unless given a blanket prohibition, it would slide into universal censorship of any unpopular opinion. Likewise, I would recommend you stop calling Trump voters racist – not because none of them are, but because as soon as you give yourself that opportunity, it’s a slippery slope down to 'anyone who disagrees with me on anything does so entirely out of raw seething hatred, and my entire outgroup is secret members of the KKK and so I am justified in considering them worthless human trash'. I’m not saying you’re teetering on the edge of that slope. I’m saying you’re way at the bottom, covered by dozens of feet of fallen rocks and snow." [my emphases]

"Stop. Stop. Stop."

"Do As We Say, Republicans, Not As We Do" - Part 8

"Blocked streets, spray painted cars, broken windows.

This is what we were told to expect from angry Donald Trump supporters when Hillary Clinton won the White House.

It turns out that the militant left is having trouble accepting the results of a free and fair election that didn't go its way.

The protest marches, mostly by young people in deep blue cities and college towns, are a temper tantrum from people disappointed that they aren't getting the new toy they were promised.

Maybe the Electoral College can give Hillary Clinton a participant trophy.

Their frustration is understandable. This is the third presidential election in 16 years that liberals thought they had won. A premature call in Florida in 2000 and bogus exit polls in 2004 didn't hold up. The New York Times projected that Clinton had an 85 percent chance to win, just before the ballots were actually counted. Huffington Post had her at 98 percent, so voters in the liberal bubble never saw this coming.

That doesn't justify a riot.

For millions of Americans, Donald Trump is simply unacceptable as President. For millions of others, Hillary Clinton was just as unacceptable. We opposed them both, but were prepared to accept whatever decision American voters made.

When Rush Limbaugh said that he hoped Barack Obama's liberal agenda failed, he was called a racist. When Sen. Mitch McConnell said that his top political priority would be to prevent Obama's re-election, he was branded an obstructionist. But as of Wednesday [the day after Election Day 2016], liberals have again realized that 'dissent is the highest form of patriotism.' [my emphasis]

Donald Trump may be a good President, or a bad one. We will continue to judge him by his words and actions. So should we all. But he will be our President, whether you wanted him to be, or not."

~OpEd by The New Hampshire Union Leader

"Do As We Say, Republicans; Not As We Do:"

Part 7

Part 6

Part 5

Part 4

Part 3

Part 2

Part 1

"The Free Press Has Failed"...by...The Free Press

"...for the first time in the country’s history, someone came from no background in public office or military command and seized control of a major political party, running against all those who had led it for the last 20 years, then defeated the incumbent party, defeating all the Clintons, Bushes and Obamas together. The Clintons and Bushes and Obamas are finally finished...The media have been exposed in their biases, their overwhelming hostility to Donald Trump, as not just irrelevant, but the object of hatred as intense as that which overwhelmed the political elites who failed the nation and imperilled the alliance America founded and led for many decades.

"The public’s loathing and distrust of the media is richly deserved and indicative of one of Western society’s greatest failings: the free press has failed...Few people now pay much attention to the common misrepresentation of public issues and people; nor should they. The American media turned itself inside out trying to portray Trump as a misogynist, a racist and an authoritarian populist whipping up mobs and inciting violence. All this was unmitigated rubbish. President Barack Obama strutted about the campaign trail in a last-ditch effort to salvage the Clinton campaign (despite the notorious absence of any affection between the Obamas and the Clintons), and accused Trump of being a sympathizer of the Ku Klux Klan. The president would have his listeners believe that Trump, who has an unblemished record as an equal opportunity employer, approves of thugs surging about in hoods and bedsheets, burning crosses on the lawns of African-Americans, Jews and Roman Catholics (most of whose 30 million voters cast their ballots for Trump).

"The media screamed for Trump’s blood when the Clinton campaign released an 11-year-old tape of boorish remarks about women, though what Trump said was the bland and pious reflection of a Baptist minister compared to the normal [my note: not to mention racist] conversation of [Democrat] Lyndon Johnson, or the actual conduct, while discharging presidential business, of Bill Clinton. It was magnificent watching the Clinton News Network (CNN) robots on autocue scurrying around like asphyxiated roaches as it became clear that Trump would do the impossible and win, and that the public saw through the animosity of the lazy, complacent, boot-licking, myth-making claque of the Washington media, with its liars, defamers, frauds and idiots."

by Conrad Black, in The National Post.

"Well-Struck And Well-Deserved"

I did not vote for Trump. I was never even close. But I totally get why people did. The Non-TED-Talk Americans just stood up and hit our intellectual culture over the head with a frying pan. On that I say, 'well struck and well deserved.'”

by "A Closeted San Francisco Conservative"

The Media Back At It Again

"One Big Fat RICO"

"I used to do this for a living," said former federal prosecutor Pat Brady during a taping of "The Chicago Way" podcast. "To me the (Clinton) Foundation was one big fat RICO, the server was just one of the acts of the furtherance of a conspiracy. It was set up as an enterprise for the Clintons to make money, leveraging their relationships within the government, including the (office of) secretary of state."

Trump To Those Scaring/Threatening With Racist/Bigoted Acts: "STOP IT!" , On 60 Minutes

Pay special attention to the part (start at about 14:30), regarding the few racist agitators scaring ethnic people and claiming to be Trump supporters, "I am very surprised to hear that. I HATE to hear that... [To them] I would say, 'Don't do it, that's terrible.' Because I'm gonna bring this country together." When Stahl again grills him on this, he replies, "I am SO saddened to hear that and I say 'STOP it.' If it helps, and I will say this and I'll say it right to the camera: 'STOP IT.'"

As I was watching that entire video, it was removed. The CBS original may be viewable here.

Answer me one thing: Why did Obama never say that--just.like.that: "STOP IT!"--to those carrying out the violence, the destruction of public and private property, the rioting and looting and chanting that "We want Dead Cops!" in the Black Lives Matter movement, or to those actually killing police officers just for fun?

He never did. He could have had a tremendous influence, for the better, in stopping more destruction, more lives lost, but he didn't

As It Should Be

"Obama, appearing polite and serious as he shook Trump’s hand, told the president-elect, 'We now are going to want to do everything we can to help you succeed, because if you succeed, then the country succeeds.'”

Hillary Clinton: “Last night I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country... I still believe in America and I always will. And if you do, then we must accept this result and then look to the future. Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and a chance to lead. Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power. And we don't just respect that, we cherish it."

"Asked by a reporter if Trump would ask Congress to ban Muslims from entering the country — a controversial campaign proposal — the president-elect said, 'Thank you, everyone,' and walked away."

"Protesters in U.S. cities including New York demonstrated Wednesday night with chants of 'not my president' and anti-Trump signs. The president-elect gave no indication that he noticed."

"[The Trumps and the Obamas] reconnected in the Oval Office after noon, but did not pose for an official White House group photograph, which used to be a modern-era custom.

"Later in the afternoon, Vice President Joe Biden met at the White House with Pence. The meeting was closed to the press.

"Trump and his team have bucked custom and protocol by not allowing coverage of the president-elect by a rotation of a small group of journalists known as a 'pool.' The Fourth Estate, which by custom and modern necessity reports on incoming presidents via a pool-rotation system, was rebuffed by Team Trump on Thursday. The White House Correspondents Association and its members pressed the Trump aides to adopt the pool-coverage system immediately as a part of the official transition to governing.

"Trump prides himself on his famously testy relationship with the news media. He flew to and from Washington Thursday on his private jet, declining to travel with members of the news media as presidents always do."

-from the Real Clear Politics article by Alexis Simendinger & James Arkin, Nov. 10, 2016

[bolds are my emphases]

The "Fourth Estate" press better get used to it. It's what they earned for themselves.

We may call what we now have to rely on for real truth in reporting, the Fifth Estate. HuffPo, Slate, Mother Jones, The Atlantic, you need not apply.

The headlines over the past few days may indicate some of the Fourth Estate are trying to ingratiate themselves to the new administration, but my guess is it will only be superficial:

RCP SIDEBAR HEADLINES November 11, 2016

Dems Try to Pick Up the Pieces
What Happens After the Earthquake?
Second Night of Trump Protests Brings Arrests in Oregon
Trump Victory Is the End of the Line for Obama Judicial Nominees
Clinton Aides Blame FBI Director, Media for Devastating Loss
(and now Clinton herself is doing just that)
DNC Staffer Screams at Donna Brazile for Helping Elect Trump
Trump Did Worse w/Whites, Better w/People of Color Than Romney
Exiting Reid Takes Shots at Trump
How Obamacare Can Be Repealed
Ingraham: Trump Is Going to Do What He Said He's Going to Do
Krauthammer: President Obama's Legacy Is Toast, Will Be Reversed
Samantha Bee: It's Pretty Clear Who Ruined America: White People
CNN Investigates Why Latinos in Florida Voted for Trump
Trump Wave Buoys Republicans to All-Time High in State Legislatures
Clinton Camp's Vaunted GOTV May Have Turned Out Trump Voters
Trump Got Reagan-Like Support From Union Households
What Comes After the Uprising - Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal
The Unbearable Smugness of the Press - Will Rahn, CBS News (excellent read, but pandering to Trump after-the-fact maybe?)
Dems Once Represented the Working Class. Not Any More - Robert Reich, Guardian

Some select quotes that stood out: "That whistling sound you hear is the [Democratic] party Thelma-and-Louiseing." in The Washington Post.

Peggy Noonan, a conservative and not a Trump fan, in the also-not-a-fan Wall Street Journal:

"First, our democratic republic is vibrant and alive. It is not resigned. It is still capable of delivering a result so confounding it knocks you into the next room.

"Nobody rigged this. Nobody hacked it. There weren’t brawls at polling places, there was kindness and civility. At the 92nd Street Y I got to embrace three neighbors. All this in a highly charged, highly dramatic and divisive election. We did our democratic work and then went home. It all worked.

"Second, Donald Trump said he had a movement and he did. This is how you know. His presidential campaign was bad—disorganized, unprofessional, chaotic, ad hoc. There was no state-of-the-art get-out-the-vote effort—his voters got themselves out. There was no high-class, high-tech identifying of supporters—they identified themselves. They weren’t swayed by the barrage of brilliantly produced ads—those ads hardly materialized. This was not a triumph of modern campaign modes and ways. The people did this. As individuals within a movement.

"It was a natural, self-driven eruption. Which makes it all the more impressive and moving. And it somehow makes it more beautiful that few saw it coming.

"On the way home Wednesday morning I thought of my friend who runs the neighborhood shoe-repair shop. He is elderly, Italian-American, an immigrant. I had asked him last winter who would win the Republican nomination and he looked at me as if I were teasing. 'Troomp!' he instructed. I realized at that moment: In America now only normal people can see the obvious. Everyone else is lost in a data-filled fog."

Scott Adams gets the last word on Twitter who shadow-banned him during the last few months of the election cycle.

"What covering Donald Trump full-time taught a Post reporter about the president-elect", By Chris Cillizza, November 11, also in the WaPo:

"I started covering him full-time and my opinion changed. He would host these rallies and thousands of people would show up — and hardly any of them mentioned 'The Apprentice' when I asked why they liked him. He understood Republican voters in a way his party did not...One on one, Trump is kind and gracious. Twice I was called backstage so he could gush about how much he liked an article I had written about his supporters and a photo I had tweeted of his massive rally crowd."

And from the CBS piece linked above on the "Smugness" of the media:

"There’s a place for opinionated journalism; in fact, it’s vital. But our causal, profession-wide smugness and protestations of superiority are making us unable to do it well.

"Our theme now should be humility. We must become more impartial, not less so. We have to abandon our easy culture of tantrums and recrimination. We have to stop writing these know-it-all, 140-character sermons on social media and admit that, as a class, journalists have a shamefully limited understanding of the country we cover.

"What’s worse, we don’t make much of an effort to really understand, and with too few exceptions, treat the economic grievances of Middle America like they’re some sort of punchline. Sometimes quite literally so, such as when reporters tweet out a photo of racist-looking Trump supporters and jokingly suggest that they must be upset about free trade or low wages.

"We have to fix this, and the broken reasoning behind it. There’s a fleeting fun to gang-ups and groupthink. But it’s not worth what we are losing in the process."

Modern Feminists: A Glass Ceiling Got Broken, Yet Your Media Didn't Trumpet That To You, Did It?

Here's a role model for your daughters:

(photo courtesy of Getty - Mark Wilson)

Take a bow, @KellyannePolls. First woman to run a successful presidential campaign in U.S. history.

— Mollie (@MZHemingway) November 9, 2016

Mollie Hemingway writes for The Federalist, a conservative online news reporting site.

Did you see this heralded by The New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, TIME, any of the Alphabet-Soup-Skews-Networks?

No, they wouldn't dream of it. They have to stay true to themselves, not the American people. They have to keep trying to bring down the now President-elect. [Refer back to these.]

Also articled the day after the election by The Week: "Kellyanne Conway becomes first woman to successfully run a presidential campaign", and by Breitbart.com.

The Independent Journal Review's article highlights how the mainstream liberal media hasn't changed: "Kellyanne Conway Took a Beating Running Trump's Campaign, But Her History-Making Win Is Being Ignored."

Go ahead. Go read that last article to see the hate-filled, personally-attacking vitriol spewed by the left, by leftist entertainers, by leftist dysfun-dits. Guess the hatemongering of the left and leftist media will never change. Even after the history made Tuesday.

It proves (once again) that they really don't give a rat's ass about celebrating or advancing the cause of women--unless they're leftist women. You can't say you're a feminist unless you're for ALL women. I guess since Hillary never learned that lesson, neither did her sycophants.

And I didn't even know, Kellyanne did all this, with four young children. You go, girl.

Two Black Law Enforcement Officers On The Violent Protests Against Election Results

Then see the videos in the prior post.

A Liberal Walks Into A Video Clip....

Fascinating:

"Al Sharpton, You Go First"

Celebrities who claimed they'd leave the U.S. right about...now. Miley Cyrus, you go second.

Stock Markets Miraculously Rebound After Trump's"Statesmanlike" Speech

CBS News reporters said tonight, twice, that the markets rallied astronomically (the Dow to the tune of over 250 points) today because they heard a Presidential, gracious, calm, inclusive, "statesmanlike" Trump give a victory speech after he won the election. What, did the media miss his speech after meeting the President of Mexico?

[ANSWER: No, they just made damn sure you missed it.]

History Repeats Itself

Newsweek pre-picks winner, sends ‘Madam President’ issue to stores – company calls it a ‘business decision’ https://t.co/1HnLRUlQIq pic.twitter.com/EjnF9uCcq6

— BIZPAC Review (@BIZPACReview) November 9, 2016

HT to The History Channel and @RealJamesWoods for those...

Does Trump have Michigan too? RCP isn't clear on that.

It's nice that Paul Ryan, Charles Krauthammer and similar folk who didn't really have much support for the Anti-Hillary until he won, are now saying nice things about his being an "idealogical revolution not seen since Reagan" or how "he heard a voice out in this country that no one else heard." Better late than never.

The American people are now "woke:"

If the most stunning night in political history taught us anything about traditional media's coverage of this election, which spanned nearly 600 days, it's this:

It doesn’t remotely have the influence it thinks it does.

In piously dismissing public sentiment when it comes to the entire premise of Donald Trump's fed-up outsider campaign, the vaunted media proved it just ain't what it used to be in the eyes in the public.

Media approval rating: 19 percent (NBC News/Wall Street Journal)
Americans with high confidence in the media: 6 percent (Associated Press)

Suffolk University/USA Today poll question: “Who do you think the media, including major newspapers and TV stations, would like to see elected president: Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump?” A full 75.9 percent answered Clinton, while just 7.9 percent picked Trump. That's about a 10-to-1 ratio of Americans who feel the media was actually for one candidate against another. And, finally, there's the major newspaper endorsement count, per The Hill's Reid Wilson: Clinton 57, Trump 2 — a ratio of more than 28-to-1.

The election results are still coming in, but from all appearances Trump could still break 300 electoral votes, which would be the most of any Republican candidate in nearly 30 years (George H.W. Bush, 1988).

Trump repeatedly said throughout this general election that the media was rigged against him. The elites, the ones so out of touch living in their safe Manhattan bubble, where the national media calls home, declared he was engaging in conspiracy theory, just blowing more hot air.

But WikiLeaks revelations proved otherwise.

From just one single email account — that of Clinton campaign chief John Podesta — we saw that quote approval by Clinton campaign sources did happen. Sharing stories in advance with Clinton campaign officials did happen. Collusion via sharing debate questions in advance with Clinton senior aides did happen. Reporters advising and/or cheering on campaigns with guys like Podesta did happen.

And these weren't small-time bloggers or pundits or anchors committing these journalistic no-nos, either. These were major names at major organizations. And none of them will even extend the professional courtesy of an apology. Instead, it's the usual condescending defiance.

Even Clinton supporters agree in a recent AP-GfK poll that the media was biased against Trump, by a 4-to-1 margin. Yup, even Clinton supporters even saw the media pile-on from a mile away.

Suffice to say, the polling and numbers gurus should not be so breathlessly relied upon in 2020 and beyond. A special shout-out goes to the Huffington Post, whose polling outfit gave Hillary Clinton a 98.2 percent of winning going into last night.

We can also retire the "guru" label as it pertains to fivethirtyeight.com's Nate Silver, whose final formula had Clinton with a 71.4 percent chance of winning the presidency. [my emphasis]

Or in other words (HT to Powerlineblog.com for this one):

A.B.H. Wins

OMG. I'm speechless:

Looks like the IBD/TIPP poll retains its reputation as predicting Presidential races better than any other poll, including Nate Silver.

Went to bed at 10pm last night, thinking it was likely Hillary won. Woke up early, couldn't resist getting up to look...I'm in shock, but in a relieved way.

He took North Carolina, Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania. The "movement" was, is , real. He might even take (or have taken, my Internet connection isn't letting me load or refresh anything but Blogger right now) Michigan, New Hampshire and Minnesota, too, even though he doesn't need them now. (Unless of course, Hillary lawyers up, see below)

Are these sites I'm trying to access just so loaded down with traffic? I wouldn't be a bit surprised:

Trump Addresses Supporters After Clinton Concedes (now hers is a speech I'm going to watch).

Except it turns out she didn't even make one yet? Townhall.com reports that "Hillary Bails on Her Own Election Party, Podesta Tells Everyone To Go Home." Does that mean she has to make her concession speech today? Or that she isn't going to make one? Wouldn't that be unprecedented, Washington Post? New York Times, if Trump lost and went home without make a concession speech and thanking/addressing all his campaign staff and supporters, wouldn't you rake him over the coals for his "boorishness", his "selfishness and disdain for his supporters", his "lack of manners and protocoal and political etiquette"?

You damn betcha. It'd be headline, top of fold news, right now.

It's always been all about Hillary, and no one else. This proves she really doesn't give a damn about the people, not even the people who help and support her. She only cares about herself.

And Townhall also reports "They're getting the lawyers ready to look at contesting close states." So who's not accepting the results of the election now? She did make the call to concede to Trump, but if she contests anything, then that will make two Democrat Presidential candidates in 16 years who did exactly what the left and the media excoriated Trump for saying he might do.

Political analyst Guy Benson has some analysis Hillary might want to read:

"This was an upset of epic proportions. Needless to say, based on all of the available data -- including, reportedly, to the Trump campaign itself -- most analysis did not see this coming. Myself very much included. Based on polling and electoral models, the GOP nominee looked like he needed to win every state carried by Mitt Romney in 2012, flip Florida, Ohio, and Iowa, then find a way to break through Clinton's "blue firewall" to cobbled together the remaining electoral tallies. I called this plausible and laid out an accurate road map to how it could happen, but did not believe he would pull it off. Not only did he do so, he burned the so-called firewall to the ground. He won Wisconsin. He won Pennsylvania, he won an electoral vote in Maine. And as of this writing (5:00 am ET), he may yet win Michigan and/or New Hampshire. These are feats no Republican presidential ticket has accomplished in decades. [my emphasis] The state-level polling was wrong. The data was wrong. The models were wrong. Hidden Trump voters were real. Rally sizes were indicative of the enthusiasm gap. An inferior ground game didn't matter. Getting outspent by a lot didn't matter (the consecutive low-budget vanquishing of Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton destroyed the Left's "money runs politics" meme). Having an unfavorable rating of roughly 60 percent, with large majorities rejecting his qualifications and temperament, didn't matter. A sizable chunk of those people voted for him anyway."

Wonder if the leftist media will double down and attack President Trump at every turn, instead of respecting him as the POTUS? The foul language in some online alt-left sites has already begun. Really, Daily Kos, you're going to "F***ing fight?" Who's inciting violence, again?

The media certainly excoriated any Republican/conservative if they didn't respect Obama as POTUS. But will they give themselves a total pass to do it now that Trump has won the Presidency? Do they dare, now that so many of us can see through their shenanigans?

RCP article, "Donald Trump Elected President"

RCP has links to the WaPo and NYT articles but it won't refresh right now and I just recall words like "Stunning" and "Repudiation." You can find them if you like, I won't bother linking to those rags anymore.

And not only did Trump win in those huge states, Republicans kept the Senate ("at least 52 Senators when the new Congress convenes in January. Quite possibly 53. And there are rumors that at least one red state Democrat may be considering switching parties.") and the House, and gained 3 Governor seats. Repudiation, indeed.

God has blessed America, saving us from Hillary as President.

Now we hold President Trump accountable, all of us.

Ah, here we go:

"The forgotten men and women of this country will be forgotten no longer."

Now here's the takeaway message for all Democrat and Republican elites in Washington:

If you obstruct, in any way, what President Trump sets out to do, to fix what's ailing this nation, if you think you can 1) succeed and 2) get away with it...I've got a little bad news for you:

President Trump will tell the world, instantly and mincing no words, exactly what you're doing to obstruct his efforts to help the American people, and you will piss off the American electorate, and you will lose.

Why Is Anyone Surprised By This?

Trump is doing far better among black voters than Romney was in 2012. A number of polls indicate he could double Romney's showing with black voters, which was only 6 percent of the vote nationally.

A Harper Polling survey of Pennsylvania voters released on Friday showed Trump with the support of nearly 18.5 percent of black voters in that state. Another Pennsylvania poll performed by Remington Research Group, released on Oct. 30, showed Trump with 19 percent support among black voters.

A Siena University poll of likely Florida voters showed Trump receiving the support of 13 percent of black voters. Another Remington Research poll, this time of Virginia voters, also showed Trump with the support of 19 percent of black voters there.

More polling by Remington Research released over the weekend showed Trump getting 22 percent of the black vote in Florida, 19 percent in North Carolina, 22 percent of black voters in Wisconsin, and a groundbreaking 29 percent of the black vote in Pennsylvania. By comparison, Romney took only 5 percent of the black vote in Florida, 4 percent in North Carolina, 6 percent in Wisconsin, and 7 percent in Pennsylvania.

It's not hard to see why Trump is doing unusually well for a Republican with black voters. Unlike every Republican in at least this writer's lifetime, Trump actually made direct, honest appeals to black voters.

"Every African-American citizen in this country is entitled to a government that puts their jobs wages and security first," said Trump upon unveiling his "New Deal" with black Americans. "I'm asking today for the honor of your vote and the privilege of being your president," he continued. "Whether you vote for me or not, I will be your greatest champion," Trump promised.

"I find it refreshing that Trump actually pleaded for the black vote," Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke told LifeZette. "Life has not improved [for minorities] with this monolithic [Democratic] voting pattern," he said. "Anybody living in those ghettos knows [what Trump was talking about in Milwaukee] … they see it all around them."

"What Are Good Neighbors For?"

Just love that @RealJamesWoods.

Ted Nugent Absolutely Wails The National Anthem (Michigan, Last Night)

Skip to the 1:09:00 mark for this gem. Was never a huge Nugent fan, but the guy can freakin' (still) play the guitar.

Lovingly calls his neighbors "Michiganiacs." I like the sound of that, especially as one side of my family is from Michigan and exactly, from Grand Rapids too. And gotta love the guy behind and to Nugent's left, with the white t-shirt "Catholics for Trump."

That high, almost-final note...WOW.

Election Day: Trump Holds 2-Point Lead Still, And Increases from 43% to 45%

Trump polls at 45% today in the IBD/TIPP poll — a collaboration between Investor's Business Daily (IBD) and TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence (TIPP)...considered the most accurate tracking poll in recent Presidential election history.

Hillary finished at 43%.

Gary Johnson polls at 8% today. Why is that significant?

According to distinguised American University Professor of History Allan J. Lichtman, who developed "a 13-key system that has correctly predicted the winner of every popular vote in the US for 32 years", said in October:

"It takes six keys to count the party in power out, and they have exactly six keys. And one key could still flip, as I recognized last time — the third party key, that requires Gary Johnson to get at least five percent of the popular vote. He could slip below that, which would shift the prediction."

The Washington Post highlighted the 13 "keys" in September and revisited the professor's prediction in October, and it read like they couldn't stand to report this.

Here are the keys, where "an answer of 'true' always favors the reelection of the party holding the White House." I've bolded the ones indicating that the incumbent party (Democrats) should lose this time:

1. Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections. (FALSE, "They got crushed.")
2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination. (Lichtman, a Democrat, rates this as UNDETERMINED; I think Bernie fans would beg to differ.)
3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president. (FALSE)
4. Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign. (FALSE according to Lichtman, Johnson polls at 8% in IBD/TIPP)
5. Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign. (TRUE)
6. Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms. (TRUE)
7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy. (FALSE, "no major policy change in Obama's second term like the Affordable Care Act.")
8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term. (Democrat Lichtman rates this as TRUE, but a lot of Americans would consider this FALSE, just google "Ferguson Effect")
9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal. (this is FALSE even though Democrat Lichtman refuses to acknowledge it: the Clinton Foundation scandal is still being investigated and will continue to be after the election.)
10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs. (not in last 4 years, but it is FALSE regarding Benghazi and Libya in general, as admitted to by Obama himself.)
11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs. (FALSE, "no major smashing foreign policy success")
12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero. (FALSE, "Hillary Clinton is not a Franklin Roosevelt")
13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero. (TRUE)

Professor Lichtman then counts six FALSES. I and many others would count nine FALSES. And a caution to whatever you read today: who's right, NPR or USA Today?

NPR: "When Dixville Notch, in the far northern reaches of New Hampshire, voted just after midnight Tuesday, it didn't predict eight more months of Donald Trump...But as with Pennsylvania's groundhog, the results — three votes for John Kasich, the only candidate to visit the town, and two for Trump, along with four for Bernie Sanders and zero for Hillary Clinton — are not necessarily predictive."

vs.

USA Today: "In Dixville Notch, Hillary Clinton beat Donald Trump 4-2. Libertarian Gary Johnson received one vote, and the 2012 Republican candidate, Mitt Romney received a surprise write-in ballot."

It's well known that USA Today is in the tank for Hillary, but really??

Is their headline even accurate? "Trump takes 32-25 lead in New Hampshire after midnight voting." Not predictive, but interesting.

And here's at least one other opinion from New Hampshire, published in The New Hampshire Union Leader, by this guy:

By DEROY MURDOCK

“Drain the swamp!” GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump has insisted before huge, increasingly confident crowds. But this slogan does not capture the urgency of the moment. This one does:

“Flush the toilet!”

What Hillary Will Give Us

Another four, or even eight, years of this:

Thanks to Powerlineblog for this info.

And "Two-Thirds To 75% of Americans Think The Country Is Going In The Wrong Direction"

Ask yourselves: Why in the world would two-thirds to 75% of Americans vote for Hillary, to keep going on in that same, wrong direction?

What do you think about The Direction of The Country?

And do you really want a President whose Clinton Foundation-related actions before she got into the White House are still under FBI investigation and will continue to be after she takes office?

This, Hillary brought upon herself. This, is no "vast right-wing conspiracy." This, is Hillary Clinton.