While I strongly support the increased funding for our military, I could not in good conscience vote for the Omnibus that costs almost $1.3 trillion. The military threats to our national security are real and serious, but so is the fiscal threat to our national security.
— Gary Palmer (@USRepGaryPalmer) March 22, 2018
David Limbaugh: Hillary’s hateful harangue
Hillary Clinton’s abhorrent remarks in Mumbai, India, last week warrant our attention because, like it or not, they represent the thinking of a large swath of the modern Democratic Party.
But my aim is not to highlight Clinton’s never-ending catalog of excuses for losing the presidential election, except to note that rather than blame everyone and everything but herself, she should apologize for stealing the nomination. If she hadn’t done that, she wouldn’t have to blame anyone.
She should also have to answer for FISA-gate, but I don’t want to waste space demonstrating Clinton’s unfitness for office — because I have little fear she’ll run again, and Democrats surely aren’t crazy enough to indulge her if she tries.
Instead, let’s review her disgraceful tirade in Mumbai, in which she blamed Americans’ racism and misogyny for her election loss.
“We do not do well with white men, and we don’t do well with married white women,” said Clinton. “And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever, believes you should.”
Hold the phone. Do you see the rich irony here? “Hear me roar” Hillary is impugning the independence and courage of women — the very people she is pretending to defend against our GOP misogyny? Seeing as she is maligning men, wouldn’t it be prudent not to insult the other half of the human race at the same time? I know few men who don’t have a higher opinion of women than this female liberal icon is displaying here.
You know darn well that Bill Clinton has a devil of a time persuading Hillary to do what she doesn’t want to do — unless it will advance her interests. So why would she assume that other women would be any less independent?
Sure, you can say she isn’t talking about all women — just white wives of Republican men — but what difference, at this point, does it make? There are way too many white GOP wives to pretend they are an exception to the norm. If GOP men are so evil, why did so many women marry them? Are they evil themselves, Mrs. Clinton? Or are they just gullible, malleable, soulless or weak? Choosing any of those options would reveal egregious disrespect for millions upon millions of women, which shatters Clinton’s argument to smithereens.
The India Today interviewer asked Clinton why 52 percent of white women voted for Trump despite the “Access Hollywood” tape showing him using vulgar language about women. I guess that even though the host is balding and graying, he is too young to realize how awkward this question was for the spouse of our former commander in heat, Bill Clinton. Then again, Hillary didn’t flinch before launching into her next set of progressive talking points.
“I won the places that represent two-thirds of America’s gross domestic product,” she said. “So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward. And his whole campaign, ‘Make America Great Again,’ was looking backwards.”
Not only is Clinton doubling down on her “deplorables” slander of Trump supporters. She is confirming the Obama-Clinton progressive view of America: Its best days are in the past. Settle in for economic malaise, because that’s the best you’re going to get. For if you want a government that isn’t hostile to business and entrepreneurship and that will reduce the tax and regulatory burden on America and unleash its engine of free market growth, you are “backwards.”
But the real kicker was Clinton’s summary of Trump’s supposed message to voters: “You know, you didn’t like black people getting rights. You didn’t like women, you know, getting jobs. You don’t want (to), you know, see that Indian-Americans (are) succeeding more than you are.”
You know, you know, you know? No, we don’t know. You ought to be ashamed, Mrs. Clinton, especially for lying when you apologized for calling us deplorables and said we are driven by “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic” beliefs. You meant it then, and you mean it now.
But again, my beef isn’t with Clinton. It’s with the Democratic Party proper, which has long been cynically peddling this very message in direct and subtle ways to alienate minority voters from the Republican Party, whose policies are manifestly more conducive to their economic well-being. For starters, go back and look at the racially charged statements Obama sprinkled throughout his terms in office.
Sadly, this messaging works; I have seen too much evidence of it in my adult life to rationally deny it. The Democratic Party is running out of effective ideas, so it increasingly resorts to race baiting, gender shaming and other forms of intentionally divisive identity politics.
The racism smear is an evil cousin of racism itself because it falsely and negatively stereotypes groups of people and demeans their human decency and dignity. It does incalculable damage to the groups it vilifies and is corrosive to our society because it subverts racial harmony. And it certainly does minorities no favors to deceive them into suspecting that half the people in the country are somehow prejudiced against them.
But I have a feeling this shtick is losing its mojo. Under President Trump, the Republican Party is finally learning to fight back and defend itself against such slurs and showcase the superiority of its policies for all people, including minorities.
(Image: Fox News/YouTube)
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney.
(Creators, copyright 2018)
Until Democrats come to grips with why Hillary lost, Trump will keep winning
Last weekend, Hillary Clinton spoke in India. There, she continued to struggle publicly with the most humiliating experience of her life, not her husband’s continual sexual misconduct or her State Department’s mishandling of Benghazi but her loss of the presidency to a reality television show host. Hillary’s not over it. And she never will be.
That much was obvious from her incredible, palpable anger at the American public. She first explained that Trump voters are stupid poor people: “what the map doesn’t show you is that I won the places that represent two-thirds of America’s gross domestic product. So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward.”
But Clinton wasn’t done. She then stated that Trump voters are ignoramuses who still stumble out to their outhouses in the middle of the night and stoop over a hole in the ground while reading old copies of Ku Klux Klan newsletters. Those people, she said, fell prey to Trump’s racist “Elmer Gantry” pitch: “you didn’t like black people getting rights. You don’t like women … getting jobs. You don’t want to … see that Indian-American succeeding more than you are. Whatever your problem is, I’m going to solve it.”
For good measure, Clinton tore into women who voted for Trump as well — and suggested that they are all little Tammy Wynettes standing by their men. “(W)e don’t do well with married white women,” Clinton explained. “And part of that is an identification with the Republican Party, and a sort of ongoing pressure to vote the way that your husband, your boss, your son, whoever believes you should.” Yes, women who voted Republican only did so because they are afraid that ol’ Bob is going to come home, get the beatin’ stick out of the closet and start a-whoopin’ and a-whalin’ on the little woman.
And then, Democrats wonder why they had trouble winning Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Here’s the reality: None of this is true. The average Trump voter outearned the average Clinton voter, and 86 percent of Trump voters were employed, about the same percentage as Clinton voters. Tribalism in voting exists on both sides: The intersectional politics of the Democratic Party is inherently race based, and Trump successfully responded to that sort of politics in reactionary fashion. As to the notion that married women didn’t vote for Clinton because of their husbands, 52 percent of married women voted for Trump; 53 percent of married women voted Republican candidate Mitt Romney in 2012, and 51 percent voted for Republican candidate John McCain in 2008. Married women vote differently than single women not because of pressure from their menfolk but because they often have children, value family over career more than single women and are older than single women on average.
But here’s the point: Clinton represents a nasty, vengeful take on populations she has trouble winning over. That nastiness has filtered through the Democratic Party, which is firmly convinced that it’d be better off drilling down into population groups it thinks are interested in tearing down the system along with them than reaching out to populations it has lost. If Democrats continue with that quest, they’ll alienate the very voters who gave Trump victory in 2016.
Ben Shapiro is editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com.
(Creators, Copyright 2018)
A walk through history with The Anniston Star’s H. Brandt Ayers: Democrat activist, wannabe foreign correspondent, sexual deviant
Last week, The Anniston Star announced it was severing ties with long-time editor H. Brandt Ayers after a number of sexual misconduct allegations against him surfaced.
If you haven’t heard by now, Ayers is accused of spanking female employees decades earlier, which has resulted in his resignation from the board of Consolidated Publishing, the parent company of the Star. Ayers has since acknowledged the charges according to a report from the Star’s Tim Lockette.
In a statement published by the Star, Ayers said his resignation was “in the best interests of the paper and its mission.” Josephine Ayers, his wife who previously served as vice chairman, will replace him.
Ayers served as the Star’s (his family’s paper) editor for 47 years before stepping down in November 2016. He then remained chairman of Consolidated Publishing, which operated Talladega’s The Daily Home, Heflin’s The Cleburne News, Pell City’s The St. Clair Times, The Piedmont Journal and The Jacksonville News in addition to the Star.
Ayers’ father, Col. Harry Ayers, was also a long-time publisher of the Star and orchestrated a merger in 1912 of two Anniston newspapers to form the Star.
In a semi-masochistic feat, over the last few days, I’ve reviewed Ayers’ columns going back to late 1980s. The experience provided a painful walk through 30 years of history from the perspective of a self-aggrandizing Southern socialist.
Ayers and the Soviet Union: A love story
Ayers used the pages of The Anniston Star not just to promote a liberal agenda, but as his own personal travel log. He filed stories with datelines from all over the world offering ideas he picked up to make American governments better.
“Brandt goes to the Soviet Union every few weeks to find out how best to run government,” former Alabama Gov. Guy Hunt once said, ribbing the Star editor in a June 1987 speech at Lakepoint Resort State Park in Eufaula.
At the time, The Anniston Star pursued Hunt’s comments as if they were serious, but a spokesman for Hunt had to tell the Star they were joking. However, Hunt was not that far from the truth.
In the later years of the 1980s, the Star published several stories about Ayers’ meetings with Soviet and Chinese government officials and journalists and highlighted how Ayers would brag about how those governments were a “positive example” in speeches to local Calhoun County groups.
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Ayers didn’t take it as well as most Americans did. He penned a farewell column to the former communist state on December 29 of that year, headlined “Saying goodbye – to an old friend.”
“How do you end a friendship of 16 years, a friendship that had a difficult beginning in the frost of mutual suspicion but one that warmed over the years into genuine affection and respect?” Ayers wrote. “How do you say goodbye to such a friend? The Soviet Union was not an easy friend to have. It was a considerable embarrassment at home.”
Ayers reminded his readers that his paper once earned the nickname “The Red Star”– a moniker offered by former Alabama Gov. George Wallace. But Ayers made no apologies for his appreciation of the Soviet Union.
“The governor of the state himself made speeches kidding me about going to the U.S.S.R. to learn how to make government more effective and some local citizens derided the newspaper as ‘The Red Star,’” he continued. “But those jibes were understandable misperceptions. They jumbled together in one, inseparable lump the Marxist political ideology with Russian culture.”
Ayers is not just your run-of-the-mill blowhard who professes the virtues of left-of-center — even communist — governance. He has long been active in not only the Alabama political scene but the national scene as well. Ayers hosted fundraisers for Alabama Democrats, including a $1,000-per-plate dinner at his home in September 1990 for then-Alabama Education Association head Paul Hubbert, who (at the time) was running for governor against Guy Hunt.
Hunt went on to win that election by a narrow five-point margin. But Hubbert would remain a fixture in Alabama politics for the next 24 years as head of the AEA.
The loss did not deter Ayers’ involvement with money and politics, but more on that later.
The 1990s and a shameless defense of Bill Clinton
With the 1990s came all the alleged sexual misconduct of former President Bill Clinton, who won the presidency despite the charges. Ayers often decried the media’s coverage on this topic — it, of course, would be more than two decades later that the state would learn of Ayers’ own allegedly handsy proclivities.
“Of course we love scandal and sensation,” Ayers wrote in the April 12, 1992 issue of the Star. “We always have — from the limited-circulation Roman scrolls that reported Caligula’s orgies to the bare-breasted bimbos staring out at the reader today from page three of British tabloids. There isn’t a minister of the gospel who, though perhaps vague about Gov. Clinton’s foreign policy views, doesn’t know the name Gennifer Flowers.”
“We would deny our nature to claim we aren’t titillated by tales of crime, sex and violence among the celebrated and powerful,” he continued. “From ancient times various gazettes, broadsides and journals have pandered to our taste for sensation. That is nothing new. What is new is technology; commercial television is the dominant news medium. Trying to cram all the day’s news into a tiny, less than half-hour slot means putting democracy on a starvation diet.”
As expected, the Star endorsed Clinton in his bid for the White House against President George H.W. Bush that election cycle, but not without reminding readers Ayers was an acquaintance of the governor for several years.
Later in Clinton’s presidency, his zipper problem would land him in the crosshairs of a Republican-led Congress. That was not to the liking of H. Brandt Ayers.
“Is there some way for us in the media to escape the turgid river flowing from our cynical exploitation of Diana’s death and hypocritical lynch-mob reporting of Bill Clinton’s indiscretion?” he wrote in a Sept. 6, 1998 op-ed. “For that matter, is there some way for the judicial system to swim against the rip-tide it has created by elevating a private lapse to a constitutional crisis — drowning media and public alike?”
That was one of the many protests from Ayers about the Clinton affair of the 1990s. Before leaving the White House, Ayers had some parting advice for Clinton on how he should have handled the Lewinsky affair: To “be a man, fess up!”
In a July 2000 essay, Ayers argued what Clinton should have done was taken a page out of former Alabama Gov. “Big” Jim Folsom’s playbook.
Before television thrust its obtrusive snout into the political party, before the insistence on speaking in hurried sound-bites, there were politicians who made confession and evasion an American art form.
Historically, most masters of the art were from the South, and there are a couple of Southerners today who’ve made political speech funny and creative.
It’s too late to help President Clinton, but former Alabama Gov. James E. (Kissin’ Jim) Folsom would have advised Clinton to do as he did: Never deny anything. There’s a story that may be apocryphal (but what the heck) about the governor in the 1950s being confronted by reporters who asked, “Governor, is it true that you slept with a ‘colored girl’ all last night in a Phenix City motel?”
“It’s a damn lie,” Folsom retorted, “Not a word of truth to it. Didn’t sleep a wink.”
Imagine how an 82-years-old H. Brandt Ayers could have implemented the “Big” Jim Folsom strategy for his own indiscretions.
Surprise! Ayers wasn’t a fan of Bush-era Republicanism
Eventually, the Clinton years gave way to the Bush years, which delivered eight years of Bush derangement syndrome.
Ayers was a willing participant in the passing left’s passing fad of anti-neocon Bush bashing. After all, he seemed to see himself as the authority on all things foreign policy in eastern Alabama.
The 2006 midterm elections were a devastating loss for Republicans. A very unpopular Bush tied to a scandal involving then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) and congressional pages resulted in a landslide win for Democrats.
Ayers did not allow the opportunity to pass for him to criticize the GOP for Foley’s indiscretions.
“As it turns out, that great gray Republican promontory of morality and security is merely the façade of a men’s club,” Ayers wrote in October 2006. “Inside its members are conflicted and confused, one of whom may be a sexual predator. This is what happens when a nation’s government becomes a private social club governed by its own rules, which refuses cooperation with non-members, and is immune to critical questions from any source.”
Imagine that – Ayers, ignoring his own closeted bad behavior, lambasted elected officials for treating the government as a “private social club.” In Ayers’ defense, at least he wasn’t acting that way on the taxpayers’ dime.
One of the more amusing efforts from Ayers came a few months later when he opined about the importance of character. The Anniston Star columnist offered a remarkable comparison of former Alabama head football coach Paul “Bear” Bryant and Hillary Clinton, who at the time was gearing up for her first presidential bid.
“Bear Bryant drank and smoked too much, and though devoted to his wife Mary Harmon there is reason to believe he may have had one other woman friend,” he wrote. “Despite these flaws, he is a man of rock-ribbed character. Two other great Southerners who touched my life, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black and President Jimmy Carter, have exhibited great character. And then there is Bill Clinton. Hold your guffaws about Clinton as an example of character until we’ve discussed the other two and have explored points in the Bear’s life that called forth from somewhere examples of true character.”
Ayers’ apparent point was that while although those men had flaws, they also had redemptive characteristics that made them praiseworthy.
Obama, the rise of Donald Trump and the fall of Roy Moore
As the first decade of the new millennia wound down, even though Ayers backed his “pen pal” Hillary Clinton, he would celebrate the election of Barack Obama. That immediately gave way to his criticism of the Tea Party movement, which returned the U.S. House of Representatives to the Republicans.
At the end of eight years of Obama, Ayers would toe the left’s line on Donald Trump, who he deemed to be a “mean, arrogant bully.”
The law of unintended consequences of Trump’s election win gave Alabama the national political spotlight in 2017. Predictably, Ayers was not a fan of former Alabama Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore, who was the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in last month’s special election.
Equally predictable was a late November screed from Ayers reacting to allegations aimed at Moore for sexual misconduct in the 1970s, which ironically was the same decade of the charges Ayers is facing.
“His self-righteous convictions are rooted in no denomination, recognized by no school of theology, they are the product of the conjuring of his own mind,” Ayers said. “Yet they have taken control of his being, precisely the kind of tyrannical mind that should never be given authority over other human beings.”
Even at the end, Ayers’ hypocrisy had no bounds.
Ayers: A loyal Democratic Party fundraiser
Ayers was not just a blowhard with a newspaper. He was a Democratic Party activist.
Aside from the fundraisers he held at his home for local and state Democratic politicians, he also wrote checks for many Democrats seeking federal office. An OpenSecrets.org search shows Ayers has given thousands of dollars to Democratic Party organizations and politicians over the past 20 years.
The list of Ayers’ beneficiaries includes Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. There was one $1,000 contribution to Sen. Richard Shelby in 2003, but Ayers was a loyal Democrat. His wife Josephine, the newly appointed chairman of Consolidated Publishing, gave thousands of dollars as well over the years.
Although his alleged indiscretions do not quite rise to the level of disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein, in some ways Ayers is an Alabama version of Weinstein. He actively supported liberal causes, held a position of prominence in his industry and he managed to get away with sexual harassment for decades.
Yet the media in Alabama – they are hung up on process, grappling with the absurd notion of whether a journalist should be given license to report out a potentially disparaging story about his home publication.
Perhaps that is interesting to those who dwell in the theoretical playground of proper journalistic protocol. Do not get caught up in the weeds though. A prominent Democratic Party activist who used one of the state’s major newspapers to advance liberal causes was potentially in violation of what his party has used as a wedge issue in the past three national election cycles.
Shouldn’t that be the story?
Jeff Poor is a graduate of Auburn University and works as the editor of Breitbart TV. Follow Jeff on Twitter @jeff_poor.
7 Things You Should Be Talking About Today: Papadopoulos continues to be a problem for Trump, Governor Ivey attacked by grinches, Paul Finebaum is to blame for Sen. Doug Jones, and more …
— The New York Times alleges that a drunk Papadopoulos told an Australian diplomat that Russia had Hillary Clinton’s deleted e-mails.
— When stolen e-mails appeared online, Australian authorities alerted “their American counterparts” about the conversation.
— Papadopoulos has already pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russia’s interference in the 2016 Presidential election.
— Early Sunday the Iranian government warned protesters will “pay the price” for their actions.
— Trump tweeted: “The USA is watching very closely for human rights violations!”
— Trump campaigned against Iran, calling it the world’s “No. 1 terror state”.
— Obama’s administration backed the Iranian regime in 2009 because they were seeking a nuclear deal.
— Former United Nations Ambassador said, “You have President Trump, members of his administration, taking the side of the demonstrators,” he added. “180 degrees the opposite of what Barack Obama did in 2009.”
— U.S. Lindsey Graham criticized Obama’s reaction to those 2009 protests saying he didn’t want to get involved because it would mess up the nuclear deal.
— Governor Ivey, like many politicians, used her Facebook page to wish her followers a Merry Christmas.
— The Freedom from Religion Foundation claimed her Christmas cheer was “unconstitutional”.
— In the past the group has targeted Alabama schools and local governments to mixed results.
— Finebaum claimed in his 2014 book, “My Conference Can Beat Your Conference” that he is responsible for Gov. Robert Bentley being elected in 2010.
— The influential talker claims Bentley would tell people Finebaum “got me elected”.
— Bentley’s scandal-plagued 2nd term led to an appointment of Sen. Luther Strange and that set the wheels in motion for Democrat Doug Jones to win in a very red state.
— Democrats predicted the stock market would plunge, instead it soared.
— Democrats predicted world-wide chaos in Trump’s first year, instead United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley has secured votes for sanctions for North Korea from Russia and China.
— With the help of a complicit news media, Democrats waged a massive misinformation campaign against tax cuts, it still passed.
— Trump and the Republican Senate have confirmed a record 12 appellate judges this year.
— The last two confirmed judges were conservative Twitter-darling Don Willet and Taiwanese immigrant Jim Ho.
— Many Trump voters cited his list of conservative Supreme Court possibilities as the reason they voted for him.
Yellowhammer News contributor Dale Jackson hosts a daily radio show from 7-11 a.m. on NewsTalk 770 AM/92.5 FM WVNN and “Yellowhammer News Presents: Guerrilla Politics” on WAAY-TV, both in North Alabama.
Did the FBI conspire to stop Trump?
The original question the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign was to answer was a simple one: Did he do it?
Did Trump, or officials with his knowledge, collude with Vladimir Putin’s Russia to hack the emails of John Podesta and the DNC, and leak the contents to damage Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump?
A year and a half into the investigation, and, still, no “collusion” has been found. Yet the investigation goes on, at the demand of the never-Trump media and Beltway establishment.
Hence, and understandably, suspicions have arisen.
Are the investigators after the truth, or are they after Trump?
Set aside the Trump-Putin conspiracy theory momentarily, and consider a rival explanation for what is going down here:
That, from the outset, Director James Comey and an FBI camarilla were determined to stop Trump and elect Hillary Clinton. Having failed, they conspired to break Trump’s presidency, overturn his mandate and bring him down.
Essential to any such project was first to block any indictment of Hillary for transmitting national security secrets over her private email server. That first objective was achieved 18 months ago.
On July 5, 2016, Comey stepped before a stunned press corps to declare that, given the evidence gathered by the FBI, “no reasonable prosecutor” would indict Clinton. Therefore, that was the course he, Comey, was recommending.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch, compromised by her infamous 35-minute tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton — to discuss golf and grandkids — seconded Comey’s decision.
And so Hillary walked. Why is this suspicious?
First, whether or not to indict was a decision that belonged to the Department of Justice, not Jim Comey or the FBI. His preemption of Justice Department authority was astonishing.
Second, while Comey said in his statement that Hillary had been “extremely careless” with security secrets, in his first draft, Clinton was declared guilty of “gross negligence” — the precise language in the statute to justify indictment.
Who talked Comey into softening the language to look less than criminal? One man was FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, whose wife, Jill, a Virginia state senate candidate, received a munificent PAC contribution of $474,000 from Clinton family friend and big bundler Terry McAuliffe.
Also urging Comey to soften the fatal phrase “gross negligence” was key FBI agent Peter Strzok. In text messages to his FBI lover Lisa Page, Strzok repeatedly vented his detestation of the “idiot” Trump.
After one meeting with “Andy” (McCabe), Strzok told Page an “insurance policy” was needed to keep Trump out of the White House.
Also, it appears Comey began drafting his exoneration statement of Hillary before the FBI had even interviewed her. And when the FBI did, Hillary was permitted to have her lawyers present.
One need not be a conspiracy nut to conclude the fix was in, and a pass for Hillary wired from the get-go. Comey, McCabe, Strzok were not going to recommend an indictment that would blow Hillary out of the water and let the Trump Tower crowd waltz into the White House.
Yet, if Special Counsel Robert Mueller cannot find any Trump collusion with the Kremlin to tilt the outcome of the 2016 election, his investigators might have another look at the Clinton campaign.
For there a Russian connection has been established.
Kremlin agents fabricated, faked, forged, or found the dirt on Trump that was passed to ex-British MI6 spy Christopher Steele, and wound up in his “dirty dossier” that was distributed to the mainstream media and the FBI to torpedo Trump.
And who hired Steele to tie Trump to Russia?
Fusion GPS, the oppo research outfit into which the DNC and Clinton campaign pumped millions through law firm Perkins Coie.
Let’s review the bidding.
The “dirty dossier,” a mixture of fabrications, falsehoods and half-truths, created to destroy Trump and make Hillary president, was the product of a British spy’s collusion with Kremlin agents.
In Dec. 26’s Washington Times, Rowan Scarborough writes that the FBI relied on this Kremlin-Steele dossier of allegations and lies to base their decision “to open a counterintelligence investigation (of Trump).” And press reports “cite the document’s disinformation in requests for court-approved wiretaps.”
If this is true, a critical question arises:
Has the Mueller probe been so contaminated by anti-Trump bias and reliance on Kremlin fabrications that any indictment it brings will be suspect in the eyes of the American people?
Director Comey has been fired. FBI No. 2 McCabe is now being retired under a cloud. Mueller’s top FBI investigator, Peter Strzok, and lover Lisa, have been discharged. And Mueller is left to rely upon a passel of prosecutors whose common denominator appears to be that they loathe Trump and made contributions to Hillary.
Attorney General Bobby Kennedy had his “Get Hoffa Squad” to take down Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa. J. Edgar Hoover had his vendetta against Dr. Martin Luther King.
Is history repeating itself — with the designated target of an elite FBI cabal being the President of the United States?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”
COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM
Quin Hillyer: On Moore mess, both sides bloviate
An unbecoming hysteria continues on both sides of the Roy Moore debate, and our civic life is made worse by it.
Witness a recent column against Moore by the liberal but usually thoughtful Kyle Whitmire of al.com, and witness the outlandish conspiracy-mongering in defense of Moore by Alabama Senate President Pro-Tem Del Marsh. Both of them detract from, rather than adding to, reasonable discourse about the allegations against Moore. Indeed, both are virtually poisonous.
Rather than summarize Whitmire, I’ll quote the key set-up in his column, at length:
First, read his book. In it, Moore describes how he met his wife at a Christmas party hosted by friends. He would have been 37. She was 23.
“Many years before, I had attended a dance recital at Gadsden State Junior College,” Moore wrote. “I remembered one of the special dances performed by a young woman whose first and last names began with the letter ‘K.’ It was something I had never forgotten. Could that young woman have been Kayla Kisor?”
Moore later determined that it was.
“Long afterward, I would learn that Kayla had, in fact, performed a special dance routine at Gadsden State years before,” he wrote.
Take a second to think about what’s being said here. Moore first took notice of Kayla at a dance recital?
And Whitmire’s point is – exactly what?
Whitmire notes that Moore later said the recital in question had been nearly eight years earlier, meaning he had been 29 and Kayla 16. From there, he makes the bizarre leap of logic, accompanied by outrageous innuendo, that somehow this shows Moore had been lusting after the 16 old dancer – or something creepy like that.
This innuendo is utterly without foundation, and should never have been published in a legitimate news outlet.
If one takes Moore’s account at face value, entirely apart from the allegations of the past two weeks, then the immediate and ordinary interpretation of it would be entirely innocent. Moore was at a high school dance recital, was impressed by one of the dancers, and realized eight years later that the woman he had just met was that dancer from all those years ago. So what?
Has Whitmire, as an adult, never attended a dance recital by high schoolers, or some other such event? Does he not have nieces? Or has he never had a friend who had nieces, or much younger sisters, who had to make an appearance at the niece’s or sister’s event before the two young men dashed off to the football game or their buddy’s barbeque party?
The potential number of perfectly innocent explanations for attending an event featuring high school girls is large. And one can be completely impressed with one of the dancers, or the actresses in a school play – “wow, that girl is lovely, and she is truly talented!” – without any sexual implications. If a performer really “steals the show,” it wouldn’t even be unusual to vaguely remember it seven or eight years later, or to remember that the terrific performer’s first and last names began with the same letter.
And there are approximately gazillions of stories out there about couples with semi-significant age differences, such as Roy Moore’s 37 to Kayla’s 23, who fell in love and created wonderful marriages. Last I checked, there isn’t a single thing immoral about such relationships. Nor is there anything wrong with marrying a girl you first saw in a different context when she was 16 and then met in person only years later when she was a fully mature, poised and self-reliant adult. And last I checked, the Moores appear to have created a happy, loving marriage for something like 32 years, and seem utterly devoted to each other. To cast aspersions on the beginnings of that marriage, based on a tendentious interpretation of a fond reminiscence relayed by the judge years later, is inexcusable.
It’s potential evidence of Anti-Moore Derangement Syndrome.
On the other hand, there is also the Circle the Wagons Derangement Syndrome, or maybe the Hate the Media Derangement Syndrome. This is the idea that if allegations against “one of us” are reported by “one of them” – one of the dreaded outlets of the Elite Media, surely put up to it by that dastardly Mitch McConnell or maybe even the Trilateral Commission or the Illuminati – then the subject of the allegations must be defended at all costs while the charges themselves are ascribed to a massive and evil conspiracy.
Yes, it’s the reverse-mirror image of Hillary Clinton’s supposed Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. And it’s just as fanciful, just as false, and just as paranoid as Clinton’s was.
The last person who should be feeding such paranoid conspiracy theories is the President of the state Senate. But that’s what Del Marsh has been doing.
“I think there are question marks as to is this part of a, I hate to say, Washington conspiracy,” Marsh told the excellent Jeff Poor of Breitbart News.
Why not stop at Washington? Why not call it an international conspiracy? Surely all the usual suspects are all involved: Jeff Bezos, George Soros, Ted Cruz’ father, Barack Obama’s birth-certificate forger, a Pulitzer-Prize-quality team of reporters from the Washington Post, the real killer of Nicole Brown Simpson, and no doubt Keyser Söze himself, who after all was portrayed by the now-disgraced Kevin Spacey.
The conspiracy has such power that it invented 30 independent sources for the first Post story, many recalling specific factoids from 38 years ago whose accuracy could be checked, and then convinced numerous other sources to tell similar tales independently to a significant array of other independent news organs. No doubt it was the same conspiracy that really shot down Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 and sent the iceberg into the path of the Titanic….
Marsh is peddling pure paranoia. As I, a confirmed basher of the liberal media for 40 years, explained in an earlier column, this is not how journalism works – not even from self-appointed elite, East Coast outlets. The Post, I wrote, employs “many stages of review,” and even if its reporters “may make errors on details, as humans often do…, they don’t just make things up, nor do they publish things they don’t fully believe are true.”
We do not know if the allegations, or even some of the allegations, against Judge Moore are true. But by every reasonable measure, many of them are credible – a different standard than “true” – upon first and second review. Some of them involve gray areas of sexual or romantic ethics, and thus are of lesser import; but a few of them, if true, are extremely serious charges that merit sober and serious assessment.
The state Senate leader should be providing such sober leadership, calming the waters so that evidence and reason and context and fair-minded judgment can have time to assert themselves. Instead, Marsh is feeding a toxic atmosphere of unreason and hyper-cynicism, unmoored from and even dangerously contemptuous of empiricism and careful logic….
So, again, let’s all take deep breaths, stop rushing to judgment, and stop feeding the hysteria. Roy Moore isn’t guilty of pedophilia just because he first laid eyes on his now-wife when she was in high school. Nor are the Freemasons and the Yale Skull and Bones Society bribing dozens of people to smear the judge.
Reasoned restraint from opinion leaders and elected leaders, not more chum for the feeding frenzy, should be the order of the day.
Yellowhammer Contributing Editor Quin Hillyer, of Mobile, also is a Contributing Editor for National Review Online, and is the author of Mad Jones, Heretic, a satirical literary novel published in the fall of 2017.
Sessions: DOJ will investigate Clinton, Comey ‘without political influence’
Attorney General Jeff Sessions told Congress this week that the Justice Department will move “correctly and properly” on a Republican request to investigate matters associated with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former FBI Director James Comey.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) told Sessions that Republicans, “on multiple occasions,” have asked the Justice Department to investigate Clinton’s mishandling of classified information as well as Comey’s decision not to prosecute Clinton.
Goodlatte noted that he received a letter from Sessions on Monday, stating that “senior federal prosecutors will review our letters and make recommendations as to whether any matters not currently under investigation should be opened, require further resources, or merit the appointment of a special counsel.”
“Do I have your assurance that these matters will proceed fairly and expeditiously?” Goodlatte asked Sessions.
“Yes, you can, Mr. Chairman, and you can be sure that they will be done without political influence, and they will be done correctly and properly,” Sessions replied.
Sessions also was asked if the Justice Department inspector-general will be allowed to brief the committee on his findings into some of those same Republican concerns.
“I will do my best to comply with that,” Sessions said.
(By Susan Jones, Courtesy of CNSNews.com)
Alabama Delegation Staunchly Defends Sessions & Giuliani Says The A.G. Got it Right
With a relationship with the White House that is quickly turning sour, Attorney General Jeff Sessions received strong backing this morning from a longtime ally on Capitol Hill: Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.).
“During the past twenty years that I have served with Jeff Sessions in the Senate, I have had the opportunity to know him well. He is a man of integrity, loyalty, and extraordinary character,” Shelby said in a statement. “I join the people of Alabama in giving him my deep respect and unwavering support.”
Other members of Alabama’s Congressional Delegation have expressed their support for Sessions as well. Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL2), who has long considered Sessions a mentor, came out vigorously defending his character.
“I know Jeff Sessions to be a man of great character and sound judgment. His decision to recuse himself was the right thing to do, not just for himself, but for the Administration,” She said. “This country needs Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. We have done more to crack down on illegal immigration in the last six months than in the past eight years. We are addressing problems like violent crime and human trafficking. Congress finally has a partner at the Department of Justice who is willing to enforce laws as they are written.”
When it comes to the president, however, the hits just keep on coming. Early this morning, President Donald Trump tweeted two new attacks on his Attorney General Jeff Sessions, this time criticizing him for being “very weak” on investigations surrounding Hillary Clinton.
Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump campaign – “quietly working to boost Clinton.” So where is the investigation A.G. @seanhannity
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 25, 2017
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes (where are E-mails & DNC server) & Intel leakers!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 25, 2017
Evidence of Trump’s frustration became public last week when he attacked Sessions in a New York Times interview over the Attorney General’s decision to recuse himself from the Russia investigation.
“Sessions should have never recused himself. . . And if he was going to recuse himself he should have told me before he took the job and I would have picked somebody else,” Trump told the New York Times. “If he would have recused himself before the job, I would have said, ‘thanks, Jeff, but I’m not going to take you.’ It’s extremely unfair and that’s a mild word.”
The attacks continued on Monday, with Trump taking a jab at the Department of Justice and calling Sessions “beleaguered.”
So why aren’t the Committees and investigators, and of course our beleaguered A.G., looking into Crooked Hillarys crimes & Russia relations?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 24, 2017
Axios has reported that the president is openly considering the possibility of replacing Sessions with another long-time Trump ally. West Wing sources told the news outlet that Trump is so unhappy with Sessions that he wants to swap him for fellow New Yorker Rudy Giuliani. The former New York City Mayor strongly supported Trump throughout the 2016 campaign.
Later Monday evening, Giuliani told news outlets he was not being considered for AG and that Sessions “made the right decision under the rules of the Justice Department” regarding recusal.
Trump’s new Communications Director, Anthony Scaramucci, seemingly confirmed that Trump wants Sessions gone in a radio interview with conservative host Hugh Hewitt. When asked directly whether or not the president wanted sessions out, Scaramucci replied, “If there’s this level of tension in the relationship that, that’s public, you’re probably right.”
Sessions has been one of Trump’s closest political allies since before Alabama even held its primary. Sessions was the first U.S. Senator to endorse Trump and then served in an advisory capacity for his campaign until his victory. Fox New’s Tucker Carlson recently highlighted this relationship on his primetime program and called for the president to stop attacking “one of the very few” friends he has in Washington.
Despite the whirlwind of pressure, Sessions said late last week that he will continue to serve “as long as that is appropriate.
Alabama Congressmen react to Comey testimony
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a much-anticipated hearing, former FBI Director James Comey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday regarding his firing and the investigation of President Donald Trump.
“The administration chose to defame me and, more importantly, the FBI by saying that the organization was in disarray, that it was poorly run,” Comey said. “Those were lies, plain and simple.”
Although Comey strongly criticized his former boss, he did testify to many facts that counter narratives forwarded by the political left. Under oath, he said that Trump did not ask him to stop the Russia investigation and said that he did not find contact between members of Trump’s campaign and Russian officials to be unusual.
Due to the ongoing nature of the investigation, Comey refused to answer numerous questions with answers that could upset the efforts of special counsel.
Being the landmark event of the week on Capitol Hill, many members of the Alabama Congressional Delegation weighed on the Comey Spectacle.
Sen. Luther Strange (R-Ala.) has been impressed by the style of the investigation so far, but he does not buy the liberal narrative that Russians or the actions of the FBI put Donald Trump in office
“Since day one, the Senate Intelligence Committee, along with the Justice Department, has been handling the allegations about Director Comey with transparency and professionalism, and today’s hearing shows they’re continuing to do so,” Strange said. “The American people elected Donald Trump as President. Not because of what the FBI director said or did last year, but because he understood their concerns and had a plan to make America great again. I’m working with his administration to do just that.”
On the other hand, Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-AL1) is sick and tired of the media’s absurdity in its coverage of the Russia story. “Today’s testimony by James Comey was more of a media circus than any sort of productive hearing,” Byrne said. As I have said before, we should allow the investigatory process to play out and stop trying to litigate this issue in the national news media. We should follow the facts and the law and nothing but the facts and the law.”
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL3) agrees with Byrne and even went as far as to call the allegations against the administration false. “In November, the American people rejected the liberal media elite and the politics of personal destruction to elect Donald Trump president. Despite this, the Democrats and liberal media elite are relentless in attacking the president with false allegations in an attempt to stop his agenda,” Rogers said. “To date, there is no evidence of collusion between President Trump and the Russian government during the November election.”
Robert Aderholt (R-AL4) was most struck by what Comey did not say in his testimony. “[Comey] did not reveal how the Russians and/or the Trump campaign convinced Mrs. Clinton’s campaign to completely ignore the mathematically critical states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin during the last months of the 2016 campaign,” Aderholt said. “Simply put, anyone would be concerned about the Russians or any foreign country trying to involve themselves in American elections. But I think it is equally important to note that they did not affect the outcome. That belongs to the candidates.”
This article will be updated as more statements are released.
WATCH: Condoleezza Rice slams liberals of “The View” on Russia conspiracy theories
NEW YORK, N.Y. — As a guest on ABC’s “The View” earlier this week, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice rebuffed liberal conspiracy theories that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin threw the 2016 presidential election for Donald Trump.
Rice politely discussed the hosts’ allegations surrounding this assertion. In particular, they seemed fixated on former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, and their ties to Russia. However, when they predictably pressed her admit that Trump’s victory was illegitimate, she refused to budge.
About seven minutes into the interview, co-host Sunny Hostin asked, “But Madame Secretary, if he [Putin] indeed did engage in these kinds of tactics in the election, then the very legitimacy of our election is at issue isn’t it?”
Rice’s response was immediate and definitive.
“No,” Rice said. “I trust the people who voted in Wisconsin, and Texas, and Alabama, and California to have voted on the basis of who they thought was best going to represent their interests. So I’m not going to question the legitimacy of their vote because Vladimir Putin tried to interfere in the elections. That’s just a step that I’m don’t think we should take. Let’s trust our fellow citizens to have been smart enough to vote for the people they ought to be voting for.”
The “blame Russia” narrative emerged among liberal camps shocked at the tremendous upset of Hillary Clinton. According to a new book written by Clinton campaign insiders, the idea was hatched “within 24 hours” of the election loss.
Born in Birmingham, Ala., Rice served as the National Security Advisor for President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2005, and later followed Colin Powell as Bush’s Secretary of State. She was the first female NSA and the first female African-American Secretary of State. Currently, she works as a professor at Stanford University and as a fellow at the Hoover Institution.
The Ultimate Red Herring: Making Sense of the Hysteria Following Comey’s Removal from the FBI (opinion)
Sometimes the substance of a position is so flimsy the only path forward is to divert attention from it—in other words, create a red herring.
That’s precisely what the Democrats have done in the wake of FBI Director James Comey’s termination two days ago. In short, they’ve seized the moment, launching a well-coordinated campaign to resurrect the cry that Russia gave Trump the Presidency.
More specifically, the idea they’re now peddling is that President Trump fired Comey simply to avoid scrutiny over alleged collusion with Russia to throw the election last fall. This, despite the fact that former President Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, told Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) in sworn testimony Monday that there’s no evidence to support such claims.
Nevertheless, with Comey gone, if Democrats can create enough of a fuss to get a special prosecutor to investigate Russia’s influence on the campaign, the nation’s attention may once again shift to the White House and away from their party’s colossal political and policy failures.
Ironically, for this to happen the problem the Democrats must overcome is the same one that led to James Comey’s firing and Hillary Clinton’s defeat: a credibility problem.
Let’s start with the Democrats. As recently as last week, they were the ones demanding Comey’s head, but now that he’s gone, they’re declaring his termination the greatest miscarriage of justice since Watergate.
As Rush Limbaugh pointed out yesterday:
• Business Insider ran an article entitled “‘Comey Acted in an Outrageous Way During the Campaign, Bernie Sanders Suggests FBI Director Should Resign”
• The liberal website ThinkProgress published a piece entitled “The Case for Firing Comey”
• Democrat operative John Podesta said the American people “are getting nauseous at the sound of Comey’s voice”
The list goes on, yet despite these contradictions and their obvious hypocrisy, the central question remains: did the President have grounds to fire Comey? Once again, the answer to this question is centered around his loss of credibility.
While Comey’s credulity problems started long before 2016, his clumsy actions during last fall’s presidential campaign are too questionable to ignore. After his boss at the time, then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch had a clandestine meeting with Bill Clinton on a private tarmac, Comey concluded that Hillary Clinton never intended to do anything wrong. Not only was his rationale highly suspect, this determination wasn’t his to make—the FBI’s job is to investigate, not prosecute. Reeling from the backlash of this now infamous July declaration, Comey pivoted in October and reopened the investigation, citing new emails not previously seen.
Continuing to give the nation little reason to trust him, FBI officials also acknowledged that, in his recent Senate testimony, Comey inaccurately stated the number of Hillary Clinton’s emails to her aide Huma Abedin, which were forwarded to her ex-husband Anthony Weiner’s computer. Whether an honest mistake or not, the FBI Director simply cannot make this kind of error.
It’s hard to tell how this whole mess will turn out, but in the wake of Comey’s firing, one thing is clear: as much as Democrats want to make this about Russia’s influence on the campaign, credibility is the currency of relationships and James Comey squandered his.
How The Media’s Hypocrisy Only Serves To Benefit President Trump (opinion)
By Bennett Naron
Many Americans are both confused and frustrated by the media’s handling of President Trump. The media seems to, overall, fall into one of two groups. The first group is comprised of honest reporters who do not ‘spin’ the story. This group needs no further discussion. They are the lifeblood of the American press, and I commend them. It is the second group of journalists that yields cause for concern. These journalists take incredible liberties, undermining the opposing party’s credibility with little basis in fact. It is these journalists and media outlets I wish to address.
While I must admit there is a certain level of “spin” present amongst most political journalists, there is a difference between “spin” and flat-out lying. Undermining truth and credibility among political figures with incorrect facts is essentially the definition of “fake news.” Although President Trump has made factually incorrect statements, these statements have, more often than not, referenced issues that are of less importance than the many real problems Americans are facing. The media is quick to give coverage to these less important statements, preventing Trump from receiving any beneficial and relevant media coverage.
The absurd claim that Trump had constant contact with Russian intelligence agents during his campaign and that Russia helped throw the election in Trump’s favor is a prime example of an unwarranted attack generated by the left and promulgated by the media. This assertion is completely unproven and most likely false, considering there is no evidence to support these claims. Following the election results, the left and the mainstream media displayed extreme bouts of hypocrisy. Prior to the election of President Trump, Hillary Clinton and other DNC leaders decried even the possibility of voter fraud. Although Trump continually claimed the election was “rigged” and that he would be skeptical of the election results if he lost, the left produced a much greater level of outrage at the possibility of a “rigged” election. In fact, prior to Trump winning, Clinton stating, “That’s not the way our democracy works. We’ve been around 240 years. We’ve had free and fair elections and we’ve accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them and that is what must be expected of anyone” (1). However, after Trump won, the opinion of the left quickly changed, to say the least. Supported by the media, the left was able to generate inane rumors that Russia rigged the election for Trump. Jill Stein, another leader of the left, quickly went in the far opposite direction of her party’s stance before the election, seeking “full recounts in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, all states where Clinton narrowly lost to Donald Trump” (2). It seems, as soon as they lost, the left went back on all their claims of what an American democracy looks like. Of course, the media took the unsupported Russian claims and ran with it, airing the controversies continuously for weeks.
The media does not seem to understand that, in the long run, constant displays of hypocrisy and bias serve only to further alienate the American people. While their vicious, overblown attacks work to attract readers and viewers short term, they are not a viable long-term method. Endless assaults on President Trump pollute the information received by Americans, thereby reducing the mainstream media’s credibility and encouraging alternative media sources. One might then wonder, if so many members of the media are intent on not having Trump reelected in 2020, how will reducing public trust in the media help them to achieve that goal? I hope left-wing members of the media will learn to do their job and report real facts with as little ‘spin’ as possible. News outlets should not publish a story because they like the results or impact but rather because they contain useful information for readers and viewers. Through honest and fair reporting, perhaps the media will be able to earn back America’s trust. However, if journalists do not display this change of heart soon, President Trump’s approval ratings may well pass 50% by the beginning of summer.
Mr. Naron is an intern at the Reid Law Firm and is also a political science major at Samford University and can be reached by e-mail at email@example.com.
Democratic congressman contests Alabama’s Electoral College vote alleging Russia interfered
In the latest challenge to the legitimacy of the election, House Democrats attempted to protest the Electoral College vote that secured Donald J. Trump the next Presidency of the United States. On Friday, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) objected to Alabama’s electoral votes, arguing that Russia interfered in the democratic process.
The EC held its vote back on Dec. 19, but Congress was not able to certify it until today after the new members had been sworn in.
The Democrats’ challenge was shot down, as it did not have a signature from the Senate. When the topic of Russian interference was brought up, the chamber was filled with boos from the Republican majority.
Ever since Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election in an epic collapse, Democrats have attempted to undermine American’s faith in the fairness of the election by alleging Russian tampering and challenging the necessity of the Electoral College.
Clinton was dominated in the EC on election night, and her results only got worse when the college met to hold its vote in December. While Democratic activists were trying to inspire “faithless electors” to defect on Trump, Clinton actually had more defections than her Republican counterpart.
According to The Daily Caller, Five Washington Democratic electors did not vote for Clinton. Another three electors in Maine, Minnesota and Colorado tried to buck Clinton, but were blocked from doing so by state laws. Only two Republican electors did not back Trump and voted for Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) and libertarian icon Ron Paul respectively.
This afternoon, Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks (R-AL5) highlighted the Democrats persistent unwillingness to accept the election results.
Counting & certifying electoral college votes – House dems. still don’t accept election results. Watch: https://t.co/zRMs97JiuK
— Mo Brooks (@RepMoBrooks) January 6, 2017
With all the formalities completed, there is now no doubt that Donald Trump will be the next president. He will be sworn in at the Capitol on Jan. 20.
RSA’s Bronner on Trump: ‘I know the b*****d, he ain’t worth anything’
A newspaper company financed by the Retirement Systems of Alabama (RSA) is facing scrutiny after playing a role in a wide-reaching series of Clinton endorsements, which was handed down by local newspapers across the country.
A New York Times report published on Monday highlighted the backlash that many newspapers are facing after opposing Donald Trump’s presidential bid. The story honed in on one publication based in Oklahoma, whose editorial board took cues from their corporate parent company.
Influenced by the RSA-owned Community Newspaper Holdings Incorporated (CNHI), the paper issued a Clinton endorsement.
Montgomery-based CNHI owns publications that reach into over 130 communities in over 23 states. According to the Times, the company made it clear to all their publications that the Republican candidate did not have their blessing.
“It was our decision at the corporate level, which of course was made known to all of our papers, that Donald Trump did not meet our company and journalism values, particularly as they related to the First Amendment,” Bill Ketter, CNHI’s vice president for news, told the New York Times.
When asked if local editorial boards had the freedom to endorse Trump outside of the wishes of the parent company, Ketter said that they would have been “disappointed” if their papers didn’t abide by the “principles and standards” made clear by CNHI.
The irony is that many of the communities served by the company pulled heavily for Trump in the general election. CNHI’s Alabama-based papers includes the Cullman Times, which endorsed Clinton. Meanwhile, over 87 percent of Cullman County voters cast a ballot for the GOP candidate in November.
The media company has had deep-rooted ties to the Retirement Systems of Alabama since the 1980’s, when the pension management agency first invested in the company. Now, RSA has invested at least $627 million- mostly from their teachers retirement fund- in the company.
RSA CEO David Bronner has previously noted the influence that RSA has over the newspapers. During a meeting of the Alabama State Employees Association in October of 2015, he touted the reach of RSA-owned media.
“We put [ads] on our TV stations from Hawaii to Arizona, to California, to Florida. You name ’em, they’ve been there,” he said.
“They’re seeing ads in our hundred newspapers that go from Massachusetts to Texas,” he added. “They see ads every night on TV. If your sons or daughters go to Hawaii today, they’ll see ads in Hawaii. It doesn’t cost the taxpayer of Alabama a nickel, and we make a lot of money in the TV business.”
At the same meeting, Bronner also postured himself as an outspoken critic of Trump’s presidential bid.
“I know the bastard, he ain’t worth anything,” he said. “I assure you, if Mr. Trump was president, you wouldn’t like it. That I can promise.”
Alabama electors show no sign of wavering from Trump vote
As protesters mount national pressure against members of the electoral college to defy conventionality and elect Hillary Clinton, all signs show that Alabama’s nine electors remain firmly ready to vote for Trump.
Members of the electoral college take a pledge to honor the voters of their respective state. In Alabama, Donald Trump won handily with more than 62 percent of the vote. Still, anti-Trump activists from across the nation have spent weeks waging a letter-writing campaign targeting electors, including those in the Yellowhammer State.
Last week, AL.com reported that Montgomery attorney Will Sellers, one of the state’s electors, has received more than 2,200 emails urging him to switch his vote. Also an elector during the 2004, 2008, and 2012 elections, he told the news source that “it’s never been like this.”
“I’ve never seen this kind of wholesale, direct communications with electors,” Sellers said.
He went on to add that many of the calls, letters, and emails he has received have appeared to come from an organized call center or pre-written form.
Terry Lathan, Chairwoman of the Alabama Republican Party, told the Associated Press that electors are a “rock solid 100 percent.” Elector Mary Sue McClurkin agreed.
In an interview with WBRC, McClurkin, a former State Representative, said that she hasn’t been swayed by “ugly” and “colorful” letters directed against Trump. She told the station that the role she plays in the Electoral College is bigger than herself.
“It was a part of our constitution early on so, you know, it does work,” she said. It definitely works and especially for states like Alabama that is not a very populous state, we still have a place at the table there.”
Alabama’s electors will meet on Monday in the Old House Chamber to cast their votes.
Liberal Yankees freak out when ‘Sweet Home Alabama’ played in a grocery store
BROOKLYN, NY — The 2016 election was a shock for liberal elites. They could not fathom how America could possibly vote for Donald J. Trump and shun the presumptive next President of the United States, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Given the polling, predicting a Clinton victory was not ridiculous. If one trusting nothing but the polling data, a Clinton electoral college win seemed like a pretty safe bet. But Americans defied expectations at the polls, and Trump won several “blue” states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Overall, Trump carried 3084 counties and Clinton won just 57.
Ever since the decisive electoral defeat, liberals have retreated to their safe spaces of political correctness that likely lost them the election in the first place. Universities across the country postponed exams for students too “triggered” by Trump’s victory, and countless others took to the streets to ironically protest the legitimacy of the election.
Everything about Trump’s America has been deemed offensive by the ivory-tower left, and now they even need to be coddled when a southern rock classic is played. Yes: in 2016, it is apparently offensive to play “Sweet Home Alabama” in a public place.
David Marcus, a senior contributor to the conservative website The Federalist, detailed a trip he took to a Brooklyn, NY grocery store three days after the election with his wife. While shopping, the establishment played the Lynyrd Skynyrd hit over the sound system, confusing many of the customers. Almost immediately, the liberal patrons of the store began to pitch a hissy fit, and they demanded that the song but cut-off.
Libby [his wife] and I walked towards the organic maple syrup. That’s when it started. I suppose there had been music playing in the store, but I hadn’t noticed until a familiar guitar lick pierced the air and a soft voice said, “Turn it up.”
Libby and I both stopped and looked at each other. “Seriously?” said my wife, a very disappointed Clinton supporter. She started gripping her soft Tomme Crayeuse a little too hard. By the time Ronnie Van Zant’s drawl started in with “Big wheels keep on turnin’,” everyone in the store was standing in shock. Brows were furrowed, people mumbled to each other. The song seemed to get louder as one of those New York moments happened, when everyone was thinking the exact the same thing…
A woman in her fifties, wearing a Love Trump Hates button, turned to her Brooklyn-bearded husband and said loudly, “This is unbelievable!” She found the nearest store clerk, a young woman in a green apron who was staring up at the ceiling, looking for the invisible speakers blaring this message from the other America. “This is so inappropriate,” the woman said. “Can we turn this off?”
When the angry older woman with the anti-Trump button asked the clerk to turn off the song, the younger woman looked at her sympathetically and said, “I don’t know how.” In that moment, something seemed to click…
Of course, this woman thought that “Sweet Home Alabama” could just be turned off. After all, we can block out things we disagree with. We can unfriend people on Facebook, block them on Twitter, and decide not to let their negativity be a part of lives. For many progressives, this is the key to wellness.
But turning off Skynyrd doesn’t make it go away. Somewhere in the land where the stars still shine, it plays on, whether you hear it or not. The shock and despair in Brooklyn over Hillary Clinton’s unfathomable defeat comes in no small part because her denizens refused to hear the rumblings of an America they chose to ignore.
Long story short, be careful when playing “Sweet Home Alabama” outside of the confines of the Yellowhammer State. You might have the P.C. police come for you.
Benghazi hero to visit Hoover Tactical Firearms
HOOVER, Ala. — Kris ‘Tanto’ Paronto, Survivor of the 9/11/12 attack on the U.S government facilities in Benghazi, is coming to visit the Yellowhammer State. Paronto will be at Hoover Tactical Firearms on Dec. 10 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. to meet customers and sign copies of his book.
Along with historical action writer Mitchell Zuckoff, Paronto co-authored “13 Hours: The Inside Account Of What Really Happened In Benghazi” which describes the Islamic militant attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Libya from the perspective of those defending it. The book was turned into a box-office hit last winter by director Michael Bay, and Paronto served as a consultant.
“Stop by and meet this Great American,” Hoover Tactical said in a release. “No ticket needed. FREE.”
The attack on the U.S. facilities in Benghazi led to the deaths of several Americans, including Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens. He was the first U.S. ambassador killed in the line of duty since 1979.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton faced intense pressure for her role in the situation, as she reportedly denied Ambassador Steven’s requests for additional security at the consulate. Clinton ultimately took responsibility for the mistakes, but eventual presidential election winner Donald Trump hammered her on the campaign trail for her errors in the State Department.
Alabama’s Secretary of State seeks to ease concern over voter fraud claims
Following a contentious November election, many voters are wary of the political theatrics that usually result from an election recount. Sensitivities are now running high after President-Elect Donald Trump responded to Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein’s effort to re-tally votes in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, by claiming that “millions” of illegal votes were cast against him. Now, Alabama’s Secretary of State is saying “not in Alabama.”
“We have not seen any level of inconsistency which would indicate that there is a need for concern where there has been a large number of people who have been registered to vote who should not be registered to vote,” Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill told WSFA. “We have not seen any level of inconsistency which would indicate that there is a need for concern. Everybody wants honest and fair elections.”
He added that, as the state’s top election official, no one is more concerned about ensuring the trustworthiness of November’s results.
“The thing we are most concerned about, and that means the most to us, is the integrity and credibility of the election system and election process in the great state of Alabama.” Merrill said.
During the weeks leading up to election day, Merrill had made it clear that the state had implemented strict checks and procedures to ensure that the full voting process was secure and accountable.
Other Secretaries of State across the nation have echoed the same sentiment, though that doesn’t mean that all did enough to prevent illegal votes from being cast.
One expert told the Daily Signal, a news publication run by The Heritage Foundation, that he believes over 800,000 noncitizens may have cast ballots in the election. It’s an imperfect model, and should have little-to-no impact on the election results. However, such projections could empower the likely soon-to-be Attorney General Jeff Sessions to enforce greater protections against voter fraud.
Don Siegelman holds out for “last hope” pardon from Obama
Former Alabama governor Don Siegelman likely just spent his last Thanksgiving in a federal prison. While a possible release date approaches in February, he told supporters he is still hoping for a presidential pardon before Barack Obama leaves office.
In an email, he noted that there were 76 days remaining until he might be released.
“We are just a few steps from the prison cell door, February 8th, but there is another deadline looming. D.J.T’s Inauguration day in DC. President Obama’s last day is our last hope. He is only person who can, with his signature, right the wrong that I, and so many of us, have been seeking,” Siegelman wrote.
“So maybe, if I ask you to send a special word or thought to President Obama, maybe, just maybe he’ll hear our collective cry, if so, that will be another Blessing for which we can all be thankful,” he added.
The disgraced one-term Alabama governor has spent most of the past nine years in a federal prison after facing conviction on charges of bribery and obstruction in 2006. At the time, prosecutors claimed that he had “sold” a state regulatory position to former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy in exchange for a $500,000 campaign contribution. He and his family have since waged an aggressive pushback campaign, claiming that his imprisonment was partially due to a conspiracy tied to George W. Bush’s advisor Karl Rove.
In early November, WikiLeaks revealed that top figures in Hillary Clinton’s campaign had kept a close eye on Siegelman’s case, though there seemed to be no sign of traction that could result in a pardon.
Siegelman has said that he will continue to seek exoneration from President Obama, who has set a record for the most jail sentences commuted this year. There has been no indication that clemency for Siegelman is on the White House’s radar.
Andrews: Trump or Clinton will be President. Here’s how to decide who to vote for.
My name is Andy Andrews. I am a husband and a father. I have written several books, a couple of which have been moderately successful. In a national discussion of celebrity, money, or power, however, I would not be mentioned.
My family and friends love me though, and in Alabama, where I was born, I like to believe there are those who are happy that I still live here. As for my books, they seem to defy conventional literary description and are most often characterized as “stories of common sense.” That’s fine with me. In fact, it’s exactly what I was after all along.
Through the years, for whatever reason, I decided to make “common sense” my personal quest. The most important part of that quest, I determined, would be to somehow develop the ability to harness common sense for the benefit of other people. Specifically, I prayed to learn how to take complicated subjects that were confusing people and explain to them the “bottom line truth” in a simple, understandable fashion. I wanted to be able to do this in order that they might utilize that understanding in ways that would make their lives better—that would prosper them and their families.
That brings me to today, the looming 2016 presidential election, and perhaps the most critically important issue I have ever attempted to explain:
Why You Must Vote
(even if you must hold your nose while doing so. And…)
Why There Are Only Two Candidates from Which to Choose
First, allow me to say that I am not an admirer of either candidate. I never have been. My wife and I have two teenaged sons and, like you, we are aware that manners and good behavior are a reflection of character. That said, it is ironic that many of us now find ourselves in the position of choosing a president of the United States whose conduct we would not tolerate in our own family.
But choose we must, for this is the first election in our lifetimes that has virtually nothing to do with the “personality” who will serve as our president. This election is about the Supreme Court.
This time, forget everything else. Forget crimes that may have been committed. Forget any alleged sexual assault. Forget the possibility of treasonous acts, adultery, fraud, vindictiveness, and mean or childish behavior. Think only of the Supreme Court. For the first time in your life, you really are about to determine what this country will be like for the rest of your life. This is true, also, for the lives of your children and your children’s children.
As a people, we have not had a choice before us with more power to heal or destroy since the civil war. The United States of America is clearly about to move down one of two roads. No rhetoric can disguise either path. And once the Supreme Court is in place, no Congress or Senate can change that path.
This coming Tuesday, November 8, 2016, you and I will choose which of two people will become president. Soon after being inaugurated, that person will begin the process of selecting the person who will fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court—the one who will tip the scales one way or the other. Laws will be upheld or overturned. New laws will be imposed or not. In either case, the way you are allowed to live will soon be determined by the Supreme Court. The court’s majority will be determined by the new president. But one thing is certain: after Tuesday, you will have no more say in the matter.
Lest you think this might be a temporary situation, able to be shifted or redone by the next president, it is critical to understand that whichever of the two major candidates we elect this Tuesday will be the person who will set the Supreme Court in stone for generations. The person we elect this Tuesday will not be making one Supreme Court appointment, but perhaps as many as four!
Considering possible retirements and death, look at the court’s current makeup: The vacant seat is that of Justice Scalia who recently died at the age of 79. Of the eight justices that remain, five—Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan—are under the age of 70. The rest are far older. Justice Breyer is 78, Justice Kennedy is 80, and Justice Ginsburg is 83 and has been treated for pancreatic cancer.
Supreme Court appointments are for life. This means that the justices serve until they resign, retire, or die. Therefore, a president able to appoint even one member of the court is able to determine the direction of the country. Especially in the situation that exists at present…
The court has voted 5-4 on crucial decisions for years. The swing vote (Scalia) died. The person we elect as president this Tuesday will appoint Scalia’s replacement—the new swing vote.
Pay Close Attention: During the next four years of the president’s term, he or she will likely appoint a second Supreme Court justice. The votes on crucial decisions will then be decided by a vote of 6-3. The opportunity to appoint a third and even a fourth justice to the court will allow whomever we elect on Tuesday the ability to cement the Supreme Court’s voting—think 7-2 or imagine 8-1—for as long as you live.
So it all comes down to this:
First, be aware that there is no possibility of a third party winning this election. None. Therefore, a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. “But I am voting my conscience,” you say. Fine. Just remember that it will be your body (not your conscience) and your children who will live in the world our Supreme Court is about to create. Forever.
Do you want a say in what that world will be like? I’m sorry, but there are only two choices. Him or her.
Yes, I understand. You are furious at being put in a position to have to choose between the “lesser of two evils.” I do understand. It is infuriating. On the other hand, you must understand that “the lesser of two evils” is the only choice you’ve ever had in any election in which you’ve ever voted in your life! Jesus has never run for office. That leaves only the rest of us—you and me—well-meaning, good-hearted people who, despite our best intentions, have still managed to lie, cheat, and say things out loud for which we remain grateful to this day that no one recorded during what we thought was a private conversation.
It is time to put away our self-righteousness. It is time to wake up and understand that we have no ability—zero—to make either candidate feel our contempt with our vote. Even if we did, they would not care! ONE OF THESE TWO PEOPLE WILL BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT. Neither you nor I will change that fact by voting for someone else or by not voting at all.
The only way you can possibly vote this time and have it matter is to vote for the America in which you wish to live. That America will be defined by the Supreme Court justices chosen by one of the two major candidates.
For once in our lives, whatever “President” we have to watch on television for the next four years doesn’t matter. We have all suffered through four or eight years of one presidential face or another and, this time, we will do it again. That face will not matter. In the long run, that person’s name will not matter. ONLY THE JUSTICES THAT PERSON CHOOSES FOR THE SUPREME COURT MATTERS!
Remember that whoever the president of the United States is…whoever the president might ever be—despite the amount of television time they get, no matter the round office and forget the cool plane—that person’s actual power, his or her ability to truly affect your day-to- day life, is extremely limited. Congress, Senate, the will of the people, the approval of the media…all are very real factors that prey upon a president’s ability to do as he or she wishes.
The Supreme Court, on the other hand, is under no such constraints. Once appointed, there is virtually no oversight or even influence that can be brought to bear. The media? Polls? Voters? There is no quarterly review, no coming election. A Supreme Court justice is appointed for life. His or her word is, quite literally, the law. These are the big laws, the ones that determine your daily life.
And the only chance you have to shape those laws is by electing the person who chooses the members of the court. So hold your nose if you wish, there are only two choices…
Here’s how you decide who to vote for:
Both major candidates have announced exactly the kind of justices they will choose for the Supreme Court if elected. One candidate has even listed the names of the judges from which the choice will be made. Your choice will be plain to see and easy to make. Again, your choice is not about a person. In the most literal sense, your choice is about the America in which you wish to live.
Knowing there are many issues that will be determined by the Supreme Court, let’s quickly examine only a few. From here, you will easily understand the direction you wish to take.
Do you believe that guns are inherently bad? Do you believe that there are too many guns, that gun manufacturers should be held responsible for what individuals do with them, and that the government needs to further restrict the public’s right to own and use guns? If so, you must vote for her. She has publicly promised to appoint judges that will make these beliefs the basis for laws by which we all will live for the rest of our lives.
Or do you believe strongly in the “right to bear arms”? Do you believe that further gun restrictions will only restrict the access honest citizens have to firearms and ammunition? Do you believe that a gun—while dangerous—is a tool like a car and that when used incorrectly, it is the fault of a person, not the fault of the tool? If so, you must vote for him. He has publicly promised to appoint judges that will make laws according to this line of thinking. At that point, we will live with those laws for the rest of our lives.
And this Second Amendment issue will be determined by the Supreme Court.
Do you believe that the fetus inside a pregnant woman is a tissue mass and that a woman should be able to rid her body of that tissue mass at any time during the nine months prior to that tissue mass being born? Do you believe that tissue mass only becomes a human being once it is outside the woman’s body? Do you believe that your tax dollars should be used to allow anyone who chooses, for whatever reason, to rid their body of that tissue mass?
Do you believe that counseling centers, funded by churches, set up for the purpose of encouraging adoption should be forced by law to offer abortion counseling as an alternative? If so, you must vote for her. She has publicly promised to appoint judges that will enforce these beliefs into laws by which you and I must live for the rest of our lives.
Or do you believe that the baby inside a mother is a human being? Do you believe that life has a purpose and that, from the moment of conception, each and every child is unique and valuable?
Do you believe that you should not be forced to fund Planned Parenthood—the largest abortion provider in America—with your tax dollars? Do you believe more than 50 million government-approved abortions in the United States since 1970 are enough? If so, you must vote for him. He has publicly promised to appoint judges that will reduce, restrict, and eventually do away with abortion on demand and what you believe will be made into laws by which you and I will live for the rest of our lives.
And this abortion issue will be determined by the Supreme Court.
Do you believe the United States should move toward a policy of “open borders”? Do you believe undocumented persons in the United States illegally should not only be allowed to stay, but issued driver’s licenses, food stamps, and provided medical care? Do you believe that if someone wishes to enter our country, they have every right to do so without explanation? If so, you must vote for her, for she has publicly promised to appoint judges that will reverse laws currently on the books regarding immigration. These laws will eventually lead to her stated “dream of open borders” and a new way of life for us all.
Or do you believe that America’s borders are her first line of defense? Do you believe that the word “illegal” means just that? Do you believe that only legally recognized citizens of America have a right to her benefits and protection as provided by your tax dollars? Do you believe America has not only the right, but the responsibility to carefully vet those who seek to enter our country? If so, you must vote for him, for he has publicly promised to appoint judges that will make and defend laws in line with those beliefs.
Do you believe the government is more capable of determining how your money should be used? Do you believe the government is better able to determine how your children should be educated? Do you believe the government should determine who can do business where and with whom? Do you believe a person should be given priority because of what they believe, what they are, or what they believe they are? If so, you must vote for her, for she has publicly promised to appoint judges who will open our borders, our bathrooms, and our wallets. She has promised laws to punish those who do not agree.
Or do you believe you can decide what’s best for your family? Do you believe that if you earn a certain amount of money you should be able to keep and reinvest the largest part of it to benefit those things you decide are important? Do you believe the government has been created to serve the people, not the other way around? If so, you must vote for him, for he has publicly promised to appoint judges whose rulings allow prosperity for those who work to deserve it.
These are but a few examples of the two pathways you will choose this Tuesday, November 8, 2016. Religious freedom, taxes and the economy, healthcare…in every category you examine, you’ll find drastic differences in the America that will be shaped by this election. Don’t be fooled—how you vote matters, because the Supreme Court matters.
So what kind of America will we have for the rest of our lives? This time, you actually get to choose.
WikiLeaks reveals Clinton camp interest in freeing disgraced Alabama governor Siegelman
New emails released in Hillary Clinton’s Wikileaks scandal show that the candidate’s top aides attempted to help seek a presidential pardon for former Democratic Governor Don Siegelman.
The disgraced one-term Alabama governor has spent most of the past nine years in a federal prison after facing conviction on charges of bribery and obstruction in 2006. At the time, prosecutors claimed that he had “sold” a state regulatory position to former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy in exchange for a $500,000 campaign contribution. He and his family have since waged an aggressive pushback campaign, aiming at a presidential pardon.
Apparently, Clinton’s top lieutenants took note.
A series of leaked emails reveal that Hillary’s campaign chair, John Podesta, had reached out to White House officials about Siegelman on multiple occasions.
On July 8, 2014, Podesta- an alum of Knox College- received an email from current Knox professor Robin Metz. The letter plead for justice on Seigelman’s behalf, partially blaming the Bush Administration for his incarceration.
“This whole affair, thanks to Rove and the Bush thugs, is an outrage, a travesty, and a dangerous miscarriage of justice,” Metz wrote.
Rumors that Karl Rove prompted federal involvement in Seigelman’s case have long circulated, though the claim has never been proven. Supporters say that, if true, such a high level of interest from a White House advisor would prove that political forces may have worked against the former governor.
In another correspondence from June 14, 2015, Podesta forwarded an email to White House Counsel Neil Eggleston, which referred to the former governor’s situation as a “grotesque railroading of a progressive and a good man.” It again points a finger at Rove.
After the Supreme Court rejected the former governor’s appeal for a new sentencing hearing and trial in January, Podesta again reached out to Eggleston. He forwarded the White House official an email titled “More bad news for Don Seigelman.” It was a letter that Seigelman wrote to supporters, claiming SCOTUS “thumbed its nose at justice” through their decision.
“Putting back on your screen,” Podesta wrote to Eggleston.
Seigelman has said that he will continue to seek exoneration from President Obama, who has set a record for the most jail sentences commuted this year. There has been no indication that clemency for Seigelman is on the White House’s radar.
Shelby slams FBI director in scathing new letter about Clinton investigation
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an stunning and unexpected move, the FBI announced that it is assessing new emails “pertinent” to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. Alabama Senator Richard Shelby (R) immediately weighed in and ripped into FBI Director James Comey for his previous decision to not press charges.
Comey let Clinton off the hook earlier this year because he stated his agency failed to accumulate enough evidence to prove that Clinton acted with criminal intent. According to The Hill, the new emails were uncovered as a result of a separate investigation into Anthony Weiner, who allegedly sent sexually explicit messages to an underage girl. Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin, is a long time aide to Clinton.
You can view the text of Shelby’s scathing letter below.
Dear Director Comey:
I am writing in response to the letter you sent me regarding the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) intention to re-open the investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Due to the serious nature of this matter, I request that the FBI expeditiously and thoroughly conduct its review.
In July, you held a press conference where you explained to the American people that Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” with classified information while using a private e-mail server. Unfortunately, it has now become apparent that the FBI, with all its extensive resources and highly-trained personnel, closed an incomplete investigation that resulted in only partial findings. I firmly believe that the American people deserve to know the facts – all of them.
There is much at stake in how this investigation is conducted. Not only is the Bureau’s examination a reflection on the current Administration and Secretary Clinton, but it is also critical to the integrity of the FBI and the American people’s ability to place their trust in government. I believe that your recommendation and the Department of Justice’s decision not to prosecute Secretary Clinton set a dangerous precedent for the way we hold our public officials accountable.
While I am pleased that the FBI is re-opening this case in light of new information, it is imperative that the Bureau immediately evaluate the material to complete this investigation. The American people are electing their next Commander-in-Chief only days from now, and they deserve to know the conclusion of your review prior to Election Day. Let me be clear: This should be your utmost priority.
Richard C. Shelby
“Dark money” Clinton machine targets Sen. Sessions with ethics complaint
Jeff Sessions has again found himself as the target of Hillary Clinton’s liberal network, as an organization tied to the Democratic presidential candidate has filed an ethics complaint against the Alabama Senator.
The complaint aims at comments Sessions made during an October 15th campaign rally in New Hampshire, in which he said that the Trump’s opponents were working to hijack the results of the presidential race.
“They are attempting to rig this election,” he said. “They will not succeed.”
The American Democracy Legal Fund (ADLF) sent a letter on Monday to Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson, who chairs the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, urging members of the Senate to take “appropriate remedial action” against Sessions. They allege that Sessions’ claims were a violation of the legislative body’s code of conduct.
“Senator Sessions made baseless and irresponsible allegations that the 2016 presidential election is rigged, perpetuating unsubstantiated claims that threaten the stability of our election process and the safety of voters on Election Day,” ADLF wrote. “Such comments and behavior not only reflect negatively upon the Senate, but attempt to discredit our entire democratic system.”
ADLF is a well-known “dark money” group whose co-founders, Brad Woodhouse and David Brock, are also credited with the creation of pro-Clinton Super PAC Correct the Record. Brock was revealed by TIME Magazine to work directly with the Clinton campaign. Though coordinating with Super PACs is generally illegal under the law, TIME found that he legally exploited a loophole by operating Correct the Record exclusively online, rather than through print and broadcast.
Unsurprisingly, the Fund is no stranger to filing complaints that would benefit Clinton. During the Democratic Primary, they aggressively targeted Bernie Sanders and his allies.
In their letter against Sessions, ADLF acknowledged that the majority of voters are concerned about election rigging. They site a poll published by POLITICO last week, which found that 41 percent of voters believe the election could be “stolen” from Donald Trump. ADLF failed to mention Democratic members of the Senate like Harry Reid, who have accused Trump of colluding with Russia to steal the election.
GOP calls on Alabamians to help Trump win battleground Florida
The GOP is asking for an increased number of Alabama volunteers to step up to help Donald Trump win Florida this cycle. In a memo from the Republican National Committee, officials claim that the initial need was for approximately 100 Alabamians, but “due to pressing needs that has ballooned into something quite larger.”
Alabama is a consistently Republican state when it comes to presidential elections. Its neighbor, the Sunshine State of Florida is not. While, Alabama has gone red for every presidential contest since 1980, President Obama won Florida both times he ran for office. Not only does the state flip from election to election, but it is generally close. Out of 8.4 million votes cast in Florida in 2012, Obama won by just 73,189 votes. In 2000 it was even closer, as soon-to-be President George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by only 537 votes.
Because of the critical nature of the “purple” state, the GOP has often called on volunteers from Alabama to assist its ground game operations as November draws near. But this year, the RNC said the need is greater than ever.
In the memo, the RNC noted the important role that Alabamians are playing on the ground right now. “Your state’s volunteer efforts are becoming more and more critical to a vital Trump win in Florida,” the memo reads. “In fact, RNC internals point to a major Alabama involvement in the Florida ground game being essential for that state’s victory on November 8th.”
The key reason that volunteers are needed for a Trump victory is to ensure the future of the U.S. Supreme Court is slanted in a conservative direction, the RNC said. “Imagine a 7-2 Hillary skewed Supreme Court,” the memo reads. “We need you, Alabama. You can serve as a catalyst in the Florida ground game.”
With new volunteers comes the need for more financial support. The RNC notes that while not everyone can be a ground-game worker, others can chip in by sponsoring those who can. According to the memo, sponsoring RNC workers costs less than $500.