Clinton Has Been Maintaining A Press Conference Blackout

This makes more sense now:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager can’t guarantee that the Democratic presidential candidate will hold a press conference between now and the election and laughed off questions about why she doesn’t gaggle with reporters.

Speaking at a luncheon hosted by the Wall Street Journal, campaign manager Robby Mook burst out laughing when asked if Clinton would hold court with reporters before Election Day.

“We’ll see,” he said.

Clinton has still not held a press conference this year.

Hillary has a problem. Her brain is having difficulty coping with the stress of confrontational interactions. This may be due to some sort of neurological damage. It may be because she is such a nasty bitch that nobody around her ever stands up to her, and provides confrontational stimuli.

The result is the same. Her brain cannot cope with stress and surprise, nor is it developing the ability to adapt to it, because it never sees it.

It is as if her amygdala were a puny muscle that can’t lift any weight. Because her muscle is weak, she has placed it in an immobilizing cast to protect it. The end result is that it has only atrophied even more.

Now she is about to face a more-than-hour-long debate against our God Emperor And Savior Of The Republic, His Holiness Donald J. Trump – the master of the amygdala hijack. There is no way she can face that with no preparation, unless she is massively medicated.

What Trump’s camp should do is, when negotiating over the rules of the debate, insist uncompromisingly on as long a debate as possible. The amygdala loses function as it becomes exhausted, the longer it is used.

So the longer the debate, the more her amygdala will likely burn out with exhaustion, or the more likely her meds will either begin to wear off and send her into a refractory state of increased amygdala dysfunction, or she will have to be over-medicated at the start, producing visible symptoms which will make people see her as weird. My guess is one condition her camp will try to demand is as short a debate as possible.

Whether Trump uses his insistence on length to gain other concessions he wants, or whether he actually insists on length to destroy her amygdala more completely during the debate, he will end up coming out ahead in the end.

I really can’t believe the good luck of the movement to have all of these variables come together at the same time. The greatest Alpha leader since Reagan, who just happens to be a master of psychology, and the weakest cognitive structure I have ever seen in politics as his opponent, all as the environmental conditions are perfectly in his favor.

Share this:

http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/clinton-has-been-maintaining-a-press-conference-blackout/

An Alaskan Reader Reports Being Flashed At A Trump Protest

  Hmmm… Looks like it‘s become a lot harder for the hipsters and Lefties to shock the squares than it used to be.

============================================

Re: “Leaving My Trump Sirt On Was A Mistake.” A VDARE.Com Reader Reports From Costa Mesa (2)

From: Ryan Kennedy [Email him]

Apropos of nothing, but re-reading my account of the Trump rally I attended in Costa Mesa there was one thing I didn’t mention.

When the leftist throng showed up, a certain faction of females took their shirts off and flaunted their breasts. It seemed to me they were trying to shock the Trump crowd’s bourgeoisie values.

This didn’t work out for them. Certain factions of the Trump camp (i. e.  young men) hooted and hollered and cat-called and whistled. The feminist agent-provocateurs realized they were giving these guys a free show and covered themselves up.

I thought it was funny.

Ryan Kennedy has been writing us letter from Alaska for at least ten years

http://www.vdare.com/letters/an-alaskan-reader-reports-being-flashed-at-a-trump-protest

Scott Adams' Blog: Selling Past the Close

I’ve been watching the Democratic National Convention and wondering if this will be the first time in history that we see a candidate’s poll numbers plunge after a convention.

On the surface, the convention is going great. Michelle Obama made a speech for the ages. Bill Clinton was his masterful self. Bernie gave a full-throated endorsement of Clinton. The whole affair has been a festival of inclusiveness. The media is eating it like cake. All good, right?

That’s how it looks on the surface. And if you’re already a Clinton supporter, it probably looks great all the way down.

But if you’re an undecided voter, and male, you’re seeing something different. You’re seeing a celebration that your role in society is permanently diminished. And it’s happening in an impressive venue that was, in all likelihood, designed and built mostly by men. Men get to watch it all at home, in homes designed and built mostly by men, thanks to the technology that was designed and built mostly by men. I mention that as context, not opinion.

I agree with Michelle Obama’s gratitude about Clinton’s success so far, and how the country now “takes it for granted that a woman can be president.” That’s a big, big deal, and an accomplishment that you can never take away from Clinton, no matter how it all ends. I would argue – as did Michelle Obama – that Clinton already removed the glass ceiling. Now it’s just a question of who the voters prefer.

And that brings us to a concept called “Selling past the close.” That’s a persuasion mistake. Clinton has already sold the country on the idea that a woman can be president. Sales experts will tell you that once the sale is made, you need to stop selling, because you have no chance of making things better, but you might give the buyer a reason to change her mind.

Obama understood how to avoid selling past the close. At some point during Obama’s first presidential election campaign the country mentally agreed that an African-American could be their next president. So Obama accepted the sale and talked about other stuff. If he had dwelled on race, and his place in history, he would have risked making things worse. So he stayed quiet on race (mostly) and won. Twice.

Clinton is taking a different approach. As Michelle Obama said, we now take for granted that a woman can be president. That sale is made. But Clinton keeps selling. And that’s an enormouspersuasion mistake.

I watched singer Alicia Keys perform her song Superwoman at the convention and experienced a sinking feeling. I’m fairly certain my testosterone levels dropped as I watched, and that’s not even a little bit of an exaggeration. Science says men’s testosterone levels rise when they experience victory, and drop when they experience the opposite. I watched Keys tell the world that women are the answer to our problems. True or not, men were probably not feeling successful and victorious during her act.

Let me say this again, so you know I’m not kidding. Based on what I know about the human body, and the way our thoughts regulate our hormones, the Democratic National Convention is probably lowering testosterone levels all over the country. Literally, not figuratively. And since testosterone is a feel-good chemical for men, I think the Democratic convention is making men feel less happy. They might not know why they feel less happy, but they will start to associate the low feeling with whatever they are looking at when it happens, i.e. Clinton.

On the 2D playing field – where policies and facts matter – the Democratic National Convention is doing great. And when it comes to exciting women, it might be the best ever. But on an emotional level – where hormones rule – men have left the building…that they built.

For the record, I endorse Hillary Clinton for president, for my personal safety, because I live in California where it is dangerous for people to think you are a Trump supporter. My political views don’t align with either candidate and I don’t vote, in order to protect my objectivity.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/148050318231/selling-past-the-close

Rush Limbaugh Interviews Dinesh D’Souza About HILLARY’S AMERICA

============================================

Saw Hillary’s America yesterday and thought the radio interview this morning gave a good account of important points the public needs to know from the film: the Clintons are essentially a crime family dedicated to accumulating riches at any cost (see also the doc Clinton Cash), and the Democrats were the party of slavery and segregation.

Here’s the film trailer:

It was good to see Vanderbilt Professor Carol Swain appear and explain some history about the Democrat party. Too bad D’Sousa didn’t delve into her knowledge about immigration, about which she has testified before Congress and written abook.

The Democrats’ use of immigration to achieve demographic change and therefore political power was not mentioned in the film, which was unfortunate because it is central to the subject. D’Souza asks, “What if the goal of the Democratic Party is to steal the most valuable thing the world has ever produced? What if their plan is to steal America?”

Immigration is central to the scheme of stealing America and transforming it into a Europe-style socialist state, but as an immigrant himself, D’Souza has been reticent about that aspect.

I saw both of D’Souza’s other documentaries when they came out, and the new one struck me as more emotional than I remember the others to be. Some of the portrayals verged on cartoonish. A lot of kitchen-sink items seemed thrown in to reach viewers more by emotion than intellect. The three-second reference to Evita the film was just odd.

Still, the positives in the film make it worth seeing. Learning the story of how Hillary’s mentor Saul Alinsky got his start as a community organizer was worth the price of admission.

The film is doing well at the box office, which shows public interest in the Democrat candidate a few months before the election. Hollywood Reporter notes: Box Office: Dinesh D’Souza’s ‘Hillary’s America’ Becomes Top-Grossing Doc of 2016. Good.

Following is the discussion between Rush and Dinesh:

Dinesh D’Souza on Hillary’s America, RushLimbaugh.com, July 28, 2016

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We welcome back to the program Dinesh D’Souza, movie producer and director extraordinaire.  Hillary’s America.  You just won, not an award, but you just achieved the highest grossing — what’s the category that you just —

D’SOUZA:  Rush, it’s absolutely fantastic.  We became, in just five days, we became the most successful political documentary of this year, 2016, and we’ve also become, we’ve entered the top 10 documentaries of all time in just five days.

RUSH:  Right.  But this movie, it’s a documentary, but it’s entertaining as it can be.  It’s not stiff by any means.  If there’s one thing that — if you’re talking to people that haven’t seen the movie, and there’s one thing in this movie or one area that you really want people to take away from it, what is it?  What would it be?

D’SOUZA:  Well, Rush, as you know, four years ago I made the movie about Obama and my point about Obama was that he’s an ideologue. He’s an anti-colonial ideologue who wants to diminish the wealth and power of America.  I think with the Clintons we’re dealing with something different.  We’re dealing with Bonnie and Clyde, a kind of criminal racket that these two people run, and they’ve been on the make since the Arkansas days, continuing through the White House, then Hillary renting out American foreign policy.

And so I think Hillary’s goal, very different than Obama’s, is kind of to be the crime boss of America.  She wants to run America kind of the way that Al Capone would like to run Chicago.  If you think about what Al Capone’s objectives were, he wanted to basically have full access to the city Treasury, hand out contracts to all his buddies. He wanted to be able to dominate the place, and, if people criticized him, to push ’em off or snuff ’em out. And he wanted to be able to walk into the big Chicago stadium and have everyone shout with cult-like enthusiasm, “Big Al, Big Al, Big Al,” and that’s basically the twisted ambition of Hillary Clinton.

RUSH: Well, but yet she is ideological, Dinesh.

D’SOUZA:  She absolutely is, but —

RUSH:  I mean, she does have ideological designs.

D’SOUZA:  Yes, but here’s what I’m saying.  That the reason that she likes the progressive ideology is it delivers power right back to her.  In other words, if she lived in a country of limited government where the federal government had limited power, how could she acquire all this money and power for herself?  So she likes the progressive ideology ’cause it serves her racketeering objectives.

RUSH:  Well, I do know that both she and her husband have been obsessed with money and wealth from the day they got married.  They didn’t have any.  All the people they hung around with were very wealthy and they felt inadequate and insecure, and it’s been an obsession.  That’s what Whitewater was about and pretty much everything else that they have done.  So the movie’s out, it’s drawing record crowds, and it’s making just tremendous impressions on people.  You produced the movie, you know it intimately and you’re watching a Democrat convention.  I imagine it’s a frustrating thing for you.

D’SOUZA:  Well, it’s beautiful to have the movie come out just this week because it is such a powerful counter-narrative to all the nonsense that we’re hearing out of Philadelphia.  The Democrats keep saying we’re the party of the little guy and the ordinary man and we’re the party of Latinos and immigrants and blacks.  And part of what we show in the movie is that the Democratic Party is actually the party of slavery, of segregation, of Jim Crow, of the Ku Klux Klan, of lynching, of forced sterilization, sympathy for fascism in the 1930s.

The Democrats are the ones who interned the Japanese-Americans after World War II.  So unbelievably, this Democratic Party has been implicated in the most sordid and heinous acts of history, and yet in a move of unbelievable Jiu-Jitsu what they do is they take all their crimes and blame them on the south or blame them on the Republicans or blame them on America, as if America did this or America did that, but America didn’t do it.  The Democrats did.

RUSH:  Well, now, you ran through that list pretty quickly, and I know you don’t want to give away the entire movie here, but there’s a couple things I don’t want to gloss over.  You link the KKK to the Democrat Party. You link segregation, Jim Crow laws to the Democrat Party.  Do you realize if you took a survey of the American people, that would stun them, and most people wouldn’t believe that.  I’m curious to know how you figured that out, where you went to learn that, how it’s documented in the movie, and what your audience’s reaction to this is.  Because that’s big; it’s huge.

D’SOUZA:  So, Rush, I think this is the power of the movie.  It completely interrupts and discombobulates the Democratic narrative.  Now, it is a fact that it was a Democratic delegate to the Democratic National Convention, Nathan Bedford Forrest, who founded the Ku Klux Klan.  It is also a fact that the Klan had a massive revival in the early twentieth century due to a progressive Democratic president, Woodrow Wilson, screening a pro-Ku Klux Klan movie in the White House.

It is also a fact — and here I’m quoting the progressive historian Eric Foner — that for 30 years the Ku Klux Klan was the domestic terrorist arm of the Democratic Party in this country. So these are the irrefutable facts of history and what is great is to see all these left-wing critics thrashing about and screaming about the movie, but they can’t find a single fact in it or in my accompanying book of the same title, Hillary’s America, they can’t find one thing that is even arguable, let alone wrong.

RUSH:  Have you watched the Democrat convention night after night this week?

D’SOUZA:  It has been both an amusing and nauseating and a hilarious sight.  I mean, to see Bill Clinton, that old scoundrel delivering this kind of highly edited introduction to Hillary, to listening to Obama last night, I mean, it’s quite a spectacle.  I don’t know if you know, Rush, but I sneaked my own way into the Democratic convention, actually got right on the floor, and I wish I could actually play the trailer or play my movie in that convention because they would need ambulances outside if I did that.

RUSH:  They’d throw back in jail, too. They’d come up with a reason to do that.  Dinesh, can she live up to all this that has been said about her tonight?  They can say all they want about the great things Obama said about her and the great things that Biden have said, the great things that Bill Clinton have said about it, but they’re not on the ballot, she is.  And she did not win in 2008.  She was overshadowed by Obama.  She is the one who has to convince people to vote for her.  These surrogates are not going to be able to make people vote for her.  Can she live up to all of this tonight?  You have to have a pretty decent understanding of her, having produced this movie and written the book.

D’SOUZA:  Yes, I think it’s gonna be tough for her because really she has known from early life that she does not have the gregariousness or the politically magnetic skills of Bill.  She has actually needed Bill more than he needs her because after all Bill is kind of her pitch man.  He’s the one who actually carried her into national politics.

RUSH:  Well, yeah.

D’SOUZA:  Without him she’d be nowhere.

RUSH:  You know, that’s an interesting point, too, because we hear of all this talk about the glass ceiling and how Hillary has broken down barriers.  If her last name wasn’t Clinton we wouldn’t know who she is or she certainly wouldn’t be running for president. So you could I think honestly, fairly say that she has piggybacked on her husband’s name and his success to get where she is and much of this is actually a payback to her for preserving his career and the Democrat Party by standing by him when he was enmeshed in all of his messes, shall we say.

D’SOUZA:  This is a really good point, Rush, that she has actually known about not only Bill’s infidelities but his sexual predation, she’s know about this from the early years but she realized that if she became his fixer or his enabler that this would in a sense glue him to her. he would depend on her to be able to continue to operate in this manner.  And so this is actually kind of a partnership in crime.  You may say that the family that steals together stays together.

RUSH:  Dinesh D’Souza of Hillary’s America.  I’m sure that people challenge your motives and question your motives because of the conservative background you have.  What do you say to people who ask you, “Why are you doing this?  Why a movie on Hillary?”  Obviously you don’t want her to win the election, but why are you doing this, why are you going into this much detail?

D’SOUZA:  Rush, I’m, as I say, a person of color.  I’m a brown-skinned immigrant to the United States.  I was born in Bombay, India.  I grew up in a country that’s ruled by gangs.  You saw a hint of it in Slumdog Millionaire.  This is a country with corruption running all the way through it. You can’t get through the day without paying bribes.  It makes you feel dirty at the end of the day.

I came to America to live a different kind of life and to experience the American dream.  No other country has a dream.  There’s no Indian dream. There’s no French dream. There’s no Chinese dream.  This is a country where you can start out at the bottom and, if you climb up the ladders of opportunity, you’re gonna get ahead.

So my politics is based on that, and that’s what I’m fighting for.  And these twisted people like Obama and Hillary represent a grave threat to that American dream, and that’s why I make these movies, and that’s why I write these books, and that’s why I want to be a part of the fight whether they lock me up or not.

RUSH:  So what do you think when you hear Obama last night try to do his impression of Ronald Reagan?

D’SOUZA:  It’s unbelievable to listen to this preposterous rhetoric.  You know, I was actually reading a book by the historian Kenneth Stampp, and it’s about the old slave plantation.  And he was talking about the different features of the slave plantation.  He talks about the fact that you have, for example, broken families, ramshackle dwellings, a high degree of violence necessary to hold the place together.  Everybody gets a meager provision of life, but nobody gets ahead.  There’s nihilism. There’s despair.

And I said to myself, wow, it sounds like the guy is describing inner city Oakland or Detroit or Chicago.  These are the urban plantations that Obama and Hillary have created.  They depend on them to deliver votes for them.  And so, in a sense, history isn’t dead; one of the reasons I include history in my books and movies is we’re living it out today.

Many of the themes of the old rural plantations the Democrats have recreated not just for blacks, but for immigrants they’ve created barrios, ghettos, and slums. They’re responsible for it.  There’s no Republicans around, it’s Democratic mayors, Democratic school superintendents, Democrats all the way down.  This is the miserable bigoted legacy of this Democratic Party.

RUSH:  It really is hideous the way they keep people dependent, the way they keep people poor, and all the while promising them paradise, promising them salvation, promising them emancipation.  And they themselves keep them barely subsisting and in a state of dependence for the purposes of maintaining and acquiring their own power.

It’s amazing how they’ve gotten away with it and I hope as many people as possible can see your movie because your movie exposes exactly what they’re up to and how they’ve gotten away with it.  What they have been able to do in reversing true history regarding race, racism and so forth back in the forties, fifties, sixties in this country and how they’ve been so easily able to transfer all that to the Republican Party is nothing short of breathtaking.

D’SOUZA:  Rush, if you’ll let me, the website for the movie is justHillarysAmericatheMovie.com.

RUSH:  Right.

D’SOUZA:  We’re playing in 1,200 theaters so people can enter their ZIP code and it will tell you exactly where the movie is playing near you.

RUSH:  HillarysAmericatheMovie.com is the website.  Dinesh, thanks for your time and continued best of fortune.  Good luck with this.  It’s a tremendous production, and it’s eye opening in terms of upsetting so much of what people think is conventional wisdom.

And I’ll tell you what’s gonna happen.  You’re gonna watch this and one of the main questions, folks, you’re gonna have is why have the Republicans allowed this to happen?  Why is it not until now, Dinesh D’Souza in his movie, why has it taken so long for an effort to tell the truth: the KKK the Democrat Party.  The KKK has always been the Democrat Party.  The mayors and the police chiefs that were denying civil rights, the Martin Luther King protestors were marching against Democrat segregationists.  And yet until this movie there has been no concerted effort to tell the truth about this.  Dinesh D’Souza.

END TRANSCRIPT

http://www.vdare.com/posts/rush-limbaugh-interviews-dinesh-dsouza-about-hillarys-america

The Dumbest Purchases Made By Athletes

Don’t be that guy!

======================================================================================= 

We can all agree that athletes make a lot of money. There is nothing wrong with that.

Where the problem lies is that according to Wyattresearch.com, 78% of NFL players and 60% of NBA players file for bankruptcy within the first five years of retirement.

Here are some of the dumbest purchases made by athletes that make it easy to believe so many of them go bankrupt in such a short amount of time:

See side show….

http://sportschew.com/dumbest-purchases-made-by-athletes/?v=t5&utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=msn-msn&utm_term=Broke+Athletes.+The+Dumbest+Purchases+Ever+Made+By+An+Athlete+In+History

Automation: Delivery Robots Look Likely for Austin Implementation

Brenda Walker

Delivery robots are a technology that is coming on strong: they are small, relatively unthreatening to safety and almost friendly as machines go. Their usage niche is rather limited because of their size and use of sidewalks rather than roads, plus they probably won’t work in rough neighborhoods. On the other hand, pizza and other food deliveries are an easy fit, along with other local applications like groceries.

 Apparently the delivery robots are coming to Austin, which has become a minor tech hub in recent years because of the presence of the big university. Also, it is one of a handful of cities that currently have Google self-driving cars being tested.

Unfortunately for low-skilled workers, delivery robots are another hit at fast-food jobs. That industry is incorporating robotics extra rapidly because of demands for $15 per hour pay, which has brought ordering kiosks for starters. But that’s only the beginning because the machines are getting cheaper and more capable.

The introduction of delivery robots into the work universe is another of the many small cuts to jobs that go unnoticed by expert economists but nevertheless are adding up in the real world where finding employment is tough. Delivery jobs are mostly part-time gigs that provide some cash for students or others who don’t want full time, so the loss means less flexibility in getting by.

So America won’t need any more immigrant workers for jobs that no longer exist, right?

Friendly ‘delivery robots’ may be coming to Austin to live and work, Fox 5 NY, July 27, 2016

Austin may be getting a fleet of robots in the near future. FOX 7’s Casey Claiborne has more on what the robots will be doing.

The robots look like coolers on wheels and they don’t quite have names yet but the company is called Starship.

“Starship Technologies have created the world’s first commercially available autonomous delivery robot,” said Starship’s Henry Harris-Burland.

Harris-Burland flew in from London to show Austin what the robots can do.

“We came to Austin because it’s common sense, it’s obvious. Austin is a very forward-thinking, tech-embracing, innovative city,” Harris-Burland said.

The company is hoping to come back and test them out here.

They’re looking at three different markets: package delivery, grocery delivery and restaurant delivery. So these guys might show up at your door bearing pepperoni pizza.

“You’d order something as usual online. You’d be offered Starship delivery in the checkout area. And then you’d be notified through your mobile phone when your parcel was ready for delivery. The power is then in your hands,” Harris-Burland said.

When you’re ready to get your delivery, just send the robot your way and use an app to unlock the secured lid.

“We have nine cameras around the front and back. Six wheels. It’s got various different sensors around the front and back which enables the obstacle avoidance. It stops it from bumping into anything,” he said.

Harris-Burland says the goal is for the robots to be 99% autonomous. After mapping a neighborhood, like the Mueller neighborhood for example, a fleet of robots will have a hub there and start delivering.

And of course, you’ve heard it said “we just can’t have nice things” — well if anybody tries to vandalize or steal these robots, they’re equipped with tracking devices and more

“The robots have two-way audio so we can actually talk to people in the environment and listen to people…potentially even shout at people if we need to. The robots of course also have nine cameras on the front and back which can be recording. So if there was an incident to occur we could put that thief or vandal up on YouTube pretty quickly,” Harris-Burland said.

Starship says in the UK they’re launching with some commercial partners to do a joint testing program and that’s what they’re hoping to do here in Austin.

So the robots may return.

http://www.vdare.com/posts/automation-delivery-robots-look-likely-for-austin-implementation

The Democrats Go Full Merkel: Immigration To Remake America According To “Our [Their] Values”

Angela and Hillary--the same plan.

=======================================================================

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has just described the recent attacks by Muslim “refugees” as “shocking, depressing and terrifying” but is still sticking with her incredible decision to allow their mass influx—over a million last year [Germany’s Merkel stands by refugee policy despite ‘terrifying’ attacks, By Angela Dewan and Jason Hanna, CNN, July 28, 2016]. Of course the attacks are not “shocking” at all but entirely predictable. Merkel simply doesn’t care; Germany’s welfare is not her priority. Ominously, this is the woman Hillary Clinton wishes to “emulate” [Hillary Clinton on Running and Governing as a Woman, by Jay Newton Small, Time, January 7, 2016]. Clinton is also planning to unleash an Amnesty/ Immigration Surge if elected—and the 2016 Democratic Platform has now dropped all pretense that that this will benefit America

Last Fall, Merkel famously proclaimed: “Germany is a strong country, we will manage” [Defiant Merkel vows to stand by refugee policy despite security fears, Reuters, November 25, 2015]. This was significant because of the implicit acknowledgement that the “refugees” were a burden. Even accepting that Germany is strong enough to “manage” refugees, a nation does not need to “manage” peace, prosperity, and freedom. It manages, or at least attempts to manage, recessions, famine, and war.

As Ann Coulter put it in Adios America:

America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at setting compound fractures. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: “Compound fractures are a strength!”

Apparently, Merkel felt it was necessary to atone Germany’s historic guilt, get praise from the Leftist U.S. Main Stream Media and even become Time’s Person of the Year, all while having hordes of brown “refugees” call her “Mother Merkel.”

Moral superiority and palliating Holocaust guilt was more important than promoting the interests of your citizens.

American immigration enthusiasts certainly appeal to moral superiority, status signalling, and historical guilt. But until now they have at least pretended their policies benefit America. The 2016 Democratic Platform shows that Clinton and her Party are following Merkel in dropping this pretense.

Thus the 2012 Democratic Platform fully embraced mass immigration, but Its brief 524 word plank made several claims that immigration would help America.

On the economy, the plank proclaimed that immigration policy should meet “our economic goals,” that Immigration has “strengthened our country and contributed to our economy.” Proposed Democratic immigration reform “meets our economic needs.” [it used that phrase twice] and DREAMers are “poised to make a real contribution to our country.

On the rule of law, the plank maintained that proposed Democratic reform “enforces the law” and reflected American values as “a nation of laws.” “Undocumented immigrants” [sic] would have to “get right with the law” and “pay taxes” to get citizenship. The Obama administration was allegedly holding “employers accountable for whom they hire.”

On national security, the plank insisted that Democratic policy “prioritizes our country’s security,” that DHS was “prioritizing the deportation of criminals who endanger our communities,” that the “Southwest border is more secure than at any time in the past 20 years” and that the” Border Patrol is better staffed than at any time in its history.”

Needless to say, the Democrats were not serious about “promoting the national interest”—but they felt compelled to pretend to be. All that pretense has now been dropped.

Unnoticed by the MSM, the 2016 Democratic Platform has gone through a remarkable rhetorical transformation. Notably, the Democrats now see immigration explicitly as a racial policy, putting it under the larger Orwellian headline of “Bring Americans Together and Remove Barriers to Opportunities,” alongside other issues like “Ending Systemic Racism” and “Closing the Racial Wealth Gap.”

There is no mention of the national interest, border security, punishing employers, any responsibilities immigrants owe the country, or the rule of law.

The closest the Platform comes to mentioning the benefits to Americans is noting the economy as one of four considerations in setting legal immigration numbers–the other three are for the benefit of the immigrants.

The word “undocumented” is also conspicuously missing. Until 2004, when it began using the euphemism, the Democratic Platform dared used the word “illegal.” [See the 2000 Democratic Platform, The American Presidency Project]. Yet in 2016, it appears any prefix to distinguish them from legal immigrants is apparently Hate Speech.

While the Platform used to call for deporting criminals, it now won’t even bring up this triggering word. Instead it says Democrats will “prioritize those who pose a threat to the safety of our communities”—without saying what they are being prioritized for.

In 2009, the Democrats/ MSM attacked Rep. Joe Wilson and called him a racist for shouting “You Lie” when Obama lied about Obamacare, saying “There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false – the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

Yet now the Democratic Platform has dispensed with even this lie, instead promising to “ensure that all Americans—regardless of immigration status [i.e. illegal aliens]—have access to quality health care” by “allowing all families to buy into the Affordable Care Act exchanges.”

While the 2016 Democratic Platform doesn’t talk about the benefits of mass immigration, it asserts that immigration is mandated by “our values,” while Trump’s policies are “Un-American” and run “counter to the founding principles of this country.”

On the first day of the Convention, Luis (“I have only one loyalty and that’s to the immigrant community”) Gutierrez claimed only Hillary Clinton will ensure that “America remains a welcoming nation,” unlike Trump who is a “bigot” and a “bully” who “calls hardworking immigrants criminals.”

Paradoxically, within minutes he complained that his Puerto Rican parents were “greeted with scorn and discrimination” and that “every generation of newcomers” have been “met with skepticism and suspicion.” [Transcript: Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez’s speech at the DNC, What the Folly, July 26, 2016]

Gutierrez’s contradiction epitomizes the Democratic take on the election and America: “America was never great” [NYT,  May 20, 2016 in one breath, and “America is already great” [Ezra Klein, Vox, July 26, 2016] in the next.

Or perhaps there is no contradiction. What all the talk about needing to promote Amnesty to support “our values” while complaining about “systematic racism” inherent in the U.S.

means is that the Democratic elite is now openly committed to reinventing “America” according to its own tastes byElecting A New People.

They hate the Historic American Nation, but they love the Current Year.

Washington Watcher [email him] is an anonymous source Inside The Beltway.

<< Previous post

Next post >>

http://www.vdare.com/articles/the-democrats-go-full-merkel-immigration-to-remake-america-according-to-our-their-values

Kurt Schlichter - Democrats Get Mad At the Russians; In Other News, a Dog Marries a Cat

  Yeah this is strange. The Democrats always saw the republicans as a bigger threat than the Russians, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea or any other foreign adversary. After all Republicans are running for election against Democrats whereas all those foreign powers are not.

=========================================================================

Kurt Schlichter

Townhall |

I guess we should be excited that liberals and the media have finally sided against the Russians. After all, my college years were spent listening to them demand that we unilaterally disarm in the face of the Big Bad Bear. And then my post college years were spent in West Germany with the mission of killing Russians for as long as I could before my platoon and I were wiped out. Later, I helped train Ukrainians. So welcome to the party, you pinko dorks. It’s about freaking time.

But apparently now me and a bunch of other certified Cold Warriors – yeah, the Army gave me a certificate for perfect attendance in the Cold War – are Putin’s pals because we are enjoying the hell out of the strongman’s perfectly timed disclosure of the DNC’s purloined emails. They make undeniable what we always knew, and what the Democrat-owned media has tried desperately to hide; that the Democratic Party is not a political party but a crime cartel peddling lies, trading influence for dollars, and crushing the aspirations of anyone stupid enough to actually believe in it.

Of course, the DNC’s reaction to revelations was not to change its ways. No, all it did was dump that babbling half-wit Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a sacrifice akin to giving up Spam and Clamato smoothies for Lent.

The reaction of the Democrats and the suddenly-not-Walter Duranty media was classic. Like a teen confronting her dad who is holding the baggie of weed he found in her nightstand, the DNC cried “OMG, I can’t believe you went through my stuff!” before throwing herself sobbing on her bed at the unfairness of it all.

And it’s hard not to ROTFLMAO when Clinton media stooges cite anonymous FBI sources intoning that it’s clearly Putin and he clearly wants to influence the election in favor of Donald Trump. This is the same FBI that couldn’t figure out how to pin a crime on the manifestly guilty Hillary and which shrugs, “Gee, we have no idea about his motive” every time some Muslim radical shouts “Allahu akbar” and goes on a shooting spree.

Did Putin do it? I bet he did, but then I was never stupid or dishonest enough to claim (unlike the whiny libs who are now having a collective emotional spazzout) that Wikileaks and Snowden and the rest were anything but neo-Soviet fronts using classic disinformation tactics spiffed up for the digital age. And Dems, cry me a river about your sudden reluctance to have the Bear do what bears do in the woods all over Hillary’s election chances. Your hero Teddy Kennedy pioneered unnatural acts of bear lovin’ when he wasn’t busy leaving girls to drown in his car.

So why did Putin do it? Who knows? It night be chaos – the ex-KGB spy sure loves chaos. Or he might really prefer Donald Trump being president over Hillary Clinton. Still, the notion that he “owns” Trump because Trump’s companies did deals with Russian companies are simply silly. Clinton Incorporated does business with Russians too. And Trump’s ability to turn on a dime when an ally stops being useful is legendary – just ask Trump’s good friend Ted Cruz. So if Putin is trying to buy himself a pal by forcing Trump on America by exposing the Democrats’ massive corruption, well, that’s an iffy bet.

Does Putin want to avoid four years of dealing with President Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit? Why would he want to do that when it’s absolutely certain he’s sitting on the contents of her email servers, including the good stuff the FBI refused to charge her with obstruction of justice for deleting? Still, it’s hard to imagine him resisting throwing that gasoline on the fire. I eagerly await the FSB dropping it right at the moment they can cause that hideous monster the most damage. And no, “Putin doesn’t like her” doesn’t compel anyone to vote for an aspiring fascist who wants to make it possible to jail those who criticize her, limit our right to practice our religion to those acts of devotion that don’t interfere with her progressive desires, and disarm us in the face of the criminals she excuses while rendering us unable to defend ourselves from her ambitions. Oppose Putin? He’s her role model.

Now there is a serious problem with Donald Trump, and that’s his comments about NATO. Deterrence works because our opponents believe we will keep our word and fight. Trump did not say we would never fight as we promised, but he left a whiff of doubt. And that’s undeniably bad.

Now, Obama has been shafting allies for eight years, with Clinton by his side for half of them, but Trump’s comments about not honoring our Article 5 commitments are still terrible. He needs to walk them back and make clear that an attack on Estonia, Poland, or wherever means war with the U.S. – to the extent the Obama-shrunken military can still fight a conventional war. And when he’s elected, the prissy conservative foreign policy establishment that’s boycotted him for having cooties needs to cut out their whiny posturing and get into the administration and square it away.

But if you want to save NATO, make no mistake that what Trump is saying resonates with millions of Americans – including vets. Many NATO countries have, amazingly, let their militaries whither even worse than ours. They are not keeping their promise by paying their fair share, and many Americans ask themselves why the hell our blood and treasure should be on the line if the Europeans are not all in too. Many of our NATO allies talked a good game about helping us in Afghanistan, but we know some of them (certainly not all) offered only miserly contributions of troops who were largely penned up with rules of engagement that made them close to useless. Until all of our allies step up and match our contribution, Trump is going to speak for many Americans outside the Beltway bubble when he tells our half-stepping allies that they need to carry their own rucks.

No, Trump should not have drawn the line the way he did, but this NATO-on-the-cheap nonsense has been going on for decades. Pearl clutching foreign policy guys, what is your solution to solving this problem? Asking nicely has not seemed to work, and if our allies don’t start getting serious, then NATO really will be done for.

As for Hillary, do we really want an unstable sociopath with a history of both vindictiveness and a demonstrated willingness to commit military forces to unwise and arguably illegal military adventures playing out her personal revenge fantasies against Putin with the lives of our young warriors? No thanks – there are lots of things worth dying for, but Hillary’s hurt feelings about the disclosure of emails that never should have been on her toilet server is not one of them.

At the end of my career, as Putin was growing more and more uppity, some of us grizzled colonels and sergeants major sat around with our young captains and majors, reminding them that we still had a few tricks up our camo sleeves. You see, while these amazing young warriors knew everything there was to know about chasing insurgents, there was something us old warhorses knew how to do that they didn’t. We knew how to kill Russians. If I didn’t need a Russia Is Not Our Pal 101 seminar from those young studs, I sure as hell don’t need it from a bunch of fellow traveling progressive schmucks who have been kissing bear tail since Stalin grew a moustache.

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/07/28/democrats-get-mad-at-the-russians-in-other-news-a-dog-marries-a-cat-n2198312?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad=