Presidential debate on Sept. 26: Johnson and Stein not invited

art credit: wiltondems.org.

Assuming Hillary doesn’t have another collapse or some other health issue, there will be two candidates at the first Presidential debate on Sept. 26: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. From The Hill:

The Commission on Presidential Debates announced on Friday that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and their running mates are the only candidates who will participate in the upcoming debates.

This means Trump (R) and Clinton (D) will take part in the Sept. 26 debate at Hofstra University in New York and that Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein have not been invited. 

The Oct. 4 vice presidential debate will just include Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican Mike Pence. 

Some of the crystal balls got this one wrong. Politico ran a story on the possibility of third party candidate participation. Treehouse captured text of the recent full-page ad in The New York Times that gave every appearance of greasing the polling wheels to get Johnson onto the debate stage. Evidently, it didn’t work.

# # #

Sheriff Clarke on inner-city dysfunction and riots

photo credit: dailymail.co.uk

In a piece titled “Hard truths about inner-city dysfunction” at  Fox News Opinion, Cal Thomas cited America’s Sheriff, David Clarke of Milwaukee County:

. . . In an appearance Monday on Fox, Clarke, who is African-American, offered his explanation for the major cause of riots in Milwaukee and other cities: “You know what encourages this? The growth of the welfare state. These are underclass behaviors. Seventy percent of the kids born in Milwaukee are born without an engaged father in their life. So I look at the progressive policies that have marginalized black dads. They push them to the side and say ‘you’re not needed.’ Uncle Sam is going to be the dad, he’s going to provide for the kids, he’s going to feed the kids. Uncle Sam has been a horrible father. Uncle Sam does not love these kids. He might keep a little food in their mouths and that is about it. But we all know the importance of an intact family, what it can do to shape the behavior of kids.”

Clarke called progressive policies “a total disaster,” not only in Milwaukee, but in Chicago, Baltimore, New York and elsewhere. “These progressive policies have hit the black community like a nuclear blast and until we reverse this government dependency, that’s what creates all of this and it encourages it by the way, along with some questionable lifestyle choices.”

His answer? “Until the black community does a self-evaluation and until they begin to self-criticize about some of the lifestyle choices they are making, this stuff is going to continue to fester.”

. . .

Why do African-Americans continue to vote for liberal Democrats who have done little to help them and, in fact, often cause more harm than good?

Again, Clarke gets it right: “Until we push back against this progressive ideology, this dangerous ideology that has been very destructive to the black community and that’s what I’m trying to do -- it’s Job One right now in terms of messaging -- this thing is only going to get worse.”

Clarke expanded on the topic in a longer piece at The Hill (h/t HotGas).

# # #

More on voter fraud from The Hill

Ramirez cartoon credit: ldjackson.net

More on the potential for voter fraud this year, this from Ian M. Smith at The Hill a couple of days ago:

Illegal aliens have never had more incentives and ability to vote in our elections as they do this cycle. After being told by the globalist elite [their] illegal entry into the country is without consequence, helps rather than hinders American workers, and unites the national culture, any existing moral qualms of further violating the law, such as by voting, have been thoroughly scrubbed away. Former president Bill Clinton all but ensured this in his speech at the DNC Convention last week.

Speaking directly to illegal aliens, Clinton stated to an applauding audience of delegates that “if you love this country, you’re working hard, you’re paying taxes and you’re obeying the law and you’d like to become a citizen, you should choose immigration reform over somebody that wants to send you back.” Unfortunately for Bill, illegal aliens (and non-citizens in general) aren’t supposed to be ‘choosing’ anyone. Like in every other country in the world, here in America only citizens are supposed to vote.

Despite its unprecedented foreign-born population (currently over 40 million), the US protects against illegal voter-registration by relying on an attestation system. Under federal law, provided one can show a driver’s license or social security number, all a non-citizen need to do if they really want to vote is check a box “confirming” they’re an eligible voter. In other words, it’s an honor system. . . . 

Despite the fact that an illegal vote casted is a citizen-vote cancelled, similar defensive measures are apparently not seen as warranted in the area of voting.

On both the state and federal levels, incentives for illegal alien-voting abound. . . .

. . . Meanwhile, amongst illegal aliens in general, the use of fake or stolen SSNs is commonplace. . . .

The record-close election between Al Gore and George W. Bush led to the formation of a federal commission directed by former president Jimmy Carter to study voter reforms. Notably, its final report stated that better identification requirements were essential because, first, “[i]n close or disputed elections…a small amount of fraud could make the margin of difference… [a]nd second, the perception of possible fraud contributes to low confidence in the system.”

In this current election, where American confidence in general and the integrity of our laws has taken center stage, comments like Bill Clinton’s show exactly why the public’s so angry and frustrated. Whether disdaining democratically-enacted laws, such as our voting or immigration laws, is a shrewd or foolhardy campaign strategy, we shall see.

The rest of the article is here.

# # #

Jeb! reneges

photo credit: observer.com

Back in December, and shortly before Jeb! dropped out of the race, Guy Benson at Townhall reported on the GOP candidates' loyalty oath to support whoever became the eventual nominee for President. The headline then was “Jeb: I'm Considering Breaking My GOP Loyalty Pledge if Trump's the Nominee":

By declining to raise their hands when prompted by Fox New anchor Bret Baier, every other candidate on stage that night made a promise to voters: No matter who is nominated, they'd throw their backing behind his or her campaign, and would rule out an independent run.  

Ironically, that question was crafted specifically for Trump, but now it applies at least as much to moderates like Bush and Kasich as it does to the capricious frontrunner.  If you're seeking the Republican nomination, and if you've vowed to endorse and support the Republican nominee, you shouldn't go back on your word -- neither out of genuine frustration and disgust, nor as a campaign tactic. 

Not only would this be a breach of trust, it would reek of spite. Trump's been smacking Jeb around as a low energy loser for weeks; if the former governor were to follow through on this quasi-threat, Trump could tweak his taunt and cast Bush as a low energy sore loser.  

Jeb and friends have spent tens of millions of dollars so far, yet the campaign has failed to gain traction with voters (to put it kindly).  Reneging on the pledge now would be akin to pouting in the corner -- yet another indignity.  

Sure, guys like Bush and Kasich could use Trump's odious conduct and controversial proposals as a fig leaf to justify their potential reversals, but that would require them to feign shock that Donald Trump is comporting himself like...Donald Trump has always comported himself.  

Plus, it would infuriate a large segment of the Republican base, who would accuse the establishment of demanding party unity in support of "safe" nominees, then refusing to abide by the same standard when they don't get their way. 

Today, The Hill reports that Jeb! has reneged on his pledge.

“In November, I will not vote for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but I will support principled conservatives at the state and federal levels, just as I have done my entire life,” Bush wrote in a Facebook post.

Jeb! does not seem to have a clue about “conservative” principles, nor why Trump would appeal to conservatives who are sick and tired of “conservative” GOPe legislators who promise conservative values on the campaign trail and embrace the liberal agenda once in office.

# # #

Left’s latest assault on free speech

Art credit: rslblog.com

From The Hill via Tea Party Patriots:

December 02, 2014, 02:00 pm

Left’s latest assault on First Amendment nothing new

By Jenny Beth Martin

During the last week of October, when media attention was focused on the impending midterm elections – and President Obama’s forthcoming executive action on amnesty – an issue of critical importance slipped almost unnoticed into the news cycle. Democrats on the Federal Election Commission (FEC) are getting serious about stifling free speech on the Internet. 

At issue is an obscure anti-Obama ad from Ohio that wound up on YouTube. Because the spot was placed for free, it fell within the “Internet exception” the FEC has recognized – across party lines – since 2006. Internet ads of a political nature would seem the very embodiment of “free speech” contemplated by the Founders in the Bill of Rights. Democrat members of the FEC – and the American Left in general – see criticism of their Dear Leader as a serious matter, however, and in need of government regulation. They’re going to need to see your papers. 

The Obama Machine, whether in campaign or governing mode (is there really any difference?) has long viewed the First Amendment as an impediment to its agenda of “fundamentally transforming” the country. During the 2008 campaign, Democrat prosecutors in Missouriannounced the deployment of truth squads to “immediately respond” (in an ominous, yet unspecified way) to any derogatory information about then-Senator Obama. They backed down after being called out for their “police state” tactics by the then-governor. 

Once elected, the post-partisan president let it be known he’d brook no second guessing, let alone dissent. In 2009, vocal critics of the healthcare takeover could’ve found themselves on the flag@whitehouse enemies list, had they spread information deemed “fishy” by the administration.  After Robert Gibbs’ feeble insistence that of course the White House wasn’t keeping names and email addresses, the site was dismantled. 

Obama uses the bully pulpit to let his subjects know what a danger the First Amendment poses to his post-partisan agenda, and the 2010 State of the Union address was an ideal setting. Displeased with the recent Citizens United ruling, he took the unprecedented step of rebuking Supreme Court justices as they sat on the front row. Separation of powers and even basic rules of courtesy and decorum take a back seat, when the Cult of Personality needs to see its enemies’ donor lists. 

Following his 2010 mid-term “shellacking,” (and while his IRS was systematically targeting his perceived enemies), President Obama stepped up his assault on dissenters. In an absurd, "middle school hall monitor meets police state" story, Attack Watch was born. Concerned supporters of the president everywhere were asked to monitor and report any and all derogatory information. Knowledge is power, especially when informing on your neighbors.  And again, they certainly kept no list of names…not the folks who ask folks to document the content of group prayers. 

While it’s comforting that Attack Watch died relatively quickly (and mostly from ridicule), the sentiment behind the buffoonery is both serious and scary. The Left views criticism of their president as dangerous; the Bill of Rights is secondary. 

Democrat FEC Vice Chairman Ann Ravel is unambiguous about both the perceived threat to her president and the way to combat it. When her attempt to overturn the 2006 “Internet exception” ruling failed on a 3-3 party line vote,  Ravel took serious offense. Because the FEC wouldn’t force free Internet advertising into the same classification as paid ads on radio or television, she needs to shake things up. “A reexamination of the commission’s approach to the Internet and other emerging technologies is long overdue,” she said, as if regulating political speech is the logical next step. 

This is not Ravel’s first attempt to wipe her feet on the Bill of Rights.  Two years ago in California, she attempted to bring bloggers and "online commentators" under state regulation. Unbowed by her failure at the state level, she now wants to take her speech-stifling act national. If Ravel and her Democrat FEC colleagues have their way, bloggers and websites like The Drudge Report will answer to the federal government. Attack Watch was silly; these proposed new regulations are deadly serious. 

Ultimately for the Left generally and for Obama in particular, this is about control. Their nationalization of the health care system was a means to get the government more involved in people’s individual lives. Things that get in the way of that control – like the Constitution – are mere impediments to be dealt with. The President shredded Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution so he could control immigration. 

Does anyone think he sees the First Amendment as an obstacle to his controlling the Internet? 

People are criticizing him, after all. 

Martin is co-founder of Tea Party Patriots.

# # #