Eight years, five major global conflicts

The Wall St. Journal editorial board notes that in the eighth year of the Obama Presidency the U.S. is involved in 5 major global conflicts as Obama prepares to leave office. "The tide of war is building on multiple fronts and the U.S. can’t escape the consequences,” writes the editorial board. No we can't escape it, and he and Clinton won't be blamed either by our media nor our textbooks and historians in academe (are there any left?). He will leave office "clean" because nothing touches him, and the next president will be blamed.

 We have drifted (or been pushed) into corrupted statism of a one party federal system with media colluding and the other party refusing to support its national candidate at the state level. If these battles are as serious as the WSJ board suggests, I hope we aren't in them for moral and ethical reasons. We have nothing to offer on that front.

Chris Wallace ran a tight ship in last night's debate

"Chris Wallace of Fox News demonstrated a capacity to maintain tight control over the proceedings and pressed both candidates on the issues that neither candidate wants to address. In Trump’s case, Wallace went head on into the accusations against him of sexual abuse of women and Trump’s allegedly vulgar and predatory behavior.

Clinton, meanwhile, was pressed vigorously to defend her record as secretary of state, her problems of untrustworthiness, the accusations of “pay for play” on the part of the Clinton Foundation during her tenure at the State Department and above all her undeniably liberal, even radical, positions on abortion.
The American public endured a second presidential debate a few weeks ago completely overshadowed by the charges of Trump’s behavior. By the third debate, the back-and-forth — characteristically acrimonious and filled with countercharges against former President Bill Clinton — had essentially run its course. Opinions and views on the matter are now set, and the damage to Trump has been done."

 http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/trump-vs.-clinton-iii-a-shift-in-focus

Ok.  Here's how the debate negatives went

• Trump's vulgar behavior.

Mrs. Clinton's

• record as Secretary of State
• untrustworthyness
• Clinton Foundation pay to play
• radical positions on abortion

Reviewing the 2000 election

Some history on accepting the election results. Although Al Gore was gracious when Bush finally won the 2000 election (law suits were being prepared in other states about their dead and displaced voters).  Jesse Jackson certainly didn't accept the results. Nor did Dick Gephardt.  The Democrats fought President Bush viciously for 8 years. It extended to back stabbing our soldiers in Iraq after supporting the war their own intelligence on WMD demanded. Al Gore went on climate change tirades to lick his wounds.

For those too young to remember, Democrats thought they owned black voters in a certain district in Florida and refused to accept the count, and instead tried to determine intent from "hanging chads." I had really liked Al Gore, but changed my mind late in the election season due to his Clinton connection--but I guess that must be white privilege, and blacks can't do that. Democrats pay a lot of money to control their voters, and know them well.  In 2004 when Kerry lost to Bush by about 100,000 in Ohio, some Democrats refused to accept the results, although Kerry did. Just imagine the mischief now with machine voting and Democrat 501c4s admitting they've been corrupting the vote for 50 years!

Facebook and Twitter weren't a factor in 2000, but Democrats contracted a disease called the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" BDS, which was very apparent in blogs and he was flogged constantly, insulted, ridiculed, called illegal, blamed for Hurricane Katrina and 9/11 tragedy, and probably the temporary disappearance of some queen bees, etc. by Democrats who never accepted that decision.

When you hear our media rehashing Trump's comments about accepting results, go talk to some elderly Democrats who still don't accept 2000.

Feelings, nothing more than feelings, whoa, whoa, whoa

What Mrs. Clinton will gives us as Supreme Court justices.  Outlaws.

JONAH GOLDBERG: "In her first answer of the night, Hillary Clinton was asked about the Supreme Court. She said justices should stand up to the rich and side with the people or some such treacle. It should support the usual favored groups, etc. It should fight big money and the powerful. And so on. Only problem: That’s not what justices are supposed to do. The Judicial Oath goes like this: “I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.” The relevant point is the same. Standing up to the rich is not the Supreme Court’s job. Standing up for the law is. And, sometimes, the law is on the side of the rich and powerful. You could look it up."
Remember the "wise Latina" Sotomayor fantasized about hitting one of her fellow judges with a bat. That's how judging with emotions and favoritism works.

Supremes 2020

How are you getting your information?

96% of "journalists" contribute to Democrats. 23:1 stories on broadcast media this election period are on what Trump says compared to Clinton's 30 years of known scandals and crimes. 223:1 public librarians vote Democrat.

The gender gap

Wikileaks has revealed that women working for the Clinton Foundation have a considerable pay gap. I'm assuming, like many cases of employment, they are more likely to be in clerical jobs, not the top management, but that is never said when Mrs. Clinton makes the accusation.

The broad cast media report 23:1 on Trump's sex tapes eleven years old compared to how and what Hillary is doing today to women--like making them less secure, imposing unfair taxes, slow economy, jobs for their college graduate children, screaming at her security detail or staff, or even aborting them before they get a chance to be women.

Project Veritas, Video 1--Organizing to disrupt a Trump event

The Project Veritas videos are out there now, "conflict engagement"--being denied of course, because he's also the one who exposed ACORN (the community organizers/Alinskyites and Democrat party operatives), and the Planned Parenthood ghouls selling baby parts. The narrative Veritas reveals is that Trump supporters are crazy and violent. He's showing how demonstrators showed up at Trump rallies blocking traffic and heckling honest citizens trying to draw them into acting "crazy." Seems to be a theme with President Obama and Hillary Clinton, always calling people who expose the power structure as a swamp of crazy or basket of deplorables, and now we see them as a clutch of cacklers and hecklers.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

So we have Wikileaks, the FBI e-mails and Project Veritas. All point to the most corrupt woman and campaign in our history, and I don't see a thing we can do about it.  Yes, we can vote, but Project Veritas has also interviewed the people corrupting our voting process.