Donna Brazile Denies Primary Was Rigged

Donna Brazile, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, called Hillary Clinton staffers who criticized her take on the 2016 campaign out of touch. Brazile, appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” defended her claims that Clinton control of the DNC tied the group’s hands and made it difficult for the group to be involved in the campaign, but denied that the primary was rigged against Bernie Sanders.

“Here’s what they don’t know. What it was like to be over at the DNC during the hacking. What it’s like to bury a child. I did, Seth Rich. They don’t know what it’s like to protect a staff from further harassment,” Brazile said.

“They don’t know what it’s like because they’re — the high command of Brooklyn,” Brazile added. “The people making the decisions, even for the DNC, they didn’t come and work with us. They told us to shut up. And basically let them win the election. When we tried to intervene, we had to spend money we raised to try to help them win. That was my job as chair of the party.”

In a racially charged comment rarely applied to fellow Democrats, Brazile also said that she had to tell the Clinton campaign that she was no slave. “Yeah, I’m not Patsy the slave because I got sick and tired of people trying to tell me how the spend the money,” Brazile  said. “I wasn’t getting a salary. I was volunteering my time. I was trying to increase the level of enthusiasm and passion for Hillary Clinton and the rest of the ticket across the country.”

In other comments, Brazile denied that the Democratic primary was rigged against Bernie Sanders. “I said I would get to the bottom of everything, and that’s what I did,” Brazile said. “I called Senator Sanders to say, you know, I wanted to make sure there was no rigging of the process … I found no evidence, none whatsoever.”

“The thing, the only thing, I found — which I said, ‘I found the cancer, but I’m not killing the patient’ — was this memorandum that prevented the DNC from running its own operation,” she added.

Brazile’s claim that Hillary Clinton colluded with DNC long before Clinton won the Democratic nomination is ethically questionable, but falls short of actually rigging the election. In Brazile’s version of events, she discovered the Clintonian control of the DNC after the convention in July. Per Brazile, Bernie Sanders agreed to campaign for Clinton even after he was told of the party’s duplicity.

In spite of the result of the election, Brazile stands by her actions. “Do I regret taking on a job the second time in my life as chair of the party? Cleaning up everyone’s mess? Taking all of the income in? Being unable to spend funds that I raised? Do I regret being on the road 100 percent of the time? Being hacked by the Russians? Being — being harassed, getting death threats? Do I regret any of that?” she asked rhetorically.

“Do I regret standing up for what is right? Helping Hillary Clinton? Helping the Democratic Party? … No, I wish I could have done more.”

As Democrats Portray Trump Voters Running Over Muslims, A Muslim Ran Over Americans

A friend on Twitter asked a simple question a while back: how many reporters know people who drive a pickup truck. After all, the top three best selling vehicles in America are the Ford F-150, Chevy Silverado, and Dodge Ram. But instead of answering, many political reporters attacked the questioner for daring to ask the question. And many of these political reporters are insular bubble dwellers who really only have contact and friendship with people who think just like themselves, i.e. other liberals.

Thus we should not be surprised that liberal Democrats in Virgina decided to run an ad showing a Trump voter, or in the particular case a voter with an Ed Gillespie sticker (the Republican gubernatorial nominee in Virginia) on the back of his Ford pick up truck, trying to run over Muslim kids, Hispanic kids, and others. Make no mistake about it, this is how Democrats see Trump voters — pick up truck drivers with a Confederate battle flag flying from the rear and a “Don’t Tread on Me” Gadsden flag license plate. They portrayed this Gillespie/Trump voter who was their proxy for all Gillespie/Trump voters — white supremacists who would run over Muslim kids.

While the ad was airing in Virginia, a Muslim in a pickup truck drove it through a crowd in New York, killing eight people. Few Americans were actually killed. It was the international, ethnic melting pot of tourists in New York — Argentinians, a Belgian, and some Americans. The Democrats took down their ad in Virginia, but they stood by it and defended it. It is how they see Republicans. Overnight last night in Virginia, an elected Democrat attacked Republicans as evil. One gets the sense Democrats really do feel that way about Republicans, which is why they are perfectly fine shutting down Christian small businesses and driving conservative from college campuses.

But that gets me back to the pickup trucks. The top three best selling vehicles in America are pick up trucks. And Democrats view pickup trucks as proxies for simple-minded bigots. Add in an Ed Gillespie bumper sticker and a “Don’t Tread on Me” license plate and suddenly those simple-minded bigots are willing to hoist a Confederate flag and kill Muslim kids.

The press reaction, naturally, was predictable. Those political reporters who know no one who drives a pickup truck were perfectly fine with the Democrats’ ad. They excused it as best they could. Then when a Muslim did what they thought only a Trump voter was capable of, the left and its political reporters immediately wondered when the backlash against Muslims would happen.

The backlash should be against the Democrats and should be fierce and led by the President. President Trump should be on Twitter today noting that Democrats portray Trump voters as willing to run over Muslims while a Muslim is actually running over Americans. And the press is more worried about a backlash against Muslims than actually stopping terrorists.

A Year of Democrat Attacks On Trump Has Been Ineffective

For the past year, Democrats have unloaded on Donald Trump with both barrels. The attacks against Mr. Trump have been withering and unrelenting. The problem for Democrats is that they have not been particularly effective.

Sure, President Trump’s approval rating has a double-digit deficit, but his numbers seem to have bottomed out in the mid-30s. The Real Clear Politics average found that Trump’s average approval was at its lowest in August at 37 percent. This was 20 points less than his disapproval rate. Since then, Trump’s numbers have improved only slightly to 39 percent, still a 16-point net disapproval rate.

The problem for Democrats is that Trump’s approval has always been low and a year of attacks has not markedly changed his numbers. This may be partly due to the large number of different tactics used by the Democrats, none of which has been a homerun. Trump has been charged with not keeping his promises, with having problems with his temperament, with lying and even with colluding with Russia and supporting white supremacists, but none of the attacks seems to be a silver bullet.

There has been speculation since 2015 that Trump’s antics would cost him support among Republicans. So far that has not happened. The Washington Examiner reported last month that two polls showed Republican support for Trump was still at 75 percent. Trump’s Republican support may be eroded by the failure to repeal Obamacare and enact tax reform, a rumored amnesty for DACA participants, not building the wall, or his recent pivots to Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), but few Republicans would be likely to back a Democrat alternative.

To secure a victory in the midterms and 2020, Democrats need to offer independent voters something other than “Not Trump” and it is here that they are falling flat. Politico reports that the traditional Democrat platform planks don’t excite many voters outside the Democrat base. Voters worry that free college tuition proposals will still cost them money. Obamacare has gained majority approval and the idea of government health care for all is gaining popularity, but it still generates suspicion and is very divisive.

Democrats are learning the same lesson that the Republicans were faced with during the Obama era. Opposition to an unpopular president will only get you so far. An agenda that convinces people that you can make their lives better is needed to seal the deal.

It is on this point that one Democrat line of attack seems to show promise. Politico notes that a recent DCCC poll showed that Democrats lead President Trump by 17 points on the question of who “fights for people like me.” Last February, Trump and the Democrats each received 50 percent on the question. The change may be the result of Democrat charges that many Trump policies, such as financial deregulation, tax reform, and opposing Obamacare, are intended to benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else.

In the end, upcoming elections are likely to be referendums on President Trump’s job performance and the economy. If undecided voters feel that the country – and their own lives and careers – are going well, then they may decide to reward Trump and the Republicans despite their misgivings.

“He is the president,” Matt Canter, a focus group analyst told Politico. “The assessment that voters will make is, is he a good one or not? While Democrats like me have come to conclusions on that question, most of the voters who will decide future elections have not.”

Audio Of Nebraska Democrat Party Official: ‘I’m Glad Scalise Was Shot’

In a stunning audio recording released on YouTube, a Nebraska Democrat Party official has been outed as expressing delight over Rep. Steve Scalise’s shooting.

Released audio of Phil Montag, a Nebraska technology chairman for the state’s Democratic party, has him on record saying he’s “glad” Scalise was shot. He didn’t stop there – Montag said he wished the majority whip had died. The technology chairman, who has been promptly fired following the release of the tape, explains his contempt for Scalise being that “his whole job is to get people, convince Republicans to f**ing kick people off f**ing health care.

Watch the quick recording below. However, please be aware that Montag’s rant is filled with expletives:

Nebraska Democrat Party Chairwoman Jane Kleeb has confirmed that the audio recording is of Montag. She gave a statement following the controversial remarks by her fired employee:

“We obviously condemn any kind of violence, whether it’s comments on Facebook or comments in a meeting,” said Kleeb stated by phone Thursday. “Our country is better than the political rhetoric that is out there from both the far right and the far left.”

It is still unclear who Montag was speaking to at the time of the recording.



Alternate Facts: Majority of Democrats Actually Believe Russia Manipulated Vote Totals

Members of the mainstream media have been chirping incessantly about Russia “hacking” the Presidential election. Nobody actually thinks that the Russians hacked voting machines though, right?. That was merely a fundraising gimmick by Jill Stein and the Green Party. Democrats lined up for miles to get fleeced by Stein, only to find out after official investigations that the vote totals were in fact legitimate. Now the question remains, did the Russians hack the DNC, and was there collusion with the Trump campaign? Apparently Democrats don’t understand the issue at hand, as a recent survey found that a majority of Democrats actually believe Russia manipulated the official vote totals to help Donald Trump win.

It looks like the media’s overuse of the phrase “Russia hacked the 2016 election” has taken a real toll on our left-leaning friends.  A recent YouGov survey asked whether it’s true of false that “Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump election President.”  Turns out, 32 percent of Dems say it’s “probably true” and 23 percent say it’s “definitely true.”

This really is mind-boggling. If Russia has the ability to manipulate vote totals, something that apparently can’t be uncovered by an official investigation, maybe they should’ve given Trump a few million more votes in California and New York. Why let Hillary win the popular vote? Besides being totally debunked by official recounts, this theory doesn’t even meet the common sense test.

Leftists like to toss around the term “ignorant” to describe anyone who has differing philosophical world views. This, however, is an actual example of Democratic voters being completely ignorant of the facts. There is no difference of philosophy or world views here, it is pure ignorance. Democrats have already cost themselves millions of dollars to the Green Party because they are poor losers. Their ignorance could damage the party even farther.

Democratic voters feel disenfranchised by the rigged primary in 2016, and now a majority of Democrats feel our democratic process is illegitimate. Russia, not the American people, will determine the outcome of our elections. If the party is going to ignore you vote, and Russia is going to change your vote, why vote? In a time where the Green Party could begin to siphon votes away from Democrats, it’s going to be harder and harder for the party to get Democrats out to vote. Donald Trump may be having a hard time right now, but Democrats won’t be able to capitalize if they can’t get their act together.


A Democrat Civil War May Be Brewing Over Abortion

News stories often point to internal squabbling among Republicans and speculate as to whether the GOP is in the midst of a civil war because of the frequent disagreements. Mainstream outlets may be missing a budding civil war among the Democrats, however. Recent comments by several Democrat leaders indicate that the party may be splitting over one of its core issues.

For years, Democrats have marched in virtual lockstep on abortion. If pro-life Democrats were endangered before Barack Obama’s presidency, they were almost nonexistent after the elections of 2010 when Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and a cadre of pro-life congressional Democrats bowed to pressure to vote for Obamacare and lost their seats as a result.

Fast forward to 2017 when Tom Perez, elected chairman to rebuild the Democratic Party in the wake of the disastrous 2016 election, seemed to draw a line in the sand last month on abortion. “Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health,” Perez said in a statement. “That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state.”

If support for unrestricted abortion is “not negotiable” as a litmus test for Democrats, then the donks can plan on writing off about half of the American electorate. Polling has shown that Americans are split almost equally between the pro-life and pro-choice viewpoints. When examined more closely, only small factions support either extreme on the issue. Most Americans say that abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances.

Perez’s comments have set off a battle between Democrats who favor a big tent party and those who believe that ideological purity is more important. The debate is similar to the one that Republicans have had in recent years on issues such as spending, immigration and the details of replacing Obamacare.

Some party leaders rejected Perez’s comments. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said on NBC that “of course” pro-life Democrats should be accepted and supported by the party.

“I grew up Nancy D’Alesandro, in Baltimore, Maryland; in Little Italy; in a very devout Catholic family; fiercely patriotic; proud of our town and heritage, and staunchly Democratic,” she told the Washington Post. “Most of those people — my family, extended family — are not pro-choice. You think I’m kicking them out of the Democratic Party?”

Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate Minority Leader, agreed on MSNBC. “Look, we’re a big tent party as Nancy Pelosi said, but we are, let’s make no mistake about it, we are a pro-choice party. We’re a strongly pro-choice party,” Schumer said. “We think that’s where the American people are, and in fact, if anything, are moving even more in that direction.”

Some members of the Democrat base disagreed with their leaders’ inclusiveness. “It was great to see Perez discover a spine,” Erin Matson, a pro-abortion activist, told The Atlantic, adding that “Schumer and Pelosi’s recent comments are cowardly.”

“It’s about policy, not feelings or labels, and anything less than a bold stance that makes clear that the Democratic Party must be united in protecting a woman’s right to an abortion is a betrayal of a core constituency of the party,” Matson continued. She stopped short of calling big tent Democrats “DINOs.”

Elyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America noted in the Washington Post that last year’s Democratic platform “went further than the Party has ever gone to stand up for the women’s rights. It didn’t just seek to protect abortion access — it sought to expand it,” while failing to note that Democrats lost that election. “If the Democratic Party is going to gain back power, it can’t go backward, it can’t back down and it can’t trade away these principles,” she added.

“I don’t know why we would want to start walking away from folks, like myself, who have a personal conviction on the pro-life issue,” said Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), a pro-life Democrat congressman. “We ought to be able to include everyone, as opposed to saying ‘no, we don’t want these folks, even though they fight with us on jobs, even though they fight with us for economic rights, even though they fight with us on healthcare.’ It just seems to me to be very, very short-sighted.”

Nevertheless, even Bernie Sanders, the sometimes-Democrat with the cult-like following, is not immune to criticism when he deviates from the party line on abortion. Sanders drew fire from fellow progressives for his support of Omaha mayoral candidate Heath Mello. Mello had a pro-life voting record and reputation during his time in the Nebraska state legislature.

Pelosi later claimed to the Washington Post that the abortion is “kind of fading as an issue” for Democrats. That may be wishful thinking.

This week failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton jumped into the fray with a speech to abortion provider Planned Parenthood. “Protecting access to the full range of reproductive health care: it is a health issue, of course, it is a core economic issue,” Clinton said, quoted by The Blaze. “Women in every corner of our country understand that intimately. And anyone who wants to lead should also understand that fundamentally, this is an issue of morality.”

By claiming that opposition to abortion is immoral, Clinton has upped the ante and made it clear that pro-lifers will not be welcomed by a large part of the Democratic Party. Framing the issue in moral terms makes it almost impossible to compromise.

“I believe we can and should respect deeply held beliefs of our friends, our neighbors, our fellow citizens, even if they differ from our own,” Clinton continued. “That’s what should make America, America. But it is possible to do that while holding firm to what we know is the only right approach in our diverse democracy. Oh, yes, let’s respect people’s convictions, but never back down from our commitment to defend the ability of every woman to make these deeply personal decisions for herself.”

In other words, Democrats should respect the immoral opinions of pro-life Democrats as long as those opinions have no impact on the party platform or policies.

The decision on whether to welcome (or tolerate) Democrats who differ from the party dogma on an issue like abortion is an important one. It is very difficult for a political party to win if it is actively seeking to expel many of its members. Even if pro-life Democrats are permitted to stay, it is unlikely that the official Democrat position on abortion will change any time soon.



NEW: Trump Pivots Towards Democrats After Health Bill Disaster


The White House issued a warning to Republicans yesterday. In the wake of the failure of the president’s health care reform bill, the Trump Administration signaled that it is willing to reach out to Democrats to advance its agenda if it can’t win support from the various Republican factions.

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus underscored the potential shift in strategy on “Fox News Sunday” (quoted in the Wall Street Journal). “This president is not going to be a partisan president,” Priebus said. “I think it’s time for our folks to come together, and I also think it’s time to potentially get a few moderate Democrats on board as well.”

When asked if President Trump would move on from health care reform and allow the implosion of Obamacare to run its course as he threatened in a tweet, Politico notes that Priebus answered, “I don’t think the president is closing the door on anything.”

“It’s more or less a warning shot that we are willing to talk to anyone. We always have been,” he said in Time. “I think more so now than ever, it’s time for both parties to come together and get to real reforms in this country.”

Since the decision to remove the AHCA bill from consideration on Friday, President Trump has alternately blamed the Democrats, blamed the House Freedom Caucus and reached out to Democrats.

The Washington Times reports that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) was receptive to Trump’s overtures. “We Democrats, provided our Republican colleagues drop [repeal and replace] and stop undermining the ACA, are willing to work with our Republican friends — as long as they say no more repeal,” Mr. Schumer said. Schumer added in Time that, “if he changes, he could have a different presidency.”

With Republicans holding 52 seats in the Senate, virtually all reform legislation is subject to Democrat filibusters. A minimum of eight Democrats must cross over to kill the filibuster and allow a vote on any individual bill.

The Resurgent speculated in January that President Trump might forge a bipartisan coalition of moderate Democrats and Republicans on a number of issues where the president’s platform is at odds with traditional Republican principles. During the campaign, Mr. Trump said that he wouldn’t mind being a “free agent” in his dealings with Congress.

The price for dealing with the Democrats on health care would be giving up the full repeal of Obamacare. Republicans currently don’t have enough votes for repeal, but many, including those in the House Freedom Caucus, would refuse to vote for anything less. The price of bringing Democrats on board other items in the Republican agenda, from tax reform to immigration, is likely to be just as unpalatable.

The more the president moves to the left to appeal to Democrats, the more Republicans he will lose. The question is whether he can find a workable majority in the middle.

Menstrual Equity, or What Happens When Government Officials Have Too Much Time On Their Hands

Modern America has a lot of deep and complicated issues to deal with – race, immigration, healthcare, The Bachelor.

With so much to attend to it’s hard to imagine our government officials fitting one more thing on their plate, but have no worries. Representative Grace Meng (D-NY) isn’t about to let anything slip through the cracks. New York’s 6th District representative has taken up a cause that is sure to flow through the American conscience and make us all red with rage – menstrual equality.

What is menstrual equity? In a recent interview with Marie Claire magazine Meng described it as the fight against “period-shaming” and claims the laws in our country encourage women to feel shame about their periods. Her solution is to introduce more laws to help normalize the reality of this bodily function and provide feminine hygiene products (are we allowed to refer to them as such anymore? I can’t keep up these days) for the needy, poor and imprisoned.

Did you know that there are girls who skip school when they get their periods? If they can’t afford pads or tampons and don’t want anyone to see they’ve stained their clothes, they may feel like they have no choice. That’s not just something that happens in developing countries. It happens right here in the United States. Right in my home district of Queens, New York.

At her website, Meng says her bill would:

  1. Allow individuals to buy menstrual hygiene products with money they contribute to their flexible spending accounts.
  2. Provide a refundable tax credit to low-income individuals who regularly use menstrual hygiene products.
  3. Allow grant funds from the Emergency Food and Shelter Grant Program, which can be used by homeless assistance providers for essential household items, to be used for menstrual hygiene products.
  4. Require each state to provide menstrual hygiene products to female inmates and detainees, at no cost and on demand, as a condition of receiving funds from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.
  5. Direct the Secretary of Labor to require employers with 100 or more employees to provide menstrual hygiene products to their employees free of charge.

Meng’s concern here isn’t all that misplaced and as ridiculous as a “Menstrual Equity Act” sounds (and it does sound utterly ridiculous to say out loud), part of the congresswoman’s concern about inequity in feminine care is founded. Her home state of New York levies a tax on tampons and sanitary pads as “luxury goods” which is grossly offensive and yes, sexist. Meng decided that period equity shouldn’t stop at a tax, it should be a nationwide concern.

I appreciate the congresswoman’s concern for female hygiene and accessibility to necessary products and I definitely stand with her on removing that ridiculous tax on tampons.

Either a 9-year-old child or a dude that came up with that one because only someone who doesn’t menstruate would ever connect a period with “luxury.”

“What’s wrong with you today, honey? You’re so cranky!”

“Oh, I’m luxuriating this week. I’m on my luxury!”

The problem with this (again, oh-so-ridiculous sounding) legislation is that it’s legislation. Like most full-time politicians, Meng is proposing to solve a problem with more rules.

There is nothing new or secretive about women and periods. There is no shortage of access to feminine products in this country. Shelters, private charities, government programs and any human just looking to be generous all know how to find tampons and pads. There is no charitable program in this country that provides direct basic services for women that doesn’t deal with the realities of a woman’s menstrual cycle. All of those needs are provided for by people who understand that most women menstruate every month and thus need sanitary supplies. There is no need to legislate something people are already doing.

On top of that, Meng (like a good Democrat) is asking that taxpayers pick up the cost of periods by funding “free” hygiene products and even offering a tax credit for low-income women who purchase them every month.

So let’s see- she wants old women who don’t have periods anymore and men to pay for my tampons but only if I’m poor. If I don’t qualify for the income requirement I’m out of luck.

Age discrimination and income discrimination.

This is what happens when our representatives are full-time residents of congress. They get bored. They have nothing better to do than dream up new bills so they can have their name attached to something and get their per diems just for showing up every day.

Women have been figuring out their periods just fine for millennia without Meng and her fellow Democrats forcing everyone else to think about them constantly. Of course our periods are nothing to be ashamed of and of course we are still reluctant to talk openly about them in public. That doesn’t mean women are ashamed or shamed. Much like having a bowel movement, a period is a natural function of the body that is also a very private function for obvious reasons. We don’t need to publicly fund every private biological function.

We certainly don’t need to legislate periods.