Hillary Clinton actually nails it

Read it here and you will see the constant deflection from what the Left has been doing, and their diversion and projection of accusing their political enemies of doing it, not them.

And remember, Fascism was and remains an invention of the Marxist left, as Adolf Hitler himself said.

"The fate of the world is teetering."

So saith President Obama on the stakes of next week's election.

"We don't win this election, potentially, if we don't win North Carolina," he said during a campaign rally for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. "I hate to put a little pressure on you, but the fate of the republic rests on your shoulders. The fate of the world is teetering."

Well, Green Party candidate Jill Stein would certainly agree. She said a few weeks ago that a President Hillary Clinton will just continue to attack and bomb other countries: " Under Hillary Clinton, we could slide into nuclear war very quickly from her declared policy in Syria."

Even the UK's The Independent chimed in: "Could Hillary Clinton start a World War? Sure as [snip] she could – and here’s how."

And then there is this: "Don't trust Clinton to avoid stupid wars: The world she had a big hand in making as secretary of State doesn't look very peaceful."

The world today, which Clinton as Obama’s secretary of state had a big hand in making,  doesn't look very peaceful. In 2010, things in Iraq were so peaceful that Joe Biden was bragging that the administration’s Iraq policy would be “one of the great achievements of this administration.” In 2012, with Clinton still serving as secretary of State, President Obama bragged about “ending” the war in Iraq, which would be news to the thousands of U.S. troops fighting there today.

Then there’s Libya. According to The New York Times, Clinton played a "critical” role in persuading Obama to topple Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi. This led to what The Atlantic''s Conor Friedersdorf calls her ”failed war in Libya.” Despite her pronouncement that "We came, we saw, he died” after Gadhafi's death, the Libya intervention has been a debacle, and one that Clinton has refused to acknowledge as such.

The fate of the world may indeed be teetering, just as Obama says, but it is teetering all the more because of the last eight years of his administration and very much because of Hillary Clinton's role in it.

Obamacare is working exactly as intended

Bumped from August 2013 - in response to the shocked expressions of commentators that Obamacare is financially unsound by design and that a President Hillary will "fix" it by driving us straight into  single-payer, that is, fully federalized, health care. Well, duh. What did they think the purpose of Obamacare was if not that? Harry Reid even said so at the time, see below.

Or, as we used to shout in the Army, "BOHICA!"

When the White House was merely a gleam in our gallant leader's eye, he told us clearly that Obamacare (not so named then, of course) was merely an intermediate step toward "single-payer" health care. That means a system where private health insurance does not exist. Everyone's medical bills are paid by the government.

That means that doctors and medical staff are actually government employees. See National Health Service, Great Britain.

And so here we are:

Reid said he thinks the country has to “work our way past” insurance-based health care during a Friday night appearance on Vegas PBS’ program “Nevada Week in Review.” 

“What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Reid said. 

When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”

As I said, BOHICA!

Update: "Obamacare is making underinsurance the new normal."

Is Trump our only chance to restore Constitutional government?

Electing Donald Trump to the White House may be the only chance we have to return the country to anything resembling true Constitutional governance. Not that Trump would cooperate, but he would face so much bipartisan opposition that he'd have no choice. And what a vast improvement over Obama that would be. 

That's a summary of Rand Simberg's column on why electing Trump is actually a Constitutional imperative for voters. I had never thought of this angle before and I have to admit that it does make some sense.

My quick synopsis: If Hillary is elected, it will be the Political Class come in more power than ever before, and Jill Stein will be right: voting for Hillary is voting to continue the status quo, which is a really, really bad choice.

And what will be the most deleterious effect? The Imperial Presidency will be locked in concrete. The law means nothing to Obama now because neither party in Congress thinks it should. 

The result is elegantly explained by Andrew Codevilla:

... the primordial fact [is] that, in today’s America, those in power basically do what they please. Executive orders, phone calls, and the right judge mean a lot more than laws. They even trump state referenda. Over the past half-century, presidents have ruled not by enforcing laws but increasingly through agencies that write their own rules, interpret them, and punish unaccountably—the administrative state. As for the Supreme Court, the American people have seen it invent rights where there were none—e.g., abortion—while trammeling ones that had been the republic’s spine, such as the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. The Court taught Americans that the word “public” can mean “private” (Kelo v. City of New London), that “penalty” can mean “tax” (King v. Burwell), and that holding an opinion contrary to its own can only be due to an “irrational animus” (Obergefell v. Hodges).

What goes by the name “constitutional law” has been eclipsing the U.S. Constitution for a long time. So, says Rand,

[A] President Trump will have likely come into office with the lowest share of the popular vote since Abraham Lincoln, and will have alienated not only the Democrats (despite the fact that he’s been one for decades), but large segments of his “own” party, and will have minority support within it. And the man who would be his Vice President, Mike Pence, is hugely popular in his own party, and would be seen as a preferable President by most (many of whom currently think the ticket upside down, at best, if Trump should be on it at all).

In other words, a President Trump will be on probation with both parties from the moment he takes the oath of office. He is not a black man, or a woman of any color, so the Republicans won’t have to worry about going after one of the victim classes, other than septuagenarian orange people, a class for whom, when also considering John Boehner, Democrats feel few social-justice pangs. He will operate within the Constitution, or there will be bipartisan desire to stop him, and few on either side of the aisle will have any qualms in doing so.

Regardless of the electoral outcome, we are about to elect one of the worst presidents in American history. But only one choice will offer us a potential opportunity to rectify that situation.

I must say, though, the Rand's brief comparison of a potential Trump win with Lincoln's does not fill me with confidence. Lincoln was, after all, even more a racist bigot in fact than Trump is in accusation, and in factual, rather than mythological history, Abraham Lincoln did more to destroy Constitutional government than any president between Washington and Wilson. Many people are justly reconsidering Lincoln's presidency and concluding that he alone initiated what a hundred years later Arthur Schlesinger would call "The Imperial Presidency." His hands are drenched with the blood of three-quarter million Americans, and yet for some reason we consider him one of the top three or four presidents. 

Update: Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy piles on.

"My grandfather voted Republican til the day he died . . .

... and from then on always voted Democrat."

So goes the old Southerners' joke. Well, no one's laughing now. Investigators for news and law enforcement alike have found dead voters in Colorado. 

And in Virginia. And more in Virginia. 

And in Los Angeles.

And Colorado again.

And nearly two million dead voters in the whole country.

I have said it before, but yet again:

Start here, for instance. Manipulating U.S. Elections: 10 Ways Voting Is Being Hacked by the Left. Why anyone thinks that this November will feature an honest election is beyond me. In Marxist (which is to say, Democrat) thinking, elections are supposed to be rigged.

What is the purpose of this elaborate extravaganza? Marxists have long noted that insofar as its stated purpose is concerned–determining the question of political power in modern society–it is no more than a charade, a political sleight of hand in which the more things seem to change, the more do they remain the same. But Marxists do not deserve any special credit for making such an observation. One hardly has to be a Marxist to grasp the fact that bourgeois elections do not, in any way, impinge upon or alter questions of power. The general cynicism among the masses toward politics and politicians–a cynicism which runs far deeper than can be measured solely by noting the large numbers of people who do not bother to vote in elections–is itself proof that the futility and corruption of bourgeois politics has become a part of U.S. folklore. (Paul Saba, 1980, "Reaffirming the Marxist Theory of the State".) 

The entire orienting point of elections in the Democrat party is not to give the people the power to decide anything, but to make them think they do. Think not? Two names and I rest my case: Sanders, Wasserman-Schulz.

Remember what Stalin said: "It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."

And this is the party that runs the country, and wants to keep on doing so

Words simply fail:

And this the the one to whom they want us to entrust the country:

Where does all the Clinton money go?

According to filings released by the Clinton Foundation itself:

Whatever those $135 million in cash contributions was buying, good works wasn't it. This the graft, corruption and cronyism you will bring to the the Oval Office if you vote for Hillary Clinton this fall.