Voter Guide from a Red Lady in a Blue State

Victory Girls Blog

"A conservative living in deep-blue California isn’t given a lot of options when it comes to voting. It doesn’t help that our state Republican Party has wandered in the wilderness, sometimes in self-exile, for years. However, we muddle along, tilting at windmills and occasionally slaying a giant. So, dear voter, I’m here to give my recommendations, such as they are.

Governor

"I don’t know one Californian who isn’t aware of the open cesspit that used to be San Francisco. The third-world slum conditions are so bad that there’s even an app to track feces on the street. So to vote for former SF mayor Gavin Newsom is to approve of shoving the rest of California to Frisco’s level. Newson is so sure of his coronation, he didn’t even submit a candidate statement for the official voter guide. What a guy!

"Republican John Cox doesn’t exactly light up any stage when he appears, but he’s a successful businessman who was able to garner the 2nd spot in the jungle primary. He has an excellent grasp of California issues and represents a small roadblock to an out-of-control socialist legislature. Voting for Cox is the only intelligent choice.

Senator

"For any sane California voter, this race is like being asked “Do you want to die by fire or drowning”? On one hand you have Dianne Feinstein, old, corrupt & up to her jowls in the dirtiest attempt at character assassination lobbed at a Supreme Court nominee. On the other hand, there’s Kevin [de] Leon, a snot-nosed, puerile con-artist. A man who bragged that half his family was illegal and had used faked or stolen ID – and that was just a-ok. Even his name is fake. I cannot recommend voting for either piece of canine excrement. The only advantage of having Leon win is that as a Senate newbie, he won’t have any power as opposed to the old crone’s positions on several key committees.

Other Offices

"From Lt Governor to Congressional member down to your local Assembly member, Friends Don’t Let Friends Vote Democrat. You witnessed the Democrats’ unforgivable behavior during the Kavanaugh hearings. From Mad Maxine Waters to I-am-Spartacus Booker to Hillary Clinton herself, Democrats publically call for harassment, intimidation and physical violence against Republicans. My dear voter, is that the party you want to run the government?" . . .

"No honest American can cast a vote for any Democrat this cycle and not be at least partially responsible for any violence that follows." .  . .

by Darleen Click

Fake News Autopsy

Fake News: CNN’s Ana Cabrera lies about Trump, Trump Jr remarks, making them racist  

. . . "CNN anchor Ana Cabrera falsely claimed on Sunday that President Trump and Donald Trump Jr. made racial remarks over the last week that white men have a lot to fear.“ 'President Trump and his son Don Jr. said this week white men have a lot to fear right now,” Cabrera said during a CNN segment attempting to highlight that white people are calling the police on blacks."The problem is that the Trump duo never injected race into their remarks."Earlier this month Trump said it was a “very scary time for young men in America' ” . . .

Ann Coulter  "Whenever Donald Trump talks about fake news, there are howls of indignation from the establishment media. We're told that the very mention of "fake news" is a direct attack on our democracy, that the alternative is "darkness," that it led to the dismemberment and murder of Jamal Khashoggi, and that, yes, every once in a while there might be a typo, but if you mean the media intentionally report false information, that is dangerous demagoguery. 

Cabrera

I present CNN's Ana Cabrera.

     "On Sunday night, Cabrera launched a premeditated, vicious, racist lie about President Trump, then proceeded to discuss the false story with a black guest, primed to analyze the fake news.
     "We'll slow down the replay in order to follow the ball, so you can see every handoff in the creation of fake news.
     "A few weeks ago, when Judge Brett Kavanaugh was facing 30-year-old, completely uncorroborated accusations of sexual assault based on recovered memories in order to block his Supreme Court appointment, Trump said, "It's a very scary time for young men in America when you can be guilty of something that you may not be guilty of."
     "This statement was quoted by numerous news outlets, including CNN: "Trump says it's 'a very scary time for young men in America,'" Jeremy Diamond, Oct. 2.
Cabrera rewrote the president's quote, telling CNN viewers that Trump had said: "WHITE men have a lot to fear right now."
    "How did "white" get slipped in there?
    "If this were merely a mistake, there are lots of words in the English language that might have been inserted instead of "white." Why not "radial tire"? Why not "hangnail"? Why not the words "virtuoso" or "champagne"?
     "Dictionaries are heavy with all of the words that might have been inserted if this were an accident. How could the word "white" inadvertently get slipped into a Trump quote?

     "CNN intentionally told an ugly lie about the most incendiary issue roiling the nation: race. It wasn't a lie about Trump's position on tax policy, North Korea or school vouchers. The network deliberately pushed a racism narrative calculated to incite racial hatred that could get someone killed. " . . .

FAKE NEWS: A bad weekend for CNN, NBC News

Conrad Black  "As the position of ambassador to the United Nations is about to be vacant, from the retirement of the well-regarded Nikki Haley, former governor of South Carolina, and the president is considering alternatives, I wish to throw someone’s hat in the ring.
. . . 

"The United Nations is largely a debating chamber, and this is a field where Coulter has been very accomplished for many years. She is accustomed to being vastly outnumbered by mocking opponents of her unapologetic conservative views and would not be fazed in the slightest by the opposition of most of the 193 other countries in the United Nations. (It must be said that Haley has fought her corner very effectively also, though she does not have Coulter’s flare and oratorical virtuosity.)

"It would be a joy, and very entertaining as well, to see Ann Coulter disposing of America’s critics in her magnificently flamboyant and witty manner, as she tosses her long blond hair, and in a patrician voice that recalls, though it is more sonorous, the principal author of the widely ignored United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Eleanor Roosevelt.

"I always thought it was regrettable (and told him so) that William F. Buckley did not accept President Reagan’s offer of the embassy to the United Kingdom, as he would have dazzled the British. Ann Coulter would do the same to the preposterous congeries of the world’s representatives at the United Nations. The office seeks the lady.

. . . With that laborious prologue, I suggest that the next U.S. ambassador should be Ann Coulter. Her political views, unlike Ambassador Haley’s, have long been supportive of Trump, and although the president has overlooked some of Haley’s previous jibes at him when he was a candidate (she supported Marco Rubio for the nomination), Coulter would have a lot more preemptive sympathy in the White House.  . . .

O’Rourke Recycles Trump’s ‘Lyin’ Ted’ Nickname in Debate with Cruz

National Review

O’Rourke is “the only Democratic Senate nominee in the country who has explicitly come out for impeaching President Trump,” Cruz said, adding that if his opponent were to be elected, he would pursue“two years of a partisan circus” resulting in impeachment.

"Representative Beto O’Rourke (D., Texas) employed a combative approach in his debate with Senator Ted Cruz of Texas Tuesday night, repeating President Trump’s derisive nickname from the 2016 campaign, “lyin’ Ted.” 
"O’Rourke, a three term Congressman trailing slightly behind his incumbent opponent weeks before election day, went on the offensive immediately, employing hostile rhetoric reminiscent of that on display in the 2016 Republican primary debates.
“ 'This is what you can expect over the course of debate,” O’Rourke said after Cruz accused him of supporting a tax hike on oil. “Sen. Cruz isn’t going to be honest, he’s dishonest.”
“ 'That’s why [Trump’s] nickname stuck — because it’s true,” he added.
"Cruz, a former competitive debater, remarked on the palpable shift in his opponent’s strategy since their last debate.
“ 'Well it’s clear Congressman O’Rourke’s pollsters told him to come out on the attack,” Cruz said.
"The candidates’ position relative to President Trump emerged as a central topic of the debate as Cruz painted his opponent as unable to cooperate with the White House while O’Rourke cast the incumbent senator as a Trump puppet.
"O’Rourke is “the only Democratic Senate nominee in the country who has explicitly come out for impeaching President Trump,” Cruz said, adding that if his opponent were to be elected, he would pursue“two years of a partisan circus” resulting in impeachment." . . .

Some things to look for if the Democrats win back the House

Democrats taunt TEA Partiers at the passing of Obamacare

National Review: What to Expect if Democrats Win the House  "More big spending, pushback on deregulation, heavy investigation of administration officials, but no big-ticket items from the Left’s agenda"

. . . "First, despite the hopes or fears of both sides, we can forget about the big-ticket items on the Democratic left. We are not going to see single-payer health care, guaranteed jobs for everyone, or free college. While the loonier elements of the Democratic party have been campaigning on the idea of “Make Venezuela Great Again,” most of the party is united on little more than opposition to President Trump. " . . .
. . . "The one thing that a Democratic Congress can absolutely do is . . . make Donald Trump’s life miserable. Impeachment is not going to happen, but a Democratic House would have investigatory and subpoena power. Elijah Cummings would likely become chairman of the Oversight Committee, Adam Schiff would take over at Intelligence, and Jerry Nadler at Judiciary. Consider it a full employment opportunity for White House lawyers. From Russian collusion to emoluments to the myriad scandals of the Trump cabinet, administration officials can expect to spend so much time testifying before Congress that they might as well move cots into the halls of the Capitol." . . . 

Choice of Democrat voters

House Democrats poised to take the gavel on key committees should a blue wave materialize in November are already laying out their top priorities for 2019.
Two of their top priorities? Global warming and going after Department of the Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. (RELATED: Scientists Throw Cold Water On Claims Linking Hurricane Florence To Global Warming)

The Trump/conservative agenda will be dead if the Democrats regain the House in November.  Some to consider: 

Financial Services: Republican Jeb Hensarling (TX) replaced by Maxine Waters of California; Judiciary, Republican Bob Goodlatte (VA) replaced by Democrat Jerry Nadler (NY); Oversight and Government Reform: Republican Trey Gowdy (SC) replaced by Democrat Elijah Cummings (MD)

That'll work...turn our finances over to Maxine Waters. What could go wrong?

Democrat voters

Aug 27: Tyler Durden at Zero Hedge: With Democrats Set To Win The House, This Is What Happens Next

. . . We expect that a fiscal policy in late 2019 and 2020 would be slightly more expansionary under continued Republican control than under a divided Congress, mainly due to tax policy. If Republicans hold on to their majorities in the House and Senate, they would likely attempt to enact a second round of tax cut legislation. This would be possible through the reconciliation process, which allows the majority to pass fiscal legislation in the Senate with only 51 votes, rather than the customary 60 votes. In this scenario, we would expect only a modest additional fiscal boost, as there is likely to be limited support for substantial additional tax cuts in light of the growing deficit. By contrast, under a Democratic majority, we would simply expect little activity on the tax front, as congressional Democrats are unlikely to support additional tax cuts while congressional Republicans and the White House would be unlikely to support any reversal of the prior tax cuts. Under either scenario, the boost to growth from fiscal policy is likely to mostly fade by 2020 from the roughly 1pp we estimate in 2H 2018 . . .

If the Democrats take back the House and Senate in 2018, can they impeach Trump?

. . . "So in short, the only way Democrats can impeach Trump in either of these two scenarios:Scenario A - They win a simple majority of the House of Representatives and they control 67 seats in the US Senate, orScenario B - Trump does something so egregious and heinous that some Republicans in the Senate are willing to crossover and vote “Guilty”, enough to make-up the 67 votes neededOtherwise, you are left in the same situation Clinton was in in 1998: Not Guilty" . . .

Democrat voters 

 If Democrats win the House  For openers, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. would head the Financial Services Committee and have subpoena power. Under Democrats I can see ISIS growing in power again and North Korea being less cooperative with us. TD

Here’s What May Happen to Your Taxes If Democrats Win the House

Republican voter after meeting Democrat voters.

Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Washington Redskins and Elizabeth Warren. Oh! And Rachel Dolezal!

Jeff Dawald‎ at Expose Liberals & Media Bias

 Warren's approach seems to track more closely to another older white woman also lacking in American Indian DNA, but not chutzpah, by the name of Hillary.  Maybe Warren ought to check for Ashkenazi DNA.  Jonathan F. Keiler

Cherokee nation rains on Elizabeth Warren's parade  "Elizabeth Warren was doing a victory dance about her DNA test showing "strong evidence" she may have 1/1,024 or 0.09 percent Native American lineage.  In hot pursuit, she called on President Trump to "pay up" with his $1 million offer to the charity of her choice for taking the DNA test he said he would toss to her at a future presidential debate, earlier.  As the network press admiringly gushed about the whole "gotcha," she was convinced she had him cornered.

"Well, sorry – that debate hasn't happened yet, and now it's doubtful that it ever will, because Warren is hearing from the leaders of the Cherokee nation.

"Here is their astonishing rebuke to her for what they rightly view as a shabby little publicity stunt at their expense:" . . .

Timothy Bishop

Warren's Clintonian Smoke Signals "For folks on the right, Elizabeth Warren's proffered "proof" of American Indian ethnicity is both laughable and puzzling.  Her proof is nothing of the kind, and she's seemingly reopened herself to merciless mockery by conservatives.  On Monday, Tucker Carlson came up with at least a half-dozen silly pseudo-titles for Warren, from the well known fauxcahontas to leader of the #MeSioux movement.  But Warren is playing a different game, one to the Democrat base, and using the time-tested Clinton playbook to do it.  Whether it still works remains to be seen. 

"The best Warren's hired expert could do was estimate that she had a single American Indian ancestor six to ten generations back.  This is not very good, and she'd be foolish to crow about it.  Logically, this means that Trump and her critics were right, and she's a fraud.  Warren is about 1.5% American Indian, tops, as are most typical white people in this country.  At worst (as she sees it), she's way whiter, well into Aryan Sisterhood territory.

"Of course, logic plays no role on the left, and Warren knows it. " . . .

Melanie Morgan

Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said on Tuesday that he is taking a DNA test to prove that he is more Native American than Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Native American Lawmaker to Elizabeth Warren: It’s Disgusting to Me and Native Americans “Apologize to All of Us” "The Boston Globe later issued a correction to their initial report — The DNA test revealed that Elizabeth Warren is not 1/512 Native American, she’s 1/1,024. That’s 0.0009765625. 

"Warren actually has less Indian in her bloodline than most Caucasian Americans." . . .

Legal Insurrection: Why won’t Elizabeth Warren apologize to Native Americans?
. . . “The Boston Globe dating back to 2012 has essentially served as Elizabeth Warren’s press office. They did this back in 2012. What she does, she gives them exclusive to family members, exclusive access to documents, and they run with her story line. And they did it back in 2012, and they’ve done it multiple times in the last 3-4 months as she’s getting ready to run… They simply took off the shelf a report she commissioned, she obtained, which even on its face is almost laughable, that she might be 1/1000th Native American based on a DNA database which doesn’t even include Native Americans in it." . . . It’s as if Trump set a trap, and Warren walked right into it.

Tony Branco

Ben Shapiro at National Review: Warren Is a Fraud  . . . "Whatever credibility Warren had on the issue was shattered this week — by Warren herself. Irked at President Trump’s irreverence regarding her purported bloodline, Warren released the results of a DNA study done by Professor Carlos Bustamante of Stanford University. Those results showed that a Native American ancestor may have existed in Warren’s family tree “in the range of 6–10 generations ago.” This would make Warren somewhere between 1/64th Native American and 1/1024th Native American.
"It’s quite hilarious — and remarkably tone deaf — that Warren thought the study would make her problems go away rather than exacerbate them. But she was counting on a little help from her friends in the media. " . . .

Ian Macfarlane

No comment needed

Pat Cross Cartoons at Townhall

Democrats destroy what you stand for, what you care about

Michael James

Vote these egocentric and small-minded Democratic monsters out on November 6 – because they are so perfectly willing to destroy what you and I stand for, what you and I care about.

1856: pro-slavery Democrat canes anti-slavery Republican in Congress

"If Hillary Clinton could think, she would possibly notice the inbred self-mockery of her own deplorable statements.  You probably read her latest shot at the Republican Party; quoth the craven, "you cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about."

"Fifty years ago, a Democratic president created the modern welfare state.  Lyndon B. Johnson publicly promised to end poverty and supposedly swore privately that "I'll have those n------ voting Democratic for a hundred years." 

"I believe in true family values, and my Republican Party believes in true family values, but long ago the Democratic Party destroyed what we stand for, what we care about.  Democrats tested monetary alchemy on black families and tore those families to shreds.  If you teach in a school of predominantly black students, seven out of ten of those children live in fatherless homes.  Hillary, your political party maliciously destroyed the family, something our party stands for, something we care about.

"Forty years ago, the democratic liberals among us decided that coed dorms were a brilliant solution to some problem that didn't exist.  Republicans believed that college studies were too important to be mixed with late teenage hormones in close proximity.  Democrats got their way, and the result has been young men denied equal protection from false rape accusation and immature girls wearing mattresses to lectures.  Republicans cared about and wanted to protect their sons and daughters from situations that could become sexually overwhelming; Republicans cared enough to desire a gradual progression into adult responsibilities and choices.  The Democrats didn't give a hoot about what we stood for, what we cared about." . . .

Left Turns on Hillary After ‘Tone-Deaf’ Comments on Lewinsky

This can happen when your vocation is to do no more than talk, talk, talk. TD

Legal Insurrection

Feminist support for Hillary is “feminism for entitled, privileged woman; other kinds of women were dispensable.”

"I may be in the minority, but I don’t want failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to shut up because the more she talks, the more people shed her.

"Hillary may have put the final nail in her coffin on Sunday when she said her husband’s affair with Monica Lewinsky was not an abuse of power or a reason to resign.

"Those comments shocked many, but now the left has turned on her. Publications like Think Progress, The Guardian, and Vanity Fair published scathing articles taking Hillary to town over her comments.

"Professor Jacobson wrote about Hillary’s comments, which she made during an interview with CBS:

Hillary Clinton says that her husband was right not to resign from the presidency in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, she told CBS’ “Sunday Morning.” As first lady, she stood by his side as President Bill Clinton was impeached after lying about his affair with Lewinsky, a White House intern.

The former secretary of state said she disagrees with those who now say he should have stepped down.

“In retrospect, do you think Bill should’ve resigned in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal?” correspondent Tony Dokoupil asked.

“Absolutely not,” Clinton said.

“It wasn’t an abuse of power?”

“No. No.”

"Let’s not forget that four other women [have] accused Bill of sexual assault while Juanita Broaddrick has accused him of raping her.

"ThinkProgress described Hillary’s comments as “tone deaf in any moment, but they feel particularly inappropriate in this one, with the #MeToo movement raging.”

"The article also mentioned the other instances that put Hillary at odds with the #MeToo movement like when she protected adviser Burns Strider who faced sexual harassment accusations during the 2008 campaign.

"Then there’s David Axelrod:" . . .

The Origins of Progressive Agony

Victor Davis Hanson
In the wake of Obama, the Democratic party was a shipwreck, to be saved only by Hillary and the Supreme Court . . .

Protesters gather in front of the doors of the Supreme Court as Brett Kavanaugh is sworn in, October 6, 2018.

"What has transformed the Democratic party into an anguished progressive movement that incorporates the tactics of the street, embraces maenadism, reverts to Sixties carnival barking, and is radicalized by a new young socialist movement? Even party chairman Tom Perez concedes that there are “no moderate Democrats left,” and lately the rantings of Cory Booker, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez confirm that diagnosis. 

"Obama, the Fallen God 

"Paradoxically, Barack Obama won the presidency in 2008 and 2012 and yet helped to erode the old Democratic party in the process. He ended up in opulent retirement while ceding state legislatures, governorships, the House, the Senate, the presidency, and the Supreme Court to conservative Republicans. 

"Obama had promised leftists — in his prior brief tenure in the Senate he had compiled the most partisan record of his 99 colleagues — that his social-justice methods and agendas would lead to a proverbial “permanent Democratic majority.” Do we remember the February 2009 Newsweek obsequious cover story “We Are All Socialists Now”?

"Supposedly, changing demography, massive illegal immigration, and identity politics had preordained a permanent 51 percent “Other” whose minority statuses, as defined by gender and race, had now become a majority, given the destined demise of the white working classes. If Obama had not existed, someone like Corey Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, or Kirsten Gillibrand was supposedly foreordained to be president anyway.

" But while Obama sermonized about our predestined “arc of history” and how its moral curve bent this way and that, he managed to lose both his supermajority in the Senate and the House itself by 2011. By 2015, the Senate lost its Democratic majority.

"Ruling by pen-and-phone executive order only took the country more leftward. And it came at the price of stagnating the economy, acerbating social, cultural, and racial differences, raising taxes, and recalibrating foreign policy. " . . .

Updated: Sen. McCaskill Hides Agenda Including “semi-automatic rifle ban” from Moderate Voters . . . More updating at the bottom

. . . "Staffers Reveal in Undercover Video it “could hurt her ability to get elected.”

Project Veritas . . . "
Project Veritas Action Fund has released a third undercover video from campaigns during this 2018 election season. This report exposes how incumbent Senator McCaskill and individuals working on her campaign conceal their liberal views on issues in order to court moderate voters.

"Said James O’Keefe, founder and president of Project Veritas Action:
“This undercover report shows just how broken our political system has become. Senator McCaskill hides her true views from voters because she knows they won’t like them.” 

Claire McCaskill’s Staff Praise Her Ability to Hide Gun Control Support from Missouri Voters  . . . "The undercover video montage begins with an unwitting McCaskill gleefully admitting her support for numerous bans, including one of “high capacity” magazines. She proudly states, “I’ve voted for most of those things before.”

"Next up in the video, a filed organizer named Carson Pope talks of McCaskill’s openness to a “semiautomatic rifle ban.”

"Campaign staffer Nicholas Starost then describes McCaskill’s decision not to have Obama campaign for her: “He’s a very liberal candidate. And like … Claire distancing herself from the party is gonna help her win more votes than it will saying like: ‘Oh here’s Obama, the former president of the United States, to now speak on my behalf.’ Which is unfortunate because I love Obama to pieces, and I’d love to see him come here.”

"The Project Veritas reporter then asked about McCaskill and Obama, saying, “And they essentially have the views on everything?”

"Starost responded, “Yeah, People just can’t know that." . . .

Update: 'People Just Can't Know That': McCaskill, Staff Exposed In Undercover Sting Video

Second update: 1830, CDT:  Another Project Veritas video exposes McCaskill hidden agenda  . . . "In red states like Missouri and North Dakota, incumbent Democrats do their best to hide their party affiliation.  They need Republican votes to win, and cozying up to Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer would be the kiss of death.  A campaign appearance by former President Obama would excite Democrats but lose the candidate more votes than he would gain.

"McCaskill walks a tightrope, trying not to offend Republicans while maintaining contact with her liberal base.  As the Project Veritas video shows, it's a balancing act that, by necessity, involves lying to Missouri voters about her real intentions."

Portland Mayor ‘Supports’ Police Standing Idly By as Mob Envelops Car

Branco

Western Journal  . . . "So why are Portland, Oregon’s streets such a mess with riots and violence? Well, maybe it’s because the mayor condones it.

"Ted Wheeler, mayor of Portland since January of 2017, has been controversial in his post, to say the least. The city has been the scene of multiple immigration protests for which ICE has called him out, his city faces a homeless problem and he’s been a vocal critic of the president.

"As of late, the streets of Portland aren’t fit for average citizens to walk or drive through because they are scenes of violent protests from left wing antifa radicals who oppose the right wing demonstrators. The two just don’t mix and the combination is often combustible.

"Maybe the mayhem has become so prevalent there because the mayor is AWOL when it comes to directing law enforcement officials to stop the demonstrations and protests that are at the heart of the ills there.

"The Washington Times reported Mayor Ted Wheeler standing behind a decision by police to not intervene when riots break out and innocent people are attacked." . . .



The age of the red hats  "Thirty years ago, I found myself on the Kowloon ferry, facing several menacing men carrying four batons.  Avoiding an encounter, I moved as fast as I could, ignoring these young men, who continued their angry rants.

"What I could not forget was their anger and pointed red hats.  These students professed to know better than their own professors.  They were the Red Guards, the self-arrogated defenders of puerile Marxism.  They were intolerant and belligerent.  They also had an edge.  Those who challenged that vision could be imprisoned even without a trial, and families could be forced into harsh labor.

"Now we have the red pointed hats for the 2010s.  Groups such as Black Lives Matter believe that only their will is correct.  The hardcore left has checked off all debate.  It is not as if evidence has been established to reinforce a claim.  Evidence is irrelevant in a commitment to an idea.  Anger is justifying this position; in fact, the Lenins of our time believe it's in the national interest to promote anger." . . .