Hillary Clinton, MSM editor: Today's news for November 4th

It seems as if Hillary Clinton is an unofficial editor for the mainstream media (MSM). At least that is the impression from multiple Wikileaks emails:

Wikileaks:

Email titled "Hi again from AP (inquiry about thumb drive)"

First, some context: 

David Kendall, according to Wikipedia, is a lawyer who "currently represents the former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton,...in the matter of her use of a private email server while serving as U.S. Secretary of State." If his name is familiar, he also defended the Clintons in the Whitewater case.

Eric Tucker is a writer for the Associated Press. I would call him a "journalist", but as you will see, he isn't worthy of that title.

And here is the email in question:

> *From:* Tucker, Eric [mailto:etucker@ap.org]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 11, 2015 6:00 PM
> *To:* Kendall, David
> *Subject:* Hi again from AP (inquiry about thumb drive)
>
>
>
> Hi David,
>
> We have been told, and we are preparing to report, that the FBI has
> taken possession of the thumb drive that was once in your possession. This
> is what we have been informed, and we wanted to see whether there was any
> sort of comment that could be provided. If you wanted to steer us away and
> say that we are misinformed, then I would gladly accept that as well. But
> we have solid reason to believe this. We’d welcome any comment you can
> offer. Thanks very much.

Exactly when does a "journalist" offer a news source the opportunity to "steer us away" from a news story?

A more apt title for Mr. Tucker would be "Media whore".

Speaking of Media whores...

The Daily Caller:

Politico Reporter Gets Caught AGAIN Sending A Story To A Clinton Staffer For Approval

For the second time in less than a month Politico chief political correspondent Glenn Thrush has been caught sending stories to Hillary Clinton staffers for approval. 

Thrush sent an email to Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri on April 17, 2015 with the subject line: “pls read asap — the [Jennifer Palmieri] bits — don’t share.” This was revealed in Thursday’s WikiLeaks release of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails. It is included in Podesta’s emails as Palmieri shared the email with several other Clinton staffers, including campaign manager Robby Mook and Podesta. 

The eight paragraphs that Thrush sent Palmieri were filled with glowing sentences about her. She wrote in the forwarded email to Clinton staffers, “He did me courtesy of sending what he is going to say about me. Seems fine.”

What self-respecting journalist sends their news story to a political campaign to be reviewed? Certainly, Mr. Thrush doesn't qualify as either self-respecting or a journalist.

Mind you, I don't blame Hillary Clinton for this situation. What politician would turn down this kind of free service from the MSM? No, the blame here falls squarely on the MSM's shoulders. True journalism is a responsibility, and these men fail in it. If I was Tucker or Thrush's editor, I would fire them for their behavior in these two incidents. This is credibility you can't get back.

Finally, a story of brutal seriousness but with a positive ending...

CNN:

ISIS captive gives birth to child of rape

Umm Al'aa will never tell her son who his father is.

He's an ISIS fighter who raped her while she was a prisoner of the terror group.

Now 40 years old, she was a mother and a grandmother before being kidnapped and held captive for a year and a half. She has a child who's younger than her grandchild.

But he's just as much a part of their family despite his grim beginning, she says.

Umm Al'aa is a pseudonym. To protect her, the woman is not being identified. Her neighbors in Mosul were ISIS supporters but she and her family refused to pledge allegiance to them.

In spite of the horror of this story, there is something inspirational here;

By the time she was released [by ISIS] she was pregnant with a son. 

She named Mohammed after her husband, who was killed on Tuesday amid battles on Mosul's eastern outskirts where Iraqi and coalition forces are battling ISIS fighters. 

"My best memory of him was how much he loved and respected me," she said. "Yes we are poor people, but we were happy." 

The boy may be a product of rape but he's still her son. Their son. 

"I am not going to tell him who his father is. That his dad is ISIS. He's my son, he's not ISIS' son." 

So often, we hear about rape as a valid excuse for abortion. But this woman has shown that the power can be taken away from the rapists, and given instead to her son in love. He may be the product of rape, but that doesn't have to define his life, and his mother's attitude towards him proves this. This woman is a shining example of the power of the mind over the body, as well as the power of love over hate.

Apology not accepted from Media

There was a stunning confession by a Florida newspaper (from the Washington Times):

A Florida daily newspaper is apologizing to readers for not being objective enough in its coverage of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

The Daily Commercial, which serves Lake and Sumter counties, recently issued a “mea culpa” admitting that it hadn’t taken a balanced-enough approach to the 2016 presidential election.

“Because we have limited space and resources, smaller papers are generally limited to covering the horse race — the day in-day out happenings on the campaign trail,” the paper explained in an open letter.

“Trump, who has been a big personality since he burst onto the scene as a major New York developer in the 1980s, could never seem to stay focused on his message — immigration, American jobs, international relations,” it continued. “He instead has devoted so much of his air time to saying outlandish things and picking fights with anyone, even his own party, who disagreed with him. He has demonized Republicans and the media, and then he wonders aloud why so many people and institutions have turned their backs on him.

“In short, he has been his own worst enemy by creating daily controversies with his words and actions instead of dominating the news cycle with the message that got him this far,” the paper said. “Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has been bland on the campaign trail, not giving the media anything to latch onto.”

Excuse me? A presidential candidate has broken the law and been involved in a huge conspiracy to cover it up, extending all the way up to the president of the United States, and you call that "bland"? What news universe are you living in?

Continuing:

The Daily Commercial said the media have undoubtedly been biased toward Mr. Trump, and that bias had trickled down to their paper.

“Trump’s every utterance, no matter how innocuous, is now parsed, analyzed and criticized by a litany of political pundits,” the letter continued. “The wire services that the Daily Commercial subscribes to churn out stories almost daily that fact check Trump, which is warranted given his penchant for exaggeration and duplicity. Yet those same services turn out so few stories that fact check Clinton, who also has a strained relationship with the truth.

If this were the only election where the MSM has done this, this apology might be acceptable. Unfortunately, the MSM has been doing this to Republicans for decades. Anyone paying attention has come to realize that the Republicans are the only major political party held accountable for their actions. Heck, Libertarian Gary Johnson got held accountable for not knowing what Aleppo was, yet they ignore Hillary Clinton's ignorance on her own emails? Trump is perpetually hounded by his off-hand praise of Putin, as well as every former employee who has a second cousin that has a contract with the Russians for copper tubing, while the Media whitewashes the Clinton Foundation's donation from the Russians to get access to American uranium WHILE CLINTON WAS SECRETARY OF STATE?

But we know why the MSM does it: George W. Bush was Hitler, right? (although the Media did recommend the Iraq War too) And don't even get me started on the evils of Ronald Reagan, who only brought us out of the quagmire of the 1970's. At least the Media got Watergate correct, even though every Republican since then is Nixon in their eyes.

Case in point: The New York Times' Charles Blow's editorial, "Trump Is an Existential Threat". Here is Blow's argument in a nutshell:

Donald Trump is a bigot. 

Donald Trump is a demagogue. 

Donald Trump is a sexist, misogynist, chauvinist pig. 

Donald Trump is a bully. 

Donald Trump is a cheat. 

Donald Trump is a pathological liar. 

Donald Trump is a nativist.

Even I will agree with all that. But there is one point where he misses: Trump is NOT a criminal. or at least he has never been convicted of a crime. Blow even irresponsibly mentions, "the rape of a 13-year-old girl", except Trump was never convicted of that. The judge threw it out of court.

Blow only mentions Clinton once:

I try to think of it in terms of weariness with Washington and with D.C. insiders, the Clintons in particular, and dynastic democracy in general. I try to think of the intense Clinton distrust and even hatred that exists in some quarters, sentiments only exacerbated by things like this never-ending email saga. But then I hit Donald Trump...

...and hit him again and again and again. Somehow that thought about Clinton's flaws got lost.

Quick comparison: Clinton versus Trump, on facing accusations of wrongdoing.

Example A for Hillary Clinton is from last July's statement from FBI Director James Comey, exonerating Hillary in the email investigation:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

Example B for Donald Trump, from Charles Blow's editorial:

But then I hit Donald Trump, a real estate scion who has been sued nearly 1,500 times and is currently being sued for Trump University deceptions and the rape of a 13-year-old girl.

Now you answer: Which candidate has been held accountable more?

By the way, if you think the email scandal is the only illegal thing Hillary ever did, you didn't live through the 1990's.

Disclaimer: I wouldn't vote for Donald Trump if you paid me. However, for a large enough donation to the Clinton Foundation, Hillary would vote for him. And the mainstream media would look the other way.

As for the Media apologies, like my mother used to say to me, with a stern look on her face, "You're sorry for what?" Then when I told her, she'd say, "And what are you going to do about it?" Until I hear the Media's answer to the second question, I am not accepting the apology.

Craziest year ever! Today's news for November 3rd

2016 will go down as the craziest year in American history. With the worst presidential election choices ever, we can now officially add the unthinkable to this year's list of events: The Chicago Cubs won the World Series for the first time in 108 years. Excuse me, while I head to the store to pick up canned goods and water...

Heatstreet:

WIKILEAKS: Assistant AG Gave Podesta a ‘Heads Up’ on Hearings

Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik appears to have given Clinton advisor John Podesta a ‘heads up’ that Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails would be discussed at a House Judiciary Committee meeting, according to a new batch of Wikileaks emails released Tuesday.

The email, from Kadzik to Podesta warns Podesta about an FBI superior testifying to the “HJC,” and of developments in a Freedom of Information Act request for Clinton’s emails.

If you need proof that this scandal extends into the U.S. government, look no further than the above email. This is the legal textbook definition of "conspiracy".

If you can even assume Hillary has "plausible deniability" from this scandal, explain why she hasn't fired John Podesta? If she had an ounce of integrity, she would.

CNN:

GOP congressmen, asked about impeachment, warn of 'constitutional crisis' if Clinton wins

The outcome of the 2016 election won't be decided for another six days, but the topic of impeaching Hillary Clinton if she wins is already a topic of discussion on conservative talk radio.

Several Republican congressmen have been asked this week about a potential Clinton impeachment if she were indicted as a result of an FBI investigation into her emails; all of them warned of a "constitutional crisis" if Clinton were to be elected.

Their answers mirror what Donald Trump has being saying on the campaign trail. At a rally Monday, Trump warned of the "very possibility of constitutional crisis" and said if Clinton were elected, she would face criminal investigations and possibly a trial.

Texas Rep. Michael McCaul ‏on Fox News Wednesday explicitly mentioned the possibility of impeachment.

"Assuming she wins, and the investigation goes forward, and it looks like an indictment is pending, at that point in time, under the Constitution, the House of Representatives would engage in an impeachment trial," McCaul said. "They would go to the Senate and impeachment proceedings and removal would take place."

There is only one problem with this: What if Hillary won with a majority of the popular vote? This talk would get immediately flushed, because the Republicans don't have the cajones to uphold the law in the face of a popular election.

Fortunately, that doesn't look like a possibility: In none of the recent polls, even the rigged ones, is Hillary shown with 50% or more of the popular vote.

In summary, if Hillary wins with only a plurality, expect a lot of investigations to plague the beginning of her presidency. Maybe by her second term she will actually be able to do something not related to her criminal activity?

Speaking of bad presidents...

Business Insider:

'The fate of the republic rests on your shoulders': 

Obama delivers impassioned plea to America to reject Trump

President Barack Obama delivered an impassioned plea to voters in North Carolina to vote next week and reject the candidacy of Republican nominee Donald Trump.

"We won'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."

Obama repeatedly laid into Trump, one sentence after another, saying that he had "no respect for working people," mocking his claim that he has a"good brain," and lambasting the Republican presidential nominee's plan to bar all Muslims from entering the US.

"What I can tell you is that we can't afford a president that says we should torture people, or that should ban entire religions from our country," Obama said.

The president also raised the 2005 video of Trump boasting about kissing and forcing himself on women without their consent.

"If you disrespect women before you are elected president, you will disrespect women when you are in office," Obama said.

He added: "Imagine what you'll actually do when you have to the power of the Constitution along those lines."

Drama queen much?

Seriously, if Obama hadn't spent so much of his time trying to undermine the intentions of the Founding Fathers, maybe he wouldn't need to worry about the "power of the Constitution" now? Obama is the latest one in a long line of presidents who have pulled the proverbial teeth from the separation of powers guaranteed by the Constitution, thereby taking our country further down the road towards dictatorship.

Obama, quit crying about what Trump might do, when you already set the table for him. If Trump starts running this country by executive fiat, just look in the mirror for the cause.

My 2016 votes

Here is how I plan to vote this year. If you happen to live in Savannah, Georgia, your ballot options may be similar to mine.

Note that I am not going to discuss unopposed candidates. Personally, I refuse to vote for an unopposed candidate. I skip over them in discussion, and I skip over them when voting. Unopposed candidates prove that the criteria required for getting your name on a ballot are far too steep for certain positions.

President: Gary Johnson (Libertarian). I discussed this Monday. Read it here.

U.S. Senator: Allen Buckley (Libertarian). While I disagree with Buckley's gun control views, and his idea for replacing Obamacare isn't that good in my opinion, he is still a better candidate overall than Republican Johnny Isakson (who is tolerable, but is too pro-war for my tastes, and lacks definition to what he wants to have to replace Obamacare). I wouldn't even consider voting for a national Democrat like Jim Barksdale. The Democrats, otherwise known as the party of unrepentant criminals, won't be getting my vote any time soon.

Public Service Commissioner: Tim Echols (Republican). After watching the debate below (which was surprisingly cordial), I have to go with the incumbent, who speaks intelligently on the topics, and who has a good track record. Eric Hoskins, the Libertarian, seems like a nice guy, but I just don't see a reason to make a change in this office.


Sheriff: John T. Wilcher (Republican). I don't have any issues with law enforcement in Chatham County currently, so the incumbent gets my vote.

Coroner: Not voting. In the first place, the coroner is an elected office? Really? I have absolutely no qualifications to determine what makes a good or bad coroner. But I am pretty sure political party affiliation has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Coastal Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor: Not voting. Yet another position where I have no qualification to judge whether the people running are good or bad.

On the matter of proposed state constitutional amendments:

1. "Shall the Constitution of Georgia be
amended to allow the state to intervene in
chronically failing public schools in order
to improve student performance?": Absolutely not! Handing more power over to the state or the federal government is a proven failed solution. Higher level politicians have no better clue as to what a good school should be than the average taxi driver. If they want to give out education vouchers to parents, that is the better solution.

2. "Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended
to allow additional penalties for criminal cases
in which a person is adjudged guilty of keeping
a place of prostitution, pimping, pandering,
pandering by compulsion, solicitation of
sodomy, masturbation for hire, trafficking of
persons for sexual servitude, or sexual
exploitation of children and to allow
assessments on adult entertainment
establishments to fund the Safe Harbor for
Sexually Exploited Children Fund to pay for
care and rehabilitative and social services for
individuals in this state who have been or may
be sexually exploited?": This sounds good until you get to the "allow assessments on adult entertainment establishments". Legal establishments should not be targeted with sin taxes like this. In general, if you cannot tax everyone to pay for something, don't tax at all. Taxes, like rights, should apply to everyone. I will be voting "no".

3. "Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended
so as to abolish the existing Judicial
Qualifications Commission; require the General
Assembly to create and provide by general law
for the composition, manner of appointment,
and governance of a new Judicial Qualifications
Commission, with such commission having the
power to discipline, remove, and cause
involuntary retirement of judges; require the
Judicial Qualifications Commission to have
procedures that provide for due process of law
and review by the Supreme Court of its
advisory opinions; and allow the Judicial
Qualifications Commission to be open to the
public in some manner?": While this seems like a reasonable idea on the surface, I really don't carry a strong opinion. I will leave it to people who know more about this to decide the issue. I am not voting on this. This is a good example where not voting is also an informed decision. If you aren't sure, it is better to not vote at all.

4. "Shall the Constitution of Georgia be amended
so as to provide that the proceeds of excise
taxes on the sale of fireworks or consumer
fireworks be dedicated to the funding of trauma
care, firefighter equipping and training, and
local public safety purposes?": See number 2 above. These public services should be paid by everyone, not just consumers of fireworks. I am voting "no".

Finally, there is one special purpose county law being considered on the ballot:

1. "Shall a 1% Educational Sales Tax be imposed
and continued for a period of time not to exceed
20 calendar quarters in the Chatham County
School District in order to raise not more than
$382,000,000 for the purposes of (a) building,
replacing, renovating, and upgrading schools
and other School District facilities in the
Chatham County School District and acquiring
any necessary property, both real and personal,
and equipment relating thereto, including, but
not limited to, classroom furniture,
transportation equipment, technology
improvements, physical education/athletic
facilities, safety and security equipment, food
service equipment, heating and air conditioning
systems, roofing, mechanical and similar
equipment, and (b) paying principal and interest
on previously incurred general obligation debt
in the maximum amount of $27,000,000. If
imposition of the Tax is approved by the voters,
such vote shall also constitute approval of the
issuance of general obligation debt of the
Chatham County School District in the principal
amount of $200,000,000 for the purpose set
forth in (a) above.": No. Frankly, the Chatham County School District is a disgrace, and I wouldn't give them a dime more until they learn how to use the money they have. With as much money as Chatham gets from tourism sales taxes, this school district should be exceptional. Instead, it is epically bad.

20th century criminals: Today's news for November 2nd

The Clintons, and the Democratic Party as a whole, are learning a brutal lesson about trying to commit 20th century crimes (as well as "ethical lapses") in the 21st century. Bad behavior leaves a trail.

Case in point:

Zero Hedge:

Podesta To Mills: "We Are Going To Have To Dump All Those Emails"

In [yesterday's] 25th, Wikileaks release of hacked Podesta emails, one of the notable highlights is a March 2, 2015 exchange between John Podesta and Clinton aide Cheryl Mills in which the Clinton Campaign Chair says "On another matter....and not to sound like Lanny, but we are going to have to dump all those emails."

The email, which may indicate intent, was sent at the same time as the NYT story "Hillary Clinton Used Personal Email Account at State Dept., Possibly Breaking Rules" -  which for the first time revealed the existence of Hillary's email server - hit, and just days before Hillary's press conference addressing what was at the time, the stunning revelation that she had a personal email account, and server, in her home.

The proposed "dumping" on March 2 takes place two days before the House Select Committee on Benghazi sent Hillary Clinton a document retention subpoena on March 4, 2015, with some hinting the NYT report may have served to tip off the Clinton campaign about the upcoming subpoena.

Tyler Durden nailed it when he said the email indicates intent. People don't talk about dumping emails unless they are trying to cover up something. If someone is cleaning up their inbox, they would more likely call it "erasing" or "deleting".

On top of this, even old "ethical lapses" get new life after awhile:

Zero Hedge:

Clinton Campaign Questions Release Of FBI's Marc Rich Pardon Records

As reported moments ago, in what appears to have been a surprise release, the FBI's Vault twitter account released 129 pages of files related to the FBI's 2001 probe into Bill Clinton's 2001 pardon of Marc Rich.

And while NBC reported that the files were released as part of a normal subpoena, the increasingly paranoid (not without reason) Clinton campaign - and many others - immediately had questions. According to Politico, "Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign raised questions about the timing of the FBI’s release Tuesday of records on a 15-year-old investigation into President Bill Clinton’s pardon to fugitive financier Marc Rich."

The FBI posted the 129 pages of records in its online Freedom of Information Act reading room in apparent response to a FOIA request seeking information on FBI inquiries into the Clinton Foundation. On the website, the release was dated Monday, but an FBI Twitter account flagged the new posting at noon on Tuesday. 

But the meat of the story is here:

Despite the lack of major revelations in the documents, which constitute only a part of the FBI’s files on the inquiry, the atmospherics in the records are unhelpful to the Clinton campaign. The records repeatedly refer to the probe being handled by the “Public Corruption Unit” and make clear that the FBI was examining claims that Denise Rich’s Democratic Party “donations may have been intended to influence the fugitive’s pardon.”

“It appears that the required pardon standards and procedures were not followed,” the internal FBI memos said.

So instead of a normal investigation, Bill Clinton decided to pardon Marc Rich based on campaign donations. While not illegal, it is proof of the scumbag that Bill Clinton is/was.

And a final note on this: The name of the prosecutor who decided not to file any charges in the Marc Rich case? James Comey, who is currently the FBI Director.

But there is a point to all this:

The Hill:

If Dems will rig a debate for Clinton, what won't they do to win?

Heather Higgins provides a brilliant piece of analysis to one aspect of this news:

The latest revelation — that the town hall moderator overseeing a Democratic primary debate gave CNN contributor Donna Brazile a peak at expected questions, and Brazile then fed Hillary Clinton's campaign staff a question expected to come up in the primary debate against Bernie Sanders — confirms the too cozy relationships between the politicians and the so-called journalists and officials who are supposed to be helping Americans get unbiased information about candidates.

...Americans now have reason to wonder about the other debates and who else in the so-called unbiased media world was seeking to assist the Clinton campaign by sneaking her a preview of questions or tilting the news in her favor. Such thinking is no longer cynical; it's just realistic as we've seen just how widespread the corruption and bias goes.

And if people are willing to cheat in the debates, what else wouldn’t they justify cheating on to accomplish their ends?

It is precisely the repeated revelations that of cheating at debates, inciting violence at rallies, and collusion between the DNC and their dirty tricksters, that lead many Americans to believe — not unreasonably — that, given just a whiff of deniability, these same people would unhesitatingly attempt to rig the election.

Count on Hillary Clinton to respond as she always does: Deny any knowledge of the wrong doing, (because you see, you can’t actually prove that she actually saw fill-in-the-blank), blame someone else, (the Russians have become the Democrat’s iteration of “the dog ate my homework”), and distract the American people with the idea that there is a vast conspiracy out to get her (projection, anyone?)  

Fortunately, Americans seem to be getting the message:

CNN:

Early voting update: Black vote declining with 24.4 million ballots cast

A dip in African-American turnout has knocked Democratic early voting numbers off their 2012 pace in key battleground states like North Carolina. 

The trend is also evident in early vote data from other swing states that could play key roles in deciding the election, including Florida and Georgia.

This is the black version of "voting third party". Since blacks will only vote for Democrats, their only way to object to a Democrat is to not vote. This is definitely a bad sign for Clinton.

The PC police circle the wagons around Hillary

After 8 years of every criticism of President Obama getting labeled as "racism", it comes as no surprise when attacks on Hillary Clinton's corruption get the sexism label. Case in point: Robin Lakoff's Time editorial, "Hillary Clinton’s Emailgate Is an Attack on Women": 

I am mad. I am mad because I am scared. And if you are a woman, you should be, too. Emailgate is a bitch hunt, but the target is not Hillary Clinton. It’s us.

The only reason the whole email flap has legs is because the candidate is female. Can you imagine this happening to a man? Clinton is guilty of SWF (Speaking While Female), and emailgate is just a reminder to us all that she has no business doing what she’s doing and must be punished, for the sake of all decent women everywhere. There is so much of that going around.

Lakoff will be 74 later this month, but clearly she is suffering some form of Alzheimers or senility, because she seems to have forgotten the 1990's, when every week was another Clinton scandal, and they weren't strictly about Hillary.

(In hindsight, I am beginning to wonder if Hillary wasn't the root of the worst scandals. Bill's sex scandals were notorious, but things like Whitewater and the White House Travel Office were heavily influenced by Hillary's actions. But that is my opinion.)

The only reason Emailgate is still with us is because FBI Director James Comey chose not to prosecute her, instead leaving it up to the American people to decide her fate. But that isn't good enough for aging feminazis like Lakoff:

FBI Chief James Comey has shown himself to be another bully of the same kind. He has repeatedly talked down to Clinton, admonishing her as a bad parent would a 5-year-old. He has accused her of “poor judgment” and called her use of a private email server “extremely careless.” If Comey’s a Boy Scout, here’s one old lady who will never let him help her across the street.

That is because Comey is showing her a mercy that nobody else would get under similar circumstances. Ask former CIA Director David Petraeus about such things, because he got charged. Did I mention Petraeus is a male?

So Miss Lakoff, take your sexist self-pity party somewhere else. You want equal rights? Then take your equal responsibility with it. Let Clinton have her day in court, like any other public official who plays fast and loose with the rules.

Bad ideas and professional malpractice: Today's news for November 1st

With Halloween now over, today's news revolves around bad ideas and professional malpractice, some of which is downright scary. 

First, we go to Germany...

Express:

'We are losing control of the streets' Merkel's Germany descends into lawlessness

During the first six months of 2016, migrants committed 142,500 crimes, according to the Federal Criminal Police Office.  

And the country has been hit by a spate of horrendous violent crime including rapes, sexual and physical assaults, stabbings, home invasions, robberies, burglaries and drug trafficking.

Adding to the country's woes is the fact that thousands of people have gone missing after travelling to the country on invitation from the country's leader. 

Germany took in more than 1.1million migrants in the past year and parts of the country are crippled with a lack of infrastructure.

Read the entire story, but the short version is: Lax immigration policies have made a mess of Germany.

The German lesson is obvious: A completely open border policy is recklessly stupid.

Discussing bad ideas without mentioning Obamacare would be remiss...

MRC TV:

Physicians' Participation in Obamacare Plummets 20 Percent

The number of physicians who say they’re accepting health insurance plans offered on Obamacare’s federal and state marketplaces has plummeted nearly 20 percentage points, creating yet another crack in the president's rapidly buckling health care law.

According to a recent survey by SERMO, a social network for physicians, about 57 percent of doctors said they won’t be taking new patients insured by the plans next year. That’s down about four percentage points from last year, when 61 percent of physicians said the same, Forbes reported Monday.

But a similar survey conducted by the Medical Group Management Association back in 2014 showed that at the time, 76.5 percent of physicians said their practice were accepting insurance plans offered on the state and federal marketplaces.

Based on these two surveys and a little basic math, we find the number of physicians accepting ACA plans has fallen an astounding 19.5 percentage points heading into Obamacare’s fourth enrollment period – a pretty remarkable decline, considering it’s been just three years since the exchanges were first opened.

What is even more astounding is the article's math is wrong. From the 2014 survey to the current one, it is a drop of 19.5 percentage points, which divided into 76.5% (the original number) shows a drop of 25.4%. In fact, the drop is far more significant than they are showing.

To understand the importance of this coming election, look no further than Obamacare. 4 years from now, it will be replaced or extremely modified. The only question is what plan will we get?

Speaking of politics...

New York Times:

CNN Parts Ways With Donna Brazile, a Hillary Clinton Supporter

Don't you love that headline? A "Hillary Clinton Supporter"? Kind of like G. Gordon Liddy was a Nixon supporter...

CNN has severed ties with the Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, after hacked emails from WikiLeaks showed that she shared questions for CNN-sponsored candidate events in advance with friends on Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

Ms. Brazile, a veteran political analyst for the network, was already on leave from CNN since becoming interim chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee. On Monday, CNN said it had accepted her formal resignation on Oct. 14.

“We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor,” Lauren Pratapas, a network spokeswoman, said in a statement.

“CNN never gave Brazile access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate,” Ms. Pratapas wrote.

The announcement followed the release of new emails on Monday that included a message from Ms. Brazile on the day before a CNN-sponsored Democratic primary debate in Flint, Mich., in March. Her subject line: “One of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash.”

“Her family has lead poison and she will ask what, if anything, will Hillary do as president to help the ppl of Flint,” Ms. Brazile wrote to John D. Podesta, the Clinton campaign chairman, and Jennifer Palmieri, the candidate’s communications director.

At the debate the next night, two women asked similar questions of Mrs. Clinton and her opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Here is a news flash to CNN: If you didn't give Brazile "access to any questions, prep material, attendee list, background information or meetings in advance of a town hall or debate", then how the heck did she get such specific information? When you say crap like that, it makes you look like you were either in on it, or else you are accusing Brazile of stealing the information.

Speaking of media malpractice...

Washington Times:

He gets 11 seconds in eight months: Gary Johnson receives virtually no coverage from networks

If you want to understand why third parties fail in America, here is the answer:

Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson has complained in recent days that he gets very limited coverage in the mainstream media compared to the big names in the 2016 race. Mr. Johnson appears to be 100 percent right. There is a virtual broadcast black-out on the candidate.

A startling new analysis of major network news coverage conducted by the Media Research Center reveals all. Rich Noyes, research director for the conservative press watchdog, examined 1,713 campaign stories that appeared on ABC, CBS and NBC from Jan. 1 all the way through the end of August. Here’s what Mr. Noyes and his team of researchers found.

GOP nominee Donald Trump got 1,773 minutes of coverage, Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton got 1,020 minutes. And Mr. Johnson?

“Thus far in 2016, Johnson has received a mere 11 seconds of evening news coverage — just a single sentence on the NBC Nightly News as he was formally nominated back in May,” says Mr. Noyes. “That means Clinton has received more than 5,000 times more coverage than Johnson, while Donald Trump garnered nearly 10,000 times more evening news airtime than his Libertarian challenger.”

The broadcast status of other third party hopefuls were also examined by the researchers. They found that conservative independent candidate Evan McMullin got 33 seconds, Green Party nominee Jill Stein three seconds. Yes, three seconds. Constitution Party candidate Darrell Castle got no seconds — as in zero coverage on the networks.

America has a very big problem with the MSM being in bed with the two major parties. When you leave your decisions to the evening news broadcasts, remember that you are NOT getting the entire story.

And now for some fluff Halloween news...

USAToday:

Hilary Duff is 'SO sorry' about her offensive Halloween costume

It's that time of year when celebrities apologize for their offensive Halloween costumes. 

So, who's immediately regretting her choice of holiday wear this year? That would be Hilary Duff, who attended the Casamigos Halloween Party Friday in Beverly Hills. The Younger and Lizzie McGuire star went out with her boyfriend, trainer Jason Walsh, dressed as a pilgrim and a Native American. She had on a short black outfit, and he wore a feather headdress and face paint.

Really? This is offensive?

In the first place, it is so inauthentic as to be ridiculous. If I put on a football helmet and a short skirt and called myself a Roman gladiator, it would be comparably ridiculous (although I do have the legs to carry it off).

In the second place, these are Halloween costumes, not a political statement about relations between Native Americans and pilgrims. While I recognize it is possible to make an offensive Halloween costume, I don't see anything bad being said about Native Americans in this. 

This is just so much PC nonsense.