How Trump Could Win

Things That Could Help Trump Win——————————–

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

 

As I’ve said repeatedly, I haven’t been a big fan of Donald Trump. I would have preferred almost any of the opponents he faced during the primary to head a ticket that would have a better chance of defeating Hillary Clinton than Mr. Trump has. I’ve been critical of his belligerent and often insulting style and his occasional lack of familiarity with key details regarding important issues. I believe his victories in the primaries have more to do with voter anger at establishment politicians and their failure to deliver than with the candidates’ qualifications. Nevertheless, he survived a grueling nomination process and he deserves credit for that.

 

It will surprise no one that I like Mrs. Clinton considerably less. I believe, as do many poll respondents, that she is dishonest and untrustworthy. In my view, her email scandal confirmed a lack of judgment and integrity that makes her unfit to hold a security clearance, much less serve as president. I believe that she should be held more accountable for the deaths of four Americans including our ambassador to Libya in the attack on our embassy and the subsequent cover-up attempt. Her political career, like her husband’s, has too often been tainted by scandal.

 

But the reality we now face is that one of them will soon be president. Polls now indicate that the race will be close, in spite of the demographic advantages the Democrats enjoy.  However, a number of things could tilt the odds toward Trump. First is his excellent choice of a running mate in Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, a true conservative with both executive and legislative experience in government which can help Trump. Second, Mr. Trump hit a home run with his acceptance speech which was rich in substance and covered all the bases in terms of issues which are of great concern to Americans.

 

Violence against Trump supporters during and after some Trump rallies probably resulted in more, not less, support for Trump. Violent street demonstrations, especially when they result in damage and injuries, never benefit the demonstrators’ cause. Trying to intimidate people and influence their vote often attracts sympathy votes and financial support for the other candidate. Those anti-Trump demonstrators at earlier Trump rallies may have learned this lesson, but I doubt that they’re smart enough so stand by for more anti-Trump rallies leading to more support for Mr. Trump.

 

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is the court’s most liberal member. She, of course, has a perfect right to express her liberal views but she has no right to attempt to influence an election by stating publically her presidential preference which, in effect she did by expressing her opposition to a Trump presidency. This is an unprecedented and improper intrusion into politics by the court and she ought to resign. She has since apologized but the line had been crossed and her apology cannot erase her words. I predict that this intrusion into politics by this ultra- liberal member of the judicial branch will result more support for Trump and less for Clinton who we know would appoint more ultra-liberals like Ginsberg.

 

The murders of police officers in New York, Dallas and Baton Rouge by black racists have shocked and frightened Americans who view these events as a war on police and a threat to everyone’s safety. The Obama administration, including its Justice Department under Loretta Lynch, has been criticized for demonizing the police by referring to systemic racism in law enforcement nationwide which many feel have precipitated these attacks on police and which are resulting in more cautious police responses and an increase in violent crime. Liberals are perceived to be more lenient on criminals and more critical of police while conservative are perceived as tougher on crime and more supportive of police. Mr. Trump’s campaign will benefit from the growing public concern over their safety and attacks on police especially if these attacks continue. He has declared himself the law and order candidate.

 

Finally, a continuation of attacks on westerners, especially Americans, by radical Islamic terrorists, will be cited by the Trump campaign as evidence of a lack of American leadership in the war on terrorism during eight years of a Democratic presidency which Trump has promised to change by taking immediate and decisive steps to defeat Islamic State, gain control of our borders and keep Americans safe.

 

There are, of course, many things that could tilt the odds toward Clinton, too. They would include any serious failures on Mr. Trump’s part to display the traits, behavior and decorum during the rest of the campaign that most Americans want to see in a president and an avoidance of more amateurish mistakes by the campaign like using parts of a someone else’s speech without attribution.

July 29, 2016

 

 

 

War On Police

Demonizing Police Led to Dallas—————————-

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

 

                The murder of five policemen and the attempted murder of many others by an anti-white, anti-police racist was a new milestone in what is becoming a war against police. It followed the deaths of two black men by police under questionable circumstances which sparked new “Black Lives Matter” protests around the country. The massacre of police officers occurred at one of these in Dallas while police were providing security for, among others, the demonstrators themselves.

 

These events have prompted calls for a national “conversation” about race relations in America. But we’ve been having these conversations for decades with little to show for them in terms of improved race relations. That’s because parties to the conversations continue to dance around some of the key issues, stifling candor and honesty with political correctness. It’s far past time to put aside platitudes like taking the time to listen to each other and face some uncomfortable facts.

 

Chief among these is the fact, well-documented by volumes of statistics, that blacks commit a percentage of violent crimes that is far higher than their percentage of the population. Even that statistic tells only part of the story. The great majority of these crimes are committed, not by blacks in general, but by young black males specifically. Does this explain why young black males are pulled over, stopped and questioned by police at a rate also much higher than their percentage of the population? Well, of course it does. More black crime results, unfortunately, in more black suspects. Why do political leaders like President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and, recently, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor, continue to view these statistics as evidence of systemic racism among police? Would they have them even the score by stopping and questioning more whites, or Asians, or Hispanics or females or just limit the number of black stops to their percentage of the population?

 

There are, of course, social factors that influence crime statistics. Poverty and unemployment breed crime and the percentage of blacks living in poverty is also much higher than their percentage of the population. So is unemployment among young black men. Let’s have a national conversation about that. Let’s start by agreeing that black poverty and unemployment are not the fault of the police who are just trying to do their job of protecting all of us, black, white or any other color, from crime. When any of us are looking for reasons why we feel victimized, it’s a good idea to look inward first before blaming others or society at large.

 

Here’s a good place to start. About 70% of black children today are born out of wedlock. Nearly three-fourths of black households are headed by a single black female, almost ensuring that the family will live in poverty. Where there is no live-in father to help with the expenses, rear the children and model acceptable male behavior to his sons, the working mother bears the entire burden of providing for the family and has little time for parenting. Living in crime and drug-infested neighborhoods make the male children easy targets for recruitment into gangs and a life of street crime. The family is the basic and most important element of society, so let’s have a national conversation about the collapse of the black family unit. Of course, it’s a little easier to just blame it on society, or guns, or police brutality, or racism, or join in street demonstrations, or just claim victimhood.

 

The Democratic Party perpetuates this idea of victimhood, portraying itself as the only party blacks can trust to help improve their opportunities and to keep government assistance flowing while meanwhile making statements critical of police policies and alleging systemic racial bias. This keeps the black vote reliably in the Democratic column but it has the effect of demonizing the police.  The left-leaning mainstream media, by sensationalized coverage of every police shootings of blacks, even before the facts are known, adds to the myth that such shootings are epidemic. The actual statistics tell otherwise. They are an aberration.  They show that a black policeman is more likely to use lethal force against a black suspect than a white policeman. They also show that a policeman has a far greater chance of being shot by a black suspect than the other way around. Let’s have national conversation about this, too.

 

Dallas Police Chief David Brown, who is black, deserves credit for his advice to protestors in the aftermath of the Dallas massacre. “Don’t be part of the problem,” he said. “We’re hiring. Get off that protest line and put an application in. And we’ll put you in a neighborhood, and we will help you resolve some of the problems you’re protesting about.”

 

There is little doubt that police are reacting to repeated criticism and charges of racism by exercising extreme caution in responding to threats. In many cities, they have been directed to patrol only in pairs which reduces police coverage. Greater caution in confronting suspects is already resulting in an increase in violent crimes in large cities. Continuing to demonize the police will hurt most the black communities that are already most impacted by crime. Continuing street protests will accomplish little except to further inflame tempers, promote violence and sometimes, as we saw in Dallas, provide a shooting gallery for racists bent on murder.

 

July 17, 2016

 

 

 

An Outrageous Double Standard

A Clinton Beats the Rap Again————————–

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

Let’s face it. Few besides the most politically naïve ever really expected Hillary Clinton to be actually prosecuted over her email security scandal or, for that matter, for any misbehavior short of, say, cold-blooded murder and then only if credible eye witnesses were willing to testify. Not as long as Barack Obama resides in the White House and Loretta Lynch is attorney-general. Hillary is far too important to the Obama legacy.

 

But many of us expected more of James Comey, the FBI Director who had little apparent problem in indicting Martha Stewart for false statements made during an insider trading investigation in 2003. Apparently Martha wasn’t above the law. For about fifteen minutes, Comey laid out a compelling case against Mrs. Clinton. His report revealed that she had lied publically multiple times and that she had displayed extreme carelessness in handling sensitive, classified information as Secretary of State.

 

Clinton claimed that she did nothing illegal. As Bill might have said, that depends on your definition of illegal. Actually, she violated State Department policies in using a personal server for official business, as her department’s own internal IG inspection had previously revealed. She claimed that she did not send classified material on her private email account. She routinely did. Over 100 emails containing classified material were included in the 30 thousand she turned over to the FBI. Eight contained top secret information.

 

Members of the military have been tried and punished for less serious security violations. For example, Bryan Nishimura, a naval reservist who served in Afghanistan, pleaded guilty to downloading classified materials on his personal computer and travelling off-base with it, including back to his home in the United States where some classified material was later found by FBI agents. Nishimura was sentenced to two years of probation and stripped of his security clearance for life. Apparently he was not above the law, either. Of course, if Clinton were stripped of her security clearances for life, which would probably happen to anyone else not above the law, she would be unable to serve as president which wouldn’t fit the progressive agenda.

 

Clinton said that she turned over all work-related emails. The FBI found several thousand that she did not. She said she used a personal email account for the convenience of using one device. She used many. Clearly, she did so for privacy, not convenience. She said that her emails were secure and had not been hacked.  Mr. Comey said that “hostile actors” had hacked the accounts of some of Clinton’s correspondents and that it was possible that they had gained access to her accounts. Possible? Please. Could we at least say probable?        There is more, of course, but it is obvious that Clinton showed a callous disregard, not only for the truth, but for the security of sensitive government information entrusted to her.

 

In spite of all this, Mr. Comey incredibly declined to recommend indictment because of her lack of intent to do harm. But it is not even required in such cases that such intent be proved. He added, revealingly, “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.” I’ll say they are. But they would probably be just ordinary people who are not above the law. Standards of truthfulness and trustworthiness apparently do not apply to everyone in high places. There is one word to describe this double standard: outrageous. What ever happened to the “need to avoid even the appearance of wrongdoing” standard for high government officials?

 

Is it any wonder that people are disillusioned with politicians? Consider some of the recent events reported by the media. The President of the United States endorses Hillary Clinton, the subject of an FBI investigation and campaigns with her. Husband Bill Clinton has a private meeting with Attorney-General Loretta Lynch, Comey’s boss. Hillary says she would consider retaining Lynch in her cabinet if elected. Hillary is interviewed by the FBI on a holiday weekend. Two days later, Comey goes public with his findings. The next day, Lynch announces that the matter is over and no one will be prosecuted.

 

But this matter should not be over. It simply doesn’t pass the smell test. Mrs. Clinton may have some experience in government but she also has experience breaking the rules and playing loose with the truth and with the security of sensitive government information. Does she have the integrity, judgment, character and trustworthiness requisite in one who will occupy the most powerful office on earth?

 

July 7, 2016

 

British Go For Independence

Britain after Brexit——————————-

                A commentary 

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

 

Britain’s decision to leave the European Union was entirely Britain’s to make, although it got lots of gratuitous advice from pundits, economists and even from its former colonies here in the new world. President Barack Obama saw fit to fly across the ocean to urge the Brits to stay put or else be prepared to go to the end of the queue as far as trade agreements are concerned. I haven’t seen any opinion polls on the matter but I suspect that Mr. Obama’s intrusion into British politics caused more Brits to vote “Leave” than “Remain”. Most people don’t take kindly to foreigners inserting themselves into sensitive political elections, especially involving sovereignty. Doesn’t Mr. Obama have enough problems at home to deal with?

 

You have to admire the courage of our closest ally in voting to reclaim their full sovereignty from an over-reaching, bloated Brussels bureaucracy in spite of ominous warnings from its own political establishment, the European ruling classes and our own leader of the western world, predicting dire economic and political consequences. It sort of reminds one of our own brave decision 240 years ago to seek independence from an over-reaching, over-taxing government in London, in spite of even greater economic and political risks.

 

We survived and prospered and so, I believe, will the United Kingdom with a little help from its friends, both inside and outside the EU. Instead of being told to go to the back of the line, we should grant them the market access that a close ally and the world’s fifth largest economy deserves. How about a trade agreement consisting of former empire members U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand and perhaps India and anyone else interested?  Maybe Britain should be invited to join NAFTA. Other nations have prospered outside the EU, including Norway and Switzerland. And Other EU members may follow Britain’s example and bolt. Public sentiment for exiting reportedly is even stronger in France than in Britain and runs high in the Netherlands as well.

 

Especially if other nations follow Britain’s lead, the partial de-unification of Europe will make the case for a stronger North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to counter radical Islamic terrorism and a revanchist Russia. The U.S. and U.K. are the backbone of NATO but other European nations will need to step up their military contributions beyond the meager share of GDP they now devote to the common defense.

 

There will, to be sure, be political and economic disruptions. London’s importance as an international financial center will be challenged by Frankfurt. Bank headquarters may relocate to the continent. Of far greater concern, however, is the risk that Scotland and possibly Northern Ireland, which favored remaining in the EU, may vote to leave the United Kingdom.

 

Britons were warned about the potential risks but voted to leave anyway. In the end, full sovereignty and control of its borders and immigration policies trumped the economics of free trade. What started out as a common market, gradually morphed into a continental government with its own flag, courts, legislature and all the trappings and costs of big, centralized government. The British people never seemed quite comfortable with this union, declining to adopt the euro in favor of retaining its own currency. A majority of British voters simply decided that they had had enough of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels determining many of their policies. They wanted their country back. Sound familiar?

 

Many in this country see a parallel in public sentiment here in the United States which largely explains the Donald Trump phenomenon, which, like the Brexit vote, was also unexpected. People are tired of broken borders and immigration policies that encourage abuse and are not based on their own country’s needs. They are tired of being accused of xenophobia for saying so. They are increasingly speaking up and they are not going away. Are you listening Washington?

 

Happy Independence Day.

July 4, 2016

 

Demographics Stacked Against GOP

Time to Face the Odds————————————

                A commentary

                By J. F. Kelly, Jr.

 

                The July Republican National Convention is fast approaching and it’s time for Republicans to honestly assess their prospects for November. They aren’t good. It’s brave to display confidence in the face of adversity but that won’t change the outcome. The delegates in Cleveland can nominate their presumptive candidate who defeated sixteen opponents in the primaries and go down to certain defeat. Or they can revolt, change the convention rules and dump Trump, enraging his supporters and causing him to run as an independent, probably ensuring a Clinton victory. Some choice.

 

Some Republicans have already made a choice to support Hillary Clinton, arguing that the devil we know is preferable to the one we don’t.  We don’t know what a Trump presidency would be like. I doubt that Trump does, either. We do, however, know what a Clinton presidency would be like. It would be like the Obama presidency on steroids. Mrs. Clinton has moved so far to the left on the political spectrum as a result of having to battle the Vermont Socialist, Bernie Sanders, down to the wire  that it will be difficult for her to move very far back to the moderate center without looking more inconsistent and untrustworthy than she already does.

 

A Clinton presidency will mean higher taxes, expanded entitlements paid for by the so-called rich, single-payer healthcare for all, no fix for broken borders, expanded immigration, environmental activism running wild and a liberal Supreme Court. Increased tax burdens on the job creators will continue to restrain American competitiveness and economic growth. The number of people on the welfare rolls will increase. The ruling classes will grow and government will become more intrusive. Political correctness will dictate behavior.

 

The GOP establishment had hoped that Donald Trump would change his style and personality and act more presidential after becoming the presumptive nominee. He didn’t. Donald continued to be Donald; in fact, more so. He accused a judge of bias because of his ethnicity. He suggested that the President of the United States might be sympathetic to radical Islamist terrorists. He said he would forbid his generals to talk to the press or appear on TV. He continued to make promises about how great he will make America without providing much detail on how he will do it other than by making great deals. Does he sound like head of state or a world leader to you?

 

Other Republicans say they will sit out this election and wait for 2020. None of us has a crystal ball but I doubt that things will be much better in four years. The demographics are stacked against the GOP and will only get worse as black, Hispanic and Asian minorities grow and continue to vote largely Democratic. The demographic disadvantage, moreover, was made substantially worse by Trump statements which tended to alienate women and Hispanics.

 

A GOP defeat will mean far more than just losing the White House. A Trump defeat puts GOP control of the Senate at risk as well as seats in the House and governorships. It will also mean left-leaning judges and Supreme Court nominees

 

There is no easy answer for the Republican Party. Delegates have to ask themselves if Donald Trump represents Republican values and principles, whether or not he has a reasonable chance of winning in November and whether or not he can help other GOP candidates win. If the answer is no, their choice is clear: nominate someone, other than a candidate who Mr. Trump defeated in the primaries, who does and face the consequences with a clear conscience. The logical choice would be the senior elected GOP office holder, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan.

July 1, 2016