Obama Finds New Race Group

How is it that categorizing people by race is a good thing? Isn’t that what Martin Luther King worked against? Am I in an alternate universe?
I ask because Obama is requesting a new racial category for people from the Middle East. He wants to divide us further and deplete our Western European Christian heritage.

MSN has the story:

WASHINGTON — The White House is putting forward a proposal to add a new racial category for people from the Middle East and North Africa under what would be the biggest realignment of federal racial definitions in decades.

If approved, the new designation could appear on census forms in 2020 and could have far-reaching implications for racial identity, anti-discrimination laws and health research.

Under current law, people from the Middle East are considered white, the legacy of century-old court rulings in which Syrian Americans argued that they should not be considered Asian — because that designation would deny them citizenship under the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. But scholars and community leaders say more and more people with their roots in the Middle East find themselves caught between white, black and Asian classifications that don’t fully reflect their identities.

“What it does is it helps these communities feel less invisible,” said Helen Samhan of the Arab American Institute, which has been advocating the change for more than 30 years. “It’s a good step, a positive step.”

On Friday, the White House Office of Management and Budget advanced the proposal with a notice in the Federal Register, seeking comments on whether to add Middle Eastern and North African as a separate racial or ethnic category, which groups would be included, and what it should be called.

Under the proposal, the new Middle East and North African designation — or MENA, as it’s called by population scholars — is broader in concept than Arab (an ethnicity) or Muslim (a religion). It would include anyone from a region of the world stretching from Morocco to Iran, and including Syrian and Coptic Christians, Israeli Jews and other religious minorities.

But the Census Bureau, which has been quietly studying the issue for two years, also has gotten caught up in debates about some groups — such as Turkish, Sudanese and Somali Americans — who aren’t included in that category. Those are issues the White House is trying to resolve before adding the box on 2020 census forms.

Adding a box on the census form could have implications beyond racial identity. According to the White House notice, the new data could be used for a wide range of political and policy purposes, including:

• Enforcing the Voting Rights Act and drawing congressional and state legislative district boundaries;

• Establishing federal affirmative action plans and evaluating claims of employment discrimination in employment in the private sector;

• Monitoring discrimination in housing, mortgage lending and credit;

• Enforcing school desegregation policies; and

• Helping minority-owned small businesses get federal grants and loans.

Adding the classification also would help the government and independent scholars understand more about trends in health, employment and education.

“We can’t even ask questions like that, because we don’t have the data,” said Germine Awad, an Egyptian-American and professor of educational psychology at the University of Texas at Austin.

The racial classifications have been unchanged since 1997, and Michigan’s congressional delegation has argued that they’re due for an update. Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Mich., said Friday the White House action was good news. Adding a MENA category, she said, would allow many of her Michigan constituents to “accurately identify themselves and access the employment, health, education and representation services that are based on census data.”

There are an estimated 3.6 million Arab-Americans in the United States, but that doesn’t include other ethnic groups that could put the total Middle Eastern and North African population above 10 million. According to the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey — a survey conducted in between the 10-year census cycle based on a statistical sample — about 1 million people from the region are first-generation immigrants to the United States.

“You have individuals within this designation that would consider themselves white, and they certainly have a right to their identity. It’s not about identity in the psychological way. It’s about where would you fit the best on this form,” Awad said. “If you talk to anybody at the census, they’ll tell you that their job is not to help anybody with their racial or ethnic identity.”

Return of the Cleaner

The man who was noticed removing something from Hillary’s podium after Tuesday’s debate is now shown to be doing even more in this video:

The Gateway pundit says he is someone linked to Egypt and the Arab spring. Earlier reports had him as a retired NBC news guy.

After the debate a strange man now referred to as ‘the cleaner’ quickly rushed the stage and picked up Hillary’s notes off of her podium. This stranger then handed the notes to Holt as he was leaving the stage. He mysteriously is also the first person to meet Hillary before the debate as she walked in the building after arriving in her black vehicle which leads some to speculate that he handed her notes before the debate or placed them on her podium before the debate.

Another video shows ‘the cleaner’ after handing Holt Hillary’s notes, grab something from under Hillary’s podium while looking guilty of doing something and then he eventually walks out with the Clinton’s. It looks like he took the black box that was under Hillary’s podium but not under Trump’s podium. This looked like it could have been a charger or modem or something like that. Whatever it was, the Clinton’s wanted it out of there. It even looks like Bill may have put it under his coat.

The identity of the ‘cleanup man’ has been reported as being lawyer Brady Williamson. He has been involved with the Clintons for a long time. The fact that the Clintons used him, a lawyer, to pick up her papers after the debate leads to many questions. For example, why not have an intern pick the papers up and why the hurry (he was timed in picking up the papers 10 seconds after the debate finished).

Also, it’s reported that Williamson was involved in projects in Iraq, Southern Sudan, Egypt and Bangladesh, traveling frequently to Baghdad and East Africa to work with the committees drafting new national and regional constitutions. His constitutional work has been sponsored, under a grant from the U.S. government, by the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), a nonprofit organization working to strengthen democracy world-wide.

It’s also reported that the NDI was given a grant of $14 million and then court proceedings against NDI’s staff began in Cairo on February 2012,. NDI was charged with managing an unlicensed nongovernmental organization and receiving funds from the U.S. government without the approval of the Egyptian government.

Curious.

Bigots Against Trump

The other day, while walking our dog, I came across this bumper sticker on a car just a few doors down from our house.

It belongs to the residents and also shares the bumper with an NPR and Steve Cohen stickers. You’d expect to see the one with all the religious symbols, too. I guess they have restrained themselves.

This political season we are seeing every kind of slime and slander. Funny, because I remember hearing about Donald Trump in the early 80s. He contributed mightily to getting New York out of the ditch it had slid into, along with Mayor Giuliani. Not once do I recall Trump every saying a bigoted or prejudicial word about anyone. Why would he? You can’t succeed in business with that kind of attitude.
As for the Clintons, they have given swimming lessons in the Washington cesspool.

But don’t let’s have the truth get in the way of a political lie.

Then I came upon this one:

I’m biting.

Debate Gets Curious

The Tuesday debate continues to dominate news, particularly since new media has found a lot of questions about Hillary Clinton’s behavior.

You might say there’s a basket of explorables to dig into.

One poker player has studied the video and concluded that Hillary was making hand signals to Lester Holt during the debate. The gateway pundit found this:
“During the debate when Clinton wanted to signal Holt whent she wanted the floor, she rubbed her face in a manner similar to a baseball manager.

“According to True Pundit she has not done this in any other debates during her career supporting the accusation that these were signals.

“Watch this incredible video before passing judgement–

Then there’s the curious case of the man who immediately after the debate, while the families were gathering around the candidates, went over to Hillary’s podium and removed something.

This was talked about on theconservativetreehouse:

“Earlier during our initial review of the debate we identified something that looked entirely suspicious because it is only evidenced for one specific candidate, and one specific lectern. We initially drew attention to it as ‘The Cleaner.'”

He has been identified as George Lewis, who worked for NBC News from 1969 to 2012, with his stories appearing on the NBC Nightly News.

As conservativetreehouse says, the following video is instructive for the first ten minutes:


“The cleaner, George Lewis, was trying to remove, and did eventually remove, something much more than just notes atop the lectern. Another person also is seen removing something. All of the key players are very aware of, and very cautious of, the people around them when they are in ‘cleaning mode’.”

Yes it’s weird, especially if you remember that she requested a special podium supposedly for her height deficiency.
Hmm.

Then there are suggestions that Hillary had been given some sort of medications to help her get through the 90 minutes of standing without coughing. She struck me as overly calm, robotic and zoned out.

At The American thinker, Nick Chase said, “Hillary’s “lazy eye” (strabismus) has struck again, this time in an interview on her Stronger Together airplane on September 27, the day following the debate. This segment was aired on the NBC Nightly News that night. I saw I thought I saw her eyes very briefly go bananas while watching the show (we tape it and watch it later so we can zip through the numerous commercials). But I wasn’t sure until I viewed the NBC live-stream on my iPad to capture a freeze-frame image:

Some odd things happened at that debate, aside from Lester Holt’s obvious partiality.

With the Clintons, nothing is out of bounds. They fight like junkyard dogs because they have no morals and always escape the law.

New Clinton Slur Is a Beaut

At the end of Tuesday’s presidential debate, Hillary Clinton launched a slew of slurs against Donald Trump. She accused him of calling a beauty pageant contestant “Miss Piggy” and that he referred to her as “Miss Housekeeping.” It was an attempt to color him a misogynist and to goad him into launching a personal attack on her.

He didn’t fall for it.

What Hillary didn’t tell you is the sordid past of this person who wants to vote for her in November.

Conservative Treehouse found out:

This has to be the worst campaign vetting in the history of failed campaign vetting…

Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton’s entire campaign narrative is now centered around, and vested in, using a former Miss Venezuela, Alicia Machado, as an attack surrogate against Donald Trump.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign goal is to paint Donald Trump as anti-woman, and fat-shaming, because the Miss Universe pageant owner told Machado she needed to lose the 50+ lbs she gained after winning the 1996 beauty pageant title.

Yeah, it does sound silly. Hillary Clinton is trying to hit Donald Trump for being critical/judgmental of beauty,… in a beauty pageant,… which he owned,… and was therefore the stakeholder in the brand image of the beauty pageant Machado won.

Huh? Yeah, but if that wasn’t silly enough, hold on. It gets really bizarre.

After finishing her one-year-term as ’96 Miss Universe, Alicia Machado first turned to a life of crime – including being the getaway driver for her boyfriend during the murder of his brother-in-law. A few weeks later Ms. Machado was accused of threatening the judge who was in charge of convicting her boyfriend.

(Daily Mail) In January 1998, the Associated Press revealed that Machado had been accused in court documents in Cadacras of driving her boyfriend from the scene of a shooting. […] A judge indicted her boyfriend, described by Reuters as ‘a 26-year-old graphic designer with movie star good looks’ – and police mounted a series of raids to find him, to no avail.

It was not the end of the affair.

A month later the judge went on national television to allege that Machado had threatened to kill him if he indicted Sbert.

Judge Maximiliano Fuenmayor said on national television that she threatened ‘to ruin my career as a judge and … kill me’, the Associated Press reported.
Ms. Machado, Hillary Clinton’s latest campaign surrogate/victim, admitted to being the getaway driver last night to CNN’s Anderson Cooper. Must Watch:

Nice approach….. Meh, what’s a little drive-by-shooting/assassination amid, well, the normal and customary American 20-year-old youthful indiscretions… let’s get to the part where Trump said I had to lose weight.

Oh, but wait, it gets better.

Not content with just living an ordinary life of crime, Ms. Alicia accomplice/murderess, decided to go full monty into the world of porn. Oh, not JUST the tasteful playboy type nude porn… the other kind too, porn/porn.

Now keep in mind, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is using Ms. Mexican-Gangland-Murder-Piggy/Porn-Star, in her commercials too.

The Hillary Clinton campaign is fully invested

Judgment?

But hold on, we’re not done…. it gets err,.. well, worse.

Ms. Alicia Mexican–Gangland-Murder-Piggy/Porn-Star Machado is also the incubus for the child of a notorious Mexican drug kingpin.

Now as incredulous as this might seem, it’s actually a common occurrence for Mexican Drug Lords to import south American beauty queens as girlfriends and concubines. They then use their narco leverage to position their femme trophies within social entertainment industries like Spanish movies, TV, and modeling. El Chappo Guzman did the same thing.

“(McLatchy) […] Machado, a Mexico City resident, found herself in the news again when a report from a secret witness under federal protection that claimed she was involved with Gerardo Alvarez Vazquez, an accused kingpin known as ‘El Indio,’ or ‘The Indian,’ filtered out to Mexican media.

“The witness asserted that Machado had borne Alvarez’s daughter, Dinorah, in 2008 and that several drug lords from the Beltran Leyva gang came to the baptism.”

No. NO really, you just can’t make this stuff up:


Machado tweeted: “I received my passport ! I’m ready to vote For my country for you @HillaryClinton for my daughter For women workers”

I do disagree with one part of his analysis. That is I fully believe it wasn’t poor vetting on Hillary’s part. I bet she knew the woman’s history. It’s just something you do for the moment – a drive by attack that hits your opponent, no one follows up and everyone believes you.

A little lie has never stopped a Clinton.

Post Debate Analysis

As of this writing, all the online polls I saw have Trump winning the debate, except the Time poll which has him in a tie with Clinton.

During the primaries, the Drudge poll was the best indicator of a candidate’s success. It consistently had Trump in the lead, despite what all the pundits said. Tonight he was at 80%.

The importance of these debates is questionable anyhow. If you don’t believe this, think back to the first Romney-Obama fight. People gushed about how well Romney did. They thought he had made excellent points against Obama; so well that many thought he had clinched the presidency.

You know how that turned out. In further debates Romney disappointed and, of course, lost the election.

As was expected, Lester Holt’s bias was on display. He’s an admirable followup to Lyin’ Brian Williams. Look at the topics he covered: jobs/economy (because she needs to improve in this category); race (because she needs to shore up black votes); cyber attacks (so Hillary could blame Russia for the DNC hacks and implicate Trump). Where were the questions on immigration, Syria, Isis (at least Holt refrained from using Obama’s ISIL term), education, gun control, crime, religious freedom, Islamic radicals, daycare help for working families? They were absent because it would have helped Trump.

Holt also didn’t want to make the mistake Matt Lauer did. He actually asked Hillary about the email scandal and got smacked by liberals everywhere for it.

So Trump ended up debating Hillary and the moderator.

Hillary’s debate training showed in her voice. She lowered it so as not to sound her usual shrill, strident self. Her staff worked on her smiling, but in a very annoying way. She looked supercilious and smug throughout the debate. At times it was downright weird and bobble headed. Mr. Midtown Republican noted she resembled the Joker.

I found myself tuning her out when she answered her questions. Her answers were robotic and political-speak. We’ve heard the same kind of blah blah from her and others for decades. All I know about her economic plan is that she drools about raising taxes and wants to give free college education – an idea stolen from Bernie Sanders by the way. That will surely lead to economic prosperity, no?

Trump did his best in the first 45 minutes when this topic dominated. By contrast, he had passion in his voice. He rebutted her ridiculous answer that increasing solar panels will help the economy. He pointed out that coal workers get dumped in her business/energy plans. He scored saying that we can’t do all she wants with a $20 trillion debt and that her proposals have been around for 30 years and not helped anything. He torpedoed her on NAFTA and later on TPP.

Hillary pushed her book “Stronger Together” and kept insisting that Trump be fact checked. That was her rebuttal to his charges. And, oh, did I say she looked smug, because her condescension reached new heights. Kind of like the podium they constructed for her that made her look taller than she is.

By the way, Clinton continued to address Trump as Donald, while he called her Secretary Clinton. It was another way of condescending and trying to get under his skin. In the final minutes of the debate he started calling her Hillary. I think he had had enough of the false familiarity.

Didn’t her reference to her dad – three times – seem odd, too? She talked about his drapery business and how hard he worked. That’s her attempt at connecting with workers. Can somebody fact check whether he was a Republican, because I think he was and she grew up in a Republican household.

When she came at “Donald” with the release of his tax returns, bankruptcies and allegedly stiffing workers, Trump missed a golden opportunity to hit her on the Clinton Foundation money. I doubt he will miss that second time around, though.

I couldn’t help thinking that Romney would have withered under all this. His tactic was to lay down and let the truck run over him.

Holt then switched to race as the second big issue. Race relations are important, but they are not the top priority for most people. Trump mentioned the strain experienced by blacks with crime in the inner city, but Holt moved it on to the birther issue. Way too much time was spent on this. Tell me Holt was not in collaboration for this one.

Then they moved to cyber attacks. The door was open to Clinton’s email server failings, but Trump did not breach it. She got off with an “everybody makes mistakes” excuse.

Holt also showed his hand in insisting that Trump had been for the Iraq War. That got under his skin and he denied it. He referred to his conversations about it with Sean Hannity, a real boost for that Fox host. Holt let Hillary get by with lying that Bush was the one who planned the exit from Iraq. I doubt news media fact checkers will bother with that whopper.
Another Holt whopper was that the Supreme Court had ruled against the stop and frisk policy. Trump called him out on this one, but Holt refused to believe the facts.

The next few days will bring a tsunami of analysis on that hour and a half. There will be preening by Dems and breast beating by Republicans. The polls will probably show a bump for Hillary. They are bogus, too. Romney supposedly got a bump from the first debate, but we see where that landed him.

Don’t buy into it. Make your own mind up and turn the TV off.

There will be a second debate next Thursday at Washington University in St. Louis, my alma mater. You can bet that Trump will have honed his skills and will zero in on the topics helpful to him. She’s probably shot her wad. Will she have the stamina for more?

Doubtful.

Debate Or Not Debate

Is it worth your while to suffer through the debates tonight? We all know that Hillary already won. They will be looking to take Trump down at every question. It will be infuriating.
The Conservative treehouse had a good perspective:

Let’s face it, we’re being forced to live through this ridiculous bizarro world info-stream of media gaslighting, while simultaneously accommodating the delusions of Park Row journalists, and their taxpayer funded co-conspirators in DC.

To wit:

…The importance and value of the Trump-Clinton presidential debate will be directly proportional to the media’s ability to declare Hillary Clinton the winner…

If Clinton does poorly, debates don’t matter. If Clinton does well, nothing has ever been more important in the history of all presidential campaigns than debates.

Replace the name Clinton with Trump above, and you can just reverse the valuation. Trump does good, debates don’t matter. Trump does poorly, debates are the bees knees.

These are the expressed media rules of the narrative going into the debate tonight. If Hillary remains standing and doesn’t cough out her wandering left eye into her custom glass of thick water – she’ll be declared the winner by a scale only comparable to North Korean election results.

As a consequence, there’s no need to get too emotionally invested in the valuation of this debate. In addition, despite the media proclamations, there’s only a tiny fraction of the electorate in the undecided column. Like a teensy number; less than 1%.

Every voter who will turn up to the polls on November 8th has already picked a side. Historically speaking, what happens tonight will not change that equation one iota – every single prior “debate bounce“, or lack thereof, has never lasted more than 10 days for any candidate.

Remember, there are trillions of dollars at stake. Moderator Lester Holt has already been given Candy Crowley’s immunity goblet, the debate construct is necessarily in the hands of Team Parkinsons, and the seal clappers are in their assigned seats.

The debate becomes more enjoyable if you remove anxiety from the equation.

Again I ask: …if candidate Donald Trump showed up to the debate in 6″ stilettos a Carmen Miranda hat and began twerking the lectern of Hillary Clinton would it change your vote?

See, there’s nothing to lose.

The same applies to the other side of the stage: if candidate Hillary Clinton froze, said: “bulldog pancake sailhouse”, grabbed the lectern and gave the national audience her best Michael J Fox impersonation, she’d still get 40% of the vote.

Think about it.

I couldn’t agree more.
I do think it’s important for everyone to watch the debate so as not to be lead astray by hand picked sound bites edited to make Trump look bad. The candidates’ demeanors will tell a lot. Looks matter in our television age.

Then it will also be important to go and vote in polls as to who won the debate. Drudge and Time magazine have one and others will, too. If the networks declare Hillary the winner and the polls show it to be Trump, it will help him.