Tuesday, October 25, 2016
Wall Street Journal: "No Hillary, It's Not About Toddlers"
When the "Heller" case came up in the October 19 presidential debate, it caught my attention because I had been studying it just days before.
It was shocking to hear Hillary, with a straight face, explain to tens of millions of Americans that the District of Columbia v Heller case was "about protecting toddlers."
I wasn't the only one shocked.
The Wall Street Journal has responded calling her comments "misleading."
Much in this presidential election is "misleading"---now we are learning from leaked Clinton campaign emails even the polls have been "adjusted" to ensure Hillary is leading.
If you don't subscribe to the Wall Street Journal you will likely get an offer to do so on this link, if you are a subscriber, this is their article.
For those who do not subscribe, Breitbart News, among others have accurately covered the WSJ response to Hillary's claim that the DC v Heller case was about protecting toddlers.
The WSJ says she "misleadingly suggested" the District of Columbia v Heller case was about endangering toddlers.
It was not about toddlers at all---it was about a total ban on handguns.
Moderator Chris Wallace pointed out that she has said "the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment" and that it was "a mistake." He asked why she believed the decision was a mistake.
Hillary responded: "I disagreed with the way the Court applied the Second Amendment in that case, because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns. So they wanted people with guns to safely store them."
That was a lie. And she knew it was.
She further admitted she was "upset" about the decision, again repeating her interest in protecting toddlers.
The WSJ shows that her claim was not truthful and "glossed over the thrust of the city's gun law, which effectively barred private ownership of handguns"---in other words, the Heller case was not about toddlers at all, but about a citizen's right to own a gun.
Where did she get her "toddler" claim?
During the course of the hearing, attorneys for DC argued that the city's regulations---ban on gun ownership--- would protect children, but the case was never about children and the argument was dismissed--- it was about private gun ownership and a citizen's right to own a gun and protect himself.
Oh, the webs we weave, or attempt to weave when at first we seek to deceive.
And speaking of "misleading"---and "deception." The far Left seems to always cover their bases in regard to deceiving us "common folk."
While the mainstream press does report on the fact that "hackers have published 'alleged' emails of Hillary Clinton and her staff"," and occasionally that they are "potentially harmful" to her candidacy, they rarely if ever actually report what is contained in the "potentially harmful" emails.
Here is a revelation about "misleading the public" that has been in progress the last couple of days, including through yesterday.
It has to do with Hillary's campaign chairman John Podesta working with the press and pollsters---through a third party---to rig the daily polls that are published in most all mainstream news publications, in hopes of discouraging Republicans and conservatives prior to casting their vote. Maybe even discouraging them from voting at all.
A group has researched and published an article titled, "New Podesta Email Exposes Playbook for Rigging Polls Through 'Oversamples'."
It involves Hillary's campaign manager Podesta, working through a third party---Atlas---in collusion with the press and their presidential campaign polling.
In an email leaked yesterday, we find Podesta conveniently spelling out how to "manufacture" the desired data.
He says, "I want to get your Atlas folks to recommend oversamples for our polling before we start in February. By market, regions, etc. I want to get this all compiled into one set of recommendations so we can maximize what we get out of our media polling."
The email includes a 37-page guide with poll rigging recommendations.
For example, it asks that in Arizona, they "oversample" Hispanics and Native Americans, using Spanish -speaking voters because they are among the lowest turnout Democratic targets. Podesta is asking that they "oversample" Native Americans, apparently trying to gin up numbers affirming Hillary's popularity with minorities.
While minorities have typically voted Democrat, Hillary's numbers have been astounding, even to some on the Left. Now we know why.
For Florida, they are asking that the media "consistently monitor" samples to make sure they're not too old and have "enough African American and Hispanic voters."
Regarding Independents in Florida, Hillary's people are asking that they poll in Tampa and Orlando because they are better "persuasion targets" than north or south Florida---"make sure that Tampa and Orlando are included first," they say.
Regarding national polls, they are asking that Atlas benchmark races in "targeted and key races with 'over samples' as needed."
Here's how "oversampling" works.
With huge variances in preference across demographics, it is not difficult to "rig" polls by over-indexing to one group vs. another.
Here is an example: ABC/WaPo found that Hillary enjoys a 79 point advantage over Trump with black voters. Therefore, even a small "oversample" of black voters of 5% could swing the overall poll by 3 full points.
Oversampling by say, 10%, would have an even greater impact on the numbers---and public perception.
For the most part, the pollsters don't provide data on the demographic mix of their polls which makes it impossible to fact check the bias.
The work of Atlas is a driving force in informing the public---and unfortunately misinforming them in this case.
Example: Yesterday morning CBS News reported, "Leaked emails not hurting Clinton in the polls." CBS affiliates replay this story across the country in both conservative and far-Left progressive cities and communities, causing the Left to celebrate, and the Right to potentially become discouraged.
You will likely see this same headline in local newspapers.
It's all about perception. Until the light is turned on and the truth revealed.
I'm not suggesting that the Republicans are leading in the polls, but I am showing they are rigged with the intent of deceiving the public.
The feeling seems to be if you tell a lie big enough and often enough people will believe it.
The Clintons personify deception. From "I did not have sex with that woman---Ms. Lewinsky..." to "I'm concerned about the toddlers" to "Clinton leads Trump among blacks by 79 points."
We now know about Ms. Lewinsky and the toddlers. We will soon know how people are really feeling about this election.
Newt Gingrich has said, "Until someone is prepared to lay out the systemic problem, we will simply go through cycles of finding corruption, finding a scapegoat, eliminating the scapegoat, and relaxing until we find the next scandal."
God has said (II Tim. 3:13), "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived."
Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Prayerful.