Tuesday, December 06, 2016

Canada, Lets Rethink Multiculturalism!


Multiculturalism Has Failed
Published on Oct 6, 2016
Lauren Southern of TheRebel.media says a new poll proves that Canadians are tired of "multiculturalism" and want immigrants to integrate. MORE: http://www.therebel.media/multicultur...
http://www.Facebook.com/JoinTheRebel ** http://www.Twitter.com/TheRebelTV
CBC-Angus Reid Institute poll: Canadians want minorities to do more to 'fit in'
Majority polled also said immigration policies should put Canada's economic needs first
By Jason Proctor, CBC News 
Posted: Oct 03, 2016
As a divisive election tears Americans apart over questions of race and immigration, a CBC News poll suggests Canadians are right in believing they think very differently than their U.S. neighbours when it comes to multiculturalism.
In fact, we're more likely to think minorities should assimilate.
In a national polling partnership between CBC and the Angus Reid Institute, 68 per cent of Canadian respondents said minorities should be doing more to fit in with mainstream society instead of keeping their own customs and languages.
The same question was put to Americans, with only 53 per cent of respondents saying minorities need to better adjust.
The Canadian response represents a hardening of attitudes away from multiculturalism over time.
"It does seem like a very surprising finding, especially when you consider this is a country that has been living with 45 years of official multiculturalism as government policy," said Shachi Kurl, executive director of the Angus Reid Institute.
"It is maybe not what conventional wisdom might expect. But what these findings show is there are real limits on what Canadians — regardless of their own heritage or walk of life — are prepared to put up with in terms of accommodation and the sense of the mosaic versus the melting pot."
'Something that bears watching'
The online survey was conducted in early September from a sample of 3,904 Canadians. The results have a 2.5 per cent margin of error 19 times out of 20.
Researchers surveyed 2,393 American voters during the same period. Those results have a two per cent margin of error 19 times out of 20.
The poll was conducted in the wake of a series of issues that dogged politicians as they contested last year's federal election: a proposed ban on niqabs in public service; the Syrian refugee crisis; and terrorist attacks both in Europe and on Parliament Hill.
John McCallum wants to 'substantially increase' immigration to fill Canada's labour needs
How Kellie Leitch and Justin Trudeau are defining themselves on immigration
Kellie Leitch defends 'anti-Canadian values' screening for new immigrants
The results also hint at why Conservative leadership candidate Kellie Leitch believes she may be onto a winning issue by asking supporters their thoughts on vetting would-be immigrants and refugees for "anti-Canadian values."
According to the poll, two-thirds of Canadians say they're "satisfied" with how well new immigrants are integrating into their communities.
That figure seems to fly in the face of another result, because an equal number said they believe "minorities should do more to fit in better with mainstream Canadian society."
Kurl compared that figure with a similar poll done in 1993 in which 57 per cent of respondents thought minority groups should be encouraged to "try to change to be more like most Canadians."
"It's not a crisis by any means" she said.
"That said, when nearly 70 per cent of people in this country are saying they would like to see minorities do more to fit in, it is something that bears watching, particularly because that view has hardened over the last 25 years."
'Unthinking or mindless multiculturalism'
Former B.C. premier and Liberal cabinet minister Ujjal Dosanjh has written and spoken extensively about the need to address concerns about equality, race and culture in the face of blind devotion to multiculturalism.
He said the poll shows Canada's political leadership needs to pay attention.
"What you want is creative multiculturalism, generous multiculturalism, but not unthinking or mindless multiculturalism where everything anybody brings to this country is acceptable," he said.
"Diversity is great if we can begin to live with each other in equality, in understanding ... but we also understand our collective obligations to building a better society. If we can't live together with each other properly and make concessions to each other, then this phrase that politicians use — that diversity is a strength — is nonsensical."
Dosanjh says he's not surprised the results had a higher percentage of Canadians than Americans indicating they favour better assimilation.
He said the difference may simply come down to the fact that more Americans believe immigrants are integrated anyway, that newcomers and old stock alike are united in the common pursuit of the "American dream."
"Some people may believe it's jingoistic, but the fact is that that's the kind of narrative that can knit people together and bring them together across differences, customs and languages," he said.
"Canada has no such narrative."
Give priority to Canada's 'workforce needs'
The poll says people who have been living in Canada 10 years or less are nearly twice as likely as other respondents to say that minorities should retain their customs, languages and culture.
Millennial respondents — aged 18 to 34 — were also more likely to favour multiculturalism. The shift towards assimilation increased with age.
Likewise, immigrants who have been in the country for more than 20 years are in lockstep with the two-thirds of respondents overall who said minorities should be doing a better job of fitting in.
Participants were also asked about Canada's approach to immigration, particularly after the Liberal government's move to bring in 25,000 refugees from war-torn Syria.
According to the poll, 79 per cent of respondents said Canada's immigration and refugee policies should "give priority to Canada's own economic and workforce needs" rather than giving "priority to people in crisis abroad."
"At the end of the day, we're pretty practical in what we want and what we value in this country," Kurl said.
"I think that's an important reminder for policy-makers. We are an embracing country, we are an accepting, a tolerant country, one that celebrates different cultures.
"But it doesn't mean we don't have an underlying practicality at play around what we want to be as a country, and how people coming to this country play a role in that."
Controversial Muslim writer says multiculturalism isn’t what it once was 
Dakshana Bascaramurty
The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Mar. 07, 2014
Pierre Trudeau wouldn’t be happy with how his vision of multiculturalism had been corrupted – at least that’s what Irshad Manji believes. The controversial Muslim writer and speaker, who penned The Trouble with Islam Today, says present-day multiculturalism promotes segregation, hyper-political correctness and the punishment of those who hold unorthodox views. It’s been a decade since Ms. Manji, who now teaches at New York University, released her bestselling book. While she’s moved on to issues broader than the need for radical reform in Islam, she’s still not afraid to offend. In fact, she told the Globe and Mail’s Dakshana Bascaramurty, offending people may be the only way to achieving a pluralistic society.
Do you think the definition or the goal we have for multiculturalism is different now than it was [when you arrived in Canada in 1972]?
[Mr. Trudeau] basically said national unity must be founded in one’s own confidence in one’s individual identity and from that you can begin to engage with others about their assumptions and attitudes and aspirations. We don’t have that kind of multiculturalism today, in my view. What we have is more a fear of engaging based very much on feeling intimidated that I’m going to say something wrong or that somebody is going to be offended. The assumption is made routinely that multiculturalism and diversity are the same thing. And I’d argue that they’re not at all the same thing. Diversity is more than your skin colour or my gender or someone else’s religion. Diversity also means differences of thought, of points of view, of opinions. Different points of view will naturally offend different people. I would argue that offence is the price of honest diversity.
Where is the line between offending someone in a way you think is constructive and then going to the point of discrimination?
We should educate the next generation to liberate their thinking and to express it in a way like this: “I’ve got a question for you. … Now, I’m asking, not assuming” and then launch in to the question. Or, “I realize that what I’m about to ask you could come off as uncomfortable so please know that you’re totally entitled to ask me anything, too.” Here’s the thing: I’m engaging with you because I see you as my equal, I see you as my peer. If I’m avoiding asking you searching questions, then, frankly, implicitly, I’m treating you like a child, because I think you’re somehow going to melt under the spotlight of my scrutiny. To me, that is not respect, that is disrespect.
Since your first book came out, have you seen an evolution in the way people respond to your views?
Absolutely. I have seen that people who would otherwise want to hurl vitriol or abuse, not only has that diminished, but better still, it’s been replaced – not with silence, but with more people now piping up and saying that we ask these questions. People get tired of constantly fighting you. Last year, I did an hour-long debate on Al-Jazeera International about whether there is indeed trouble with Islam today. Naturally the usual hate mail came in – and more love bombs came in. But here’s the real point: not a single death threat.
That’s a measure of success for you?
I know it’ll sound crazy to some people, right? I’m not saying that the world is suddenly becoming enlightened to this ideal of pluralism but I’m saying that over time, people come to realize that it is possible to engage in very uncomfortable conversations and to do so in a way that builds society rather than merely tears it down.
In some Canadian cities, the term “visible minority” means nothing any more. In populations like Brampton, Ont., or Richmond, B.C., where you have one particularly dominant visible minority group, do you think this idea of “integrating” into Canadian society is going to mean something different? That the old definition of “Canadians” will have to integrate into this new group?
I won’t go as far as to say that the old definition of what it means to be Canadian will integrate into this new definition but I will say that what we’ll have, if we stick with a multicultural mindset instead of a diversity way of thinking, I think what we will wind up seeing is more segregation and more cliqueism rather than a pluralistic society that is working ought to have. Too often, “respect me” means, “don’t challenge me.” By giving rights to cultures, not just to individuals, what we wind up doing, in fact, is not giving more power to the entire community, we wind up giving more power to those who are already powerful within certain communities. We give them more power to dictate what customs are to be respected and which customs are untouchable. The next time you’re told you must respect such and such a custom, ask yourself, “What does my respect for this custom do for the most vulnerable in that community?” And the most vulnerable tend to be women and children.
What do you make of the debate that’s been going on in Quebec for months now? The charter of values: what’s your take on it?
Big thumbs down, but for different reasons than most people articulate. French-speaking Quebec society, its leaders anyway, are operating very much from a cultural mindset. They fear that the minority culture of Canada being Francophone is already under threat in Canada and in order to compensate for that, newly-immigrated people must integrate. But once again it comes back to the group-think that culture incubates and I would argue that what we have is conservatism on top of conservatism. First and foremost, you are a human being and you are an individual. You don’t have to stop affiliating with any of these labels. I don’t see you as a label first, I see you as an individual. When we can get to that point, which is a diversity way of thinking rather than a multicultural way of thinking, that’s when we’ll see complexities far beyond hijab, far beyond the cross and the kippah and so forth. This whole charter of secular values comes from a place of fear: fear of religion, fear of being swept away by a series of other cultures. It does not come from a place of aspiration.
Back in January at York University [a male student asked to be exempt from doing group work with female students on religious grounds. His professor denied the request.] How do you feel about how that played out?
I endorse the professor’s decision but I think the way it could’ve played out could have been much more constructive. I would’ve loved the professor to go back to that student and make it a public discussion. “Let me ask you this question, sir, if your scripture was interpreted in a way that said – as it might have been 100 years ago – that you cannot consort with black people, with black men, would you agree to that today?” If the answer is no, take that further. “Then why is it okay to segregate on the basis of gender and not on the basis of race?” By asking questions, we actually put the ball of accountability and of dialogue in play. Making statements on the other hand, suggests there is no discussion to be had.
When was the last time you were offended by something someone said to you?
I try really hard to practise what I preach and I don’t always succeed. Most times when I go out on to a stage, when I know that there’s going to be anger in the crowd, I actually ask God to help me rise above the anger, to not stoop to that level and become defensive about it. I don’t mind acknowledging that of course I’m offended by many of the same arguments that I continue to hear over and over again. And why with some people it feels like it’s willful ignorance people bring to the table just to have a go at me or what I represent.
So when they ask questions you don’t think it’s coming from a place of them seeking knowledge.
There are many many people, Muslim and non-Muslim, who say Muslims will never change because baked into Islam is violence. And they ask me about certain verses of the Koran and I give them my interpretation of those verses and how I think old interpretations can be trumped by new interpretations. And it’s literally like they have not heard what I just said to them. It’s not that I ask them to agree with me, they haven’t even heard what I have to say and they keep saying “But what about! But what about!” It’s one thing if you don’t accept, it’s quite another if what you’re telling me is that the reason nothing is going to change is because you’ve decided nothing can change.
Irshad Manji was in Toronto this week to give a Ramsay Talk.
When Multiculturalism Becomes a Threat
Sheryl Saperia
Director of Policy for Canada, Foundation for Defense of Democracies4
Posted:  07/23/2012
Updated:  09/22/2012
Canadians remain divided on whether multiculturalism is salutary or injurious to our country. Perhaps the answer can only be reached on a case-by-case basis, as we work through the constant tension between respecting the cultural distinctiveness of all members of society while demanding loyalty to the state and at least some degree of national unity and shared values.
Five recent stories in the news may help to pinpoint the appropriate boundaries of multiculturalism, enabling us to signal to policy makers where we stand on the issue.
A nine-year-old girl in Quebec refused to remove her hijab during a soccer game, and was forced to stand on the sidelines as a result. This took place days after the International Football Association Board approved the wearing of headscarves due to the dearth of evidence that the practice represents a safety hazard.
A Toronto street-corner Muslim cleric has called for Canadian laws to be amended to require all women to dress modestly, taking inspiration from those Muslim women who cover their entire bodies and at least part of their face in public. If all women covered themselves, according to Al-Haashim Kamena Atangana, they would not be sexually assaulted.
Ontario's Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services is planning a program at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre to meet the spiritual needs of Muslim inmates, and to assist staff, inmates and management "in developing awareness and understanding of both cultural and religious diversity."
A 2009 RCMP publication has resurfaced in the headlines. Entitled "Words Make Worlds," it discourages the use of terms like "Islamic terrorism," "Islamist terrorism," "Jihadism," and "Islamo-fascism" and instead recommends "the construction of 'alternative narratives.'"
The Iranian embassy in Ottawa has been accused of seeking to recruit Iranian-Canadians to infiltrate the Canadian government. Hamid Mohammadi, the embassy's cultural affairs counselor, recently gave an interview in Farsi in which he urged Iranian-Canadians to "occupy high-level key positions" and "resist being melted into the dominant Canadian culture." He also noted the need for "very concentrated cultural programs to enhance and nurture the culture in this fast-growing population" since "this large Iranian population can only be of service to our beloved Iran through these programs and gatherings."
The Iranian-Canadian who helped translate Mohammadi's interview into English as part of her anti-regime activism was quoted as saying: "Multiculturalism is killing Canada. I am sick and tired of political correctness in this country."
Given the implausibility -- and inadvisability -- of discarding the constitutionally enshrined principle of multiculturalism, let us focus instead on establishing reasonable parameters.
For starters, an individual's minority cultural traditions cannot be imposed on others. As such, the notion that all women in Canada should be required to cover themselves in modest Muslim dress is absurd. (And to claim that sexual assault is the fault of the victim is simply offensive). This is not multiculturalism, but a contemptible endeavor by an individual to impose his cultural preferences on all Canadians.
In contrast, a young girl who wishes to wear a hijab while she plays soccer -- absent any risk to her or her teammates' safety -- ought to be able to do so. Getting involved with recreational sports, playing alongside children from diverse backgrounds, not demanding that team members dress as she does, all the while staying true to her own religious convictions, demonstrates how integration and multiculturalism can co-exist.
A special program for Muslim inmates (or any single cultural group) at a detention centre is a more complicated matter. The Canadian Somali Mothers Association, comprised of women whose sons had been in trouble with police, is supportive of this program because, as one spokesperson put it, some young Muslim inmates struggle with the lack of correctional staff from a similar cultural background.
If these inmates can better relate to Muslim staff, leading to more successful rehabilitation and an enhanced respect for the cultural diversity of others, surely this is a program worth pursuing. But if it only creates or reinforces a sense of entitlement to interact solely with people of the same cultural origin, it is a case of multiculturalism gone wrong. The Correctional Services ministry should tread carefully.
Multiculturalism has veered off course when those responsible for our safety -- a major threat to which is Islamist terrorism -- are reluctant to use direct language to describe that threat. This does not mean that Islam itself should be presented as the driver of terrorism; such a position is unequivocally inaccurate and bigoted. But law enforcement officials must be properly and candidly briefed on the role of religious ideology in some strains of terrorism.
Brian Michael Jenkins of the RAND Corporation points out, "The term 'jihad' is on the banner of al-Qaida. If they use it, I can use it." And as Dr. Sebastien Gorka, my colleague at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, adds, "If your enemy has successfully determined the limits of what you can say about him, he is already winning."
Most egregious is the Iranian embassy's alleged attempt to organize outreach programs (ordinarily permitted within the Canadian multicultural context) that are actually intended -- in the words of UBC professor Michael Byers -- "to recruit and utilize a population of Canadian citizens in ways that are clearly an interference with Canada's domestic affairs."
Mohammadi's comments are troubling enough. But coupled with reports by security experts and many Iranian-Canadians that Iran routinely sends spies through its foreign embassies to monitor and intimidate its nationals abroad, the interview has triggered calls for the Iranian embassy to be closed.
The Department of Foreign Affairs must immediately undertake a full investigation into whether the Iranian embassy is encouraging or even coercing Iranian-Canadians to prioritize Iran at the expense of Canadian loyalty and national security. Ottawa must also take heed of the chilling indications of a regime-backed Iranian presence in Canada working to sidestep sanctions, acquire dual-use technology and nuclear know-how, and cross into the United States.
Canadian multiculturalism, tolerance, and even political correctness are admirable values, and we should welcome diversity to the greatest degree possible. But we cannot allow these principles to be abused by those who seek to impose their cultural ideals on others, by those who distract us from genuine threats, and above all, by those who wish to cause us harm.
Follow Sheryl Saperia on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sherylsap
Also See:
Multiculturalism, Separatism: Serious Issues for Countries!
21 October 2010

Monday, December 05, 2016

Maybe This is Why Hillary Lost the Election!


Hillary Clinton Crimes In This Video Will Shock You !!
Published on Nov 30, 2016

Hillary Clinton's MOST Idiotic Moments 
Published on Nov 30, 2016

Hillary Clinton Body Count Documentary - Serial Killer for President!
Published on Sep 10, 2016
This is the definitive documentary on the Hillary and Bill Clinton killing spree that has been ongoing since they burst onto the scene in Arkansas. A trail of dead and mysterious deaths surround the Clinton's and I document 114 and more deaths in this film that they are directly connected to. Hill and Bill are Illuminati puppets, that are killing off anyone who might expose the 4th branches operations. Bill and Hillary are some of the most proficient serial killers of all time and need to be put into prison immediately. 

Hillary Clinton Exposed, Movie She Banned From Theaters
Mars Daniels
Published on Nov 6, 2013
There's a simple reason for Clinton's shocking loss to Trump
Daniel Alpert, Westwood Capital
Nov. 14, 2016
In the aftermath of Donald Trump's shocking electoral victory over Hillary Clinton, it is time for very deep soul searching among Democratic Party leaders as well as the party's rank and file.
There are many things to blame for Clinton's loss, some obviously true (she is an awkward campaigner), some convenient but less true (Americans not being ready for a female president, which is nonsense, or an aversion to political dynasties, which have happened before).
But the very inconvenient truth that must be absorbed, by the technocratic Democrats of the Obama years and by the apparent plurality of voters who supported Secretary Clinton, is that the Obama administration did not deliver on its promises of hope and change, and broke the trust of many of those (enough, at least, to elect Donald Trump) who were counting on a sharp departure from business as usual following the Great Recession.
It is tempting to chalk up the Trump win to the nativist racism of opioid-addled, poor white males. But that would be a mistake, especially given the actual demographics of Trump’s electoral coalition. Trump correctly identified the broad swath of Americans feeling economically left behind and insecure, and his constituents are working class and middle class (and even some upper middle class) more than they are the poor.
Trump's voters have been economically disenfranchised, betrayed by Wall Street and other moneyed interests, and ignored (or worse yet, pandered to) by their government for decades.
Don't get me wrong: The Clintons certainly were responsible for making the bed they were ultimately tossed out of. The petit-scandals and tone-deafness of both Clintons mounted to the point of making it difficult to chalk up their problems to a "vast right-wing conspiracy." With an electorate furious with banking interests, what brand of hubris defends taking piles of money for speeches to Goldman Sachs?
Yes, Americans find it unattractive when their politicians cash in after leaving office, and the Clintons seem like poster children in that department. But they just elected a boorish reality-TV star to the highest office in the land, so the notion that the electorate's sensibilities are all that delicate is a bit far-fetched.
No, the legacy of this election — perhaps, sadly, to become a part of the legacy of President Barack Obama's administration as history is written — is that so many of our families, our homeowners, our middle-aged and aging workers and parents, have been harmed, perhaps irrevocably, by declining real disposable incomes, deteriorating or vanished wealth, no prospects for a reasonably comfortable retirement, and healthcare and education costs that have eroded the little they were able to preserve.
And after eight years of the Obama presidency, despite all the faith they placed in change in 2008 and, somewhat less convincingly in 2012, they wondered:
Why was the administration crowing about job creation when the majority of the jobs created were low wage/low hour full-time positions and gig jobs that were supremely inadequate replacements for the steady, better-paying jobs that preceded them?
Why did the administration do so little to relieve homeowners who lost so much during the crisis and then pat themselves on the back for the cheap-debt-fueled growth in home prices that was concentrated on the coasts and did little for the balance sheets of households in places like Michigan and Wisconsin, Iowa, and Ohio?
And why, in God's name, was that administration touting the benefits of global trade agreements that were negotiated in secret and so patently devoid of benefits to US workers, while these same voters observed that everything they were buying at the store was putting people to work in China, Vietnam, Korea, and Mexico?
Finally — notwithstanding the insanity of the Republican obstruction of a truly responsible national healthcare program for all (which is supported by 58% of the electorate) — instead of the thoroughbred health-insurance policy campaigned for by President Obama, the nation got a two-humped camel, in the form of the Affordable Care Act, that is now limping at best. The chief benefit of ACA, insuring the poor and the young, were not felt by Trump's electorate; all they see are rising insurance premiums (for employer-provided as well as Obamacare-provided healthcare insurance).
US President Barack Obama greeting doctors from across the US in 2009 after making remarks on the need for health-insurance reform.Jim Young/Reuters
Imagine what it must feel like to be told that Obamacare is a "signature accomplishment" of the past eight years if you are not a member of the political or intellectual elites and don't know or don't care about how difficult the ACA was to achieve politically.
Being told what "can't be done" is cold gruel in comparison to being told America can be made great and "I, alone, can fix it."
But the deepest cut for many who ultimately voted for Trump, and I believe the proximate reason for his ultimate success, was the Clinton/Obama effort to squelch the campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders. While the recent WikiLeaks disclosures were somewhat damaging to Clinton, they only confirmed what most people generally felt or, like me, knew. I, however, voted for Clinton — others went a different way or didn't vote.
It was clear over the summer that Sanders would have been a much more formidable candidate than Clinton against Trump. And I have no doubt that he would have won the election this past Tuesday.
Because this election was not about experience in the echo chamber that is Washington, it was not about being grateful for having been rescued from crisis; it was not about the glass ceiling or competence.
This election was about being heard. And just as Sanders heard the anguish of the many, so too (to the anguish, now, of many) did Trump.
Read the original article on Westwood Capital. Copyright 2016.
Hillary Clinton Blames F.B.I. Director for Election Loss
By Amy Chozick
Nov. 12, 2016
Hillary Clinton on Saturday cast blame for her surprise election loss on the announcement by the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, days before the election that he had revived the inquiry into her use of a private email server.
In her most extensive remarks since she conceded the race to Donald J. Trump early Wednesday, Mrs. Clinton told donors on a 30-minute conference call that Mr. Comey’s decision to send a letter to Congress about the inquiry 11 days before Election Day had thrust the controversy back into the news and had prevented her from ending the campaign with an optimistic closing argument.
“There are lots of reasons why an election like this is not successful,” Mrs. Clinton said, according to a donor who relayed the remarks. But, she added, “our analysis is that Comey’s letter raising doubts that were groundless, baseless, proven to be, stopped our momentum.”
Mrs. Clinton said a second letter from Mr. Comey, clearing her once again, which came two days before Election Day, had been even more damaging. In that letter, Mr. Comey said an examination of a new trove of emails, which had been found on the computer of Anthony D. Weiner, the estranged husband of one of her top aides, had not caused him to change his earlier conclusion that Mrs. Clinton should face no charges over her handling of classified information.
Adviser, Ties China and North Korea to Jihadists
Her campaign said the seemingly positive outcome had only hurt it with voters who did not trust Mrs. Clinton and were receptive to Mr. Trump’s claims of a “rigged system.” In particular, white suburban women who had been on the fence were reminded of the email imbroglio and broke decidedly in Mr. Trump’s favor, aides said.
After leading in polls in many battleground states, Mrs. Clinton told the donors on Saturday, “we dropped, and we had to keep really pushing to regain our advantage, which going into last weekend we had.”
“We were once again up in all but two of the battleground states, and we were up considerably in some that we ended up losing,” Mrs. Clinton said. “And we were feeling like we had to put it back together.”
Presidential candidates have a long history of blaming forces outside their control for their losses. In 2004, John Kerry linked his defeat to a videotape of Osama bin Laden that appeared days before the election, stoking fears about terrorism. In 2012, Mitt Romney told donors he had lost because President Obama had vowed to bestow “gifts” on Democratic special interests groups, namely African-Americans, Hispanics and young people.
Mrs. Clinton’s contention appears to be more rooted in reality — and hard data. An internal campaign memo with polling data said that “there is no question that a week from Election Day, Secretary Clinton was poised for a historic win,” but that, in the end, “late-breaking developments in the race proved one hurdle too many for us to overcome.”
Mrs. Clinton lost narrowly in several battleground states, and by the time all ballots are counted, she appears poised to win the popular vote by more than two million votes.
Still, Mrs. Clinton’s instinct to shun any personal responsibility angered some Democrats. Several donors on the call, while deeply bitter about Mr. Comey’s actions, said they believed that Mrs. Clinton and her campaign had suffered avoidable missteps that handed the election to an unacceptable opponent. They pointed to the campaign’s lack of a compelling message for white working-class voters and to decisions years ago by Mrs. Clinton to use a private email address at the State Department and to accept millions of dollars for speeches to Wall Street.
“There is a special place in hell for Clinton staff, allegedly including Cheryl Mills, that okayed the email server setup,” Jim Manley, a Democratic strategist and former senior aide to Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, wrote on Sidewire, a social media site, referring to a longtime aide and lawyer to Mrs. Clinton.
Clinton Staff Memo Cites ‘One Hurdle Too Many’
Hillary Clinton's campaign staff distributed an internal memo on Thursday detailing why it thought the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had played a role in Mrs. Clinton's loss.
Mrs. Clinton’s campaign was so confident in her victory that her aides popped open Champagne on the campaign plane early Tuesday. But that conviction, aides would later learn, was based largely on erroneous data showing that young, black and Latino voters and suburban women who had been turned off by Mr. Trump’s comments but viewed Mrs. Clinton unfavorably would turn out for her in higher numbers than they ultimately did.
Exit polls conducted by Edison Research found that among people who said they had decided in the final week before Election Day, 47 percent voted for Mr. Trump and 42 percent for Mrs. Clinton.
As early as Wednesday morning, aides began to explain to Democrats shaken by the loss that the campaign’s sophisticated data modeling had not taken into account the bombshell F.B.I. announcement.
Mr. Comey’s letters to Congress went against the F.B.I.’s longstanding tradition of avoiding decisions that could affect elections, but he told aides that he felt he had no choice because he had already weighed in on the case so publicly. In July, he had taken the unusual step of publicly announcing that the F.B.I. would not charge Mrs. Clinton.
At the time, she believed she had finally put the issue to rest. And after the final debate on Oct. 19 in Las Vegas, she emerged in such a strong position that she began to focus on campaigning for down-ballot Democrats and planned a campaign stop in traditionally Republican Arizona.
“We felt so good about where we were,” Mrs. Clinton told donors. Before Mr. Comey’s first letter to Congress, she added, “we just had a real wind at our back.”
Mr. Trump seized on the letter, telling voters in Nevada the Saturday before Election Day that “the F.B.I. has reopened its criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton,” and that the matter “would grind government to a halt” should Mrs. Clinton win the White House. The F.B.I.’s examination of the new emails did not in fact reopen the investigation
Democratic pollsters attributed Mr. Trump’s laser-thin victories in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin — states that President Obama had won — largely to a drifting of college-educated suburban women to the Republican nominee at the last minute, because of the renewed focus on Mrs. Clinton’s email server.
“We lost with college-educated whites after leading with them all summer,” a Clinton spokesman, Brian Fallon, said on Wednesday. “Five more days of reminders about Comey, and they gravitated back to Trump.”
Before Mrs. Clinton spoke on Saturday, her finance director, Dennis Cheng, thanked the donors on the call, each of whom had raised at least $100,000. The campaign brought in nearly $1 billion to spend heavily on data efforts, to disperse hundreds of staff members to battleground states, and to air television advertisements — only to fall short to Mr. Trump’s upstart operation.
Donors conceded that, ultimately, no amount of money could match Mr. Trump’s crisp pitch, aimed at the economically downtrodden, to “make America great again.”
“You can have the greatest field program, and we did — he had nothing,” said Jay S. Jacobs, a prominent New York Democrat and donor to Mrs. Clinton. “You can have better ads, paid for by greater funds, and we did. Unfortunately, Trump had the winning argument.”
Mrs. Clinton has kept a low profile since her concession speech at a Midtown Manhattan hotel on Wednesday. On Thursday, a young mother with her 13-month-old daughter spotted Mrs. Clinton walking her dogs near her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., posting a photo of the defeated candidate on Facebook that quickly went viral along with the hashtag #ImStillWithHer.
On Friday night, Mrs. Clinton thanked volunteers on a nationwide conference call. “Look, I’m not going to sugarcoat it,” she said, sighing. “These have been very, very tough days.”

A version of this article appears in print on November 13, 2016, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Clinton Blames F.B.I. Director for Her Defeat. 

Sunday, December 04, 2016

Why Have a Recount?


Jill Stein's Bogus Recount Effort Ends in Complete Failure as Green Party Withdraws From Pennsylvania
Published on Dec 4, 2016

WOW! Recount shows Trump wins by even more than the original count!
Published on Dec 3, 2016
Take out the illegal votes and the dead vote Trump even win by more then previously thought.
Judge Jeanine Pirro "There is going to be a combination of people for the different jobs... that's why President- elect, Donald Trump has had one of the biggest, or the biggest, historical, electoral landslides in a long time because he was able to bring all spectrum's of our party together, move them down the center of the interstate and make it happen!"
- Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus

Hillary Clinton joins campaign to recount votes
Published on Nov 27, 2016

RECOUNT BREAKING NEWS: Recount Not Possible In Pennsylvania. Hillary Can't Win with WI and MI
Published on Nov 27, 2016
My name is H. A. Goodman and I’m an author, columnist, and journalist www.hagoodman.com

Yikes! Is THIS How Hillary Plans to Steal the Election?!?
Published on Nov 26, 2016
The criminal mind never sleeps. So we shouldn't expect the Clinton cartel to take this election loss lying down without making a last ditch effort to steal the presidential seat!

Recount 2016 Scam Exposed
Published on Nov 24, 2016
Jill Stein raised over $2.5 million dollars to launch a recount in three states, hoping to steal the election from Donald Trump and hand it to Hillary Clinton. Media analyst Mark Dice has the story. © 2016 by Mark Dice

Jill Stein Bribed By Clinton to Steal the Election
Published on Nov 24, 2016
Just in! Look what happened when Michigan did a recount...
Published on Nov 23, 2016
Could a recount overturn the election result?
Recounting votes is tedious, expensive—and cathartic
The Economist
Dec 3rd 2016 | CHICAGO
MOST voters yearn for closure after an unusually bitter election campaign, but three of the four candidates for the presidency now claim that the election may not have been free and fair. The loudest is Donald Trump. The president-elect frequently alleged that the election process was rigged and voter fraud common in the run-up to the election. On November 27th he tweeted that he had won the popular vote, “if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” Jill Stein, the Green Party’s candidate, raised millions of dollars for a recount of votes in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, where Mr Trump’s margins of victory were thin. And after initial hesitations, Hillary Clinton’s campaign joined the drive for a recount in the three Midwestern states which, together, handed Mr Trump his victory.
Ms Stein denies that she is pushing for a recount to overturn the election result. She says she is spurred by worries about the “hackability” of voting systems in the wake of the hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s network, voter-registration databases in Illinois and Arizona and the e-mail account of John Podesta, Mrs Clinton’s campaign manager. Some suspect that Ms Stein is partly driven by the publicity generated by her initiative and the inflow of funds (and donors’ contact details) to finance the recount. The initiative has given her more airtime than ever before and brought in about $7m, more than she received in the whole year for her presidential run.
Recounts are unlikely to overturn the result. The election was decided, in effect, by slightly more than 100,000 people in three Midwestern states. Mr Trump won Wisconsin with a margin of 0.8% (or 22,000 votes), Michigan with a margin of 0.2% (11,000 votes) and Pennsylvania with 71,000 votes, a margin of 1.2%. But these margins are bigger than any overturned before in a recount.
Merle King, of the Centre for Election Systems at Kennesaw State University, argues that the hacking incidents during the campaign do not mean that voting systems can easily be infiltrated. Voting technology differs between states and even county by county, with some counties using paper ballots, others paperless technology, making a large-scale hack very tricky. Around 75% of all votes are cast on paper, which is safer than those cast on electronic voting machines, some of which provide no paper trail as backup and can be hacked, as researchers have shown. Nearly all states use federally certified technologies, such as encrypting results several times before they are transmitted to a central repository.
Philip Stark, a statistician at the University of California, Berkeley argues that elections never work perfectly because of human error. Recounts usually produce a different result. Ballots can be torn when they are put through a scanner and a sensitive scanner can count a mark where a pencil just rested as a vote. The goal, says Mr King, is to get a reasonable approximation of the result.
The recounters are on a tight deadline: the electoral college must do its work by December 13th. However costly and tiresome, argue Mr Stark and Ronald Rivest of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, elections should be audited regularly, not only when margins are slim. If the results are confirmed, they will bolster voters’ belief in the system. If the process goes badly, as was the case with the chaotic recount in Florida after the presidential election in 2000, it will trigger reforms, such as the famous banishment of hanging chads (partly-punched paper cards). Either way, voters will be able to move on.

This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition under the headline Catharsis.
Why the Progressives Want a Recount They Know They Will Lose
If after all the devious machinations Trump still wins this will be used by the Sandernistas and the Clintonites to cry rigged system
By Dr. Robert R. Owens —— Bio and Archives
December 1, 2016
The recount in Wisconsin and the coming ones in Michigan and Pennsylvania will not change the outcomes in any of those states.  Even though the party of Mayor Daley, Boss Tweed, and their big city machines are famous for winning recounts by finding bags of votes in candy store basements no recount has ever changed thousands of votes let alone tens of thousands.  I do not believe changing the outcome is the purpose.  It is instead changing the perception of it.
I predict that they will demand the recounts are done by hand.  This would make them take so long these three pivotal States would not certify their results by the last day possible for directing their Electors how to vote.  If all three states miss the deadline, Trump is at 260, Hillary at 232.  No one hits 270.  
This is Hillary and the Progressives strategy to place the mantel of corrupt elite insiders on the Republicans
Then, according to the Constitution, the election would go to Congress.  The House votes with one vote per State.  The Republican House would then elect Donald Trump as the 45th president.  The Republican Senate would elect Pence Vice President.
This has happened before.  In 1824, though Andrew Jackson had more popular votes and more electoral votes John Quincy Adams won in the House.  President Adams made a deal with the Speaker of the House Henry Clay who Adams then named as his Secretary of State, which at the time was considered the stepping stone to the presidency.  This was immediately termed the Corrupt Bargain by supporters of Jackson.  The antagonistic presidential race of 1828 began practically before Adams took office.  To the Jacksonians the Adams-Clay alliance symbolized a corrupt system where elite insiders pursued their own interests without heeding the will of the people.
This is Hillary and the Progressives strategy to place the mantel of corrupt elite insiders on the Republicans now that they see the nation is incensed against the circle of Progressive power brokers who led us from the pinnacle of prosperity to the brink of bankruptcy.  This is akin to how the Democrats have successfully placed the mantel of racist on the party of Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation.  What a masterful stroke of political maneuvering that convinced the descendants of slaves that their natural allies are the descendants of Jim Crow.
If this goes to the US House and Senate, and the result is the same as the result from the Electoral College without the recounts, why do it?  The answer is to make Trump seem completely illegitimate. They and their obedient shills in the media will tell us every day and at every opportunity that Trump did not win the popular vote saying he lost by over 2.1 million ignoring the fact that millions of illegals voted.  He did not win the Electoral College since in this scenario he would not have attained 270.  They will say just as they did about Bush the Younger that he was not elected he was selected by members of his own party in Congress.
However, there is one wrinkle in this strategy.  If a state never gets to name electors, the number needed to win does not remain the 270 needed if every state names every elector.  In that case it would once again be a majority of those named.  Even with 260-232, Trump would still win.  Then again the thugs on the left are sending death threats to electors already named trying to frighten some of them into becoming faithless electors who do not vote as instructed by their States.  I don’t foresee this happening.  The number of faithless electors in American History doesn’t make a handful.
So if after all these devious machinations Trump still wins without the election being thrown into Congress this would only be used by the Sandernistas and the Clintonites to cry rigged system.  They would keep their bully boys from Black Lives Matter and Move On in the streets for years while they hope and pray that Trump’s policies don’t make America great again which could solidify his hold over the working men and women throughout the nation.
Energize their low information base for a restoration of corporate socialism in four more years
No matter how this evil strategy plays out, whether the election is thrown into Congress or if Trump wins with a majority of a short electoral count, we will have four years of the Democrats calling this another Corrupt Bargain.  They will try to disrupt the inauguration.  They will have protestors outside the White House from day one.  They will have demonstrations everywhere President Trump goes.  They may even try to incite mass marches and violence in the rotted hulks of our once magnificent cities they control like medieval fiefdoms.  Using their big megaphone in the media they will use print, broadcast, movies, and songs to agitate their followers for the 2020 rematch between the Donald and perhaps Senator Elizabeth Warren or whoever they can scrape up to be the new face for their shopworn collectivist movement.
In other words they know the recount won’t change anything but they hope it will be enough to energize their low information base for a restoration of corporate socialism in four more years.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion.  He is the Historian of the Future @
© 2016 Robert R. Owens
Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens