Fox News, Buttigieg lie about Limbaugh commentary

This is annoying as hell, and it’s going to continue for months.

I listened to the portion of Rush Limbaugh’s show on Wednesday – during a five-hour drive from Pennsylvania – where he discussed what the Democrats must have been thinking after the New Hampshire results. The transcript is available – word-for-word – to anyone who is willing to take two minutes to find it.

Then I see this headline on the Fox News website this afternoon.

“Limbaugh says US not ready for “gay guy” president.” This is a complete fabrication; a total lie. He never said anything like it.

From the Fox News article, with the completely out-of-context quote emphasized by me.

Buttigieg continued: “And I’m not going to be lectured on family values from the likes of Rush Limbaugh or anybody who supports Donald J. Trump as the moral as well as political leader of the United States. America has moved on and we should have politics of belonging that welcomes everybody. That’s what the American people are for. And I am saddened for what the Republican Party has become if they embrace that kind of homophobic rhetoric.”

Limbaugh said this past week that he envisioned Democrats concluding that “despite all the great ground that’s been covered, that America’s still not ready to elect a gay guy kissing his husband on the debate stage for president.” His comments came just eight days after President Trump awarded Limbaugh the nation’s top civilian honor during the State of the Union address.

You’ll note the qualifier in there about “Democrats concluding…” That’s a nice effort, but the implication is clear. They cut the quote completely out-of-context. This comment was directly related to what the Democratic National Committee must be evaluating when looking at the current top-three candidates. It’s absolutely on-point.

If you’re wondering, this is just another reason why conservatives will vote for Trump. Limbaugh is not homophobic, racist or misogynist. I’m not going to speak for Rush, but Limbaugh and conservatives are fans of constitutional conservatives. Lifestyle, race or sex don’t matter. When it comes to the United States Constitution, are you in or out? We’re fighting on policy issues, but when liberals can’t win on policy issues, they pull a discrimination card every time. It’s unending.

The deep link headline at Fox News reads “Buttigieg says he’s ‘not going to be lectured on family values’ by Rush Limbaugh.” I’m sorry, but Limbaugh never lectured this fool concerning family values. It never happened.

Again, the full transcript of Limbaugh’s show on Wednesday is right here. Here is the pertinent portion of the transcript. My emphasis is added.

RUSH: I want to finish what we started here, and I want to present you the options I think the Democrat Party’s faced with after what happened at the Hawkeye Cauci and in the New Hampshire primary.

But first, more evidence that you’re right where you need to be if you want to know what’s first and if you want to be cutting edge political analysis. Last night CNN special coverage New Hampshire primary, former governor Terry “the Punk” McAuliffe, the Clinton campaign, the Clinton White House, governor of Virginia, had this to say.

MCAULIFFE: You’ve gotta give this guy credit. I mean, he came in first in Iowa. It looks like he’s gonna be second tonight. This is a guy, a mayor of a small town. A year ago, nobody gave this guy a chance.

RUSH: He’s talking about Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Nobody ever heard of this guy. Nobody knew where this guy was. Nobody… Uh, not so fast. Let’s go back to 11 months ago today.

RUSH ARCHIVE: Keep a sharp eye out for Mayor Pete. Keep an eye on this guy. He is gonna make mincemeat of all the rest of these people. When his time comes to face these people in debate, if he gets that far, keep an eye on Mayor Pete of South Bend. It’s all I’m gonna say. This guy was articulate for what he believes. He was personable. He had an answer for everything. There was no, “And, y’know, I… Like, uhhhh,” and there was no radicalism. Some things that he believes about Trump are typically crazy, but keep an eye out for Mayor Pete. He’s 37. Keep an eye out for Mayor Pete.

RUSH: Snerdley has been ticked off at me for making that observation nearly a year ago, because Snerdley believes had I not made the observation, a lot of people would not have given Mayor Pete Buttigieg the time of day. But just to illustrate. Now, Mayor Pete is, like every other leftist Democrat in this whole roster, a fraud in the sense that he’s trying to cover up the fact that he is a radical leftist.

His dad was a Marxist communist, who loved the Communist Manifesto. Mayor Pete’s trying to carve a niche for himself where he’s not Crazy Bernie’s got that all wrapped up. But I don’t care who the Democrats nominate. The party, as we’ve said, is gone. It is a far-left party now. There isn’t any moderate wing of any significance or size. There isn’t any segment of it that is not some flavor or form of socialist. They want you to believe that it is.

They want you to believe that Crazy Bernie’s off on a tangent and that he’s not really defining policy set for the Democrat Party. But a party is what its base is, and its base is maybe even to the left of Crazy Bernie. So let’s say you’re the Democrat establishment, and you’re faced with some hard, cold truths. You got Bernie number one, Buttigieg number two, and Klobuchar with her Klobmentum number three.

You’ve got Fauxcahontas way back there in the background barely out of the tepee bringing up the tail end. Biden’s gone. So you’re faced with a dyed-in-the-wool socialist who’s not even a Democrat; a gay guy, 37-years-old, loves kissing his husband on debate stages (can you see Trump have fun with that?), and Amy Klobuchar. So you are whoever the grand pooh-bahs in the Democrat Party are.

You’re looking at your options today (laughing), and you’re asking, “Okay, can we win with Klobuchar? We don’t want to put Klobuchar up there because she doesn’t have a prayer. Trump’s gonna wipe the floor with her, and that would mean two women in a row get wiped out by Donald Trump. Two Democrat women in a row. We can’t have that! We can’t let that happen.”

Then they’re sitting there and they’re looking at Mayor Pete — a 37-year-old gay guy, mayor of South Bend, loves to kiss his husband on the debate stage — and they’re saying, “Okay. How’s this gonna look, a 37-year-old gay guy kissing his husband on stage next to Mr. Man, Donald Trump? What’s gonna happen there?”

They gotta be looking at that, and they’ve gotta be saying that despite all the great progress and despite all the great wokeness and despite all the great ground that’s been covered, America’s still not ready to elect a gay guy kissing his husband on the debate stage president. They have to be saying this, don’t they? Now, there may be some Democrats who think that is the ticket.

There may be some Democrats who think, “That’s exactly what we need to do, Rush. Get a gay guy kissing his husband on stage! You ram it down Trump’s throat and beat him in the general election.” (laughing) Really? Having fun envisioning that. What are you left with? Crazy Bernie. They’re left with the avowed revolutionary socialist who isn’t even a Democrat.

So which of those three…? They want to take all three out. They would like to get rid of all three of those, the establishment of the Democrats. But if they can’t, which of those three would they rather lose with? Who among those three losing will do the least damage to the Democrat Party going forward? That’s what they are facing, if you ask me.

Bloomberg: Absolute tyrant determined to take guns away

When I first saw the original interview with Michael Bloomberg concerning guns and the NRA, I was pretty pissed off. This guy literally knew nothing about firearms or the 2nd Amendment. Nothing. The questions by Cynthia McFadden were… gentle. She sort of corrected him, but did not call him out on his stupidity.

Could he be so dumb, or is he just assuming his audience is so dumb they will believe what he says? It doesn’t really matter.

This politician running for president has shown he is willing to spend hundreds of millions of his own money to disarm the American public. His attack on the NRA and the amount of money they contribute to political campaigns is outright lunacy. The organization he founded and funds – Everytown for Gun Safety – spends about the same amount as the NRA.

That does not include the millions of dollars he contributes himself to campaigns and political action committees in states like the Commonwealth of Virginia, where he’s single-handedly funded a flip of the legislature and demanded those Democrats pass gun control legislation. We’re seeing the effect of Bloomberg’s tyranny in Virginia during the last few months.

As for the NRA, it’s funded by millions of Americans, not an individual billionaire oligarch like Bloomberg.

Here is a breakdown of the 2012 Bloomberg interview where Colion Noir absolutely crushes this want-to-be tyrant on every point. Every. Point.

The original interview was on ABC’s Nightline in December 2012, and can be found online here. Here is the auto-generated transcript that has not been cleaned up.

It may have take then loss of 26 lives at sandy hook elementary to blow up a long overdue conversation about guns but for michael bloomberg it is the 34 lives lost to guns every day in this country that fuelled his decades long crusade. He said it is time for president obama to take actions and for the nra to get out of the way. Columbine. Virginia tech. Today the call for tougher gun laws got some star power. An a-list of hollywood celebrities teaming up to release this new video. Demand a plan. Right now. Have people been coming up to you on this issue? Oh, yeah. This is the man behind it, new york city mayor bloomberg, more determined than ever in his fight against gun violence. His number one target the nra. What would you like the nra to know? That I think the public has finally come to the conclusion we are going to do the this whether you like it or not and connecticut is because of some of their actions. You hold them responsibility. I hold you and me responsibility. We didn’t pay attention to what our legislators were doing. We have let our society, our country degenerate to the point where we have a murder rate that you cannot compare it to other countries. You can’t put it on the same scale. The nra believes that it is working in the best interest of the american people. I don’t know. They are not supposed to do that. They are supposed to work in the best interest of gun owners. They don’t have a responsibility for the american people. They are paid for by the gun owners. There’s nothing wrong with that. It is the rest of us that cave in to them that are irresponsible. A lot of people will be surprised to know fur on the no fly list, you can’t fly but you can buy a gun. Absolutely. He says for all of the nra’s influence they can be vanquished. They are not that powerful. Their number one priority in the last year was defeating president obama. I think when I remember reading newspapers a month ago he won. This is the latest chapter in the mayor’s crusade who says he’s attended far too many police funerals. We have to do something to protect those who are trying to protect us. There are bullet — armor-piercing bullets advertised for sale. The last time I saw a deer wearing a bulletproof vest was a long time ago. The only reason you would buy an armor-piercing bullet is to kill a cop. Reporter: The bloomberg endorsed obama in november he pulls no punches when criticizing him on the gun issue. This last four years it would be fair to say the president has done nothing on the issue. No. He’s gone in the wrong direction. He signed two pieces of legislation, one which lets you carry guns in national parks where our kids play and the other one he signed a bill so that you can carry a gun on amtrak. Reporter: Let’s look at the assault weapons ban. We had one in the country for ten years. Every single weapon used by the shooter in connecticut would have been okay under the old assault weapons law. All right. So fix it. Reporter: Isn’t it hard to define what is an assault weapon because it is so easy to write around, for manufacturers to createeapons that — if it can fire a lot of bullets quickly. That’s a good place to start. Reporter: Hunters would say — let’s say three. If you haven’t hit the deer with three shots. You are a lousy shot and the deer deserves to get away. Let’s get serious here. That would ban most pistols. Pistols are different. You have to pull the trigger each time. An assault weapon you hold and it goes — those are fully automatic weons. If you have a big magazining you will solve your problem. You still have to pull a trigger. But 30, 20, 10 bullets before you run out, I would suggest the deer, god wants that deer to. According to gun owners what you described would ban what most hunters use today. If that is what they are using for god’s sakes why don’t they use dynamite. Make it easier. What’s the sport? Reporter: The position a lot of people will say is all you will accomplish is taking guns from the good people and the bad people will still — that’s not true. The statistics say if you have a gun at home you are 22 as likely to shoot a family member or friend as to somebody breaking in. Don’t try to go for a gun. Somebody pointing a gun at you, you think you are going to outshoot them, that is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Reporter: Some say that is easy for a man to say who has 24-hour police protection. When I come in to interview you, I have to go through metal detectors and men out there with guns to make sure you are safe. There are a lot of people who say let’s make our kids safe in the same way. Barbara boxer said the national guard should be deployed. To where. To schools across the country. That’s ridiculous. You can’t live your life that way. You would be in a prison. Reporter: After a decade of battling this issue, the mayor says the tide may be turning. Are we at the tipping point right now? I hope so but you never know. If the 20 young, 6 and 7-year-olds isn’t a good example, I don’t know what is. We are killing 34 people in this country every single day.

Ocasio-Cortez and her plan for the 70% tax rate bracket

There has been enough commentary on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s (D-N.Y.) suggestion to add a tax bracket of 70 percent for income earned more than $10 million that I need to chime in. We’ve all heard the cries of “the rich don’t pay their fair share” for years. It’s a complete lie and I’ve discussed it in at least one column in the past.

So how does Ocasio-Cortez’s plan hold up? What does it do, how many people will it affect and more importantly, how much money will it bring in?

It’s not hard to calculate an estimate. I headed to the IRS website, and hunted down data including Individual Statistical Tables by Size of Adjusted Gross Income. Then I opened the 2016 spreadsheet for All Returns: Selected Income and Tax Items. (2016 is the most recent data provided.)

In that spreadsheet, we find:

  • There were 16,087 individual federal returns who had an adjusted gross income more than $10 million
  • That’s 0.0107 percent of all returns. Yes, that’s about 1/100th of a percent.
  • Those 16,087 individuals (or families) currently pay 5.6 percent of the total federal income tax collected

Stop and look at the last figure again.

The spreadsheet shows the average adjusted gross income for those 16,087 making more than $10 million is about $30 million. So at best, Ocasio-Cortez’s plan would bring in 33 percent of $20 million, multiplied by 16,087. (Families currently pay 37 percent income tax on earnings more than $600,000, so the difference is 33 percent.) That’s $6.6 million per family, or a total of $106 billion.

So the plan is to confiscate $106 billion per year from 16,000 families who are already contributing more than 5 percent of the income tax collected.

And that’s a best-case scenario where no families take legal steps to reduce their tax burden. And trust me, they will do everything possible and legal to reduce their tax burden. Including electing to not make that much. Would you work harder to take home less than 30 cents of every dollar you earn?

Don’t forget many are paying state income tax. In Connecticut you’ll take home less than 24 cents for every dollar earned. California? How about less than 17 cents?

The federal government spent about $4 trillion in 2016. $100 billion is 2.5 percent of the total amount spent. The 2016 federal deficit was $587 billion. The increased tax collected – if this plan was implemented in 2016 – would not even cover 20 percent of the deficit.

And get this, even if we confiscated 100% of every dollar those 16,000 families earned in 2016 … we still would have been $105 billion short of covering the deficit! That’s a hypothetical that could never happen, but it is illustrative of the problem.

NYT anonymous “Trump administration insider” opinion piece

On the big radio show this morning – 9 a.m. to noon ET – Jim will be discussing the very unusual anonymous New York Times opinion piece posted yesterday.

Mike Walsh will be a guest on the show today, and he’s got his own commentary posted over at American Greatness … The Spy in the White House, the Dogs in the Manger.

Jim will also take a look at Allahpundit’s updated post over at Hot Air, including this tweet in response to the NYT OpEd.

Breaking Defense: Trump’s Generals – Mattis & Flynn & Kelly

In a three-part series, James Kitfield from Breaking Defense provides brief overviews of the experienced military men that will, or may be working for President-elect Trump in leadership positions.

Among the many anxieties inspired by the rise of Trump, one of the most profound is his fondness for generals. Does naming so many retired military men to top positions undermine the principal of civilian control? How might their shared experiences in our post-9/11 conflicts shape the way they govern? This week, award-winning defense reporter James Kitfield takes us in depth with profiles of Jim Mattis, John Kelly, and Mike Flynn. Today, Kitfield starts the series with a look at Trump’s generals as a group. Besides Trump, what do they all have in common? The answer is one word: war.

Trump’s Generals: How Wartime Service Shaped Mattis, Kelly, & Flynn

Trump’s Generals, Part 2: Jim Mattis vs. Iran

Trump’s Generals, Part 3: Mike Flynn vs. Al-Qaeda

“I don’t understand … he’s an abhorrent person”

I recently commented on a Facebook post referencing Harry Reid saying “Fear is entirely rational” after a campaign of “bigotry and hate.” I simply said “they still don’t get it.”

A friend responded to my comment.

I guess what I don’t get is when people keep telling me to “get over it” and move on. In any past election in my life I was able to do that but this one is different. I understand the reasons peeps voted for T for political reasons some of which I agree with but I just find him to be an abhorrent person. I especially can’t understand how people who wanted to draw and quarter Bill C for being morally bankrupt now turned around and over looked what a pig T is and actually vote for him. And please don’t tell me I’ve been brainwashed by the liberal media against him. I heard with my own ears the hateful things he said.

We obviously can’t point to “one thing” to help understand why folks voted for Trump. A significant part of the equation was Democrats who stayed home or voted for Trump. Trump will end up with about the same number of votes McCain and Romney received, but Clinton ended up with 10 million and 5 million (respectively) fewer votes than Obama.

But I’ll stick to one thought for now: He fought back.

Liberals have been talking down to me for a couple of decades now, but I really started noticing when I started writing for this conservative website. Here are just some of the hateful things that have been said to me, about me, and other conservatives for decades. Strong language coming…

  • I’m a racist because I want our border secured and I want to limit legal immigration in defense of our American culture and ideals.
  • I’m racist since I absolutely do not agree there is “endemic” racism problem in law enforcement.
  • I’m racist since I think the current laws in place should be enforced.
  • I’m a racist homophobe since I think it’s absolutely insane to demand a practicing faithful Christian bake a cake, and have them pay $100k in fines because they are “bigots” if they say no to baking a cake.
  • I hate children because I think the federal Department of Education should be shuttered immediately.
  • I’m delusional since I don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change. I think the climate HAS been changing for millions of years and will continue to do so. To think we can stop global climate change is complete vanity, and when I say that, I’m labeled as someone who wants to destroy the planet.
  • I’m outright insane due to my gun rights stand, and I’m OK with kids getting killed because I think an “assault weapon” ban is absurd.
  • I must be “compensating” for something since I quietly carry a gun to protect myself and my family.
  • There must be something wrong with me because I own evil inanimate objects such as guns, gun magazines, rifles and hollow-point ammunition. Therefore, I must register with the government and be “monitored.” If I fail to register, I’m a criminal.
  • When I say the minimum wage should be zero, I’m a racist and hate poor people trying to raise a family. I’m not allowed to calmly explain why, since the protesting crowd is now yelling at me.
  • People claim I have violent tendencies since I believe in what the TEA Party stands for. When something bad happens, liberals and the media immediately claim it was probably a TEA Party member.
  • When I point out there is no such thing as a “gun show loophole,” I’m an uneducated idiot.
  • When I say it’s terribly sad and heartbreaking more black babies were terminated in NYC than born in 2012 and 2013, I’m a racist AND a misogynist asshole.
  • When I point out conservatives in Washington are not trying to block women from healthcare services or getting the pill, I’m an idiot and anti-woman.
  • When I think the federal government should get completely out of the health care business, I hate women, children and the poor.
  • I’m a racist since I think you should prove you are a citizen when you vote.
  • When I explain human rights exist simultaneously between people and human rights are limited to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – not healthcare, education, food, housing, cell phones or broadband Internet – I’m a woman-hating, racist asshole.
  • When I say Roe v. Wade was a bad legal decision, heads explode and people start yelling at me before I can explain why.

The criticism, distain and outright hate towards my conservative beliefs continue. I could go on-and-on.

Every single one of these statements – and many more – have been either made to me in person, in an online comment, or sent to me in an email during my time writing more than 2,000 conservative blog posts. Thankfully, I’ve received no death threats, but I know of authors who have. I’ve seen them. Law enforcement dealt with them.

The attacks on some of my friends – who happen to be black conservatives – have been outright brutal. I’ve been present when a protester yelled at them …”you’re a traitor to your race.”

The verbal and written attacks – along with all the “they are stupid” jokes – on Sarah Palin, Palin’s family, George W. Bush, Bush’s family, Mitt Romney, Mia Love, Rand Paul, Alan West, Scott Walker, Clarence Thomas among many others have been BRUTAL for years.

Although Trump was not my chosen candidate, Trump fought back. He gave it out just the same the left have been dishing it out for decades. No national GOP candidate has fought back before. (Well, maybe Reagan.) It was all about “what can we do to get them to accept us.”

Well, Trump got through to folks who were done being bullied by the left.

At this point, I’m more than willing to give Trump a chance. I’ll continue to explain why Constitutional conservatism will work when given the opportunity. I’ll work to direct Trump on conservative policy if he’ll listen. I’ll disagree with him and point out where I think he is wrong just as I did during Bush 43’s term.

Ron Winter: Pollsters, pundits had anti-Trump agenda

From our friend Ron Winter…

All across the American media pollsters and pundits are gazing at their navels and wailing about why Donald Trump was elected president of the United States when everything they did for more than a year was geared to preventing exactly that outcome.

What did we do wrong? What did we miss? Why did the voting public not believe our polls and commentaries in sufficient numbers to make Hillary Clinton president? Woe is us; we are going to have to convene panels and study groups and committees to examine our polling methods to make sure this never happens again.

Read his full article.


CNN to DNC: Hey, we need questions for GOP candidate interviews

I don’t think my headline is stretching it all that much at all. Especially since the DNC’s Donna Brazile was fired by CNN for getting caught forwarding debate questions to the Hillary Clinton campaign.

On April 28, 2016, Lauren Dillon, the research director for the DNC, sent an email out to colleagues.

Subject: Cruz on CNN

CNN is looking for questions.

Please send some topical/interesting ones.

Maybe a couple on Fiorina.

Someone please take point and send them all together by 3pm.

Thank you!

So it’s clear someone from CNN contacted Dillon looking for questions to ask GOP candidates. I guess CNN staff do not have enough time or talent to do their own research and come up with questions. Does this prove collusion between the media and the DNC? Well how about another email sent by Dillon?

On April 25, 2016, Dillon sent another email out to DNC staff reminding them of her request the previous day.

Subject: Re: Trump Questions for CNN


Kelly please take lead.

Folks, send your questions and any necessary backup to Kelly.

On Apr 24, 2016, at 10:24 PM, Dillon, Lauren <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Wolf Blitzer is interviewing Trump on Tues ahead of his foreign policy address on Wed.

Please send me thoughts by 10:30 AM tomorrow.


When Dillon asks people to send her “thoughts,” she’s using her role as the DNC researcher-in-chief (leader of opposition research) to collect questions for Blitzer at CNN to use during his interview. Again, Blitzer can not seem to come up with his own questions, so he goes to the DNC for help.

But there is more. This one week in April was pretty busy for the opposition research team at the DNC. Eric Walker, the deputy communications director at the DNC, had a research request for his staff. Lauren Dillon was also looped in. On April 21, 2016, Walker sent to the following email.

Subject: research request: top 10 worst Trump quotes?

Milbank doing a Passover-themed 10 plagues of Trump.

Off top of my head, I’m thinking:

  • Punish women
  • Mexicans as rapists
  • Ban Muslims
  • Shoot someone in middle of 5th ave
  • Rough up BLM protestor
  • Anchor baby
  • Do a lot worse than waterboarding
  • Blood coming out of her wherever
  • Spill beans on ted’s wife
  • Talked about penis on stage at debate

Any other big things I’m missing? And can you pull bullets for these?

Thank you!!

The “Milbank” Walker is referring to is Dana Milbank, and opinion writer for The Washington Post. Less than 24 hours after Walker’s email, Milbank’s article is posted at the Post’s website… The Ten Plagues of Trump.

I would never suggest there is no collusion between the GOP and conservative journalists and opinion writers. In my opinion, this is why we need an extreme shake-up to the governing elite in this country. The establishment political class are all buddy-buddy with the Fourth Estate – The Press – who should be more involved with investigative journalism, coming up with their own damn questions, and reporting truth instead of trying to “make news.”

You’ll note we’re not seeing the original requests from CNN or The Post to the DNC. Back channels. You have the “work” email and then you have the somewhat cryptic free email accounts used by everyone in this great swamp. The stuff nobody wants to reveal is hidden in GMail and Yahoo account discussions. We’ve seen that proven thousands of times in the Podesta GMail leaks.




Clinton has wanted to hide communications for years

If you think Secretary Clinton’s kerfuffle with emails started when she became Secretary of State in 2008, you’d be incorrect. Prior to her US Senate run in the late 1990s – just as her husband President Clinton was winding down his final term in office – Clinton expressed terror at the thought of her email communications being exposed through freedom of information requests.

In this clip from an ABC News 20/20 segment on Clinton bundler and felon Peter Paul, home video catches Clinton mid-discussion concerning email communications.

Clinton stated…

As much as I’ve been investigated and all that, why would I … why would I want to do email? Can you imagine?

In an interview with Andrea Mitchell from NBC News, Clinton claimed they “didn’t really stop and think what kind of email system will there be.” She was lying, and the video from the Peter Paul fundraising event pretty much confirms she was concerned about hiding communications from view more than 16 years ago.

Clinton's New Email Excuse: She "Wasn't Thinking A Lot About It"

Wow! Now Hillary Clinton says she wasn't really thinking when she decided to use a private email server as Secretary of State. See More here:

Posted by America Rising PAC on Friday, September 4, 2015

Of course, many millennials who were not politically aware – and many of us older – have mostly forgotten all of the crap that was happening as Bill Clinton was leaving office and Hillary Clinton was getting geared up for her Senate campaign. Here is the full 20/20 report. I would not doubt it if ABC News block the video, but if they do, I challenge them to put the full report online with commercials instead of hiding it.


Obama encourages illegal aliens to vote?

Not quite so fast. He did not understand the premise of the question, or he just was not listening. When Gina Rodriguez asked the question during the interview earlier this week, everyone freaked out about the answer. The video you’re seeing elsewhere cuts off a relevant comment by the president a few moments later in the interview.

But let’s be clear, the president is known for interviews with mixed messages like this.

Rodriguez asked, “Many of the millennials, dreamers, undocumented, ahh… citizens … and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will Immigration know where I live, will they come for my family, and deport us?”

The president answers, “Not true.” He goes on with platitudes about how important it is to vote and not be afraid. It’s important to note Rodriguez just smiled and did not correct or clarify her question. At 1:12 into this clip, the president noted he thought it was important for Latinos – who are citizens – to vote because others in the community may “not have a voice, who can’t legally vote.”

To me, it’s clear what Rodriguez was asking the president, and she let him keep speaking. At 1:09, Rodriguez even mentions “the entire community.” The president did not get it … or did he?

Follow up

Let’s see if the president actually makes the effort to come out and say if you are an illegal alien, non-resident or non-citizen, you can not vote. It is illegal to do so. He won’t.

Here is a proper edit of the clip. If you’d like to see the entire interview – I’m certain it was edited like any other interview – click here.

Gina Rodriguez thinks it’s fine for illegal aliens to vote?

Another follow up. Rodriguez is an actress born and raised in Chicago to parents from Puerto Rico. A question for Rodriguez … is she now suggesting it’s OK for undocumented workers (non-citizens) to vote? In her opinion, did Obama give that opinion the green light?

Rodriguez is claiming the question referred to illegal aliens who are afraid of the voting process. Supposedly they think if someone in their family who is a citizen votes, they are at more of a risk to be tracked down and deported. If that’s the case, it’s one of the worst interview questions I could ever imagine. It’s actually an absurd question if you think about it.

Then she follows up with the following.

So if I vote, will immigration know where I live, will they come for my family and deport us?

Again, absurd question. If you are a citizen and voting, how is Immigration going to come and deport you? You’re a citizen. 

Bad interview all-around, and just enough “mixed messaging” to let illegals know they can vote with no consequences while the president and Rodriguez can claim “we never said that.”

Words matter.