Filed under: Africa, Bureaucracy, Crime, Democrat Corruption, Developing Nations, Domestic Policy, Election 2016, Foreign Policy, Media Bias, National Security, Politics, Russia, The United States | Tags: Bill Clinton's Speeches, Hillary Clinton, The World's Dictators and Oligarchs, U.S. Secretary of State
I’m sure you have heard of the movie “Clinton Cash” but have you watched it? Peter Schweitzer is an American author, and political consultant. He is president of the Government Accountability Institute, and a former William J. Casey Research Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. If you are curious about Mr. Schweizer, here he is for a speech at Hillsdale College. talking about “Money and Politics.”
Hillary famously claimed that they left the White House “dead broke,” which is, of course absurd. Congress, shamed by Harry Truman’s plight when he left the presidency with only his Army pension to rely on, has provided a generous pension for former presidents as well as provision for an office and office help, whatever an ex-president needs. Hillary’s silly claim was the source for many a cartoon, but she now lives on a gated estate, and all her pantsuits are designer creations. Curious. You should see the movie before you vote.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Democrat Corruption, Election 2016, Free Markets, Freedom, History, National Security, News the Media Doesn't Want You to Hear, Politics, Progressivism, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: Hillary Clinton, Judge Jeanine Pirro, The U.S. Secret Service
I don’t watch television, but get my news online or on the radio, ao I wasn’t really familiar with Judge Jeanine Pirro, but she went on a bit of a rant on Saturday that is really special.
You have probably guessed that I am a Republican— the American Elephants thing is a clue. When the Clintons moved into the White House, I didn’t really know all that much about them. A political campaign is not exactly a good way to get to know the real candidate, and politics is a weird occupation — pays well though.
Living in the White House must be a strange change for most newly-elected Presidents and their families: big staff, little privacy, and you have the Secret Service to accompany you everywhere, for your safety and protection. It’s a thankless task. The service members are sworn to lay down their lives to protect the President and his (or her) family.
Hillary taught Chelsea to refer to the Secret Service men — as “the Pigs.” Then I learned that she called them, directly to their faces, in the most vulgar epithets, even when they made the simple mistake of saying “Good Morning.” Hillary has a mouth like a sewer. I knew the words existed, I’m not that naive, but I had never heard of them being directed to a public servant in such a situation. That’s not bad manners, it’s bad character.
She has never given me reason to change my opinion.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Crime, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economy, History, Media Bias, Politics, Taxes, The United States | Tags: Hillary Clinton, Pandering and Promises, Warren Michigan
Here is Hillary’s Warren, Michigan economic speech. It’s not fair for me to have the privilege of watching if I don’t share. It is 47 painful minutes long, very persuasive, and really quite a powerful speech. Many will fall for the B.S. She clearly feels your pain, she grew up in a home where her father had a little business just like many of you do, and they had to struggle, and her grandfather worked in a factory! She didn’t go into the struggle she and Bill had when they left the White House dead broke (A little history: Harry Truman left the White House with no pension except his $112.56 Army pension, and Congress corrected that so no future president would ever have to struggle. Do click on that link. )
If you can’t resist watching this debacle, try to keep in mind that Obama has added more than six trillion dollars to the national debt and that has accomplished exactly what? Keep asking yourself “how do we pay for this?” See US Debt Clock.org. Or how to become Venezuela in a few easy lessons.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Crime, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Economics, Foreign Policy, History, Law, Media Bias, National Security, Politics, The United States | Tags: Hillary Clinton, Just Get Rid of the Old Ones, New Rights for Americans
Many of us have noticed that the Democratic Party has changed significantly. Congressional Democrats used to cooperate on many issues and bipartisan votes were common. But here we were yesterday on the Fourth of July, fireworks, barbecues and beer, and sparklers for the kids, and we have Democrats demanding that we confiscate all guns (Matt Damon), bellyaching about God Bless America (Gersh Kuntzman), just after Democrats in Congress had engaged in a silly sit-in, despite plenty of empty chairs.
Hillary has released a plan to call for all families earning less than $125,000 to receive free college tuition. She did say it wasn’t right for” Donald Trump’s kids” to attend college for free. She’s also pushing for Medicare for all, apparently unaware that Medicare is on the verge of collapse.
It’s immediately clear that Hillary never studied economics. But that’s where the Democratic Party has changed. The hard left are ideologues. They are right, their opinions are right, Democrat talking points are right, and they don’t have to bother with knowing anything about history or economics or math or the Constitution or world affairs either.
Hillary and the other leaders of the Democratic Party talk a lot about rights. They want to grant new rights to Americans — the “right to a college education,” the right to affordable health care,” the “right to a living wage.” But just last week they wanted to deny the right to buy a gun to anyone on the “no fly” list. And just a week or so ago, an Air Marshal admitted that they just put random people on the no-fly list because they have quotas to fulfill.
And there’s this little thing called due process which means that you cannot take anyone’s rights away without a judge and a court of law. “The Second Amendment needs some changing, because Americans don’t agree with it and we’ve had it,” (Rep. Mike Doyle D-PA).
Democrats don’t like the First Amendment either.They quite specifically do not want anyone to be allowed to disagree with them. A majority of Democrats said in a YouGov poll last May that they support government limits on what they consider to be “hate speech.” California Democrats pushed a state bill that would have criminalized speech that questioned the “consensus” on climate change.Attorney General Loretta Lynch told the Senate Judiciary Committee in March that she has discussed the possibility of civil actions against “climate change deniers.”
The Democratic Party unveiled its 2016 national platform last Friday. They promise to put “a middle-class life within the reach of more Americans.” They are quite sure that America’s most serious problem is “income inequality.”
“At a time of massive income and wealth inequality,” it states, “we believe the wealthiest Americans and largest corporations must pay their fair share in taxes.”
One of the reasons for so many American businesses moving to other countries is that we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, and it is also one of the reasons why the economy has not recovered in the past eight years.
It is now official Democratic Party policy to call for the Department of Justice to investigate any energy companies who “mislead” shareholders about global warming, and a proposal to investigate alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change was also adopted by unanimous consent. I’ll also bet that not one of the platform committee has ever read any climate science whatsoever.
They want to make American corporations “pay their fair share” and make American companies pay U. S. taxes immediately on foreign profits. Most countries don’t even tax profits made outside their borders.
On education, they pledge more resources for “pre-K to 12 schools in every zip code”, though there is no evidence anywhere that spending more improves the schools. It just makes the teachers’ unions happy. Kids should not be forced to attend the schools in their own zip code either. They also want immigration preference for relatives of people already here. Emphasis on family ties brings in unemployable people and unskilled workers.
We had a recession when Barack Obama took office, but the Federal Reserve declared it over in 2009, in June if I remember correctly. But the economy has not really improved in the seven years since, nor has it recovered. There is not the slightest evidence that Hillary can or would do anything to help the ranks of the unemployed. Her monumental failure of the situation in Libya does not bode well for dealings with ISIS or the Taliban. Since she seems to have absorbed nothing from her experience as a senator or as Secretary of State, we’re left with the need to elect her because she is the first woman, or because it’s her turn, or because she has an unusual ability to avoid potential prison terms.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Democrat Corruption, Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, History, Intelligence, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, The United States | Tags: Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama, Rajiv Fernando
Those unimportant emails, that were just for Hillary’s convenience, show that she picked a grossly unqualified donor to the Clinton Foundation to a very sensitive State Department advisory board that handled top-secret national security information — the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) that deals with matters like nuclear disarmament and arms control. It’s a kind of carelessness that can get people killed.
After inquiries from ABC News, Clinton’s staff tried to “protect the name” of the Secretary of State, “stall” the ABC News reporter, but as soon as the donor, Rajiv Fernando, a Chicago securities trader who specialized in electronic investing, learned that the media was questioning the appointment, he resigned, saying he needed to devote more time to his business.
Fernando was a longtime and prolific donor to the Clintons, dating back to 2003. He was an early supporter of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 bid for president giving maximum contributions to her campaign and to HillPAC in 2007 and 2008. He was a fundraising bundler for Hillary collecting more than $100,000 from others. Prior to the State Department appointment Fernando had given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the William J. Clinton Foundation and another $30,000 to a political advocacy group that indirectly helped Hillary retire her 2008 campaign debts by renting her campaign email list.
The ISAB is not a normal, or suitable, place to put a big donor. He was a “securities” trader, but not the same kind of “security” as those on the ISAB board. His associates on the board would have been David Kay, the former head of the Iraq Survey Group and UN Chief Weapons Inspector; Lt. Gen Brent Scowcroft, a former National Security Advisor to two presidents; two former congressmen; and Former Senator Chuck Robb. William Perry, the former Secretary of Defense, chaired the panel. The appointment would have qualified Fernando for one of the highest levels of top secret access.
Even more astounding is that Hillary could have believed such an appointment acceptable. Hillary has long demonstrated a carelessness that is entirely out of line with the seriousness of the office to which she was appointed by President Obama. But then Obama’s appointment of Hillary wasn’t all that serious either.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Crime, Domestic Policy, Economy, Freedom, Media Bias, National Security, Politics, Terrorism, The United States, Unemployment | Tags: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Unlikeable
We have at this point, a probable election between the two most unlikable candidates ever to run for political office. (That’s what the polls tell us.) Hillary made a speech in which she claimed Donald Trump was not qualified to run for the presidency, and I couldn’t help thinking “Pot meet Kettle.”
Hillary Clinton is facing criminal charges from the FBI for allowing State secrets to be posted on a private e-mail server that she apparently insisted on to keep the American public from knowing what she was doing. That matter alone is a crime.
She also knowingly used her office to fund her private Clinton Foundation by doing favors from the State Department for those who offered very large speaking fees for speeches by her husband, Bill Clinton. This is the definition of quid pro quo, or crony capitalism.
Hillary was fired from her first job working on the Nixon Impeachment trial for being a liar and unethical. A trail of unethical actions has trailed her from title to title. She and Bill apparently believe themselves to be above the law, and are just not required to follow the same rules as anyone else.
When Bill Clinton was inaugurated, they announced that they would be co-presidents, in a two-for-one deal. The people quickly made it clear that they had not elected Hillary. She has had a burning ambition to be the first American woman to be President of the United States, ever since.
The problem is that whenever her supporters are asked to list her accomplishments, nobody could name any. Carley Fiorina remarked that Hillary had lots of titles, but that titles were not accomplishments. I have never been impressed with the “first woman,” or first anything. It is not a “great moment in history.” Some 77 nations around the world have had women in charge. Few have been outstanding leaders, but some have. High office depends on qualifications that prove that the candidate can actually do the job. Being “first” or seventy-eighth has nothing to do with what they accomplish or fail to accomplish in office.
One would assume that someone who wanted to be president so badly, would study past presidents to see what worked and what did not. How they faced the problems of their times. A deep study of history and presidential biographies. No interest from Hillary. If you were going to make a big diplomatic deal of a “reset button” with the Russians, wouldn’t you be very careful to make sure that you got it right?
Donald Trump has scared most of our allies and many Republicans with his lack of understanding of trade. He assumes that a “trade deficit” is a bad thing and major tariffs are needed to make our trade partners pay their “fair share.” Trade is by definition balanced. If we pay $100 million for products from China, and they buy only $1 million for products from us — the only place they can spend the hundred million dollars is in the United States. He seems to regard trade as a war, in which you win or lose. In trade, both sides win. This could be a major problem.
Mr. Trump is going to trial right after the election for fraud, in the case of Trump University. Former students have accused him of misrepresenting the value of the coursework offered. Other students say they learned a lot. Again, Mr. Trump regards this as a win-lose war, in the same way he regarded his real estate deals. Not a helpful attitude for our national security needs. This is a remarkably dangerous time for the world. Mr. Obama has portrayed the U.S. as weak and indecisive, and a new president will face enormous challenges.
We have only “presumptive” winners. It doesn’t get real until the conventions vote. The comments on any political piece are extremely angry on both sides. People are emotionally involved. Traffic on the social websites like Facebook and Twitter and others is way down. My guess is that there is too much anger and people don’t want to put up with it.
I have never seen a presidential campaign in which the people were so manipulated by a biased press which has skewed the results and people’s understanding. The people react emotionally to the press, everybody is calling everybody else names, we have riots at political rallies, American college students have clearly gone completely nuts and the battles are not about anything real, but only political correctness. You must not offend.
How extremely odd. We started off with a bench of superbly qualified governors and have winnowed it down to the least qualified of all, while the Democrats had no bench at all. So here we are.
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Economics, Economy, Health Care, The United States | Tags: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, The Voters of Kentucky
Polls apparently told Hillary that voters, besides finding her untrustworthy, doubted her ability to grow the economy. So, in Kentucky, wooing a crowd, she promised that she and her husband would restore the economic prosperity of the 1990s. She has an assignment for her husband, she said, if they return to the White House. The former president, she told voters, will be “in charge of revitalizing the economy.”
“Because, you know, he knows how to do it,” she said. “Especially in places like coal country and inner-cities and other parts of our country that have really been left out.”
Mrs. Clinton mentioned her idea for her husband while speaking at a rally outside a home in northern Kentucky. Earlier this month, she said she had told Mr. Clinton that he would need to “come out of retirement” to help put people back to work.
It has been 24 (almost) years since the newly elected Clintons moved into the White House, so Hillary can probably be excused a lapse of memory. They came to Washington D.C. with a plan that they would be co-presidents, and the American people would get a wonderful two-for-one deal. The American people wasted no time in letting the Clintons know that they did not elect Hillary to be a co-president, and that simply was not going to happen.
Hillary made a lot of noise about not staying home to bake cookies, and other ‘don’t try to make me the “little woman” comments,’ but she fell in line. First Ladies usually have a cause they support — Laura Bush supported Libraries and reading, Ladybird Johnson espoused highway beautification, and wildflowers, Michelle has attempted to change what school kids have for lunch. I had to consult Google to find out what Hillary’s cause was — silly me, it was HillaryCare! One might consider that as food for thought. Besides, it was a Republican Congress that forced Bill Clinton to go along with their efforts to fix the economy, he just bowed to the inevitable.
Also interesting is that at the same time that Obama is out talking about the success of his tenure in office and his revitalization of the economy, the two Democrat candidates are talking about how awful the economy is and how the American people have suffered.