Showing posts with label Clintons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clintons. Show all posts

Sunday, March 5, 2017

According to Rothschild: Hillary lost because ...

of John Podesta:

“HRC lost because you ran an arrogant out of touch campaign,” she wrote, before calling him a loser. 


So, if I recall correctly:

1. Men without college education
2. Women with college degrees
3. Millenials who didn't vote
4. Comey for all his shit
5. Obama for not doing enough shit
6. The Democratic party who was divided over Bernie and Clinton campaign and they were not loyal to Clintons.
7. ....

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

NY Times OP Ed: Sorry Libs ....

Sorry, Liberals. Bigotry Didn’t Elect Donald Trump.


In the Obama era, we also saw that race was not a critical driver of white swing votes. Barack Obama won more support among white men in 2008, including the working class, than any Democrat since 1980.

Mr. Obama’s support among these whites was at its peak in 2008 after the stock market crash. At the depths of the Great Recession that followed, blue-collar white men experienced the most job losses.
Their support began hemorrhaging after Mr. Obama chose early in his presidency — when congressional Democrats could have overcome Republican obstruction — to fight for health care reform instead of a “new New Deal.”

By 2016, Mr. Trump personified the vote against the status quo, one still not working out for them. A post-campaign study comparing the George W. Bush coalition in 2000 to the Trump coalition in 2016 found that Mr. Trump particularly improved in areas hurt most by competition from Chinese imports, from the bygone brick and tile industry of Mason City, Iowa, to the flagging furniture plants of Hickory, N.C. The study concluded that, had the import competition from China been half as large, Mrs. Clinton would have won key swing states and the presidency with them.

This argument does not ignore bigotry. Racism appeared more concentrated among Trump voters. One poll found that four in 10 Trump supporters said blacks were more “lazy” than whites, compared with one-quarter of Clinton or John Kasich supporters.

But traits are not motives and don’t necessarily decide votes. Consider that four in 10 liberal Democrats, the largest share of any group, said in 2011 that they would hold a Mormon candidate’s faith against him or her. It would be silly to argue that, therefore, liberals voted for Mr. Obama because Mitt Romney was Mormon.

Yet the Trump coalition continues to be branded as white backlash. The stereotyping forgets that many Trump supporters held a progressive outlook. Mr. Trump won nearly one in four voters who wanted the next president to follow more liberal policies.

Democrats need only recall Mr. Clinton to understand how voters can support someone in spite of his faults. Mr. Clinton won re-election in 1996 despite a majority, including about a third of liberal voters, saying he was not honest. His approval rating reached the highest point of his presidency during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. It wasn’t that Democrats and independents endorsed Mr. Clinton’s behavior. They opposed Republicans more.

Two decades later, we are reminded again that a vote for a presidential candidate is not a vote for every aspect of him. We can look for the worst in our opponents, but that doesn’t always explain how they got the best of us.


Saturday, December 3, 2016

Hillary Lost: Reason 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003 ...

The Russians hacked the election (which might suggest to a reasonable person we should stop with electronic/digital voting and go back to, entirely, paper ballots) and wanted Trump to win (despite statements of Trump voters that they watched as, before their eyes the Trump vote became a Hillary vote).

Comey did it.  The FBI Director caused the election to be won by Trump.

Within a day of the election, the Hillary campaign made it clear why she lost the election:

uneducated white men!

Shortly after, perhaps 96 hours or so, came excuse number 2:

educated women!  self hating women!


And the reasons just rolled on in ...

The most recent, by Robby Mook at Harvard -

- millenials didn't vote!



Why not admit what everyone knows!  Everyone voted against her.  38% of Hispanics voted FOR Trump.  Women.  Men.  Millenials, African Americans, James Comey, and the Russians ...


She lost because SHE was the reason!

Her campaign argued (not the DNC - they know she was the problem) she actually won.  Nooooo


Silly bunnies, she didn't win.  Votes for her came from people like Bush ... people who said they would not vote for Trump.  Not because she was the better person, but because they voted against him.

By the way, NO ONE, NO AGENCY OF THE US GOVERNMENT HAS DEFINITIVELY STATED THE RUSSIANS hacked anything.  More lies and fake news spread by ... oh my gosh ... Democrats.

Sunday, November 6, 2016

Hillary, Bill, and the Paedophile

Now, to be honest, having sex with under age minors doesn't make Jeffrey Epstein a pedophile ... he is much worse.  He has the money to buy the girls, force them, and keep them on his private island for his guests.

Like Bill and Hillary.

It isn't proven, but it is a story and could be verified ... because the SS have to be involved.

Friday, November 4, 2016

Hillary Emails #13,587

I suppose accusing Trump of some sort of connection to Russia and having the media chase that around, is ok.

Asking Hillary why she sent her daughter classified material via unsecured server - not ok.

Asking Hillary why she deleted the email to her daughter, a person who did not need to know, possessed no security clearance, containing classified material via an unsecured email server sent to an unsecured email server is also not ok.

Asking Trump about connections that don't exist versus asking Podesta about stocks in Russian companies, under his daughters name (she is at college) - is also not ok.

Asking Bill and Hillary about payments for speeches and or donations to the foundation from Russians, or from Russian companies is also not ok.

She should be indicted on the email to her daughter alone.  That should exclude her from ever having access to top secret material.  What a disgrace.

Her husband was being blackmailed by foreign governments who gained access to communications between he and females ... and he was willing to pay!

The family is a disgrace.  A crime syndicate.

Versus Trump - an egotistical asshole.


Sunday, October 30, 2016

Insightful: Hillary Should Quit!

POTUS ONLY: A major concern contained in the briefing the president receives on January 20

According to Glenn Thrush of Politico, two major issues will face the next POTUS - N Korea and recession.

Recession is something you cannot mandate away, nor can you influence deeply.  Perhaps if American companies hired more Americans and stopped moving their companies.  Perhaps if we had more money to spend.  Perhaps if companies spent more to build and develop their assets ...

*******


 The other issue I would like to suggest worth looking into.


North Korea having nuclear weapons capable of reaching California.

Recently, James Clapper the Director of U.S. National Intelligence said that it was probably a "lost cause" and the best that could be hoped for is a cap on the country's nuclear capability.  

I would urge anyone who seeks and desires truth, to look into the years 1989-1996.  Madeline Albright, Bill Clinton, and North Korea.

We armed him, indirectly.  We made it all possible.

Go back, look at the news from 1989-1992, then with those conditions in mind, look at what the US did from 1992-1996.

Good luck.

Now, some people may say we don't need to point fingers we need to find a solution.  Looking for blame is not part of the solution.  I believe it is.  First we need to know the origins and parameters of the issue, then how it came to be.  Then we can fix it.


Trump: The Reckless Excuse for Yesteryear

What is the attraction to Trump's campaign.  What could possibly propel this man into the White House against all odds, all efforts by the media, all polls, and all conventional wisdom ...

for a moment, I imagine it is possible, as the world collapses for Hillary -

- the 'basket of deplorables', all 48% of the American people don't want to give up our borders.
- they do not want to surrender sovereignty to Mexico or Hillary
- they don't want free immigration across our borders
- they don't want a supranational entity directing our future
- they don't want billionaires colluding and determining what is best for 300 million people
- they do not want the atmosphere of corruption that surrounds the poster child of corruption, Hillary
- they do not want the media dictating what is and is not important to them
- they do not want the culture of corruption that surrounds the Clinton Family Inc
- they do not want politicians who say one thing to the wealthy and elite and say something different to the masses of people.

They want honesty and that is something Hillary can't do if her life depended upon it.

Donald Trump bothers the elite, bothers the media, bothers academics and all the special snowflakes because ... he simply doesn't live according to their design.  He is not politically correct.  He hugs women and maybe at some point grabbed their butt, maybe held them a little longer than a customary 4 seconds ... Donald Trump is a poster child for the masculine male of the 70s ... and he was never changed as times changed.

The Republican party has distanced itself not because what he did was immoral or unethical or wrong, but because they have bought into the idea that masculine is bad, and if they didn't deny him ... they would lose the votes of special snowflakes and women.  But what they didn't realize was the disdain so many people have for the culture of snowflakes.  And a yearning for some medium between Trumps masculine extreme and an effeminate future.

He stands a chance.  Pennsylvania.  N Carolina.  Nevada.  Arizona.  - he can take it if he gets these states.

And Nevada is doable and so is Arizona.  Pennsylvania is a state affected by the loss of manufacturing - they are the people Hillary holds in greatest disdain - and West Virginians.

It is possible.  And in the next 8 days as more shit tumbles out of her corrupt closet ...




Clinton: No one says no to her!




Glenn Harlan Reynolds 10:38 a.m. EDT October 30, 2016

He's no paragon of virtue, but it won’t be that way with a President Trump.

 “Someone somewhere should have told her no.” Those are the words of a Clinton ally quoted in a roundup of Democratic reactions to Hillary Clinton’s FBI news by congressional newspaper The Hill. And, despite the fact that they come from a Clinton supporter, albeit an angry and disappointed one, they may illustrate the best reason for choosing Donald Trump instead of Clinton.

Here’s the full quote:

“I'm livid, actually. . . .This has turned into malpractice. It's an unforced error at this point. I have no idea what Comey is up to but the idea this email issue is popping back up again is outrageous. It never should have occurred in the first place. Someone somewhere should have told her no. And they didn't and now we're all paying the price.”

Someone, somewhere, should have told her no. Well, yes. But who? That was the problem with Secretary of State Clinton, and it will be a bigger problem with a President Clinton. Because, by all appearances, nobody tells Clinton no, and Clinton has no compunction about breaking the rules when it suits her purposes.

Thus the Clinton Foundation became a global money-laundering and influence-peddling organization without precedent in American history. Donors to the foundation were encouraged to steer money to what one employee called “Bill Clinton, Inc.,” and later to Clinton. State Department personnel did favors for people who donated money to the Foundation. And to make sure that nobody found out what was going on, Clinton ran her own homebrew server operation designed to ensure that Freedom of Information Act requests turned up nothing — and even President Obama, rather than saying no, went along, sending her emails at her non-government address under a fake name.
Someone somewhere should have told her no. But if the president wasn’t going to tell her no, who would? Staff at the State Department? They might have been willing to tell some other secretary of state no, but Clinton? Too risky, it seems. They certainly went along without visible objection, and without even leaks.

The press? When The New York Times reported Clinton’s secret, illegal server, Politico’s Glenn Thrush, far from condemning it, called it “badass.”

Congress? Clinton has stonewalled and run rings around numerous committees investigating her. 

Besides, Congress had already told her no, in the form of statutes governing the treatment of government communications and classified information. She just ignored those rules and did what she wanted. Hotel magnate Leona Helmsley famously said that “only little people pay taxes.” Clinton seems to feel the same way about obeying laws.

It won’t be that way with a President Trump. This isn’t because Trump is any less arrogant than Clinton (though it would be hard to be more arrogant). It’s because more people will be willing to tell Trump no. The civil service, which leans overwhelmingly Democratic, won’t be bending over backwards to do his will. The press can’t stand him. And the Congress, even if controlled by the GOP, won’t support him if he misbehaves because so many Republicans dislike him, too.

The truth is, neither one of our leading candidates for president is a paragon of virtue. But only one of them has already made a habit of flouting the law while in office, selling favors and escaping the consequences, and only one of them is likely to be able to pull it off from the White House.

And that’s the problem. If Secretary of State Clinton, serving under a president and with an eye on winning a second term in the White House, wasn’t constrained by the rules, who will constrain her if she’s president?

The answer, most likely, is nobody. And, once again, we’ll all be paying the price.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor and the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself, is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.


Friday, October 28, 2016

WSJ: The Clinton MO

The Cold Clinton Reality

Why isn’t the IRS investigating the Clinton Foundation?


 
Hillary and Bill Clinton are asking for a third term in the White House, and voters who want to know what this portends should examine the 12-page memo written by a Clinton insider that was hacked and published Wednesday by WikiLeaks. This is the cold, hard reality of the Clinton political-business model.

Longtime Clinton aide Doug Band wrote the memo in 2011 to justify himself to lawyers at Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett who were reviewing his role and conducting a governance review of the Clinton Foundation at the insistence of Chelsea Clinton. In an email two weeks earlier, also published on WikiLeaks, Ms. Clinton said her father had been told that Mr. Band’s firm Teneo was “hustling” business at the Clinton Global Initiative, a regular gathering of the wealthy and powerful that is ostensibly about charitable activity.

Poor innocent Chelsea. Bill and Hillary must never have told her what business they’re in. If she had known, she would never have hired a blue-chip law firm to sweep through the hallways of the Clinton Foundation searching for conflicts of interest. Instead of questioning Mr. Band’s compensation, she would have pleaded with him never to reveal the particulars of his job in writing.

But she didn’t, and so Mr. Band went ahead and described the “unorthodox nature” of his work while emphasizing his determination to help “protect the 501(c)3 status of the Foundation.” That’s the part of the tax code that has allowed the Clinton Foundation to remain tax-exempt on the premise that it is dedicated to serving humanity.

Mr. Band graciously copied John Podesta, then adviser to the board, who would eventually become Hillary’s campaign chief. His helpful reply was to suggest that Mr. Band “strip the defensive stuff out” and later “go through the details and how they have helped WJC” [ William Jefferson Clinton].
The Band memo reveals exactly what critics of the Clintons have long said: They make little distinction between the private and public aspects of their lives, between the pursuit of personal enrichment, the operation of a nonprofit, and participation in U.S. politics.

Mr. Band writes that he and his colleague Justin Cooper “have, for the past ten years, served as the primary contact and point of management for President Clinton’s activities—which span from political activity (e.g., campaigning on behalf of candidates for elected office), to business activity (e.g., providing advisory services to business entities with which he has a consulting arrangement), to Foundation activity.”

This excerpt and all the potential conflicts it describes, plus Chelsea’s warning about business “hustling” at foundation events, would seem more than ample cause to trigger an IRS audit of the foundation. For that matter, why aren’t the IRS and prosecutors already on the case? Any normal foundation has to keep records to show it is separating its nonprofit activity from any for-profit business.

Mr. Band’s memo confirms that donors were not seeking merely to help the sick and the poor. He explains that the Clinton Foundation had “engaged an array of fundraising consultants” over the past decade but “these engagements have not resulted in significant new dollars for the Foundation.” In other words, it wasn’t working as a conventional charity.

Mr. Band then explains how he and his Teneo partner Declan Kelly had to carry the fundraising load, and did so by packaging foundation solicitations with other services such as a meeting with Bill Clinton, $450,000 speeches or strategic advice. Many of the donations, from U.S. companies like Coca-Cola and Dow Chemical and foreign firms like UBS and Barclays, occurred while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.

Why exactly were donors writing checks? The Band memo makes clear that donations untied to additional Clinton or Teneo services weren’t all that appealing to potential supporters. This is significant, because the large grant-making foundations in the U.S. are almost entirely run by Clinton voters. So you know they weren’t turned off by the brand name. They’d contribute more if they thought they were also buying goodwill and influence with a current Secretary of State and a potential future President.

***

We don’t applaud WikiLeaks or the theft of information, and these hacks deserve a firm U.S. government response. But the emails are public and they will confirm for many Americans their worst suspicions about the people who run their government.

It’s also worth noting that in the vast digital trove of Mr. Podesta’s stolen emails we haven’t noticed emails from Mrs. Clinton. Perhaps they don’t exist. But American voters shouldn’t worry merely about the emails released before the election. What emails or memos exist that these hackers, Russian or not, could be withholding for leverage after the election with another President Clinton?

The Clinton campaign has suggested that Donald Trump has praised Vladimir Putin because the Russian has something on the Republican. The question is what do any number of possible bad actors know about Bill and Hillary Clinton’s mixing of business, charity and politics?


Nixonian Politics

Nixon was accused of a great many crimes.  Yet he resigned to spare the country embarrassment and worse, a period of instability at a time when the Cold War was blazing.

There are and have been many academics who teach the lessons of Nixon and do so with a dripping condescension and loathing for those who supported Nixon.


Hillary Clinton, when the history is finally written about her ... will make Nixon look like a boy-scout.  Her personal attacks, her enemies folder, her private investigations and smear teams, her bribing and meddling in criminal matters, her violations of national security, emails and servers ... she has already exceeded whatever crimes Nixon committed by volumes.

And yet, those academics still sing her praises and glory.  Like they were in church.

P.S - they will hang on to the glory of what could have been, even while privately admitting how flawed she was.  Her time is over, and thankfully we do not have anyone like her on the horizon.

Our nation has been spared that suffering.


Hillary Clinton embraces George Soros’ ‘radical’ vision of open-border world

OPEN BORDERS:  SOROS and HILLARY

The Washington Times - Thursday, October 20, 2016 
 
Hillary Clinton has aligned herself closely with a vision for America laid out by her benefactor — left-wing financier George Soros, who talks of “international governance,” more open borders, increased Muslim immigration and diminished U.S. global power.

The phrase “American exceptionalism” is not part of his agenda. He wrote in 1998: “The sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions.”

“We need some global system of political decision-making. In short, we need a global society to support our global economy,” Mr. Soros wrote.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks on New York City and the Pentagon, he said, “Military power is of limited use in dealing with asymmetric threats such as terrorism.”

The Clinton-Soros symbiosis came into clearer focus this month with WikiLeaks’ release of thousands of hacked emails from John Podesta, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman. Mr. Soros‘ name comes up nearly 60 times.

The financial and ideological alliance is so complete that after Mr. Soros dined with Mrs. Clinton in 2014 and asked her to attend a liberal group’s fundraiser, her campaign manager, Robby Mook, wrote in an email, “I would only do this for political reasons (ie to make Soros happy).”
Rep. Duncan Hunter, the California Republican who is co-chairman of Donald Trump’s congressional leadership caucus, said a vote for Mrs. Clinton is a vote for the Soros agenda.
“The fact that Hillary Clinton and her campaign are so closely aligned with George Soros and his radical agenda is serious cause for alarm,” Mr. Hunter told The Washington Times. “Publicly, it’s a relationship she’s never really talked up, but communications at least now reveal how closely aligned they are, and Americans deserve to know that a Clinton presidency means even more direct influence from George Soros.
“And as for an agenda, there probably won’t be much daylight between the two, and Americans should be concerned that a vote for Clinton is no different than a vote for George Soros for president,” Mr. Hunter said.
The Times reached out to the press offices for Mr. Soros and Mrs. Clinton but received no reply.
With a Forbes-pegged fortune of $24 billion, Mr. Soros is America’s — and the world’s — most prominent financial star in a constellation of liberal activist groups. They have funded anti-police protests, some of them violent; rhetorical attacks on conservatives and their media; open border initiatives; and efforts to control journalists’ reporting.
The Hungarian-born U.S. citizen grew even closer to Bill and Hillary Clinton after Mr. Clinton became president, all the while funneling millions of dollars to their campaigns and to those of other Democrats.
“I do now have great access in [the Clinton] administration,” Mr. Soros told PBS in 1995. “There is no question about this. We actually work together as a team.”
Mr. Soros has donated nearly $11 million to Hillary Clinton’s Democratic presidential campaign and three main super PACS — USA Action, American Bridge 21st Century and Hillary for America, according to an analysis by The Washington Times.
His foundation has given up to $6 million to the Clinton Foundation, the global charity the Clintons set up that has proved to be a good networking tool to obtain paid speaking engagements. The Clintons have a personal net worth of $100 million to $150 million, most of it gained by giving speeches to bankers, corporations, colleges and trade associations.
Mr. Soros pumps money into a list of who’s who on the American left. They include Media Matters; MoveOn.org, which organized aggressive protests at Trump rallies; and the Center for American Progress, founded by Mr. Podesta. Institutions that educate future journalists also take Mr. Soros‘ money.
A review of Mrs. Clinton’s private and public comments shows she has very much absorbed Mr. Soros‘ grand plan for the world, a blueprint that hangs under the title “open societies.” His New York-based Open Societies Foundation is at the center of his philanthropy and politics.
Open borders
Mr. Soros has complained of national borders as an impediment to world ruling bodies.
He finances at least seven groups in the U.S. that promote open borders and mass immigration, according to the book “Shadow Party” by David Horowitz and Richard Poe.
WikiLeaks’ massive release of hacked campaign emails shows that in one of Mrs. Clinton’s paid speeches to bankers, she pledged to work for open borders. Her “dream” presumedly means that the southern U.S. border would be a conduit for untold numbers of immigrants.
“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders,” she told a closed-door audience at Brazilian bank Banco Tau in May 2013.
Illustrating how far Mrs. Clinton has moved to the Soros position is a 2003 statement in which she said she was “adamantly opposed to illegal immigrants.”
Conservative bloggers say one of Mr. Podesta’s emails shows him explaining how illegal immigrants can vote by obtaining driver’s licenses and attesting to U.S. citizenship at the polls. Noncitizen voting in federal elections is against U.S. law.
Muslim immigration
Mr. Soros is a big proponent of bringing more Muslims into Europe and, by extension, to America. He views Muslim immigrants as a savior for Europe because of the continent’s low birthrate.
He has funded private groups helping Muslims enter Germany and other countries, and he wants Europe to borrow billions of dollars to pay for resettling them. He wrote in the Australian newspaper last year that Europe should bring in 1 million Muslim refugees per year “for the foreseeable future.”
Hungary built walls to keep out Middle Eastern refugees, fearing they would turn the country from its “Christian roots” into an Islamic state.
“This invasion is driven, on the one hand, by people smugglers, and on the other by [human rights] activists who support everything that weakens the nation-state,” said Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. “This Western mindset and this activist network is perhaps best represented by George Soros.”
Mr. Soros told Bloomberg News: “Our plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle.”
Mrs. Clinton said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that she wants to boost President Obama’s mark of 10,000 Syrian refugees resettled in the U.S. in one year to 65,000 — a 500 percent increase.
Anti-police protests
The Washington Times reported that groups that went to Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014 and stirred up anger during protests of the police shooting of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown were funded by one of Mr. Soros‘ umbrella grant-makers.
One recipient was the Organization for Black Struggle, which established the HandsUp United coalition, which helped create the protest chant, “Hands up, don’t shoot.” Brown never put his hands up and assaulted a white police officer in the fatal altercation, according to a Justice Department report.
Mrs. Clinton is clearly in their corner. She has made statements supporting Black Lives Matter, whose followers call for violence against police officers, and scolded police across the board.
“Let’s admit it: There is clear evidence that African-Americans are disproportionately killed in police incidents compared to any other group,” she said in July.
“And surely we can all agree that’s deeply wrong and needs to change. And, yes, we do need to listen to those who say black lives matter,” Mrs. Clinton said.
She said during the primary election season, “There needs to be a concerted effort to address the systemic racism in our criminal justice system. And that requires a very clear agenda for retraining police officers.”
The nation’s largest police union has endorsed Mr. Trump.
American sovereignty
Mr. Soros says one of his pet peeves is that the U.S. launches military operations against other nations yet jealously guards its own self-determination.
“We are willing to violate the sovereignty of other states in the name of universal principles, but we are unwilling to accept any infringement of our own sovereignty,” he wrote in 1999 in The Washington Post. “We need a new international authority that transcends the sovereignty of states to promote an open society.”
Mr. Soros castigates the United States for not subjecting its deployed armed service members to international courts.
He wrote: “We are willing to drop bombs on others from high altitudes, but we are reluctant to expose our own men to risk. We refuse to submit ourselves to any kind of international governance. We were one of seven countries that refused to subscribe to the International Criminal Court; the others were China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar and Yemen. We do not even pay our dues to the United Nations. This kind of behavior does not lend much legitimacy to our claim to be the world’s leader.”
In her private 2013 speech to Brazilian bankers, Mrs. Clinton said a “dream” of hers is to establish a “hemispheric common market.” Presumedly, this would be modeled after the European Union, which dictates economic policy to member countries. The U.S. would find itself obliged to follow the dictates of a bureaucracy made up of South and Central America, Mexico, the U.S. and Canada.
The mission statement of Mr. Soros‘ flagship operation — the Open Societies Foundation — is that it works “to build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable and open to the participation of all people.”
One group Mr. Soros helped start with a $1 million-plus donation was MoveOn.org, which helped organize violent protests at Trump rallies last spring. It celebrated the cancellation of Mr. Trump’s Chicago rally in March because of protesters and their attacks on Trump supporters.
“Mr. Trump and the Republican leaders who support him and his hate-filled rhetoric should be on notice after tonight’s events,” MoveOn said. “To all of those who took to the streets of Chicago, we say thank you for standing up and saying enough is enough. To Donald Trump, and the GOP, we say, welcome to the general election.”
Mr. Soros adamantly opposed President George W. Bush’s war on terrorism. In a 2004 book blasting the Iraq War, “The Bubble of American Supremacy,” Mr. Soros described the 9/11 attacks this way:
“Admittedly, the terrorist attack was a historic event in its own right. Hijacking fully loaded airplanes and using them as suicide bombs was an audacious idea, and the execution could not have been more spectacular. The destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center made a symbolic statement that reverberated around the word and the fact people could watch the event on their television sets endowed it with an emotional impact that no terrorist act had ever achieved.”
Mr. Soros and his Soros Fund Management made his fortune by trading currencies. France indicted him on charges of insider trading in the 1980s and fined him $2.6 billion. France’s highest court upheld his conviction. In Britain, he dumped so many pounds into the currency market that the media said he “broke the Bank of England.”
Mrs. Clinton said in 2004, “We need people like George Soros, who is fearless and willing to step up when it counts.”
Steven Milloy, publisher of JunkScience.com, said: “If she does win, she won’t need Soros or anyone else anymore. She will be ‘Crooked Hillary‘ unchained and beholden to no one. She may do Soros‘ bidding, but he’s going to have to pay her to do it. She will service the left-wing ideological agenda to the extent she needs to maintain her voter base for 2020. But I see her focus being consolidation of power and money, or money and power.”


Saturday, October 22, 2016

Age and Experience

Society, ours and for the most part, humanity, give a pass on behavior (excepting murder) while you are in your teens or twenties.  You could be 50 and a story comes out from 30 years ago in which you behaved badly and ... you get a pass.  You grew up and ... hopefully behaved.

Donald Trump gets no such pass.  Regardless of his actions ten years, twenty years, or thirty years ago - he was still a mature adult when he did those things and as psychologists tell us, after your mid/late 20s you don't change your character much.  In his case, his behavior hasn't changed much at all.  Whether 30 years ago, 20, 10, or 5 years ago, his words and behavior were then, and are today,  unacceptable.

Richard Branson tells a story about lunch with Donald Trump many years ago in which Trump told him he would get a few people who didn't help Trump in his time of need.  He would spend the rest of his life getting even with them.  And this made Branson uncomfortable.

It should.

Just as it should make us all uncomfortable that Bill and Hillary never let go or forgive people who cross them.  They make a list and check it every so often to remind themselves who they still have to destroy.   They keep secret files and use various entities and resources to destroy people.

There is no difference but scale and the fact the Clintons have access to extreme power and have used it.


Make Mine Freedom - 1948


American Form of Government

Who's on First? Certainly isn't the Euro.