Archive for the ‘Foreign Policy’ Category
Recently, President Obama’s sympathizers have tried making the case that he’s as consequential as Ronald Reagan. If they define consequential as doing historic things that are disastrous, then President Obama has been consequential.
Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster. Premiums are sharply higher. Deductibles have exploded. Choices are fewer. Networks are limited. We’re forced into buying policies that cover things that we don’t need. We couldn’t keep our doctors even though we were promised that we could.
Despite that, President Obama insists that he’s protected the middle class:
After having a friendly chat on the tarmac at LaCrosse Regional Airport with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, President Obama made fun of the GOP field jockeying to succeed him and ripped into Walker’s actions as governor.
“You all have enough for an actual Hunger Games,” Obama said about the large Republican presidential field. “That is an interesting bunch,” he quipped before explaining why trickle-down economics doesn’t work.
He said that many of the contenders are proposing ideas that they say would benefit the middle class. “Tammy, Ron, me — we were talking about the middle class before it was cool,” he said referring to Wisconsin Sen. Tammy Baldwin and Rep. Ron Kind, whose district encompasses LaCrosse, who were in the audience at the University of Wisconsin-LaCrosse auditorium. “We were talking about it before the polls” said politicians “should be talking about it,” he added.
Mr. President, talking about the middle class isn’t the same as improving middle class lives. President Reagan created more high-paying union jobs than you’ve created jobs. That’s before talking about how many companies shifted from full-time employees to “29ers.” Mr. President, is it a triumph that companies shifted from full-time jobs to part-time jobs?
That’s what Obamacare did. It also created “49ers.” Let’s review. 29ers are employees whose hours were cut from 40 hours to 29 hours to avoid having to provide health insurance to the. 49ers are companies that’ve chosen to not expand past 49 employees so they don’t have to comply with the employer mandate.
In September, 1983, the US economy created 1,100,000 good-paying full-time jobs. Thanks to President Reagan’s policies, we had 6 straight quarters of economic growth of more than 5%. Internationally, the United States vanquished the Evil Empire, aka the Soviet Union. President Obama resurrected it. Israel knew it could count the United States as a steadfast ally. President Obama couldn’t push Israel to the side quickly enough.
Thanks to President Obama’s policies of non-intervention, the global terrorist network is expanding rapidly. President Reagan’s policies of militarism checked Soviet expansionist policies.
We’ll be cleaning up President Obama’s messes for years. By comparison, President Reagan’s economic policies ushered in a quarter century of unprecedented economic growth.
Based on Hillary’s speech Saturday, Hillary will need to relaunch the relaunch to her campaign. First, here’s the text of Hillary’s speech. The content of the speech was typical Hillary: tons of spin, tons of chutzpah and tons of identity politics. First, here’s a dose of Hillary’s chutzpah:
As a Senator from New York, I dedicated myself to getting our city and state the help we needed to recover. And as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I worked to maintain the best-trained, best-equipped, strongest military, ready for today’s threats and tomorrow’s. And when our brave men and women come home from war or finish their service, I’ll see to it that they get not just the thanks of a grateful nation, but the care and benefits they’ve earned.
I’ve stood up to adversaries like Putin and reinforced allies like Israel. I was in the Situation Room on the day we got bin Laden.
Hillary knows where she was when bin Laden was killed but she can’t tell us where she was when Christopher Stevens was killed on her watch. As for standing up to “adversaries like Putin”, this is closer to the truth:
Russia has felt free to threaten, then take, its neighbors. Crimea is just one example of Russia doing whatever it’ wanted to do. Let’s make another comparison that drives the point home:
A few short years later, the Berlin Wall crumbled, thanks in large part to President Reagan’s foreign policy, President Reagan’s robust economy and President Reagan’s willingness to push the USSR to the brink.
Hillary isn’t willing to push Putin to the brink. This administration’s foreign policy has highlighted red lines drawn and red lines erased. This administration’s foreign policy has highlighted underestimating our enemies, like ISIS and the Russians, then underreacting when they’ve laughed at us.
Next, let’s look at Hillary’s identity politics:
There are allies for change everywhere who know we can’t stand by while inequality increases, wages stagnate, and the promise of America dims. We should welcome the support of all Americans who want to go forward together with us.
There are public officials who know Americans need a better deal.
Business leaders who want higher pay for employees, equal pay for women and no discrimination against the LGBT community either.
There are leaders of finance who want less short-term trading and more long-term investing.
There are union leaders who are investing their own pension funds in putting people to work to build tomorrow’s economy.
Income inequality increases when progressives push a $15/hr. minimum wage. Hillary’s advocating for that. As for “business leaders who want higher pay for employees,” they’d pay more if they weren’t riddled with this administration’s strangling regulations that Hillary has supported. Hillary’s economic policies sound like they’re straight from the Obama handbook:
In the coming weeks, I’ll propose specific policies to:
Reward businesses who invest in long term value rather than the quick buck – because that leads to higher growth for the economy, higher wages for workers, and yes, bigger profits, everybody will have a better time.
I will rewrite the tax code so it rewards hard work and investments here at home, not quick trades or stashing profits overseas. I will give new incentives to companies that give their employees a fair share of the profits their hard work earns. We will unleash a new generation of entrepreneurs and small business owners by providing tax relief, cutting red tape, and making it easier to get a small business loan.
Businesses can’t create capital when tax compliance is expensive and regulations strangle capital creation. That’s what exists now. In this section of her speech, Hillary just proposed more of the same. With all due respect, that’s what has this economy ambling along. This is the weakest economic recovery in US history and Hillary wants to double down on it? No thanks.
QUESTION: Is there anything in Hillary’s speech that speaks to the future? ANSWER: No.
Hillary is so yesterday:
Technorati: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Identity Politics, Foreign Policy, Vladimir Putin, Appeasement, Clinton Foundation, Democrats, Ronald Reagan, Tear Down This Wall, Mikhail Gorbachev, Election 2016
I just finished watching Shepard Smith talking about the US strategy in Iraq. Actually, we don’t have one but that’s another story for another day. Smith said that he agrees that ISIS wins if the US sends in more ground troops. That’s foolish. If a substantial number of US troops go into Anbar Province with a clearly defined assignment of destroying ISIS, ISIS won’t be the winner. They’d get their butts kicked like they did during the Anbar Awakening.
This isn’t speculation. History provides the proof. The Anbar Awakening happened because a) we surged a ton of troops into Anbar Province and b) Sunnis trusted us because we fought alongside of them. The Obama administration won’t do either thing for ideological, aka political, reasons. When our troops supported the Iraqi troops, they fought well. They weren’t put in the impossible situation of picking between ISIS Sunnis and Iranian-backed Shiites.
That’s a head-Iran-wins-tails-I-lose situation. It’s a lose-lose situation for the Anbar Sunnis.
Further, it’s insane to say we should pull out of Iraq because the Iraqis aren’t fighting. While that’s aggravating, that isn’t what’s most important. Pulling out of Iraq means ISIS a) will establish its caliphate and b) will bring a major terrorist attack to the United States sooner rather than later.
To the idiots that want to pull out, here’s my question: Are you willing to have American blood on your hands when the next terrorist attack hits our homeland? I’m tired of idiots like Shep Smith and Bill O’Reilly arguing that we should pull out if we aren’t in it to win it. That’s the wrong argument.
My argument is simple. Let’s change our strategy to accepting only victory. That means demolishing the ISIS caliphate ASAP. It’s time we started thinking about winning. Period.
During Scott Walker’s appearance on ABC’s This Week, Jonathan Karl played a clip of President Obama’s cheap shot about Scott Walker’s foreign policy. Here’s the partial transcript of that exchange:
SOT OBAMA: Perhaps Mr. Walker, after he’s taken some time to bone up on foreign policy, will feel the same way.
KARL: President Obama said you needed to bone up on foreign policy. And I guess you’ve been doing it? I mean you’ve been traveling, you’ve been talking to foreign policy experts.
WALKER: Yeah. I thought it was interesting for the president to say that, the guy who called ISIS the JV squad and Yemen a success story somehow suggesting that someone else should bone up on foreign policy. But we have. We’ve been to Israel, I’ve talked to David Cameron in the UK, we’ve been elsewhere. My belief is if I’m gonna even think about running for president of the United States, it’s not about preparing for debates, it’s about being prepared to be the president of the United States.
Now that’s a zinger. It’s great to see that Gov. Walker isn’t putting up with President Obama’s flippant statements. It’s wonderful to see Republicans throwing this stuff back in President Obama’s face. President Obama is the worst foreign policy president in the last 100+ years and it isn’t even close.
Before ISIS, President Obama decided that it was more important to pull troops from Iraq than it was to stabilize the region. That wasn’t unwise. That was stupid. It led to the vacuum that ISIS and Iran are fighting over. That’s a heads, they win, tails, we lose scenario.
President Obama’s decision to abandon its allies in the Middle East is causing regionwide instability, which is being fomented by Iran. Our allies don’t trust us and our enemies don’t fear us. If I got paid $10 each time that sentence was repeated on TV, I’d be as overpaid as the Clintons.
KARL: Okay, you’ve been very critical about how the president handled ISIS. Some are out there like Lindsey Graham saying we should send 10,000 U.S. ground troops right now to Iraq to help with this fight. Do you favor that?
WALKER: I think we shouldn’t rule anything out. It’s a big mistake this president has made here and elsewhere about saying how long we would go or how much we would invest.
KARL: I’m not talking about ruling it out, I’m saying would you do that, would you send…
WALKER: No, I’m not arguing that’s the first approach. But I’ll tell you three specific things I think we should do in Iraq. First we should re-engage the strength of the American forces that are there. Once you do that, you empower our allied forces that are there on behalf of Iraq to reclaim the territory that ISIS has taken. And third, you just need to do it in a way that doesn’t provide safe haven in the places like Syria as you push them out.
The Obama administration sends weapons to the Kurds through Baghdad. That’s a mistake because the Iranians don’t want the Peshmerga to get the weapons. They want to eventually overtake Kurdistan. They don’t want a strengthened Kurdish nation.
The Peshmerga are skilled, willing fighters that’ve gotten starved by the Obama administration.
If Gov. Walker gets elected president, he would be a dramatic upgrade in terms of foreign policy over President Obama.
Hillary the candidate is getting a reputation for underperforming. In December, 2014, Hillary’s speech at Georgetown was poorly attended. Saying that the event was half-full would be lying. It would’ve taken hundreds of people for that statement to be true. This article indicates that Hillary continues to underperform. Check out how Hillary’s team tried to create the appearance of a packed house at Texas Southern University:
Hillary Clinton closed a three-day campaign fundraising swing through Texas and New Mexico on Thursday with a rare public appearance at Texas Southern University in Houston and a stemwinder on voting rights.
She took no questions and spoke with no reporters, but angrily complained that Texas voters can present their concealed-carry gun permits as a voter ID, but not their college student identification cards.
Clinton was received with wild applause at the historically black college, but organizers arranged the 8,100-seat basketball arena so that three-quarters of the seats were roped off and empty. They added rows of chairs on the floor, but 15-foot-tall blue curtains draped all around blocked the view of entire sections of empty seats, leaving the impression that Clinton couldn’t fill the room. The university didn’t provide a crowd count, but an arena security official estimated that there were 2,200 in attendance.
The only thing that Hillary’s performed well at is fundraising. The Georgetown speech shows she isn’t attracting young people. The Texas Southern speech shows she isn’t attracting African-American voters. At what point will the Beltway media admit that Hillary isn’t the rock star that the Democrats have tried portraying her as?
Her record at the State Department is a disaster. The video of her handing the reset button to Russia’s Foreign Minister is certain to be used in ads as a way to highlight her record. Ditto with video of the attack on Benghazi.
When she was in the Senate, she didn’t accomplish anything so she can’t point to anything there. Hillary’s campaign thus far is a Potemkin campaign, complete with images of full events in three-fourths empty arenas.
That’s fitting because, thus far, she isn’t a real candidate interacting with real people.
Anyone watching this video has to wonder whether Tucker Carlson has paid attention the last 12 years:
Here’s the transcript that calls his analytic skills into question:
CARLSON: The question I would ask, and I’m not endorsing Rand Paul, but I do think you need a moment of national reckoning where we ask a simple question: what is the lesson from the last thirteen years of Iraq? Have we learned anything? How would we proceed differently based on what we just saw? And the other candidates, most of them I would say, are committed to this ‘We’ve learned nothing. The world’s exactly as it was on September 12, 2001. That is not…I don’t think that’s a recipe for success. I …
BRET BAIER: But do you think that this is a pathway to the GOP nomination?
CARLSON: I don’t. I absolutely don’t. Laura is absolutely right. He’s getting hammered. You’re pro-terrorist. Again, I’m not defending Rand Paul. I’m not an advocate for his campaign. But I think the question hangs in the air what have we learned?
LAURA INGRAHAM: There’s a big debate out there that has to be had. Will it be had? Will it be had when there’s just one person making the case and an entire field saying ‘Oh no. It has to be this way. It’s an interesting debate. We should have it.
CHARLES LANE: I listened to that soundbite of Rand Paul and was just reminded of why he’s not…of why he’s getting criticism. The things he says are sloppy and superficial. To literally blame the rise of ISIS on the hawks in the Republican Party is just ridiculous. Let’s face it. There are so many other factors that’ve gone into it and furthermore, it isn’t about how do we unring all the bells that were run in the past that may have led us to this point. The problem now is how do we deal with this menace?
If Carlson wants to re-litigate whether we should’ve invaded Iraq, he’s free to do so. It’s just that that’s a waste of time for policymakers. If historians want to debate it, fine. That’s their responsibility.
If Carlson wants to make sure that we don’t make the same mistakes again, the big picture answer is exceptionally straightforward. Don’t elect a person who thinks that fighting terrorists is an afterthought. Don’t elect a person who isn’t committed to winning.
One straightforward lesson worth learning is that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton told us in 2007 and 2008 that they weren’t qualified to be commander-in-chief. President Obama has been a terrible commander-in-chief. If she got elected, Hillary would be just as terrible as commander-in-chief as President Obama is because they’re both committed, as they’ve said repeatedly throughout the years, to “ending wars responsibly.”
The biggest lesson Republicans need to learn is to a) trust their generals more and b) loosen up the rules of engagement, aka ROE, so that U.S. military forces can efficiently kill the terrorists as quickly as possible. The other shift that’s imperative is that they must make clear that the Sunnis and Kurds will be protected and that Iran’s generals won’t be permitted as military advisors to Iraq.
The biggest reason why the Sunnis didn’t fight in Ramadi is because they were stuck in a lose-lose situation. If they defeat ISIS, Iranian Shiites would wage war against the Sunnis. If the Sunnis waged war against the Shiites, then Iran and President Obama would persecute them.
During the Anbar Awakening, U.S. soldiers fought alongside the Sunnis. They established a trust with the Sunni soldiers. The result was the Sunnis running AQI, ISIS’ predecessor, into Syria. We don’t need to send 150,000 troops into Iraq to obliterate ISIS. Military experts say that 20,000-25,000 troops, combined with an aggressive bombing campaign, should devastate ISIS and restore Iraqi trust in the United States. This time, though, it’s imperative that we negotiate a status of forces agreement to keep a stabilizing force in Iraq. That stabilizing force would keep the troops and the Iraqi government in line, prevent the Iranians from spreading their influence in the region and prevent the return of ISIS.
Initially, I thought that Rand Paul’s foreign policies weren’t as ignorant as his dad’s. While I still think that it’s impossible to get more whacked than Ron Paul’s foreign policy views, his son’s view of things is getting more frightening by the day. This video provides proof:
Here’s the key part:
“Graham would say ISIS exists because of people like Rand Paul who said, ‘Let’s not go into Syria.’ What do you say to Lindsey?” said Scarborough.
“I would say it’s exactly the opposite. ISIS exists and grew stronger because of the hawks in our party who gave arms indiscriminately, and most of those arms were snatched up by ISIS,” said Paul. “These hawks also wanted to bomb Assad, which would have made ISIS’s job even easier. They created these people.”
Thank God Sen. Paul will never be the Republican nominee. That type of stupidity is frightening.
First, which generals gave weapons “indiscriminately” to Iraqis? Second, doesn’t Sen. Paul know that pulling U.S. troops from Iraq is why ISIS formed and grew? It’s indisputable that the most important pivot point was President Obama pulling the last U.S. troops out of Iraq. Prior to that, the Sunnis felt like Ambassador Crocker was keeping al-Maliki in check. Sunnis also knew that U.S. forces had their backs because they were fighting side-by-side.
Sen. Paul’s belief that ISIS was created by the U.S. is fantasy. Whether they’re called ISIS or al-Qa’ida in Iraq, terrorists essentially owned western Iraq, especially Anbar Province. That’s why the Surge became synonymous with the Anbar Awakening. If Sen. Paul wants to dispute that, let him argue with the military’s timeline of events. Good luck with that.
Sen. Paul’s fanciful statements undoubtedly satisfy his father’s followers. They just aren’t the truth.
In 2006, then-Candidate Amy Klobuchar talked daily about “responsibly ending” the war in Iraq. At the time, I was disgusted with the thought of “ending wars” because it didn’t speak to winning wars. Starting in 2007 and continuing through 2008, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama talked about “ending wars responsibly”. Obama picked up on the nation’s mood first, which propelled him to an election victory.
There’s nothing honorable about “ending wars responsibly” because there’s nothing honorable about losing wars. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton lost 2 wars and are on their way to losing a third war (against ISIS) because they quit fighting. When the world’s only true superpower quits fighting against terrorists, it sends the signal that fighting terrorism isn’t a priority.
That’s why the Gulf Arabs humiliated President Obama at his summit. Their leaders didn’t show up because they think he’s sold them out. They’re right in thinking that.
Recently, Hillary’s former associates were asked what her foreign policy accomplishments were. After a minutes-long awkward pause, they settled on Myanmar being her biggest accomplishment. They’re doing Hillary a disservice. Let’s stipulate here that accomplishments aren’t necessarily positives. In this context, they’re noteworthy moments during Hillary’s stewardship of the State Department.
First, she gave the Russians a reset switch, which told them they could do virtually anything, including annexing Crimea. Next, she helped end the war in Iraq, which helped the Iraqi people transfer from being ruled by an oppressive dictator to being governed by an incompetent prime minister to being ruled by a new group of oppressors. Third, she led the fight to ‘liberate’ Libya from Kaddafi’s rule. That ‘accomplishment’ led to terrorists taking over Libya. That led to her fourth ‘accomplishment’. Thanks to Hillary’s shoddy planning for the aftermath of the fight against Kaddafi, terrorists took control of Libya. Those terrorists then assassinated U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and 3 other American patriots.
That’s what happens when American leaders aren’t committed to winning wars and obliterating terrorists. I don’t want politicians who will responsibly end wars. I’d want someone like Bill Whittle in control. When ISIS beheaded the American journalists, President Obama was forced into pretending like he gave a damn. Bill Whittle had a different perspective:
Hillary might not be the appeaser that Obama is but she’s still an appeaser.
If we need to increase bombing raids per day to eliminate ISIS, let’s get it done. If that bombing campaign needs forward-located troops to pinpoint where the terrorists are, send them in. But, for God’s sake, let’s not do these things with the timidity and foolishness that have hallmarked the Obama-Clinton foreign policy.
A stunning document captured during the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound didn’t speak highly of Hillary Clinton. Here’s what the world’s greatest terrorist thought of Hillary and US foreign policy:
UBL: The Secretary of State declared that they are worried about the armed Muslims controlling the Muslim region. The West’s position towards the Libyan revolution is a weak one. The western countries are weak and their international role is regressing.
You can practically hear UBL’s rejoicing in the Obama administration’s use of “smart power’. It’s obvious that he wasn’t afraid of Hillary’s foreign policy, either.
Pacifist birds of a feather flock together.
Actually, these pacifist birds run a foundation together. Follow this link to watch ABC’s interview of Osama bin Laden in 1998. At approximately the 3:50 mark, UBL calls the US military a “paper tiger.”
Our people realize that, more than before, the American soldier is a paper tiger.
Because the military takes its orders from its commander-in-chief, they leave hotspots like Mogadishu if that’s what the commander-in-chief orders them to do. That’s what they were told to do by then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin. UBL thought that the US military were paper tigers because Bill Clinton lacked the will to fight. Does anyone seriously think that the US military couldn’t have wiped out al-Qa’ida if they’d been given permission to wipe them out?
Bill Clinton once ordered troops into Bosnia. He explained that he was just trying to “level the battlefield.” Bill Clinton didn’t care about winning a war. That’s why he went half-heartedly into a military confrontation.
Based on UBL’s documents, he thought Hillary was as soft as her husband. He nailed it when he said that “the western countries are weak and their international role is regressing.” Certainly, President Obama has abandoned the Middle East, the Arabian Peninsula, eastern Europe and north Africa. Let’s remember that bin Laden was assassinated in 2011, years before ISIS was called the JV team. ISIS and al-Qa’ida knew that they could operate without consequences with Hillary as Secretary of State and President Obama as commander-in-chief.
With ISIS expanding and Iran destabilizing the Middle East, why shouldn’t they hope for a Hillary administration? If she becomes president, they’ll have the time to plan their next terrorist attack on the United States. They’ll know that they can operate freely and openly.
Bill Clinton was seen by UBL as a paper tiger. Hillary was seen by UBL as a shrinking violet. If we want the terrorists to run rampant until they strike us again, all we have to do is elect Hillary.
If Hillary wasn’t worried about the Clinton Foundation’s donations-for-influence scandal, she’s worried now. This time, though, it’s personal:
Almost a decade ago, as Hillary Clinton ran for re-election to the Senate on her way to seeking the presidency for the first time, the New York Times reported on her unusually close relationship with Corning, Inc., an upstate glass titan. Clinton advanced the company’s interests, racking up a big assist by getting China to ease a trade barrier. And the firm’s mostly Republican executives opened up their wallets for her campaign.
During Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, Corning lobbied the department on a variety of trade issues, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The company has donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to her family’s foundation. And, last July, when it was clear that Clinton would again seek the presidency in 2016, Corning coughed up a $225,500 honorarium for Clinton to speak.
In the laundry-whirl of stories about Clinton buck-raking, it might be easy for that last part to get lost in the wash. But it’s the part that matters most. The $225,500 speaking fee didn’t go to help disease-stricken kids in an impoverished village on some long-forgotten patch of the planet. Nor did it go to a campaign account. It went to Hillary Clinton. Personally.
First, the fact that Hillary supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership won’t sit well with Elizabeth Warren’s wing of the party. In the interest of being proactive, please forgive me for being a sexist pig for calling Sen. Warren by her first name. But I digress.
Lanny Davis, James Carville or, perhaps, George Stephanopoulos will undoubtedly pop out of the Clinton’s mansion and defend Hillary to the death, insisting all the while that she didn’t commit a crime and that there’s no quid pro quo involved.
Charismatic speakers like Hillary frequently command 6-figure-per-speech honoraria. There’s no doubt that Hillary’s a spell-binding, charismatic speaker who’s worth every penny of that $225,500 stipend. The fact that Hillary’s running for president and the company wants to influence Hillary on trade deals is totally immaterial. Everyone knows that the Clintons are the most altruistic people in the world. People questioning Hillary’s honoraria must be sexist, too.
The latest episode in the Clinton money saga is different than the others because it involves the clear, direct personal enrichment of Hillary Clinton, presidential candidate, by people who have a lot of money at stake in the outcome of government decisions.
Hillary’s always been known as having chutzpah but this time takes the cake. There’s nothing she can say that would get Hillary out of this mess.
From there, things get messier for Hillary:
Corning’s in good company in padding the Clinton family bank account after lobbying the State Department and donating to the foundation. Qualcomm and salesforce.com did that, too. Irwin Jacobs, a founder of Qualcomm, and Marc Benioff, a founder of salesforce.com, also cut $25,000 checks to the now-defunct Ready for Hillary SuperPAC. Hillary Clinton spoke to their companies on the same day, October 14, 2014. She collected more than half a million dollars from them that day, adding to the $225,500 salesforce.com had paid her to speak eight months earlier.
And Microsoft, the American Institute of Architects, AT&T, SAP America, Oracle and Telefonica all paid Bill Clinton six-figure sums to speak as Hillary Clinton laid the groundwork for her presidential campaign.
Vox’s reporter on this nailed Hillary with this commentary:
By this point, most Clinton allies wish they had a button so they didn’t have to go to the trouble of rolling their eyes at each new Clinton money story. The knee-jerk eye-roll response to the latest disclosure will be that there’s nothing new to see here. But there’s something very important to see that is different than the past stories. This time, it’s about Hillary Clinton having her pockets lined by the very people who seek to influence her. Not in some metaphorical sense. She’s literally being paid by them.
I could turn this post into a much longer post with all the material I have here. Instead, think of this as laying the foundation for Part II.
The sad truth is that, with the Clintons, their excesses are the norm.