Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Hillary category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Hillary’ Category

Monday afternoon, Sen. Casey, (D-PA), removed his despicable campaign ad. This didn’t happen because Sen. Casey is a man of integrity. It happened because he isn’t a man of integrity.

First, it’s important to know what’s in the ad. According to the article, the “ad accuses Mr. Barletta of voting to let insurers refuse coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions. It features a woman, Stacie Ritter of Lancaster County, whose twin daughters were diagnosed with cancer saying, ‘if Lou Barletta has his way, kids like mine could be denied the care they need.'”

It isn’t difficult to figure out why Rep. Barletta, (R-PA), got upset with the ad. Rep. Barletta put this letter together to criticize his opponent:

Here’s a partial transcript of Rep. Barletta’s video:

What Bob Casey did with that commercial is one of the most hurtful, insensitive things I’ve ever experienced in my political career. Bob Casey knew that my 18-month-old grandson, who is a twin, has cancer. I told him and his wife a month ago. They knew what we were going through.”

In pulling his ad, Sen. Casey, (D-PA), published a statement that implies that the ad “involving children stricken with cancer were unintentional” and that “he takes Mr. Barletta at his word about the impact it had on his family.”

What’s interesting is that “the Democrat’s campaign is still running the ad in the rest of the state.” That’s the definition of a dirtbag. Sen. Casey’s ad implies that Rep. Barletta would advocate for policies that would hurt his 18-month-old grandson. Why would anyone think that pulling the ad in a small section of Pennsylvania will eliminate the Barlettas’ pain?

If I didn’t know better, I’d bet that Sen. Casey is just as tone-deaf as Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi. It takes some effort to reach that ‘level’ of insensitivity.

The NYTimes’ bias shines through in this article. It starts in a paragraph that says ‘In the lead-up to the report, Trump’s allies agreed that this was paramount. The central question in my opinion,’ David Bossie, Trump’s former deputy campaign manager, wrote this week on the Fox News website, ‘is did Hillary Clinton and her cronies get preferential treatment in her email server investigation for political reasons?’ And the report’s answer is clear: No.”

One of the findings of the 568-page report is that there is proof that Hillary’s emails were accessed by hostile actors. Contrary to Jim Comey’s declaration of July 5, 2016, that’s a violation of the Espionage Act. The fact that most of her top campaign people got immunity suggests that the FBI didn’t pursue them with the same vigor that Special Counsel Robert Mueller pursued Paul Manafort or Carter Page.

Then there’s this:

Federal investigators and prosecutors did not give preferential treatment to Clinton. They pursued the case on the merits. They were guided by, as the inspector general’s report puts it, “the prosecutor’s assessment of the facts, the law, and past Department practice.”

Right. Tell that to David Petraeus and Gen. Flynn. Mueller’s team couldn’t find the political mainstream if they were given a GPS and a year’s worth of gasoline. Mueller’s prosecutorial team looks more like Hillary Clinton’s donor list than a team of skilled prosecutors. Trey Gowdy and Bob Goodlatte disagree with the NY Times:

Chairman Goodlatte stated emphatically that well-established DOJ and FBI procedures weren’t followed in investigating Hillary. That says it all. Goodlatte then said that there’s a stark contrast in the procedures used in the Hillary email investigation and the Trump-Russia collusion investigation. No grand jury was impaneled for the Hillary ‘investigation’. There was a grand jury impaneled for the Trump-Russia investigation. Again, that says it all.

The most significant mistake in the investigation didn’t help Clinton. It hurt her, badly. It was James Comey’s decision to violate department policy and talk publicly about the investigation. If it weren’t for that decision, the polling data suggests Clinton would be president.

This is disgusting reporting. If Hillary had followed government procedures, there wouldn’t have been an investigation. Hillary acted like this nation’s laws didn’t apply to her. The fact that she’s now gotten bit by the FBI is karma. What comes around goes around.

After reading Scott Johnson’s post, a contrarian thought popped into my head. In his post, Scott quoted Andrew McCarthy as saying that the “Obama administration decided to use its counterintelligence powers to spy on the Trump campaign, using at least one covert informant, electronic monitoring of communications, and other intelligence-gathering tactics.” He then quoted McCarthy as saying “It ignored the norm against deploying such tactics against political opponents, not based on evidence of a Trump-Russia criminal conspiracy, but on speculation about the Trump campaign’s Russia contacts and Russia sympathies. Speculation by a government, an administration, and a Democratic-party nominee with their own abysmal histories of Russia contacts and Russia sympathies.”

Anyone that’s paid a minute of attention to this case knows that the Clinton Slush Fund, aka the Clinton Foundation, had ties to some nasty Russian companies and oligarchs. My question for the legal eagles and people from the intelligence community is whether it’s plausible to think that the Obama administration used its intelligence capabilities to find out if Trump had discovered a connection between the Clinton Foundation and the Russian government or Russian oligarchs close to the Kremlin.

It isn’t surprising that Hillary isn’t honest. She’s pandered most of her life, saying outrageous things. After losing to Donald Trump, though, she’s taken things to a higher level. Art Laffer and Stephen Moore wrote this op-ed to highlight how little she knows.

They wrote “Hillary Clinton is being universally panned by Republicans and Democrats for her rant last week in India against Trump voters. She boasted, ‘I won the places that represent two-thirds of America’s gross domestic product. So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward.'” Then they showed her how wrong she is, saying “Here’s the evidence. Of the 12 blue states that Hillary Clinton won by the largest percentage margins, Hawaii, California, Vermont, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, Illinois, Washington, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Delaware, all but three of them lost residents through domestic migration (excluding immigration) over the last 10 years. In fact combined, all 12 Hillary Clinton states lost an average of 6 percent of their populations to net out-migration over the past decade. California and New York alone lost 3 million people in the past 10 years.”

Then they wrote this:

Now let’s contrast the Hillary Clinton states with the 12 states that had the largest percentage margin vote for Donald Trump. Every one of them, save Wyoming, was a net population gainer — West Virginia, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Idaho, South Dakota, Kentucky, Alabama, Arkansas, Tennessee, Nebraska and Kansas.

It isn’t just that the states gained population, either:

IRS tax return data confirm that from 2006-2016 Hillary Clinton’s states lost $113.6 billion in combined wealth, whereas Donald Trump’s states gained $116.0 billion. The Hillary Clinton states are in a slow bleed. That is in no small part because the deep blue states that she carried have adopted the entire progressive playbook: High taxes rates. High welfare benefits. Heavy hand of regulation. Excessive minimum wages. War on fossil fuels. These states dutifully check all the progressive boxes.

And the U-Haul company can barely keep up with the demand for trucks and moving vans to get out of these worker paradises. A recent Gallup Poll asked Americans if they would want to move out of their current state of residency. Five states had more than 40 percent of its respondents answer yes: They were: Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, Rhode Island and Maryland. Hillary Clinton country.

Maryland is the only state with an economy that isn’t tanking. That’s because it’s supported by the federal government.

Connecticut has raised income and other taxes three times in the last four years and still has one of the most debilitating budget deficits in the nation. The pension systems are so many billions of dollars in the red, they are technically bankrupt.

Even when it comes to income inequality, the left’s favorite measure of progressive success, blue states carried by Mrs. Clinton fare worse than red states. According to a 2016 report by the Economic Policy institute, three of the states with the largest gaps between rich and poor are those progressive icons New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts. Sure, Boston, Manhattan and Silicon Valley are booming as the rich prosper. But outside these areas are deep pockets of poverty and wage stagnation.

Socialism and crony capitalism don’t work. They should be scrapped immediately.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Let’s start by saying that Oprah is the perfect Democrat. To use Peter Schweitzer’s book title, Oprah is the perfect do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do liberal. I find it rich that a celebrity like Seal would call Oprah out for her hypocrisy. That’s exactly what he did when he posted a pair of pictures, including one where Oprah was kissing disgraced TV mogul Harvey Weinstein. Then he added an all-caps caption that said “WHEN YOU HAVE BEEN PART OF THE PROBLEM FOR DECADES BUT SUDDELY THEY ALL THINK YOU’RE PART OF THE SOLUTION.”

Seal didn’t stop there. Then he added “Oh I forgot, that’s right…..you’d heard the rumours but you had no idea he was actually serially assaulting young starry-eyed actresses who in turn had no idea what they were getting into. My bad.”

Make no mistake. Oprah was attempting to associate herself with the #MeToo movement. She wasn’t wearing a black dress just because that was this year’s fashion statement attire. This is the picture that Seal posted:

Seal wasn’t the only one to call Oprah out:

Juanita Broaddrick, the now-75-year-old retired nurse, has alleged former President Bill Clinton raped her during his 1978 campaign for Arkansas governor, and that his wife Hillary Clinton helped him cover it up. She brought that allegation to Oprah’s attention. “Hey @Oprah #GoldenGlobes,” tweeted Broaddrick Monday. “Funny I’ve never heard you mention my name. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? Guess not. My rapist was/is your friend, Bill Clinton.”

This year in Hollywood, selective outrage is all the rage. In other words, #MeToo was just a PR stunt. Why hasn’t Hollywood fiercely criticized Bill Clinton? For that matter, why hasn’t Hollywood criticized Hillary for attacking the women that her philandering husband assaulted?

Since her speech, Oprah has been the object of lavish praise. That hasn’t changed the fact that she’s still living a fantasy life. What President Trump has proven is that, though he’s a multibillionaire, he’s still in touch with blue collar workers. Oprah hasn’t proven that by any stretch of the imagination.

Thus far, Oprah has proven that she’s a phony who wants to show she empathizes with the little people. That’s a rather elitist attitude. Couple that elitist attitude with the fact that she sat still while a predator stalked Hollywood and you’ve got a person without character.

Bret Stephens’ misguided thinking is on full display in this column. The fatal flaw in his thinking comes when he said “This is the fatal mistake of conservatives who’ve decided the best way to deal with Trump’s personality — the lying, narcissism, bullying, bigotry, crassness, name calling, ignorance, paranoia, incompetence and pettiness, is to pretend it doesn’t matter. “Character Doesn’t Count” has become a de facto G.O.P. motto. ‘Virtue Doesn’t Matter’ might be another.”

That’s badly misreading tons of Republicans’ thinking. The 2016 election was, in terms of integrity, a choice between the lesser of 2 evils. It isn’t that we didn’t recognize Donald Trump’s character flaws. It’s that we noticed that Hillary Clinton’s character imperfections were pretty disgusting, too.

To Mr. Stephens: when I’m left with a choice between a man with character flaws who appoints conservative judges, cuts taxes and regulations and stands up to the DC Swamp, vs. the woman who personifies the DC Swamp and the failed status quo, I’ll vote for the flawed man who appoints conservative judges every time because 7 years from now, we can hopefully elect a man or woman of integrity but we can’t get back those judicial appointments. When I think of Neil Gorsuch, I smile:

This shows why I don’t agree with Mr. Stephens:

Trump is normalizing all this; he is, to borrow another Moynihan phrase, “defining deviancy down.” A president who supposedly wants to put a wall between the U.S. and Latin America has imported a style of politics reminiscent of the cults of Juan Perón and Hugo Chávez.

Seriously? Stephens thinks that President Trump is the same as Hugo Chávez? That’s frightening.

I’ve agreed with a number of President Trump’s policies without hesitation. I won’t say that I’ve always appreciated the things he’s tweeted. Unlike Mr. Stephens, I’m perfectly capable of differentiating between policy and behavior.

It’s apparent that Democrats don’t understand that their unanimous vote against the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has painted them into a political corner. Let’s start with by examining the difficult position Sen. Manchin painted himself into.

Sen. Manchin said “he’s repeatedly tried to find areas to reach across the aisle and vote with Republicans for Mr. Trump’s agenda, but said he couldn’t do it this time. ‘There’s some good in this bill. I acknowledge that,’ Mr. Manchin said on West Virginia talk radio, after host Hoppy Kercheval pointed to the tax cuts he said the state’s middle class residents stood to gain.” Why do I think that Sen. Manchin’s constituents will hold it against him for voting against their tax cuts? Why shouldn’t West Virginians, aka Mountaineers, hold it against Sen. Manchin for voting with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on the tax cuts?

Later, Sen. Manchin complained that “the bills seemed too skewed toward business, pointing to the permanent nature of corporate tax cuts, compared to the planned expiration of the reductions in the individual rate.” First, I’m reminded of President Reagan’s saying that you can’t be pro-jobs and hate the employer. Apparently, Sen. Manchin didn’t learn that lesson. Next, Sen. Manchin is whining about the Senate’s rules, which he’s repeatedly voted to approve. If the Senate’s rules weren’t so screwed up, the individual tax cuts could’ve been made permanent.

Sen. Manchin’s excuses sound like ‘the dog ate my homework’ excuses than legitimate excuses.

By contrast, Patrick Morrisey, Sen. Manchin’s likely opponent, will be able to vote for eliminating coal industry-hating regulations, great judges and never vote with Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren out of party loyalty. Hint: Anyone that thinks Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren plays well with coal miners should view this video:

Hillary lost West Virginia by 40+ points. What should frighten Sen. Manchin is that it wouldn’t surprise me if Hillary is more well liked than Sanders or Warren.

At a town-hall meeting in Missouri last week, Sen. Claire McCaskill framed her vote against the bill as disappointment that the plan favored corporations. She argued the bill betrayed the principles Mr. Trump had originally proposed. “This isn’t Trump’s bill,” she said at the event in suburban St. Louis. “Trump campaigned on the bill being about you.” But one resident told the St. Louis Public Radio before the event that he didn’t understand her opposition to the bill and hoped she’d explain it more. “I’m having a hard time finding a way that it does not benefit the people of Missouri,” said Dennis Hugo, a 32-year-old, self-described Libertarian.

Finally, there’s this:

In Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly, another Democrat, told his voters he met with Mr. Trump and Vice President Mike Pence over the tax bill. “From the beginning of this year’s tax reform effort, I’ve been willing to partner with Republicans, Democrats, and President Trump and his administration,” he wrote in an op-ed in the Indianapolis Star. “Despite this common ground, the bill produced by Sen. Mitch McConnell and Speaker Paul Ryan was the complete opposite of what the president and I had discussed,” Mr. Donnelly added.

In North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, who said last month she was open to voting for the bill, said that the $1.5 trillion in additional deficits piled up by the tax cuts swayed her to vote against it. But some voters in her state don’t see that as a reasonable opposition.

Sen. Heitkamp is gonna have a ton of difficulty peddling that excuse. There wasn’t a tax cut package that wasn’t going to pile up deficits according to the CBO’s scoring. That’s actually the least of Sen. Heitkamp’s worries. She, along with Sen. Donnelly, Sen. Tester, Sen. Baldwin, Sen. Casey and Sen. Brown, voted against significantly reducing the estate tax on farmers’ estates. The full expensing of equipment isn’t insignificant to farmers, either.

In DC, the spin will be that this helps corporations, not working people. In Indiana, Montana and North Dakota, big farms are incorporated. Saying that the Democrats’ messaging doesn’t exactly fit those states is understatement.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

When Politico published excerpts of Donna Brazile’s book, they set off a media firestorm. That firestorm required pushback by the Clinton-Media Complex. Glenn Greenwald’s article highlights the Clintons’ dishonest tactics in fighting against the truth by writing about 4 viral falsehoods.

The first viral falsehood is “The Clinton/DNC agreement cited by Brazile only applied to the General Election, not the primary.” Greenwald’s article exposed that by saying “The following day, NBC published an article by Alex Seitz-Wald that recited and endorsed the Clinton camp’s primary defense: that Brazile was wrong because the agreement in question (a copy of which they provided to Seitz-Wald) applied ‘only to preparations for the general election,’ and had nothing to do with the primary season.” Greenwald then wrote “The problem with this claim is that it is blatantly and obviously false. All one has to do to know this is read the agreement. Unlike the journalists spreading this DNC defense, Campaign Legal Defense’s Brendan Fischer bothered to read it, and immediately saw, and documented, how obviously false this claim is.”

Hillary’s media, like her, can’t be trusted. They’re as willing to ignore the truth as she’s been all her life. Hillary’s vast right wing conspiracy still rates as her biggest fabrication but it isn’t her only fabrication. Another attack made against Brazile is equally dishonest:

Viral Falsehood #3: Brazile stupidly thought she could unilaterally remove Clinton as the nominee.
Yesterday, the Washington Post published an article reporting on various claims made in Brazile’s new book. The headline, which was widely tweeted, made it seem as though Brazile delusionally believed she had a power which, obviously, she did not in fact possess: “Donna Brazile: I considered replacing Clinton with Biden as 2016 Democratic nominee.”

This fabrication was killed by reporting the facts:

But the entire attack on Brazile was false. She did not claim, at least according to the Post article being cited, that she had the power to unilaterally remove Clinton. The original Post article, buried deep down in the article, well after the headline, made clear that she was referencing a complicated process in the DNC charter that allowed for removal of a nominee who had become incapacitated.

This isn’t my attempt to rehabilitate Ms. Brazile’s reputation. I wrote this post to highlight how corrupt she is. This post’s goal is to highlight how dishonest the Clinton media is. Greenwald’s closing paragraph is good advice:

It can certainly be menacing for Russian bots to disseminate divisive messaging on Twitter. But it’s at least equally menacing if journalists with the loudest claim to authoritative credibility are using that platform constantly to entrench falsehoods in the public’s mind.

Amen to that.

Technorati: , , , ,

If I had to give this article a title, I’d give the title ‘You can’t beat something with nothing’. Another title I’d consider is ‘Republicans win while Democrats whine’. Katie Packer Beeson’s article is spot on.

It starts by saying “The Democrats seem to enjoy gloating about the hot mess that is the Republican Party these days. Former GOP presidents warning the president about the people he surrounds himself with; sitting Republican U.S. senators calling the president unstable and unqualified; and a former GOP speaker of the house saying “there is no Republican Party. The president isn’t a Republican.” And Democrats’ friends in the mainstream media have kindly created an echo chamber that makes them think that they are always right and the Republicans are a bunch of sexist, racist, whack jobs. So why aren’t they winning?”

It continued, saying “So when they lost the election, there was a reckoning. The leadership of the Democratic Party was drummed up and new, forward-looking leaders took the reins and offered an alternative to what they saw as the disaster of Donald Trump. Wait, no. That isn’t what happened. Instead, they re-elected Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the house. They elected Chuck Schumer as Senate majority [editor’s note: Schumer is minority leader] leader and completely sold out to the New York and California wings of the Democratic Party.”

Then there’s this:

Instead of talking about middle-class tax cuts, they talked about transgender bathroom access. Instead of talking about fixing Obamacare, which was crushing many in the middle class with high premiums and complicated doctor selections, they walked right into the trap of the alt-right and began tearing down Civil War statues.

Democrats still haven’t figured out how to talk to blue collar America. They’re experts at talking to college professors and progressive activists but they’re worthless at talking with factory workers, small businesses and tradesmen. It’s like those people are from another planet. (Perhaps, it’s the Democrats that are from a different planet?)

Look how paralyzed Hillary looks when confronted by a coal miner:

Hillary looked positively petrified. She looked like she would’ve rather been anywhere else in the world than at that roundtable.

What [Democrats] don’t seem to understand is that you can point out your opponent’s weaknesses all day long, but if you don’t provide an alternative, then people will stick with the status quo. I’ve spoken to dozens of Republican women in recent months who have grown disillusioned with the Republican Party, and when I ask why they don’t defect, the answer is always the same: “It’s no better over there.”

Until Democrats learn what animates blue collar workers, they should expect to lose lots of races, at least enough to keep them in the minority for a decade or more.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This op-ed is this morning’s water cooler conversation in DC. That’s because Donna Brazile wrote it to criticize Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Ms. Brazile even took a swipe at President Obama, saying “My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt.” But that’s just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

The op-ed continues, saying “The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt. ‘What?’ I screamed. ‘I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.’ That wasn’t true, he said. Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016.”

That isn’t the worst of it. Here’s some additional important details:

On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged. “No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers. Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party’s national committee.

Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund—that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states’ parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement—$320,000—and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.

I can’t understand why Ms. Brazile is surprised. I published this post last October. According to an article in UK Daily Mail, “The Democratic National Committee is ‘clearing a path’ for Hillary Clinton to be its presidential nominee because its upper power echelons are populated with women, according to a female committee member who was in Las Vegas for Tuesday’s primary debate. Speaking on the condition that she isn’t identified, she told Daily Mail Online that the party is in the tank for Clinton, and the women who run the organization decided it ‘early on.'”

The woman that helped rig the Democratic Party’s nomination in favor of her friend is surprised that her friend is controlling the DNC? Isn’t that rich? Who’s the culprit? Is this woman the culprit?

If not her, who?

Her?

Personally, I’d choose ‘All of the above.’