Categories

Archive for the ‘Hillary’ Category

Saying that Donald Trump isn’t a constitutional conservative is understatement. Calling Trump a despicable man who’s only interested in himself is totally justifiable, especially in light of this video:

DONALD TRUMP: In life, you have a thing called condemnation and cities have a right to condemn for the good of the city, whether it’s New York, whether it’s Los Angeles, whether it’s any other place. Atlantic City is one of those places and it’s got the right to condemn.
DANA BERLINER: In the 1990s, Donald Trump was behind an outrageous case of eminent domain abuse. Vera Coking was an elderly widow who lived in her home alongside Atlantic City’s Boardwalk. She bought that home and Donald Trump wanted Vera’s home so he could build parking for his casino across the street.
TRUMP: Everyone coming into Atlantic City sees that property and it’s not fair to Atlantic City and the people. They’re staring at this terrible house instead of staring at beautiful fountains and beautiful other things that would be good.
JOHN STOSSEL: You’re bullying these people out…
TRUMP: Excuse me. That’s wrong. For you to use the word bully is very unfair. This is a government case. This is not a Donald Trump…
STOSSEL: Yes, it’s Donald Trump. It’s you and your cronies in government working together.
TRUMP: For you to call these people cronies is very unfair. You’re calling good public servants cronies.
BERLINER: An unaccountable state agency tried to condemn Vera Coking’s property and transfer it to Donald Trump. He convinced the government officials to use their eminent domain power to take Vera’s home. This was public power but it was used for private gain.

Eventually, a case like this made its way to the Supreme Court. We know it as Kelo v. New London. The Rehnquist Court sided with the developers. An entire neighborhood was demolished, supposedly to build a shopping mall. After the ruling, though, the development never happened. An entire neighborhood was destroyed for nothing. Here’s more to the Trump-Stossel fight:

STOSSEL: Basic to freedom is that if you own something, it’s yours. The government doesn’t just come and take it away…
TRUMP: Do you want to live in a city where you can’t build schools? Do you want to live in a city where you can’t build roads or highways or have access to hospitals? Condemnation is a necessary evil.
STOSSEL: But you’re not talking about a hospital. You’re talking about a building that a rich guy finds ugly.

This is proof that Trump is no more a constitutional conservative than Hillary Clinton.

What’s disgusting is the fact that otherwise level-headed Republicans are actually buying Trump’s schtick. They’re saying that he’s a fighter. They’re partially right. Trump can always be counted on to fight for the things that interest Trump. Trump’s hardline statements against illegal immigration are part of a charade that’s soon to be exposed. Trump is, putting it charitably, a temporary border hawk. That’ll become apparent when the opposition research on Trump shows how his properties were built with illegal immigrants.

Donald Trump is no more a conservative than Hillary is. In fact, Trump has contributed to her campaigns in the past. He’s also contributed to the Clinton Foundation.

This morning, Donald Trump predicted that he’d win the Hispanic vote during his interview on NBC. Trump is nothing if not arrogant and dishonest. That he’s said that he’ll win the Hispanic vote shows just how gigantic his ego is and just how much his mouth resembles a sawed-off shotgun.

Trump’s been riding high while proclaiming that he’s the only candidate in either party who’ll tell it like it is. What chutzpah. There’s no question that there are plenty of candidates who talk like career politicians. Ranked high in that category are Jeb! (quick, everyone forget his last name!), Hillary Clinton, Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum and George Pataki just like there’s no question that Trump sounds too anti-politician.

All presidential candidates have over-sized egos. That’s the way it’s been for 75 years. Trump’s ego is bigger than all of the presidents of the Twentieth Century and this century. Here’s Trump’s prediction:

Donald Trump said Wednesday that he believes he will win the Latino vote, slamming Hillary Clinton for promoting what he called an immigration policy that would “let everybody come in… killers, criminals, drug dealers.”

“I have a great relationship with the Mexican people. I have many people working for me – look at the job in Washington – I have many legal immigrants working with me. And many of them come from Mexico. They love me, I love them,” the 2016 GOP contender said in an interview with NBC News. “And I’ll tell you something, if I get the nomination, I’ll win the Latino vote.”

First, we don’t need a candidate who thinks that the presidency is just another opportunity to market himself. That’s all this is. Second, even though he has Hispanics working for him, that’ll get ignored because he said that Hillary’s immigration policy would “let everybody come in… killers, criminals, drug dealers.”

That isn’t the path to winning the Hispanic vote.

When we get closer to making our decisions, people will reject Trump’s loose cannon approach and start gravitating towards serious candidates that don’t need to hear their voice every 10 minutes. The minute that that starts is the minute Mr. Trump will fade, then disappear.

When I’ve written about censorship on college campuses, it’s usually been because people have argued that they have the right to never be offended. Jon Stewart recently interviewed Judge Napolitano about the First Amendment, specifically citing the right to fly the Confederate Flag. Here’s the entire interview:

Here’s the heart of what Judge Napolitano told Stewart:

NAPOLITANO: I say you have the right to fly that flag on your private property. You have the right to any opinion or thought you want, even one manifested or animated by hate. And the government has no business regulating thought. If the First Amendment protects anything, it protects your absolute unfettered right to think what you want and say what you think.

Last week, I heard something simple, yet profound. Someone said that there’s no need to protect popular speech because nobody objects to it. The First Amendment is the most important part of the Bill of Rights because it tells the government that We The People will decide what’s said and that the government shall not have the right to tell us to shut up or restrict what we say.

Judge Napolitano quickly pointed out, however, that if he said something controversial, or even hateful, he doesn’t have the right to not hear from people who disagree with him. Napolitano said that nobody in the United States has “the right to not be offended.”

Apparently, the enlightened people on college campuses didn’t get that memo. Apparently, Cass Sunstein didn’t learn that in civics class either:

In recent months, universities have turned their attention to an important problem that should be included in our national effort to examine and root out bigotry. They have identified, and attempted to reduce, “microaggressions” — words or behavior that might stigmatize or humiliate women or members of minority groups, with particular emphasis on African-Americans, disabled people, and gays and lesbians. The effort has admirable goals, but there is a risk that schools will overshoot the mark.

University administrators don’t have the authority to ban words from campus. Further, administrators aren’t doing students a favor by limiting students’ exposure to repulsive language. Just like there’s no way to totally eliminate gun violence, there’s no way to stop people from saying disgusting things.

That’s because there will always be hate-filled, ill-tempered people.

The solution to this isn’t banning words or flags that trigger hurt feelings. The solution is criticizing people who say hurtful things. BTW, Hillary Clinton has called for banning certain types of flags.

I’d way rather live in a world that lives according to Judge Napolitano’s principles than a world living by Hillary’s principles. It isn’t even close.

Based on this article, Hillary’s attempt to capitalize politically on the Charleston Massacre is failing. Check this out:

Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered on Saturday her boldest remarks yet on race and gun violence, topics that have quickly become some of the most prominent and divisive in the presidential campaign, particularly after Wednesday’s mass shooting in Charleston, S.C.

“It’s tempting to dismiss a tragedy like this as an isolated incident, to believe that in today’s America bigotry is largely behind us, that institutionalized racism no longer exists,” Mrs. Clinton said in a speech in San Francisco. “But despite our best efforts and our highest hopes, America’s long struggle with race is far from finished.”

Invoking President Obama at times, Mrs. Clinton called for a “common sense” approach to gun laws, pledging to take swift action if elected. She did not, however, make clear how she would navigate the divide in Congress that has undercut Mr. Obama’s own efforts to pass gun laws. “The president is right. The politics on this issue have been poisoned,” Mrs. Clinton said. “But we can’t give up. The stakes are too high. The costs are too dear. And I am not and will not be afraid to keep fighting for common sense reforms.”

Mrs. Clinton, it’s easy talking about “common sense reforms” without explaining the details. Who isn’t for common sense reforms of whatever the subject is? The thing about “common sense reforms” without including the reforms’ details is that it sounds like a cheap politician repeating a focus group-tested message. That isn’t a solution. One thing that’s apparent is that Mrs. Clinton isn’t interested in leading.

Will Mrs. Clinton propose a ban on assault weapons like her husband passed? Or will she propose closing the non-existent gun show loophole? Will she propose things like they passed in Colorado and New York? Will Mrs. Clinton propose something entirely different? Proposing gun control legislation will fire up Hillary’s supporters. It won’t solve problems.

The important question that Ed Henry or other journalists with integrity should ask Sec. Clinton is how gun control would’ve made a difference at that church in Charleston last week. If she can’t answer that, then the next question should be why Hillary’s pushing gun control when it wouldn’t have solved anything.

It’s time reporters put Hillary on the spot. Let Hillary know that we’ll reject her if she isn’t offering solutions. Send Hillary the message that we won’t tolerate her chatting about checking off items from her ideological wish list.

This video is one of the most intense, emotional and unforgettable videos I’ve ever seen. I won’t be surprised if I never forget it:

Representatives for the 9 victims of the Charleston church shooting were given the option of making a statement to the confessed gunman. While some representatives chose not to make a statement, the representatives who spoke through their pain and forgave the shooter despite their intense pain. Here’s a sampling of their statements:

“You have killed some of the most beautifulest people that I know,” Felecia Sanders, mother of victim Tywanza Sanders, told Dylann Roof, speaking from the courtroom. “Every fiber in my body hurts … May God have mercy on you.”

The daughter of Ethel Lance, another of the nine victims in the Wednesday night attack at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church, had a similar message for the 21-year-old alleged killer, who police believe attended a Bible study meeting at the church, where he was embraced by strangers only to open fire on them for no apparent reason. “You hurt a lot of people,” she said, “But I forgive you.”

“Repent. Confess. Give your life to the one who matters the most, Christ, so He can change your ways no matter what happens to you and you’ll be OK,” said Anthony Thompson, who represented the family of victim Myra Thompson.

Thursday, the nation heard too often from politicians pandering to their political supporters during a time of grief. It’s understatement to say that they disgraced themselves. Hillary Clinton and President Obama were particularly offensive in that respect.

Friday, America heard from the victims’ families. Through their grief, they still managed to live out the things Pastor Clementa Pinckney taught them at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. With their statements, they taught our ‘leaders’ how to lead. Citizens showed us how to unite our nation. Hillary and President Obama failed miserably at uniting the nation.

To be fair, not all political leaders failed in striking a uniting tone. Ben Carson shined in his attempt to be a uniter:

CARSON: The heart of the matter is not guns. The heart of the matter is the heart, the heart and soul of people. This young man didn’t wake up yesterday and suddenly turn into a maniac. Clearly there have been things in his background, in his upbringing that led to the type of mentality that would allow him to do something like this. And one of the things that I think we really need to start concentrating on in this country is once again instilling the right kinds of values, particularly in our young people. We’re so busy giving away all of our values and principles for the sake of political correctness that we have people floating around out there with no solid foundation of beliefs.

Guns aren’t the problem. They’re inanimate objects, capable of inflicting incredible pain or stopping senseless violence. Guns are just the tool of choice used by evil people to destroy human life.

Thankfully, the people representing the victims of this senseless violence understand that. I’d rejoice if our ‘leaders’ figured that out instead of their grandstanding.

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

Hillary’s panderfest on the Charleston shootings was a portrait of the type of ‘leadership’ she’d bring to the White House. Here’s what she said that’s dangerous:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton challenged the nation Thursday to take new actions to curb gun violence in her first reactions to the shooting inside a historically black Charleston, S.C., church that left nine dead.

“How many people do we need to see cut down before we act?” she asked, during a summit of elected and appointed Latino politicians meeting in Las Vegas. She began by saying that her thoughts and prayers were with the victims and their families in the shooting, before turning to a broader discussion of police. “So as we mourn and as our hearts break a little more, and as we send this message of solidarity that we will not forsake those who have been victimized by gun violence, this time we have to find answers together,” Clinton said.

That thinking is straight from the progressives’ surely-we-must-do-something chapter of their strategy handbook. It’s filled with emotion, which is understandable. Unfortunately, it’s equally devoid of constructive ideas, much less solutions.

This is essentially Hillary’s “I feel your pain” moment. That’s nice but saying that we have to curb gun violence, then not offering a solution is cruel.

Let’s unwind this a bit. The alleged murderer was a bigot who’d been in trouble with the law relatively frequently. That’s indisputable, verified fact. He’d gotten kicked out of a Charleston shopping mall and told never to return. Instead of never returning, he tried returning, only to get thrown out again.

His punishment for these actions? His father bought him a handgun for his birthday. There are laws already on the books that prohibit criminals from owning guns. Would another law covering the same thing matter? I’m betting it wouldn’t. BTW, I’d prosecute the father for supplying the weapon to his obviously deranged son.

Remember that the alleged murderer was a bigot. He read skinhead literature, too. One of his friends said that he’d planned this “for 6 months.” There’s another human failure. If this friend knew this, why didn’t he contact authorities?

Finally, what gun control legislation would’ve prevented this heinous crime? We know that gun control laws that’ve been proposed in the last 5 years wouldn’t have stopped Sandy Hook or Aurora or the shooting of Gabby Giffords.

The first step to solving these violence issues is for Democrats to stop blaming the guns. The people who’ve done these killings are violent individuals. Until you change people’s hearts, no laws will matter.

Hillary Clinton is running for president to be, in her words, the champion for everyday people. Anyone with more than 2 brain cells rubbing together knows that’s BS but it’s her campaign so she gets to pick the mantra, regardless of how pathetic it sounds. Condi Rice isn’t running for president but she’s light years ahead of Hillary in terms of dignity:

When Condoleezza Rice headlined a 2009 fundraising luncheon for the Boys and Girls Club of Long Beach, she collected a $60,000 speaking fee, then donated almost all of it back to the club, according to multiple sources familiar with the club’s finances.

That’s typical Condi. It’s what people expect from a woman of such stunning dignity. Here’s what we can expect from Hillary:

Hillary Clinton was not so generous to the small charity, which provides after-school programs to underprivileged children across the Southern California city. Clinton collected $200,000 to speak at the same event five years later, but she donated nothing back to the club, which raised less than half as much from Clinton’s appearance as from Rice’s, according to the sources and tax filings. Instead, Clinton steered her speaking fee to her family’s own sprawling $2 billion charity.

The politician that supposedly wants to be the champion of everyday people apparently puts a higher priority on gouging charities and raking in the cash for her political operation/charity.

That’s quite the contrast between the elitist politician and the gracious diplomat.

Hillary’s making millions on the backs of charities doesn’t speak well of her, though it definitely gives a new meaning to the old cliché that charity begins at home.

Couple Hillary’s unquenchable thirst to be filthy rich with her paranoia with the media and you’ve got Richard Nixon in a pantsuit. Here’s what her campaign did to a reporter who wrote the unflattering truth about Clinton Inc.:

A DNC spinmeister later told Megyn Kelly that it was just a mix-up with the reporter’s credentials, something that Ms. Kelly didn’t believe. Mr. Zimmerman, a loyal DNC activist, said that the Clintons don’t have a history of banning reporters. While I don’t disagree with that statement, I know that the Clintons, Hillary especially, have a history of being vindictive and of paying their political enemies back for telling the unflattering truth about them.

Here’s the important questions that Americans must ask themselves about Hillary:

  1. Do we want a president that shakes down charities while lining the pockets of their own charity?
  2. Do we want a president that’s vindictive towards a reporter after that reporter writes unflattering truths about the politician?
  3. Do we trust a politician that has a history of being vindictive and secretive to be trustworthy and transparent if elected to be president?

I’ll answer that last question: I wouldn’t trust Hillary to be trustworthy if she achieves her ultimate ego trip of being president. She’d be like Nixon if that happened.

There was just so much to Prof. David Schultz’s post that it required a Part II. Let’s pick up where Part I left off:

But if Bill Clinton’s presidency did not kill off this type of progressive politics, surely Barack Obama has. If Obama did not do it directly, he did so indirectly with the 2010 and 2014 backlashes against him that has done more to kill progressive politics than can be imagined. With less than two years to go Obama is liberated and you would think he would be more bold, but he is not. Why? He never was the liberal folks wanted to believe. In 2008 his liberalism was far distant to the right compared to Dennis Kucinich and even John Edwards.

President Obama’s agenda was the farthest left agenda in presidential history. Further, President Obama’s utter disdain for the legislative process and the Constitution’s Separation of Powers clause aren’t ideological matters as much as they are a matter of President Obama’s lawlessness. It isn’t difficult to make a powerful case that President Obama is both the most incompetent president in the last century and the most lawless president in recent history. Yes, that’s including Richard Nixon.

There’s a difference between Bill Clinton and President Obama that’s worth noting. Bill Clinton was a policy wonk. The economy grew during his administration. President Obama was a community organizer. His economic record is spotty at best. FYI for Prof. Schultz- Hillary isn’t a policy wonk nor is she a community organizer. She’s a machine politician. Check Baltimore and Detroit for how well machine politicians do.

Mark Dayton gets nothing his first year in office then supports corporate welfare for the billionaire Vikings owner. Now again in 2014 he gives in and Tom Bakk is complicit. Progressives are on the run everywhere. It is not just on matters of public policy such as with taxes, government regulation, and health care, but also in the rhetorical battle for the hearts and minds of the people. You can’t even call yourself a liberal anymore without being red baited. Thus the reason for switching to the term progressive. Conservatives have successfully labeled as left or socialist anyone who does not agree with them.

A little paranoia and a ton of frustration goes a long way. Wow. People are growing tired of the left’s dishonest attacks and failed policies.

People see the smoldering refuse that is Baltimore. They’ve noticed that Detroit is an eyesore, too. Cities across the country from California to Illinois to the East Coast are getting noticed for their pension problems. Collectivism is failing all across the nation. It’s difficult to defend failure when those failures are showing up on the nightly news 2-3 times a week. Good policies make for good politics. Lately, progressive policies have stunk.

This is frightening:

Fourth, conservatives understand how to make structural reforms and policy changes that both benefit their supporters and enhance their power. Tax cuts and cuts in regulation are simple ways to benefit supporters, but there is more. Voter ID disempowers their opposition, attacking union rights undercuts labor support for Democrats and opposition to business in the workplace, and gutting regulations on money in politics strengthens corporations and rich individuals. Obama’s biggest mistake in his first two years was his failure to act accordingly. Instead of health care reform he should have used his sizable majorities in Congress to support the Employee Free Choice Act to strengthen unions, adopt national legislation banning voter ID and permitting day of election registration in federal elections, and adopting real Wall Street and bank reforms that would have limited their power, including reauthorizing Glass-Steagall.

President Obama’s regulatory overreach was designed to cripple miners. That’s because President Obama’s hostility towards blue collar America has been evident throughout his political career. As for federal legislation banning Photo ID, that’s frightening coming from a college professor with a law degree. On April 28, 2008, the Supreme Court ruled (in Crawford v. the Marion County Board of Elections) that photo ID wasn’t a poll tax, which meant it was legal. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his majority opinion that “Under Harper, even rational restrictions on the right to vote are invidious if they are unrelated to voter qualifications. However,
‘even handed restrictions’ protecting the ‘integrity and reliability of the electoral process itself’ satisfy Harper’s standard.”

Justice Stevens highlighted the fact that protecting election integrity is a compelling reason for implementing photo ID. That refutes Prof. Schultz’s ill-informed statement that “Voter ID disempowers [the Republicans’] opposition.” If Prof. Schultz wants to argue that Justice Stevens is a hard right ideologue, I’ll just wish him good luck with that project. He’ll need it.

If there’s a central theme to David Schultz’s post, it’s that liberalism has died. If he would’ve called me, I could’ve told him that. Liberalism is dead in the Democratic Party. It’s been replaced by collectivism and progressivism. In the late 1970s, the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan declared that the Democratic had stopped being the party of ideas. He was right. Prof. Schultz apparently is just noticing:

What the hell ever happened to progressive politics and liberalism in the Democratic Party?

When I first moved out here DFLers bowed to the memory of Humphrey, McCarthy, Freeman, and Mondale. Later they added to that Wellstone. But such homage is living in past, shallow in the sense that the DFL today lacks the courage of the convictions it once had. The same is true for Democrats at the national level.

It’s clear that Prof. Schultz is extremely agitated. Look at the number of punctuation mistakes that are contained in those 71 words. But I digress.

If Prof. Schultz hasn’t noticed that the DFL locally and the Democratic Party nationally have become political machines only, then I question whether he has the expertise to be a college professor. While there’s no question that Prof. Schultz is a lefty, there’s a question about whether he’s thought things through. In case he hadn’t noticed, machine politics has failed. Detroit and Baltimore are prime examples of machine politics failing nationally. Duluth and the Iron Range are perfect examples of how progressive machine politics has failed in Minnesota.

In Minnesota a governor who just a few months was heralded in the national media as the most liberal one in America who got the job done, just folded to the Republicans on almost any measure. The giveaways on the environment, gun silencers, gutting the State Auditor’s office, and retreating on universal pre-K send signals that Republicans can win if they hold long enough. And then there is Senate majority Leader Tom Bakk- why he is a Democrat is anyone’s guess. His leadership was deplorable, his messaging horrific, and his negotiating skills next to none. If he thinks that his capitulation will defend and protect Senate seats in 2016 he is simply wrong. His gaffes and missteps only make suburban DFLers more vulnerable and he has done nothing to convince rural voters to support Democrats. He made the classic mistake Democrats have made for so long, believing that by acting like Republicans they are more electable. The reality is that the more the Democrat brand is muddled and undistinguished the harder it is to win an election.

Actually, Gov. Dayton giving up on universal pre-K was mostly a matter of Republicans having the superior argument. (Apparently, public policy isn’t Prof. Schultz’s strong suit.) Ditto with the MPCA’s Citizens Board. There simply wasn’t a justification for what is essentially a patronage board with real life implications. The Citizens Board didn’t serve a useful function.

Prof. Schultz, when you fight for bad policies, don’t be surprised if you lose. This year, the DFL fought for one terrible idea after another. The DFL came into this session thinking that they could just force House Republicans into capitulating. That was a big mistake.

The politics that looks dead is good old-fashioned economic liberalism. The progressive politics that appears dead is that of Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, and even Teddy Roosevelt. It is about the Great Society and the New Deal. It is about redistributive politics that sought to raise those at the economic bottom, narrow the gap between the rich and poor, and wrestle control of political power in the United States from corporations and plutocrats. It was a commitment to believing that the government had an important role in make sure we had a nation that was not one-third ill-fed, ill-clothed, and ill-housed, that kids should not go off to school hungry, and that corporations should not have the same rights as people.

That’s stunning. The Democrats sold their soul to the corporations. Think Christopher Dodd, Bill and Hillary Clinton, not to mention Barack Obama. They’re frequently feeding at the corporate trough.

That Prof. Schultz is just noticing these developments now says that he should’ve taken off his rose-colored glasses a generation ago.

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

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: , , , , , , , , , , ,