When Liberals Fail

                                                      When Liberals Fail

Clownish behavior by liberal mongers to implicate the President in collusion with the Russians is nothing less than a travesty in the making. More than a year has gone by since the first whispers of foreign involvement in the American election process surfaced. Falling all over each other to see who can catch a Russian ghost first the left are diverting attention from their treasonous behavior. From Debbie Wasserman Schultz engaging Pakistani operatives to manage DNC computers to Hillary’s wheeling and dealing for funds to enhance the Clinton Foundation from foreign entities. As the Democrats search for answers to unanswerable questions the liberal slime moves freely amongst us with impunity or so they think. Prosecution of individuals selling out America for a buck or two should be a top priority for the judicial system. So far it hasn’t been. Donald Trump is correct when he stated that his Attorney General has veered too far from Hillary-Gate. Suspending his role in the Russian probe was no less a surprise to the President.  Time has come to replace the Sessions and put America’s house in order.

Mark Davis MD

Manager: superbookreviews.com

Manager: bestproofreadingeditingbookreviews.com

platomd@gmail.com

medicalboardusa.com    under construction

Obama’s failed record and legacy is Hillary’s campaign platform

Commentary by James Shott

Yes, it was a significant recession, deep enough to earn the title the “Great Recession.” But since the Great Depression there have been several recessions that, at the time they occurred, were called the “Great Recession.”

Since the Great Depression and including the latest incarnation of the Great Recession, none of them have come anywhere close to the horrible conditions during the 1930s. Thus, Barack Obama’s citing of the Great Recession falls short in excusing the dismal economy and the failed Obama recovery. The lousy economy is due to faulty policies since the end of the recession in June 2009.
 
As the end of Obama’s presidency nears the U.S. is more than $19 trillion in debt, and the debt nearly doubled during Obama’s presidency. At a seriously high $10.6 trillion when he began, Obama’s policies have added about a trillion dollars for each of his eight years in office.

During the Obama recovery, Gross Domestic Product has not once reached 3.0 percent. “Adding insult to injury,” The Daily Signal reports, “Obama coupled an incredibly weak economic recovery with a more than trillion-dollar tax hike.  By allegedly making the rich ‘pay their fair share’ through the $620 billion (2013-2022) fiscal cliff tax increase, the administration really pushed for everyday Americans to sacrifice lower take-home pay for more government spending and intervention in their lives.”

Obama has claimed the creation of millions of jobs. "We're in the middle of the longest streak of private-sector job creation in history,” he said. “More than 14 million new jobs; the strongest two years of job growth since the 1990s; an unemployment rate cut in half."

Well, sort of. When a recession produces job losses, the recovery – even a poor recovery like this one – produces some “new jobs.” And according to CNN Money, Obama created 9.3 million, not 14 million, new jobs.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics explains that the U-6 unemployment rate reflects “total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers.” At the end of the first quarter of 2016, the U-6 rate was 10.1 percent. 

These unemployed, discouraged workers who have stopped looking for a job, and underemployed workers are not counted in the unemployment figure the administration brags about, but are nonetheless part of the American workforce, which totals 243 million people, and currently more than 90 million of them are unemployed or underemployed, putting the workforce participation rate at a decades-low 62.6 percent.

In a May open-ended Gallop survey, participants noted general economic issues as the most important thing on their minds, but not far behind were issues with their government, such as immigration and race relations, two things Obama has made worse.

Potentially more serious, however, is the disintegrating U.S. influence across the globe and our severely weakened military, issues considered so serious that Congressional Republicans have developed a 23-page policy document to address them, under the leadership of House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis).

“In the past seven years, our friendships have frayed, our rivalries have intensified. It’s not too much to say that our enemies no longer fear us and too many of our allies no long trust us. And I think this is the direct result of the president’s foreign policy,” Ryan said. “All he did was create … many voids around the world and now our enemies are stepping in to fill those voids. This is what happens when America does not lead.”

With Obama’s tenure ending we are faced with the prospect of Hillary Clinton being elected to what will essentially be Obama’s third term, continuing his disastrous policies, and adding her own signature disasters to the mix.

Among Clinton’s favorite issues are: gun control, climate change, and income inequality.

She says that 33,000 gun deaths every year is unacceptable. But considered in context, 33,000 deaths among our 320 million population is roughly one death for every 10,000 people. And not all gun deaths are murders. Some are killed by police; others by people defending themselves; some are suicides; some are accidents. To Obama and Clinton, the Orlando terrorist attack is a gun control issue.

Obama’s manic compulsion for climate change has produced policies that have destroyed the lives of thousands of energy industry workers, and wasted billions of taxpayer dollars propping up failing green energy companies like Solyndra, based on a theory that is faulty and heavily disputed. Likewise, Clinton wants to install a half-billion solar panels by 2020, seven times what we have today. More bad policies on the horizon.

She favors making incomes more equal, not understanding that wages are based on economic principles, not fairy tale desires. She wants a $12 an hour minimum wage for everyone, trained or not, good at their job or not.

And we cannot ignore her failure to provide adequate security at the Benghazi consulate when evaluating her foreign policy credentials.

Clinton, like Obama, seeks to control and ignores logic and reasoning when seeking solutions. She shares his “big government as the solution to all problems” philosophy, and that is a recipe for continued trouble.

Cross-posted from Observations

Hillary in South Carolina seeking to lock up the black vote

Commentary by James Shott

As the presidential campaigns move to South Carolina, Democrat hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders seek to endear themselves to black voters. Sanders began by having tea with Al Sharpton. How will Hillary proceed?

Following her dramatic loss to Sanders in New Hampshire by a 60 percent to 38 percent margin, she hired a press aide from the Department of Education as her new director of black media to help protect and grow the early double-digit lead she held in South Carolina.

Hillary praises Obama and his presidency, all but promising that she will continue in the same vein if she can win the primary and general elections, and escape legal issues from her disastrous tenure as secretary of state. And since black Americans overwhelmingly support the Democrat Party, this might seem smart.

However, getting broad support from the black community should not be automatic or even very easy for her, given what happened in South Carolina in 2008. There, she was beaten badly by Barack Obama as she gave her all in the attempt to prevent him from becoming the first black President of the United States. Will black voters remember that?

Furthermore, the reality of the negative effects Obama’s presidency has had on the black community gives reason to think that pledging to follow his policies might be a big mistake.

Having noticed how poorly black Americans had faired in Obama’s first term, PBS’s Tavis Smiley told Fox News’ Sean Hannity in 2013, "The data is going to indicate sadly that when the Obama administration is over, black people will have lost ground in every single leading economic indicator category."

In 2014 Newsmax reported that while the national unemployment rate had dropped to 7 percent since Obama took office, the jobless rate for blacks has hardly moved, declining from 12.7 percent in 2009 to 12.5 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Further, the poverty rate for blacks sharply increased in 2014, rising from 12 percent in 2008 to 16.1 percent.

Median income declined by 3.6 percent for white households to $58,000, but fell 10.9 percent to $33,500 for black households, according to Census Bureau reports.

Realizing that things have not improved for black America since then, Smiley repeated his 2013 assessment last month on HuffPost Live: “Sadly – and it pains me to say this – over the last decade, black folk, in the era of Obama, have lost ground in every major economic category." Smiley said black America got "caught up in the symbolism of the Obama presidency," and made two mistakes. They did not accurately evaluate his policies, and they reacted against GOP criticisms of Obama and Republican opposition to his policies.

With these highly negative results for black Americans from the administration of the first black president of the U.S., will Hillary Clinton’s tactic of praising Obama and implying she will follow in his footsteps really work to attract the support of black Americans?

Perhaps it is with this in mind that the Department of Justice has initiated legal action against Ferguson, Missouri in the aftermath of the justified shooting death of Michael Brown in 2014. As reported by The Patriot Post, Ferguson’s City Council voted unanimously to approve the Justice Department’s settlement to reform the city’s “unjust” policing practices — but “subject to certain conditions.”

“The DOJ responded to the city’s request [to alter the agreement] by filing a lawsuit against Ferguson, just in time to agitate the black vote in the southern primaries,” the report noted, adding: “Make no mistake: Timing is everything. The DOJ’s actions will benefit Hillary Clinton throughout the southern primaries, as blacks are reminded once again of injustice. Never mind that Ferguson (and every other city in which Black Lives Matter is fomenting discord) is run by Democrats.”

There are other signs that a Hillary victory might be being engineered behind the scenes, such as in the New Hampshire primary, where despite a massive victory by Bernie Sanders, he and Hillary came away with the same number of delegates.

Last Thursday, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) PAC endorsed Hillary, saying she had done the most to support the Democrat Party and also to support blacks seeking office. “The partner that the CBC PAC has had over the years to elect Democrats has been Hillary Clinton,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks, New York Democrat and chairman of the CBC PAC. Hillary won the endorsement of 90 percent of the PAC, with no members voting for Sanders and some abstaining.

The CBC PAC endorsement is a definite plus for her, but if black Americans realize that Obama’s policies have worked so dramatically to their detriment, raising the black unemployment rate and pushing more black citizens into poverty, the highly desirable black vote may not accrue to her.

And things could get worse for the nation, and much worse for the black community, as Obama’s policies, which have failed to produce a recovery to the 2007 recession in seven years, have brought the country to the brink of another recession that will undoubtedly produce very unpleasant circumstances for black Americans.

Cross-posted from Observations

The $64,000 question: What in the world was she thinking?

Imagine your political party has won the recent presidential election, and the man elected to be president has pegged you to be Secretary of State. What an honor. Secretary of State is one of the most important and prestigious positions in the federal government; it is one of the most critical positions in the government, dealing with sensitive international matters, such as agreements and disputes, the communications associated with which often carry security classifications, such as “classified,” “secret,” or “top secret.”

There are processes and systems in place to facilitate your communications, both classified and unclassified, between and among individuals and departments within the government, and with officials of other governments, official systems and processes that track these official communications as a matter of efficiency, accountability, national security and historical record.

With this in mind, and after going through the FBI’s briefing on the official communications protocol, and swearing under oath that you have been briefed and understand the process and protocol and why it exists, you then decide that rather than utilize the official secured government communications system you have been briefed on, as your predecessors did, you will use your own private email server to handle official government business as well as your own personal email communications.

Question: What would be the reason for making the unusual and unprecedented decision to conduct official communications on a private system instead of on the official and secured government system, a system to which only you have access, and that denies the government the ability to have complete access to your official communications?

Eventually, this decision enters the public sphere and is predictably met with many questions, and very effectively fertilizes the environment for suspicion of your motives. Political opponents will be emboldened, and you are the one who has emboldened them, and questions will arise about both your judgment and the possibility of illegal activity.

This is the sticky wicket that Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State from January 21, 2009 to February 1, 2013, and now candidate for the Democrat nomination for President of the United States, created for herself with this curious decision as she assumed the position of Secretary of State.

Mrs. Clinton’s political opponents – the “vast right-wing conspiracy” – have indeed noticed this irregularity, and finally the mainstream media is also taking notice.

NBC News commentator Andrea Mitchell – no right-wing conspirator she – shared comments from intelligence officials who have told her that, “nobody can give an explanation for why a cabinet secretary would have a private email system other than to thwart inquiries, FOIAs [Freedom of Information Act inquiries],” which she mentioned recently on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program.

Andrea Mitchell is not the only one interested in the question raised by those intelligence officials. And the new questions raised by those other interested parties go beyond mere curiosity about why a cabinet secretary would have taken this unusual step. The more serious issue is whether or not classified information passed through Mrs. Clinton’s private email system, a clear violation of federal law.

Mark Levin, former chief of staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese in President Ronald Reagan’s administration, also an attorney, author and talk show host, sees breaches of the federal Penal Code, specifically Section 793 of the Penal Code, Subsection (f).

“My point is,” Mr. Levin said, “when you set up an unsecured server in your barn adjacent to your home in Chappaqua, New York, you have intentionally – forget about negligence – you have intentionally bypassed the security process for that server.”

If a private system was her chosen method for email communication, both personal and governmental, even if she avoided sending emails containing classified information, how could she prevent classified information from being sent to her on her private system? In short: How could Mrs. Clinton not have had classified information on her private server?

Some offer the defense of intent, suggesting that it matters if she did not intend to allow classified information to be lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed. But Mr. Levin says, “No it doesn’t, not with respect to this, Subsection (f).”

Former federal judge and Attorney General Michael Mukasey comments: “Once you assume a public office, your communications about anything having to do with your job are not your personal business or property. They are the public’s business and the public’s property, and are to be treated as no different from communications of like sensitivity.”

And this from McClatchy DC last Wednesday: “The inspectors general for the U.S. Intelligence Community and the State Department have disclosed over the last week that at least five emails, routed through a private server that Clinton used throughout her tenure as secretary of state, contained classified information, including two emails whose content is now deemed to be ‘Top Secret.’”

Even if somehow Mrs. Clinton escapes being charged with crimes in this incident, her behavior – from the idea of having her own private email server in the first place, to the elaborate cleansing process she utilized to clear all data from the email server, and the release of the email communications that she alone determined was relevant – raises important questions about her lack of judgment and what her motivation was.

Contenders and Pretenders to the Oval Office

Contenders and pretenders to the Oval Office

 

A dazzling array of personalities are chasing the Oval Office. Few will get beyond the fence of recognition to become viable candidates. Yet all have hopes and dreams of remodeling America in their minds’ eye. From the left Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are running far ahead of minor candidates such as Martin O’Malley and Lincoln Chafee. With fifteen declared and more to come the right is crowded with a field which runs the gamut from competent to window dressing. Conservative notables leading the pack are Jeb Bush, Donald Trump and Ben Carson. Day to day their favorable ratings vary based on the last word they stated. Trenchant but true commentary from some has aptly described why America needs a leader who will not back down or side step controversy. Most of the long list of potential hopefuls are political hacks whose daily beliefs are measured by the latest poll. A few, such as Scott Walker and Donald Trump, have platforms which resonate with the public on key issues that others avoid. Economics, immigration, international affairs and more have deteriorated under the aegis of our current leader. Hillary and Bernie offer more of the same. Unfortunately a large number of their opponents are middle of the road or shoot from the left. Many ask who in this herd has the drive, direction and the substance to elevate America to greatness once more?  The winnowing  process is underway.

 

Characteristic of Hillary and others on the left is to promise their supporters a continuous flow of cash from the federal treasury. This winning strategy has placed many in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Fortunately for the right the present redistributer-in-chief did not keep his fiscal promises, which opens even a wider door for conservatives in 2016. Donald Trump brings a refreshing scent to an otherwise putrid stench trailing many of the other candidates. Immigration is a hot button issue that has elevated Trump to the leader of the pack. Few others have come forth on this issue with such vociferous tones. With Hillary’s Messiah Complex in full view many are offended by her brash demeanor and curt style of campaigning. Failing in 2008 when Barack Obama showed up it appears once again she may go down for the count as others in her party start drawing attention away from her. Guaranteed at the end of this process every piece of garbage on those running from both sides of the aisle will be aired. America is starving for leadership. Those who are still standing at the end of this process may be the strongest candidates but not the best. Let us hope the wisdom of the people is better placed this go around because we may not get another chance.

Mark Davis, M.D. President of Davis Media and Writing Servives.

www.daviswritingservices.com platomd@gmail.com

The U.S. in the 21st Century: Compassion takes a back seat to politics

Commentary by James Shott

The ink was barely dry on newspapers reporting the murder of nine people attending a Bible study Wednesday night at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, SC, when it started.

Amid the understandable outrage and feelings of grief and compassion, there arose the clatter of political demagoguery, as the vehicles were gassed up and engines were started to rush and join the forming parade.

Since the participants of this parade formed it not to provide aid and comfort to those in need, but to avail themselves of a convenient opportunity – as former Obama White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel advised, “Never let a good crisis go to waste” – reason and honesty were banned from the event.

Thursday morning Faheem Younus, who identifies himself as “Muslimerican,” and is an Associate Professor of Medicine at the University of Maryland, posted on Twitter: “This terrorist #CharlestonShooting is predictably White, called a ‘gunman’ by the media and has no mention of his faith.” It was most important to him to imply that had the murderer been a Muslim, that point would have been made abundantly clear.

And no leftist demagogic rant would be complete without taking a shot at Fox News. “The ideology of racism promoted by the @FoxNewsandCo. breeds the terrorists who commit #CharlestonShooting,” he tweeted.

At least in the midst of his mis-focused, cheap-shot tweets, the learned professor did brush up against the main truth: This attack was a racist act.

On the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton used the shooting to advantage in her self-promotion. First, she suggested that “inflammatory things about Mexicans,” uttered by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, may have “triggered” the incident, and then turned to liberalism’s favorite boogeyman, gun control.

But at least President Barack Obama started out on the right path: “We knew their pastor, Reverend Clementa Pinckney, who, along with eight others gathered in prayer and fellowship, was murdered last night,” he said. “And to say our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families and their community doesn't say enough to convey the heartache and the sadness and the anger that we feel.”

But then: “We do know that once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun,” he continued, finally getting to his main point.

No one argues that some people should not have guns. The argument begins with the method people like Mr. Obama prefer. The same people who use guns for violence would also use knives, TNT, poison, an automobile, hijacked air liners, or whatever tool they could find to commit violence against others, a point the anti-gun faction seems immune to understanding.

“At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this kind of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries … with this kind of frequency,” Mr. Obama said. “It is in our power to do something about it.”

Mr. Obama must have found some study showing that the U.S. leads the world’s advanced countries in mass shooting casualties. The Rampage Shooting Index, in fact, shows that among 12 countries, from 2009 to 2013, the U.S. had 227 such deaths. Norway had 77, Germany had 25, the UK had 13, and Israel had 11. The US had 38 such incidents and the nations previously mentioned had only 1 to 3.

That is pretty damning evidence. But as usual in these sorts of campaigns, there is more.

The Index clearly shows that when population is taken into account, the results are far different. Per 1 million population Norway had 15.3 fatalities and .19 incidents per 1 million people; Germany - .31 fatalities, .04 incidents; the UK - .019 fatalities, .02 incidents; Israel - 1.38 fatalities, .25 incidents. The U.S. had .72 fatalities in .12 incidents, and fewer fatalities and incidents per 1 million than Norway and Israel. Furthermore, of the five countries discussed, all but the U.S. are said to have “Restrictive” gun policies.

Also, of the 12 nations in this study, when population is a factor the U.S. drops from first in mass shootings to seventh.

Mr. Obama was wrong. Again.

If you feel so strongly that a higher degree of gun control is a viable policy, why use faulty data to try to sell the idea to the people? If your cause is just, you needn’t lie or deceive to gain support.

Laying aside the distasteful efforts to politicize this issue, the real issue is not guns, it is the impulse to harm or kill innocent people, and how to protect against those impulses.

This was a racist act perpetrated by a white guy who used a gun. Dylann Roof had a drug arrest and conviction on his record, and had a recent history of racially charged comments. Reportedly, his father gave him a pistol for his 21st birthday in April.

What gun law would have prevented Dylann Roof from killing those nine people?

When you are caught using faulty data, you tell the world that you really have a goal other than the stated goal in mind.

Cross-posted from Observations

Countdown to Hillary

Countdown to Hillary

 

Bad news travels fast. Hillary Clinton, the immortal, has entered the fray for the 2016 Democrat presidential nomination. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-2016-election-presidential-launch-116888.html The dust from Hillary’s last attempt has not fully settled into the shadows, yet her second run is fully underway. On this go around her focus is to connect with the common man. The latter is so comical one must partition reality from the factual insanity from which it is derived. Hillary has stepped away from the rarified domain in which she lives to give the appearance she cares about the “little people.” Her announcement came in the form of a website release not in a gathering of prospective voters. Her last news conference was a disaster. No one can blame her for staying miles away from the nearest journalist. Hillary will take her campaign on the road to small venues with pre-selected audiences. Her admirers will flood the media with positive attributions but those at a distance will question the very basis of her candidacy. With few competitors on the Democrat side vying for the nomination Mrs. Clinton appears to have a clear path to her goal. Yet the drum beats for more balance in her party and we may soon see others of note enter the political cauldron.

 

Hillary Clinton craves power, prestige and most of all money. During her tenure as Secretary of State many suspect she padded her own pockets via the Clinton Foundation. While representing American interests in the Middle East her Foundation took in large sums from countries less than friendly to the United States. Some believe a quid pro quo was involved. She had defended the work of the Foundation yet the stench of duplicity surrounds her and the private foundation that bears her name.

 

Equally as bad was Hillary’s management of emails during her reign as Secretary of State. Hillary, similar to Obama, believes she is above regulations and laws which govern the rest of us. When the Benghazi Committee requested her emails none were forthcoming. Why? She utilized a private computer server instead of one issued to her as Secretary of State. These recent revelations were made worse when it was discovered that her private server emails were erased. Hillary has refused to turn over this server. This controversy will not abate as the 2016 campaign moves forward. What is Hillary trying to hide?

 

With Hillary’s current attempts to galvanize support for a very iffy presidential campaign the public’s introspective eye will follow her everywhere. http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-hillary-clinton-campaign-iowa-2016-20150414-story.html The Clintons represent a time that has passed. Each of them is saddled with burdens decades old which haunts every appearance they make. Though Hillary has no real competition from potential Democrat rivals Martin O’Malley and Joseph Biden inspirational voices on the Republican side may drown hers out. The shock of Mrs. Clinton attempting to relate to the “common man” defines exactly who she is. She is a dispirited individual who will malign the system in any manner which brings her closer to the Oval Office. I believe she is misreading the political tea leaves. Her candidacy is doomed from the start because its foundations are layered with paper not cement. For an extremely intelligent woman she appears to move through life with blinders on. When the going gets tough she will abandon her presidential ambitions and return to presenting half-hearted speeches at $450,000 each. Until then her universe of one may end sooner than later for a presidential run that was never meant to be.

 

Mark Davis MD, President of Davis Writing Services. Author of Demons of Democracy, Obamacare: Dead on Arrival, A Prescription for Disaster and the forthcoming book: Sexual Predilections of the Political Mind.

www.daviswritingservices.com platomd@gmail.com

Rage of the queen of green

Rage of the queen of green

 

Lust for power, prestige and green should be essential components of any profile on Hillary Clinton. With her sights set on the Oval Office coronation to the thrown is the only element lacking in her resume. Last week the real Hillary Clinton once again displayed her true face. As in previous episodes of her life she came out fighting when accused of withholding subpoenaed information from investigating Congressional committees. Transaction of information through government servers remains the property of Uncle Sam, yet not for Hillary. While Secretary of State her work related emails were channeled through a private server neatly tucked away in one of her many homes. When asked at a news conference why she did not use a government server Hillary explained it was a matter of convenience. This distortion of reality was compounded by her destruction of the very emails sought by investigators. A classical Clinton maneuver took place here. Since her emails were on a private server there were no “government” retained emails to give over to Congress, as requested by their subpoena. Unknown to nearly everyone Hillary retained over 50,000 emails. Once this fact surfaced charges of perjury and criminality were thrown her way. Rhetorical nonsense from her recent press briefing concerning these emails did not fool anyone and went a long way to hurt her chances in 2016. http://www.examiner.com/article/rise-and-fall-of-an-american-queen

 

Contrary to glowing reports in left wing media Hillary’s portfolio of achievements can be summated on a single sheet of paper. During her short tenure in the Senate Hillary’s mark on legislation that became law was infinitesimal. When a colleague would introduce legislation to cut taxes invariably she would be the first on line to vote no.  Hillary’s lack of knowledge of political dynamics in the Middle East was evident in her voting record. This is exemplified by her vote against the surge. Her ineffective record in the Senate was evident throughout her years in office. As Secretary of State she turned her head away from the revolutionaries who ignited the Arab Spring. These actions contributed to reinforcing theocracy not democracy in those volatile countries. Numerous voices have insinuated that her time as Department Secretary was spent feathering her own nest. The Clinton foundation took tens of millions from countries which she had direct influence over. In the event there was a quid pro quo we may never know. http://shark-tank.com/2014/12/07/rubio-hillary-clinton-chief-architect-failed-obama-foreign-policy/#

 

 

Mrs. Clinton is no mere anomaly in the leftist World. Driven by arrogance and a smug self-righteous attitude she has achieved distinction by being the Kardashian of the political class. Just being there, she believes, entitles her to the ultimate crown in the United States. Hillary has forgotten her history. America threw off the yoke of its king and queen centuries ago. No one is ready for another spin with a monarchy. Hillary’s campaign is stumbling and not ready for prime time. She needs to go back to square one and learn humility before returning to a World that moved passed her long ago.

 

Mark Davis MD, President of Davis Writing Services, www.daviswritingservices.com platomd@gmail.com

Author of Obamacare: Dead on Arrival, A Prescription for Disaster and

Demons of Democracy.

Rise and fall of an American Queen

Rise and fall of an American queen

 

History has a way of recycling on itself. With the adoption of the Declaration of Independence the colonies threw off the yoke of the English Monarchy centuries ago. Expectations were the evolving nation would remain a democracy for generations to come. The blood of millions sanctified this promise through the years. Yet as history moved forward the lessons that it taught grew cold with time. Twenty-first century politics have awakened the ghosts of the past. A few politicians believe they have an absolute right of ascension to the highest circles in government. This self-righteous elitism may be drawn from name recognition they garnered based on those who came before them. Most open about her prior connections to the White House is Hillary Clinton. Mrs. Clinton apparently believes she should be crowned queen of the United States. This delusion is continuously reinforced in her speeches and interviews. Now her coronation appears in doubt.  From the darkness information has arisen that Mrs. Clinton may have subverted American law. Worse she may have used her government position to raise funds for the Clinton Foundation.

 

While conducting business as the Secretary of State Mrs. Clinton was legally responsible to use government email systems not personal accounts. Believing she is beyond reproach and the law she hid over fifty thousand emails from Congressional committees who subpoenaed her government records not aware at the time other accounts existed. As this information developed the whitewash quickly began. Her former State Department colleagues jumped into the fray to help with damage control. Current Secretary of State John Kerry also stated he would review the matter thoroughly. The outcome for these reviews are all but assured to go Hillary’s way. Can this vast load of emails shed light on the following questions? What did Hillary really know about Benghazi? Did she raise money for the Clinton Foundation in a manner not befitting her former office? Did she pass classified material through her private accounts hence undermining United States Interests? Mrs. Clinton’s activities may have been above board, yet they need to be measured against the truth. American people deserve an independent accounting of Hillary’s recently uncovered activities.  Why? Because this heir to the throne must be vetted before the nation makes another mistake as occurred in the prior 2 election cycles.

 

Mark Davis MD, President of Davis Writing Services. www.daviswritingservices.com platomd@gmail.com

Twitter.com/americassage

More crazy stuff from the world of “You can’t make this stuff up!”

 Commentary by James Shott

Everyone says something dumb once in a while, some more than others, of course, but some people in prominent positions have a real knack for it, and others seem to think they can say whatever they want to, and people will believe them. Worse, though, is that for some of these people, like politicians, there are millions of folks who do believe what they say, no matter how weird it may be, how unlikely to happen it is, or how simply unbelievable it is.

In the most recent example, you may remember that IRS official Lois Lerner was called to testify by three Congressional committees looking into the abuse of IRS power in the intimidation of conservative applicants for 501(c)(3) status, and after making a lengthy statement declaring her innocence then availed herself of the 5th Amendment protections against self-incrimination, and then refused to answer any questions. She apparently forgot that as a hired government worker, she is accountable for her actions to the American people.

The committees had requested Ms. Lerner’s emails months ago, but, Shazam!, the IRS announced the other day that, darn the luck, those emails have just disappeared.

Adding considerable interest to this much-too-convenient occurrence is that Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen testified in March that Lois Lerner’s emails were archived.

Oh, well. Maybe the NSA or Edward Snowden has copies.

Just a couple of days earlier, Hillary Clinton, told the world that when hubby Bill finished his eight years as President of the United States they were broke and in debt.

That fails both the smell test and the laugh test. Is it possible? Yes, but doubtful.

The American taxpayers paid President Clinton $200,000 a year in wages, $1.6 million over his eight years in the White House. Presidents may have to pay for some of their normal expenses, like food, clothes, and such, but there are several expense accounts that enter into the picture, so it is difficult to imagine exhausting $1.6 million in only eight years with all the help presidents get through expense accounts.

On the other hand, given the liberal penchant for spending money they don’t have, it is entirely possible they really were broke and in debt, and if that is true, maybe we ought to remember that if Mrs. Clinton decides to seek the presidency.

Outlandish statements sometimes serve to cover up misdeeds of government employees and burnish the bona fides of politicos. Sometimes it’s difficult to make up things that are more ridiculous than what reality gives us, as we have just seen, while other times making stuff up is precisely what people do to mislead the public for some narrow political end, as the next example shows.

“Since the December 2012 shooting in Newtown, CT, there have been at least 74 school shootings in America.” So states the Website for “Everytown for Gun Safety,” which explains, “Everytown is a movement of Americans working together to end gun violence and build safer communities.”

If you are wondering why you haven’t heard about 74 more Sandy Hooks or Newtowns, it’s because there haven’t been 74 of them. In fact, CNN investigated these claims, and found that only 15 percent of them – 11 incidents – involved “a minor or adult actively shooting inside or near a school.”

Politifact “quotes a former member of the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit as stating ‘[t]here is an ocean of difference’ between what average people consider a school shooting and various episodes in the Everytown accounting.”

Stipulated: Even one shooting in a school is one too many. But the dishonest use of data to try to scare people is intolerable.

Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) shows that the annual number of school-associated violent deaths, and the annual number of homicides and suicides of students ages 5-18 at school, were lower during the 2010-2011 school year than at any time in the last 20 years. And, in fact, they had been reduced by almost half.

Five of the 74 incidents involved accidental non-fatal shootings; and two other incidents were apparent acts of self-defense. Again, any shooting at a school, other than in self-defense or to stop someone from hurting or killing people, is unacceptable. But that is a very different matter than when someone intentionally shoots and kills or wounds kids.

It appears the anti-gun fanatics will stop at nothing, even creating fairy tales to try to persuade people to their point of view. In doing so, however, they prove that their point of view is unworthy of public attention.

“Everytown” is the brainchild of former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and unfortunately contains the same absurdities as Mr. Bloomberg’s other manias, like his war on sodas.

If making things illegal actually worked, we’d have no drug problems, robberies, murders or rapes. If limiting the right of law-abiding citizens to own weapons as powerful as those criminals possess made any sense, people would support it.

Does anything say, “Come on in” to a criminal more succinctly than posting a “No Guns Allowed” sign on the door?

Gun violence is the result of the desire to commit violence, not the gun.

Cross-posted from Observations

Clinton versus Obama: The Presidential Follies Continue

Clinton versus Obama: the presidential follies continue

 

Hard Choices, a new book by Hillary Clinton’s ghostwriter, purportedly details many aspects of her reign as Secretary of State. To energize book sales the publisher released a chapter that contains her personal analysis of the events surrounding the Benghazi assault on September 11, 2012. Instead of supplying a factual account the former First Lady goes on a childlike rant blaming everyone but herself for this tragedy. She notes misinformation, speculation and flat out deceit by some politicians and the media keeps this scandal alive. Mrs. Clinton fails to answer the “hard” questions to put this tragedy to rest. The most of important of which is: who told the military forces to stand down as the Benghazi compound was under assault? Clinton cleverly uses the deaths of the four killed on September 11th to her advantage by stating, “I will not be part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans.” She goes on to state, “it’s just plain wrong and it’s unworthy of our great country. Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me.” Clearly she does not want to testify in front of the Special House Committee assembled to uncover the truth concerning  this foreign policy disaster. As a president wannabe she displays none of the characteristics required of a leader. Lessons learned while Hillary was Secretary of State, to utilize rhetorical nonsense to divert attention from matters of importance, is a theme playing out here. Obama, the master of deceit and diversion, continues these tactics to keep the nation in the dark on all aspects of the scandals that plague his Administration especially Benghazi. Foolhardy people who defend both Clinton and Obama do so blindly while being kept in the dark themselves. Hillary’s gambit to diminish her involvement in the events of 9/11/2012 failed. If she embarks on a campaign for the presidency the road for her will be treacherous at the minimum. Anyone who has closely followed the scandal of 2012 knows more information exists than the Administration is willing release. Paradoxically Hillary has politicized this event by releasing a portion of her memoirs, antithetically to her accusations of others doing the same. Truth has a means of surfacing even when the naysayers inhibit its emergence. I hope Hillary rethinks her verbal assaults on others because these words appear to lead directly back to her nest.

 

Mark Davis, MD President of Healthnets Review Services and Davis Book Reviews. www.healthnetsreviewservices.com  platomd@gmail.com Dr. Davis’ latest book is Obamacare: Dead on Arrival, A Prescription for Disaster.

Conservative Weekend Reading

Here are the stories that caught my eyes this weekend:

Rosemary’s Thoughts Why enforcing immigration laws are necessary
“There are many reasons for this, and I am not going to argue them in this post. I will, however, share with you a video about some news you may never hear otherwise. Please watch this, it is about 6 minutes long. Thank you. . .”

ThirdWorld Country Real Estate Bust? *yawn*
“But there’s a side to the housing market/mortgage crisis/real estate bust that is getting little play in the Mass Media Podpeople Hivemind (and what play it does get is buried on inside pages or whatnot): “Some Cities Are Spared the Slide in Housing”–and this in the Neoo York Slimes, no less! Who’d-a thunk it? . . .”

123 Beta Open Trackback Weekend

The World According to Carl Ray Nagin Proves He’s An Idiot Again
“A photo in some Metro sections Wednesday showed a laughing Mayor Ray Nagin pointing an M-4 rifle at Police Superintendent Warren Riley at a news conference to announce new crimefighting equipment purchased by the New Orleans Police Department . . ."

BlueStar Chronicles Blogging McCain
. . . a little round-up of what people are saying about our man, John McCain . . .”

Big Dog’s Weblog Between Barack and a Hard Place
“Hillary Clinton finds herself in deeper trouble as two more primaries loom on the horizon prior to her firewall states of Texas and Ohio. The latest polls from Texas show that Obama has now taken a lead there and only trails Hillary by 2% among Hispanic voters. . .”

Dumb Ox Daily News Coulter with Beck on Obama, Hoping for Clinton ...
“ . . . Ann Coulter pulling for Hillary to get the nod... between Obama and McCain there isn't enough difference to bother voting for either! . . .”

Digg It!

Also Trackposted to Big Dog's Weblog, Adeline and Hazel, Stageleft, and A NEWT ONE-Special Thursday guest!, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Clinton said immigration can threaten bonds of our union

In 1998 former President Bill Clinton (contender for the first hubby role) made a remarkable speech that was virtually ignored by the press.

President Clinton spoke in 1998 at Portland State University's Commencement. The speech was about immigration! This is the key quote:

"What do the changes mean? They can either strengthen and unite us, or they can weaken and divide us. We must decide… But mark my words, unless we handle this well, immigration of this sweep and scope could threaten the bonds of our union."

The text of the speech can be found on several sites linked below.

Now wouldn’t it be a nice thing for us to let Bill know that we haven’t forgotten him and we won’t let the press ignore his words any longer? Let’s all find room on our blogs to post this quote frequently!!!

I’m sure that Hillary will appreciate it too!

Quote vetted on these links: VDARE.com, Changing Face, Fair, Support U.S. Population Stabilization (SUSPS)

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email stiknstein-at-gmail-dot-com and let us know at what level you would like to participate.

Bill Clinton
illegal immigration

Related tags: politics, hillary clinton, clinton, democratic party, democrats, immigration, border, immigration reform, homeland security, mexican border,borders, amnesty, invasion, homeland, illegal aliens

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, Big Dog's Weblog, Shadowscope, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Faultline USA, Right Celebrity, third world county, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Gulf Coast Hurricane Tracker, Right Voices, and thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.