(Roman Catholics are misogynists, but Islamists are not? — DM)
A leading Catholic advocacy group on Wednesday called for the resignation of Hillary Clinton’s campaign spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri, after hacked emails show Ms. Palmieri and other Clinton allies openly talking about Catholics being “severely backwards” and charging that they don’t know “what the hell they’re talking about.”
In its statement, CatholicVote.org said there is now a pattern on the part of the Clinton campaign of dismissing or even making fun of large blocs of Americans.
“Hillary Clinton has already called half of her opponents’ supporters ‘a basket of deplorables’ and ‘irredeemable’ and now it comes out that her campaign spokeswoman dismissively question[ed] the sincerity of Catholic Americans’ faith,” said Brian Burch, president of CatholicVote. “Everyone has a unique faith journey, and it’s just insulting to make blanket statements maligning people’s motives for converting to another faith tradition. Had Palmieri spoken this way about other groups she [would be] dismissed. Palmieri must resign immediately or be fired.”
The messages in question come from the WikiLeaks hack of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta’s private email. Mr. Podesta doesn’t appear to have been involved in the April 2011 email discussion between Ms. Palmieri and John Halpin, a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress, which Mr. Podesta used to head.
Mr. Podesta received each message but apparently did not respond.
In the exchange, Mr. Halpin mocks media mogul Rupert Murdoch for raising his children in the Catholic church and said that most “powerful elements” in the conservative movement are all Catholic.
“It’s an amazing bastardization of the faith. They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy,” Mr. Halpin said.
“I imagine they think it is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they become evangelicals,” Ms. Palmieri responded.
“Excellent point,” Mr. Halpin wrote back. “They can throw around ‘Thomistic’ thought and ‘subsidiarity’ and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they’re talking about.”
Republican nominee Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton’s opponent in the 2016 presidential race, ripped the anti-Catholic remarks during a campaign rally Tuesday night.
“The new emails show members of the Clinton team attacking Catholics. This is deeply offensive. It’s just the latest evidence of the hatred that the Clinton campaign has for everyday Americans,” the billionaire said.
Senior Clinton campaign officials were in direct contact with the White House to coordinate pro-Iran talking points in an effort to boost last summer’s comprehensive nuclear agreement, according to leaked emails that show the Obama administration and top figures in Clinton’s campaign played a role in promulgating information about the deal that later turned out to be factually inaccurate.
The emails, released late on Friday in a massive document dump by the hacker website WikiLeaks, show coordination between Hillary Clinton’s team and the White House, which spearheaded a massive effort to create what senior officials described as a pro-Iran “echo chamber” to mislead Congress and Americans about the nature of the agreement.
The director of national intelligence and Department of Homeland Security have accused “Russia’s senior-most officials” of hacking and leaking emails posted to WikiLeaks and other sites to influence and interfere with the 2016 election.
An April 2, 2015, communication sent from top White House press liaison Eric Shultz to Clinton campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri includes several pages of pro-Iran talking points that were later discovered to contain misleading information.
“Love it!!” Palmieri responded to Schultz’s email. She subsequently forwarded the information to leading Clinton aides, including Cheryl Mills, Brian Fallon, and Nick Merrill, among others.
The disclosure of these emails threatens to entangle the Clinton campaign in a growing scandal surrounding secret White House efforts to mislead Congress and the public about the nuclear deal. Congress has been investigating these efforts for months and has uncovered evidence the Obama administration inked several secret side deals with Iran, including the rollback of key sanctions on Tehran and a $1.7 billion cash payment.
The Clinton campaign has been criticized in recent days for doubling down on its support of the Iran deal and for making false claims about its progress.
One senior congressional official familiar with investigations into the White House’s deception on the Iran deal told the Washington Free Beacon that these newly leaked emails reveal how the Clinton campaign served as a major cog in the Obama administration’s so-called “echo chamber.”
“This revelation is further evidence that the Clinton campaign is just an extension of the Obama White House,” the source said. “The fact that senior staff coordinated on selling the disastrous Iran deal is unsurprising but disturbing.”
“These are the very same bogus talking points that [top White House aide] Ben Rhodes bragged were used to mislead Americans about key points of the agreement,” the source added. “As Iran undermines the agreement at every turn, Hillary Clinton conjures up the exact same rationale as the administration to keep the deal in place. Now we know why.”
The talking points in question include erroneous information about how the deal could dismantle Iran’s nuclear program and stop its march towards a nuclear weapon.
“American sanctions on Iran—for its support of terrorism, its human rights abuses, and its ballistic missile program—will be fully enforced,” the White House wrote in the guidance offered to the Clinton campaign.
This turned out to be untrue, as the Obama administration has permitted Iran to carry out multiple ballistic missile tests, saying that they are not a direct violation of current sanctions.
The White House talking points to Clinton further said the deal “would cut off every pathway that Iran could take to develop a nuclear weapon.”
This also has turned out to be inaccurate. The deal permits Iran to carry out key research and development activities related to its nuclear program and the enrichment of uranium, the key component in a nuclear weapon.
The deal also permits Iran to continue construction on new light water nuclear reactors, which could provide Tehran with a second pathway to nuclear material.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration moved late Friday to dismantle another facet of key sanctions on Iran, despite its continued support for terror operations in the Middle East and ongoing research into ballistic missile technology.
Clinton’s vice presidential running mate Time Kaine claimed in a recent debate that Clinton helped “eliminate the Iranian nuclear weapons program,” a remark that ABC News dubbed as “false.”
Clinton Press Secretary Brian Fallon, who is included in the leaked emails, later went on Fox News to reiterate this claim, maintaining that “there is no question” the deal halted Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.
The White House’s pro-Iran press machine, which was helmed by Rhodes, received support from liberal billionaire George Soros and a network of non-profit organizations that funneled money to those who helped champion the deal in the public sphere.
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors.– DM)
The left apparently believes that the Trump campaign must end in disgrace because, in 2005, Trump was recorded (apparently surreptitiously) bragging in a private conversation with George H.W. Bush’s nephew, Billy Bush, about how he tried (but failed) to get a Hollywood starlet to have sex with him. For shame! Wait a minute. That’s “guy talk” and most healthy males occasionally engage in it when not in mixed company. Methinks I smell a bit of hypocrisy.
“Girl talk?” I don’t know. Do they discuss how sexy voting should be?
Juanita Broaddrick, one of Bill Clinton’s “alleged” rape victims, had this to say about Trump’s words:
“How many times must it be said,” she tweeted Saturday morning.
“Actions speak louder than words. (Donald Trump) said bad things! (Hillary Clinton) threatened me after (Bill Clinton) raped me.”
Broaddrick’s dose of perspective comes as the mainstream media has been silent and uninterested in the ongoing accusations against Bill Clinton and Hillary’s attempts to silence his accusers.
But in the last 24 hours, they’ve reported ad nauseam about Trump’s 2005 locker room talk caught on a hot mic.
This has to be one of the biggest exercises in hypocrisy that I have ever seen.
Modern American Liberals are the same ones who brought us a crucifix in a jar of urine and a painting of Christ with elephant dung smeared all over it, applauding them both as avant-garde art and the “artists” who created those vile exhibits as “artistic geniuses”.
The same followers of the political philosophy who have been supporters of relative morality and situational ethics, are now acting so grossly offended by an 11-year-old video of Donald J.Trump engaging in a private conversation with a friend, in which he used a word that can be heard in every men’s and boys’ locker room across this nation, that they are curled up in their safe spaces, clutching their pearls and their blankie, sucking their thumbs, and crying out for their Mommy to “make the bad man stop”. [Emphasis added.]
The overwhelming hypocrisy of it all is that they want Americans to be so reviled by Donald Trump’s use of that word that they overlook the documented fact that Bill Clinton is a Serial Adulterer and that Hillary Clinton swears like a drunken sailor and has admitted in documents released by Julian Assange yesterday that she is “far removed from the troubles of Middle Class Americans”. [Emphasis added.]
I stole this cartoon from that article, and it fits:
Recently much ado has been made of some crude comments that Donald Trump made some years back. Media mavens are all aflutter with outraged disgust. I do not know what convent these shocked sisters came from, but I have heard similar male braggadocio my entire adult life. Perhaps they need to get out more. [Emphasis added.]
Apparently many of the pundits we watch on TV have been closet Puritans all this time – who knew? Many of them are the same ones that informed us that displaying Christ crucified in a jar of human urine is art; that murdering fetuses in order to harvest their organs is not obscene, and who insist that our children be taught the ins and outs of fornication at younger and younger ages (pun noted)—so one can be forgiven for being somewhat surprised by their air of affronted prudery. Poor dears, one does wish them a speedy recovery – hand out the smelling salts please.
So Donald Trump has feet of clay—guess what? I like him that way! I am so sick of polished, slick talking, glad-handing, backstabbing, dishonest corrupt politicians that I could scream. I’ll take the real deal—I’ll take Trump with his rough edges and sharp elbows, warts and all, over any of the oh-so-refined thoroughly corrupt bought-and-paid-for globalists being shoved down our throats. Now they are disgusting.
Trump’s “nasty” talk was hardly unique. Here are some audio cuts of former presidents, and even the current president for whom Ms. Dunham thought voting for would be sexy, being “nasty:”
In one of his many addresses to his troops during World War II, General George Patton commented that “a man who won’t f**k won’t fight.” The quote is from a 2011 Washington Post article titled “No sex, please. We’re soldiers.” That address, like many of General Patton’s others, was well laced with profanity; it helped to motivate the troops and they loved it. Would today’s “metrosexuals?” They would not likely admit it even if they did.
Patton’s grim expression did not change. “There are four hundred neatly marked graves somewhere in Sicily”, he roared into the microphone, “All because one man went to sleep on the job”. He paused and the men grew silent. “But they are German graves, because we caught the bastard asleep before they did”. The General clutched the microphone tightly, his jaw out-thrust, and he continued, “An Army is a team. It lives, sleeps, eats, and fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is pure horse shit. The bilious bastards who write that kind of stuff for the Saturday Evening Post don’t know any more about real fighting under fire than they know about fucking!”
The men slapped their legs and rolled in glee. This was Patton as the men had imagined him to be, and in rare form, too. He hadn’t let them down. He was all that he was cracked up to be, and more. He had IT!
“We have the finest food, the finest equipment, the best spirit, and the best men in the world”, Patton bellowed. He lowered his head and shook it pensively. Suddenly he snapped erect, faced the men belligerently and thundered, “Why, by God, I actually pity those poor sons-of-bitches we’re going up against. By God, I do”. The men clapped and howled delightedly. There would be many a barracks tale about the “Old Man’s” choice phrases. They would become part and parcel of Third Army’s history and they would become the bible of their slang.
. . . .
He could, when necessary, open up with both barrels and let forth such blue-flamed phrases that they seemed almost eloquent in their delivery. When asked by his nephew about his profanity, Patton remarked, “When I want my men to remember something important, to really make it stick, I give it to them double dirty. It may not sound nice to some bunch of little old ladies at an afternoon tea party, but it helps my soldiers to remember. You can’t run an army without profanity; and it has to be eloquent profanity. An army without profanity couldn’t fight its way out of a piss-soaked paper bag.” [Emphasis added.]
I remember that many years ago (1959 or 1960) when I was in ROTC at Yale — then an all-male college — an instructor (an Army captain) mentioned that he hadn’t seen one of the cadets with his date much over the weekend. The cadet responded, “even the best ***** gets moldy.” We all laughed.
As late as the 1980s, officers’ clubs on military bases in the United States and abroad regularly featured performances by strippers. “I think we used to call them exotic dancers,” Scales recalled.
Some things have changed in our current enlightened age. Obama is gung-ho for diversity in the military and wants as many women and “others” as possible in combat branches. While the left still praises “art” such as “a crucifix in a jar of urine and a painting of Christ with elephant dung smeared all over it,” it finds guy talk and cartoons depicting Mohammad disgusting.
Paul Ryan was apparently “sickened” by Trump’s remarks.
He decried Trump’s newly revealed comments in stark terms.
“I am sickened by what I heard today,” Ryan said. “Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified. I hope Mr. Trump treats this situation with the seriousness it deserves and works to demonstrate to the country that he has greater respect for women than this clip suggests.”
Congressman Ryan must be “sickened” quite easily, but then perhaps there was never any guy talk in his presence, lest he “sicken.” Assuming that many others also are unaware that men engage in guy talk when women are absent and find Trump’s insulting comments outrageous, perhaps they should keep in mind that he is an equal opportunity insulter. Although he does not likely engage in guy talk with women and does not have sex with men, otherwise he treats men and women the same.
Leftists insist that we be politically correct and say nothing that they find offensive — No cartoons depicting Mohammad, no disparaging references to Sharia law, Islamist persecution of non-Muslims, sex slaves and even Muslim females, no “racist” comments that “Black Lives Matter” is racist, and no opposition to uncontrolled, unvetted immigration and resettlement of refugees from Islamic areas where Sharia law and Islamist violence are endemic. And, of course, there must be no mention of Hillary’s many lies, her corruption, the Clinton Foundation, or her foul treatment of Bill’s bimbos. That would be “sexist” or something. Boo hoo.
Trump Derangement Syndrome has led the New York Times to willfully violate federal law in order to speculate about what taxes Donald Trump may or may not have been paying. In a front-page article, built on crime and conjecture, the Times ends up with very weak beer on Trump, but a convincing case for its own irresponsibility and criminality.
The lede paragraph reveals the astonishing lack of factual reporting and descent into mere speculation, speculation that supports the latest Hillary Clinton attack line on Trump, that he pays “no taxes” (a recapitulation of the Harry Reid lies on the Senate floor about Mitt Romney’s taxes. When confronted with his lies, Reid said, “It worked, didn’t it?”). Presumably, in the eyes of NYT executive editor Dean Baquet, if this speculation succeeds in defeating Trump, his own criminality and descent into speculation is also justified by the results.
Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by The New York Times show.
“Could have” is the operant admission that the Times does not know what it reports. As Sundance notes:
The anti-Trump political angle is easily identifiable within the extensive article use of: “could have”, “might be”, “may have”, phrases used throughout the woven narrative. Journalistic “narratives” are rarely based on facts.
Nowhere in its breathless report of non-facts does the Times stop to note that in 1995 Bill Clinton was president and Hillary Clinton was, in her own previous words, “co-president.” They were responsible for the tax laws, along with the Democrat congressional majority 1992-94, and could have changed the tax law.
Callum Borchers of the Washington Post explains the legal jeopardy that could await the Times:
Dean Baquet wasn’t bluffing.
The New York Times executive editor said during a visit to Harvard in September that he would risk jail to publish Donald Trump’s tax returns. He made good on his word Saturday night when the Times published Trump tax documents from 1995, which show the Republican presidential nominee claimed losses of $916 million that year — enough to avoid paying federal income taxes for as many as 18 years afterward.
Federal law makes it illegal to publish an unauthorized tax return:
It shall be unlawful for any person to whom any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) is disclosed in a manner unauthorized by this title thereafter willfully to print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information. Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.
Baquet said during a panel discussion at Harvard that if the Times’ lawyers advised him not to publish Trump tax returns, he would argue that such information is vital to the public interest because the real estate mogul’s “whole campaign is built on his success as a businessman and his wealth.”
This makes it appear that Baquet’s violation of the law was intentional and done for partisan reasons.
Donald Trump is a man known to be capable of resorting to the courts, and his campaign’s statement on the violation of his privacy indicates there may be action coming:
“Mr. Trump is a highly-skilled businessman who has a fiduciary responsibility to his business, his family and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required,” the statement, which was not attributed to Trump or any staffer by name, continued. “That being said, Mr. Trump has paid hundreds of millions of dollars in property taxes, sales and excise taxes, real estate taxes, city taxes, state taxes, employee taxes and federal taxes. Mr. Trump knows the tax code far better than anyone who has ever run for President and he is the only one that knows how to fix it.”
In a tweet at 7:22 a.m. ET on Sunday, Trump took the same line, and likewise did not deny the report. “I know our complex tax laws better than anyone who has ever run for president and am the only one who can fix them. #failing@nytimes,” he wrote.
The media’s Hillary claque is already jumping on board, proclaiming, “Bombshell report on Trump taxes sends GOP nominee reeling,” for example.
In this deeply corrupt age of a weaponized IRS and FBI, there may be no legal recourse for Trump. But I imagine a lawsuit may be in the offing.
Does anyone think that the Times would have risked legal consequences if it was not worried about a possible Trump victory?
(Update and a tip of the hat to Conservative Tree House: Here’s a 1997 video of Mr. Trump and Ms. Machado discussing her weight problem. — DM)
(Here’s an interesting video in which “fat shamed” Ms. Machado admits that she was the getaway driver in the attempted murder referenced in the article.
Oh well. That was long ago and she is not “perfect.” Currently, Ms. Machado is presented in some pretty raunchy porn videos. There’s more here about the lovely Ms. Machado. What a marvelous role model for Hillary’s anti-misogynist “feminist” fans.– DM)
MIAMI, FL – AUGUST 20: Actress and former Miss Universe Alicia Machado campaigns for Hillary Clinton on August 20, 2016 in Miami, Florida. Credit: MPI10 / MediaPunch/IPX
The Venezuelan beauty queen Hillary Clinton mentioned during the debate with Donald Trump Tuesday night has a dark history with the law, it has emerged. While she was still living in Venezuela, Alicia Machado was accused of driving the getaway car after an attempted murder but “got off” due to lack of evidence. She also stands accused of threatening a judge.
Clinton cited Machado — the first woman to win the Miss Universe beauty contest after Donald Trump took over the reins in 1996 — as an example of Trump’s boorish misogyny.
“One of the worst things he’s said was about a woman in a beauty contest — he loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them,” Clinton said with a smug smile while Trump grimaced in the background. “And he called this woman ‘Miss Piggy.’ Then he called her ‘Miss Housekeeping,’ because she was Latina. Donald, she has a name. Her name is Alicia Machado!”
What Clinton left out of this harrowing sob story is the fact that Machado had broken her contract with the Miss Universe pageant by allowing herself to gain nearly 60 pounds — ballooning from 118 to 178 pounds — since she won Miss Universe. And when the media started fat-shaming her, Trump defended her.
In January of 1997, CNN reported that “as her universe expanded, so did she, putting on nearly 60 pounds.”
“Some people when they have pressure eat too much. Like me. Like Alicia,” said Donald Trump, the executive producer of the Miss Universe Pageant.Since winning the crown, the former Miss Venezuela went from 118 pounds to — well — a number that kept growing like the size of the fish that got away.
Rumors also surfaced that she might be forced to give up her Miss Universe crown.
But Trump, as co-owner of rights to the pageant, said he would never let that happen. “We had a choice of: termination or do this,” he said. “We wanted to do this.”
The pageant’s meaning of “do this” was for Machado to get her weight down to about 130 pounds. At a recent photo op, Machado — hardly a blimp at 5-foot-7 — pedaled a stationary bicycle and jumped rope in front of a pack of photographers and reporters who could themselves use a little training.
“A lot of you folks have weight problems. I hate to tell you,” Trump told the rowdy pool of reporters.
In private, Trump admits to “fat-shaming” Machado in order to inspire her to lose the weight. As Jeff Dunetz put it: “Trump’s reaction was no different than any coach or manger faced with an athlete who let themselves go.” Arguably, this episode was not one of his finest moments — but it’s still light years better than the time Hillary gleefully defended a child rapist (since we’re bringing up stories from decades past).
Machado has complained that the humiliation she suffered because of Trump was unbearable: “After that episode, I was sick, anorexia and bulimia for five years,” she said. “Over the past 20 years, I’ve gone to a lot of psychologists to combat this.”
This brought to mind the story of Kathy Shelton, who was just 12 years old when a 41-year-old drifter brutally raped her on the side of an Arkansas road in 1975. Hillary Clinton defended the animal and got his sentence reduced from first-degree rape to “unlawful fondling of a minor.”
Shelton said she was physically beaten during the attack.’I can’t cuss, but [Taylor] was calling me the ‘b’ word, and [saying] ‘You like it, you know it’,’ said Shelton. ‘Slapping me and hitting me with his fist.’
A witness to the assault told the prosecutor that ‘he overheard Thomas Taylor having had sexual relations with the victim’.
Medical examinations ‘reflected that the victim herein had, in fact, had sexual relations consistent with the time stated by her wherein she was attacked,’ according to court filings.
Shelton said she managed to escape her attackers to a nearby house that had a light on, and later woke up in the hospital.
Shelton recounted the brutal assault that she said left her with severe internal and external injuries. She said she was knocked into a coma, and later required stitches in her genital area.
‘When I came out of the coma, I had several stitches down there. They tore me up bad,’ she said. ‘The doctors said there was a 99 percent chance I couldn’t have kids. I have been with a couple men after that, it took me a long time to grow there. But I never had any kids.’
As a result of the attack, Shelton said doctors told her it was unlikely she would ever be able to have children. She said she was devastated by the prognosis.
‘When I was younger I really wanted a kid so bad,’ said Shelton, who has never had children. ‘I love kids.’
Shelton told the Daily Beast in an emotional interview in the summer of 2014 that she was afraid of men for many years after that, and dealt with anger issues well into her adulthood.
At one point, she turned to drugs, a path that ultimately led her to prison. Now 52, she has never married or had children. She said she has been sober for several years and has achieved a level of stability, although she remains unemployed and living on disability assistance.
“Hillary Clinton took me through hell,” Shelton said.
“I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing,” Clinton, then named Hillary D. Rodham, wrote in the affidavit. “I have also been informed that she has in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body. Also that she exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”Clinton also wrote that a child psychologist told her that children in early adolescence “tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences,” especially when they come from “disorganized families, such as the complainant.”
The victim vigorously denied Clinton’s accusations and said there has never been any explanation of what Clinton was referring to in that affidavit. She claims she never accused anyone of attacking her before her rape.
“I’ve never said that about anyone. I don’t know why she said that. I have never made false allegations. I know she was lying,” she said. “I definitely didn’t see older men. I don’t know why Hillary put that in there and it makes me plumb mad.”
Later on, Clinton would laugh about the case with Arkansas reporter Roy Reed, who was researching an article on the Clintons that was ultimately never published.
In the reporter’s audio recordings (uncovered by the Washington Free Beacon), Clinton “appears to acknowledge that she was aware of her client’s guilt, brags about successfully getting the only piece of physical evidence thrown out of court, and laughs about it all whimsically.”
“He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” Clinton says on the recording, failing to hold back some chuckles.
This from a woman who bills herself as a leading advocate for women and children. Apparently, as far as Clinton is concerned, Trump’s “fat-shaming” was far, far worse than her blaming the child victim of a brutal rape.
In February of 1998, the Associated Press reported that Machado threatened the judge handling the above investigation:
A Venezuela judge said Thursday a former Miss Universe threatened to kill him after he indicted her boyfriend for attempted murder. Venezuelan beauty queen Alicia Machado threatened “to ruin my career as a judge and … kill me,” Judge Maximiliano Fuenmayor said on national television.___
The victim’s family accused Machado of driving the getaway car, but Fuenmayor has not indicted her, citing insufficient evidence. The judge said there were no witnesses to place Machado at the scene _ or to back up her claim she was home sick at the time.
Machado could not be reached for comment Thursday. She was in the city of Maracay filming a soap opera Thursday, according to Mariela Castro of Venevision TV network. Machado’s lawyer was also unavailable for comment.
Fuenmayor said he planned to open a new case against Machado for Wednesday’s threatening phone call.
Machado told Inside Edition she’s voting for Clinton in November and she hopes her story will urge others to do the same.
Kathy Shelton — for one — will not be heeding her call.
According to Hillary Clinton, girls shouldn’t be worried about an effective economy, prevalent jobs, a good education, smart foreign affairs, lower taxes, immigration, or any of the other major issues facing our nation. The main reason to dislike Donald Trump (only for girls) is that he has called women fat or ugly before. Do you think his comments should be disqualifying? Leave your comments below.
Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine claim the authorship of the campaign manifesto Stronger Together, released in paperback by Simon and Schuster on September 6. The book opens with the kind of bold statement that has served Clinton well in the course of her long career in public life: “It has been said that America is great because America is good. We agree.” Let it not be said that she has no differences with President Obama.
And give the authors of the book this much. At least they didn’t attribute the quote to Alexis de Tocqueville.
The book isn’t doing well commercially. Who wants to pay to read a party platform, even at a paperback price lower if it were published in hardcover? I’m holding out for the post-election remainder price.
At InstaPundit yesterday Glenn Reynolds mentioned the “amusing” reviews the book has garnered at Amazon. Could the “reviews” represent a groundswell of revulsion of the kind reflected in the famous Boston Globe editorial decrying “Mush from the wimp” in March 1980? I should like to think so. One reviewer — well, commenter — writes:
I was going to read this book…..I really was. But just as I got started, I found myself under sniper fire, passed out, and fell and hit my head. After that I got double vision and had to wear glasses that were so damn thick I couldn’t even see to read. Then I had an allergic reaction to something and started coughing so hard I spit out what looked like a couple of lizard’s eyeballs, my limbs locked up, and I passed out and fell down again, waking up only to find out I had been diagnosed with pneumonia 2 days earlier. Somehow I managed to power through it all, but it’s a good thing I was able to make a small fortune on this random small trade in the commodities market (cattle futures or some such thing) and then, miracle of all miracles, a few banks offered me a few million to just talk to their employees for a few minutes – and all that really helped out because I swear I was dead broke and couldn’t figure out how I was gonna come up with the 6 bucks to pay for this book, let alone pay the $1,500 for my health insurance this month. I still want to read it, but, honestly, what difference at this point does it make? I hear it sucks anyway.
Despite what he says, the commenter is not in the target market for Clinton’s manifesto. He knows too much. His memory is too good. He is too well informed. But what is the target market for the book? Probably those who believe that Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine are the authors of the thing.
These military cuts, despite the efforts to pretend otherwise, had quite a bit to do with Republicans doing the bidding of some libertarian bigwigs looking to get their agenda in through a backdoor. Also see, Deal, Iran. Confronting the sequester head on is the right thing to do.
In a preview, the Trump campaign said the New York billionaire would call on Congress to do away with the “sequester” budget cuts to defense, and request that military generals provide him with a plan for defeating the Islamic State terror group during his first 30 days in office.
Mr. Trump’s plan calls for the number of active Army members to climb to 540,000, the number of Navy ships and submarines to climb to 350, and the number of Air Force fighter aircraft to climb to 1,200.
Those numbers rely on recommendations by the Army chief of staff, the Heritage Foundation and the National Defense Panel, the campaign said.
On Tuesday, the pro-Clinton super-PAC Priorities USA released a video ad that meshed Trump’s declaration that “I love war” over pictures of battle and a nuclear mushroom cloud.
Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton by 19 points — 55 percent to 36 percent — among voters who are currently serving or have previously served in the U.S. military, according to the latest NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking Poll.
The FBI and Justice Department have launched an investigation into whether the Podesta Group, the lobbying and public relations firm co-founded by Hillary Clinton presidential campaign chairman John Podesta, has any connections to alleged corruption that occurred in the administration of former President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych.
The federal probe is, CNN reports, “examining the work of other firms linked to the former Ukrainian government, including that of the Podesta Group.”
The Podesta Group, run by John Podest’s brother Tony Podesta, was retained by the Russia-controlled firm UraniumOne in 2012, 2014, and 2015, to lobby Hillary Clinton’s State Department. The lobbying firm was paid a total of $180,000 according to public records.
Yanukovych took office in February 2010. He was forced to flee to Russian after a political uprising in Ukraine. Federal prosecutors are probing the work Yanukovych’s regime paid the Podesta Group to do while he was the head of the Ukrainian government.
As it was first detailed in the New York Times bestselling book Clinton Cash, Uranium One — which hired the Podesta Group — is the firm that funneled millions to the Clinton Foundation as the Russian government gained ownership of the company.
According to the New York Times, Russian President Vladimir Putin had a “goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.”
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
“And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock,” the Times report said.
According to the Daily Caller, Uranium One “paid the Podesta Group $40,000 to lobby the State Department, the Senate, the National Park Service, and the National Security Council for ‘international mining projects,’ according to a July 20, 2012 filing.”
Distancing itself from the work it did for an organization with ties to Yanukovych’s pro-Russian regime, the Podesta group said it hired lawyers to examine its relationship with the organization linked to the ousted Ukrainian president.
“The firm has retained Caplin & Drysdale as independent, outside legal counsel to determine if we were misled by the Centre for a Modern Ukraine or any other individuals with regard to the Centre’s potential ties to foreign governments or political parties,” a Podesta Group statement said, according to CNN. The statement continued:
When the Centre became a client, it certified in writing that ‘none of the activities of the Centre are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party.’ We relied on that certification and advice from counsel in registering and reporting under the Lobbying Disclosure Act rather than the Foreign Agents Registration Act. We will take whatever measures are necessary to address this situation based on Caplin & Drysdale’s review, including possible legal action against the Centre.
The FBI and DOJ investigation is also examining former Donald Trump presidential campaign manager Paul Manafort’s firm, according to CNN.
Spokesman from the federal agencies as well as Manafort’s firm have not commented on the ongoing investigation.
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments