More Hillary Accomplisments

I can't take credit for the following post however,  I think the information provided is very good to get back out there the the voters as they consider the next presidential nominees. I believe the original author is someone Kent Larson.

If you're under 50 you really need to read this. If you’re over 50, you lived through it, so share it with those under 50. Amazing to me how much I had forgotten!

When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.” Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.

Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.

Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

Many younger votes will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.

Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.

Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the #$%$ eruption” and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle were:

         She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they
         settled with Ms. Jones.

         She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as
         Special Prosecutor.

         After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica
         Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

        Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under
        oath' to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.

        Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation
        by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times
        while under oath.

After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.

What a swell party – ready for another four or eight year of this type of low-life mess?

Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next.

But to her loyal fans (supporters) - I guess in her own words “what difference does it make?”

Republicans in Danger of Letting Losing Become Habit

Americans appreciate the ability to lose with grace but when losing becomes a habit, their feelings turn from respect to disgust. Republicans need to keep this and the following in mind as they consider their options for the future.

 "Winning isn't everything, it's the only thing." 
          
         - Vince Lombardi

Spit Take Averted; Computer Saved

A liberal progressive reader recently posted the following response to one of my blog entries regarding the reasons behind the success to date of Donald Trump's primary campaign: "I find it unbelievable that any American would even consider someone as crude and rude as Donald Trump as a presidential candidate. The president is the face of America. Is Trump's scowl and "potty mouth" the way we want America represented to the world? If so, then we are in deep trouble."
Fortunately, I wasn't drinking anything at the time or the resulting spit take would have ruined my computer. The comment is so ridiculous on so many levels I hardly know where to begin.
First, a progressive lamenting "potty mouth" is beyond absurd. Since Rhett Butler said, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." in Gone With the Wind in 1940, progressives have spent the last 76 years polluting our movies, literature, TV, music and culture with so much filth and violence, most of the rest of the world sees America as a cultural cancer on the planet. Today, virtually all PG-13 movies have to have an obligatory f-bomb. I doubt an American political candidate's occasional potty mouth will really have much impact on a world already being deluged with filth from the US courtesy of liberals.
Next there is the "crude and rude" concern. There are 196 countries in the world today and the vast majority are run by either murderous, brutal dictators, criminal thugs or leaders who are both. It would be quite arrogant of us to believe that much of the world has time to concern itself with the demeanor of an American politician when they are living in squalor and oppression or being brutalized by the government. Additionally, we spend millions every year for cultural sensitivity training. As someone who has attended more than my fair share of cultural training, I can tell you it is nearly impossible to generalize how an American's "crude and rude" behavior will be interpreted. Factor in language differences and I guarantee it.
Lastly and related to cultural difference is the concern over that scowl. I don't find world leaders to be a "smiley" crowd in general to begin with. Putin is not exactly a "Cheshire Cat". Further, many cultures equate smiling a lot as a sign of being a simpleton.

Look, there are many reasons to be concerned over Donald Trump as a presidential candidate but "crude and rude", "potty mouth" and that "scowl" are nowhere near the top of the list for me and I seriously doubt they are for most of the rest of the world who see the "face of America". Potty mouth? Really? Are you sh**ing me?

Pundits Left and Right Continue to Misinterpret Anti-Establishment Movement

One should not take what I am about to suggest as an endorsement of Donald Trump. I think the pundits are failing to correctly interpret the anti-establishment movement we are witnessing and the continuing primary success of Trump, so I'd like to pose a different take on what is happening. Here goes.

When the presidential primary process failed in 2008 as the political "eHarmony" Conservatives had hoped it would be and gave them a candidate who was not a perfect ideological match, they stayed home on election day. The result was Obama. The scenario repeated itself again in 2012 and President Obama was re-elected for a second term.

In the off-year elections, Conservatives tried to remedy the situation by electing senators and representatives who promised them 100% of what they wanted. Unfortunately, those they sent to Washington delivered 0% of what Conservatives were hoping for. They didn't oppose the progressive agenda at all. [Incidentally, when President Obama succeeds in closing the prison at GITMO (notice I say when not if), he will have secured his legacy as one of the most successful presidents in US history for implementing his agenda. Ultimately, history will show that these policies were terribly damaging to America and the rest of the world but this is a topic for another time.]

Conservatives learned a tough lesson from the 2008-2012 election cycles. If you need a 100% ideological match in order to support a candidate or stay home, you get an "Obama". They elected people in the off-year elections who promised 100% and delivered 0%. The result was they got 100% of what they didn't like and nothing they did. They should keep this in mind this November or they may get another Obama term in the form of Hillary Clinton.

Trump is obnoxious. He is abrasive. Trump speaks in generalities but Trump loves to win. Even if Conservatives, and even many Independents, only agree with 50% of what he says, they will get 50% of what they like and maybe only 50% of what they don't. That puts them miles ahead of where they are now. One must also keep in mind that nearly 40% of Americans self-identify as conservative as opposed to 20% who call themselves liberal or progressive.

The pundits from all points on the political spectrum can continue to explain away Trump's primary performance based on their hopes, biases, and faulty polling data but if they do not start factoring in the root cause of the anti-establishment ire I have suggested, they will continue to be wrong.

Republican Primary Tactic for Opposing Hillary

It has been 6 months since my last post. I took some time to finish a second master’s degree but now with that out of the way, it’s back to Carnivore!

So Hillary Clinton is running for president. No surprise there and chances are she will have little opposition from fellow Democrats. However, if the Democrat Party nominates Hillary, they will be backing a profoundly flawed candidate.

In contrast, the Republican Party will have a large field of perhaps twenty candidates vying for their party’s nomination. There are about 14 months until the Republican National Convention where the Republican candidate will be chosen and in that time, it is essential that those seeking the nomination refrain from sniping at each other. To do so would result in a weakened opponent emerging to face Hillary in the general election. Remember Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment: Thou shall not speak ill of another Republican.

A much better course of action would be to apply the military tactic of concentration of firepower - that is: all the Republican primary candidates focus their efforts against Hillary. The candidate that most effectively attacks the record and capability of Hillary will earn the right to face her in the general election without being bloodied by their fellow Republicans. The challenge will be for the GOP primary candidates to resist the urge to attack each other. 

In my next post, I will discuss Hillary’s biggest vulnerability – her complete lack of understanding of economics.