Thursday, July 28, 2016

Voter Angst! Did "Aw Shucks Bill" Whitewash Hillary? The Many Faces Of Hillary" Marines Train In Israel. Hillary "R Rated" Clinton's Robotic Speech!

                                                                                  Telling me Hillary is qualified because of her
The Montana Department of Employment, Division of Labor Standards claimed a small rancher was not paying proper wages to his help and sent an agent out to investigate him.

AGENT: I need a list of your employees and how much you pay them.
RANCHER: Well, there's my hired hand who's been with me for 3 years. I pay him $200 a week plus free room and board. Then there's the mentally challenged guy. He works about 18 hours every day and does about 90% of all the work around here. He makes about $60 per week, pays his own room and board, and I buy him a bottle of Jack Daniels every Saturday night so he can cope with life. He also sleeps with my wife occasionally.
AGENT: That's the guy I want to talk to - the mentally challenged one.

RANCHER: That would be me.
Let's look at a few facts confronting voters.
Democrats have swung to the very far Left because of Bernie's influence. The Democrat Party now appeals to young, so called educated male and female whites, and minorities like blacks and Hispanics, though the latter will soon become the majority.

Hillary voted for the Iraq War and yesterday, Democrats booed the former Defense Secretary who talked about ISIS, because they oppose going to war even, apparently, in defense of this nation. Are Democrats displaying they have no will to fight Islamic Terrorism?

Hillary was in favor of killing bin Laden and Qaddafi.

These same Democrats want to increase spending on more entitlements like paid college education and Hillary was in favor of our trade policies.  These same voters seem to ignore the fact that her behavior, vis a vis the handling of sensitive e mails,  is not significant and they still love Obama.

The facts are that the economy is enjoying a pitifully low recovery, the head of the FBI laid out an indicting case but could not bring himself to make the necessary recommendation and, since they are opposed to Trump's ideas on illegal immigration, one would think Democrats do not care about protecting our borders.

The Democrat Party is very pro justice yet Obama and Hillary have been quick to accuse police before the facts and yesterday all 6  police were set free because the Baltimore prosecutor brought a racially motivated case against them without any basis in facts.

Hillary favored The Iran Deal and an overwhelming majority of Americans believe we are decidedly heading in the wrong direction and, specific to Hillary, she is not trusted and has enriched herself while in office with questionable contributions to their foundation.(See 1 below.)

Obviously Democrats who vote for Hillary must ignore and/or overlook Hillary's reputation and past actions that seemingly conflict with their own supposed beliefs and principles.

On the Republican side we have Trump, whose campaign behavior has turned off many of the Party's establishment and they have walked away from their own party's nominee. Trump has no political experience beyond that necessary for a successful businessman dealing with various city halls and unions.

Trump has made boorish comments against a female FOX personality, has said churlish things he is blamed for that are offensive to voters he needs to win over and has defied all orthodox campaign methods yet, remains a strong challenger.

Every time Donald opens his mouth he says something the Democrats jump on and cite, as evidence, Trump does not have the temperament necessary for the presidency. Trump is totally politically incorrect yet, the consequences are the reverse of what you would think. His popularity remains high. Why?  I suspect the media and press are seen as the biased protectors of all things Trump voters oppose, ie. their being branded as embracing the 3 G's,  political correctness, cuddling various voting sectors with tax payer money, disregard of  the threat from Islamist Terrorists, support of open borders etc.

Trump adherents are angry and feel their country has been taken away from them by elitist politicians who promise, failed to deliver and also enriched themselves. They also are disgusted with their political representative's inability to successfully challenge Obama's disregard of the Constitution and allowing laws and legislation to be passed they cannot abide.

Obviously the argument that Hillary is experienced lacks appeal because integrity still seems to be more important. Loving Hillary remains a hard sell.

Democrats accuse Trump of gaining his foreign policy experience by watching television.  In truth, if Trump does, he could not be less informed than those who claim to be our experts. Obama lost the entire Middle East and millions are now refugees, Hillary lost Libya and four Americans and our State Department has been clueless regrading most every event involving ISIS, Turkey, Syria etc..

Both candidates are not beloved and seriously flawed.  It all boils down to an election which candidate is more capable of reaching the anger and disgust of the most voters and yet, Trump could still lose, even if he wins most votes, because Democrats are favored by the electoral college, have more money, have better organizational skills and have a proven record of stealing elections.

Favoring Trump, the election of Hillary is another 4 years of Obama in a pant suit.

“The real test of a society is its devotion to principles; by this test, most societies have failed miserably.   . . . most people are willing to overlook their principles when fear, anger, hate, or self-interest begin pounding in their breasts.”

— Sydney J. Harris, 1917-1986, American journalist, author, drama critic, educator, and syndicated columnist for the Chicago Daily News and, later, theChicago Sun-Times.

Vote for the Supreme Court! Choosing not to vote for the "lesser of two evils," is a vote for the greater of those evils.
By Mark Alexander

Stay tuned.
Did "Aw Shucks Bill"clear and re-position Hillary? (See 2, 2a and 2b below.)

Did not hear the speakers last night but understand it was more about what was not discussed, ie. ISIS, Middle East, Israel, Iran Deal, Deficit Spending, the economy, Hillary's carelessness and all the things that are on voter's minds but Democrats cannot discuss or fear touching.

Tonight, Hillary has another chance to re-position herself and voter views of her and convince them why she is the best candidate to sit in The Oval Office.  She might do so starting with a big apology, she might do so by ignoring her last 25 years or she might do so by being herself. You never know with Hillary because she has so many faces. (See 3 below.)

This from a dear friend and fellow memo reader regarding Trump's possible trap: " Think about it.
If all the 30,000 plus emails were private and not involving national security,
why is the Hillary campaign and surrogates claiming a risk of national security
and espionage if Russia were to turn over the emails to the FBI.
A clever trap.......

Excerpt: ".. What the Clinton campaign did next was make a colossal error: The Clinton campaign was quick to respond. Said advisor Jake Sullivan: “This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his political opponent. That’s not hyperbole, those are just the facts. This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national security issue.”
As Sean Davis noted, the Clinton camp just walked right into Trump’s trap, whether or not he knew he was setting one. For the past year, Hillary’s defense of her private email server has been that the whole thing was a nothing burger that put no sensitive information at risk."

The guns pulled their own triggers! (See 3a below.)

A dear friend of mine and fellow memo reader, who claims he is a centrist but constantly sends me articles from the NY Times and Washington Post and, is going to vote for Hillary because Mayor Bloomberg did not run, is critical of the fact I have not listened to the Democrat Convention.  He accuses me of not wanting to learn.

The truth is, we made dates long before we knew when the Democrat  Convention was going to occur However, in the interest of truth and full disclosure, most evenings I do return home early enough to hear the main speaker and  will this evening.

So will I learn anything by listening?  I doubt it in terms of substance. I expect Hillary will have to avoid telling the truth about her destroyed e mails.  I doubt she will explain why she sides with the children of  families of blacks killed by police before she knew the facts. ( strange behavior for a lawyer.)

I doubt she will explain why she aligned herself with The Iran Deal.  Certainly she will not tell the truth about Benghazi and admit that our relationship with Russia is not what she envisioned when she instituted her reset button policy.

I certainly do not believe she will admit her Party stiffed Bernie.  I also do not believe she will reveal why so many companies paid so much to hear her talk and why ,when Sec.of State, a deal to sell 20% or more of our uranium was accomplished with Russian interests and approved by her State Department (the same State Department which disapproved the Keystone Pipeline) and then millions were subsequently contributed to her Foundation from these same sources. (Yet, her party attacks Trump for being in bed with Putin.)

I doubt she will admit unions have ruined education opportunities for black kids nor will she tell me where her policies will differ from Obama's. I doubt she will explain her reluctance to embrace the term Islamist Terrorists.  Will I hear her tell me how she is going to pay off our debt after spending more money on welfare transfers? So I ask myself what will I not learn by not listening?

I think, if I listen, I will hear a lot of platitudes and how experienced she is because she has been hanging around D.C for over 25 years. I believe I will hear about what a bad deal America will get by electing Donald Trump because he is against women, blacks and illegal Hispanics and even legal ones and I will hear about how she will heal our divide, which her president has created, and work for the "little people" who her president has done little for besides giving them more food stamps and she will disingenuously attack Wall Street but will praise Socialist Bernie as a visionary.

Finally, I do not care to listen to Hillary tell me all the things Trump will promise and cannot deliver as she makes promises she knows she cannot deliver while reminding me of all the great hope and change Obama promised and also failed to deliver.

Most importantly of all, I will have to listen to her daughter introduce her mother so soon after dinner and after listening to Trump's children so that is not a 'huge' inducement.

Frankly, the more I write the more I am reminded why I will learn very little worth listening to so I will let my wife listen while I watch an HBO movie which I hope is rated R rather than a R rated political address given robotically by Hillary "R" Clinton.
Ex Israeli Defense Minister speaks and U.S. Marines Train in Israel. (See 4 and 4a below.)

Will Clinton Decry Her Own Money Machine?

By Kimberly A. Strassel

A call to get ‘big money out of politics’ rallies Democratic convention-goers, as big donors help swell the party’s war chest

This week’s Democratic convention has featured a nonstop string of speakers vowing to crack down on “big money” in politics. They will presumably get serious about this project in December, or only after all the “big money” in 2016 has helped put Hillary Clinton into the White House.

To listen to the prime-time speakers here in Philly, there is no greater threat to democracy than the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United, which struck down some limits on political speech. Progressive firebrand Bernie Sanders used his Monday night address to deride it as “one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in the history of our country,” which allows “the wealthiest people” to buy elections and move the country toward “oligarchy.” Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren echoed that with her own promise that this election is all about getting “big money out of politics” by overturning Citizens United so as to “return this government to the people.”
The theme follows on Mrs. Clinton’s high-profile vow to propose, within 30 days of taking office, a new constitutional amendment that will “overturn” Citizens United. That’s another way of saying the Democratic nominee intends to gut the First Amendment, putting government in charge of who precisely can speak in elections.
It’s a dangerous pledge, but also one that is hard to swallow coming from a woman who has spent the past decades building—via the Clinton Foundation—one of the most ruthlessly efficient big-money machines ever witnessed in politics. And successfully so, given that the real “big money” to be found this presidential-election season is all solidly behind Democrats. Donald Trump’s fundraising woes are by now a central factor in the race, as many traditional high-dollar donors remain reluctant to go all in for his candidacy. Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and its allies, meanwhile, are on track to break records by potentially spending $1.5 billion. Mr. Trump’s side might prove lucky to raise a third of that.
Who is filling this Democratic war chest? A Tuesday story in Politico reported that billionaire George Soros has given or committed $25 million for Hillary and other Democrats. That includes more than $7 million to Priorities USA Action, a super Pac supporting Mrs. Clinton, and $2 million to American Bridge 21st Century, a super Pac devoted to opposing Republicans.
Finance reports show that billionaire and green activist Tom Steyer has donated $31 million to Democratic causes this year. (That’s far less than the $74 million Mr. Steyer blew in 2014, but the year is young.) The list of Democrats’ superdonors goes on. Entertainment mogul Haim Saban: $11 million. Media baron Fred Eychaner: $11 million. Hedge-fund manager Don Sussman: $13 million. Add in the multimillion-dollar checks from the Pritzker family (of Hyatt hotel fame); James Simons (hedge-fund billionaire); and Herbert Sandler (banking baron).
The Sanders fans on the left may well believe in their anti-money cause. But Mrs. Clinton’s world has long been that of the 1%. Though she may feel compelled to chase progressive voters by signing up for their campaign against Citizens United, don’t assume she thinks getting rid of “big money” is good for elections or democracy. What Mrs. Clinton believes is that getting rid of her opponents’ money is good for her.

Bill’s Ineffective Whitewash

No comments: