Tuesday, August 2, 2016

West, Stephens - Two Friends and Hillary and Trump - Our Two Choices! Hillary's New Foil - Warren Buffet! Sowell and Prager!

Trump is goaded and cannot shut his mouth.
Hillary cannot tell the truth and Trump still does not know when he is being set up and thus,cannot keep his mouth shut when challenged. My friend, who I have come to know and have the greatest respect for, Allen West, puts the matter of Mr. Khan in perspective as does Ray Starmann.

The Clinton's will go to any length to goad Trump into a self-trap to avoid recognition of their own misdeeds, even if it means using the father of a fallen officer son to attack Trump.

Meanwhile another friend, who I also respect, has attacked Republicans for supporting a "sociopath" as he believes Trump to be.

I believe both West and Stephens make valid arguments and this is why we need God to Bless America because we have proven once again "when all else fails America often lowers its standards".  That said, I fear Hilllary will do more damage and for a longer period considering her ability to make several Supreme Court appointments. Therefore, I remain willing to cast my vote for Trump, not because I embrace him and how he conducts himself but because I reject Hillary and all she stands for and has done to make herself untrustworthy. (See 1, 1a, 1b and 1c below.)
Comments form a very dear friend and fellow memo reader:

"Trump should have been advised by now that the Clinton campaign has realized the truth of what he said throughout the primary:  He is a counter-puncher.  Pick on him and he’ll punch back. 

So, they found the most sympathetic people they could to pick on him so that when he punched back he got roundly criticized as an ignorant bully. 

This whole Kahn debacle would have all died down the day after the Democratic Convention if he had attacked Hillary instead of her surrogates, by tweeting:  “All true Americans grieve with Gold Star families, even when they disagree about how to best protect our wonderful country.  But Hillary is the only candidate in history who has stood over the coffins of our Heroes and lied to their families about the cause of their deaths.”

But he didn’t.  He dug the hole even deeper and looked even worse.  This will repeat over and over again unless Trump realizes who his enemy is!  He has to go after Hillary rather than her surrogates.

The Clinton's are now goading Trump by using Warren Buffet.

Warren Buffett is not the uncle next door in that rack suit that he has come to be thought of but rather a shrewd , often calculating, ruthlessly cold capitalist whose goal is to make money so he can give it all away.  He became more politically visible after openly supporting Obama and has gained from his political relationships. He owns a railroad that benefited when Obama and Hillary opposed building a pipeline but then they sank his investment when they attacked and destroyed the coal industry.  

Several years ago Buffett's primary holding company was accused of some anti-trust violations and was fined but that is not widely discussed. He too made a mistake but what diffrence does it make when you are Warren Buffett?

Buffett has been anointed as Hillary's surrogate for attacking Trump regarding his Tax Return. Buffett is the perfect choice because he is seen as being virtuous, hugely successful and a kindly old character right out of Norman Rockwell's paintings  Buffett is one of Goldman Sach's largest clients, has gained access to the top of America's shakers and movers and came late in realizing political connections pay off and result in clout.  Until Obama, Buffet pretty much stayed below the radar screen but now he, like Trump, has built an image, more low key, and begun to use himself in advertisement pertaining to companies he owns and/or controls.

Nothing I am saying about Buffett suggests any improprieties just that he is not the rack suit person he portrays himself to be but it is a  Clinton clever foil. 

I believe the Clinton's are very astute to use "good ole" Warren and Donald will not win by attacking him.(See 2 and 2a below.)
Sowell on the election and the political picture. He sees a Trump victory as having a lasting potential of tainting The Republican Party.  He sees a Clinton victory as I do because of her commitment to appoint Jurists who will determine the course of our nation for decades. 

Prager highlights Hillary's speech and believes her election, for somewhat different reasons than Sowell, will produce the the same dire consequences.(See 3 and 3a below.)
=================================================================================1) Allen West takes Khan on
I have a PERSONAL message for the Muslim father whose son was killed in Iraq

Everyone’s talking about the speech delivered by Mr. Khizr Khan, accompanied by his wife Ghazala at the DNC that focused on the loss of his son, U.S. Army Captain Humayan Khan.

It appears things have devolved into such a level of immaturity relating to the speech that I believe there’s a need for a clear analysis of Mr. Khan’s address, and what he should have presented.
First, let me offer my condolences to the Khan family for their sacrifice, as they are now an American Gold Star Family. Their son and I share an unbreakable bond. We both served our nation and, along with three other generations in my family, took the oath to support and defend our Constitution and served in combat zones.

Yes sir, Mr. Khan, I’ve read our Constitution and firmly recognize the preeminent responsibility of our federal government is to “provide for the common defense.” I also comprehend the relationship between the three branches of government…you know separation of powers, checks and balances, coequal branches of government.

I would offer a simple recommendation to Mr. Khan. Perhaps you should have asked President Barack Obama if he had read the Constitution — undoubtedly you would agree we have witnessed a few unconstitutional actions from him.
And while you were at it, Mr. Khan, perhaps you could have asked Hillary Clinton about handling classified information — since I’m quite sure your son, Captain Khan, had at a minimum a secret clearance.
I don’t think your son would have been able to, well, have his “careless” mishandling of classified materials and information simply excused. Perhaps Mr. Khan, you could have addressed the necessity for high standards of honor, integrity, and character in a commander in chief.  Also, I found it interesting Mr. Khan, that you and your wife, an American Gold Star family, would take the stage to support a sitting president and one desiring to be president, who had abandoned Americans in a combat zone and lied about it.
I tend to believe that if alive, your son would consider that type of behavior abhorrent and deplorable. Or perhaps, as it seems, your speech was politically driven, and not based on principle? After all, you did take the stage before a crowd that disrespected a Medal of Honor recipient…is that cool with you?
You see, I understand Mr. Khan, that your son and your family are Muslim and Muslims do indeed serve in our armed forces. But in the military I know, we do not celebrate that which divides, but rather that which unites. And what is it that unites us as Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines? It is service above self, commitment to something greater than the individual, and sacrifice for our country and comrades in arms

Now, let’s be honest Mr. Khan, those of us with knowledge could just as easily bring attention to SGT Hasan Karim Akbar and Major Nidal Hasan, both Muslims serving in the U.S. Army. Just as you celebrated your Muslim son’s sacrifice, there are others who could give testimony to their loss due to those Muslim soldiers — and I use lower case reference to them (soldiers) because they dishonored the oath and were traitors to our Code of Honor. Your son was not, but that had nothing to do with him being a Muslim: he was an American Soldier.

So, Mr. Khan, since you had such an immense stage, what should you have addressed? You should have taken the time to explain how humbled and thankful you are to live in America. You should have mentioned how honored your son was and the pride you felt knowing he was serving your adopted country. You should have explained to America, and the world, what killed your son…the ideology of Islamism, Islamic fascism.
You could have told all of us why it needed to be defeated and that we need a commander in chief who would not abandon Americans in combat, but ensure they were supported in order to defeat this scourge.
Mr. Khan, you could have taken these words spoken by a proven courageous and resilient leader, Sir Winston Churchill, who has a U.S. Naval vessel named after him, and expounded upon them

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”

And now we can all understand why Barack Obama had Churchill’s bust removed from the Oval Office.
Those were the insightful, prescient, and relevant words of Sir Winston Churchill from the first edition of his book, The River War.
Mr. Khan, this is what you should have addressed; it would have been so very well received. You could have told the world and defined the enemy that killed your son…instead my assessment is that you will be remembered as a political pawn.
You could have taken the time to explain the words written by Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, dated March 28, 1786, to U.S. Minister of Foreign Affairs John Jay, reporting on their meeting with the Ambassador of Tripoli:

“We [Adams & Jefferson] took the liberty to make some enquiries concerning the ground of their pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. [Note they clarify “nations who have done them [i.e. Muslim Barbary States] no injury”] The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their prophet [i.e. Mohammed]; that it was written in their Koran; that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Mussulman [Muslims] who was slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

Mr. Khan, you had a moment to speak on history and provide us clarity and truth from a Muslim man who lost his son, an American Soldier, to Islamists. You could have clarified the difference between your son and SGT Hasan Karim Akbar and Major Nidal Hasan. That sir, to me, was a missed opportunity.

Then again, maybe you had no intention of using the platform provided to you as a teachable moment…but rather a politically-influenced opportunity for gain.
You, Mr. Khan, had the chance to be the face and voice of a Muslim family that stood with the fundamental principles and values of liberty, freedom, and democracy upon which this Republic was founded — in which you have found a home.
You could have articulated how a 7th century savage and barbaric ideology inspired by a murderous warlord, psychopath, and, by modern day standards, a pedophile, was not a radical but the leader of a militant phase of Islam introduced after the 622 AD event referred to as Al Hijra.
Mr. Khan, I grieve for the loss of your son. However, I grieve even more that you used his sacrifice and loss as nothing more than a damn politicized stunt. May God forgive you for it.


An open letter to Mr. Khizr Khan


Captain Khan is a hero. I am sure the soldiers he served with regard him as one. I know you and your wife do. Rest assured that millions of veterans regard your son as a hero as well.
To paraphrase from the Book of Ecclesiasticus, your son’s name liveth for evermore.
Your son made the ultimate sacrifice for his country, a country that was new to you and your family and one which you openly embraced and certainly love.
When you and your family arrived to America from Pakistan, you assimilated into our country. You adopted American ways, learned our history and apparently you even acquired a pocket Constitution along the way. Good for you sir.
But, there are many Muslims in America who not only have no desire to assimilate, but wish to live under Sharia Law.
That is unacceptable to Americans. There is only one law of the land. That is the U.S. Constitution.
As you well know, Mr. Khan, we live in violent times, dangerous times. Muslim madmen from ISIS and other radical Jihadi groups are on a murder and terror spree across the globe.
Your religion of peace, Islam, is anything but that in 2016. That is a fact that is confirmed every time a Muslim shoots, bombs, beheads and tortures innocent men, women and children. This does not mean that every Muslim is a terrorist, but most terrorists, sir, are indeed Muslims.
A Muslim terrorist attack has become the sign of the times.
Regardless of what the feckless, naïve, leftist ideologue Barack Obama and his dimwitted colleagues John Kerry, Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel state, the United States and the West are at war with Radical Islam. It is the job of the president of the United States to protect his nation from all enemies; foreign and domestic. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama romanticizes Islam and refuses to accept reality, which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people across the world.
Groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda have one goal, the complete destruction of the Judeo-Christian culture, our religions and our way of life.
Many Americans have families that have been here for decades, even centuries. Many families like mine have relatives who fought in the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam and Desert Storm. Some families have relatives who fought in the American Revolution.
We don’t plan on letting our country be devoured by Muslim maniacs. We are Americans sir, and not unarmed, socialist European zombies. We will do what is necessary to protect the United States. While many Democrats and liberals see the world through rose colored glasses, conservatives understand that there is good and evil in this world. Evil must be destroyed before it destroys us.
Strong measures, wartime measures, must be taken to protect this country from those that wish to annihilate us and our way of life.
Mr. Trump’s plan to temporarily halt immigration from Muslim countries that are known to either support terrorism or harbor terrorist groups is not only pragmatic, but indeed it is constitutional. It is the constitutional duty of the president of the United States to protect this nation.
There is simply no way to vet hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees from war zones like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Europe is being destroyed because reckless leaders like Angela Merkel have opened the continent’s doors to a flood of over one million undocumented Muslims arriving with nothing more than a bad attitude and a haversack of Jihad.
Do you think Americans are stupid? While the left lives in a dream world, the right does not. Mr. Trump understands the threat to his nation and the threat, sir, is not from Swedish Lutherans named Anna and Lars. The threat, sir, is from radical Islam.
How in God’s name are U.S. immigration authorities supposed to know the true intentions of a 22-year-old Syrian man? It is impossible. You know it is impossible.
How in God’s name are U.S. immigration authorities supposed to know the true intentions of hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees and thousands of other sundry Muslims who wish to arrive on our shores?
It is impossible. You know it is impossible.
Whether you, your wife, the Muslim world and millions of Democrats are offended by Mr. Trump’s realistic view of the world is irrelevant.
Whether you, your wife and son would have been prohibited from emigrating from Pakistan to America under Mr. Trump’s wartime plan is irrelevant. The security of this great land supersedes your desires and the desires of others who wish to come here now. The United States of America has no obligation to open its doors in order to placate foreigners and liberals in our government.
To adopt any other course but Mr. Trump’s would be a cause for further endangering the lives of Americans every day. That, sir, is unacceptable.
You attacked Mr. Trump in front of a worldwide audience, yet you can’t understand the fact that he defends himself against attacks from you, Hillary Clinton and the left. What else is one to do sir?
We must live in a world of reality, not a world of denial, delusion and fantasy the Democrats inhabit every waking day of their lives.
Radical Islam is the enemy of everyone on this planet who believes in freedom and justice. Until it is destroyed, this nation must protect itself from enemies both foreign and domestic.
Ray Starmann

Ray Starmann is the founder of US Defense Watch. He is a former U.S. Army Intelligence officer and veteran of the Gulf War, where he served with the 4th Squadron, 7th Cavalry, 3rd Armored Division “Spearhead!” Mr. Starmann was a contributing writer for several years at SFTT.org, founded by the late Colonel David Hackworth.

1b)Clinton’s claim that the FBI director said her email answers were ‘truthful’
“Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.”
—Hillary Clinton, interview on “Fox News Sunday,” July 31, 2016

Clinton made these remarks after “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace played a video of her saying: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified materials. I am confident that I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time. I had not sent classified material nor received anything marked classified.”

As Wallace put it, “After a long investigation, FBI Director James Comey said none of those things that you told the American public were true.”

After Clinton denied that, Wallace played another video of an exchange between Comey and Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chair of the House Select Committee on Benghazi:
GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received.
 Was that true?

COMEY: That’s not true.

GOWDY: Secretary Clinton said, “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.” Was that true?

COMEY: There was classified material emailed.

So what’s going on here?

The Facts

Clinton is cherry-picking statements by Comey to preserve her narrative about the unusual setup of a private email server. This allows her to skate past the more disturbing findings of the FBI investigation

For instance, when Clinton asserts “my answers were truthful,” a campaign aide said she is referring to this statement by Comey to Congress: “We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI.”

But that’s not the whole story. When House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) asked whether Clinton had lied to the American public, Comey dodged: “That’s a question I’m not qualified to answer. I can speak about what she said to the FBI.”

At another point, Comey told Congress: “I really don’t want to get in the business of trying to parse and judge her public statements. And so I think I’ve tried to avoid doing that sitting here. … What matters to me is what did she say to the FBI. That’s obviously first and foremost for us.”

Comey was also asked whether Clinton broke the law: “In connection with her use of the email server? My judgment is that she did not,” Comey said.

As for retroactive classification of emails, Comey did say many emails were retroactively classified. But he also said that some emails were classified at the time — and Clinton and her aides should have been aware of that.
Here’s how Comey put it in his lengthy statement when he announced the completion of the investigation: “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

Comey said “seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters.”

He added: “There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.” He noted that “even if information is not marked ‘classified’ in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

In her response to Wallace, Clinton at one point appeared to deflect responsibility to her aides: “I relied on and had every reason to rely on the judgments of the professionals with whom I worked. And so, in retrospect, maybe some people are saying, well, among those 300 people, they made the wrong call.”

Testifying before Congress, Comey said it was possible Clinton was not “technically sophisticated” enough to understand what the classified markings meant. But he said a government official should be attentive to such a marking.

The Pinocchio Test

As we have seen repeatedly in Clinton’s explanations of the email controversy, she relies on excessively technical and legalistic answers to explain her actions. While Comey did say there was no evidence she lied to the FBI, that is not the same as saying she told the truth to the American public — which was the point of Wallace’s question. Comey has repeatedly not taken a stand on her public statements.

And although Comey did say many emails were retroactively classified, he also said that there were some emails that were already classified that should not have been sent on an unclassified, private server. That’s the uncomfortable truth that Clinton has trouble admitting.
Fact Checker newsletter

What's true, what's false or in-between.

Four Pinocchios

1c) To the Go-Along Republicans

Memo to Paul Ryan: Trump’s problem is his character, not his ‘ideas.’

By Bret Stephens 

There’s an old saying that in politics there are no permanent victories—and no permanent defeats. Barry Goldwater was crushed in 1964 but the ideas that animated his candidacy found new life in the Reagan Revolution of 1980. Bill Clinton declared the era of big government over in 1996 and 14 years later we got ObamaCare.

The inevitable turning of the policy wheel should comfort conservatives unnerved by the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Liberals overreach. Statist solutions fail. Voters tire of one-party rule. To govern is to own, and the next president will own the next recession, the next foreign-policy fiasco, the next Veterans Affairs scandal. If Mrs. Clinton is everything Republicans say she is—an opportunistic, dishonest, incompetent left-wing ideologue—they can at least look forward to a one-term presidency. I know I do.

But to say there are no permanent victories or defeats in politics doesn’t mean there is no permanent dishonor. Huey Long, Charles Coughlin, Alger Hiss, Joe McCarthy and Bull Connor are the foul names of America’s 20th century, and always will be. And those who supported and excused them will always be tainted by association.

This is where Republicans now find themselves with their presidential nominee. Of all of Donald Trump’s vile irruptions—about Sen. John McCain’s military record, or reporter Serge Kovaleski’s physical handicap, or Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s judicial fitness—his casual smear of Ghazala Khan is perhaps the vilest.

This isn’t simply because Mrs. Khan is a bereaved mother. Bereavement alone does not place someone above criticism, especially when it comes to political differences. Nor is it because Mrs. Khan’s son, U.S. Army Capt. Humayun Khan, died heroically to protect his troops in Iraq. The special deference given to Gold Star parents is, at bottom, a social convention.

No: What makes Mr. Trump’s remarks so foul is their undisguised sadism. He took a woman too heartbroken and anxious to speak of her dead son before an audience of millions and painted a target on her. He treated her silence as evidence that she was either a dolt or a stooge. He degraded her. “She was standing there. She had nothing to say,” Mr. Trump told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “She probably, maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.”

In this comment there was the full unmasking of Mr. Trump, in case he needed further unmasking. He has, as Humayun’s father Khizr put it, a “black soul.” His problem isn’t a lack of normal propriety but the absence of basic human decency. He is morally unfit for any office, high or low.

This is the point that needs to dawn—and dawn soon—on Republican officeholders who pretend to endorse Mr. Trump while also pretending, via wink-and-nod, that they do not.Paul Ryan has tried to walk this razor’s edge by stressing how much he disagrees with Mr. Trump’s “ideas.” On Sunday the speaker issued a flabby statement extolling the Khan family’s sacrifice and denouncing religious tests for immigrants without mentioning Mr. Trump by name.

Mr. Ryan is doing his personal reputation and his party’s fortunes no favors with these evasions. The central issue in this election isn’t Mr. Trump’s ideas, such as they are. It’s his character, such as it is. The sin, in this case, is the sinner.

It will not do for Republicans to say they denounce Mr. Trump’s personal slanders; his nativism and protectionism and isolationism; his mendacity and meanness and crassness; his disdain for constitutional protections—and still campaign for his election. There is no redemption in saying you went along with it, but only halfway; that with Mr. Trump you maintained technical virginity. To lie down with him is to wake up with him. It’s as simple as that.

That’s a thought that ought to frighten Republicans. The Khan slander was not Mr. Trump’s first and will not be his last or worst. As one wag on Twitter TWTR 0.00 % put it, the man always finds a new bottom. Nor are we likely done with new disclosures about Mr. Trump’s business practices and associations. Conservative die-hards may try to hold fast to the excuse that Hillary Clinton was, is, and always will be “worse,” but the argument can’t be sustained indefinitely. Mrs. Clinton is not the apotheosis of evil. She may be a corner-cutter and a liar, and she’ll almost surely appoint liberals to the Supreme Court. But at least she’s not a sociopath.

Politics is mostly the business of maintaining popularity in the here-and-now. Not always. Come January, Mrs. Clinton will likely be president. Whether there is a GOP that can still lay a claim to moral and political respectability is another question. Mr. Ryan and other Go-Along Republicans should treat the Khan episode as their last best hope to preserve political reputations they have worked so hard to build.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++2)Buffett Hits Trump's Business Acumen: 'A Monkey' Could Have Done Better
By Newsmax Wires 

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett Buffett ripped into Republican Donald Trump Monday over his refusal to release tax returns, his business bankruptcies, and his attack on a fallen soldier’s family, repeating a famous phrase from the McCarthy era, “have you no sense of decency, sir?”

Buffett campaigned alongside U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at a rowdy rally in his home state of Nebraska, where he questioned Trump's business acumen.

Trump, a New York real estate developer making his first run at public office, has said he cannot release his tax returns, a ritual of U.S. presidential campaigns, until the Internal Revenue Service has completed an audit.

“Now I’ve got news for him," said Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway conglomerate is based in Omaha. "I'm under audit, too, and I would be delighted to meet him anyplace, anytime, before the election," Buffett said.

“I'll bring my tax return, he can bring his tax return ... and let people ask us questions about the items that are on there,” Buffett added, saying Trump was “afraid” not of the tax-collecting IRS but of voters.

In response, Trump’s spokeswoman Hope Hicks told Reuters: “As you know, Mr. Trump is undergoing a routine audit.” She had no immediate comment when asked to respond to Buffett saying that he too was under audit but would release his tax returns.

"In 1995, when he offered this company, if a monkey had thrown a dart, at the stock page, the monkey on average would've made 150 percent. But the people that believed in him, who listened to his siren song, ended up losing well over 90 cents in the dollar. They got back less than a dime," Buffett said.

"In the next 10 years, the company loses money every year, every single year, and he takes out $44 million in compensation during that period," Buffett said.

Buffett is chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., an Omaha-based conglomerate whose stock has been publicly traded for about 50 years.

Buffett spoke for nearly 30 minutes to a raucous capacity crowd of roughly 3,100 people in a suburban Omaha high school with Clinton sitting at his side.

He said Trump's “final straw” was an ABC interview broadcast on Sunday in which he criticized the Muslim parents of a decorated U.S. soldier killed by a bomb in Iraq 12 years ago.

The father Khizr Khan spoke at last week's Democratic National Convention about their son and attacked Trump for proposing a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States.

Trump said he was “viciously” attacked by Khan, a naturalized U.S. citizen, when the father publicly doubted Trump had read the U.S. Constitution. Khan said that Trump had "sacrificed nothing," prompting Trump in his ABC interview to say, "I think I've made a lot of sacrifices."

Buffett on Monday bluntly contradicted Trump.
“No member of the Buffett family has gone to Iraq or Afghanistan. No member of the Trump family has gone to Iraq or Afghanistan," Buffett said. “We’ve both done extremely well during this period and our families haven’t sacrificed anything,” he said.
"How in the world can you stand up to a couple of parents who lost a son and talk about sacrificing because you were building a bunch of buildings?" Buffett asked, to a cheering crowd.

In his remarks Buffett announced the launch of a get-out-the vote effort, pledging to take at least 10 people to the polls who would otherwise have difficulty getting there. Buffett said he was backing a website, Drive2Vote, that would coordinate transportation to cast votes and that he had reserved a trolley that seats 32 people for the same purpose.

“I’m going to be on it all day. I’m going to do selfies, whatever it takes,” Buffett said.

Buffett said his goal is to generate the highest voter turnout in the congressional district that includes Omaha of any in the country. Nebraska is one of two U.S. states that award electoral votes in presidential elections by congressional district.

Clinton responded to Buffett's pledge with a promise of her own, if his turnout goal is met.
“Warren and I will dance in the streets of Omaha together! Maybe if we’re really lucky he’ll wear his Elvis costume again!” she said.

“I have made no sacrifices,” Buffett said. “No member of the Buffett family has gone to Iraq or Afghanistan. No member of the Trump family has gone to Iraq or Afghanistan. Donald Trump and I haven’t sacrificed anything.

“So how in the world could you stand up to a couple of parents who’ve lost a son and talk about sacrificing because you were building a bunch of buildings?”

Buffett also said that he “violently disagreed” with Trump’s assessment that the United States is in trouble, saying instead that the country’s future is bright and that the same factors that have made the country a success over the past 240 years are still present today, reported the Omaha World-Herald, which is owned by Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

Buffett quoted Trump as saying, “No one knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it.

“Well, la-di-da, you know,” Buffett said. “I didn’t really realize we were in such grave danger.”
Buffett, who’s been an Barack Obama backer, promoted Clinton last December during her primary fight against Bernie Sanders, saying in an event in Omaha that he and Clinton share a commitment to helping the less affluent. Buffett spoke about how incomes for the wealthiest increased seven-fold over the past two decades in the U.S. as their tax rates fell.

He was the inspiration for the so-called Buffett Rule, proposed by Obama and backed by Clinton, which would tax incomes exceeding $1 million at a minimum rate of 30 percent. Clinton, a former secretary of state and U.S. senator, has also pledged not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year.
Buffett, an outspoken critic of the unlimited spending in politics that was set in motion by the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, has helped Clinton raise money but has yet to make a major financial contribution to her presidential campaign, Bloomberg reported. Early in the election season, he donated $25,000 to a political action committee that helped lay the groundwork for Clinton’s run for the nomination and he contributed the $2,700 maximum to her primary campaign in April 2015. Last year he also gave about $50,000 to the Democratic National Committee.


Buffett's Berkshire pays $896,000 for second error

COMMENTSJoin the Discussion

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway is paying almost $1 million to the U.S. government for allegedly violating the filing requirements of an antitrust law for a second time.
The Federal Trade Commission said the $896,000 civil penalty settles allegations in a Justice Department lawsuit that Berkshire violated the notice and waiting requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust law by not disclosing its plan to increase its stake in USG before the transaction closed late last year.
It's the highest penalty that could be imposed in the case. Under the law, the penalty is capped at $16,000 for each day of the violation. The goverment said Berkshire's violation covered the 56 days between its acquisition of the USG stock and the end of the legally-mandated waiting period.
In a news release, the FTC said that while it doesn't seek penalties for "every inadvertent error," it will enforce its rules when the same company "makes additional mistakes after promises of improved oversight."
According to the release, Berkshire made a similar filing error in June 2013, connected with its acquisition of Symetra Financial shares. At that time, the FTC didn't take any action because Buffett's company promised to improve its "monitoring procedures going forward" so that it wouldn't make mistakes in the future.
While the penalty is small change to Berkshire, it may be embarrassing to Buffett, a CEO who puts a high premium on integrity at his company.
In a news release, Buffett said Berkshire made a "mistake when we overlooked the filing requirement."
Berkshire Hathaway Chairman and CEO Warren Buffett pauses during an interview in New York.
Scott Eells | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Berkshire Hathaway Chairman and CEO Warren Buffett pauses during an interview in New York.
Companies are required to tell the government about deals in advance if their holdings in another company are going above a certain reporting threshold. That's designed to give regulators time to determine if competition would be "substantially lessened."
Berkshire converted some USG debt into common stock on Dec. 9 but didn't do the necessary disclosure until early January.
In an SEC filing, Berkshire said it chose to convert the debt into stock because its value was greater than the cash it would have received as USG redeemed the $244 million worth of notes Berkshire had bought in January 2009.
Berkshire also said in the filing that the shares were acquired for "investment purposes."
The company reported holding just over 39 million shares of USG, roughly 27 percent of the shares outstanding, as of June 30.
That stake is currently worth $1.13 billion.


The Political Picture

By Thomas Sowell

The good news is that both political conventions are now behind us. The bad news is that the election is ahead of us.

No one knows how this election will turn out but -- given the awful presidential candidates in both parties -- the worst case scenario may be only marginally worse than the best case scenario. National polls may suggest a close election ahead but presidential elections are not decided by who has a majority of the popular vote. In a country already divided, if not polarized, one candidate could win the popular vote and the other candidate win the Electoral College vote, which is what decides who goes to the White House. That could polarize us more than ever.

Everything may depend on what happens in the battleground states where neither party has a decisive advantage. Until recently, Hillary Clinton seemed to have a clear lead in those states. But that difference has narrowed to within the margin of error in some state polls.

Turnout is the wild card, in this election more than in most. There was booing in both conventions -- and there are other signs that those who lost are not taking it kindly. How the losers vote, or stay home on election day, may determine who the winner will be.

If the Democrats lose this election, and Trump beats Hillary, it may not be anything more than losing a given election, as happens regularly, and Democrats can just regroup for the next election.

But if the Republicans lose, it can be much more serious for them and for the country. If Hillary Clinton inspires distrust, Donald Trump inspires disgust, even among many Republicans. If Trump goes down to defeat, he could taint the whole Republican party, costing them the Senate now and future elections later.

Even if Trump disappears from the political scene after defeat, his reckless, ugly and childish words will live on in innumerable videos that can be used for years to come, to taint Republicans as the party that chose such a shallow egomaniac as its candidate for President of the United States.

A President Trump could of course create a longer-lasting stigma. However, he might possibly be sobered up by the responsibilities of the presidency. But someone who has not matured in 70 years seems unlikely to grow up in the next 4 years.

With Hillary Clinton as President and Democrats in control of the Senate, she can appoint Supreme Court justices with as much contempt for the law as she has demonstrated herself, and Senate Democrats would rubber-stamp her choices.

Democrats have already shown their desire to stifle the free-speech rights of people who disagree with them on global warming and other issues. Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to have the Supreme Court reverse its decision that corporations and labor unions both have free-speech rights.

The Obama Department of Justice has already been looking into ways that anti-racketeering laws can be used to threaten individuals and organizations that challenge the global warming scenario that has been used to promote more government control of what fuels can be used.

The Second Amendment right to have a gun is at least as threatened as the First Amendment right to free speech would be if Hillary Clinton gets to pick Supreme Court justices. The lifetime tenure of federal judges means that whoever is in the White House for the next four years can change the course of American law for decades to come, losing our freedoms irretrievably.

Much has been made of Hillary's "experience" in politics. But it has been an experience of having proved to be wrong, time and time again. As a Senator she opposed the military "surge" in Iraq that rescued that country and defeated the terrorists.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton carried out foreign policy decisions that led to major setbacks for American interests as far as the eye can see -- whether in Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Ukraine, North Korea or China. This is the kind of "experience" we don't need to see repeated in the White House.

Voting for an out of control egomaniac like Donald Trump would be like playing Russian roulette with the future of this country. Voting for someone with a track record like Hillary Clinton's is like putting a shotgun to your head and pulling the trigger. And not voting at all is just giving up.

Nobody said that being a good citizen would be easy.


Did #NeverTrumpers Hear Hillary Clinton's Frightening Speech?

By Dennie Prager

My #NeverTrump colleagues and friends make valid points about Donald Trump. I know -- I made them myself during the Republican primaries.

But it is vital to understand what will happen if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency. This country will be so far from what the Founding Fathers wanted, so different from what the #NeverTrumpers have always fought for, that it is almost impossible to see how America could recover from her -- or any Democrat's -- victory.

Thanks to the universities' leftist indoctrination of two generations of Americans, and thanks to Bernie Sanders, the Democratic Party is now in all but name a socialist party. In fact, it is actually to the left of many European socialist parties.

For example, if Clinton wins, the government will tell companies how much employees must be paid. "If you believe that companies should share profits with their workers, not pad executive bonuses, join us," she brazenly announced.

If you think this is unconstitutional, remember that it won't matter because she will appoint left-wing Supreme Court justices and left-wing federal judges who do not view their roles as protectors of the Constitution. They view their roles as promoting "social justice," which has as much to do with justice as "people's democracy" has to do with democracy.

There will still be a country called the United States, a geographic entity situated between Canada and Mexico, but it will not be the America envisioned by the founders, nor the one envisioned by most Americans until the middle of the 20th century.

A few days before Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, he said, "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." He has been true to his word, and Clinton and the Democratic Party will continue this fundamental transformation.

As Sanders said in his speech to an ecstatic Democratic National Convention, "Together, my friends, we have begun a political revolution to transform America, and that revolution, our revolution, continues."

In other words, the Democratic Party now acknowledges that its aim is revolution -- a revolution that undoes the American Revolution.

Clinton spelled this out very clearly in her acceptance speech."We'll build a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants," she said, among other highlights.

This means that our borders will mean nothing, that in order to guarantee Democratic Party victories for the foreseeable future, Clinton will transform the 10 or more million illegal immigrants into citizens.

"We have the most tolerant and generous young people we've ever had," she also said. She said this in order to pander to young Americans. But, thanks to the left, it isn't true.

This generation is not only not "the most tolerant" we've ever had. It is, in many ways, the least tolerant we've ever had. According to the Pew Research Center: "American Millennials are far more likely than older generations to say the government should be able to prevent people from saying offensive statements. ... Four-in-ten Millennials say the government should be able to prevent people publicly making statements that are offensive to minority groups."

And it's not just about minorities. As we see almost every day, more and more college students lead campaigns against permitting conservatives to speak on their campuses.

Clinton's other pandering claim that we have the most "generous young people we've ever had" is equally false. Thanks to the left, we probably have the least generous young people we've ever had. No generation in American history (with the possible exception of the baby-boom generation) has been so self-centered. The millenials' motto is "Give me."

They say: "Give me a free college education. Absolve me of my financial debts. Give me free health care. Give me benefits until I find the job I deem commensurate with my college degree. "

No wonder the Pew Center found that nearly 50 percent of young Americans have a favorable view of socialism.

This view underscores a very telling statement from the Democratic nominee's speech that few seem to have noticed: "My mother, Dorothy, was abandoned by her parents as a young girl. She ended up on her own at 14, working as a housemaid. She was saved by the kindness of others." Note that Clinton's mother, who was 14 in 1933 -- right before the Democrats began unraveling America with ever bigger government -- was "saved by the kindness of others."

That is how America always operated: We Americans saved our fellow citizens who were abandoned, destitute or impoverished -- not the government.

But that is changing, and it will change even more with a Clinton presidency. Americans will become more and more like Europeans -- much less charitable with both their money and their time -- because you won't take care of your neighbor when you know the government will. Socialism makes people selfish. (Watch my five-minute video titled "Socialism Makes People Selfish" on PragerUniversity.com. When presented properly, our views can prevail. It has garnered two million views in two weeks, mostly from people under 35.)

With either a Republican or a Democratic Congress, a President Donald Trump could be held in check, if proven necessary. And, there is always the possibility that he could be a good president -- appointing conservative Supreme Court and federal judges, cutting taxes and slashing regulations. But no Congress could stop a President Hillary Clinton. She would finish the job her predecessor started: fundamentally transforming the United States of America, perhaps forever.

No comments: