Hillary Clinton’s “treatment of DS [Department of State] agents on her protective detail was so contemptuous that many of them sought reassignment or employment elsewhere,” according to a just-released summary of an FBI interview with a former State Department official. “Prior to CLINTON’s tenure, being an agent on the Secretary of State’s protective detail was seen as an honor and privilege reserved for senior agents. However, by the end of CLINTON’s tenure, it was staffed largely with new agents because it was difficult to find senior agents willing to work for her.”
Clinton’s State Department agents are hardly the first to complain about her bullying.
“She derives pleasure from lording over other people who cannot do anything about it and who are less powerful than she is,” author Ronald Kessler told Newsmax TV’s J. D. Hayworth.
In fact, Clinton’s well-documented history of profane, unhinged outbursts against those who work for her spans decades. While Clinton’s vulgarity is presented here in relatively family-friendly form, fill in the blanks and imagine the pain that this woman inflicted when she uttered these words. Continue reading
New Gallup poll finds that 80% of whites have a great deal of respect for the police, up 11 points from last year. 67% of non-whites say they have a great deal of respect for the police, up 14 points from last year.
Hey, Black Lives Matter…put that in your pipe and smoke it.
See this: Is Black Lives Matter Backfiring? Riots and murder usually don’t get you to the high moral ground.
It’s not arguable that Obamacare is a huge failure. Not only did you not get to keep your doctor, your health premiums did not got go down, they went up. They went up by a lot and your deductible went through the roof. The premiums are going up yet again next year, along with the deductible. The only people able to afford Obamacare will be those who get massive subsidies to pay for it. The subsidies are magically financed by the government’s bottomless unicorn fund sprinkled with pixie dust.
Obamacare was sold and still is being sold as the way to reduce the number of uninsured in America. But something perverse has occurred. The only group who has benefited from Obamacare are Medicaid recipients whe get subsidies to pay for it. The middle class can’t qualify for the subsidies and can’t afford the high premiums for an Obamacare policy. The ranks of the uninsured among the middle class are higher under Obamacare than before. What went wrong?
The entire structure of Obamacare is faulty because it depends on young healthy people buying insurance at a cost that exceeds their insurable risk. These are individuals who don’t think they need health insurance at all so they’re not willing to pay for it. The older less healthy, especially those with pre-existing conditions are the main customers of Obamacare. That’s to be expected since requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions makes it impossible to peg the premium to the risk of loss. In other words, it’s not really insurance at all. It’s another government entitilement to be funded by insurance companies. Since they can’t get their money by taking it from the treasury, they soon began to experience massive losses.
That’s what has happened and is the reason many insurance companies are pulling out of Obamacare.
Obamacare cannot be fixed. Why would we think the government is capable of fixing anything when it was government laws and regulations that broke it in the first place? The reality that must be faced is that the government has no business running the health insurance market in America. The government was meddling in the health insurance market long before Obamacare, and the results were always negative. Obamacare just doubled down on the problems the government was already creating. Hillary and the Democrats have all along wanted Obamacare to be the transition to a government run single payer regime. Isn’t that just like the Democrats, to break sometihing in hopes it will cause people to want more of the same.
Republicans are being blamed for the failures of Obamacare. That’s curious since no Republican voted for it and no Republican fingerprints can be found on any part of it. Obamacare belongs exclusively to the Democrats, they passed it in a tricky procedure of Senate rules and all manipulation of its provisions since were done at the behest of the Obama administration without any action by Congress.
The insurance companies are also getting a share of the blame for the failure of Obamacare. That’s even more curious because insurance companies are losing money on it. That’s why many of them have already pulled out and why many more will do so in future.
Nobody it seems blames Barack Obama. That is the most curious because Obamacare is all on him and his cronies who wrote it, passed it in a dodgy manipulation of Senate rules, and have sheparded it ever since. Talk about a teflon president, Obama must be coated with titanium.
During last week’s presidential debate, Donald Trump called Hillary Clinton a “nasty woman,” spurring many of her surrogates and the media to lose their minds. Vox deemed the remark to be a “feminist rallying cry,” and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) took the stage at a Clinton campaign event on Monday to tell Trump that he will lose the “nasty women” vote.
The thing is, Hillary Clinton really is a nasty woman who does nasty things all the time. Don’t believe me? Here’s a list of 13 times she behaved like a nasty woman.
From the Daily Mail:
Exposed: How top university [Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP)] helped secure £9million [That would be about 11 million U.S. dollars] YOUR money by passing off rivals’ research as its own… to bankroll climate change agenda.
When you are lying about the very thing that justifies your existence then it’s easier to lie about everything else.
“A pistol is poor defense against a bear attack and will likely get you hurt or killed.” How often do we hear that? It’s printed in most of the guide and hiking trail books I have on my shelf. Mountain communities in bear country newspapers repeat it almost every time someone has an encounter with a bear. Liberals in grizzly country are horrified that the grizzly may be delisted from the endangered species act and legally hunted. We are told that bear spray is the most effective defense against a bear attack.
We never get any evidence of pistol failures to back up the claim that carrying a pistol in the back country is a false promise of safety. Now someone has written a pretty good piece on this with lots of examples of pistols saving lives. Where Are All The Bear Attack Pistol Failures?
Maybe there are examples of pistols making the attack worse and proving detrimental. If so, where are they?
Many of the people who say pistols are no good against a bear attack are probably in good faith. There is so much propaganda you can’t blame them for believing it. But I think there is a dirty little secret of what motivates the True Believers. In a human-bear conflict where only one is likely to go away alive, they want it to be the bear.
Please no, this can’t happen. From Drudge. Trump up 2 points nationwide in the one poll that got it right in 2012.
Trump near the end of the last debate: “Such a nasty woman.”
If you want to stump a Democrat,
ask them to name an accomplishment
of Hillary Clinton. —- Carly Fiorina
My experience in decision-making has shown that patterns are tough to break. In the military we study an opponent looking for gaps, flaws, or weaknesses that can be exploited. Successful leaders at all levels in all disciplines conduct this kind of analysis.
It is quite clear, using that kind of analysis, that Hillary Clinton can best be described as an architect of failure when it comes to national security and international relations. The potential consequences of her flawed decision-making would be destructive to the nation if she were commander in chief.
Let’s briefly review her qualifications to be commander in chief and focus on key international decisions considered to be, by her supporters, a strength. Clinton’s policy decisions have affected thousands: decisions that resulted in the loss of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines; decisions that have cost this country trillions of dollars; decisions that have destabilized the Middle East and decisions that demonstrate her decision-making quality (a quality that is sadly lacking).
General Kellogg then gives the details of 11 specific failures of Hillary Clinton while Secretary of State, all of them serioius setbacks not just for the United States but also for tens of thousands of people outside the United States who were adversely affected by her actions and omissions.
The following is an excerpt from Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism is Totalitarian, by George Reisman. It’s an essay that was originally delivered as a lecture at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in 2005. Reisman is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics and the author of Capitalism: a Treatise on Economics.
The entire essay is available as a Kindle book at Amazon for just 99 cents.
Professor Reisman explains why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one, and why Socialism requires either fraud or armed robbery or both in order to achieve power, and then the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship in order to remain in power.
My purpose today is to make just two main points: To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, requires a totalitarian dictatorship in order to remain in power.
The identification of Nazi Germany as a socialist state was one of the many great contributions of Ludwig von Mises. When one remembers that the word “Nazi” was an abbreviation for “der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei— in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers’ Party—Mises’s identification might not appear all that noteworthy. For what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with “socialist” in its name to be but socialism?
Nevertheless, apart from Mises and his readers, practically no one thinks of Nazi Germany as a socialist state. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the communists and all other Marxists have claimed.
The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.
What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed in name only under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was the German government and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the substantive powers of ownership: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners.
De facto government ownership of the means of production, as Mises termed it, was logically implied by such fundamental collectivist principles embraced by the Nazis as that the common good comes before the private good and the individual exists as a means to the end of the state. If the individual is a means to the ends of the state, so too, of course, is his property. Just as he is owned by the state, his property is also owned by the state.
Professor Reisman further explains how wage and price controls and inflation were used by the German government after 1936 to pay for its programs in public works, subsidies and military rearmament. This led to vast shortages of consumer goods which further led to economic chaos. It was not that much different from the current economic chaos we see today in Argentina, although the dictators and crooks in control of the Argentine government today have as their prinicipal aim merely to steal that nation’s wealth from the people. They do not appear to have as their goal the creation of an empire won by making war on neighboring countries, as did the German Nazis. They have so destroyed the economic wealth of their country that they do not command forces powerful enough to succeed in military conflicts anyway.
Socialism in Russia was imposed by brute force and murder. The Nazis imposed socialism by stealth. They imposed price controls which served to maintain the outward appearance of private ownership. The private owners were deprived of their property without realizing it and thus felt no need to defend it by force. It was like boiling a frog by starting out with warm water that makes the frog feel good and then slowly turning up the burner until the frog becomes too weak to jump out of the pot.
Economic chaos is likewise caused by the slow destruction of the price system until it’s too late and the people find themselves in the middle of chaos. The government promises that socialism with be the perfect cure, but socialism does not end this chaos. It perpetuates it.
Socialism on the Nazi pattern is, of course, not the same as socialism on the Argentine pattern of today nor socialism on the Russian or Bolshevik pattern that existed in the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1991. No matter what brand or pattern of socialism may exist in a country, they all lead to the same consequences of economic confusion, chaos and totalitarianism.
Professor Reisman anticipates an objection that the reader may think, what about Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries? Doesn’t socialism work just fine for them? Reisman shows that these countries are actually “hampered market economies” and not socialist. We might call them welfare states that are still based on the characteristic driving force of production and economic activity and not government decree but the initiative of private owners motivated by the prospect of private profit.
Read the whole thing, at 99 cents it’s one of the best bargains you’ll ever find.
Politics as usual is very unusual on one side of the aisle. That would be the Republican side. The Democrats are a coalition of different groups that don’t necessarily like each other, some even hate one or more of the other groups, but they all come together in marvelous unification for the one big goal they all share: defeating Republicans of any stripe. For them therefore, politics as usual has real meaning.
Nothing of the sort exists on the Republican side and never has. Perhaps it never will. That is a real shame. It’s a malady like all maladies whether of the body or the spirit in that it weakens whomever or whatever it afflicts. This terrible weakness makes it harder for that person, group or institution to ever achieve success in its stated goals.
It’s not that debate and disagreement are bad. Those are generally good so long as they allow the debaters to sharpen their skills and hone their ideas to gain ground against adversaries and execute success. Republicans have and have always had great philosophical ideas. Republlcans have also always formed into rivalorous groups warring with each other over what or which policy they want to pursue and how they should proceed against Democrats.
The one thing Republicans have never been able to do is what the Democrats do with ease. Republicans have never been able to put aside their differences long enough to unite around the one central goal that should be first and foremost. They have never been able to unite around the goal of defeating Democrats.
Right now there is a very real danger that our country may fall into the hands of the most corrupt politician to ever run for President of the United States. It is going to be disaster for our beloved Republic if something doesn’t happen in the next three weeks to make Republicans stop all the bickering and unite around the most important objective of their existence: the defeat of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Nothing else matters.
For an excellent history lesson in the conservative movements, yes plural, there have been several, and how conservatives and Republicans have often been their own worst enemies, this is a great read: Crisis of the Conservative Intellectual by Matthew Continetti.