The Issue Hillary Fears Most: Terrorism

Terrorism has not been at the top of any candidate’s agenda during the last month or so. We should be thankful for that.  The only way for terrorism to rocket to the top of the headlines is for the terrorists to attack and kill people.


Instead, they seem to be lying low. Domestically, the news is focused on the battle between the U.S. presidential candidates.  Overseas, the news is about the re-taking of Mosul.  A hero has arisen – the Mosul Sniper, who has been taking out ISIS leaders.   Good news for Mosul is good news for Obama’s legacy and the beginning of a Hillary Clinton presidency.


However, Hillary’s record on the Middle East doesn’t bear proof of her ability in foreign policy and national security. Once again, we return to the book by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, Armageddon:  How Trump Can Beat Hillary (Humanix Books, 2016).  The terrorists will pop up again and we should be prepared – before the election.


“After the 9/11 attacks,” the authors note, “we all looked up into the sky to see if any airplanes were overhead ready to crash into nearby buildings. But in the aftermath of the random terror of the ISIS attacks, we need to look all around us – 360 degrees.  As we go shopping, walk up to an airline counter, step on a subway, see a movie, cheer at a sports event, or even just stay at home, we could become victims.  It is not just a few of us in the nation’s largest buildings or cities who are at risk.


“This pervasive feeling of danger – that is why it is called ‘terrorism’ – has created a sense of unease in all of us. It may matter to Obama if his voters are black or Latino or young or single women or gay.  But it matters not at all to ISIS.  Keeping America safe will inevitably be the single issue of the 2016 election.”


So far, the issue has been illegal immigration, including the illegal immigration of Middle Eastern refugees, many of whom are males of military age. Hillary has insisted that these refugees can be vetted.  France, for its part, has demolished the refugee slum nicknamed “The Jungle” and evicted the migrants.


Morris and McGann write that it is an issue that “will not go away.” But it is an issue that knows when to hunker down when a presidential candidate favorable to radical Islamic causes is in the midst of an election.  Still, it behooves us to remember that radical Islamic terrorists are waiting in the shadows as we bicker over former Miss Universes while we ignore or yawn at a blizzard of e-mails suggesting that the Democrat candidate is ineluctably corrupt.


“Paris…San Bernardino…Brussels. Each attack provides a graphic demonstration of the abject failure of President Barack Obama and [former] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to keep us safe.  Every time a bomb goes off, it brings us all back to the essential point:  our country is in a war and Obama and Hillary are losing it,” the authors write.


“As Obama ran for president in 2008, he was bedeviled by tapes of his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, ranting and raving about how evil America was. Commenting on the 9/11 attacks, Wright said that we had brought them on ourselves by our lawless international conduct.  He famously said, ‘The chickens have come home to roost.’  Now they have truly come home as Obama’s and Hillary’s weakness, appeasement, and failure to protect our country is resulting in massive new terrorism unseen since the 9/11 attacks.”


“When Obama took office as president and Hillary Clinton became his secretary of state, Iraq was quiescent after the successful surge in U.S. forces. ISIS did not exist.  There had been relatively few terror attacks in the United States, and those that occurred were dwarfed by the hundreds that were thwarted.  The shoebomber’s footwear failed to explode.  The taxi bomb in Times Square was discovered and defused before it could detonate.  The underwear bomber failed to bring down the airplane on which he was a passenger as his fellow travelers disarmed him.  But ow the world is a very different place.


“Paris’s heart has been ripped open by a series of ever-more-deadly terror attacks. Dozens were killed in Brussels, many within sight of the headquarters of the European Union.  Shooting rampages by Muslim jihadists have become a weekly occurrence in the United [keep in mind, this book was written in 2015 and published in March 2016].  ISIS controls territory equal in size to the state of New Jersey.  But Obama continues to put everything else first – ahead of protecting us from terrorism:


  • He won’t use our technology to pick up conversations involving terrorists. That violates their civil liberties.
  • He won’t keep refugees out of the country, despite the likelihood that their ranks are salted with terrorists. That would violate our principle of diversity and it’s not ‘who we are.’
  • He won’t stand up and condemn radical Islam. In fact, he won’t even say the words. That would violate pluralism and imply intolerance.
  • He won’t even go after the most likely terrorists. That would be profiling.
  • Instead, he wants to disarm honest, innocent Americans who are trying to protect themselves by purchasing guns.


“Everything comes before fighting terrorism with Obama.


“And with no condemnation from Hillary or Obama,” Morris and McGann continue, “New York City’s Mayor Bill DeBlasio disbanded the municipal agency within the Police Department tasked with keeping tabs on the locations (including mosques).”


“Back in 2004,” the authors write, “voters told pollsters that they tended to prefer Democrat John Kerry’s ideas on education, Social Security, the environment, and poverty. But they voted for Bush because of one issue:  his fight against terrorism.”


“In a survey in December 2015, general election voters reported that they trusted Republicans more than Democrats when it came to national security and the war on terror by a margin of 46 percent to 35 percent.


“This finding by Rasmussen is no surprise, nor is it likely to change. Ever since the days of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, Republicans have had the edge on national security as an issue.  And when President George W. Bush proved so aggressive and effective in pursuing the terrorists and President Obama so inept, the Republicans’ lead on the issue widened.”


“So now, only the core Democratic base of about one-third of the electorate gives their party the edge on the terrorism issue. Not only Republicans, but also the majority of Independents, say that they trust the GOP more on the issue.  As the 2016 campaign unfolds, Democrats all face a key dilemma:  the more they discuss and debate terrorism,” the better able the Republicans will be able to dominate the issue.


“…since the Democrats are running a former secretary of state who did little to stem – and much to inadvertently encourage – terrorism, the issue will cut even more strongly for the Republican candidate in the election.


“And Donald Trump is just the right person to hammer away at the issue. By blaming political correctness for the Administration’s failure to protect us, he has hit the issue head on.  Trump’s proposal to end all Muslim immigration [from countries where terrorists are known to breed] while the current tide of terrorist infiltration is high,” will work to his advantage to worried Americans.


“Nothing could more squarely link Hillary Clinton to the dismal record of Obama in fighting terrorism,” the authors write, “than her inept record at the State Department. As former secretary of state, she bears more responsibility than anyone else in the administration except for the president for the spread of ISIS and the growing number of terrorists salivating for a chance to attack us.


“New York City’s former mayor Rudy Giuliani even went so far as to say that Hillary created such an encouraging environment for ISIS to sprout that he said Hillary ‘helped create ISIS.’ He argued that she ‘could be considered a founding member of ISIS.’  The former may, who won national recognition for his leadership of New York after the 9/11 attacks, said that she helped ISIS grow ‘by being part of an administration [that] withdrew from Iraq.  By being part of an administration that let (Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki) run Iraq into the round, so you forced the Shiites to make a choice.   By not intervening in Syria at the proper time.  By being part of an administration that drew twelve lines in the sand and make a joke out of it.’


“Indeed, terrorism has grown like a week in the gardens Hillary was supposed to tend as Secretary of State. While she gallivanted around the world, racking up frequent flyer mileage, the terrorists were gaining ground.


“Foreign policy is the area of American politics in which the executive branch can make no excuses. Because of the president’s and the secretary of state’s exclusive control over policy and its execution, success works to their benefit while failures are also charged to their account.  (Look at how much mileage Obama got in the 2012 election from killing Bin Laden).


“Now the battle against terror has turned sour and the blame lies clearly with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Every aspect of the Obama/Hillary foreign policy has encouraged the rise of terrorism.


“For example, had America kept ground troops in Iraq after our 2011 pull out, there would have been no space for ISIS to develop. A small garrison of 10,000 or so would have been sufficient to keep things under control.  But we repeated in Iraq the mistake we made 20 years earlier in Afghanistan by pulling out and letting the forces of chaos reign.


“Obama, who originally surfaced in our politics as an early opponent of the war in Iraq, was determined to honor his commitment [to his base] to pull all of our troops out before the 2012 elections. During the 2008 elections, he and Hillary (his Primary opponent) excoriated Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate, when he proposed a continuing presence in Iraq to prevent the rise of groups like ISIS.


“McCain said, ‘It’s not a matter of how long we’re in Iraq; it’s if we succeed or not.’


“Asked by a heckler at a campaign rally about whether we should keep troops in Iraq for 50 years, ‘Maybe 100,’ was McCain’s reply.  ‘As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.’


“Hillary pounced, saying, ‘He [McCain] said recently he could see having troops in Iraq for 100 years. Well, I want them home within 60 days of my becoming president of the United States.’  Obama echoed her criticism, saying, ‘Senator McCain said the other day that we might be mired for 100 years in Iraq – which is reason enough not to give him four years in the White House.’


“Hillary had always played politics on Iraq and on the War on Terror. When New York was attacked on 9/11, Hillary had just taken office as its U.S. Senator, despite never having lived in the state.  She felt she needed to show toughness on terror and voted for the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq in 2003.  But by 2008, the war was unpopular, so she opposed additional troops, dubbed ‘The Surge.’


“Having both vowed during the election to remove all our troops from Iraq, neither Obama nor Hillary was willing to back a continuing presence there, however much sense it might make. Both agreed that our ongoing troop commitments in Korea and Germany had played a large role in deterring aggression, but neither one would apply that logic to Iraq.


“ISIS grew out of Obama’s and Hillary’s obstinate refusal to listen to the advice of people like McCain. Determined to produce a full pull out in time for the 2012 elections, Obama left in our wake a sectarian war between Sunni and Shia Muslims that metastasized into the formation of ISIS.


“As we left Iraq, we lost our leverage to force the Shia governments of Nouri al-Maliki and then Haider al-Abadi to moderate their course as they appointed anti-Sunni men to their new governments, alienating the 20 percent of Iraqi’s population that is Sunni.   Hillary and Obama vainly warned the Iraqi leaders to include Sunnis in their government, but lacking a troop presence there, they could do nothing to make their concerns stick.


“Instead, the Sunnis – who dominated the former government of Saddam Hussein – found themselves cut out. Their solution was to wage continued war against the government just as they had during the years when the United States had troops on the ground.  Now reorganized and energized by the increasing anti-Sunni bias of the Baghdad government, they set up a new organization to fight for them, Sunnism on steroids:  ISIS.


“Obama’s CIA director John Brennan summarizes what happened.


“The Islamic state, he said, was virtually destroyed under President George W. Bush after his surge in U.S. troop levels. Brennan said that ISIS was ‘pretty much decimated when U.S. forces were there in Iraq.  It had maybe 700 or so adherents left.  And then it grew quite a bit in the last several years, when it split then from al-Qaida in Syria, and set up its own organization.’


“But, Brennan notes, ‘[ISIS] can [now] muster between 20,000 and 31,500 fighters across Iraq and Syria…this new total reflects an increase in members because of stronger recruitment since June (2015) following battlefield successes and the declaration of a caliphate, greater battlefield activity, and additional intelligence.’


“As ISIS (called ISIL by Obama) was growing and recruiting, Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes was minimizing the threat it posed to the United States. He said the major danger was Al-Qaeda, not ISIS.  ‘While both are terrorist forces, they have different ambitions.  Al-Qaida’s principal ambition is to launch attacks against the West and the U.S. Homeland…Right now ISILs primary focus is consolidating territory in the Middle East region to establish their own Islamic State.  So they’re different organizations with different objectives.’


“The Obama Administration has consistently underestimated the goals of ISIS. In an Aug. 8, 2015, interview with CNN, Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken echoed Rhodes’s dismissal of the danger ISIS posed.  He declared that while ‘unlike core al-Qaeda, right now, their focus is not on attack the U.S. homeland or attacking our interests here in the United States or abroad.  It’s focused intently on trying to create a caliphate now in Iraq.’


“President Obama famously weighed in, showing how lightly he took the rising power of ISIS. In an interview with New Yorker Magazine editor David Remnick on Jan. 7, 2014. Obama said, ‘The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.’  After the ISIS attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, it is clear how stupidly, grievously, and tragically wrong the administration’s assessment was.  It now is becoming clear that ISIS exists to attack the West.  But still Obama – with Hillary following after him – fails to grasp the true nature of the threat ISIS poses.


“After all, Hillary has stood stoically behind Obama’s inept treatment of ISIS. In the third Democrat presidential debate, Hillary incredibly said, “We finally have ISIS exactly where we want them.’  And Obama insisted during a visit to Turkey in November 2015 that ‘the strategy that we are pursuing is the right one.’  As the ISIS threat became clearer, Obama stuck with his refusal to make the kind of troop commitment that would hobble these terrorists.


“Committed to a strategy of air strikes and no ground troops, Obama has imposed such restrictions on our air campaigns that pilots report coming back from sorties with only a quarter of their bombs dropped. Where Republicans vow to do what it takes to beat ISIS, Obama keeps our efforts to a minimum.


“Nor have Obama or Hillary gotten the message that topping secular dictatorships in the Middle East opens the door to ISIS-like groups taking over, just as they did in Iraq. Throughout the Middle Est, they are not content to leave well enough alone, and insist on ousting dictators wherever they find them, regardless of the risk that somebody worse will succeed them.”


They used the argument that America, the land of freedom and democracy, would be hypocritical to allow and even support dictatorships. What we recognize is that gangs of Islamic rebels, seeking an Islamic caliphate supported by Sharia law, were a greater threat to the establishment of democracy than the dictators who were reining them in, to prevent them from abusing the women and children in their populations.


“Donald Trump puts the American policy options in a broader perspective. ‘The united States owes $19 trillion,’ he said.  ‘We have to straighten out or own house.  Cannot go around to every country that we’re not exactly happy with and say we’re going to recreate (them).  It hasn’t worked,’ Trump added.  ‘Iraq was going to be a democracy.  It’s not gonna work, okay?  It’s not gonna work and none of these things will work.’  Referring to Iraq, he said, ‘We’re nation building.  We can’t do that.  We have to build our own nation.  We’re nation building, trying to tell people who have (had) dictators or worse for centuries how to run their own countries…Look what’s happened to Iraq.  We got rid of Saddam Hussein.  I don’t think that was a helpful thing.  Iraq is a disaster right now and it’s going to be taken over by Iran and ISIS, so I think we have to focus on ourselves.’


“But Obama and Hillary have not gotten the message. They backed the overthrow of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak and almost opened the door to domination of that strategic country by the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Only the determined efforts of the Egyptian Army were able to depose the extremist government that had taken over in Cairo.


“Hillary’s complicity in allowing a Muslim Brotherhood-dominated regime under Mohamed Morse may have been influenced by her close connection to the Brotherhood’s leader. Morsi’s wife, Nagla Mahmoud, spoke of the ‘special relationship’ between her husband and Hillary.  Indeed, when Clinton criticized Morsi in public – likely in an effort to appease his successor, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, a former Field Marshall in the Egyptian Army – Mrs. Morsi threatened to ‘publish letters exchanged between her husband and Hillary.’  Indeed, Hillary’s Clinton Foundation and the Muslim Brotherhood shared a high-ranking employee, Gehad el-Haddad, who worked for the foundation right before going to Egypt and serving s Morsi’s top communication official.


“Next door to Egypt, in Libya, Hillary again worked to oust a dictator, opening the door to massive terrorist and Islamist infiltration of the government. Muammar Gaddafi was no angel.  He was a vicious dictator who was behind the Lockerbie jetliner attack that killed 270 people.  The Libyan tyrant was defanged when President Reagan ordered an aerial attack on his home, killing his son in retaliation for Lockerbie.


“After that raid, Gaddafi stopped his attacks on the West. Then, when President George W. Bush toppled Saddam Hussein from power, Gaddafi saw the handwriting on the wall and voluntarily gave up his arsenal of biological and chemical weapons and ended his efforts to develop or acquire nuclear weapons.


“He was still a miserable excuse for a human being, but he was minding his own business. Then, Hillary decided he was committing human rights abuses.  Eager to please Obama’s key aide, Samantha Powers, who made her name speaking out against genocide in Rwanda, [Hillary] set her sights on ousting Gaddafi.


“Egged on by Hillary, Obama joined NATO in mounting air attacks that supported rebel ground troops. When they succeeded in toppling Gaddafi, the world saw that there was no genocide taking place, a situation reminiscent of George W. Bush’s surprise at not finding weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq.  But at least Bush followed the intelligence of his government in assuming that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had WMDs.  Hillary, by contrast, deliberately overrode the findings of the U.S. intelligence agencies and decided that genocide was, indeed, taking place.


“After Gaddafi fell, all hell broke loose. Naively, Hillary hoped that ‘good’ rebels who advocated a democratic, sectarian government for Libya would take over [calling Luke Skywalker!!] But as many experts had warned, they were thrown into retreat by Islamic fundamentalists allied with ISIS and al-Qaeda.  Our consulate in Benghazi was attacked and our ambassador Chris Stevens was killed along with three brave American guards.


“But Hillary still didn’t learn the lesson.


“Hillary then clamored for Obama to intervene in Syria to depose yet another dictator, Bashar al-Assad. At first, after al-Assad took over from his father, who had ruled Syrian with an iron hand for decades, he promised reform.  Hillary, deceived as usual, promoted him as a ‘possible reformer’ in March 2011.  But when al-Assad Jr. used poison gas against his own people as his nation erupted into civil war, Hillary swung over to the other side, calling for bold American action to depose him.  Led around by the nose by his secretary of state, Obama worked to arm the pro-democracy rebels in Syria.


“Idiotically, Obama and Hillary said that the weapons were only for pro-Western Syrian rebels who rejected both al-Assad’s horrific dictatorship and ISIS’s terrorism. But the fact is that they had no idea who was really getting the weapons.  And sure enough, they next surfaced in the hands of the ISIS forces, giving the organization the arms it needed to conquer large swaths of Iraq and Syria.  The idea of pro-democracy rebels in Syria proved as illusory as it had in Iraq, Libya, and Egypt.  ISIS took over merging with affiliates in Iraq to present an unprecedented crisis to the West.


“So here’s Hillary’s record:


  • She did not to stop President Obama from pulling our troops out of Iraq, opening the door to the growth of ISIS.
  • She assisted in the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt and acquiesced in his replacement by Morsi, a Muslim Brotherhood leader.
  • She led efforts to topple Gaddafi in Libya, setting up an opportunity for Islamist terrorists to infiltrate and fight for control of that government.
  • She pushed for arms shipments to the ‘pro-democracy’ rebels in Syria who proved too weak to keep control of the armaments and they now arm ISIS in its battle against us.


“Even as ISIS and its allies took hold in Iraq and Syria, Obama – with Hillary’s backing – refused to take bold action against it, eventually settling for limited, pinpoint airstrikes that do little to crimp the terror organization’s growth.”


At best, the airstrikes have taken out minor ISIS leaders, giving Obama the appearance of victory while the big fish get away.


“With Hillary’s support, Obama even refused to attack the oil fields that provided ISIS with half of its revenues [ISIS has now set fire to those oil fields with the prospect of a possible defeat in view]. These oil wells, formerly controlled by the Baghdad government, pumped an estimated 120,000 barrels a day, bringing in at least $2 million each day to fund the army of mercenaries who fought at ISIS’s behest.  Why not attack?  Because, according to Obama’s former CIA director, Mike Morrell, the president feared doing so would inflict ‘environmental damage.’


“Donald Trump will not abide such nonsense. He said he’d ‘bomb the hell’ out of oil sites that are controlled by ISIS.  He said ‘the situation with (ISIS) has to be dealt with firmly and strongly when you have people being beheaded.  I would do things that would be so tough that I don’t even know if they’d be around to come to the table.’  He continued, ‘I would take away their wealth.  I would take away the oil.  What you should be doing now is taking away the oil.’


“In explaining what would happen after he ‘bombed the hell out of the oil fields,’ Trump said, ‘I’d then get Exxon, I’d then get these great oil companies to go in – they would rebuild them so fast your head will spin….’


“Hillary is all for intervening when the adversary is some geriatric dictator whose worst days are behind him but with a fledgling, vigorous, and robust terror threat in ISIS, Hillary is backing away from the conflict. During the Democrat primaries, she said, ‘In terms of thousands of combat troops, like some on the Republican side are recommending, I think that should be a non-starter.’ Hillary warned, ‘I don’t think it’s the smartest way to go after ISIS.  I think it gives ISIS a new recruitment tool.’


“She says that sending ground troops to battle them is ‘exactly what ISIS wants. They’ve advertised that.  They want American troops back in the Middle East.  They want American soldiers on the ground fighting them.’  Once again, Hillary is showing her gullibility.  While ISIS may brag, boast, and say, in effect, ‘bring it on,’ they will actually welcome U.S. troops about as much as a boxer would welcome Mohammed Ali climbing into the ring to fight them.’

Yet, ISIS may very well welcome American troops back to fight them. Obama’s ROEs (Rules of Engagement) ensure that Americans will fight, die, and lose because their hands are bound in the fight.  Let us hope that one of Trump’s first actions on his first day if he is elected President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces is to throw out the Rules of Engagement that hamstring our fighting forces.


Dick Morris and Eileen McGann published their book some six months ago, when terrorism is on the first page of every newspaper and the number one news item on every broadcast and cable news network. We’re grateful (to God) that ISIS is laying low for the time being.  The reason is, probably, that they prefer to fight a Hillary army, bound by rules of engagement that favor the enemy.


They know that a President Trump would immediately order extensive changes in the rules of engagement would place the strength back in the hands of the U.S. Armed Forces.   They know that refugees now on American shores would be expelled from the United States and those now trying to get in would have to return to their native lands, since Europe certainly doesn’t want them.


Hillary’s husband, Bill Clinton, attended (but never graduated from) Oxford University in England. While there, he and a friend led an organized, anti-American protest against the U.S. Embassy in London.  This is the American people elected – twice – over 20 years ago.  His wife, who now seeks to become the next president of the United States, was involved in a shady deal that sold American uranium to Russia.


How secure do you feel with the idea that Hillary, the Mother of ISIS, might be the next president of the United States?


Published in: on October 26, 2016 at 1:32 pm  Leave a Comment  

Observations on the Third 2016 Presidential Debate

Having received an evening photo assignment that ran later than expected, I watched last night’s third 2016 U.S. Presidential Debate at a friend’s house.


I was on a roll the moment Hillary came onto the stage in that all-white pantsuit get-up? The female in me immediately took notice.  What’s she doing in an all-white outfit?  Doesn’t she realize that’s going to make her look fat?  The photographer in me thought:  that white outfit’s going to bleach her face right out.  The wag in me thought:  she looks like one of those Sunday morning televangelical preachers.


Donald Trump gave a solid performance, I thought, especially on foreign policy. He had Hillary on the ropes about Syria.  He spelled it all out for the audience, precisely how Syria came into the hands of ISIS.  Hillary denied it, of course (doesn’t she always).  But there was no way out.  ISIS and Syria – she owned it.


Mike Wallace tried to catch Trump on a fact check about Aleppo in Syria. Only it turned out Wallace got his facts wrong, not Trump.  But Wallace made up for it at the end of the debate by making that ridiculous demand of Trump that he pledge not to contest the election.


Evidently, Wallace wanted Trump’s word that he would do the “gentlemanly” thing and concede without a recount – or a fight – the way Richard Nixon did in the 1960 Presidential Election. Nixon actually won, when some uncounted votes were discovered in Chicago, enough to put Nixon over the edge.


Wallace forgot, though: Trump is not a “gentleman.”  Remember?  Nor is he a fool.  Only a fool would make such a pledge and Trump told him that he would let him know when the election was over.


The Fox News Team made great hay over Trump’s refusal. If I’ve had doubts recently about Fox News, it was confirmed last night.  There is now no television news network to which Conservatives can reliably turn for news.  Where did Wallace learn his civics lessons – The Bird Brain School of Journalism?


Wallace took Trump to task (again) for the Gropegate Scandals, which Trump emphatically denies. When he was through grilling Trump, who handled the questions matter-of-factly, Wallace turned to Clinton.


Wallace: Secretary Clinton, I want to clear up your position on this issue because in a speech you gave to a Brazilian bank for which you were paid $225,000, we’ve learned from Wikileaks, that you said this. And I want to quote. “My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.” He was almost apologetic as he asked the question. She claimed that she was talking about energy ‘if we read the rest of the sentence.’  But the sentence ended with a period after “open borders.”


“My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders.”


It couldn’t be plainer than if she written the words in red on her frosty white suit.


My personal favorite moment was when Trump told her that Syria had “outsmarted” her. He repeated himself and I’m pretty sure that’s when she lowered her eyes and did that darting-deer-eyes-in-the-headlights thing.


Later on in the debate, Trump remarked what a nasty woman she is. Members of the audience booed and feminists were livid.  If only he could have followed up on that remark (she had the floor at the time, so he couldn’t, and the debate finished soon afterwards).


Looking at that miserable, foul-mouthed woman and recalling how she abused the military, the F.B.I., and the Secret Service with her volatile outbursts, her rudeness, her vindictiveness and thinking of where I had just come from – a Cub Scout celebration of First Responders – police officers, firefighters, and National Guardsmen – I couldn’t believe she was even on that podium.


Hillary graduated from college in 1969, making the cover of Life magazine for savaging a black, Republican member of Congress. She was a self-styled hippie who didn’t wear make-up, deodorant or socks (apparently).  When she and Bill came to the White House, they brought their hippie friends with them.


They turned the Executive Mansion in Washington, D.C., into a carnal house. The Uniformed Secret Service agents had to warn a Naval steward about to bring Bill some refreshment that he ought to think twice about opening the Oval Office door.  He did – and there was Bill entertaining a female friend (not Monica) on the executive desk.


The F.B.I. agent whose job it was to investigate and interview the incoming administration’s underpaid staff about their backgrounds found many willing to readily admit to doing pot and even more dangerous drugs. One even tried to draw him into a debate about legalizing drugs like heroin. As for Hillary’s accusations that Trump was an admirer of Russian President Putin, which made Trump an accessory (in her mind) to national security crimes, I wondered why he didn’t rebuke her for using an unauthorized, non-secure personal computer for official business as Secretary of State? Come again?  Who posed the risk to National Security?  Who opened up the United States government to the risk of hacking by unidentified enemy states?


Why didn’t Mike Wallace point that out to her? He was the moderator, after all.


After Trump has finished serving his term(s) as President of the United States, I hope he (and his children) consider the idea he had of starting his own television network.


We certainly cannot depend upon Fox News anymore.


Published in: on October 20, 2016 at 5:39 pm  Leave a Comment  

The Difference Between Free Trade and Fair Trade

If you’re like most average Americans, words and phrases like “currency manipulation,” “trade deficits,” “monetization”, and “horizontal equity” leave you with a headache. Donald Trump speaks frequently on these subjects, particularly in regard to China.  His detractors claim he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.


But the truth is, we’re the ones who aren’t sure what he’s talking about, and Hillary’s team takes advantage of our ignorance to disparage Trump as some sort of snake oil salesman (actually, Obama wears that crown).


Just when you thought you were lost in a cloud of economic gibberish, along come Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, in their book, Armaggeddon: How Trump Can Beat Hillary (Humanix Books, 2016) to help us make sense of the dollars and cents of Trump’s economic plan, without having to get a master’s degree in Economics.


Even so, it’s a long chapter, but one in which all of you have a “vested interest.” (My typing speed has benefitted wonderfully from quoting these books!)


The economics comes in Chapter Four. At the time the pair published the book (in March of this year), Terrorism was the big topic.  It could become one.  Let us hope and pray that it does not and that we can focus on an issue affecting us like a terrorist financial IED.


“’The Republicans are the party of the rich and the Democrats represent the poor and middle class.” This viewpoint, fundamentally ingrained in popular wisdom for over a hundred years is wrong.  Just plain wrong.


“On the one hand, the Republican Party has become divided between its Wall Street/establishment wing and its more popular Main Street/Tea Party elements. The fierce Republican nominating contest of 2016 and the majority that lined up behind anti-Establishment candidates like Trump, Cruz, Carson, and Paul demonstrates the depth of this split.


“The New Republicans are set on breaking up the big banks and limiting their powers and privileges, while the Establishment wing of the party is linked to Wall Street at the hip. The Republicans who won the battle for the party’s soul and spirit in the 2016 primaries have more in common with the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators than with the board members of the big banks [note: we’re cleaner than either].


“On the other hand, the Democratic Party has embraced Wall Street with gusto, relying increasingly on its financial largesse and protecting its interests in Congress. It’s just that the old adage that Democrats are for the poor and Republicans are for the rich hasn’t been updated.  To get the white, working-class vote, we need to bring the up-to-date.


“In the past, we could use the tax issue to get their votes. But Obama has outflanked us on the tax issue by differentiating between those who make more than $250,000 and the rest of us.  Even as he regularly crosses the line and taxes us all, he still has managed to blunt taxation as an issue, undoing the good work of Ronald Reagan.


“And Obama has succeeded brilliantly in substituting class for race among white even as he doubles down on racial rhetoric among his black base. By getting blue-collar whites to resent rich whites more than poor blacks, he has cancelled out the policies Richard Nixon used to augment the GOP base.


“We must accept what Obama has done and move on by explaining to the working class how the establishment Democrat Party, represented by Obama and Hillary Clinton, is no friend of theirs. America’s working class has not seen its household income rise – adjusted for inflation – since 1985.  While it briefly ticked up during the Clinton Years [thanks to Newt Gingrich and Congress], the Great Recession and Obama’s policies have snuffed out the gains.


“So while the U.S. economy, as noted, expanded by 30 percent since the middle of the Reagan Years, net median family income has remained absolutely flat.


“There are two major reasons the poor are getting poorer or at least not getting richer: trade with China and immigration.  On both issues, the Democrats are taking a position against the interests of the working class and Republicans, led by Donald Trump, are lining up on the other side.


“Even the labor unions – as sycophantic s they always are toward the Democrat Party – can’t stomach the trade deals America has been making lately.


“That’s why Donald Trump has attracted so much working-class support. He rightly attacks the trade agreements as bad deals, conceived by idiots and negotiated by weak bureaucrats.


“Trump has shattered the post-World War II American political consensus that free trade [meaning no tariffs or taxes] is necessary and good. The governing class abused the patience of the American worker as he saw his job being exported under generous trade deals.  Often bought off by the very foreign interests with whom they were negotiating, our trade representatives gave too much away and lost the confidence of the American worker.


“Beginning with President Clinton’s hard sell that led to the ratification of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), Democrat politicians have found it more and more difficult to get their base to accept the premise that freer trade means more prosperity. They are opting out of the consensus that has animated American foreign policy for the past hundred years.


“Why? Because they see that American manufacturing jobs are disappearing due to unfair trade competition from China.  This rapid erosion of our blue-collar jobs is more responsible than any other factor for the income stagnation of the American working class.


“Since 1979, we have lost 7,231,000 manufacturing jobs in the United States – 37 percent of our total manufacturing employment. At the same time, the real (inflation-adjusted) median household income of Americans who have completed high school but not gone on to college, has dropped from $56,395 to $40,701 – a drop of $15,694, or 27.8 percent.


“No longer are our Democrat friends willing to follow their leaders to support trade deals. The idea that free trade will bring prosperity is falling flat in the face of the obvious evidence of Chinese chicanery and the equally apparent refusal of a Democrat president to confront it.  Free trader or not, Adam Smith would never have found these one-sided trade deals acceptable.”


Adam Smith (“The Wealth of Nations, 1776”) wrote that a nation’s first economic responsibility was to its own population. After the nation’s needs were met, only then would the nation’s traders sell its surplus stock.


“The Economic Policy Institute puts the blame for this job loss where it belongs, on trade. The Institute reported, ‘The United States lost 5 million manufacturing jobs between January 2000 and December 2014.  There is a widespread misperception that rapid productivity growth is the primary cause of continuing manufacturing job losses over the past 15 years.  Instead, as this report shows, job losses can be traced to growing trade deficits in manufacturing products prior to the Great Recession and then massive output collapse during the Great Recession.’


“The biggest trade deficit is with China. Apologists in both parties say that China has a lower labor cost and naturally makes more money selling to us than buying from us.  But China’s edge in labor costs is more than offset by the cost of transporting goods from there to here, especially at times of high energy prices.  It is not greater efficiency or lower labor costs that give China its advantage so much as its artificial currency manipulation (i.e., cheating).


“China undervalues its own currency, the yuan, by about 25 percent so that Chinese products are 25 percent cheaper in U.S. stores and American goods are 25 percent more expensive in China.


“China’s huge trade deficit, brought about by its massive cheating, increased by over half on Obama’s and Hillary’s watch. When they took office, China had a deficit of $229 billion with us. Now it is $367 billion.


“Everyone understands that the United States has been hemorrhaging jobs to China ever since Bill Clinton let Beijing into the World Trade Organization (WTO). Clinton promised America that admitting China would be a win/win for Americans.  But the opposite has been the case.  It’s been a great deal for China, but a terrible one for us.  And yet, no politician has the courage to take on China.  Congress passed a law requiring the president to cite any nation that manipulates its currency to gain unfair trade advantage.  Each year, he is required to make a finding on whether or not China is a currency manipulator.


“And for each of the eight years, including during Hillary’s tenure at the State Department, our government has refused to cite China as a currency manipulator, even though virtually all the job loss to Beijing comes about precisely because of its currency shenanigans.


“The president won’t crack down on China and Congress won’t act, either. While the Democrats say they fight for the working person, they don’t utter a peep about this gigantic global fraud that is draining the good paying manufacturing jobs out of the country.  Big business and the banks don’t care about the job loss.

“China is a convenient, ready, and cheap place for American companies to outsource their production, cutting back jobs in the United States, [while] increasing their corporate profits. While Democrats do nothing to stop China’s games, they rant and rave about corporate outsourcing and ‘sending jobs overseas.’


“Before 2001, when we let China into the WTO, its trade with the United States was relatively small. We sold them about as much as they sold us.  [Fair trade].  Back then, the main complaint of American businesses and workers was the competition [from] Japan.  But Japan fought fair, outclassing us by making better, smaller, and cheaper products.  China gets its edge by stealing our technology and manipulating its currency to make its products artificially cheaper.  Look at how our trade deficit with China jumped in 2002.  Since then, it has quadrupled.


U.S. Trade Deficit with China


1994: $39 billion

2000: $83 billion

2001: $83 billion (China joins WTO)

2006: $234 billion

2011: $295 billion

2015: $367 billion


“Once China entered the WTO in 2001, it took advantage of the lower tariffs to undercut American manufacturers all around the world, causing huge trade deficits.


“Although China only buys 7% of our exports, it sells us 20% of our imports and accounts for half of our total trade deficit with the entire world. The job loss to China as a result of the trade deficit has been horrific.  Since China joined the WTO in 2001, we have lost 2.4 million jobs to Chinese exports.  Some experts have tried to belittle the loss of jobs.


“They sat that other factors like automation, environmental regulation, fuel costs, and competition from other countries are more responsible for our manufacturing job losses.


“But a recent study by a group of economists who were initially skeptical of the impact of China on American jobs affirms that the total loss is, indeed, in the millions. To be exact, the study found that of the five million manufacturing jobs lost in the United States since China joined the WTO, between one and two million are attributable to Chinese imports.


“While the economists participating in the study shared a bias toward free trade, the evidence soon made it apparent that the job loss to China was real. ‘The ‘aha’ moment,” said Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist David Autor, ‘was when we traced through the industries in which China had surging exports to the local addresses of their U.S. competitors and saw the power correspondence where China had surged and where U.S. manufacturing employment had collapsed.’


“Bloomberg reported that Justin Pierce of the Federal Reserve and Peter Schott of Yale University found in April 2015 ‘that the biggest U.S. manufacturing employment declines and largest surges in imports were in products for which China permanently locked in the greatest reductions in tariffs as part of its entry to the WTO. Industries such as apparel, leather goods, plastic plumbing fixtures, and surgical and medical equipment sustained substantial hits.’


“Schott said the changes since China entered the WTO were the ‘smoking gun’ proving that Beijing’s exports were responsible for our job loss.


“More than any other candidate, Donald Trump has singled out China for blame for U.S. job loss.


“’We have been too afraid to protect and advance American interests and to challenge China to live up to its obligations,’ he said. “We need smart negotiators who will serve the interests of American workers – not Wall Street in siders that want to move U.S. manufacturing and investment offshore.’


“China manipulates its currency by using Chinese yuan to purchase American-dollar-denominated Treasury bills at a frantic pace. By buying dollars and paying for them in yuan, they keep the price of the dollar artificially high and the price of the yuan correspondingly low, making Chinese products less expensive in the United States and American goods more costly in China.”


It’s an economic trick as old as China itself.


“Chinese currency manipulation really got started in 2005 when its currency traded at 8.2 yuan to each U.S. dollar.




One cup of American tea in China in 2005    =  YYYYYYYY


One cup of Chinese tea in America   =   $



“At the end of Bush’s term, it had dropped to 7.6 yuan to the dollar. But during Obama’s first term and Hillary’s tenure as secretary of state, it really crashed.  It was down to 6.2 yuan by the time Hillary left office in 2013.  Since then, it has remained about the same.  All told, the yuan has lost about one-quarter of its value since 2005.


I must confess I don’t quite understand the authors’ logic when they say that the yuan dropping from 8.2 to 6.2 was a “crash.” The more yuans Chinese must spend on a U.S. product the more expensive it is for them and the worse it is for business.  It doesn’t make sense to me, but then, I’m not an economist; just an average American.


“All told,” the authors continue, “the yuan has lost about one-quarter of its value since 2005. And that means that Chinese products in the United States cost one-quarter more than they should.  If we ended Chinese currency manipulation on the effect on our economy would be huge.  The Alliance for American Manufacturing, a labor-management partnership, says that a 28.3% increase in the value of the yuan would create two and a quarter million U.S. jobs and cut the trade deficit by $190.5 billion.


“Why does the United States let China get away with its money manipulation? American politicians and Treasury officials claim that they are reluctant to rein in China’s purchase of American Treasury notes since, in effect, China is lending us money with each purchase, relieving our banks and citizens of the necessity of lending their own money [through bonds] to our government to cover its deficit.  (And making it less necessary for the Fed to monetize our deficit by printing currency to cover it).  But that reason is obviously phony.  If China stopped “lending us money” by ceasing to buy our Treasury bills, its currency would become stronger and its goods less attractive to American customers, causing a reversal of the jobs outflow from our country.


“We would prosper as a result, reducing our deficit dramatically. Even if China immediately stopped buying our Treasury bills, the effect would be minor.  The Federal Reserve Board is, by far, the biggest lender to our government, lending us the money it creates to pay off our debts.  Undesirable as a long-term policy, this “monetization” of the debt has not set off the feared inflation.  In fact, as China has oscillated its level of purchase of U.S. securities, the markets have scarcely noticed.


“While China’s trade in dollars is opaque, to say the least, there is evidence that China dumped about $94 billion in U.S. securities in August 2015, bringing its holdings down to $1.3 trillion. And the world didn’t fall apart.  The Fed just cranked up the old printing press once more.  Nobody much noticed.  Why doesn’t the WTO crack down on China’s cheating?


“The rules of the World Trade Organization are biased in China’s favor. The rules of the WTO do not even address currency manipulation.   While the WTO holds down tariffs, it does nothing about artificially holding down the value of a nation’s currency to gain competitive advantage.


“A tariff, of course, is a tax imposed on imports to make them more expensive for consumers to buy. Tariffs are a no-no.  The entire thrust of global economics in the years since World War II has been to hold them down and, eventually, to eliminate them because give one country an unfair competitive edge against another.  But currency manipulation does the exact same thing.  Not by taxing imports from the other country to make them more expensive, but by weakening a country’s currency to make their exports to other countries cheaper.


“If the World Trade Organization has a blind spot where currency manipulation is concerned, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) does not. The IMF forbids currency manipulation but, unfortunately, does not have enough enforcement power.  The WTO, which has the power to stop currency juggling, won’t use it.  Of course, if Obama – or the next president – wanted to, he or she could force China to abandon its unfair manipulation.


“The first step would be for the White House to label China as a currency manipulator and then invoke sanctions on Chinese exports to the United States to force Beijing to reverse its policy. China would, doubtless, crack down on American exports to China in retaliation,  but since they sell us four times as much as we sell them, that’s not a sanction that’s likely to bring us to our knees.


“University of Maryland economist Peter Morici suggests that the United States impose a tax on Chinese imports equal to the extent of its currency manipulation, rising or falling as China pushes its currency value down or lets it float up to the market rate.


“The real reason our White House – and Hillary’s State Department – did not and will not crack down on China is that Beijing has its tentacles dep into the Clintons. China hired Patton Boggs, a top U.S. lobbying firm, for a fee of $35,000 per month, to fight against curbs on Chinese currency manipulation.  Reuters reported that ‘the Chinese hire top-notch lobbying firms whose ranks are filled with well-connected former U.S. and Canadian officials [and] buy TV advertisements to buff their image.’


“While U.S. law bars candidates from taking campaign contributions from foreigners, a tony of money from China has found its way into the Clinton Foundation, which funds Hillary’s staff and travel needs. One donor, Rilin Enterprises, pledged $2 million in 2013 to the foundation’s endowment.  While allegedly a private company owned by Chinese billionaire Wang Wenliang, it has strong links to the government.


“Jim Mann has written several books on China’s relationship with the United States and points out that the company was one of the contractors that built Beijing’s embassy in Washington. Mann points out that the Chinese government was especially careful in choosing Rilin to build the embassy because of its close ties to the company.  ‘So you want to have the closest security and intelligence connections with and approval of the person company that’s going to build your embassy,’ Mann writes.  Rilin also keeps its U.S. contacts up to date, spending $1.4 million since 2012 to lobby Congress and the State Department.  And remember who was secretary of state.


“The Clintons began raking in money from China in 2008, a few days after Hillary was nominated to be secretary of state. Bill hosted a special meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative called CGI Asia.  The keynote speaker was Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, who is particularly famous for saying that the Chine people do not consider the Dalai Lama to be a ‘religious leader.’  He described the Dalai Lama as, instead, ‘the mastermind behind [Tibet] separatist sabotage’ and the ‘personification of evil and deception,’ whose efforts are ‘doomed to failure.’  Since then, the Clintons and their foundation have gotten millions from Chinese sources in donations and speaking fees.


“Other top American foreign policy experts and former diplomats also find fertile soil in dealings with China. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright currently serves as the chair of the Albright-Stonebridge firm.  The late Sandy Berger, Clinton’s National Security advisor and Hillary confidante, was her co-chairman.


“Albright-Stoneridge offers its clients ‘the knowledge and on-the-ground resources to help businesses and organizations successfully navigate this often complex [nepotistic Chinese] market. Our team in Beijing and Shanghai works to create allies within the Chinese system, through an approach that emphasizes systematic engagement with agencies and non-government stake-holders at the central, provincial, and local levels.  We offer the agility, insights, and practical support to overcome challenges and a strategic approach to help you thrive for the long term.’


“In other words, the firm that includes Bill Clinton’s [former] secretary of state and a key Hillary ally promises an inside track to Beijing’s wealth, a sure inducement to any politician [or business leader] to sell his soul to China.


“As Democrats watch Hillary take money from Chinese interests to sell them out, they fell abused and spurned, betrayed by those who claim to fight for them. With friends in high places, protective lobbyists hovering over Congress, and funds flowing to the secretary of state, China has been more than able to protect itself against charges of unfair trading practices.


“The American worker has been less fortunate. In fact, competition from China – through lower wages and currency manipulation – has introduced a third-world wage standard into American manufacturing.  No longer do U.S. workers compete with one another or even along union/non-union lines.  Rather they are being forced to a global, third-world level of compensation entirely incommensurate with middle class life in the United States.  It’s time that U.S. voters stand up and demand that their elected officials declare their independence from China and resolve to advance the needs and interests of American workers instead.


“It is not only China that is sucking jobs out from the United States. It is Mexico, too.  As a result of NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), our balance of trade has changed drastically from a positive $2.2 billion in 1991 to a negative $59 billion in 2015.


“NAFTA, hailed as a job-creating agreement for American workers, has proven to be the exact opposite. Ross Perot predicted, when he ran for presidents against Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush in 1992, that NAFTA would create ‘a giant sucking sound’ as jobs fled over the border.  Derided and even ridiculed at the time, Perot was right, and the statistics prove it.


U.S. Trade Balance with Mexico


1991: +$2.2 billion

1992: +$5.4 billion

1993: +$1.7 billion


1994: +$1.4 billion

1995: -$15.8 billion

1996: -$17.5 billion

2001: -$24.6 billion

2006: -$64.5 billion

2012: -$81.7 billion

2015: -$58.6 billion


“Ever since NAFTA was passed, our trade deficit with Mexico has soared. The blame for NAFTA falls squarely on the shoulders of Bill and Hillary Clinton.  It is the centerpiece of the New Left’s criticism of the Clintons and their wing of the Democrat Party.  While its adoption and ratification by the Senate were heralded in the main-stream media as the signature achievement of the Clinton Administration’s first year, it has been a disaster for working Americans.  It led to deficits, deficits, and more deficits.


“In a way, the deficit with Mexico is more problematic than the one with China. American businesses are flocking to Mexico City as Chinese wages increase.  The New York Times reported that businesses are turning to Mexico for outsourcing where once they chose China:  ‘With labor costs rising rapidly in China, American manufacturers of all sizes are looking south to Mexico with what economists describe as an eagerness not seen since the early years of the North American Free Trade Agreement in the 1990s…Mexican workers are increasingly in demand.’  U.S. trade with Mexico has grown by 30 percent since 2010 and foreign direct investment is up to $35 billion.  Mexico now makes 14 percent of the manufactured goods imported by the United States.”


Obama didn’t deport anyone, as Hillary Clinton claimed in last night’s debate; they’ve been going back home to Mexico since our Great Recession, leaving behind only the drug dealers and the hardened criminals.


“’When you have the wages in China doubling every few years, it changes the whole calculus,’ said Christopher Wilson, an economics scholar at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. ‘Mexico has become the most competitive place to manufacture goods for the North American market, for sure, and it’s also become the most cost-competitive place to manufacture some goods for all over the world.’


China has had influence in Mexico and Central and South America for at least a century.


“The list of fleeing U.S. companies is long and painful: Caterpillar, Chrysler, Stanley Black & Decker and Callaway Golf.  Americans are hearing ‘that giant sucking sound’ and resent it mightily.  Again, Donald Trump was first on the case saying Mexico is ‘killing us on trade.’


“Workers at the Carrier Corporation, a big air-conditioner manufacturer who just announced plans to move to Mexico, would agree. Founded by Willis Carrier, who invented air-conditioning, the formerly Indianapolis-based company stands to save $81 million a year by kicking 1,400 Americans out of their jobs.  The company pays its Indiana workers $34 an hour, including benefits, but will have to pay its new Mexican employees only $6 an hour.


“Trump was quick to pounce: ‘I would go to Carrier and say, ‘You’re going to lay off 1,400 people.  You’re going to make air conditioners in Mexico, and you’re trying to get them across our border with no tax.’  I’m going to tell them that we’re going to tax you when those air conditioners come.  So stay where you are or build in the United States because we are killing ourselves with trade pacts that are no good for us and no good for our workers.’


“But this dismal experience with China and Mexico has not soured the Obama administration – or Hillary – on our free trade deals. Obama, with Hillary’s support, has approved free trade deals with Colombia, Peru, Chile, and a host of other countries.  But the big player is the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) – joining us to 11 countries on the Pacific Rim:  Singapore, Brunei, New Zealand, Chile, Australia, Peru, Vietnam, Malaysia, Mexico, Canada, and Japan.”


And all the while, the brand spanking-new Chinese navy with its man-made islands, will be patrolling the shipping lanes.


“To win in 2016, we must exploit the fault lines revealed by the Democrat primaries. None is greater than the TPP, which Bernie Sanders has denounced and Hillary helped to negotiate (although she now says she’s against it).  James Hoffa (the younger) spoke on behalf of the Teamsters, Steelworkers, Food and Commercial Workers, Machinists, and Communication Workers in denouncing TPP.


“Hoffa said, ‘Bum trade deals like NAFTA have killed upwards of 1 million jobs, many of which moved abroad. And that’s the concern with the looming TPP.  Those big business handouts continue to hollow out the manufacturing base of communities and destroy middle-class jobs in their wake.’


“The goal of the TPP goes far beyond the elimination of tariffs (we already eliminated them for Canada, Mexico, Chile, and Peru, who account for the vast majority of our trade with the 11 TPP partners). The TPP takes control of a host of issues away from Congress and the Executive branch and vests the power in international courts established to police the deal.


“For example, regulation and labeling requirements for genetically modified foods (GM) would no longer be subject to state or federal legislation or FDA or USDA oversight. Instead, the decisions governing what our consumers will see on the food labels will be made by the TPP administration – with no right of appeal.”


The authors cite the dilemma over the protection of dolphins through better, more expensive fishing nets that will allow Flipper to escape, but which TPP nation fishermen, especially in Japan, don’t want to buy. But in 2015, the WTO, on a complaint from Mexico, ruled that the dolphin-safe labels violated the free trade agreement and could not be used in the United States.


“Hillary helped negotiate the TPP,” the authors continue, “and, in her book, Hard Choices, endorsed it as the ‘gold standard’ in trade agreements.  She said the deal was ‘important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field.’  She also called it ‘a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia.’


“But when Hillary makes a promise, be sure to cash the check quickly. Once her polls or political objectives change, her position is also bound to change.  After she announced for president in 2015 and leftist Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) said he’d run against her, she sensed the need to move to the left to avoid being upended in the primary.  So Hillary flip-flopped and came out against the deal, saying that its final text fell short of the ‘gold standard’ she wanted to hold it to.  And this about a treaty she negotiated.


“If she wins, we know what will happen she will insist on some largely cosmetic changes in the treaty language, declare it fixed, and – presto! – be back on board advocating it.


“Trade takes a big bite out of U.S. manufacturing. But plans are afoot to do the same with the service industry, which accounts for more than 80 percent of jobs, and has, so far, been largely immune to foreign competition.  Obama is working hard on a new Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) that will do to the service sector what NAFTA, WTO, and TPP are doing to the manufacturing sector.


“Even as trade agreements like NAFTA and the currency manipulation of countries like China have more than decimated America’s manufacturing sector, we have survived because our service industries have done very well. It’s easy to make something somewhere else and ship it here.  But it’s a lot trickier to deliver services when you are not on location.


“Since World War II, manufacturing employment has dropped from 33 percent of all jobs to 12 percent, while the service sector has risen from 24 percent to 50 percent. As we have lost millions of manufacturing jobs, we have gained tens of millions of jobs in the service industries.  A big reason for the disparity is that it has been harder to import services from abroad than it is to import products.


“But with the Internet and other modern communications capabilities, it may be getting easier for foreign-owned firms to compete in delivering services to American consumers.


“Enter the TISA that is designed to facilitate trade in services. A key obstacle to the importance of services abroad is the difficulty in importing workers from other countries into the United States.  Our current immigration laws, while filled with loopholes, do a lot to constrain the importation of foreign workers to replace Americans.  But Obama is about to try to change all that.  While the TISA is still being secretly negotiated by 50 countries, leaks from Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks expose some of the contents of the never-made-public draft treaty.


“Assange’s revelations make it obvious that the TISA is a back-door attempt to allow unrestricted immigration into the United States and, indeed, to remove the power to regulate most immigration from Congress or the president. Under the proposed deal, foreign workers could be transferred from a foreign location to a domestic one simply as the company wishes.  Immigration limits would not apply.  So Sheraton International, for example, could move its kitchen or hospitality staff from hotels in Singapore to facilities in the United States and nobody could stop them.


“The principle of free flow of labor is fundamental to the European Union, central to its efforts to create a common market where labor and goods can flow freely, just as they do from state to state in the United States. But applied internationally, they amount to a total override of our immigration or work-permit laws.  Since virtually any company could make such a transfer, it obliterates our national boundary and permits free flow across it.


“In our current political situation, where the parties are often at war with one another over immigration policy, this treaty removes the power to regulate our borders from Congress, or even the president, and makes them totally open. Since this proviso would be included in a treaty, which has the effect of the “law of the land” according to the U.S. Constitution, it could not be abrogated or even modified by an act of Congress or by the president.  Even U.S. courts would have to apply the provisos of the treaty rather than American or state law.  This override is a deliberate effort by the Obama administration to remove immigration from the control of the American people and our government.  It would set up permanently open borders.


“The TISA would also restrict American laws governing worker safety, environmental regulations, and consumer protections. It would treat all these rules as impediments to trade in services and subject them to being struck down – with no appeal – by an international body.  TISA would also ‘restrict our ability to license health care facilities, power plants, waste disposal facilities and even university and school accreditation,’ according to Professor Jane Kelsey from the Faculty of Law at University of Auckland in New Zealand.


“Kelsey also points out that TISA will be ‘expected to lock in and extend their current levels of financial deregulation, lose the right to require data to be held onshore, face pressure to authorize potentially toxic insurance products and risk legal challenge if they adopt measures to prevent or respond to another crisis.’


“Public interest groups opposing the TISA cite a litany of top corporations that are pushing the agreement including Microsoft, JP Morgan Chase, CHUBB, Deloitte, UPS, Google, Verizon, Wal-Mart, Walt Disney, and IBM.


“When Obama sought approval of the TPP, he asked Congress to grant him ‘fast track’ authority over trade agreements, which limited the Senate to an up or down vote on the treaty with no amendments or filibusters permitted. He did so because he had a hope of getting the power – he got it – with the relatively mild TPP in the offing.


“But his real goal was to pass the TISA and jam it through on an up or down vote. Otherwise, why put free flow of workers into a trade bill?  It has nothing to do with trade.  Besides, the United States already has free trade under NAFTA with Canada and Mexico, and other bilateral treaties with Peru and Chile, 4 of the 11 countries in the TPP.  And these 4 account for over three-quarters of our trade with 11 countries in the deal.  We didn’t need a free trade treaty to have a free trade with them.


“But a TISA agreement, breaking entirely new ground, would change everything. Obama is putting it into a trade bill so he can take advantage of fast track to jam it through.  Setting up free flow of service worker would eliminate the only advantage U.S. workers have over foreign competition.  Under TISA, workers from high tech firms to McDonald’s would be subject to low-wage competition from foreign workers for whom employers would not be obliged to purchase Obamacare (since they aren’t Americans).  This would create a built-in advantage for non-American workers of about $3,000 a year per worker (the estimated fine for not covering a worker in your employ under Obamacare).


“Conservatives and establishment Republicans usually back free trade deals because of an ideological commitment to free trade, going back to the theories of Adam Smith, so they have been resultant to crack down on Chinese currency manipulation or to oppose TPP or TISA. But they misunderstand the issue. We are not talking here about free trade; we are talking about blatant cheating by currency manipulation where China is concerned and about an open-door immigration policy masquerading as a trade deal in TISA.


“Anti-Establishment Republicans and Democrats can both rally under the banner of opposing TISA and other free trade deals. Under free trade, each country does what it does best and cheapest, creating a global free market to the benefit of all.  But when one country is only pretending to produce goods more cheaply by manipulating its currency, the rules do not apply.


“But let’s face it – trade is being used to hold down the American worker to maximize profits for business and lower prices for the consumer. Both parties are complicit in the deal and both get campaign contributions to perpetuate it.  But this deal is a major cause of income inequality.  The poor and middle class keep getting poorer.  The other half of this process of impoverishing the American working class is immigration, which keeps wages low and unemployment of Americans high so as to benefit business profits and Democrat vote-getters.”









Published in: on October 20, 2016 at 2:55 pm  Leave a Comment  

The Third Presidential Debate: Sex Sells, But Jobs Pay Better

Hillary Clinton and her Media have ginned up the race card to prevent Donald Trump from using the I-word – Illegal Immigration. However much she’d like to divert our attention from the issue or shame us into silence, according to Armageddon: How Trump Can Beat Hillary, by       “Dick Morris and Eileen McGann (Humanix Books, 2016), illegal immigration and our worsening economy are intrinsically bound together.


“Even when we succeed in keeping jobs in the United States despite our porous trade policy,” the authors write, “they do not necessarily go to American workers. Immigration will be the key issue in the 2016 election.  More and more, Americans are learning that our national safety in a world of terrorism hinges on our immigration policies.  And as Americans realize that immigrants are taking away their jobs and stagnating their incomes, it will be the central economic issue as well.”


Keeping economics the central positive issue in tonight’s debate will be Trump’s key task, as well as reminding us of Hillary Clinton’s sordid history, reaching all the way back to her first reign in the White House.


The authors tell us how illegal immigrants are taking our jobs and holding down our wages.


“Illegal immigration threatens our national cohesion and identity and makes us vulnerable to crime and terrorism. But it also poses an economic threat to our workers,” they write.  “The Democrats and Liberals don’t like to talk about the economic aspect of illegal immigration.  They would much rather paint Republican opponents of open borders as anti-Hispanic racists.  Democrats do not want hard-working Americans to realize that illegal immigrants are taking our jobs and, by working for low wages, hold down pay for Americans.


“Since 2000, virtually all of the job growth in the United States has gone to immigrants, with almost no increase in employment for those who were born in the U.S. The Center for Immigration Studies reported that ‘government data shows that since 2000 all of the net gain in the number of working age (16-65) people holding a job has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal).’ (The Census Bureau divides employment data into two categories:  Native-Born Americans and Foreign-Born Americans.  The latter includes both immigrants – legal and illegal – and naturalized U.S. citizens.)


“Since 2000, there are 127,000 fewer working-age native-born Americans holding a job while the number of foreign-born Americans who have a job has risen by 5.7 million during the same period. The center reported that ‘immigrants have made gains across the labor market, including lower-skilled jobs such as maintenance, construction, and food service; middle-skilled jobs like office support and health care support; and higher skilled jobs, including management, computers, and health care practitioners.’


“And the trend is increasing. In August 2015, for example, while 698,000 native-born Americans lost their jobs, 204,000 foreign-born Americans gained employment, according to the Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

“Beyond the sheer number of jobs diverted to foreign-born people, the influx of foreign-born workers has stopped wage growth among native-born Americans. We can’t get raises while millions pour over our borders who are willing to work for next to nothing.  Workers cannot hold out for higher wages when legal and illegal immigrants are available to work for much less.  The same incentive business owners have to outsource to low-wage countries operates within the United States to use cheap, illegal labor.


“The economic effect is deeply felt throughout the United States. In 2014, Americans who were born here saw their income drop by 2.3%, while immigrants saw theirs rise by 4.3%.  The U.S. Census Bureau’s “Income and Power in the United States:  2014” report reveals that, between 2013 and 2014, foreign-born households saw their median income go up by $2,031, while native-born households experience a moderate decline of $1,311.


“In the United States today, naturalized citizens make much more than their America-born counterparts, earning a median household income of $59,261 in 2014, while native-born households made only $54,678.  In fact, the data so clearly demonstrates that immigration depresses American wages and incomes that it points to the likelihood that employers in the United States want all the immigration they can get to hold down the wages they have to pay to native-born or immigrant workers.


“Democrats want illegal immigrants to vote but not to work (so as not to rile their union supporters) while some establishment Republicans want them to work (for low wages) but not to vote! Liberal Democrats, like those who support Bernie Sanders, are getting the point that the establishment backing for open borders is motivated by a while for higher profits and lower labor costs.


“When establishment politicians like George W. and Jeb Bush back amnesty for illegal immigrants, they often say they favor immigration because our country was founded by immigrants and speak of keeping an open door to the rest of the world. But the truth is that their corporate sponsors and contributors see it as a way to keep down wages for tens of millions of American families.  Even worse, the establishment Left says that opposition to immigration is racist, creating a façade of tolerance behind which to hide their desire to hold down wages and incomes for their employees.”


Lower incomes for legal, native-born Americans also means a lower tax base for their communities and their states; illegal immigrants do not pay taxes.


“There is an eerie resemblance between today’s immigration debate and the abolitionist views of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln said there could be no upward  mobility for wage-earning Americans as long as five million slaves could be forced to work for free.  Now there will be none – and has been none – as long as 12 million illegal immigrants are willing to work for next to nothing.  Why was Abraham Lincoln both anti-slavery and pro-capitalism?  Why was he a Republican in the first place?


Born to a subsistence farm family, he saw that since his father and his family ate all they grew [with nothing left to send to market] that they were locked on the farm for all their days on Earth. “He left the farm as a boy and went to work on the Mississippi riverboats, freed from the never-ending treadmill of subsistence farming by the miracle of cash wages.  But how could he get wages when slaves could do the job for free?  He realized that slavery imperiled the gains for others who wanted to follow his lead.  Slavery had to go for working class Americans to be free.  What was true in Lincoln’s time is also true in ours.  And so illegal immigration has to stop for wage-earning Americans to move up.


“For all the Liberal protestations of empathy for the working-class poor and their willingness to soak businesses by raising the minimum wage, it is only by cutting the flow of illegal immigrants that we can offer American workers real upward mobility. Liberals like to spread the myth that illegal immigrants take jobs Americans don’t want.  Like what?  Landscaping?  Dishwashing?  Cleaning hotel rooms?  Construction?  Data from the Center for Immigration explodes this canard.  The fact is that Americans do want these jobs.  In fact, they take them when they can.”


Morris and McGann then provide a list of some of the native-born majority jobs:


55% percent of maids and housekeepers

65% of grounds maintenance workers

65% of construction workers

71% of porters, concierges and bellhops

75% of janitors


“What Americans don’t want,” they write, “are the dirt-poor wages the illegal immigrants are willing to accept in these occupations. And the act that illegal immigrants are willing to work for so little is just more evidence of how they depress wages and incomes for the rest of us.”


The authors go on to discuss the problem of the impact of foreign-born graduates of U.S. colleges and universities on employment prospects for native-born students.


In January, Obama issued an executive order increasing the number of green cards that will be issued to foreign college graduates seeking employment in the United States. The new 181-page rule, citing Breitbart News, “focuses primarily on giving work-permits to foreign college grads who will compete against Americans for white collar jobs, despite the large number of American graduates now stuck in lower-wage positions and struggling to pay off college debts.  The rule will also make each foreign graduate much cheaper for U.S. employers to hire than many U.S.-born college grads.


Morris and McGann cite immigration lawyer John Miano who predicts that Obama’s action will lead to 100,000 new green cards every year.


“So up and down the wage and education scale, Obama’s policies – and Hillary’s support – are denying jobs to Americans while opening up new opportunities for foreigners. Of course, behind each foreign job applicant is a business easer to hire him or her to cut payroll costs.  Not only can [illegal] immigrants be asked to work for lower wages, but they need not be offered health insurance under Obamacare.  With employers facing a fine of $3,000 per uninsured worker, what better built-in incentive to hire foreigners who need not be covered?


“Democrats hope that most of these businesses show their appreciation by giving money to Hillary’s and the party’s campaigns. But to ask these workers who are losing jobs and wages to illegal immigration to vote Democrat to allow more illegals in is the height of arrogance.”


They must think the average Independent voter is pretty stupid…


“Liberals are fond of saying that Conservatives are against illegal immigration because we are racist [or “nativist”]. But race and ethnicity have nothing to do with it.  We will never be able to restore the American Dream to reality until we stop letting our wealth drain away through illegal immigration.”


The poor are getting poorer, the Democrats cry, while the rich are getting richer. There are three reasons:  illegal immigration, unfair trade competition, and investment banks, which gamble with not only their clients’ money but with taxpayer money as well.


The Democrats’ answer to poverty in America is to raise the minimum wage.


“Increasing the minimum wage, the Left’s standard solution to income inequality, will help only a few people at the bottom of the economic ladder. In the United States, the minimum wage is only $7.25.  But the media age is $17.09 [per hour] and the mean wage (the average) is $22.71.


“Clearly, increasing the minimum wage, even to $15 per hour, is not going to help the majority of American wage earners. Last year, only 3.3 million people worked at or below the federal minimum wage.  They made up just 4 percent of the 76 million hourly workers in the United States.  Raising the minimum wage may be the right thing to do, but it’s not a solution to income inequality.


“The real solutions – curbing unfair trade practices and illegal immigration – are much tougher for the establishment of each party to achieve. They involve real sacrifices.  The Republican candidate in 2016 must embrace policies designed to move up the incomes of the average worker – limiting immigration and fighting against unfair trade deals.”


Deporting illegal immigrants would not be so difficult as the Democrats would lead us to believe. They would certainly use their activists to make a clamor about, even though a majority of Latino Americans (59%) agree that America is becoming more like the corrupt, Third World dictatorships they fled.  Begin with the criminals and work our way down.


This issue is not about black, white, and brown, as Liberals would paint it; it’s about green, gold, and red.






Published in: on October 19, 2016 at 4:28 pm  Leave a Comment  

Another Conversation About the Divided GOP

Really? We’re talking about the divisions in the Republican Party – again?


No one has to tell Tea Party members there’s a divide between the Republican Party and its Conservative members. Hillary’s party effectively smeared their candidate, Donald Trump, with a single incident of what they have overblown as verbal sexual assault and what normal people consider some unsavory “locker room” talk.


The New York Times has trotted a chorus line of aggrieved women who claim Trump “octopussed” them at various points in history, providing no proof, no evidence, and no legal charges. This was a case of trial by the press.


The gambit has worked; Trump’s numbers are down and the Democrats are celebrating the demise of the Republican Party in much the same way Nikita Kruschev once promised that Americans would tear down their own flag (they did, back in the Sixties).


We suffer from a miscommunication by Ronald Reagan back in the Eighties when East and West Germans heeded his call to tear down the Berlin Wall that Communism was dead. He couldn’t have been more wrong.


The reports of Communism’s death were greatly exaggerated. It’s the reason why 91 percent of older voters believe Communism is a threat, while only 55 percent of their Millennial grandchildren and great-grandchildren believe it’s a threat.


Bill Clinton, that Rhodes Scholar, was sent to Oxford during his junior year at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service. None of his college transcripts have been made available, so no one knows what sort of student he was.  However, classmates and friends say that he was at best, an indifferent scholar.


But he was an active in campus politics. According to Unlimited Access by Gary Aldrich, “During Mr. Clinton’s attendance at Oxford, and his subsequent trips around Europe and Asia, he had no apparent source of income aside from his scholarship, and it is unknown how this tour was funded.  However, it has been established that he served as a “quasi” ambassador for a leftist organization in Washington, D.C., known as Vietnam Moratorium Committee, or VMC, an organization founded by one Sam Brown, among others.  It appears that Mr. Clinton’s sole purpose at Oxford in the Fall of 1969 was to organize student protests against the United States for the VMC.”


Our future president led a protest against the United States embassy in London in 1969.


The Democrats have successfully employed Saul Alinsky’s Rule No. 4: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.  “You can kill them with this,” Alinsky wrote, “for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church [or Christians] can live up to Christianity.”


Of course not. That’s why the salvation of Jesus Christ, grace, is a central tenet of the Church.  We are not perfect.  The devil (to whom Alinsky dedicated his book) knows this.  It’s nearly impossible for Man to be perfect.  Man is flawed.  But it’s quite easy to be evil.  Flaws mean nothing if you have no rules, respect no rules, and flout existing rules.


That’s why Hillary Clinton nearly got away with denying Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the Watergate hearings and has gotten away with breaking every rule in the book herself.   What does it say to voters, in this era of Black Lives Matter and Law Enforcement Lives don’t, that Hillary abused her own Secret Service agents, marginalized the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and eventually had them removed from the White House.


If you care about law and order, and the lives of our dedicated law officers, Hillary shouldn’t even be a consideration in your choice for President of the United States.


Alinksy’s fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.  “It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule.  Also, it infuriates the opposition who then react to your advantage.”


This rule is perfectly comprehensible to the millions of Gen Xers, Gen Yers, and now Millennials who turn to Comedy Central for their politics and news.


Controlling the media, education, and the unions are all planks of the Communist Party. With these tools in hand, they can enact a tyrannical, centralized, bureaucratic government.  Obama has just signed a bill that will give a world government control over the Internet.  Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks website has been shut down.  If Hillary wins, we bloggers, professional and otherwise, will be censored and eliminated.  Free speech, already dying on college campuses, will die if Hillary is elected.


So what is Congress doing about it, specifically the Republican Party, doing about it? What they’ve always done.  Absolutely nothing.  They’ve embraced every politically correct concept that the Democrats have manufactured.  Illegal immigration?  Check.  Climate change?  Check.  Gay marriage?  Check and double check.  Legalization of marijuana? Got it.  Obamacare?  Well, we won’t repeal it, but we will “change” it.


Weak, moderate Republican candidates enabled the Clintons to grab the White House in 1992 and hold onto it. We had strong representatives in Senator Newt Gingrich and the late Fred Thompson (he led the investigation on Filegate).  But the Clinton’s numerous media lackeys beat the political drum about Gingrich’s accepting speaking fees while in Congress (which it turns out, was legal) and he lost the next election.


The Media named the tune and the Republicans danced, especially on illegal immigration. The Democrats hauled out the “racist” cards and the Republicans crumbled.  We have to be willing to cross the aisle, said Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican candidate for president.


Many Republicans knew he was too old and too moderate, but were left with no choice but to vote for him. More voted with their armchairs; they stayed home and Obama, the unabashed Communist won.


In the 2012 election, the Republicans tried a younger, healthier-looking candidate. But as far as the base was concerned, he was tainted by his association with universal healthcare in Massachusetts, where he was governor.  Democrats scared off the blue-collar independents by painting Romney as a job-killing corporate headhunter whose ambition was to make millions.


That wasn’t true. He was a company fixer, not destroyer.  But when he had the chance to take a swing at Obama, he held back, trying to play the gentleman and lost the election.


In seeking the so-called independent voters, the GOP has agreed to open primaries, which allow Democrat operatives to manipulate the Republican primaries. They agreed to motor voter registration, and then to issuing driver’s licenses to foreign nationals, making it possible for them to register to vote without all the bother of becoming U.S. citizens.  Finally, they turned a blind eye to egregious voter fraud procedures in local precincts that made not even the pretense of checking for citizenship.  Citizenship has become the new code-word for “racism” and “nativism”.


The Republicans will never win the Hispanic vote. Ever.  That’s what’s really robbing them of the all-important voter.  With waves of illegal immigrants flooding over our borders and local police unable to arrest them, the election is wide open for fraud.


The illegal immigrants are either “refugees” from Communist-oriented Central and South American countries or from the Middle East. They don’t seek freedom.  They seek the largesse of a wealthy country.  They will vote Democrat forever.


As for women, the P-word audiotape was an easy hit for Hillary. She’s had women in her pocket ever since her student days at Wellesley.  The majority of women simply don’t care about politics.  They’ll tell you they “hate” politics.  What they mean is they don’t care about what’s going on in the Middle East, not even when women and girls are being slaughtered.


They don’t care about the $20 million debt. They’re heavily in debt themselves.  They don’t care about the trade deficit with China, especially if it means they can buy cheap goods for their families.  They don’t care about the Keystone Pipeline, the Iranian Nuclear Deal, or the re-opening of relations with Communist Cuba.


They don’t care about Hillary’s e-mails. They don’t care about Benghazi.  They have no idea what Rosatom is.  They have no idea how high our corporate tax rate is or that it’s the main reason companies have fled the United States.  Hillary tells them it’s because they don’t want to pay their “fair share” of taxes, and that’s good enough for them.


It’s why Hillary has gotten away with so much in the past and is getting away with it now. They don’t watch Fox News.  They probably don’t even watch the Mainstream Media.  They watch Oprah.  They watch the Kardashians.  They watch The View.  They watch Access Hollywood Live.


The housewives are worried about cooking, raising their kids, and losing weight. The younger women have heeded Hillary’s siren call to Women’s Liberation the same way their grandmother’s did.  We’re back to the Sixties.  I saw a young woman in the vet’s office last week wearing a pair of jeans that were more holes in front than fabric.  The back part of the jeans were completely intact, which means the holes were a “fashion statement.”


That is the state of our filthy culture today. It’s a replay of the Sixties.  Sex, drugs and rock n’roll.


In the meantime, the Republicans have basically surrendered. If there was any fight in them, it has long since been enervated by a relentless media culture that celebrates sexual deviance, immorality, and indecency.  That is their book.  But they hold Conservatives to their own.


Conservatives actually preferred a very different candidate than Trump. He was just as feisty as Trump.  But the GOP hated him for challenging their cravenness.  So they refused to support him and Trump steam-rollered the guy.  The blue-collar voters, originally Democrats, having fled the Jackass Party, joined on the Trump Wagon.


The cross-over vote in the primaries put Trump over the top. But once Hillary’s campaign dropped the October surprise bomb, his numbers plummeted, to no one’s great surprise.  Trump’s a fighter but right now the always-suspicious poll numbers are not in his favor.


Our compromised GOP was of no help in Trump’s crisis. Fortunately, the voice of the Trumpsters resounded and most of the GOP leadership sheepishly returned.  Lost in the chaos of the sex tape challenge was an extraordinarily good speech Trump gave at a Florida rally.


The Democrats and their Media agents have us living in an atmosphere of fear. If we were truly free, we’d have nothing to fear.  Instead, we are trammeled by onerous regulations, an unaccountable bureaucracy, and a lurid culture that silences us with the terror of politically-correct retribution.  Enemies of Hillary, the Candidate, can depend upon vicious retaliation.  What will happen to free speech if she becomes president?


If Trump can keep focused on his issues, Hillary’s many, many breaches of law, procedures, and etiquette, and speak as well as he did in Florida, he may get his numbers up. His win will be narrow.  Many Republicans will be unhappy at having to make such a choice.


But the alternative is unthinkable. If you knew the real Hillary, not the prevaricating, hypocritical concoction with the botox smile that insists every charge made against her is a lie, you’d realize there’s a big difference between a slip on a hot mic and a disdain for real decency, law, order, freedom, and the U.S. Constitution.


All the face-lifts, hair styles, make-up, and high fashions can make a silk purse out of a sourpuss empress wannabe.


The GOP are indignant at the “civil war” in their own party.   Yes, it is a  “civil war” which began when the party leaders became “them” versus “us.”

Published in: on October 18, 2016 at 12:06 pm  Leave a Comment  

The Clinton Years: Whose Presidency Was It?

Democrat operatives have been hard at work trying to separate Hillary Rodham Clinton’s prospective presidency from her husband’s and from his womanizing dalliances.


Saturday Night Live ran a skit this weekend featuring a Hillary actress boo-hooing over “Bill’s Women.” Not bloody likely.  Hillary herself coyly admitted in the last debate that there are “public” candidates and “private” candidates, and the put-upon private Hillary, mockingly weeping over Bill’s indiscretions is no more an genuine portrait of Hillary than the botoxed smile that smirks before the cameras.


“Queen Hillary” is not a moniker placed upon Hillary Rodham Clinton by Donald Trump. GOP operatives did not give her that title.  Nor did radio pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or Michael Savage bestow that title upon her.


No, the title was bestowed upon her, according to Gary Aldrich’s powerful book, Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House.”  (Regnery Press, 1996, 1998), by the permanent White House staff members who lived in dread of her.


Aldrich is a now retired (as opposed to “ex”, as implied by one of Hillary’s minions on Fox News to suggest that his retirement from the Federal Bureau of Investigation was anything but honorable, or that what he revealed 20 years ago is now “old news.”) FBI agent, with a respectable, 26-year career with the agency.


The F.B.I. tasked Aldrich and one other agent with vetting the administration’s new staffers upon Clinton’s first election to the presidency in 1992. They were members of the F.B.I. [White House] Liaison Office.


“For more than three decades,” Aldrich writes, “the FBI, the Secret Service, and the president’s counsels had worked as a team to ‘clear’ the hundreds of new staff members who come with a new president. It is a comprehensive and effective security system that has been perfected by six different presidents to protect the national security, the president, the taxpayer, and the White House itself.


“This clearance process is accomplished through a lengthy FBI background investigation to document the good character of each and every White House staff member, from the chief of staff right down to the most obscure messenger located far from the Oval Office. In addition, the FBI clears all of the cabinet secretary positions, working with the U.S. Senate in the confirmation process.


“As part of the permanent two-man FBI post in the White House, I was a key player in the [ironically-named] SPIN Unit (or Special Inquiry Unit) team responsible for investigating the backgrounds of executive branch employees and federal judges. My partner in the White House post, Dennis Sculimbrene and I were particularly responsible for anyone who would work in the White House complex.  That meant for anyone who might harm or embarrass the president or compromise the White House – indeed, national – security.


“Our work was all about access. In order to get our job done, we needed unlimited access to the White House grounds, buildings, and office space, and its several thousand permanent and political employees.”


A new administration meant hundreds of background investigations. There were very few limits on what Aldrich and Sculimbrene could investigate during past administrations.  If they found character problems, “we would often go beyond investigating the basics – like credit reports – to looking into phone logs, medical records, and other detailed reports that would help us to decide whether a character problem would ‘wash out’ or whether it was an indelible stain that the White House counsel needed to be aware of in order to protect the president and the presidency.  The four key elements to a background investigation are: characters, associates, reputation, and loyalty.  The FBI also took into account dangerousness and suitability.


Even before the inauguration, Aldrich reports, “we were already off to a bad start. There were about seventy days between the election and the inauguration – sufficient time to complete a large number of SPIN cases.  But for some reason, there weren’t many cases coming in.


“The only big influx of cases had been at Christmas [1992], when numerous cabinet-level and other appointments were dumped into the system after these appointments had already been made public – the reversal of normal procedure.


A hundred or more items of investigation were required. Aldrich and Sculimbrene were ordered to complete the investigation and type their reports in an average of four calendar days.


“A fairly routine process became a crisis,” Aldrich notes. “Our first problem was that these people needed to be located so they could be interviewed.  But it was Christmastime and having received their invitation to the ball, many of the new big players went off to their ski chalet or to the islands.  FBI investigation.  Oh, yeah, I forgot.”


“All of this chaos was so unnecessary and it eventually caused the administration so much trouble that there seemed to be only three possible explanations, all very disturbing.


“The administration was being managed by people so disorganized that they could not conform to basic procedures essential to the administration’s own effectiveness.


Or key people in the administration had simply decided that the security procedures were not important and were taking a ‘so what?’ attitude toward possible scandal, embarrassment, or worse.


Or key people in the administration were so actively hostile to the background investigation process that they wanted to guarantee we wouldn’t have enough time to perform adequate checks and follow up on allegations. This might be because some people in the administration had serious matters to hide.  Or it might simply be because people in the administration were instinctively hostile to authority figures of all types and to all those regular procedures, customs, and standards by which high-level organizations, whether in the White House or the corporate board room, avoid even the appearance of impropriety or scandal, or just loose practices.


“Like the Clintons, I lived through the 1960s,, and I knew there were a lot of people who still thought like that – who thought it was oppressive to have to wear a tie, show up to work on time, restrain their bad language or raw emotions, or even obey the law. As an FBI agent, I knew that often spelled trouble.  People who were hostile to the normal, law-abiding world and its standards were often hostile to normal, law-abiding morality and ethics.  And those were the sort of people who might bring embarrassment to the White House.”


Just before the inauguration in 1993, Aldrich reports, Tony Benedi, former deputy director of Scheduling for the Bush Administration and Mel Lukins, deputy director of the Bush Advance Office were scheduled to meet with personal representatives of the President-elect Clinton to ensure a smooth transition of responsibilities after the Oath of Office was administered.


“Dressed in their usual impeccable suits, Tony and Mel waited and waited. They began to get a little nervous because three rough-looking characters had arrived and were hanging around, eyeballing them.  Were they about to be mugged?  The trio looked like bikers, with earrings and ponytails, jeans that were torn and dirty, and faded sweatshirts or Levi jackets.  Tony thought they might be there to erect bleachers or do some other construction.  He walked over to them.


“’Guys,’ Tony began, ‘we’re supposed to meet a few folks from the Clinton administration. Have you run into any guys who might be the Clinton Advance Team?’


“One of them gave Tony a dirty look. ‘We’re the Clinton Advance Team.’”


I’ve told you about the public screaming match the Clintons had just before the inauguration ceremony.  Aldrich reports:


“After taking the oath, Bill and Hillary Clinton were taken to a holding room in the Capitol building. Minutes passed while everyone waited for Bill and Hillary to emerge to commence the inaugural festivities.  A Capitol Hill police officer was ordered to inform the Clintons that everyone was ready and waiting.


“The police officer knocked and opened the door of the holding room. He immediately shut it, beating a hasty retreat.  Hillary Clinton was screaming at her husband in what was described as “uncontrolled and unbridled fury.”  Apparently, the matter of office space [the East Wing, the traditional haunt of the First Lady, versus the West Wing, the presidential seat of power] was not settled.


“A case of jitters or understandable last minute fussing?” Aldrich asks.


“No, not according to extremely reliable sources who have spoken to me and who, for obvious reasons, must remain anonymous. One [editor’s italics] of the reasons the Clintons were late was because Vice President Gore had just found out that the West Wing office usually reserved for the vice president was, instead, going to be occupied by the first lady.


“Network news cameras, trained on Blair House the morning of the inauguration, recorded a glimpse of the [soon-to-be] president and first lady screaming at each other. Sources I consider very reliable,” Aldrich continues, “affirm that Clinton told Hillary that if she didn’t back off from her plans to unseat Gore, Gore would go public with his anger and perhaps resign.  Hillary shouted at him that as far as she was concerned, they had a deal – a deal that dated back to the campaign, when Lloyd Cutler had convinced her to stand by Clinton despite the allegations that he’d had an affair with Jennifer Flowers.  The matter had already been decided, she said, and she had no intention of backing off; Gore was bluffing.”


Aldrich drove on to the White House to assume his duties. An eye roll from the normally reserved Secret Service agent at the gate was a mystery.  As he entered the White House Mess, he discovered the answer to the enigmatic gesture:  the normally, well-scrubbed cafeteria had been turned into a pig-pen, a mess worthy of a college cafeteria.


“I looked around,” Aldrich writes. “I saw a shaggy-haired, middle-aged guy over in the corner in a loud, checkered, polyester, double-knit suit and badly scuffed shoes.  The woman next to me was dressed like a cocktail waitress.  Her shirt was tight and ended at her midriff; her skirt was short and she wasn’t wearing any [panty] hose.  Between the two of them, I almost wondered if I’d walked into Hooters by mistake.


Aldrich left the canteen and headed for an elevator, where a crowd of Clintonites rushed the elevator as soon as the doors opened, not giving the occupants time to get out.


Two key offices were involved the F.B.I. operations at the White House. One was the Counsel’s Office, and the other was the Office of Administration, which ran the Personnel Office and supplied logistical support for the F.B.I. investigations at the White House.  The Counsel’s Office ordered investigations and reviewed the results.  Aldrich makes clear that the F.B.I’s job was to investigate only, not to prosecute.


After leaving a message for David Watkins, the new assistant to the president for Office and Administration, with his “I-Am-Not-A-Secretary” assistant Clarissa Cerda, Aldrich went to meet with him and perform the background investigation.  Aldrich notes that the interview is considered confidential because of the Privacy Act, but “instead of answering my questions, Watkins used words or phrases that could have a double meaning.”  The more Aldrich bore down on him to assess his character suitable, the more evasive Watkins became.


Meanwhile, his counterpart was having trouble getting the Clinton people to cooperate.


“Dennis looked agitated. ‘I tell you, Gary, this is going to be a challenge. I don’t know about you, but I’m having a heck of a time getting these Clinton people to grant interviews.  I call people up, tell them who I am and what I need to do, and they tell me they’re too busy to talk to the FBI!’


“Too busy to talk to the FBI?” Aldrich was amazed. “How did they expect to get permanent passes to the White House or security clearances so they could read classified material?”


Clearly, not only didn’t they care, they knew they didn’t have to. They had carte blanche to breeze through the White House from people at the very top of the food chain – the Clintons themselves.


One morning, Aldrich went downstairs to check in with his friend, Frank “the Framer” Posey and his co-worker, Roland. “Frank was an ex-Coast Guard serviceman and trained carpenter now responsible for framing photos and documents for the White House.”


Frank’s job that day was to remove pictures of the outgoing president and vice president and replace them with their replacements. Aldrich looked through the stack of prints.


“Where’s Al Gore?” Aldrich asked. “I don’t see the vice president.”


“Frank grinned. He pointed over to another part of his shop where there was another stack of pictures.  ‘Take a look at those.’


“I walked over and flipped one right-side up. But it wasn’t Al Gore; it was Hillary Clinton. ‘Frank, seriously, don’t you have any of the vice president?’


“’Nope. Not a one.  They all have to be framed right away – and then we have to hang them.’




“In the weeks that followed the inauguration, almost every office received a giant picture of Bill and Hillary Clinton.   But in offices that had some connection to Hillary Clinton, there were few if any pictures of the president.  Al Gore did get some jumbos, but they were restricted almost entirely to the vice president’s offices.”


As for office space in the West Wing, Gore did get the office space usually reserved for the vice president. But an FBI agent long stationed in that section, Greg Schwarz, was evicted.  “Gore staffers, he told me had complained that they ‘didn’t want to be in the same room with an FBI agent’ and that they ‘couldn’t imagine sharing office space with a fed.’  Why not?


“Soon the mystery was solved. It appears that Al and Tipper Gore decided to reward their “incredibly hard-working staff” after the inauguration by inviting them to a Grateful Dead concert.  The Gores were described by a Gore spokesman as dedicated ‘Deadheads.’


“As an FBI agent, I knew the parking lot of Great Dead concerts were notorious open-air drug markets and that the band itself and its followers were an entrenched part of the drug culture.’”


“I was disappointed when I discovered that the vice president’s staff was not much different than the Clinton staff. They too had serious character flaws which were reflective of counterculture roots, including a casual attitude about the use of illegal.  Indeed, many Gore staffers had radical political attitudes.”


That included Gore speechwriter Robert Lehrman, known for his explicitly sexual teenage novels. He readily admitted that the book was really a how-to book for young teens, instructing them in the proper techniques of love-making.”


“The new White House Director of Security was Craig Livingstone,” Aldrich writes. “Craig had no experience in security issues.  His only qualifications were that he was a thirty-something friend of the Clintons and was built like an overweight bouncer.  And his Washington career had opened with a bang.  Federal employees were trying to find more than $150,000 worth of equipment lost or stolen from the inauguration – equipment that had been in the charge of Craig Livingstone.”


When Associate Counsel William Kennedy asked Aldrich what he thought of Livingstone replacing Jane Dannenhauer (Director of the White House Counsel’s Office of Security), adding, what the F.B.I. would think if there were “character issues in his background,” Aldrich tried to respond carefully. It was a post that should be filled with someone squeaky clean, he replied.


Kennedy cut him off, “I guess I see your point, but it doesn’t matter. It’s a done deal.  Hillary wants him.”


Hillary Clinton set herself up in the West Wing right in the midst of the White House Counsel offices. If any policy was to be discussed, particularly domestic, she was in on the meetings.  If there were any legal questions, she was to be there, no questions asked.


Hillary had become the Clinton administration’s de facto “Chief of Staff.”


“Hillary not only ran the domestic side of the White House (eventually, sealing the Residence off from the F.B.I. and the Secret Service, whose job it was to protect the First Family, when a fed-up Secret Service agent reported that Hillary threw a lamp at Bill in a fit of rage); she ran domestic policy as well.


“But Mrs. Clinton was also the de facto White House counsel and director of presidential personnel, selecting and clearing staff.


“There were some staff members with obvious links to the president – like Catherine Cornelius and another West Wing employee, both young, attractive blondes – but the president kept a low profile in the staffing and management of the White House. I saw no evidence of a power struggle between the president and first lady.  The power was all hers.  The president’s role seemed limited to taking the blame.”


In the infamous Filegate Travel Office Scandal, Hillary Clinton was the chief scoundrel. She abused the F.B.I. by forcing it into a 30-month (2-1/2 year) investigation of seen innocent citizens in the White House Travel Office.  Further, she obstructed justice and failed to adhere to the federal law by hiding and destroying documents that would clear the single Travel Office employee (Billy Dale) against whom false accusations were finally filed and taken to court.  The reason for Filegate was that Hillary wanted her own people from Arkansas in the Travel Office.


The firings were handled by David Watkins. The White House Counsel’s Office refused to allow Aldrich to perform the proper interviews to ascertain the guilt or innocence of the defendants.  The evidence against them was scant; some assistance to the press covering the president so they wouldn’t be delayed during travel.


Then there was the mishandling of the Vince Foster suicide. Word had no sooner gotten out that Foster had committed suicide than Hillary Clinton’s staffers were raiding his office, removing cartons and boxes of files that should have been left in place for a proper investigation.


Aldrich had warned Foster, who gave the F.B.I agent the proper respect he deserved, about the dangerous lack of security in the White House about a week before his death. Aldrich was worried his warnings might have led to the man’s suicide.  Aldrich confided in Craig Livingstone.


“’I’m afraid I added to his woes by dumping all this in his lap,’” Aldrich said.


“’Gary, I assure you, none of that stuff had anything to do with his death. He had bigger problems on his mind.  He was worried that rumors about his affair with Hillary were resurfacing.  We had that problem during the campaign, you know, after the business with Gennifer came up.  You remember, when Bill and Gennifer were doing their thing?  Vince and Hillary were doing their thing.  Vince thought if it resurfaced it would ruin his life, his reputation, and his marriage, and he thought it would impact big time on Hillary and the presidency.’


“’What? An affair with Hillary?’


“Livingstone looked genuinely surprised. ‘You don’t know?  You’re kidding me, right?’”


Aldrich was in for yet another surprise, regarding Vince Foster. Aldrich was speaking with a computer expert for the White House Information Resources Management Division about how to clear deleted documents from a hard drive permanently so a computer thief couldn’t get access to classified material.


The first way was to smash it by taking the hard drive out and dismantling it piece by piece. Or there was the government-approved scrub program to erase the hard drive completely.  After about four hours, the entire disc would be cleaned.


Then the computer expert said to Aldrich, “’Speaking of computers, have you heard about the Foster computer?”


“’What about it?’


“’You aren’t going to believe what happened to it. Months after the suicide, someone finally got around to thinking about Foster’s computer and ordered us to track it down.  I can’t believe that Fiske and your FBI boys didn’t seize it right away, but they didn’t.  We tracked the computer by its serial number.  We then ran a review of all repair and installation documents related to it, and guess what we found out?  Foster’s computer had been taken out of his office after his death because it wasn’t being used, and someone else needed it.


“’But when it was turned on, when someone tried to use it, it wouldn’t boot up – the hard drive wouldn’t function. A call was placed to the shop that repairs computers, and the guys came over to take a look at it.  Sure enough, the hard drive wasn’t operating.  They took the machine apart, and found the hard drive was so badly damaged it couldn’t be repaired.


“’The computer repairman didn’t know the history of the computer, that it had been Foster’s computer, so he simply took the old, broken hard drive out and installed a brand new one. He programmed the new drive and took the old drive back to the shop and tossed it into the scrap barrel.  A couple of months later, someone came along and emptied the scrap barrel.’”


“’This is unbelievable,’ Aldrich exclaimed.  “How could this happen.  You do know that the FBI is investigating obstruction of justice charges in this case?  Does anyone else know about this?’


“’Yeah, one of the guys testified about it to Kenneth Starr’s group or was interviewed about it; I don’t know which. Staff knows about it, but I don’t think anyone knows who ‘did’ the hard drive.’


“’Did’ the hard drive? Wait a minute.  Are you saying that the hard drive was destroyed by someone?  How do you destroy a hard drive?”


Although the expert had already explained it to Aldrich, he went into further detail.


“’Gary, there’s only one way I know of to destroy a hard drive. You turn on the computer and order it to perform a function of some kind, and while the hard drive is working to finish the function, you pick up the case and you drop it sharply on the floor, or on some other hard surface.  The disk will usually self-destruct on impact, and then it can’t be used and can’t be read easily, if at all.  Of course, even if you could read it, it’s long gone now because all those investigators didn’t think to ask about it.’”


“’We don’t run these investigations,’ Aldrich told the expert, ‘we take orders. FBI agents working for an independent counsel have virtually no say in what is done or not done.  It hurts our egos to admit it, but it’s true.  The good old days of the independent FBI are over.  The FBI gets the blame, and the prosecutors get the credit.  That’s how it works these days.’


“’Well, then,’ the computer expert remarked, ‘the prosecutors really blew it. If we all know they should have seized the computer, why didn’t they?’”


Aldrich goes on to talk about Hillarycare:


“Early in the Clinton Administration, the media was full of stories about FOBs – Friends of Bill.” But many of the appointees I investigated were really FOHs – Friends of Hillary.  Nowhere were her thumbprints more pronounced than on the Health Care Task Force – the most important domestic project of President Clinton’s first term.


“The health care debate looked very different inside the White House than it did to the public. While the public was inundated by hard-luck stories of suffering poor people who had lost their insurance, the Clintons themselves were behaving like the most cut-throat corporate downsizers.


“In an effort to make good on candidate Clinton’s promise to cut the White House staff by 25 percent – a target the administration never reached – many long-time federal employees were fired. To staff the White House, the Administration brought in a flood of interns and volunteers who worked out only without insurance, but also with pay (and frequently without professional standards of behavior [one mini-skirted staffer was walking ahead of the First Lady when she bent down to do something.  The First Lady saw that not only was the mini-skirted young woman not wearing pantyhose underskirt, but nothing else, either.]).


“Kept very quiet by the Clintons was the fact that many White House employees hired as officially ‘part-time’ staff to be paid at only thirty-nine hours a week or less, even though there was plenty of work for them to do and they wanted to work full time. But denying them that extra hour of work a week allowed the White House to deny them a variety of benefits, the chief of which was health insurance.”


Another friend of Aldrich’s called to ask if the First Lady was out of her mind.


The friend explained, “’Well, three health insurance company executives hired my lobbyist friend to go with them to the White House to present their solution for the health care crisis. They wanted personally to present their case to the task force, hopefully directly to Hillary.  They got their chance.  They were able to get an appointment with the first lady. They went down there in a group, were brought into the West Wing and were told to wait in the Roosevelt Room.  They had sent advanced copies of their plan, and they were looking forward to speaking to Hillary about.’


“’How did your friend get caught up in this?’ Aldrich asked.


“’Well, she’s the sister of a classmate of Hillary, and it was thought that if a call was made…You know the rest, right?’”


“’Yeah. So tell me, what happened?’


“’They were kept waiting an hour. Then Hillary walked in, slammed their proposal on the table, and said, ‘Gentlemen, I have looked at your proposal, and it’s pure bulls—t!  Now, you’ve had your meeting!  Get out!’”


The White House Usher’s Office also had its run-ins with the Wicked Witch of the West Wing. Hillary wanted some Blistex.  According to Aldrich, when the assistant usher informed the First “Lady” that the Usher’s Office didn’t have a drugstore, she ripped his ear off.  He then got in his personal car, in the middle of the night, to find an all-night drugstore, and bought the item for her.


In another incident, Aldrich relates that “[a] senior permanent employee, who I knew to be a strong supporter of the Clintons, had looked forward to meeting her. He held a position that ensured that some day he would.  One day, he saw Hillary Clinton walking in his direction down a corridor in [the Old Executive Office Building].  She looked in no particular hurry, so he thought it might be a good time to say hello.  She approached with her Secret Service agents walking several paces behind her.


“Working up his best smile, he said, ‘Good morning, Mrs. Clinton.’ She stared right through him.  He told me it was as if she had ‘pierced his skull with laser beams.’


Aldrich continues, “Another staffer, also permanent, witnessed the event from her cracked office door and approached my friend.


“’I guess you didn’t get the word?’


“’What word?’ he asked.


“’When ‘Queen Hillary’ walks down the hall, you’re not supposed to look at her. You’re actually supposed to into an office if there is one.  She doesn’t want staff ‘seeing’ her.  And I know she sure as hell doesn’t want to meet you or any other [permanent] staffer!’


“’You have got to be kidding me!’


“No, we got the word in a staff meeting. It’s true.  Look around.  Do you see anyone else in the hall?’


Aldrich’s friend looked around and sure enough “people were starting to emerge, like prairie dogs peeking out of their burrows after a hawk has flown past.”


Aldrich’s partner, Dennis, had a similar experience. “In February 1993, he was walking to the Residence to interview Head Usher Gary Walters about a new employee.  He saw Hillary Clinton coming from the opposite direction.  She was carrying a box that appeared to be heavy [Vince Foster’s computer, perhaps?] and she was about to come to a double door that would have been hard to open, even if she had not been carrying a heavy box.


“He noticed the Secret Service agents making no effort to assist her. He stepped forward to help, but a Residence staffer close enough to Dennis to whisper without being heard by ‘Queen Hillary,’ said, ‘Don’t!’


“When Hillary was safely away, the staffer told Dennis that Hillary insisted that no man should help her in any way.


“Another close source, this one in the Secret Service, told me that Hillary had ordered her Secret Service protective detail to ‘stay the f—k away from me!” and to keep at least ten yards of distance between her and them at all times.


“The Secret Service agent told me that it was much harder to protect her from a distance of ten yards, and she was told this, but she didn’t seem to care what the Secret Service said. He also told me that it was obvious that she had a clear dislike for the agents, bordering on hatred, in his opinion.


“Along those same lines, another source reports that two Secret Service agents heard Hillary’s daughter, Chelsea, refer to them as “personal trained pigs” to some of her friends. When the friends had gone, the senior agent on the detail tried to scold Chelsea for such disrespect.  He told her that he was willing to put his life on the line to save hers, and he believed that her father, the president, would be shocked if he heard what she had just said to her friends.


“I don’t think so,” Chelsea responded. “That’s what my parents call you.”


Hillary Clinton didn’t give much thought to her role as First Lady. Though she had to swallow the nominal title, she thought of herself as the “Co-President.”  When she did attend to East Wing matters, she did so with incredibly bad taste.


Nothing speaks worse of Hillary’s true character than the Blue Room Christmas Tree. This is the First Lady’s own, traditional Christmas tree.  The 1993 Blue Room Christmas tree was what Aldrich deemed a “stark” affair” with carved, wooden fertility symbols and crystal blocks gelled around old computer parts that were too heavy to stay on the tree.


Blue Room Christmas 1994 was truly a “Blue Christmas.” Hillary Clinton had invited art students (presumably college art students) to send in hand-made Christmas ornaments.  Aldrich, who was always invited to “Decorating Saturday” because he was strong, was back for the “fun”.


He brought the boxes in and the staff members began to unpack them.


“It took about ten seconds to get the first reaction: ‘What in the world?’  ‘What the hell?’  ‘Look at this thing?  What is it?’


What it was was Hillary’s interpretation of “The Twelve Days of Christmas.”


“The orders from the First Lady’s Office are to hang these,” someone told Aldrich. “It’s what she wants so we have to hang them.  Anyway, many of them are from ‘blue ribbon’ art schools, as designated by the Secretary of Education.  The whole administration has a stake in this.”


Some ornaments were funny such as five real onion rings glued to Styrofoam. Others, like the Twelve Lords A’Leapin’ were eight tiny, naked male figurines, each featuring their very pronounced “maleness.” The tree also featured, according to Aldrich, other sex toys and self-mutilation devices.


“Some ornaments were constructed out of various drug paraphernalia, like syringes, heroin spoons, or roach clips…” Three French Hens were French-kissing in a menage-a-trois..Two turtle doves, with their shells, were joined together in an act of bird fornication.


“Here was another five golden rings ornament,” Aldrich writes, “five gold-wrapped condoms. I threw them in trash.  There were other condom ornaments, some still in the wrapper, some not.  Two sets had been ‘blown’ into balloons and tied to small trees.


“When we were through, the first lady’s tree had all the beauty and majesty of a landfill.


“Hillary’s social secretary, Ann Stock, came down, carefully looked at the tree and its decorations and pronounced it ‘perfect’ and ‘delightful.’ My shoulders sagged.  Stock had been our last, best hope to clean up this ‘mistake.’  But instead, she thought it was ‘neat.’  At least, we had turned the gingerbread man around so that his golden rings didn’t face the tour line.  I came back later and took some pictures of the tree and ‘Mr. Gingerbread Man’ with the rings side out.  I knew nobody would believe this without photographic proof.”


The White House naturally obtained a copy of Aldrich’s book. Aldrich was scheduled to appear on numerous talk shows to discuss this explosive tome.  But the White House PR team had beaten him to the punch.  They got ahead of the story, using their media, particularly George Stephanopoulos, to discredit, dismiss and smear Gary Aldrich, a 26-year veteran of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.


Still, his book made the top of the New York Times best-seller list, pushing Hillary’s own book, “It Takes a Village” off into the dustbin. She and her staff have been working full-time ever since its publication in 1996 (with paperback edition with extra goodies in 1998) to deny the allegations.


The Cast of 2016 is the same as the Cast of 1992. Many of the same players are still there, like  Sidney Blumenthal, as are many of the same problems and scandals.


“Handling classified material without a clearance – or allowing classified material,” Aldrich wrote in 1996, twenty years ago, “is a violation of federal law. But think of what it means for national security when just about anyone can handle classified material.  It wouldn’t take a [then] KGB genius to infiltrate the Clinton administration.  Apparently, most White House documents are freely available to whomever might look at them, however ‘inadvertently.’”


Twenty year-old charges, Hillary’s defenders would claim. Twenty year-old charges that are just as relevant today as in 1996, when Hillary beat the rap, as they used to say back then.


We don’t need a repeat of history. Hillary has flouted the law, abused her staff, and launched off on blue-tongued rants that would make Donald Trump blush.  Read Unlimited Access soon, if you can, or at least pass this e-mail around.


Decide for yourselves if we’re judging Bill Clinton’s presidency – or Hillary’s.


Published in: on October 17, 2016 at 4:10 pm  Leave a Comment  

The Art of Spinning the News and Revising History

Back in the Sixties, our teachers used to spin this revisionist tale of how our first president, George Washington, really died.  He didn’t catch a cold from horseback riding.  His sore throat was not what was commonly called “putrid throat” – it was syphilis (a symptom of which is a throat virus).


The revisionists couldn’t pin any love children on Washington. Washington was apparently unable to produce children.  That was not true of his wife, Martha, a young widow with small children when he met and married her.  So the Liberals had to settle for death by syphilis, instead.


The Liberals delighted in the candor of Benjamin Franklin’s dirty old man persona. Franklin himself delighted in it right into his old age.  He was an 18th Century Bill Clinton.


But Washington, a model of virtue, had to be taken down somehow in the cause of deconstructing America. He didn’t chop down the cherry tree and he died of complications of syphilis.  Never mind that the general sanitary conditions of the 18th Century were deplorable.  Washington wrote of it when he took over the Continental Army in 1775.


Washington was nothing, if not fastidious. It’s hard to imagine him even allowing his cloak to brush some unkempt prostitute.  He died of a sore throat.  That was it.  In those days, the solution to just about every internal malady was bloodletting.  Washington’s doctors drew some much blood, however, that it left him too weak to recover from an otherwise non-fatal malady.


The spinmeisters had a much better time with Pres. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence. They gloat that he had a lifelong affair with his slave, Sally Hemmings.  Although docents at Jefferson’s Monticello estate claim that it was more likely his brother, Randolph, a few facts do support the Liberal claims.


The facts may prove to be inconvenient for the scandal-mongers. Sally Hemmings was born to one of Martha Skales Jefferson’s father’s slaves.  Sally and Martha were about the same age.  “Rumors” suggest that Martha herself was the off-spring of a slave, possibly the same slave as Sally.


Sally, it turns out, was white. She looked so much like Martha, Jefferson’s late and much beloved wife that the theory is that if Jefferson took her as a concubine, it was because of her resemblance to Martha.


The Democrat Spin has slimed every Republican candidate since Richard Nixon challenged John F. Kennedy for the presidency in 1962. Sliming, in fact, has been a pastime of the press since American politics began.


But here we are in the 20th Century and the Clintons have raised (or lowered, as it were) spin to new depths of muck, smearing the opposition, charging them with false or unprovable accusations, courting the upper echelons of the corporate media machine, and selecting favorable reporters for coveted interviews.


Franklin D. Roosevelt used to take the press on picnics. Today, the media environment is much more competitive, with the 24/7 news cycle.  Reporters on deadline are pressured to get the “big story” or “scoop” before their competitors do.  If they miss the scoop, they can be sure to hear from their editors and the company management.


During Bill Clinton’s presidency, according to Spin Cycle: How the White House and the Media Manipulate the News, by Howard Kurtz (Touchstone/Simon & Schuster, 1998), Mike McCurry, Bill Clinton’s White House Spokesman, broke the Media down into categories of usefulness in getting out the President’s “message.”


The ideal message bearers were the big television and cable networks: ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN.  The networks were chosen as the bearers of the worst news because any story only had about two minutes (at most) to deliver the bad news.  The biggest audiences with the shortest memories got the briefest version of any scandal.  A news item like Travelgate, for instance, got the minimum of coverage and then it was on to the next story.


Even if the story went on for months, that was good news for the White House because they knew viewers would soon get bored with the story and decide it was no big deal after all, or just politics as usual. McCurry referred to this delivery as “dribs and drabs.”


The big newspapers – the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal – had more aggressive reporters, but the owners and publishers of the papers were on board with the Democrats and the President.  What’s more, the Times and the Post could count on a loyal, limited, Liberal readership.  Their articles were much too long for the average reader whose time was limited by work and family responsibilities.  The Times printed all the news that was fit to print.


But the average reader didn’t have time to read it all (my father did, much to my mother’s frustration). Other large cities had spreadsheet newspapers, like the Los Angeles Times, to service the Liberals in those cities.


Farther down the list were the tabloids. Of these, there were two types:  the legitimate tabloids like the New York Daily News and the New York Post, the latter of which had a decidedly Conservative bent; and the supermarket tabloids, like The National Enquirer and the National Examiner.  If a legitimate tabloid ran an anti-White House story, McCurry simply dismissed it as “tabloid journalism.”


Then there were the crucial Sunday morning news shows, like Meet the Press, that gave the White House a wide berth in putting forth its agenda and strategies.  The networks were anxious to have the White House spokespeople in front of their cameras, for the credibility it brought them, and the White House was eager to exploit that need.


Finally there was the gamut of mostly opposition news media: talk radio, led by Rush Limbaugh, websites, blogs, and social media, which the White House did its best to disparage – and underestimated at its peril.


One newspaper, according to Kurtz, that McCurry and the Slime Room (as New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd dubbed it) found useful was USA Today.  This newspaper was basically a tabloid printed in spreadsheet fashion.  Their prodigious use of graphs and graphics conveyed the news without the usual, inconvenient details.


McCurry was critical in getting the White House Press Team organized.


Kurtz writes, “To be sure, Clinton’s performance had helped create the sense that the country was doing just fine on his watch. But it was a carefully-honed media strategy – alternately seducing, misleading, and sometimes intimidating the press – that maintained this aura of success.  No day went by without the president and his coterie laboring mightily to generate favorable headlines and deflect damaging ones, to project their preferred image on the vast screen of the media establishment.”


During any scandal, McCurry saw to it that Clinton was scheduled for an overseas trip, promoting some international agenda and meeting with foreign dignitaries. During press conferences on those trips, Clinton would only take questions from the local, foreign media.  The national American reporters were roped off and their questions ignored.


“For much of Clinton’s first term,” Kurtz continues, “these efforts to control the message were clumsy at best. The core of the original team – Chief of Staff Thomas “Mack” McLarty, long-time confidant Bruce Lindsey, senior adviser George Stephanopoulos, counselor David Gergen, press secretary Dee Dee Myers – had trouble fashioning a consistent message, and Clinton himself was unfocused and error-prone.


“His casual response, at his first post-election news conference in 1992, about his plans to change the Pentagon’s policy towards gays in the military plunged his administration into a long and bruising battle that pushed other issues off the radar screen. Clinton would often stop to talk to reporters after his morning job, the sweat dripping down his face in a decidedly unpresidential fashion.  He seemed unable to leave any question unanswered, eve one on MTV about his underwear.


“In the second half of the term, the president’s new chief of staff, Leon Panetta, imposed some much-needed order on the operation; McCurry smoothed relations with the press; Communications Director Don Baer brought some coherence to long-range planning; Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes rode herd on the political operation; Special Counsel Mark Fabiani deflected the endless scandal stories; consultant Dick Morris steered Clinton toward the political center; and the president himself was more disciplined [editor’s italics] in his dealings with reporters.


“He [Clinton] carefully measured his words about the Oklahoma City bombing and the two government shutdowns. Whatever the question, he would stick to the script, repeat his campaign priorities about protecting Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment, brush off scandal questions with the briefest of replies, and hold his famous temper in check.”


“The second-term lineup was more seasoned but less adventurous. Senior Adviser Rahm Emanuel assumed Stephanopoulos’s role of behind-the-scenes press handler.  Special Counsel Lanny Davis became the chief spinmeister on the burgeoning fund-raising scandal, an effort crisply supervised by Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta.  Communications Director Ann Lewis handled the substantive planning.  Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles presided over the entire operation like the corporate executive he was.   Counselor Doug Sosnik served up political advice, joined over the summer by colorful strategist and former journalist Sidney [“Sid Vicious”] Blumenthal.


“McCurry stayed on for a final mission, determined to broker a cease-fire between the president and a hostile press corps. He and his colleagues were engaged in a daily struggle to control the agenda, to seize the public’s attention, however fleetingly, for Clinton’s wide-ranging initiatives.  They had to manage the news, to package the presidency in a way that people would buy the product.”


“When the reporters had the upper hand, the headlines were filled with scandal news, a cascade of Watergate-style charges that drowned out nearly everything else. Indeed, they had plenty of material to work with.


“The Whitewater investigation, which had dragged on throughout the first term, involved the Clintons’ role in a complicated land Arkansas land deal, their partnership with a crooked couple, and allegations of a subsequent cover-up. “


“The Travelgate probe involved charged that the First Lady had orchestrated the ouster of seven employees of the White House Travel Office so the work could be given to friends of the Clintons.


“The Filegate inquiry involved charges that White House aides had deliberately obtained the sensitive FBI files of prominent Republicans.


“The Paula Jones lawsuit turned on allegations by a former Arkansas state employee that Clinton, while governor, had asked for sex in a Little Rock hotel room.


“And the campaign finance scandal, in its broadest form, involved an alleged conspiracy by Clinton and [Vice President Al] Gore to use the perks of high office to solicit cash from foreign operatives, Asian-American donors, and ‘garden variety’ fat cats, ‘perhaps’ in exchange for political favors.


“Against this dark backdrop, what the White House press operatives did was to launder the news – to scrub it of dark scandal stains, removed unsightly splotches of controversy, erase greasy dabs of contradictions, and present it to the country crisp and sparkling white. The underlying garment was the same, but it was often unrecognizable.”



FDR instituted the concept of talking “on background” and “off-the-record.” At a 1933 press conference, Kurtz tells us, “He told reporters he didn’t want to be quoted directly.  It was a remarkable innovation; the president as chief source, setting strict ground rules that enabled him to shape the news agenda.  The assembled reporters gave Roosevelt a standing ovation, and for the twelve and a half years of his presidency he was treated with deference and affection by the correspondents, none of whom dreamt of telling the public that Roosevelt was confined to a wheelchair.


“John Kennedy was the president to hold live televised press conferences, an innovation that permanently altered the nature of White House communications by staging a regular drama, with the reporters as extras, that reached every American living room. He also personally befriended reporters (notably Newsweek’s Ben Bradlee), marketed his wife, Jacqueline [and children, Caroline and John Jr.], as a cultural phenomenon, and drew stunningly positive coverage by today’s standards.


“But even JFK could be stung by journalistic criticism, and he once canceled his subscription to the New York Herald Tribune for its ‘biased’ coverage.” And of course, the press never breathed his word about the many women he “entertained.”


“Lyndon Johnson made prodigious efforts to wheedle and cajole the press, dispatching military aircraft to pick up the likes of anchor David Brinkley and Washington Post publisher Katharine Graham and fly them to his Texas ranch for private meetings and intimate dinners.


“In recent years,” Kurtz goes on to write, “the modern practice of spin has come to occupy a sort of gray zone between candor and outright falsehood.”


“By the time Mike McCurry inherited the podium, the press operation had become increasingly crucial to the success or failure of any administration. On one level, the growing bureaucracy was needed to deal with an expanding media universe.  But it was also a natural outgrowth of television’s need to dramatize stories, to focus the camera’s eye on a single leader doing battle with the forces of politics and nature.”


“Bill Clinton had all the accoutrements of high office, but [in his second term] he no longer commanded the public stage. McCurry and his colleagues spent endless hours honing the Clinton message, trying to hype each modest proposal into another news cycle, as if the president were some freshman Congressman desperate for a flicker of recognition.  The competition was intense, for Bill Clinton dwelt in the same murky precincts of celebrity as Dennis Rodman, Courtney Love, and David Letterman.  In a hundred-channel world, the president had become just another piece of programming to be marketed, and high ratings were hardly guaranteed.”


McCurry played the press like a fine violin, conducting press conferences from the condensed press room in the basement of the White House. Yet, “McCurry and company needed the press to peddle their message to the public, and the journalists needed an action-packed presidency on which to build their reputations and name recognition…fireworks were inevitable when the two sides got in each other’s way.


“The White House partisans were convinced that the public was tuning it all out [the scandals], that most Americans viewed this as the typical Beltway follies, but the journalists were filled with moral fervor, determined that readers and viewers should care and that somehow they would make them care.


“The Clintonites were equally determined to rout the journalistic naysayers and prove that they could govern in this scandal-charged atmosphere. Neutralizing the media [and, thereby, the American people], had become Ground Zero in the struggle for supremacy, and the spin would clearly be as important as the substance.”


McCurry had to find a way to get the White House news out, without making an official announcement, and get a favored newspaper and news channel to make that announcement – before the announcement, in order to soft the public up to accept it with a positive mind-set.


“In an age of all news all the time, it was no longer enough simply to stage a presidential ceremony at the White House. Once Clinton made an announcement, McCurry felt, it was only a matter of minutes before Rush Limbaugh, cable commentators, online new services, ‘snippy’ White House correspondents, and anyone else with an opinion got to tear it apart.  The only way to break through the ‘static’ was through repetition, which politicians loved and reporters hated.  To keep a story alive through several news cycles, McCurry often resorted to the art of the leak.


“It was a trick he had perfected during the campaign; give one news organization a break on an upcoming development and it was certain to get big play, leaving the other reporters to play catch-up. Few reporters could resist the urge to breathlessly trumpet that ‘the president will announce tomorrow…’  They looked like well-wired insiders, and the White House got a two-day bounce.”


While McCurry slugged it out with the reporters, down in the basement, Communications Director Don Baer was polishing up Clinton’s reputation as soldier for the middle class.


“Baer was perhaps the most conservative Clinton’s top aides,” Kurtz writes, “one who believed it was important for the president to rise above the day-to-day strife [which was of Clinton’s own creation] and embrace the kind of values that would resonate with the middle class. Baer tried to ensure that every cog in the White House machine, from scheduling to speechwriting, operated toward that goal.”


In the news vacuum prior to the 1996 inauguration and the arrival of the 105th Congress, Baer and Rahm Emmanuel wanted to position Clinton as the “National Healer,” the “repairer of the breach.”  Kurtz writes, “They needed to stage some events that would convey this image.”


“They began,” he writes, “with a well-timed leak. Baer gave a background briefing to John Harris, a voluble, easy-going reporter who covered the White House for The Washington Post, laying out the broad outline of the coming events.  Harris’s piece ran the next Sunday, above the fold.  “Clinton Prepares to Push Role As National Unifier,” the headline said.  Baer was thrilled.  It had worked.  Several other newspapers and television programs would follow the Post’s lead.”

“The kick-off event the next morning had been a tough sell. Baer an Emmanuel had noticed that evangelical and other Christian leaders were scheduled to come to the White House for a prayer breakfast, and they pushed to open the session to reporters so Clinton could turn it into a high-profile event.”


But Clinton’s political instincts told him it was a wrong move. “The president wasn’t pleased.  He had made a point of keeping such events closed to the press so he could gain credibility with an audience that was already suspicious of him.  Clinton was always sensitive that an audience not think he was using them as props in his morality play.  But Baer and Emauel talked him into it.  They briefed the church leaders in advance.  Everyone was on board.”


“The careful planning paid off. Clinton hosted the ecumenical breakfast in the State Dining Room and made the front page of the New York Times.  ‘Clinton Seeks Help for the Nation’s Spirit,” the piece said.


But then, Newsweek put Paula Jones on its cover in early January.  McCurry was furious that the magazine hadn’t warned him that the story would be on the cover.  The Supreme Court was about to hear oral arguments on Clinton’s effort to delay Jones’ lawsuit until after he left office.  Ultimately, he was successful in at least stalling the case while the Court heard the arguments until after the 1996 election.


“Now,” Kurtz tells us, “like other buried ghosts of the first term, it was coming back to haunt him.”


“Temperatures began rising as soon as Newsweek hit the streets,” says Kurtz.  “John Harris wrote in the Post that the president was ‘furious’ about the magazine cover, viewing it as yet another example of the media’s determination to tarnish him.  After the first edition of the Post went to press, McCurry admonished Harris.


“’Do not write that, John,’ he insisted. ‘It’s not true, it’s not true.  When Clinton’s furious, trust me, I know.’  McCurry described Clinton more as feeling resigned to a spate of negative publicity over the Jones case.


“For later editions Harris deleted the word ‘furious’ and said the president saw the Paula Jones cover as confirming his ‘suspicion’ that journalists were using the case ‘as an occasion for airing anew her more sensation charges, according to people familiar with his thinking.


“But more than Clinton’s temper was in play. Karen Bresalu, Newsweek’s new White House correspondent, was approaching Clinton on Air Force One, about to hand him a copy of the magazine’s book on the 1996 campaign, when McCurry started haranguing her from behind about the cover story.  Breslau, who had been on the job only a couple of days, tired not to show that she was flustered.  It was McCurry’s way of sending a message to her ‘masters’; he did not like to be blindsided.  McCurry also refused to engage the Jones story in public.  When reporters asked him about the case, he merely referred the questions, to [Robert] Bennett, who, of course, wasn’t commenting.


Early on in his position, McCurry, a lawyer, told Bill Clinton not to tell him anything at all about his escapades. A cagey spokesman, McCurry believed in ‘plausible deniability.’  If Clinton didn’t tell him anything, than he didn’t know anything and wouldn’t be able to tell investigators anything.


McCurry, the master of spin, knew how to play the game.


“He understood the ebb and flow of the fungible commodity called news…A spinmeister extraordinaire, deflecting questions with practiced ease,” he sugar-coated the ugly messes in which the Clintons seemed to repeatedly stumble.


“He would mislead reporters on occasion, or try to pass them off to one of the damage-control lawyers who infested the public payroll. He would yell at offending correspondents, denounced their stories as inaccurate, denigrate them to their colleagues and their bosses.  He would work the clock to keep damaging stores off the evening news, with its huge national audience.”


Associated Press reporter Larry Margasak was covering the Senate hearing on the Democratic Party fund-raising scandal, led by then Senator Fred Thompson, in which both Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore were implicated. Lanny Davis, another member of the White House press team tracked him down as he was writing the report.


According to Kurtz, “Lanny Davis ducked into a broom closet of a room in The Hart Building, a few steps to the left of the cavernous Thompson hearing room, where AP reporter Larry Margasak was banging away at a black laptop on a battered folding table.


“‘These were simply statements of federal law and not of DNC policy,’ Davis recited as Margasak typed. He peered over the reporter’s shoulder.


“’You want to say, based upon the understanding?’ Davis asked.


“’That’s fine,’ Margasak said impatiently. “C’mon, Lanny.’


“Davis pointed to the screen and continued, ‘If you insert ‘this is based upon’ after the words ‘soft money…’ He was injecting his verbiage directly into the wire story, the one that would set the tone for much of the day’s coverage.  A second AP reporter, James Rowley, looked on incredulously as his colleague took dictation from the White House spinmeister trying to save Al Gore’s butt.


“Moments earlier, Davis had been in the vice president’s small office in the adjoining Dirksen Senate Building, plotting strategy in a conference call with Chuck Ruff, John Podesta, Lanny Breuer, and Charles Burson. The Thompson committee had just drawn blood.  The panel had unearthed a staff memo that Harold Ickes had sent to Clinton and Gore, explaining the difference between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ donations and the ‘mix of money; required for campaign commercials.


“The left-handed Clinton had acknowledged the memo with his trademark backward checkmark, and a Gore aide had testified that such memos went straight to Gore’s in-box. The clear implication was that Gore knew of some of the big bucks he was raising were improperly being diverted to the Clinton-Gore campaign.


“Damn. Davis was aggravated.  Both Rowley and an ABC producer had asked him for the memo days earlier, after the committee had leaked word of its existence.  He wanted to put it out, but Burson had objected.  We don’t know which memos it is, [Lorraine] Voles explained.  Let them ask for it by the exact date.  What utter stupidity.  They never seemed to learn.


“Davis always called John Solomon at the AP in mid-morning to check on the Senate hearing story and see if there was anything he should respond to. That first dispatch was tremendously important in shaping the coverage of the rest of the journalistic world.  Now Solomon told him about the mem to Gore.


“’How much time do I have?’ Davis asked.


“’Twenty minutes,’ Solomon said.


“Davis bolted out of the veep’s second-floor office, down the stairs, through a connecting corridor to the Hart building, and up another flight to Margasak’s side. He emerged into the tan-carpeted hallway only after Margasak had finished tying his comments.


“Lanny Breuer, looking agitated, caught up with him moments later. What was he saying about Gore?


“’I’m not denying he saw the memos,’ Davis told him. “This is a very simple message and a very direct message.’


“Davis went back into the AP room, read his statement again – ‘That’s pretty damn good!’ he announced – and suggested a wording change.


“’We’re not going to edit your statement on the wire, Lanny,’ Rowley said.


“’Are you saying I have the chutzpah to ask you to edit this?’ Davis asked, sounding wounded.


“’I’m uncomfortable with this dictation of statements.’


“’You’re letting the White House respond to something pretty serious.’


“Soon Davis was back in the corridor in full spin mode, repeating his spiel for Mary Ann Akers of The Washington Times and Thomas Galvin of the New York Daily News and other reporters who happened by: ‘I can’t tell you the specific memos that Al Gore reads or doesn’t read,’ Davis said.  ‘I’m willing to say that it doesn’t matter.’


“A few minutes later, Davis returned to the tiny room and told Rowley his comment was ‘too low’ [too far down] in the story. Rowley snapped that he had no business trying to rewrite the piece.

“Davis backed off, looking sheepish and later returned to apologize.”


That was the Bill Clinton administration, bobbing and weaving, dancing and schmoozing their way out of one scandal after another.


“Bill and Hillary lived a precarious existence in what they once promised would be the ‘most ethical administration in history.’ The president was a Houdini-like figure when it came to this phalanx of investigations, always slipping out of a tight noose only to land in a nearby pot of boiling oil.


“The campaign finance scandal was merely the latest example,” Kurtz writes. The White House had known about much of the improper fund-raising, the hot checks laundered through relatives and employees, but had kept an airtight lid on the story until Clinton’s re-election was in the bag.  The president had gone through the entire campaign without holding a formal news conference.  Nettlesome questions were referred to the Democratic National Committee – the “other campaign,” Clinton called it – as if it were some independent fiefdom rather than a wholly-owned subsidiary whose officials could be fire y presidential whim.  Truth was an early casualty in this administration…”


The same people who ran Bill Clinton’s campaign in the 1990s are running Hillary Clinton’s campaign now. John Podesta, Sidney “Sid Vicious” Blumenthal, Cheryl Mills.  They’re using the same tactics against the current Republican candidate that they’ve used against other GOP candidates.  The same tactics Barack Obama used in his state senate campaign in Illinois, where his lawyers opened up his opponent’s sealed divorce files in order to smear him.


Hillary’s henchmen uncover an ancient beauty queen and almost-as-ancient audiotape of Trump using some admittedly cringe-worthy language, and a chorus line of feminist-girlies who claim Trump was an “octopus” three weeks shy of Election Day in order to smear him.


That’s not to say that Trump hasn’t been a poor marksman, frequently shooting himself in the foot – or the mouth – or putting his foot in his mouth. Decent people say Trump is a hard candidate to support.  The more circumspect consider both sources and say, while they don’t like what he said and that they have to consider the source.  A higher proportion of voters who have no problem with Trump’s style elected him in the Republican Primary.  He’s the guy and what are you going to do?  Vote for Hillary?


Still others, say, “Yeah, it’s October. But what’s the surprise?”  And the faithful cry, “Who cares?!”


Hillary claims that Trump is undisciplined, unreliable, and unworthy to hold the office of President of the United States? Is she kidding?  Neither was Bill, yet a sordid American public, with appetite for sleazy tabloid types, elected him.  Twice.  Even though Bill’s reputation preceded him.  His last conquest was right in the Oval Office, or right off the Oval Office in an enormous bathroom.  At the time, the White House tried to deny there was a semen-stained blue dress, that it was fantasy, a lie.  There was a dress and there was semen.


White House spooksmen believe that perception is reality. People only read the New York Times or the Washington Post when those newspapers carry salacious, unsubstantiated allegations of a lusty nature.


Bill Clinton evaded political scandal after political scandal. He even evaded Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey, whom Hillary sent her secret police to intimidate.  They were on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News the other night.  It took Monica Lewinsky, improbably, to expose “The Big Guy” as the White House staff called Clinton.  Most of the damage was to his ego, not to his political reputation.  He was impeached, but his term in office as president was already at an end.  He was disbarred, but given his health, he’s happy to retire to his Little Rock penthouse with its five – count ‘em, five – master bedroom suites and chase around young interns.


Hillary’s camp is now sliming Trump. Trump is a fighter.  He’s successfully battled this kind of attack before and won lawsuits against the offending publications.  Can he withstand the media onslaught, which will throw every hussy in its arsenal at him?


Hillary’s mountains of crime, stretching all the way back to Watergate, when she tried to deny that Richard Nixon had a right to counsel (she was overruled and fired from the panel), loom as high as Bill’s did. Maybe even higher.  She clearly endangered National Security, yet she has the arrogance to assert that we might not be safe under Donald Trump’s watch.


Bill and Hillary had no respect for the White House (they stole some valuable items from the residence when they left), for the Secret Service (“Where is that c—ks—er?!” she screamed at one hapless Secret Service agent standing duty in the residence), for the FBI, or for the military. What else could we expect from the draft-dodging Bill Clinton?

What’s most ironic and hypocritical about all this is that Clinton’s – and Bill, especially – felt ill-used by the Media.  Poor Bill.  Poor Hillary.  How could the lapdog press and media turn on them that way?

Trump said the “P-word” on a hot mic? Hillary’s language would make a sailor blush.  What’s she going to say to some foreign dignitary who displeases her?  Her favorite word is the F-bomb.  Trump’s manners, actually, are much more dignified than Hillary’s, for all his bluster and his campaign attacks , which were pretty unseemly, I must say; he insulted many a good, decent man during the debate, in case aggrieved feminists hadn’t noticed.  Trump is an equal-opportunity insulter.


Trump may be all that. Or he may not be everything he’s been depicted to be.


But Bill Clinton was all that and more. And his wife, Hillary, is worse.  She belongs in jail.  She’ll probably never seen the inside of a prison, or even house arrest.  But that simply speaks to culture of corruption (as it has been called) that surrounds the Clintons.


Haven’t the American people had enough of all that? Our heads are spinning.



Published in: on October 14, 2016 at 4:22 pm  Leave a Comment  

Mr. Modesty

My guest blogger asked that I make some corrections to the assessment of his abilities:

My goodness, this is not quite right.  I have spoken only a few languages: English, bad English, Spanish, and Korean (I studied Latin in HS), and I know sign language.  I have never worked for DHS (too Nazi sounding a name for me), and while I jumped out of airplanes and was in Special Forces, I was never on the Golden Knights.  My IQ is 147, but that’s not bad.  Anyway.  Please correct.

Published in: on October 12, 2016 at 11:26 pm  Leave a Comment  

Trump and the P-Word

From the time I got up this morning, I was up and running. Feed the cat.  File some more photos.   Answer the phone.  It was my younger brother, who lives with our 92 year-old mother.  He was taking some much needed time off with his girlfriend.  But Mom had fallen down in her bedroom the night before, knocking her hips, knees, ribs and other body parts against the door before hitting carpeted floor.  Would I run on over to her house and stay with in case she got up (which is usually not until noon, by which time he would be home)?


My brothers are big, husky guys. They can lift Mom if she falls down.  I can just about carry my groceries into the house before having to sit down.  So I drove on over as soon as I could.  We underestimated Mom’s determination to get up, especially when she thought she might not be able to.  She was up when I got there.  But it was okay because I had laundry to do.  And some housekeeping for her.  And some grocery shopping.  This was not the day for writing blogs.  So, my guest blogger will be filling in for me today, on the subject of locker room talk and talk of Donald Trump.


David is that one-half of my older brother’s best friend team, the valedictorian half. David speaks, like seven languages.  No, wait; that was in high school!  He probably speaks more languages by now.  He’s former Army Intelligence, he’s worked with the Department of Homeland Security, and he’s stuck a helmet on his 180-plus IQ brain and jumped out of airplanes for the Army’s Golden Knights.  He’s currently a systems analyst at a major university.  He’s pro-Second Amendment, pro-military (of course) and pro-Trump.


This is the Army, Mr. Brown

You and your lady went to town

She had you worried

But this is war

And she won’t worry you anymore.


David’s Wandering Mind

Tue, 11 Oct 2016

The Trump Tape

OMG. Hey, did you know Trump likes women? Wow, who’d have guessed? Probably a bunch of limp-wristed Hillary supporters. And like most men, in private with other men he is comfortable talking around, he even talks about men’s favorite subject: women.

I’m certainly glad there are no tapes of some of the barracks discussions that took place while I was in boot camp in the Army. Some of those discussions made Trumps remarks sound like so much kindergarten “cooties” talk. Trump’s remarks didn’t cause my eyebrows to lift, even a little. Barely registered. I still can’t understand what the bruhaha is all about.

Yet so many men are outraged for women. Their rhetoric rings hollow. My college-age daughter even asked me why folks are making a big deal about it. Granted, as the only female in her particular class (a male-dominated field), she is subject to hear things guys wouldn’t normally say in mixed company. But as she put it, they’re just a bunch of horn-dogs who haven’t gotten laid in a while and won’t for a while longer.

You do have to admit that Hillary couldn’t have released this “scandalous” tape at a more fortuitous moment. A 10 year old (plus) tape she’s been hanging onto for how many months? But did she really think it wouldn’t backfire? As attorney of record in the cases where her husband, then Arkansas governor, was attacking women and she was making huge settlements with them on his behalf, it really is hypocritical of her.

Is there any evidence Trump actually grabbed anyone’s genitalia? I think that would have come to light by now. But Hillary did all she could to hide her husband’s sexual attacks. Most men who did what her husband did (that she did her best to cover up, so was obviously well aware of) would have become registered sex offenders.

This is a pattern of abuse. The Clinton’s have flaunted the law their entire adult lives. Anyone who mishandled classified material as badly as Hillary would have long since been in prison (those who don’t believe it happened must believe the FBI agent lied under oath to Congress when he said she did). But this entitled family does as it wants and isn’t subject to the laws the rest of us are. Does anyone really want another entitled Clinton in the White House?

I’ve seen Presidential race after Presidential race. I’ve never seen one so devisive to a country. Both candidates are to blame. Neither has actually addressed any of the issues. No question has been answered to my satisfaction.

I do give credit to Trump on one thing: he at least found something positive to say about Hillary when asked. Hillary, who still believes most Americans are irredeemably deplorable, couldn’t find one single decent thing to say about Trump. It is obvious what she thinks about most Americans. But that only has me even more convinced than ever that Hillary will NEVER be suitable Presidential material. I’m amazed she wants to represent a country of deplorables. Isn’t she afraid we’ll drag her down?

It is unfortunate we are stuck with probably the two worst candidates in history to choose from. And while there may be other choices on the ballot, it’s like the head of the Presidential Debate committee said: one of these two will be president. So the other “choices” on the ballot may just as well be Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd. Sure, you can vote for them. But even if they won the popular vote, the electoral college would only choose between Donald and Hillary.



Published in: on October 12, 2016 at 10:30 pm  Leave a Comment  

Hillary Rodham Clinton: No “Friend” of the Family

Lately, in my occupation as part-time community news photographer, I’ve been increasingly assigned to cover local high school sports. Never a sport myself, I do enjoy the challenge of following the ball.  The excitement comes at the price of the flare-up of an arthritic hip.  But if I’m going to die, I figure I might as well die happy.


Though I don’t enjoy participating in sports, I love covering them. The faster, the better.


Last week’s game was a soccer match between a suburban school (they were the Away Team) and a small-city school (hereafter, the Home Team). To spare the losing team’s feelings, I won’t reveal the names of the schools, only to say that the Home Team lost.


I haven’t had much exposure (if you’ll excuse the photographer’s pun) to soccer. However, this game was certainly a learning experience.


The Away Team was athletic, strong, experienced, and well-practiced. They brought a very business-like approach to the match.  In short, they knew their stuff.  With them, came a stand full of parents, including some very lusty-voiced dads.  They expected their daughters to perform – and they did.


The Home Team, on the other hand. Well, what can I say?  They were not what I expected of a “city” team.  In my admittedly bigoted notions of team sports, I expected them to be tough, scrappy, street-fighters, even if they were mostly a head shorter than their opponents.


After five minutes of watching them play, I wondered (forgive my sarcasm) whether the Girls’ Dance Team had been called out by mistake.


The Away Team was all over them, the way Donald Trump was all over Hillary Clinton during last Sunday’s presidential debate. No move could the Home Team make that the Away Team didn’t cover with all due speed and intimidation.


The Home Teams offensive motions were, at best, awkward. I took the photos, but ultimately had to scrap them.  Their defense was always short-lived.  During the game, the referees had to call the Home Team on many fouls.  But ultimately, the one ref in particular always let them off.


The Away Team parents complained bitterly. Couldn’t he see that it was a foul?  However, I saw what he saw:  it wasn’t a foul, exactly; it was clumsiness.  The Home Team not only stumbled over their own feet but their opponents’ feet as well.


Home Team put on a pitiful offense. At one point, a Home girl had the ball and kicked it – directly at the Away Team.  No Home Team members were anywhere in the vicinity.  What on earth is she doing, I wondered?  Couldn’t she tell one color from another (the two teams shirt colors were very distinct, especially the Away Team’s.  Let’s just say that it was like missing a fire truck right in front of you, lights blaring).


In another play, someone kicked the ball (I don’t remember who) and it came right towards a Home Team girl.   Instead of taking advantage of this open opportunity, the girl prostrated herself face down on the astro-turf and covered her head.  The defensive Away Team girl gaped at her in astonishment.  I gaped.  In fact, everyone gaped as the ball came down with a thud next to her.


Someone finally woke up and took the ball. The Home Team girl got up and dusted herself off.  I can’t say I blamed her.  If I saw a soccer ball coming out of space at me like a doomsday asteroid, I’d throw myself down on the ground and say my prayers, too.  But then, I was never a member of my high school’s girls varsity soccer team, either.  If you’re going to go out on the field, you’ve got to be ready for the Doomsday Balls.


Needless to say, the Home Team lost. Their coach gave me a dirty look.  But hey, I’m only there to take the pictures.  I can’t help if the girls are sissy girls.  It’s okay for girls to be sissy girls, but not guys.


I don’t blame the Home Team, though. I certainly don’t blame the Away Team for being obviously better players.  I don’t blame their coach for teaching to play tough (this game involved a good deal of hair-pulling on both sides.  I have the pictures to prove it).  I don’t even blame the Home Team’s coach.


What was obvious to me was that the Home Team girls, being city girls, had been inculcated with all the multicultural diversity lectures of anti-competition: how winning isn’t everything, how even losers who throw themselves flat on the ground to avoid the ball they’re supposed to hit are winners, how everyone deserves at least a participation trophy, even when they’re photographed trailing a particularly muscular opponent, who has the ball, in terror and dismay.


That photo, I did send in to the paper. Sometimes, a picture is worth a thousand lectures.


During the second presidential debate, Hillary went on her tiresome tirade about the unfairness of corporations. She means businesses, too.  Only the government can save “the people” from the predations of corporate raiders.  Never mind that it’s those corporations and mid-size businesses that formerly employed the people of Jobless Jersey.


The absent Home Team fathers were undoubtedly working at their second or third jobs, trying to make ends meet to support their struggling families. In the wake of Jobless Jersey’s relentless Democrat tax-and-spend policies, the manufacturers fled that little city long ago.  That’s why the fathers weren’t there to cheer their hapless daughters on and give them some encouragement.


Thanks to Obama – and feminist role model Hillary – the name of the game is Losing. Losing companies that employ people. Losing jobs.  Losing grades.  Losing homes.  Losing faith.  I don’t know what fairy land Hillary was pointing to as Obama’s success.  But it sure isn’t here in Jobless Jersey.


Anyone here can tell you that not only doesn’t Obama care about families in New Jersey (especially the suburban families, whose daughters ironically beat the poor city girls); he hates them and so does Hillary.


Hillary points to her record as a children’s advocate. But in her Leninist view, she only means that the government should take over the parents’ role as protectors of their children.  If her pro-abortion doesn’t make it obvious that she’s anti-family, certainly her legal specialty does.


In Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton, by Barbara Olson (Regnery Publishing, 1999), the author exposed Clinton’s Leninist views on bourgeoisie society and the role of the family:


“Between the late 1940s and late 1950s,” Olson wrote, “successive rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court extended procedural protections afforded adults (against self-incrimination, the standard of reasonable doubt) to children in juvenile court. The court also ruled in favor of limited First Amendment rights for children, allowing them to refuse to salute the flag if it offended their religious beliefs, and protecting their right to wear black arm-bands to protest the Vietnam War.


“But, Hillary argued, the only way to give children real power was to make their needs and interests enforceable as constitutional rights. Her solution was to use the alchemy of the law to melt all arguments in the furnace of adversarial argument, and, as she saw it, to separate the base from the pure.


“She made several assertions that still have the power, many years later, to cause jaws to drop – statements that reveal the contours of Hillary’s ‘better’ world.


“She writes: ‘The pretense that children’s issues are somehow above or beyond politics endures and is reinforced by the belief that families are private, non-political units whose interests subsume those of children.’


“Charting the fallacies in this one sentence is quite an undertaking,” Olson continued, “but a useful one. The world ‘pretense’ indicates that somehow there is a conspiracy at work in the treatment of children, which the rest of the sentence indicates is somehow political.


“In a condescending, academic way, she snidely ridicules the belief that families are ‘private, non-political units’ indicating that she does, in fact, reject the notion that the family is a traditional institution that has arisen organically and stood the test of time. In her view, families are essentially low-level public entities dedicated to explicitly political ends.


“If they are sub-units, what is the larger unit but the state, in its public programs and ideology?


“Her contemptuous tone toward the family continued throughout her paper (from a 1973 issue of the Harvard Educational Review) with her conviction that the interests of a family – its culture and beliefs – unfairly subsumed, and thus undermined, the best interests of children. Taken one way, this is Jeffersonian individualism on 1960s recreational drugs.


“Taken another, it is a pointed denigration of families steeped in religious tradition or a particular culture, whether they be Hassidim, evangelical Christians, or recent refugees from Kosovo.


“Another passage was so damning that it became the focus of damage control in the 1992 election:


‘’The basic principle for depriving people of rights in a dependency relationship is that certain individuals are incapable or undeserving of the right to take care of themselves and consequently need social institutions specifically designed to safeguard their position. It is presumed that under the circumstances, society is doing what is best for the individuals.  Along with the family, past and present examples of such arrangements include marriage, slavery, and the Indian reservation system.’


“John Leo’s subsequent rationalization of this passage was based on a quick dismissal of it as a piquant, but fair, description of the legal concept of dependency. But Hillary herself is not so easily disguised.  Children’s helplessness in society must be seen, she wrote, ‘as part of the organization and ideology of the political system itself.’


“It is not enough to say that between the give and take of powerful interests like business and labor, children get left behind. She saw a more sinister conspiracy at work – a theme which is an indelible part of her hard-drive.  She perceived that the hidden hand of ideology, a power elite that for whatever reason is actively anti-child.  In other words, the opposition is not just wrong; it is morally perverse and out to repress good and maintain the rule of the suppressive elite.


“Her early writings are also shaped by a radical academic Marxism and feminism. Christopher Lasch, one of the few intellectuals to take her writings seriously enough to criticize them, wrote a trenchant article on these Hillary essays in Criticism on the eve of the election.


“’Though Clinton does not press the point,’ Lasch writes, ‘the movement for children’s rights, as she describes it, amounts to another stage in the long struggle against patriarchy.’”


In an essay Clinton wrote five years later, defending the government’s right to defend children, Olson quotes her: “’Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal disease, or employment, and others where the decision or lack of one will significantly affect the child’s future should not be made unilaterally by parents.’”


That is Hillary’s idea of children’s rights, women. Today, another WikiLeak bombshell quoted one of her chiefs writing, “She doesn’t like everyday Americans.’  In context, the allusions seems to have been about using that particular phrase “everyday Americans.”


But her loathing of men (patriarchy) and families is unmistakable. Her antipathy for the family is completely within the context of her character and her early embrasure of Marxism and Leninism (the latter, a foul-mouthed rogue if ever there was one).


She is an indefatigable enemy of middle class, bourgeoisie society, Capitalism, and men. The girly-men of the GOP, like the unfortunate Home Team, are fleeing in terror of her wrath and her propaganda machine, well-known for intimidating the likes of Katherine Willey, who was a respectable widow at the time of Clinton’s impeachment.


The girly-men flee from the “monstrous” Trump as though he were a disease-bearing, club-wielding Goliath, political poison to anyone who enters his sphere. To his supporters, he is refreshing breath of fresh air compared to the girly-men who have repeatedly let their Conservative constituents down, election after election.


The girly-men dither at his all-too-earthy language about women. “Ew-ew-ew! Get away from us, you cad!” they seem to screech, even though he has apologized twice for the offensive and vulgar utterance – three times, if you count his apology to his wife, Melania.


The girly-men have never done us any favors. I voted for Ted Cruz in the primaries, well aware of Trump’s character (This was news to them? What girly-planet have they been painting their toe-nails on?).  But he’s our guy now.


He may very well live up to his promise not make such statements again. He may love beautiful women.  But after listening to him on New York radio these many years, I can vouch for the fact that Trump loves America, the Beautiful much more.







Published in: on October 11, 2016 at 6:01 pm  Leave a Comment