Can’t go twenty minutes without Clinton giving you the Creeps

Listening to Hillary noise for any amount of time sends any civilized American to seek an immediate shower, to save one’s skin and soul from rotting in her Medusa presence!

Let’s all admit, however, that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a perfect representative of today’s academic class of neoMarxist ….the feminist version, but with forceful butch vocal tones and facial gestures……a female copy of dear leader, Barack Hussein Obama’s devotion to subterfuge and con-artistry.

Jon King at CNN, usually a civilized man among so few at that corner of America’s HillaryNews devotion, couldn’t quite control himself any longer. Do view the following realclearpolitics video of this man’s professional break down letting the word creepy describe the voting public’s view of the Democrat president to be in 2016.

CNN’s Jon King: “Can’t Go 20 Minutes” Without Clinton News Giving You the Creeps

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/05/31/cnns_jon_king_cant_go_20_minutes_without_clinton_news_giving_you_the_creeps.html

Where Do Global Warming ‘greenies’ get their Money?

The Green-Left’s funding secrets…..the following note from the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow:

Glenn,
Environmental pressure groups continually spin conspiracy theories about the funding of their critics.

It’s one of the tricks they employ to try to silence those who oppose their dreams of regulatory control.

In CFACT’s case, this has always struck us as absurd. For nearly 30 years, we have gratefully received contributions from a variety of foundations, corporations and individuals who share our vision, and last year, 80% of that support came from private citizen supporters. (Thank you, by the way!)

So where did the Left come up with this? How about, “projection.”

The Green movement is well aware of the mountains of funding it receives from taxpayers, foreign governments and other questionable interests. They’d rather have the public focus on their critics than take a peek at their own Green-minded tycoon and billionaire backers like George Soros or Tom Steyer, the latter of which alone spent $100 million last year trying to move the Senate more toward the global warming-Left.

Opposition to the Sandpiper and Keystone XL oil pipelines also furnish perfect examples. As CFACT’s Paul Driessen writes at Investor’s Business Daily and at CFACT.org, “Putin-allied Russian billionaires laundered $23 million through the Bermuda-based Wakefield Quin law firm to the Sea Change Foundation and thence to anti-fracking and anti-Keystone groups, the Environmental Policy Alliance found. Sandpiper opponents are likewise funded and coordinated by wealthy financiers and shadowy foundations.”

“‘Honor the Earth’ is a ‘Native American’ group that is actually a Tides Foundation ‘project,’ with the Tides Center as its fiscal sponsor, contributing $700,000 and extensive in-kind aid. Out-of-state donors provide 99% of Honor’s funding.’

“Among Tides’ biggest donors is Obama friend and advisor Warren Buffett … while public, media and political attention was riveted on Keystone, Berkshire Hathaway quietly bought the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad and Union Tank Car manufacturing company.” With Keystone blocked, “oil-by-rail skyrocketed from 9,500 carloads in 2009 to 450,000 carloads in 2014. Buffett’s ‘investment’ in anti-pipeline activism garnered billions in rail revenues.”

When CFACT Collegians chapters confronted demonstrators with these facts, first they went into denial … then they became livid! They didn’t like being exposed as a combination of hypocrites and useful idiots advancing the interests of corporate billionaires and foreign potentates.

The funds available to the radical Greens, including corporate, dwarf anything available to those who oppose them. They want to make an issue of any trace amount of corporate funding their opponents might receive while keeping their own funding entirely hidden.

This is complete hypocrisy. It needs to be exposed.

Fortunately, we not only have the merits of the argument on our side, but we also have talented writers and spokesmen, such as Paul Driessen, to help us make these facts known.

Stay tuned.

For nature and people too, Craig Rucker

Whatever Happened to Brit’s Tommy Robinson?

From some distance, I do admit, I have been rather a fan of Tommy Robinson’s efforts defending “Jolly old England’s native Brit working class against the invasive immigrant Islamic and Big Business money cultural wars against natives attempting to save any inch of life which still may be called “jolly old England”.

Is “jolly old England” soon to become an Islamic state? Probably, if for no other reason the Brit big business establishment possesses no interest in the Tommy Robinson sections of modern life in England and spends its money aiding the Islamification of London, for that is where the money is.

About a year ago I read that the lower to middle class English defender, Robinson, came into trouble with authorities and was forced to retire from his duties as Brit hero of the decade. Only today did I discover
he had been jailed and since has been beaten while incarcerated.

Tommy Robinson fans everywhere should know his story:

http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/02/tommy-robinson-attacked-in-woodhill-prison/

America’s Leftist Wars against the Civilized

(What civilized human being of all shapes, sizes and color could endure living midst the black and leftist savages, the street and political thugs running a city like Baltimore, Maryland?”…..Would you?”)

Residential Segregation Rising?

May 27, 2015 from the National Center for Policy Analysis:

In “The National Rise in Residential Segregation”, Trevon Logan and John Parman introduce a first-of-its-kind measure of residential segregation based upon the racial similarity of next-door neighbors.

The authors find that residential segregation in the United States doubled from 1880 to 1940. The findings show that the likelihood of having opposite-race neighbors declined precipitously in every region. The rise in segregation occurred in areas with small black population shares, areas with large black population shares, areas that experienced net inflows of black residents, areas that experienced net outflows of black residents, urban areas with large populations and rural areas with smaller populations.

The authors, therefore, conclude that the traditional story of increasing segregation in urban areas in response to black migration to urban centers is incomplete, and must be augmented with a discussion of the increasing racial segregation of rural areas and other areas that lost black residents.

Traditional explanations for increased segregation have included:

Blacks clustering in small areas abutting white communities;
The use of restrictive covenants on residential housing;
The presence of large manufacturing firms which employed blacks;
And existing differences in transportation infrastructure.
Logan and Parman suggest that the national rise in segregation over the first half of the 20th century opens new lines of inquiry. Understanding the relationship between segregation, urbanization and population flows should help to explain the dynamics of segregation in cities and rural communities. These links have important implications for the skill mix of cities, public finance, education, inequality, health and other measures of social wellbeing. This gives rise to questions about the impact of Jim Crow laws, racial violence, European immigration, internal migration and the differences and similarities between racial segregation in rural and urban areas.

Trevon Logan and John Parman, “The National Rise in Residential Segregation,” The National Bureau of Economic Research, February 2015.

– See more at: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25694&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD#sthash.7E86v6MA.dpuf

Peggy Noonan on the Disaster of Hillary Inevitability

HILLARY CLINTON PARADOX by Peggy Noonan at the Wall Street Journal:

“On the matter of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy I find myself holding opposite and irreconcilable views: “That can’t possibly work,” and “She’s inevitable.”

Her candidacy can’t work because of the deep, daily cascade of scandals that would disqualify anyone else. State Department emails on private servers, stonewalling Congress; the family foundation that appears to function in part as a high-class slush fund and that, this week we learned, paid a significant salary to that beacon of philanthropic spirit Sidney Blumenthal, a political operative and conspiracist whose nickname in the Clinton White House was “G.K.,” for “Grassy Knoll.” Also this week these headlines: “Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals from Hillary Clinton’s State Department,” and “FIFA Donated Thousands to Clinton Foundation.” FIFA of course is the international soccer organization under criminal investigation for bribes and kickbacks.

It is simply unbelievable that a person whose way of operating is so famously and chronically sketchy can be chosen as president. Her policy judgments throughout her career will come under question. She is good at politics in terms of how she perceives the game and generally makes decisions within it—good enough to be an almost certain presidential nominee. Yet she is charmless on the stump and seems always to be hiding something in interviews. In speeches she continues to do strange things, such as speaking with a Southern accent this week in South Carolina.

Why does she do that? Is she trolling the press? They know she hates them. A friend who is a veteran journalist recently explained why. In the late 1980s and early ’90s Hillary knew the boomer press was on the Clintons’ side ideologically and culturally—they were Democrats, and often friends. But she was surprised over the years to learn that didn’t mean they were on the team. They reported the couple’s scandals, wrote critical articles and books. She felt, and feels, betrayed. She thought they were friends, and thought that meant fealty. It’s not a plus to have a distanced, unfriendly relationship with journalists. (Republicans, on the other hand, can generally operate without such personal bitterness. They never had the illusion the press was on their side.)

Here is why Mrs. Clinton is inevitable:

In five of the past six presidential elections, the Democrats have won the popular vote. They enjoy certain locked-in advantages. The party itself is united and wholly organized around the idea of winning. (There is, however, a sense that its best talents have been exhausted in the two Obama terms, and its rising talents haven’t had the chance to learn what losers know.) Mrs. Clinton has 100% name ID, has one opponent in an old socialist to whom she can be publicly kind, and is connected to a former president whose presidency is looked back on with a sort of encrusted nostalgia—good economy, relative peace, colorful and singular messes. She has lasted long enough to go from wide-shouldered yuppie with angry blond hair to cooing grandmother. Soon they’ll be calling her “Mami.”

The polls show that even at this low point in her campaign, with the daily scandal cascade, she continues to beat all GOP comers. This week’s Quinnipiac survey shows her leading the closest Republican challengers, Rand Paul (46% to 42%) and Marco Rubio (45% to 41%). Republicans take comfort that this world-famous, unopposed icon is under 50%. I’m not so sure.

But this is interesting. Somehow the polls recently have failed to spot rising conservative tides—in Britain in May, in Israel in March and in the U.S. last November. Maybe pollsters are all watching MSNBC and the BBC and operating within a constantly reinforcing thought-loop. Maybe they suffer from epistemic closure.

Most interestingly—and this is what political scientists call “the part that makes you want to shoot yourself”—Quinnipiac reports a majority of voters do not feel Mrs. Clinton is “honest and trustworthy.” They made that judgment by a margin of 52% to 39%. That means a good portion of those who support Mrs Clinton do not believe she can be trusted to tell them the truth. The nice way to think of that is: “Americans sure are over the heroic conception of the presidency!” Another nice way: “Americans shrewdly pick presidents based not on personal virtues but on other qualities, such as experience and ideological predisposition.”

A less nice way is: “Wow, you’d vote for someone even you don’t believe? You might want to trust a president when the nukes begin to fall. What’s wrong with you?”

On the GOP side, elite opinion has started talking about how two dozen candidates are careening around in a big messy jumble. They say it will wind up like 2012, “a clown-car Indy 500 with cars hitting the wall and guys in wigs littering the track,” as someone noted then.

But that’s not how I see it this time. It is an impressive and largely accomplished field. Almost all in it might be reasonable presidents—oh, how Obama has lowered the bar!—maybe half would probably be good, and a quarter very good. Soon John Kasich, with one of the best résumés of any candidate ever—18 years in the House, six of them as Budget Committee chairman, and two terms as governor of Ohio, re-elected by an astounding 31 points—will likely declare. I don’t know if he knows where the base is, but he seems to know where America is.

And they are all talking serious issues. A few weeks ago it was Mr. Rubio at the Council on Foreign Relations. This week on “Morning Joe,” Mr. Paul tackled who and what caused ISIS. Some see the question as the pointless picking at a scab, but it may help get us back to essential questions: What assumptions should govern our choices in the Mideast, what have we learned, how do we separate the crucial from the important?

It would be nice if Mrs. Clinton spoke on such matters. Instead she continues her listening tour. She’s been on many of them over the years; it’s how she likes to campaign. But what is she listening for? What is she trying to hear? She’s been in politics 40 years; she knows what she thinks. It’s not really a listening tour; it’s a say-nothing-and-nod-empathetically tour. It would be nice if attendees—if they could get past the vetting—would start saying surprising things to which she could nod. “The French Revolution was bad!” Empathetic nod. “Why worry about stupid Christians who don’t have the brains to move out of the Mideast?” Empathetic nod, finger on chin, eyes narrowed in the Thinking Look. “Broad amnesty would worsen chronic unemployment and is in that sense a way of giving up, and on our own people, many of whom were blasted out of manufacturing jobs by globalist hacks in Washington—but it will keep wages down, give you a feeling of creamy moral goodness and nail down the Hispanic vote, so all good, right?” Relatable nod, followed by blinking get-me-out-of-here look.

They could force her to be forthcoming by finding out what she’d nod to. http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hillary-clinton-paradox-1432857435

Majority of Democrats OKAY Illegal Immigrant Voting (They need the votes of Leftists who vote often)

Surprise: Most Democrats think illegal immigrants should be allowed to vote

by ALLAHPUNDIT at HotAir:

SURPRISE: MOST DEMOCRATS THINK ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO VOTE

“Fifty-three percent (53%) of Democrats think tax-paying illegal immigrants should have the right to vote. Twenty-one percent (21%) of Republicans and 30% of voters not affiliated with either major political party agree.

Women are more supportive than men of letting tax-paying illegal immigrants vote, but the two are in general agreement that the size of voting districts should be determined by counting only the number of eligible voters.

Voters under 40 are twice as likely as their elders are to favor allowing illegal immigrants to vote, but they, too, draw the line at counting illegal immigrants when setting up legislative districts.” (Please continue reading)

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/05/29/surprise-most-democrats-think-illegal-immigrants-should-be-allowed-to-vote/

The New York Post Reviews the Clinton Corruption Team…Hill and Bill

THE LATEST CLINTON SHOE: BILL’S SHELL CORPORATION by the Post Editorial Board:

“Just two days after President Obama confirmed that Hillary Clinton would be his secretary of state, Bill Clinton set up a shell corporation to “channel” his payments for unspecified consulting work.
Another day, another revelation about the Clintons’ tangled financial web. (Kudos to Robert Wargas of Pajamas Media for pinning down the date Bill set up his dodge.)
With WJC LLC set up as a limited-liability company with no assets and no employees, there was no need to report any of the cash that passed through it — not on Hillary’s personal disclosure statements then, not on her campaign forms now.
This perfectly legal mechanism provides certain tax advantages — notwithstanding the Clintons’ repeated claims that the rich “aren’t paying their fair share of taxes.”
But we’d guess it was the non-disclosure feature that appealed most.
No doubt the Clintons giggled all the way to the bank about their no-funny-business promises to President Obama and his team.
And now Hillary preaches the virtues of “transparency.”
Like everything else about the once “dirt poor” Clintons (now comfortable in the ranks of the 1 percent) the LLC raises huge questions. Questions like those Democrats raised in 2012 about Mitt Romney’s finances.
As the Associated Press (which first reported the existence of the LLC) notes, almost nothing about the exact nature and financial worth of Bill Clinton’s business interests, other than his ultra-lucrative speechmaking, is a matter of public record.”…..(please continue reading)

http://nypost.com/2015/05/27/the-latest-clinton-shoe-bills-shell-corporation/

IRS the Center of Feds Incompetence

IRS SHOWS WE’RE ALL AT THE MERCY OF FED’S INCOMPETENCE

Editorial from the Washington Examiner:

As the financial crisis wreaked havoc on America’s economy in October 2008, billionaire investor Warren Buffett made a wise observation about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — the two institutions at the center of the crash — and the regulatory agency that oversaw them at that time.

“It’s really an incredible case study in regulation,” Buffett said. “[T]he sole job of OFHEO was to watch over Fannie and Freddie. … Two companies were all they had to regulate. OFHEO has over 200 employees now. They have a budget now that’s $65 million a year, and all they have to do is look at two companies.”

Of course, the catastrophic failure of the two tightly-regulated, government-sponsored enterprises is now the stuff of financial legend. Buffett’s point stands as a nice antidote to the myth that tight government control can prevent most anything from going wrong. And as Fannie and Freddie were government enterprises, it also shows how government not only fails to prevent catastrophe, but often creates it or makes it possible.

(Please continue reading…) http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/irs-shows-were-all-at-the-mercy-of-feds-incompetence/article/2565137

ObamaCare’s Overhead Costs to Devastate the 50% of Americans who still Pay Income Taxes

Obamacare’s Hard Hitting Overhead Costs

May 28, 2015 from the National Center for Policy Analysis:

“Five years after the passage of ObamaCare, there is one expense that is still causing sticker shock across the healthcare industry: overhead costs. The administrative costs for healthcare plans are expected to explode by more than a quarter of a trillion dollars over the next decade.

The $270 billion in new costs, for both private insurance companies and government programs, will be “over and above what would have been expected had the law not been enacted,” one of the authors, David Himmelstein, wrote Wednesday.
Overhead is expected to make up 45 percent of all federal spending related to the Affordable Care Act. By 2022, that ratio will decrease to about 20 percent of federal spending related to the law.
The extra administrative costs amount to the equivalent of $1,375 per newly insured person per year.
Private insurers have been expanding their administrative overhead despite some regulations from the Obama administration to control those costs, such as the medical loss ratio, which requires a certain amount of premium dollars to be spent directly on healthcare.

The rest is the result of expanded government programs, such as Medicaid. It also includes the cost of running ObamaCare exchanges at both the federal and state levels.

The federal exchange, as well as the 13 state-run exchanges, have all been boosted by grant money, though those funds will run out by 2016. The exchange will then need to rely on fees to plan premiums.”

Source: Sarah Ferris, “Overhead Costs Exploding Under Obamacare, Study Finds,” The Hill, May 27, 2015.

Previous Article / Next Article

Full Article List

– See more at: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=25700&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD#sthash.aM9mEnuS.dpuf

Arizona State Authorities now say they regret $500,000 ‘gift’ to “Honest” Bill Clinton

ASU Forking over $500,000 to the Clintons was Foolish

from the Editorial Board of the Republic:

In fairness, Arizona State University President Michael Crow could not have foreseen the headlines for the Clinton Foundation when he agreed to pay a half-million dollars to host the Clinton Global Initiative University last year….

But he certainly should have recognized the dissonance generated when the administrators of a state university constantly complaining about legislative budget cuts nevertheless can find $500,000 for a three-day Bill and Hill (and Chelsea) Show.

On Saturday, The Arizona Republic’s Dan Nowicki wrote about ASU’s “investment” in the event, which a university spokesman defended as a unique educational opportunity: “the university co-invested in this educational and promotional opportunity, which was co-produced for our students, and for students from around the world.”

ROBERTS: ASU raises tuition yet spends $500,000 on the Clintons? (Please continue reading.)

http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/editorial/2015/05/26/asu-forking-over-500000-to-the-clintons-was-foolish/27990595/