For years now, I have called the Drone strike program during the Obama administration “death from above” to denote that it is a method of targeted killing. However, the targets are not as focused as the administration would like us to believe. While the White House could laugh off the murder of US citizens who were simply related to terrorists, the fact that they actually killed an American hostage has forced a response. Obama offered to review their policies, which means they will make sure not to release any information next time they kill Americans.
When searching the term “death from above” in my own archives, I referenced it in criticisms of Sarah Palin for allowing predatory wolves to be shot from helicopters. I would attest that there was more outrage over that then there has been in the media over Obama’s illegal drone strike policy.
I’m no dummy. I know that the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008 tried to fight the rising tide of Obama, but couldn’t stop him without potentially damaging the Democratic Party’s chances in general. Hillary eventually chose to accept Obama’s nomination and get the best cabinet post she could out of it, since Vice President was off the table and Clinton would feel useless in the role. I suspect she thought that being in the national spotlight would increase her bona fides and make her the most qualified candidate for president.
However, I had no idea how bad this Clinton Foundation stuff is getting. I guess I should have suspected. This organization has little to do with helping people. Looking at the mission statement on their own website, I find the following:
Creating Partnerships of Purpose
We convene businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for women and girls, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change.
My company uses the slogan “partnership for good,” which is essentially meaningless. If you look at the Clinton Foundation purpose, most of these goals are global rather than local. The Clinton Foundation is an NGO promoting itself as a charity. This actually makes sense to me.
Bill Clinton must have been annoyed when he realized what he did as president had little effect by the time he was gone and what he was able to do was often limited by the checks and balances of United States government. The Clinton Foundation for all the world looks to me like an attempt for him to wheel and deal. He takes in money from foreign governments, which is real power, then uses the money to influence governments on his progressive agenda (seriously? childhood obesity is a bigger problem than hunger?)
To say this is about graft is missing the mark. The Clinton spend a ton of money, but not the kind of money we’re talking about. I think Bill Clinton is running a kind of shadow UN, using the free market to solicit all kinds of dirty money for what he considers worthy goals. He’s also doing something much worse. He’s helping these government-run front companies get foot holds in the United States. Greed is one thing. This is close to treason.
The ridiculous invention of Earth Day is the culmination of the anti-technology movement that began when labor-saving devices were created. In the past, we polluted locally. Those mythical days before industry were filled with hearty people working the land and throwing their sewage out into the street. A hundred years ago, most people died from food poisoning, A century before that, most families had at least 1 family member die young. There wasn’t a big push for women’s rights because many women died birthing their last child.
The Earth as a landlord doesn’t do us any particular favors. While there is discussion of extending human life well past 100 years, more previously unknown diseases are taking lives. Are Alzheimer’s and cancer developing in our 70’s because of the environment or because most of us can live that long compared to 100 years ago? Plastic bottles may be “bad,” but plastics have made so many containers (including medical devices) more sanitary by making them disposable.
Let’s talk about local vs. global influence. We are constantly told that trade deals with China and Iran and Cuba and other offshore locations are a benefit to us as global citizens. China provides so many of those plastic things at a price that’s so low, the millions of gallons of fuel used to deliver them is incidental. As our environmental regulations increase, we use China’s smokestacks and the Iranian oil they buy to hide our environmental “impact.” If we as Americans are required to sacrifice modern society to worship the earth, can we at least choose the lamb to the slaughter?
I have been to exactly one wedding in my life over 30 years ago. I don’t have a lot of engaged friends and my family is either too distant or more in the civil ceremony group. I may be wrong, but I don’t even think regular people go to many weddings in their lifetime.
So, this question (to Republicans only) of “Would you attend a gay wedding?” is the definition of loaded. The question is a ruse. The interviewer doesn’t give a shit if this person would go to a gay wedding and the politician is stunned trying to think of what gotcha is implied. The pause is the intended result, making it look like they either have to weigh their own bigotry or the imagined bigotry of their voter base.
Yet again, I come back to the two responses every Republican needs to use when dealing with the shit house media. In the case of a gay wedding, both should be used. First ask, “Is that a real question?” followed by “Next question.” This may also need to be concluded with “Good bye.” Don’t forget to disconnect the microphone when you leave, either.
News of a new book hit the media this weekend. The charges within it are serious. Hillary Clinton’s State Department may have aided foreign governments who later donated to the Clinton Foundation. It is not a legal document, however, and the burden of proof in this kind of case is high. If there’s one thing I learned from the Obama campaign, people will vote for a candidate despite the number of red flags that come up.
Sadly, I think the best chance for a Hillary Clinton loss is the push back from her own party. Even with most of the party leaders against her, Hillary got very close to the nomination. She likely won it, depending on who you ask. I may be more worried about the alternative to Hillary Clinton. She is a known quantity with any number of hidden secrets. I don’t want another Barack Obama, however. He was a blank slate where it was hard to even guess at his hidden motivations.
I’m mostly hoping for a Republican Party that can get their act together.
Much has been made of Hillary Clinton’s campaign funding goals. Some have even calculated it down to the amount needed per vote ($37). If you think about it, that money is a bargain. Barack Obama’s campaign spent billions over 2 campaigns. For that small investment, they were in control of literally trillions of government dollars. Even Republicans, for all their restrained spending, get a good return on a campaign investment.
I’m not a huge supporter of campaign finance reform or publicly funded campaigns. For example, Democrats who want to restrict corporate contributions do so with the knowledge that unions will be immune from such laws. Most talk of reform is a thinly veiled attempted to take money from your opponent.
Anyone who was for campaign finance reform lost their chance if they voted for Barack Obama. He pledged to accept federal matching funds along with the restrictions on fund-raising that came with them. Instead, he chose to raise unlimited amounts from dubious sources. John McCain stuck with those matching funds and lost the election. Since then, no presidential campaign has chosen the same as McCain.
So from now on, if anyone bitches near me about the amount of money spent on elections, they better not have voted for Obama.
On Friday, Fox News’ Red Eye saw some deflation in its content. News breaks have now been inserted into the beginning and halfway points of the show. For fans, this seems to indicate a growing disinterest by the news channel in a program that was started by a man who is becoming a Fox News star by leaving Red Eye.
This may or may not be the case, but I certainly know that in its infancy, Red Eye aired with those same news breaks at 2am in the morning. On occasion, then anchor Suzanne Sena would deliver the overnight news then plug her appearance on the pre-taped episode after the news. Sometimes we go back to Coke Classic.
I think there’s something special about Red Eye, but I also hope that Greg Gutfeld can bring that special quality to more shows. I personally don’ see it on The Five. I suspect in the waning days of the Obama administration, FNC is in the process of retooling. I just hope we don’t end up with a bunch of tools.
And yes, I’m talking about Shepherd Smith.
People on the Internet (now known as “everybody”) have been mentioning Britt McHenry. She is marginally a reporter for ESPN. More importantly, she is a beautiful woman on TV who repeatedly berated the cashier for a towing company by pointing out that she was on TV and beautiful and the cashier was in a dead-end job and ugly. While America is an increasingly crass society that likes to treat everyone badly, it also enjoys punishing those better off who behave badly.
To some extent, I feel for McHenry. Taking away someone’s car is a major inconvenience. They may have to find out it wasn’t actually stolen. Then they have to find out where it is. Then they have to find transportation there and come up with the money (sometimes in cash) to release the vehicle. I don’t even live in a place where towing is common practice and all the other stuff I have to deal with as a commuter is bad enough.
I usually end up somewhere between civil and snippy with the people who are taking my money for what I don’t necessarily consider a fair trade. For people like myself and Britt McHenry, it’s important to realize that the problem is not with those who collect the cash. The problem is with liberals. Traffic laws started as a way to keep cars from crashing into each other and different objects. Now, those laws have become social engineering and revenue streams. Towing vehicles is a method to ensure someone pays the fine. It costs money, which the state pays to the towing companies. It costs the car owner money, which must be paid due to legally sanctioned blackmail. It’s also another way that cops are vilified by ordinary citizens. They may not want to deal with parking issues, but they are forced to for financial reasons.
Everyone who is against punitive traffic and parking enforcement needs to realize this is a result of big government. It is a nanny state that wants to tell everyone what to do and a corrupt political machine that needs to be constantly fed with fees and fines. If Britt McHenry doesn’t want to go back to the impound lot again, she should consider voting Republican.
From what I understand, Barack Obama signed some deal with the Republican Congress where they can stop the Iran agreement with a majority vote. The reality is that isn’t the case. Obama can veto such a response, forcing an override. That would require about a third of Democrats to join in going against the president. That will never happen. Essentially, the Iran deal is green lit.
This is another in a series of Republican tactics with the sole purpose of absolving them of responsibility and putting bad deals on the Democrats. This might have been necessary back when Democrats were the only ones to vote for final passage of Obamacare and still got their way. Well, now the Republicans are the loyal opposition. The focus needs to be on opposition, not loyal. While I can hold my nose and vote for the GOP in 2016, this weak tea party will keep a lot of other voters at home. This is how they lose elections. If they plan to beat Hillary, they’ve already lost. The real puppet masters are prepared for her to lose again against a meat puppet of their choosing. The GOP will likely never see it coming.
Sean Hannity has been doing Spring Break specials for a few years now. Places like Panama City, FL, while better than Mexico, are becoming dangerous to teens going there. Tonight, Hannity is taking on the detractors who mocked him and claimed he was just trying to use sex and drugs as a way to get ratings. Hannity has the highest ratings in his time slot. He doesn’t need that.
Seven people were shot in a melee a couple of weeks ago. Now there’s the horrible story of a young woman who was gang raped on the beach while other people stood by. Rolling Stone missed an opportunity to do real journalism.
I’ve written before about the culture of making everyone happy before. Parents invent a rite of passage that involves underage drinking, risky sex and potential danger and would give little thought to putting their foot down. I still contend that the “fun” part of most of these wild adventures is the stories that people invent after. It’s easier to just go Brian Williams and make it up to begin with.