Hillary Clinton’s ‘Stars and Bars’ Problem

 When it comes to the confederate flag, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has smugly added that she “has always” been in favor of taking it down in South Carolina.

Yet as first lady of Arkansas, we heard not a peep of concern about the prominent rebel “stars and bars” symbolism of that southern state’s official flag that flew on her official residence grounds in Little Rock while husband Bill was governor.

And a good question for Hillary today, is that if she “has always” favored taking down South Carolina’s relic of the Civil War, what about all the same rebel symbolism embodied in her own Arkansas flag that flew on her own official residence lawn? Shouldn’t it also be banned, for the same reasons as in South Carolina, to combat divisiveness?

There is no question that the Arkansas state flag is intended, by its symbols, to “commemorate the Confederate States of America.” In fact, then Gov. Bill Clinton signed a law in 1987 that says so, designating a special star on the flag for that exact purpose.

Hillary Clinton may have objections to Confederate sympathies in state flags still flying in South Carolina or Mississippi, but what makes Arkansas an exception and why has she never had anything to say about it?

Hillary, should the state flag of Arkansas, which can be seen as just as offensive to African Americans and other minorities who have been subject to racism as the Confederate battle flag of South Carolina, also be banned? Voters need to know.

Especially in culturally diverse and deeply blue states like California, perplexed voters will need to understand from Hillary Clinton why the South Carolina flag must come down but the Arkansas flag’s Confederate roots draws no comment from her.

Via: California Political Review

Continue Reading....

Liberal Democrats Don't Like the Military or Support American National Security

An incident early in Bill Clinton’s presidency was an indicator of liberal Democrats’ hostility toward the military.

In early April 1993, General Barry McCaffrey – then an aide to General Colin Powell – visited the White House.  Upon entering the building, McCaffrey encountered a young woman he presumed was a presidential aide.  When the general greeted the young woman, she allegedly said icily, “I don’t speak to people in uniform.”

When other military personnel member protested the insult of McCaffrey, Clinton initially claimed the report was an “abject lie.”  When that line couldn’t be sustained, Clinton tried to smooth over the incident by inviting McCaffrey to jog with him.  Shortly thereafter, the aide was allegedly fired, and McCaffrey was appointed as Clinton’s Drug Czar.  (I have not discovered what actually became of the aide.)

This incident, and others before and since, reveals hostility toward the military that seems endemic among liberal Democrats.  At least as long ago as 1969, when the draft-dodging Clinton wrote that he “loathe[d] the military,” 

through the Carter administration’s budgetary butchery that produced a “hollow military” in the 1970s, up to and including Barack Obama’s trade of alleged Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl for five top Taliban leaders, several of whom will very likely resume killing Americans, those who have looked closely have detected a seeming dislike of all things military among key left-wing Democrat politicians and their advisors. 

Want more evidence that liberal Democrats despise the military?  How about the Obama administration’s indifference while the Veterans’ Administration engaged in dilatory tactics that resulted in American vets’ deaths, while dispensing generous bonuses to those who covered up the VA’s villainy?  How about the Obama administration’s decision to lock aging World War II vets out of their memorial in Washington, while permitting use of that facility by a ragtag claque of anti-American protesters agitating for amnesty for illegal immigrants?

Other instances of left-wing Democrats’ enmity to the military over the years could be mentioned, but that would be gilding the lily. 

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

Fact Check Whacks Bill Clinton

Bill Clinton’s claim that Hillary did economic diplomacy because there was no Commerce Secretary

“She [Hillary Clinton] believed that part of the job as secretary of state was to advance America’s economic interests around the world. And, for much of the time she was secretary, for a number of complex reasons, we didn’t have [a] commerce secretary. And now we have got Penny Pritzker. And she’s very vigorous and very good, I think. But we didn’t have one. And so, if she hadn’t been doing this economic diplomacy work, nobody would have been doing it.”

— Former President Bill Clinton, interviewed on CNN’s “State of the Union,” June 14, 2015

Former president Clinton, in rebutting accusations that Hillary Clinton helped donors to the Clinton Foundation while serving as secretary of state, made an interesting point on one of the Sunday politics shows — that she had to engage in “economic diplomacy” because “much of time she was secretary,” there was no Commerce Secretary.

This made little sense to us, and it’s certainly easy to check. Was there such a gap in Commerce leadership that it was left to Clinton to conduct the administration’s economic diplomacy?

The Facts

The Commerce Department is sometimes described as the broom closet of the federal bureaucracy, in that it contains a number of unrelated agencies, such as the Census Bureau, the National Weather Service, the Patent and Trademark office, the Economic Development Administration, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and so forth. The notion that the commerce secretary was some sort of globe-trotting promoter of American industry only began to take hold in Clinton’s administration, when Ron Brown became commerce secretary.

The Commerce Secretary, in the department’s mission statement, “serves as the voice of U.S. business within the President’s Cabinet.” Commerce Department Order 1-1 says “the historic mission of the Department is ‘to foster, promote, and develop the foreign and domestic commerce’ of the United States.”

Via: Washington Post

Continue Reading.....

Thanks, Obamacare: Rates Set to Skyrocket Across the Country

Both Clinton and Obama promised lower premiums under Obamacare, but Americans across the country are facing another round of double-digit rate hikes to their health care premiums. With every passing day under Obamacare, more and more Americans bear the consequences of Obama and Clinton's broken promises.

See how your state and your wallet could be impacted by proposed premium increases for 2016. Or download and share a graphic to spread the word on how the Obama-Clinton agenda has failed by clicking on your state.
 

STATE				AVERAGE ​PREMIUM INCREASE REQUEST	HIGHEST ​PREMIUM INCREASE REQUEST
	Alabama			28.60%	70.88%
	Alaska			30.23%	77.53%
	Arizona			23.72%	78.88%
	Arkansas			33.99%	63.70%
	Connecticut			18.63%	34.12%
	Delaware			18.42%	54.28%
	District of Columbia			14.01%	20.44%
	Florida			24.5%	62.57%
	Georgia			20.09%	64.20%
	Hawaii			27.87%	49.87%
	Idaho			23.68%	100.0%
	Illinois			22.08%	42.43%
	Indiana			18.12%	26.25%
	Iowa			24.30%	64.90%
	Kansas			28.68%	49.43%
	Kentucky			18.43%	65.44%
	Louisiana			19.94%	55.45%
	Maryland			24.60%	32.59%
	Michigan			19.28%	37.94%
	Minnesota			43.24%	74.13%
	Mississippi			24.69%	46.52%
	Missouri			19.36%	33.82%
	Montana			32.21%	48.15%
	Nebraska			17.08%	32.28%
	Nevada			19.63%	72.78%
	New Hampshire			36.94%	51.27%
	New Jersey			14.92%	30.30%
	New Mexico			57.62%	65.01%
	New York			11.7%	43.66%
	North Carolina			20.58%	50.73%
	North Dakota			19.03%	22.21%
	Ohio			17.81%	37.66%
	Oklahoma			29.75%	45.30%
	Oregon			23.61%	51.54%
	Pennsylvania			28.62%	61.18%
	Rhode Island			12.89%	13.50%
	South Carolina			27.96%	53.23%
	South Dakota			23.27%	44.43%
	Tennessee			22.16%	46.89%
	Texas			27.47%	64.75%
	Utah			20.75%	58.0%
	Virginia			20.27%	59.71%
	Washington			14.91%	46.61%
	West Virginia			20.24%	31.32%
	Wisconsin			18.29%	32.89%
	Wyoming			24.62%	40.91%

* Source: HealthCare.Gov, Accessed 6/4/15. Data on CA, CO, MA, ME, and CT was not available. 

Had enough of Obama and the Democrats' broken promises and harmful policies? Sign the ObamaCare pledge if you will oppose any candidate who supports ObamaCare.

Via: GOP.com

Continue Reading....

President Obama's loose tether to reality

President Obama has made so many statements a variance with reality that it is time to question whether he is delusional or merely lying. My hope is on the latter. If he really believes his spin (as he once told a reporter – "You know, I actually believe my own bull----"), then we are in serious trouble as a nation. Investor’s Business Daily lists a number of counterfactual statements from the Leader of the Free World:

President Obama was in Germany the last few days, but too many of his recent remarks sound like he's been in high orbit — around another planet.
America has never been held in greater esteem than under Obama's leadership. Counterterrorism worked well in Yemen until the emergency evacuation of embassy and Special Ops forces — and the loss of millions in arms.
The president's half-hearted "war" on the Islamic State is also a "success." As is ObamaCare, never been working better. Just as he promised.
Jobs are finally humming along with unemployment numbers down (because so many gave up looking). The economy actually shriveled in the first quarter, but that's because of some unexpected phenomenon called winter.

The Mexican border is secure now because the president says so. Since Bill Clinton was already named the first black president, the actual first black president claims he's given such staunch support to Israel that he's in reality the first Jewish president. (snip)

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading...

Bill Clinton Was Paid $400K By Singapore Company That Was Scamming Its Employees

The Internet was littered with scam warnings from small-time contractors who claimed they had been ripped off by Singapore-based UNI Strategic, but that didn’t seem to bother the State Department or Bill Clinton.

The agency, headed at the time by Hillary Clinton, signed off on a Nov. 14, 2010, speech delivered by the former president on behalf of UNI at the Presidential World Economic Forum held in Taipei, Taiwan.

The payday: $400,000.

Clinton’s speech was not remarkable, but it probably didn’t have to be. He spoke about the global economy, economic inequality and global warming in front of an audience of around 2,000 — eager to hear from an American politician of Clinton’s stature.

But while UNI could afford to pay Clinton a one-percenter’s annual salary, the company was ripping off a slew of contractors it had hired to provide training in various Asian nations.

Internet message boards, scam alert websites and independent blogs show up at the top of searches for UNI, which was founded in 2002 and specializes in workshops for governmental organizations and multinational corporations on a variety of topics.

It is unclear if UNI’s dastardly deeds were as well-known in 2010, but complaints stretch back to well before Clinton’s speech, and would seemingly have been easy to discover by anyone who cared to look.

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....