Archive for the ‘Corporate Cronyism’ Category

DANGEROUS COLLUSION – DAVID LIMBAUGH

Tuesday, October 25th, 2016

 

Dangerous Collusion

David Limbaugh

10/21/2016 12:01:00 AM – David Limbaugh

I’ve never been much of a conspiracy theorist, but I don’t know how reasonable people can fail to recognize the overt collusion of the Obama administration, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Party and the liberal media to shield Hillary Clinton from accountability for her many misdeeds and abundant corruption.

Perhaps I can be considered a bit of an alarmist, but if I am, so are millions of others when it comes to the dire state of this nation on a number of fronts. We have a staggering national debt, a dangerously declining military and a runaway regulatory state that is suppressing our liberties, insulating government from accountability and helping to smother economic growth. We have onerous taxes on people who are still working (notwithstanding the malicious lie that the wealthy don’t pay their fair share), an exploding welfare state, a war on the Second Amendment and the rights of private gun owners, and a government-caused health insurance catastrophe — with liberal promises of more of the same. We have unprotected borders (which threatens jobs, national sovereignty and the integrity of democratic processes), a war on Christian religious liberties by militant secularists who deny they’re doing it and a sick, amoral culture supported by the openly valueless Democratic Party, which glorifies abortion as a quasi-religious right so important it must be subsidized by the federal government. We have politicized governmental entities — e.g., the IRS, Department of Justice, Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Communications Commission — and we are suffering ever-deteriorating race relations and a war on cops fomented and fueled by the president and his race-exploitive Democratic Party. We have proliferating Islamic terrorism accompanied by an administration that is in denial about it and sees more danger in generic extremism and conservative “bitter clingers” than it does in Islamic extremism.

(more…)

Share

VIDEO – GATLIN BROTHERS – STAND UP AND SAY SO

Monday, October 3rd, 2016

Share

VIDEOS – CHARLES ORTEL – INVESTIGATING THE CLINTON FOUNDATION

Thursday, September 1st, 2016

 

Charles Ortel, the financial whistleblower who investigated the Clinton Global Initiative,   is uncovering more questionable behavior by the Clinton Foundation.     The rules are for thee and not for me !    Nancy
VIDEO 
FOX BUSINESS INTERVIEW WITH CHARLES ORTEL, FINANCIAL WHISTLEBLOWER WHO INVESTIGATED THE CLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVE   – STATE DEPARMENT PULLED BACK FROM INVESTIGATING  SWEDISH COMPANIES AND A POSSIBLE SHELL ORGANIZATION CALLED ‘LITTLE BROTHERS’ WHO WERE DEALING WITH IRAN IN THE 2009 – 2014 PERIOD AFTER MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WERE DONATED TO THE CLINTON FOUNDATION.    WAS THIS A SHELL ORGANIZATION FOR POSSIBLE  FOREIGN MONEY LAUNDERING WHICH IS ILLEGAL ?     AUGUST 31, 2016
VIDEO
CHARLES ORTEL –  AUGUST 11, 2016 – CLINTON FOUNDATION AND A LACK OF A TRAIL OF EMAILS ON IMPORTANT EVENTS IS SUSPICIOUS. 
Share

THE CLINTON FOUNDATION AND THE RUSSIAN RESET

Wednesday, August 3rd, 2016

 

This is a very informative, important and hopefully damaging article about the ” Russian Reset” in which Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation were very instrumental in encouraging U.S. companies who were Clinton Foundation donors to invest in Russia. 
   Companies such as  Google, Intel  and Cisco were encouraged to invest in Skolkovo which would hopefully become a “Russian Silicon Valley”.     Cisco, by the way, invested $1 Billion !!!.   The purpose was to  provide state-of-the-art technological research to Russia which ultimately  raised alarms among U.S. military experts and federal law-enforcement officials. 
No wonder the Clintons didn’t mention the Clinton Foundation or the Russian Reset  during “their” convention !   Now, this is a subject Trump should be talking about !  Nancy
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

The Clinton Foundation, State and Kremlin Connections

Why did Hillary’s State Department urge U.S. investors to fund Russian research for military uses?

0:00 / 0:00

Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweizer on links between the Clinton Foundation, Putin’s regime and Hillary’s State Department. Photo credit: Getty Images.

Hillary Clinton touts her tenure as secretary of state as a time of hardheaded realism and “commercial diplomacy” that advanced American national and commercial interests. But her handling of a major technology transfer initiative at the heart of Washington’s effort to “reset” relations with Russia raises serious questions about her record. Far from enhancing American national interests, Mrs. Clinton’s efforts in this area may have substantially undermined U.S. national security.

Consider Skolkovo, an “innovation city” of 30,000 people on the outskirts of Moscow, billed as Russia’s version of Silicon Valley—and a core piece of Mrs. Clinton’s quarterbacking of the Russian reset.

Following his 2009 visit to Moscow, President Obama announced the creation of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission. Mrs. Clinton as secretary of state directed the American side, and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov represented the Russians. The stated goal at the time: “identifying areas of cooperation and pursuing joint projects and actions that strengthen strategic stability, international security, economic well-being, and the development of ties between the Russian and American people.”

The Kremlin committed $5 billion over three years to fund Skolkovo. Mrs. Clinton’s State Department worked aggressively to attract U.S. investment partners and helped the Russian State Investment Fund, Rusnano, identify American tech companies worthy of Russian investment. Rusnano, which a scientific adviser to PresidentVladimir Putin called “Putin’s child,” was created in 2007 and relies entirely on Russian state funding.

What could possibly go wrong?

(more…)

Share

VIDEO – TRUMP’S HILLARY KILLER

Thursday, July 14th, 2016

Share

THE CLINTONS AND THE REAL HOUSING CRASH

Thursday, June 16th, 2016

 

Are the Clintons the Real Housing-Crash Villains?

Let’s revisit this piece of financial history, before Hillary rewrites it.

By Larry Kudlow & Stephen Moore– Larry Kudlow is a contributing editor of National Review. Stephen Moore is chief economist at the Heritage Foundation.— May 28, 2016

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  The seeds of the mortgage meltdown were planted during Bill Clinton’s presidency. Under his HUD secretary Andrew Cuomo, Community Reinvestment Act regulators gave banks higher ratings for home loans made in “credit-deprived” areas. Banks were effectively rewarded for throwing out sound underwriting standards and writing loans to those who were at high risk of defaulting. If banks didn’t comply with these rules, regulators reined in their ability to expand lending and deposits.
Share

THE ‘FASCIST’ LEFT IN AMERICA

Thursday, December 31st, 2015

 

The author of this article, Stephen Moore, will be the guest speaker at the ICON Lecture Series in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, on September 13, 2016.   Mark your calendars !       
 For additional information – www.iconlectureseries.com

The ‘Fascist’ left in America

After Trump’s call for a Muslim moratorium the name-calling began

  – – Sunday, December 13, 2015

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  But the real definition of a fascist is a leader who wants to use governmental power to suppress rights of individuals. It is the partnership of government and private industry for the collective good. Corporate cronyism is a classic form of fascism, which would include programs like Export Import Bank.
Fascism, communism, socialism, Naziism, progressivism, are all just variations on this same theme. These isms all feed on subjugating freedom
It’s hard to find a self-respecting liberal these days who doesn’t denounce Donald Trump as “a fascist.” if you Google “fascist” the first thing that pops on the screen is a photo of Mr. Trump.
Those in the media or the university professors or Democratic pundits who don’t call him a fascist resort to over-the-top sneering terms like “racist,” “repellent,” and even “Nazi.” After Mr. Trump’s call for a moratorium on Muslim immigration, here were a few of the choice words for those tolerant people on the left:
“He is running for president as a fascist demagogue.” – Martin O’Malley, Democratic presidential candidate.
“Trump literally wants to write racism into our law books” — Huma Abedin, aide to Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton.
“It is … entirely fair to call him a mendacious racist.” – Ben Smith, editor-in-chief, Buzzfeed.
“America’s modern Mussolini.” -Dana Milbank, The Washington Post.
“Trump is a proto-fascist, rather than an actual fascist. He has many ideas that are fascistic in nature . CNN.
At the end of this sneering commentary, CNN launched into a fascinating tutorial on what a Fascist is. Here are several key characteristics of a fascist leader according to CNN:
• “The superiority of the leader’s instincts over abstract and universal reason.”
• “The belief of one group that it is the victim, justifying any action.”
• “The need for authority by natural leaders (always male) culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s destiny.”
Wait a minute. What modern politician best fits this description? Could it be … Barack Obama. The Messiah. The chosen one. The man who holds political rallies with gothic columns in giant amphitheaters who enters the stage as if he were a Greek god? The greatest demagogue of modern times, who convinced the vast electorate that they are “victims” and that their key to happiness and prosperity is to take from the rich — people, he says, who have way more wealth than they could possibly need.
President Obama’s whole political success rests on identity politics — of persuading blacks, Hispanics, Jews, women, the disabled, gays, students, the poor, immigrants, that they are victims of a vast American government conspiracy against them.

(more…)

Share

THE CLINTONS, HOUSE OF THE STACKED DECK OF CARDS

Tuesday, June 9th, 2015

 

Published on The Weekly Standard (www.weeklystandard.com)

House of the Stacked Deck of Cards

The privilege of being Hillary Clinton

Noemie Emery

May 25, 2015, Vol. 20, No. 35

“The deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top,” Hillary Clinton has warned us, and she ought to know. Having been “at the top,” or close enough to it, since 1976, when her husband was elected attorney general of Arkansas at age 30—not the biggest job ever, but one with a whole lot of power to play with—she has leveraged every ounce that it held to bring to them ever and ever more money and power, until at this moment, 14 years after leaving the White House, she and Bill sit on a mile-high mountain of both. Their wealth is immense and their power unlimited, at least in their party. The very few viable national candidates left after the two midterm wipeouts that decimated Democratic ranks in the reign of Obama are so afraid to risk the Clintons’ wrath that she is cruising unopposed to the nomination for the first time since no one knows when. How did two penniless kids living in roughly 1,000 square feet in Fayetteville, Arkansas, reach such heights? Let us look back and see.

Our story begins as boy wonder Bill Clinton wins his first election and moves with bride Hillary to the state capital and into a new way of life. Biographers Sally Bedell Smith (For Love of Politics) and Carl Bernstein (A Woman in Charge) seem to agree it was then and there that three things converged: For the first time, Bill was in a position to do things for people; the state was in the middle of a get-rich-quick boomlet; and Hillary, thinking now about starting a family, realized that, given Bill’s disposition and fairly low salary, the family fortunes would be in her hands.

“It was Hillary who decided she wanted to be financially secure, and took the steps to accomplish that,” family friend Betsey Wright told Bernstein. “She had come a long way from her rejection of ‘our prevailing acquisitive corporate life’ that she condemned in her Wellesley commencement address.” Rationalizing shady deals apparently came naturally in “an easy atmosphere of conflicts of interest” in which “everyone does it” was the rule.

“It was a culture in which the moral architecture was weak, and in which everyone assumed that ‘fixing’ was a requirement for getting things done,” as Smith tells us.

The Clintons’ connections helped them enrich themselves in the go-go 1980s, a period they were to denounce as the “greed decade.” .  .  . In that atmosphere, Bill and Hillary developed a sense of entitlement, an expectation that others would take care of them. They became accustomed to borrowing from banks operated by political friends and accepting favors from individuals and corporations, such as the free use of private airplanes. (more…)

Share

THE CLINTON SCAM, ER, FOUNDATION !!!

Wednesday, June 3rd, 2015

 

AMERICAN THINKER
April 30, 2015

The Clinton Foundation as a money-laundering scheme

When you put together all the revelations about the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates that have cascaded our way (and continue to arrive), one explanation makes sense.  It was a money-laundering scheme designed to obtain and camouflage foreign money paid to the Clintons to curry favor, including favorable treatment by Hillary Clinton’s State Department     Sean David of The Federalist makes the case:

The scheme works like this: collect millions of dollars in foreign money, dump it into a foreign charity, pretend that the law prohibits you from ever disclosing the identities of those foreign donors to the foreign charity, then have the foreign charity bundle all the cash and send it to the Clinton Foundation. Then, when the time comes–whether it be a Clinton Foundation conference or a lavish Clinton Foundation trip overseas–make sure those individuals get some me-time with the Clintons.

As The Federalist detailed earlier this week, the Clinton Foundation spun off the bulk of its charitable medical activities back in 2010. By 2013, the main Clinton Foundation entity — the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation — housed only a handful of charitable initiatives, the largest of which existed solely to serve the Clintons, via their conference series and the Clinton presidential library, rather than truly charitable causes. In 2013, for example, the Clinton Foundation spent less than 10 percent of its budget on charitable grants.

The foreign-to-domestic laundering scheme satisfies a number of key Clinton objectives. First, it gave Secretary of State Hillary Clinton total plausible deniability about the millions in foreign cash that were being funneled into her family’s non-profit coffers. She wasn’t on the board of CGEPartnership, and wasn’t even named to the board of the Clinton Foundation until 2013, so how could she have known about this? Second, it gave Hillary’s allies the ability to claim that wealthy foreign individuals were not sending cash to the Clinton Foundation.

How? Because they were sending cash to the Canadian CGEPartnership. And while Bill Clinton’s name is obviously in the organization’s name, he never actually served on its board while Hillary was Secretary of State. Instead, Clinton retained control of the organization by placing Bruce Lindsey on CGEPartnership’s board. Lindsey, a long-time Clinton confidant and adviser, currently serves as the chairman of the board of the Clinton Foundation. He was also the Clinton Foundation’s CEO for over a decade.

If you look holistically at the entire scheme’s setup, at the massive flow of foreign cash, at the refusal to disclose donors, at the secret (and now destroyed) private e-mail servers, at the blatantly bogus excuses, at the falsified tax returns, everything about it suddenly makes a lot more sense.

From soup to nuts, the entire operation was constructed in order to provide a facade of plausible deniability for Hillary Clinton.

If the standard to be applied to understanding all of this is evidence sufficient to convict in court, then, thanks in no small part to the destruction of evidence, it might be (or might not be, considering the criminal conviction of Bob McDonell) difficult to close the case.  But if the standard is one of whom the American voters will honor with our highest office, then the facts are persuasive.

Share

WASHINGTON’S TANGLED WEB OF CRONY CAPITALISM

Thursday, May 21st, 2015

 

Published on The Weekly Standard (www.weeklystandard.com)

Ex-Im and Beyond

Jay Cost

May 18, 2015, Vol. 20, No. 34

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE:  And yet, one can only marvel at the struggle over this program. If an agency as questionable as Ex-Im can be eliminated only by a herculean effort, what hope is there of doing away with corporate tax preferences, domestic profits held overseas, onerous regulations that benefit large businesses, farm subsidies, affordable housing payola, rampant overpayments in Medicare, and the like? None of these subsidies will go quietly. All are deeply entrenched in our political economy, not because they are good for the nation, but because the interest groups that benefit from them are the most heavily invested in the political process. 

Ex-Im, in other words, is just the weakest link in the regime of interest-group liberalism that has slowly come to dominate Washington. For generations the government has been picking winners and losers in the private sector under the guise of national development. Those who have been winning will not gladly give up their spoils. They will do all they can to keep their benefits flowing, and the fight over Ex-Im shows that they can do quite a bit.

Conservative reformers who have been fighting the Export-Import Bank should be applauded, but this is not a game of dominoes. If Ex-Im falls, farm subsidies will persist. So will corporate welfare in the tax code. So will our absurd housing policies, which somehow withstood an economic calamity they had helped cause. 

Politically speaking, the only hope is to get the public involved in the fight against the inappropriate alliance between business and government. Few voters are aware of Washington’s tangled web of crony-capitalism, and this allows it to become entrenched. Thus, Republicans talk a good game about smaller government in their districts, then go to Washington and vote for programs like the farm bill. The folks back home are unaware that this is even under discussion. Interest groups with much at stake win, thanks to public ignorance and apathy. 

Conservatives have been disappointed with the track record of Republicans in Congress since their 2010 takeover of the House. There have been a few bright spots—the cuts in domestic discretionary spending brought about by the sequester, for instance—but from Obamacare to Iran to taxes to financial services regulation, President Obama and the left seem to retain the upper hand. Yet there is one issue percolating in Congress that could provide a rare victory. Conservatives are working hard to take down the Export-Import Bank, and they might succeed.

The Export-Import Bank is a New Deal-era relic whose purpose is to facilitate American trade. According to William Becker and William McClenahan, authors of a major study of Ex-Im, the bank has been an “entrepreneurial” institution that has evolved over the years to retain the favor of the nation’s foreign policy establishment and top economic policymakers. Today, its main role is to provide credit to foreign purchasers of American manufactured goods, especially heavy equipment and airplanes. Last year it authorized about $21 billion in government-backed loans. Few of these loans go bad, so Ex-Im has little budgetary impact, but then its critics don’t base their opposition on grounds of budget busting.

So what is their complaint? First, the bank is grossly inefficient. To support American businesses, Ex-Im extends credit to foreign governments and enterprises. Surely there is a less roundabout way to promote domestic business than to subsidize foreign business! The Ex-Im Bank’s defenders retort that foreign governments already do precisely this, so Uncle Sam must respond in kind to protect American jobs. Even if this is true (and many experts raise doubts), it does not justify wasteful inefficiency. While some exporters might be hurt if the Ex-Im Bank were decommissioned, its credit could be redirected in ways that bring more bang for the buck. (more…)

Share
Search All Posts
Categories