Tuesday Sept 13: Clinton’s medical problems and Latin America stories of the week…. https://t.co/dgbTM8Ej8h
— Silvio Canto, Jr. (@SCantojr) September 13, 2016
Most of us remember 9-11 down to the last minute. It was one of those life experiences that will stay with us as long as we live.
Back then, I remember how fortunate we were that we had men like Bush and Cheney in positions of responsibility.
Things got political as they always do. However, President Bush and his team deserve a lot of credit for defending and protecting the country.
During the Bush-Cheney years, we were constantly reminded that the bad guys were on a mission to destroy us. President Bush would often speak of the threat and remind us that it was long-term and very dangerous.
President Obama changed the tone. He lowered the volume and did not constantly speak of the threats. I’m not saying he does not care, but the intensity is missing.
It’s 9-11 plus 15, and I feel very unsafe. Put a map of the world on the wall, and there are red lights everywhere.
The latest is North Korea. It’s nice for President Obama to call the test dangerous, but that’s not going to do much to stop the next test.
The Washington Post has a good message for President Obama:
Western analysts used to dismiss North Korea’s tests as political stunts, meant to impress the domestic audience, capture international attention and leverage aid. Though the latest detonation came on a national holiday, that explanation is looking implausible. As it has frequently said publicly, the regime now aims to be recognized as a nuclear power and to acquire the ability to deter not just South Korea and Japan, but also the United States.
President Obama reiterated Friday that “the United States does not, and never will, accept North Korea as a nuclear state.”
But Mr. Obama has failed to take the North Korean buildup seriously enough. For years, his administration pursued a policy of “strategic patience,” which mostly consisted of ignoring North Korea while mildly cajoling China to put more pressure on the regime.
In February, Mr. Obama signed into law a bill pushed by congressional Republicans that gave him broad new powers to sanction North Korea and cut off its economic lifelines. The next month, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed a resolution imposing new sanctions on the regime, including limits on its trade.
However, China has not aggressively implemented the U.N. sanctions — and Mr. Obama has not used the powers Congress gave him. As The Post’s Anna Fifield recently reported, customs data shows that China’s trade with North Korea in June was almost 10 percent higher than the previous year, in spite of the sanctions. Though the White House has issued executive orders sanctioning Mr. Kim and other senior leaders, congressional leaders point out that it has yet to penalize any Chinese companies or banks for continuing to do business with the regime.
Quick translation: Get serious, Mr. President. It may be that young Kim is crazy, but a head case with nuclear weapons is beyond dangerous.
My guess is that President Obama will punt on this one and leave another problem for his successor.
On this one, Mr. Trump has a point about bringing China into the mix. The Chinese can stop Kim in a heartbeat. They could take him out or just squeeze him to death. We need more from China than a statement like this:
China, Pyongyang’s only major ally, has said it will lodge a diplomatic protest with North Korea’s embassy over the nuclear test.
State news agency Xinhua released a commentary on the explosion on Friday, saying North Korea had “dealt yet another heavy blow to the foundation of regional security, its own security included”.
China had earlier said it was “strongly opposed” to the test.
Am I the only one who finds the Chinese statement silly?
Imagine that your neighbor’s dog comes over and bites your kid. Your neighbor calls you on the phone and says he is very disappointed and will take it up at the next neighborhood association meeting.
China can do better than that, and I hope a President Trump makes that very clear!
It is hard to believe that a small nation in the Korean peninsula can be this dangerous or take up so much of our time.
There are two lessons here for future presidents:
1) Take them out when you can, as we had the opportunity in 1994 when the country was desperately looking for food. In other words, don’t throw a lifesaver to anti-American thugs. They will only use it to regain strength and make your life more miserable later.
2) Attach North Korea to our China relationship. Make it clear to China that an attack by North Korea on any of our allies – Japan or South Korea, for example – would be an attack on the U.S., requiring a full military retaliation against China.
Again, it is incredible to me that a country with starving people could pose such a threat to world peace. Let’s learn our lesson and not allow the next Kim to get his hands on a weapon.
Thank you, President Bush, for understanding that much about Saddam Hussein.
President Obama’s trip to China and the “stairs” incident put the bow on two terms of trying to popular rather than respected. I just hope that #45 understands what he or she is walking into.
This is what happened in China, as explained by Dr. Krauthammer:
The president of the United States lands with all the majesty of Air Force One, waiting to exit the front door and stride down the rolling staircase to the red-carpeted tarmac.
Except that there is no rolling staircase.
He is forced to exit — as one China expert put it rather undiplomatically — through “the ass” of the plane.
We don’t know if the incident was planned or accidental. However, all of the leaders got the usual treatment and “hope and change” didn’t. And no one apologized for doing this to the president of the U.S. As they say, actions speak louder than words.
It started in Egypt in 2009 with a speech that blamed the U.S., followed by a revolution in Iran that he didn’t pay attention to, a withdrawal from Iraq that left a vacuum for ISIS to grow and expand in, to drawing a red line that he didn’t enforce, to making a deal with Cuba that benefited the Castros not the U.S., to an Iran nuclear deal that he was desperate to make no matter how much cash the other side demanded, to allowing Iran boats to bully the U.S. Navy to Russian MiGs flying feet over our ships.
Wonder what’s next on the long line of cheap shots at the U.S.?
We are living in extremely dangerous times and President Obama does not have a clue. Worse than that, no one in the U.S. media is bothering to ask him about it or hold him accountable for the disarray. The media is obsessed with Trump, Mrs. Clinton is promising not to send ground troops and our enemies are enjoying it a great deal.
The Chinese forgot the donkey to remind our president that he is a Democrat and something else that I’ll leave to your imagination.
One thing that Al Fox needs to be aware of is that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Neither is the muddling of the law’s meaning!
How can anyone still think Mrs. Clinton has judgment or any character after the latest “dump,” as discussed by Bre Payton:
Clinton told the FBI that she didn’t pay attention to the different levels of classification, and that she didn’t understand that an email containing a “(C)” meant “classified,” but that she thought they were marked “alphabetical order.”
Her claims of ignorance – whether they’re true or not – violate an agreement she signed during her first day on the job in the State Department.
From the very beginning of her tenure as secretary of State, Clinton signed a non-disclosure agreement acknowledging that it was her responsibility to ascertain whether documents contained classified information. She also acknowledged the criminal penalties she would face if she disclosed government secrets.
She didn’t know that “C” meant classified? Are you kidding me? What else could it mean? Careful? Candy? Chicago Cubs? And these are the same people who got all over Trump because he didn’t know about the nuclear triad?
At some point, you have to say Mrs. Clinton is either unfit for a responsible position or too much of a liar.
In my book, those are not good attributes for the person who will have to put the Middle East back together, tackle the collapse of Obamacare, and probably go on TV to announce that your son is headed to war again.
If she were an employee, she’d be fired. If she stood before a jury, no one would buy her story that she did not know that “C” meant classified.
No serious person can believe this candidacy anymore.
Mrs. Clinton is unfit to lead, and I have a funny feeling that many Democrats are coming to the same conclusion.
Tres Patines got it right: “A la reja”
Our friend Fausta Rodriguez Wertz has been on this story for a week.
It begs the question: What was The Clinton Foundation looking for in Colombia?
Here is a bit of the very complicated story:
Fondo Acceso was founded in 2010 by Bill Clinton, the Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, and the Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra. The Clinton Foundation and the SLIM Foundation committed $10 million each to the fund.
The Clinton Foundation is a 50 percent shareholder in the company, according to its tax records. Numerous Clinton Foundation and Clinton-Giustra Enterprise Partnership officials are listed as Fondo Acceso directors in Colombian corporate filings.
The fund has reportedly distributed $1.5 million to Alimentos SAS, a fruit-pulping company, and $250,000 to the telecommunications firm Fontel SA in exchange for shareholding agreements. The Clinton Foundation and CGEP have declined to release a full list of Fondo Acceso’s investments.
What exactly is the point of having President Clinton in business in Colombia with a Mexican telecommunications billionaire and a Canadian mining magnate? Why all the secrecy? Why was the website takend down?
I have a few other questions:
1) Did they do this to avoid regulations in Colombia or the U.S.? Or to create a fund to go around U.S. oversight or campaign laws?
2) Why didn’t President Clinton create the fund to boost business in the U.S.? For example, how about a fund to invest in our inner cities? Why promote investment in other places when our cities are desperately lacking in jobs?
3) Did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have any role in this?
According to Fausta, Hillary Clinton’s timeline is interesting — or maybe Clintonian:
2008: Hillary Clinton campaigns for president, is against the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.
2009: Hillary Clinton becomes Secretary of State. She starts lobbying members of Congress for approval of the CFTA, as revealed on emails released on February 2016.
2010: Bill Clinton, Carlos Slim, and Frank Giustra (who pledged $100 million to the Foundation) open Fondo Acceso. Previously, in June 2005, Gold Service International, a South American business group, paid Bill Clinton $800,000 to deliver four speeches in South America. Gold Service was pushing for the free trade agreement, which would help boost Colombian exports to the United States, and Clinton was supportive of the policy.
The Clinton apologists will say that this is all coincidence, as they always do. My answer to the Clinton apologists is to remind them of Ian Fleming’s line about coincidence:
“Once is happenstance.
Twice is coincidence.
Three times is enemy action”
Finally, am I the only one who finds Mrs. Clinton’s change of heart about the Colombia Free Trade Agreement just a bit too cute?
This is especially relevant because she was for the Trans Pacific Partnership until she was against it. Can we believe anything that this woman says? Will she flip as President Clinton to take care of some donation that someone gave to the Clinton Foundation?
(My new American Thinker post)
During the primary season, Mr. Trump was often attacked by the others on the stage for having contributed to Democrats over the years. We remember Senator Cruz for this:
Donald Trump has consistently financed the campaigns of some of the most liberal politicians in the country[.] … California is perhaps one of the more egregious examples. From supporting high taxes and heavy regulation to amnesty and sanctuary cities, the top three officials in California have been a disaster for the state. A number of qualified Republican candidates ran to fix California’s problems, but Trump decided to back liberal Democrats against them.
I am not trying to fight the primary all over again. I am simply demonstrating the hypocrisy of those Democrats who have suddenly discovered that Mr. Trump is a racist.
The Clinton Foundation received at least $105,000 from Trump – money not returned!
Trump may have funded Planned Parenthood, too, although we won’t know for sure until tax returns are released.
And he gave to other Democrats, as Rolling Stone wrote last spring:
An examination of Trump’s donations since 1998 reveals that the bulk of Trump’s political largesse has gone to politicians in places where he does business — like Florida, where he long supported disgraced politico Mark Foley; Nevada, where he’s given $9,400 to Democratic Sen. Harry Reid over the years; and of course New York, where notables like Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand and Anthony Weiner have all received Trump dough.
Again, I understand Trump’s logic here. He was donating to people in places where he did business. Nothing shocking about that.
My problem is that none of these Democrats has returned the money, especially now that the Clinton campaign is targeting Trump for racism, sexism, and whatever other “ism” is out there.
Someone, especially Mrs. Clinton or President Obama, should call on Democrats to return and disassociate themselves from any Trump money.
As I said, no one called him a racist when he contributed to Democrats. It proves once again that the word “racist” these days has nothing to do with race.
Calling someone a racist in our political landscape means two things:
1) He is a GOP candidate.
2) And more importantly, the Democrat using the word “racist” does not want to talk about serious issues, such as black unemployment (8.4%), Democrat leaders sending their kids to private schools or the state of the very weak U.S. economy (GDP 1.1%).
Memo to Democrats: return Trump’s money, or we will continue to call hypocrisy!
Over the last couple of years, President Obama has made a nuclear deal with Iran, put a U.S. Embassy in Cuba and continues to release terrorists from Gitmo, as reported by USA Today:
Rep. Ed Royce, the California Republican who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, called the released detainees “hardened terrorists” who will be a threat for years.
“In its race to close Gitmo, the Obama administration is doubling down on policies that put American lives at risk,” Royce said in a statement. “Once again, hardened terrorists are being released to foreign countries where they will be a threat.”
The Pentagon, in a statement, said an inter-agency review board considered their potential threat to security and unanimously approved six of the 15 for release, A consensus was reached on release of the remaining nine.
There are 61 detainees remaining at Guantanamo.
Are we safer? How can you put terrorists back in the game and assume that they will pursue a peaceful path?
So why is President Obama doing this?
My theory is that he is planning his post presidency. He wants to be an American version of Nelson Mandela, a man who travels around the Third World and left-wing precincts.
How do you get a standing ovation in those corners? Mr. Obama can say that he ended wars, closed Gitmo, ended the isolation of Cuba and signed a nuclear deal with Iran. All of these positions are extremely popular in the anti-U.S. corners of the world!
I ask again: how are any of these actions good for the U.S.? They are not, from a nuclear deal with Iran to throwing dissidents under the bus in Cuba to releasing more terrorists that attack us around the world.
Sadly, there is no one in the Democratic Party willing to stand up and tell President Obama to stop it.
Senator Sanders’ socialist nonsense was always followed with the footnote that Sanders was genuine and a true believer, i.e. the crazy leftist uncle in the attic who actually believes that Marxism works if you give it a true chance.
We’ve learned a couple of things about Mr. Sanders since he endorsed Mrs Clinton:
1) He threw his supporters under the bus by supporting a candidate who represents everything that he spoke about, from crony capitalism to connections to Wall Street; and,
2) Mr. Sanders likes expensive homes just like the rich folks do. Mr. Sanders just bought his third home and we don’t think that he will be turning any of them into shelters for the homeless or to accommodate refugees from the Middle East. My guess is that he will also take advantage of all of those tax breaks that he ran against during the campaign.
According to NPR, Sanders is turning off a lot of his supporters:
Bernie Sanders may have found a new place to take a break from the political arena after buying a vacation home last week. But some of his former supporters were questioning his socialist authenticity.
Sanders recently purchased a lake-front home in North Hero, Vt., his home state. The $575,000, four-bedroom home includes 500 feet of Lake Champlain beachfront on the east side of the island, according to the Vermont newspaper Seven Days.
The purchase makes this Sanders’ third home, and after the news broke of his recent purchase, the Internet became a breeding ground for complaints.
In fact, this is how a lot of socialists live, from Cuba to North Korea to the American left, who love public education but send their kids to rich private schools like the Obama, the Clintons, the Kerrys, the Gores and so on.
I am not surprised that Mr. Sanders would bash rich people in front of fickle students and then buy a huge home to relax. He is actually a lot more typical of rich socialists than his supporters realize. It’s a shame that his supporters had to learn that the whole message was a fraud this way.
As my late father once said after watching a Sanders rally: “At 18 you believe this trash, then you grow up….”
That’s right. Bernie’s home is a teachable moment for the thousands who bought into his distributionist nonsense!
It was 35 years ago that President Reagan signed ERTA or The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981. It took a couple of years, but it was “Morning in America” when President Reagan was reelected in 1984.
ERTA kept a promise that Mr Reagan made in 1980:
The ERTA included a 25 percent reduction in marginal tax rates for individuals, phased in over three years, and indexed for inflation from that point on. The marginal tax rate, or the tax rate on the last dollar earned, was considered more important to economic activity than the average tax rate (total tax paid as a percentage of income earned), as it affected income earned through “extra” activities such as education, entrepreneurship or investment. Reducing marginal tax rates, the theory went, would help the economy grow faster through such extra efforts by individuals and businesses. The 1981 act, combined with another major tax reform act in 1986, cut marginal tax rates on high-income taxpayers from 70 percent to around 30 percent, and would be the defining economic legacy of Reagan’s presidency.
Reagan’s tax cuts were designed to put maximum emphasis on encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship and creating incentives for the development of venture capital and greater investment in human capital through training and education. The cuts particularly benefited “idea” industries such as software or financial services; fittingly, Reagan’s first term saw the advent of the information revolution, including IBM’s introduction of its first personal computer (PC) and the rise or launch of such tech companies as Intel, Microsoft, Dell, Sun Microsystems, Compaq and Cisco Systems.
In the end, “Reaganomics” proved to be an electoral success even if deficits were a bit uncomfortable for many of us. I agree with The Tax Foundation that it was a “watershed event in the history of federal taxation,” I just wish that spending had been controlled more.
Unlike the Obama “stimulus,” the Reagan plan put its faith in the private sector and US businesses. The Obama stimulus was focused on helping their supporters, including unions and many very wealthy supporters, as John Lott wrote in 2004.
And this is why we remember the stimulus that stimulated in the 1980’s!
Over the last week, we traveled to a niece’s wedding and had a chance to spend some time with my recently widowed mother. It was the kind of family quality time that we all yearn for except for having to watch CNN at hotel lobbies and airports.
On Tuesday night, the day that so many at CNN thought that Mr Trump had issued a call for NRA people to eliminate Mrs. Clinton, the panels at CNN were somewhere between silly andwas the kind of selective outrage that we’ve come to love from liberals who went mute when far worse things were said about President Bush or VP Cheney.
At one point, I looked around the gate and nobody was watching…. wonder why? I got so fed up that I was following the Rangers-Rockies game on my phone!
On Wednesday, I reconnected with the world and found that CNN had dropped to 3rd, which is a fancy way of saying that you are last in the cable news business. In other words, there are only 3 so 3rd means last.
According to TV Newser, it was something like this:
So even MSNBC, the laughingstock of cable news unless you think that President Bush knew of the 9-11 attack in advance, beat CNN by quite a lot.
My guess is that people watching MSNBC are so far gone that they are not even hearing the anti-Trump bashing. On the other hand, CNN reaches a lot of people at public places and most of them just looked at the phones and prayed that the flight was not delayed.
Maybe Mrs. Clinton will defeat Mr Trump. It goes without saying that Mr Trump has not helped himself much since clinching the nomination in Indiana, or over 90 days ago.
At the same time, there is a point where media bias is so obvious that even the people forced to watch CNN at airports just look the other way and find something else to do with their lives.
Let’s look at the treatment of Mr. Mateen, the gay-basher, Taliban-sympathizer father of the Orlando terrorist. He showed up feet away from Mrs. Clinton at a rally, then endorsed her, and everybody at CNN was looking to blame it on staff. On the other hand, David Duke endorsed Mr Trump and you’d think that it was the end of the world as we’ve known it!
Then there is the latest email dump! Many in the media defend Mrs. Clinton by saying that it was “staff” again. Whose staff are they? They work for Mrs. Clinton, who happened to be Secretary of State at the time that this was going on.
Trump has work to do but his enemies in the media are showing so much bias that a backlash in coming, and perhaps already underway.
So often, people judge others based on their party affiliation. Republicans talk to you only if you are a party loyalist. Democrats are also guilty of the same sin. And, yet, there are people who judge others based on their principled stance on key issues ranging from the second amendment to U.S./Cuba relations.
And this explains why when I come across U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), I thank him when he criticizes President Obama’s Cuba policy. And, I find it despicable when U.S. Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) joins President Obama on the historic visit to Cuba.
Actions and values do matter.
The Tampa Bay Times ran an article this week putting down Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn (Democrat) for being out of the step with many around Tampa Bay who are lobbying Cuban officials to set up the first Cuban Consulate in their cities. (See: http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/on-cuba-buckhorns-out-of-step-with-many-around-tampa-bay-and-hes-ok-with/2287842).
Mayor Buckhorn could cares less about the incoming criticism, as he will not betray the core principles that he stands for. He stands with the cause to restore freedom and democracy to Communist Cuba. He honors a CIA agent who played a key role in the capture of aChesino Guevara, and he’s flown missions with Brothers to the Rescue.
Senator Menendez and Tampa Mayor Buckhorn remind me of a famous quote by German poet Bertolt Brecht: “There are men who struggle for a day and they are good. There are men who struggle for a year and they are better. There are men who struggle many years, and they are better still. But there are those who struggle all their lives: These are the indispensable ones.”
To me, Senator Menendez and Tampa Mayor Buckhorn belong to the “indispensable” category to bring back a Cuba Libre.
I’ve honored Mayor Buckhorn by penning a letter-to-the-editor to remind readers that he belongs to the “one of kind” politician. See: http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/letters/wednesdays-letters-bay-area-leads-in-job-growth/2287841.
On July 13, 2016, the U.S. Senate voted to confirm Dr. Hayden as the next Librarian of Congress.
Dr. Carla Hayden, president of the American Library Association (ALA) from 2003-2004, refused to support an amendment to the section of the final report on the proceedings of the ALA’s mid-winter meeting to help free ten librarians that Fidel Castro had imprisoned for making available such documents as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and George Orwell’s 1984.
It is noticeable that Dr. Hayden was a vocal opponent to the Patriot Act during her tenure as ALA president, leading a battle for the protections of library users’ privacy. She objected to the special permissions contained in Section 215 of that law, which granted the U.S. Justice Department and the FBI the power to access library user records. Dr. Hayden often disagreed publicly with then-U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft over the language of the law.
It is ironic that Dr. Hayden would not side with the ten Cuban librarians who were locked up by Fidel for circulating access to information to the Cuban people.
Obama Care is a huge problem that President Obama will leave his successor. And there is Iraq, Libya and so on. Lots of messes for his successor to clean up indeed.
In retrospect, race relations will be his biggest failure.
Back in November 2008, I voted for Senator McCain but looked forward that our first black president would bring us together. I was anticipating that he’d talk about the structural problems in the black community, such as the collapse of the black family unit and black on black crime in Chicago and other inner cities.
Instead, Obama has made things worse by focusing on the police and doing nothing about black districts lacking any hope or seeing no change.
A few months ago, Gil Troy, a professor of history at McGill University wrote an article that looks rather interesting after Dallas:
The last Democratic president and the last Republican president both managed race relations more effectively than Obama has. Seven years after American voters made history by electing the country’s first black president, racial tensions have worsened.
It didn’t rank on Obama’s one-item list of his “few regrets” during his State of the Union address. But signs of Obama’s failure are on our streets, on our campuses and among our leaders, left and right.
“Ferguson” has become shorthand for African-American fury objecting to insensitive white cops harassing young blacks.
The “Black Lives Matter” movement has spilled into American campus culture, as privileged kids attending the world’s finest universities bemoan their alleged oppression — bullying anyone who challenges them.
This black backlash has prompted a white backlash, personified by Donald Trump.
Every justifiable police shooting called “racist,” every Halloween costume labeled politically incorrect, every reasonable thought censored makes Trump look like America’s last honest man.
Amid this tension, Obama has been disturbingly passive — even during America’s first serious race riots since 1992.
He acts like a meteorologist observing the bad weather, not a president able to shape the political climate.
How embarrassing that Obama’s most memorable act of presidential leadership on race may end up being inviting a black professor and a white cop to the White House for his 2009 “beer summit.”
Yes, President Obama will be remembered for two things:
a) The articulate president who could not articulate a message to bring us together. In other words, the man can speak but has little of consequence to say; and,
b) The first black president who did not understand the real problems in black communities.
His legacy will be that he left us more angry and divided than ever.