Saturday, May 9, 2015

The Clinton's on the Dark Side.

I have often wondered over the years about the Clinton's, and one of things I have noted is how powerful they seem . Over the last 20 years between the two Bush Presidencies , the Clinton images seem to have remained in the public mind. (1)> The Clinton presidency is still with the nation in ways that make it difficult to draw sound judgments about its lasting historical legacy. ***Whitewater scandal began with investigations into the real estate investments of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their associates, Jim and Susan McDougal, in the Whitewater Development Corporation, a failed business venture in the 1970s and 1980s.What happened way back in the 1980's is so vary mirrored   in the current Clinton Foundation scandal . There is so much which is utter suspicious about the Clinton's that it waved for me a red flag warning about them , that they are not just ordinary people . They may be hiding so much wealth that makes Mitt Romney an amateur . I wrote a few pieces that I believe Mrs. Clinton could possibly win in 2016, there is just a tip if the iceberg if she is elected as the first women President that a whole lot of the past will seep through floor . While the  Polls show that a size-able percentage of Americans distrust Hillary Clinton, with levels of suspicion only increasing in the wake of the recent controversy over her use of a personal email account and home brew server while serving as secretary of state: A Quinnipiac poll last week found that in three key swing states—Colorado, Virginia, and Iowa—between 49 and 56 percent of respondents think she's not honest or trustworthy, as Peter Schweizer’s book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, hits the market, Hillary is utilizing the same defense while in New Hampshire. Asked specifically about the charges that the Clinton Foundation took cash while she was Secretary of State, and that administration policy magically changed in favor of those who gave the cash. It seem that in 1992 Bill Clinton Though his administration floundered at first, Clinton has quickly learned one aspect of Washington -- how to raise money from business interests. He has set records in fund-raising, eclipsing even Dole's huge haul (though not by much.) Of course, if Dole was President he would no doubt regain the lead.And some contributors seem to think their money is well spent. For example, Clinton raised over a quarter million dollars from ADM, Bob Dole's major benefactor, and pushed through a regulation benefiting them mightily.On the other hand, 2 Arkansas firms that formerly bankrolled Clinton (and received help from his administration) have switched their support to Dole -- both Tyson Chicken and Stephens investment brokers apparently figure Dole gives a better return per contribution dollar, or is more likely to win. A commonly mentioned weakness of a prospective candidacy is that the nation has Clinton Fatigue Syndrome: After eight years of the Clinton White House and another 16 where Bill and Hillary have both been major figures in American politics, people are ready to move on and get something new. But the two Clinton Fatigue categories—"Bill Clinton would be back in White House" and "Clinton scandals, baggage"—were only named as a top concern by a combined 5 percent of respondents. Just two percent named the much-hyped Benghazi flap.

The Clinton's created  America's problems.
The "loss" of American jobs began with Bill Clinton .
When Bill Clinton was President during those times than the nation called the feel good era , the 1990's . President Clinton laid the foundation of many of the Gordian knot type issues that our nation is struggling to unwind . many of his policies namely , the 'War on Drugs' was the child of the Clinton administration . Some of the most aggressive policies of incarceration , racial profiling , three strikes and your out laws were created during the Clinton era. School accountability for educators began under guess who? As strange as it may seem , the Clinton's were never really liberal at all.The Clinton's are bad news, period. Hillary has a bad record on the 1st, 2nd and 4th amendments. She voted for the war, before she started slandering U.S. troops and cutting funding. She believes in censorship, mandatory national health insurance, the drug war, seems hawkish about Iran, et cetera, et cetera, (NAFTA) et cetera. Not to mention the deceit and destructive politics we grew so fond of during Bill's time and continue to see today. In the New York Post, Charlie Gasparino uses the occasion to remind everyone that the seeds of our current economic malaise were planted during the Clinton years.Basically, it was under Clinton that Fannie and Freddie really began blowing the housing bubble, issuing epic amounts of mortgage-backed debt.Do those convention delegates, and the fawning media that were wowed by the former president’s rhetorical seductions, not recall that just before he left office Clinton signed off on the game-changing legislation that ended the sensible rules imposed on Wall Street during the Great Depression? It was Clinton who cooperated with the Republicans in reversing the legacy of FDR’s New Deal, opening the floodgates of unfettered avarice that almost drowned the world’s economy during the reign of George W. Bush.( Bush, Clinton and Bush, but the basic political and economic philosophy was Republican both Clinton and Blair adopted conservative policies for political reasons, and pushed their parties to the right). When President Bill Clinton signed off on the North American Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Trade & Tariffs in 1993, otherwise known as (2).> NAFTA/GATT, he quite literally slashed the economic throat of the United States. We've been hemorrhaging jobs to foreign nations like Communist China ever since. Until 1993, the United States of America was the world's economic king, and our people enjoyed the highest standard of living in recorded history. But NAFTA/GATT changed all that by virtually removing all trade protections that ensured our general prosperity. Compared to the United States, labor costs in China, Indonesia and similar nations were substantially lower than what U.S. workers earned. NAFTA/GATT allowed our corporations and U.S. entrepreneurs to move their manufacturing technology overseas and take advantage of the reduced costs of doing business, while avoiding our former trade protections that made such a move prior to NAFTA/GATT unprofitable. For those enterprises that made the move overseas right away, there was nothing but exorbitant profits to be made. What could be better for a typical American manufacturer? You get to avoid all U.S. payroll taxes, worker's compensation costs and environmental regulations and hurdles. You no longer have to deal with unions and provide employee benefits like health insurance and retirement plans. You get to manufacture in China, Indonesia and similar foreign nations to your heart's content, and you still get to sell your products to the U.S. consumer at the same or nearly the same cost as before. Those who benefited are the stockholders of these firms and their top CEOs and CFOs. If you had money to invest before NAFTA/GATT, your returns on the investments spiked. But if you are just the typical middle-class American family with an average $9,000.00 per month credit card balance and little or no savings except what's in your 401k, you didn't have the chance to participate in that gold rush. You were blind-sided and left behind, and the immediate effect of NAFTA/GATT was for around five million people who had high-paying, family wage paying manufacturing jobs to lose them to low-wage workers overseas. The long-term effect of NAFTA/GATT just emerged in the form of Circuit City firing 3,400 of its highest paid employees for the publicly announced purpose of hiring replacements who will work for substantially less. One of the major points I tried to drive home was that the standard of living in the United States would be drawn down by NAFTA/GATT, while the nations that now host those manufacturing jobs will see a modest gain. Where China is concerned, everything is relative, and relative to the standard of living China had before NAFTA/GATT, the Chinese people are experiencing a surge on par with the typical American family of the 50s, with a modest home and one car, but it represents a vast improvement over what they had before. We've all heard stories of how people who once held higher-paying U.S. manufacturing jobs are now working two or three service jobs. Now we see that a major employer of service positions is forcing their highest paid workers out while bringing in people who will do the same job for less. Walmart has been doing that for years, although not blatantly. The shameless announcement by Circuit City is blatant, and there will be little if any backlash. The presently unemployed or under-paid employed will happily fill those Circuit City positions, and after a nice 10-week interlude, those former Circuit City employees can apply to get hired back at the reduced wage too. What does that tell you? Now, service employers domiciled in the United States, who have no union entanglements, are embarking on a quest to force American wages down to increase corporate profits. So again we see the only beneficiaries will be those who can still make investments, and those employed at the top of the corporate ladders ­ the very wealthiest Americans. The rest make up those often referred to now as, "The Shrinking Middle Class", but that's a misnomer. Considering a burgeoning debt level and a lack of personal savings not seen since the Great Depression, these people are the "New Poor" who just don't know it yet. They still have their expensive cars and nice homes for now, but they can't draw any more equity from their homes through refinancing, so they are adding to their credit card debt just to pay for basics like clothing and groceries. In case you missed the latest report, it is common for average American families to spend 110% or more of their actual income, year after year, and that trend is impossible to sustain. At one point or another, those at-risk families are going to hit the wall and lose just about everything, and in many cases they will be denied the right to discharge their debts through Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, due to the Bankruptcy Reform Bill pushed by the credit card companies and signed into law by President Bush. You may be unaware that the largest single contributors to Bush 43's election campaigns were predatory credit card companies, who saw this day coming from long distance and made sure they were insulated from the fallout when it hit. 

Current Clinton problems.

(1)> Bill and Hillary Clinton helped raise more than $1 billion from U.S. companies and industry donors during two decades on the national stage through campaigns, paid speeches and a network of organizations advancing their political and policy goals, The Wall Street Journal found. It's interesting to note how much of a global impact the Clinton's have had , its not just money and donations . Those deep ties potentially give Mrs. Clinton a financial advantage in the 2016 presidential election, , and could bring industry donors back to the Democratic Party for the first time since Mr. Clinton left the White House. A handful of deep-pocketed donors are reconsidering their gifts to the $2 billion Clinton Foundation amid mounting questions about how it’s spending their money and suggestions of influence peddling, according to donors and others familiar with the foundation’s fundraising.Criminal investigators may want to check under the enormous bags under Hillary's eyes for more illegal, undisclosed foreign donations. Clearly, the stress of spinning her criminal activities and driving the Scuby Van at high speeds to escape questions from the press is stressing her out. Why would a rich 68 year old woman want to run for president when she has a new grandchild to play with? She MUST WIN the presidency so that she's not prosecuted for the biggest laundry list of crimes I've ever seen, that's why.

***The "Clinton Body Count" Conspiracy theory postulates that the deaths of dozens of Americans allegedly associated with the former president William Jefferson Clinton can only be explained as homicides. The underlying assumption of the conspiracy theory is that the mortality rate among friends and associates of Clinton is higher that what would be predicted by the laws of statistical probability. Conspiracy theorists use the term "Arkanicide" (based on Clinton's home state) to describe the allegedly mysterious deaths. The sinister version of the Conspiracy theory posits that the Clinton played a direct role in the murder of some or all of his associated. The more benign version argues that individuals or groups working without the knowledge or approval of Clinton are responsible for the deaths. Admitting an inability to link Clinton to many of the deaths. Linda Thompson, who developed the original body count list, hypothesized that "people trying to control the president" are responsible for the deaths.The Clinton Body Count originated as a list of thirty-four suicides, accidental deaths, and unsolved murders posted by Thompson in 1994 on a website entitled "The Clinton Body Count: Coincidence or the Kiss of Death." Thompson is a conservative activist who quit her one-year-old Indianapolis general law practice in 1993 in order to start and run the American Justice Federation. According to Thompson, Clinton was directly connected to twenty-eight of the thirty-four individuals on her list. Thompson described as "collateral deaths" an additional four people on the list who allegedly died because of their relationship with an associate of Clinton's, and also included on the list, two individuals (James Bunch and John Wilson) with a possible connection to Clinton.Former Republican representative William Dannemeyer brought the conspiracy theory to the attention of the U.S. political elite by mailing a letter to the congressional leadership, with copies going to all the members of both chambers of congress in 1994. In the letter Dannemeyer identified twenty-four individuals associated with Clinton who had died under "Other that natural circumstances." Most of the named listed by Dannemeyer in the letter could be found on the website maintained by Thompson. Arguing that the number of suspicious deaths "has reached a total that can only be described as frightening." Dannemeyer called for congressional hearings into the deaths.21, total confirmed deaths of persons connected to Clinton in the past year. All of these people died of unnatural causes. Four were shot, 17 were killed in crashes of helicopters or air-planes.  The statistical probabilities of Clinton knowing 21 people, all of whom died either in accidents or under mysterious circumstances in less than a year's time, is virtually zero.(1)> The No. 1 concern Americans have about an administration run by former First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is that she is not qualified. This despite the fact that her resume would make her easily the best-qualified Oval Office holder on paper since George H.W. Bush. And before Bush, it's a long way back to anyone else on par: Nixon, perhaps? Eisenhower, though he had little domestic experience? FDR? (1)> Former Secretary of State Clinton has been dogged by questions about her foundation's fundraising practices. Paul and others have harshly criticized the $2 billion foundation for accepting donations from oppressive governments, and the foundation broke an agreement it had made with the White House by accepting $500,000 from Algeria when Clinton was secretary of state.(2)>When President Bill Clinton signed off on the North American Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Trade & Tariffs in 1993, otherwise known as NAFTA/GATT, he quite literally slashed the economic throat of the United States. We've been hemorrhaging jobs to foreign nations like Communist China ever since.Until 1993, the United States of America was the world's economic king, and our people enjoyed the highest standard of living in recorded history. But NAFTA/GATT changed all that by virtually removing all trade protections that ensured our general prosperity. 

No comments:

Post a Comment