-Hillary Clinton Trailing Republicans in Battleground States
-Hillary Clinton Decided to Run at Oscar de la Renta’s Dominican Republic Beachfront Mansion
-MSNBC: Hillary Clinton is ‘The Same Show,’ Been Living in A Bubble Since 1978
-Hillary Clinton’s Typo Writer
April 14th, 2015 By: streiff (Diary)
The GOP opposition research group America Rising has released a very slick video on Hillary Clinton. If you reject Clinton and all her works and all her empty promises, as I do, you will be delighted. The neat editing of Bashar Assad (whom Clinton called “a reformer”) into what looks like him making a Nazi salute and the use of an extensive James Carville cut to indict, rather than defend, Clinton are well done. I don’t know how this would play with those still on the fence about Clinton, but it is a stark reminder to the rest of us why we need to fight this elderly harpy with ever fiber of our being.
This is not meant as an encouragement for anyone to give money to America Rising. I’m not a huge fan of PACs.
Enjoy:
http://www.redstate.com/2015/04/14/hillary-clinton-trustworthy/
—
Madam Yesterday
April 14th, 2015 By: Erick Erickson (Diary)
Yesterday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)82% referred to Hillary Clinton as “yesterday’s candidate.” It is a theme he can use about Jeb Bush too as he tries to pivot. Rubio, like Bill Clinton in 1992, is campaigning on a bridge further into the 21st Century. As he does so, along with the other Republicans, Hillary “Madam Yesterday” Clinton is going to keep finding yesterday’s news haunting her.
It was Hillary Clinton who presented a reset button to the Russians in 2009. It was she who steered that relationship and heralded a much improved relationship with the Russians.
Now comes word of what that reset relationship looks like. Having given up trying to get Iran to close some of its underground centrifuges, President Obama now just hopes they won’t make a bomb. But the Russians, with whom Hillary reset our relationship, are now going to supply the Iranians with a surface to air defensive missile system to prevent the United States or anyone else from blowing up the centrifuges with bunker busting bombs.
That’s right folks. Hillary Clinton reset our relationship with Russia and now Russia is supply weapons to Iran to ensure they can complete their nuclear weapon.
Her reset had rippling effects that, even now, we have not yet felt.
http://www.redstate.com/2015/04/14/madam-yesterday/
—-
FBI declares Hillary Clinton an “insider threat”
April 14th, 2015 By: streiff (Diary)
Well, not exactly but very nearly.
An “insider threat,” is defined by the National Counterintelligence and Security Center as:
An insider threat arises when a person with authorized access to U.S. Government resources, to include personnel, facilities, information, equipment, networks, and systems, uses that access to harm the security of the United States. Malicious insiders can inflict incalculable damage. They enable the enemy to plant boots behind our lines and can compromise our nation’s most important endeavors.
Over the past century, the most damaging U.S. counterintelligence failures were perpetrated by a trusted insider with ulterior motives. In each case, the compromised individual exhibited the identifiable signs of a traitor – but the signs went unreported for years due to the unwillingness or inability of colleagues to accept the possibility of treason.
A recent FBI brochure that warns employers about this threat has this to say:
There are a variety of motives or personal situations that may increase the likelihood someone will spy against their employer:
Greed or Financial Need: A belief that money can fix anything. Excessive debt or overwhelming expenses.
Anger/Revenge: Disgruntlement to the point of wanting to retaliate against the organization.
Problems at work: A lack of recognition, disagreements with co-workers or managers, dissatisfaction with the job, a pending layoff.
Ideology/Identification: A desire to help the “underdog” or a particular cause.
Divided Loyalty: Allegiance to another person or company, or to a country besides the United States.
Adventure/Thrill: Want to add excitement to their life, intrigued by the clandestine activity, “James Bond Wannabe.”
Vulnerability to blackmail: Extra-marital affairs, gambling, fraud.
Ego/Self-image: An “above the rules” attitude, or desire to repair wounds to their self-esteem. Vulnerability to flattery or the promise of a better job. Often coupled with Anger/Revenge or Adventure/Thrill.
Ingratiation: A desire to please or win the approval of someone who could benefit from insider information with the expectation of returned favors.
Compulsive and destructive behavior: Drug or alcohol abuse, or other addictive behaviors.
Family problems: Marital conflicts or separation from loved ones.
If someone had interviewed Clinton for a couple of hours and reviewed the press clippings from her decades (yes, decades, like this is an old crone we’re talking about) in public life this is very close to list of personality traits one would associate with Clinton. If she worked for a defense contractor, you’d restrict her access to classified data if not fire her. Yet the Democrat party is going to put her forward as their candidate for president.
http://www.redstate.com/2015/04/14/fbi-declares-hillary-clinton-insider-threat/
—
Hillary’s Unethical Behavior Goes Back Decades
13 April 2015 by Bob Adelmann
Touting her unique life experience, Hillary Rodham Clinton (shown) launched her campaign for president on Sunday. Above all, she says, she is a grandmother who simply wants America’s grandchildren to have an opportunity to succeed:
Becoming a grandmother has made me think deeply about the responsibility we all share as stewards of the world we inherit and will one day pass on. I’m more convinced than ever that our future in the 21st century depends on our ability to ensure that a child born in the hills of Appalachia or the Mississippi Delta or the Rio Grande Valley grows up with the same shot at success that [my granddaughter] Charlotte will.
Missing from her proclamation as the savior of young people under her presidency is how she treated a sixth-grader back in 1975 who was repeatedly raped by a 41-year-old drifter. The drifter, one Thomas Alfred Taylor, requested a female court-appointed attorney, and Hillary Rodham, age 27, was assigned to defend him.
In a five-hour taped interview of Bill and Hillary Clinton that was supposed to form the basis for a lengthy in-depth article in Esquire magazine, the couple laughed about Hillary getting a minimum sentence for her rapist client — through intimidation and character assassination. That article never materialized, and in 2008 Newsday magazine obtained that interview, which provided insight into the case:
Two years into her career [as a lawyer], 27-year-old Hillary Rodham was appointed a public defender in a rape case [which she] played out deep in the gray areas of morality by attacking the 12-year-old victim’s credibility.
Though nobody involved in the case can recall a shred of evidence that the victim had any sort of history of making false claims, Hillary argued it as the centerpiece of her case anyway.
In her audiobook, Living History, published last June, Clinton failed to recall any such attempt to impugn the motives and integrity of a sixth-grader in order to get her client off, even though she knew he was guilty. As Newsday noted,
Rodham questioned the sixth grader’s honesty and claimed she had made false accusations [against others] in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out “older men” like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit [which was signed] “Hillary D. Rodham.”
Rodham added: “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and to engage in fantasizing. I have also been informed she has in the past made false accusations about persons claiming that they attacked her.”
Newsday tracked down the victim, now age 52, to ask her about Clinton’s claims. She was, according to the journalist, “visibly stunned,” asserting that the revelation from Clinton was “not true,” that she never had such fantasies, and that she still resented the fact that her attacker got off so lightly.
As Daily Kos, a liberal website dedicated to promoting progressive policies, observed,
When Hillary signed that affidavit, she was giving a sworn oath that she had knowledge and evidence that the 6th grader had a history of making false charges. That’s what the affidavit says.
But nobody, including the victim who has no axe to grind, believes this has any truth….
That’s the difference between zealous defense and breaching ethical responsibility.
It turned out that the plea bargain resulted from Hillary’s threat to use an “expert from New York” who had no evidence, just an opinion, and so her attack on the victim’s credibility was merely a bonus. Her strategy was to threaten the prosecution with the “expert” testimony of a specialist who was known for providing support for defense attorneys who otherwise had precious little defense. Blood and semen samples from Taylor’s boxers were somehow misplaced, and when Clinton threatened to bring in this “expert from New York” to testify, the prosecution agreed to a plea bargain. Instead of getting 30 years, Taylor was let off after two months in jail.
During the five-hour interview, Hillary and Bill repeatedly laughed about how the case went down, about how the prosecutor folded like a cheap suit when threatened with testimony from an expert witness.
Using fraud, deceit, and unsourced statements, Hillary not only let a rapist off with a wrist slap, she also impugned the victim in the process.
Just another day at the office for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Little has changed in 40 years.
A graduate of an Ivy League school and a former investment advisor, Bob is a regular contributor to The New American magazine and blogs frequently at http://www.LightFromTheRight.com, primarily on economics and politics.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/20653-hillary-s-unethical-behavior-goes-back-decades
—
Hillary Clinton Trailing Republicans in Battleground States
Majority see Clinton as politician who ‘will say or do anything to get elected’
April 14, 2015 BY: Brent Scher
A new poll of likely voters found that Hillary Clinton is losing to a generic Repubican in 2016 battleground states.
The poll, conducted in late March by Public Opinion Strategies and Axis Research, found that a generic Republican nominee is currently ahead of Clinton 44 percent to 43 percent.
The reason for this was found to be that Clinton remains a highly polarizing figure. Thirty-seven percent of those who said they were voting for the Republican added that it was “a vote against Hillary Clinton.”
A large portion of the likely voters see major problems with Clinton’s character.
Less than half of those polled found Clinton “honest and trustworthy,” and 60 percent polled saw her as somebody that “will say or do anything to get elected.”
Asked what they found to be Clinton’s biggest weakness, the most prevalent response was her “record of scandals.”
The poll also found that a Clinton campaign strategy that stresses her identity as a woman would likely be unsuccessful.
Eighty percent of likely voters said Clinton becoming the first female president “makes no difference.” The poll also found that Clinton is faring only slightly better with women than she is with men.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trailing-republicans-in-battleground-states/
—
Nobody Can Figure Out Why Hillary Clinton Is Running for President
April 14, 2015 BY: David Rutz
Mainstream and liberal reporters cannot get their heads around what should be a simple concept: Why is Hillary Clinton running for president? What’s the message?
No one seems able to answer, beyond the fact that she wants to be president.
Morning Joe‘s Mika Brzezinski has tried to find out, even from Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va.), a potential running mate for Clinton, but all he could offer was that she’s the most “experienced.”
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said he “hadn’t heard it from Hillary yet,” and USA Today‘s Susan Page said Clinton had to explain “why she’s running” and “what’s her vision.”
Even her own supporters cannot articulate what Clinton’s message is beyond some convoluted talk about her fight for women’s rights, while they curiously omit the fact that the Clinton Foundation has accepted donations from Middle East nations who treat females horrendously.
“Ready for Hillary” advisor Tracy Sefl bungled the question on MSNBC’s Now with Alex Wagner Friday, simply saying she was “quite sure” Clinton knows why she’s running. When Wagner pressed her further, she went on a familiar spiel about Clinton’s “lifetime record” of fighting for women and the middle class.
“There’s really a record here, and I’m certain that she would just be building on that in a way that’s perhaps newly emphatic,” she said. “It’s very exciting.”
This bit of presumptive nonsense led the liberal Wagner to say she took issue with Sefl’s “semi-circular logic.”
Sefl also stumbled on CNN Monday when questioned about Clinton’s message, particularly after far-left New York mayor Bill de Blasio declined to say on Meet the Press whether he would endorse Clinton because he had not seen her present an “actual vision” for economic growth. De Blasio is a former top Clinton campaign aide.
“I expect that by the time she gives this first big major campaign speech, some time in May, that she will be answering Mayor de Blasio and lots more people’s questions,” Sefl said. “I think it’s great the way she’s approaching this.”
Sefl made things worse with this comment.
“It’s not that people don’t know who she is,” Sefl said later. “But they may not know about what she’s about.”
CNN’s John Berman asked incredulously, “How can that be? She’s been in the public eye since … 1991!”
http://freebeacon.com/politics/nobody-can-figure-out-why-hillary-clinton-is-running-for-president/
—
Hillary Clinton Decided to Run at Oscar de la Renta’s Dominican Republic Beachfront Mansion
April 14, 2015 BY: Daniel Bassali
Hillary Clinton has embarked on a push to be a candidate of the people, but her decision to run for office came while vacationing in the beachfront mansion of fashion icon Oscar de la Renta.
The AP’s Julie Pace reported that Clinton, armed with a 500-page binder, decided to run for president while staying in longtime friend de la Renta’s mansion in the Dominican Republic.
“This is just part of her life. This is the life… and yet for most Americans the idea of jetting off to a beachfront mansion in the Dominican Republic for the holidays is just very different than their experiences,” Pace said.
In her presidential announcement video, Clinton declared that everyday Americans need a “champion” and she wants to be that champion.
Following her video, Clinton hopped into a van she dubbed the “Scooby Doo Van” on a thousand-mile road trip from New York to Iowa.
The trip is designed to make Clinton appear more approachable. The road trip with pit stops at gas stations and Chipotle are part of an attempt to shake off the bad publicity Clinton got for her huge speaking fees, controversial acceptance of foreign money to the Clinton Foundation, and email scandal.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/hillary-clinton-decided-to-run-at-oscar-de-la-rentas-dominican-republic-beach-front-mansion/
—
MSNBC: Hillary Clinton is ‘The Same Show,’ Been Living in A Bubble Since 1978
April 14, 2015 BY: Daniel Bassali
Hillary Clinton’s “Scooby Doo Mystery Machine” tour has been filled with everyday American activities such as stopping at gas stations and eating Chipotle as part of her campaign push to reach the everyday American.
Clinton aides have told reporters that they want to portray the “fun” and “exciting” candidate they believe Clinton can be in smaller settings.
“I think it’s going to come down very much tonally for her. Do I like her? I’m going to consider myself—I’ve someone who in the past was a big supporter of Hillary, but lately, I don’t know man. It’s just the same show,” said Donny Deutsch, who has supported Clinton in the past.
Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough said that the main challenge in Clinton’s quest to become relatable is that she has been out of the public life for more than 30 years.
“I think Hillary’s problem is that she has lived inside a bubble since 1978 since the first time Bill Clinton was elected governor of Arkansas,” Scarborough said.
“If she can’t show a liberal, to use Joe’s extremist term for me, New York Jewish Democrat, and if she can’t get me to retune in, she’s not going to get the rest of the country to tune in,” Deutsch said.
http://freebeacon.com/politics/msnbc-clinton-is-the-same-show-been-living-in-a-bubble-since-1978/
—
Hillary Clinton’s Typo Writer
14 April, 2015 By Tony Perkins
For once, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may be telling the truth — and on her campaign website, no less! In one of the most ironic blunders of the First Lady’s career, her new Hillary Clinton for President website stated, “She’s fought children and families all her career.” Newsbusters caught the mistake — which conservatives would argue was anything but.
Over her long career as a senator and America’s top diplomat, Hillary Clinton has been a global advocate for abortion-on-demand and the complete demolition of the natural family, making her anything but an ally of children or the family. Even her presidential announcement video made a point of elevating the homosexual agenda above other key American priorities. “I’m getting married this summer to someone I really care about,” says one man in the video before the camera pans to him holding hands with another man. “When families are strong,” viewers hear Mrs. Clinton saying, “America is strong.” In the next frame, another same-sex couple is featured. Proving once again just how out of touch the Left is with mainstream America, the ad ignores the military and the global threat in favor of radical fringe issues.
If the two minutes of Hillary’s YouTube announcement demonstrated anything, it’s that Republicans need a candidate who is in clear contrast to the Obama-Clinton agenda — not just in rhetoric, but in
record. After the failures of the last two Republican bids for the White House, a number of GOP hopefuls seem anxious to verify their conservative credentials on a full-portfolio of issues. Obviously, they’ve gotten the message that voters are not looking for a Republican, they are looking for a conservative leader who has the courage to act and undo what this administration has done. We need a leader who will not apologize for America’s exceptionalism, but embrace the source of it. And we need a leader who will contend with those in far away places trying to kill people because of their religion — while also contending with those here at home who want to kill the freedom of religion. In this year’s field, there is reason for optimism with candidates who have fought for children and families.
http://barbwire.com/2015/04/14/1000-hillary-clintons-typo-writer/
—
Inside The Dark-Money Consortium Backing Hillary Clinton
April 13, 2015 By Paul Jossey
Revelations then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had “home brewed” her official emails caught even the most cynical political operatives off guard. The audacious disclosure-evasion plan impugned her already shaky performance at State and produced another black eye for the self-professed “most transparent administration in history.” One can only imagine how her newly announced presidential campaign will evade discussing this and other Clinton-style shenanigans.
Yet Clinton-backed dark ops designed to shield the public from larger political goals is nothing new. For a decade, a secret cabal of ultra-wealthy leftists, high-level Democrat officeholders, and progressive operatives—many with deep Clinton ties—has plotted to reshape American society at ritzy, clandestine biannual meetings.
The Democracy Alliance—“the DA,” as their contributing members, or “partners,” know it—has to date delivered more than $500 million in undisclosed cash to an array of political, agitprop, and partisan policy shops to sway public opinion and boost progressive candidates. The DA strives to keep its activities secret. It staffs its invitation-only confabs with private security who, along with attendees, receives pictures of reporters who might poke around. No one speaks to the press, and enterprising journalists who get too close are physically escorted out.
Elect Hillary Clinton, Push America Left
The DA minimizes its paper trail by forgoing nonprofit status and having partners funnel money directly to DA-vetted groups. Top-tier recipients can have their entire annual budget funded at a DA conference, although most receive much less. No matter their take, however, all are forbidden from discussing the meetings. And conference VIP’s, including Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Elizabeth Warren, keep low profiles.
In its years of relative obscurity, the DA has built an infrastructure well on its way to accomplishing its goals.
Despite these precautions, dogged reporters, particularly Ken Vogel and Lachlan Markay, have pieced together the DA’s inner workings with the help of leaked documents. The emerged portrait reveals an organization often in disarray and racked with internal bickering. Nevertheless, the DA’s short- and long-term goals are decipherable: elect presumptive Democrat nominee Hillary Clinton, and push her leftward; and transform the American political system by eliminating or severely restricting private campaign funding through austere spending limits and public financing.
With good reason, the DA believes the rest of its progressive agenda will face little interference once it achieves these goals. Their end-game can already be seen in both Canada and the United Kingdom, which have adopted versions of reforms DA-funded groups seek. The results aren’t pretty: afterthought elections; a listless, subdued polity; and governments run by progressive elites, regardless of the party nominally in charge. In its years of relative obscurity, the DA has built an infrastructure well on its way to accomplishing its goals.
The Democracy Alliance’s Origins and Network
Wealthy progressives conceived the DA shortly after unsuccessfully spending millions to defeat George W. Bush in 2004. Clinton backer George Soros, insurance magnate Peter Lewis, Taco Bell heir Rob McKay, and others concluded that lasting electoral success would be impossible without the think tanks, policy shops, other intellectual ammunition the Right had cultivated since the 1970s. They tapped Clinton operative Rob Stein, who had spent years studying the conservative policy infrastructure, to develop the blueprint and pitch it to wealthy leftists. In April 2005, Stein gave a confidential presentation to about 80 progressive millionaires; most pledged a million dollars over five years, and the DA was born.
For 2016, a coterie of DA-approved political and agitprop shops with deep ties to the Clintons will receive millions in dark dollars to boost Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy.
Although originally conceived as a policy incubator, the DA intermittently lurched into electoral politics, causing dissension and occasional defections (discord exists even about Mrs. Clinton, with some partners clamoring for a more progressive choice). In 2012, the DA bestowed coveted elite status to Obama Super PAC Priorities USA. And in 2014, DA-approved groups in the “progressive infrastructure map” accounted for more than one-third of all Super PAC spending.
For 2016, a coterie of DA-approved political and agitprop shops with deep ties to the Clintons will receive millions in dark dollars to boost Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy. Most politically prominent is Catalist. The DA seeded this progressive voter data company in 2005; it has received DA support ever since.
Former Clinton Deputy Chief of Staff and current DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee member Harold Ickes created the nominally for-profit concern. It subsequently became a one-stop-shop for the DNC and Democrat candidates, from Barack Obama to scores of congressional candidates. DA subsidies help it operate with little anxiety about profits. In fact, a recent Federal Election Commission complaint asserts Catalist may supply its services at below-market rates, which would constitute illegal corporate in-kind contributions to federal candidates. The complaint also alleges illegal coordination between its federal-candidate clients and outside progressive groups that support them through the “common vendor” prohibition. Catalist will no doubt be Hillary Clinton’s data shop.
Thus the self-described good-government group has been eerily silent on the Clinton email scandal.
Another organization born of DA largess is Media Matters. David Brock, the Clinton antagonizer-turned-votarist—whose spin on the homebrew email scandal was too much even for MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski—runs the “media accountability” watchdog. Media Matters is adept at driving sympathetic media coverage for its “clients.” One source for a Daily Caller expose stated, “We were pretty much writing [MSNBC’s] prime time. . . But then virtually all the mainstream media was using our stuff.” According to another source, Media Matters conducted weekly strategy calls with the White House, including then-Deputy Communications Director Jen Psaki, of State Department infamy.
Besides Media Matters, Brock runs an array of DA-supported pro-Clinton “accountability” and political operations. He founded opposition research Super PAC American Bridge, chaired by former DNC communications flack Brad Woodhouse. He also runs American Democracy Legal Fund (not DA-supported), which exists to create Republican legal headaches. Brock’s biggest coup was acquiring Citizens for Responsibility in Washington (CREW). His takeover meant the ethics watchdog would be more partisan and, by default, more pro-Clinton. Thus the self-described good-government group has been eerily silent on the Clinton email scandal. A search for “Hillary Clinton” on CREW’s website, however, does reveal a demand she release her tax records—from 2008. Finally, Brock runs correcttherecord.org, an 18-person operation that focuses solely on rapid response to unfavorable media coverage about the former First Lady.
DA dark money supplies a sizeable percentage of Brock’s approximate $30 million combined annual budget. Most of this money, either directly or indirectly, will likely go toward boosting Clinton’s candidacy. Most will be done under the guise of “good-government accountability” while gratuitously lamenting the corrosive effects of dark political money.
Long-Term Political Dominance Requires Controlling Money in Politics
Beyond the DA’s immediate political goals, the group’s executive director, Gara LaMarche, has forcefully articulated its long-term vison: “Dealing with the distorting effect of money on our politics is a prerequisite to every other advance we seek.” A leaked document from the DA’s Spring 2014 meeting echoes that sentiment:
[P]rogressives’ long-term success hinges on our ability to fundamentally change our current political system – including large questions about who can vote, the role money should play in politics, and what our courts look like. ACS, the Brennan Center, and Fund for the Republic are all tackling these larger democracy reform issues and will play a central role in the ongoing efforts to broaden the coalition of reformers, helping to provide the intellectual and financial firepower to reshape our democracy.
This view of campaign-finance reform as a necessary precursor to Progressive utopia is commonplace in reform circles. Larry Lessig, a leading Progressive reformer and Harvard law professor, who runs or lends his name to several reform groups, including his pet “Mayday PAC,” regularly espouses this view.
DA favorite Brennan Center for Justice has led the reformer charge with scholarship supporting its two most-discussed policy planks: public campaign financing and strict limits on campaign spending. It also ironically argues against “dark political money.”
The political scientist bluntly told the grant-maker he would scuttle the research if it didn’t aid the cause.
The group’s controversial research played a substantive role defending legal challenges that dogged the last successful campaign finance reform bill, McCain-Feingold in 2002. But a Brennan Center grant-seeking proposal revealed its work to be outcome-driven to the point of being, according to The Weekly Standard, “deliberately faked.” The proposal stated: “[t]he purpose of our acquiring the data set is not simply to advance knowledge for its own sake, but to fuel a continuous multi-faceted campaign to propel campaign reform forward.” The political scientist bluntly told the grant-maker he would scuttle the research if it didn’t aid the cause: “Whether we proceed to phase two will depend on the judgment of whether the data provide a sufficiently powerful boost to the reform movement.”
After McCain-Feingold’s passage, the Brennan Center triumphantly boasted of its role: “The Congressional Record was rife with references to our data and our analyses at every step of the way. So was the popular press. From the New York Times to the Los Angeles Times, journalists and editorial boards consistently turned to us both for legal comment and empirical support.” The problem was, the “empirical support” was highly questionable and, according to internal communications, Brennan Center bigwigs knew it. Despite damning evidence, the media mostly yawned, and McCain-Feingold survived its first Supreme Court challenge, although subsequent decisions have dismantled major aspects of the law, including that supported by the controversial Brennan Center research. In the intervening years, questions about the about intellectual honesty of Brennan’s work remains, as does their DA support.
Ending Private Campaign Funding Means Left-Wing Dominance
More shamelessly, the DA substantially funds an organization called Fund for the Republic. FFR tries to project bipartisan consensus while attempting to astroturf a conservative campaign finance reform movement. It hired Mayday PAC co-founder and former George W. Bush advisor Mark McKinnon and current Jeb Bush supporter Juleanna Glover. McKinnon seems to have found a niche as a token “conservative” campaign-finance reformer, recently co-founding yet another outfit with the same mission. His conservative credentials are questionable, however, having also co-founded the centrist “No Labels,” and worked with Lessig on a number of projects, including FFR.
In the battle of ideas, private campaign funding counters Left-dominated cultural institutions like traditional news media, academia, Hollywood, network and cable television, and the government bureaucracy itself.
Although these groups, and others the DA funds, couch their rhetoric in terms of fighting corruption and promoting political equality, LaMarche and Lessig give away the game. In the battle of ideas, private campaign funding counters Left-dominated cultural institutions like traditional news media, academia, Hollywood, network and cable television, and the government bureaucracy itself. Removing this political impediment severely attenuates the Right’s ability to counter progressive messaging and will pave the way for their hoped for dominance of American politics.
If the claim seems outlandish, the politics of culturally similar countries—the UK and Canada—that have enacted these reforms is sobering.
Although the UK eschews contribution limits to candidates and parties, the government strictly regulates how much they can spend during election periods. The government also bans paid political advertising; parties receive a public subsidy in the form of some free air time. The Electoral Commission’s micromanaging of political speech can seem absurd. For instance, one regulation states, “Candidates at parliamentary elections are entitled to one election communication (weighing up to 6 oz.) delivered by post without charge to every elector or address within a constituency.”
No one gets to speak more than the rest, no voices get ‘drowned out'; the lowest common denominator prevails.
Outside groups may “apply” to be “recognized” by the government. If they are, they may spend a small amount talking to the electorate through tightly controlled means. UK money spent on political speech amounts to a U.S. rounding error. These controls are all designed to serve the Progressive god, “equality.” No one gets to speak more than the rest, no voices get “drowned out”; the lowest common denominator prevails.
Canada’s approach is even more restrictive. The government stringently limits not only how much people can contribute but also how much campaigns and parties can spend. Corporations can’t participate, and outside political groups are virtually muzzled. Like the UK, political spending is tiny a fraction of the comparatively huge sums Americans privately spend electing their leaders. In the 2011 Canadian election, expenses for candidates topped out in the very low six figures and national parties spent in the $20 million range. Moreover, candidates can get more than 60 percent of their expenses reimbursed from the public trough, and political contributors get a weighted tax credit. The government phased out an additional party subsidy only this year.
Restricting Campaign Spending Increases Corruption
So have these limits, controls, and public subsidies produced the responsive-to-the-people, corruption-free government campaign finance reformers promise? No. Nine out of ten people say the UK government is run by a few big entities acting in their own interests. A 2006 non-government organization report stated, “Trust in politics and politicians is low and the UK political establishment is perceived by the public to be the most corrupt of any UK institution.” Additionally, two-thirds of people there believed the political parties are corrupt. Recent polls put trust in government at just 42 percent. The citizens know of what they speak. One in 20 admitted to bribing public-service officials. One in five paid a bribe in the judicial system and one in ten to the police.
Nine out of ten people say the UK government is run by a few big entities acting in their own interests.
It’s no different for our northern neighbors. An October 2014 survey found only 13 percent of adult Canadians trust politicians. An October-December 2013 poll found that only 24 percent of Canadians think government does the right thing most of the time, the lowest percentage in the past 20 years. And despite tax incentives, only 165,000 people out of total population of 31 million contributed to a federal political party.
But for all the public dissatisfaction in the UK and Canada, native progressives have exactly what they want: a staid, subdued public, apathetic to the affairs of state, listlessly ruled by detached elites who play by a separate set of rules. Government leaders, whether liberal or conservative, mostly tow the Progressive line in policy matters, from immigration to national healthcare to global warming, no matter how disastrous for ordinary citizens or lacking in firm scientific basis. Those who cherish free enterprise, individualism, limited government, or the rule of law are on the fringe, if they exist at all.
A recent National Public Radio story described the British people’s lackluster interest in the national elections that were then less than two months away. Most citizens seemed either to not know or care; there were no big rallies, no television advertisements, no independent advocacy groups to speak of. Party leaders may not even directly debate.
“If you don’t watch the news you could ignore the election altogether,” stated a political scientist. The head of a “good government” watchdog remarked, “We wouldn’t interpret freedom of speech to mean an unlimited ability to spend, spend, spend.” Nobody spends, nobody cares, and the elites go on dictating to the genuflected hoi polloi. English tea parties are notoriously docile affairs. If the DA gets its way, that will be another tradition we borrow from the Brits.
Paul H. Jossey is a lawyer specializing in campaign finance and election law. He has participated in multiple suits against government entities to protect and expand constitutional rights.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/04/13/inside-the-dark-money-consortium-backing-hillary-clinton/
—
—
Related previous posts on this blog
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/key-previous-posts/
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/key-isis-hamas-benghazi-muslim-brotherhood-previous-posts/
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2013/07/21/video-two-suppressed-documentaries-exposing-bill-hillary-clinton-she-admits-the-u-s-government-created-al-qaeda/
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2013/08/16/hillary-group-partnered-with-company-that-laundered-250-billion-for-iran-and-violated-sanctions/
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/clinton-body-bags/
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2013/10/13/video-former-hillary-associate-claims-to-have-been-her-personal-hit-man-admits-to-killing-for-money/
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/complaint-involving-hillary-collaborating-with-terrorism-has-been-escalated/
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2013/12/24/video-mb-obama-clinton-charged-in-muslim-brotherhood-conspiracy-it-makes-a-difference/
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2014/02/10/video-sen-paul-sexual-predator-bill-clinton-should-return-money-raised-strong-clear-evidence/
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2014/02/11/the-hillary-papers-archive-of-closest-friend-portrait-of-ruthless-first-lady/
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2014/02/12/video-close-friends-papers-paint-portrait-of-hillary-clinton/
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/video-proven-liar-butcher-of-benghazi-hillary-rodham-clinton-it-sure-does-make-a-difference/
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2014/03/28/video-disgusting-clinton-snared-in-pedophile-ring/
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/video-bear-no-match-for-mama-grizzle-palin-putin-karl-hillary/
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/predator-clinton-treated-monica-lewinsky-and-kathleen-willey-like-deranged-stalkers/
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/video-butcher-of-benghazi-hard-choice-kill-1st-and-2nd-amendments-rejected-petitions-for-more-security/
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/video-clinton-state-dept-official-says-he-was-ordered-to-purge-benghazi-docs-damaging-to-hillary-76-key-questions/
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2014/09/23/the-hillary-clinton-saul-alinsky-correspondence-revealed/
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2014/10/12/video-elena-kagan-really-fked-up-paid-off-with-supreme-court-seat-for-covering-up-sexual-predator-bill-clinton-clinton-papers/
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2015/02/23/hilary-clinton-exposed-part-1how-she-aggressively-lobbied-for-mega-corporations-as-secret-huma-abedin-rabbi-saperstein-ary-of-state-huma-abedin/
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2015/04/13/video-butcher-of-benghazi-announced-by-private-email-wines-dines-with-elite-champions-commoners-seeks-mb-obama-supporters/
https://reclaimourrepublic.wordpress.com/2015/04/14/video-who-did-it-best-butcher-of-benghazi-snl-rnc-hillary-needs-a-man-immunity-to-criticism/
Tagged: abortion, al-Qaida, “Muslim Mafia, benghazi, Caliphate, Chemical Weapons, Christian, collapse of America, Constitution, dictator, Ebola, foreclosure, Hamas, immigration, IRS, Islam, Islamist, Israel, jihad, Muslim Brotherhood, Nazi, NSA, Obama, obamacare, radical Islam, rights, Second Amendment, Syria, Tea Party, Tyrannical Government, voter fraud, White House