Hillary's Campaign Kickoff

[3rdnlng]

I wonder if they make ankle bracelets big enough for her?

 

http://conservative-daily.com/2015/04/21/hillary-clinton-belongs-in-prison-period/

 

We all know that Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric displays pure contempt for the Constitution, but her actions do as well.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution – known as the Title of Nobility Clause – prohibits government officials from receiving gifts from foreign governments without Congressional consent.

Why is this important? Well, Hillary Clinton received millions of dollars personally and to her organization after she became Secretary of State.

When asked whether Hillary charged foreign governments for favors, White House Spokesman Josh Earnest didn’t deny it.

It’s clear as day: Hillary Clinton violated the Constitution and must be held accountable!

[Dante]

I wonder if they make ankle bracelets big enough for her?

 

http://conservative-daily.com/2015/04/21/hillary-clinton-belongs-in-prison-period/

 

We all know that Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric displays pure contempt for the Constitution, but her actions do as well.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution – known as the Title of Nobility Clause – prohibits government officials from receiving gifts from foreign governments without Congressional consent.

Why is this important? Well, Hillary Clinton received millions of dollars personally and to her organization after she became Secretary of State.

When asked whether Hillary charged foreign governments for favors, White House Spokesman Josh Earnest didn’t deny it.

It’s clear as day: Hillary Clinton violated the Constitution and must be held accountable!

Like violating the Constitution has been a issue the last 6 or 7 years. We all know both she and the current creep in office should be in jail but the Rhino's have neither the will or the balls to do anything.

[DC Tom]

Like violating the Constitution has been a issue the last 6 or 7 years. We all know both she and the current creep in office should be in jail but the Rhino's have neither the will or the balls to do anything.

 

That, and the Constitution doesn't forbid laundering the gifts through a charity in your name. So it's legal.

[B-Man]

Newsweek’s Rory Ross reported this week that the largest individual donor to the Clinton family business has conducted trade with Iran, perhaps in breach of US sanctions. Ukrainian energy mogul Victor Pinchuk has connections to the Clintons that go back almost a decade, and financial connections to the regime in Tehran that go much farther:

 

The fourth richest man in Ukraine, Pinchuk owns Interpipe Group, a Cyprus-incorporated manufacturer of seamless pipes used in oil and gas sectors.

 

Newsweek has seen declarations and documents from Ukraine that show a series of shipments from Interpipe to Iran in 2011 and 2012, including railway parts and products commonly used in the oil and gas sectors.

 

Among a number of high-value invoices for products related to rail or oil and gas, one shipment for $1.8m (1.7m) in May 2012 was for “seamless hot-worked steel pipes for pipelines” and destined for a city near the Caspian Sea.

 

Both the rail and oil and gas sectors are sanctioned by the US, which specifically prohibits any single invoice to the Iranian petrochemical industry worth more than $1m.

 

 

In other words, Interpipe should have been slapped with penalties and sanctions for its operations with Iran. Pinchuk’s company has a US subsidiary, which means that US sanctions apply across the entire organization. The agency for imposing penalties for sanctions violations in these cases, Ross notes, is the State Department. Who was in charge at the State Department during this period? None other than Hillary Clinton.

 

Pinchuk was among an elite few dumping tons of money into the Clinton Foundation, some of whom have interesting connections for a former Secretary of State:

 

 

Then there are checks worth millions of dollars from company executives, philanthropists, billionaires and foreign organizations, among them the Ukranian Victor Pinchuk, the Saudi Mohammed al-Amoudi and Rilin Enterprises, which is led by Chinese billionaire Wang Wenliang, a member of the Chinese parliament.

 

The contributions are legal, but funds from individuals or entities that have considerable diplomatic or economic clout to defend in Washington, expose Clinton to suspicions of conflict of interest since the Democrat gains directly from the success of the foundation which has carried her name since 2013.

 

 

 

Even as far back as 2008, prior to Hillary Clinton becoming SecState, Pinchuk was one of the larger donors to the foundation — between $1 million and $5 million, according to the disclosure. While serving in that role for four years, Pinchuk coughed up at least $8.6 million, but that was just a down payment for what was planned to be a much bigger donation for the Clinton Global Initiative, supposedly a separate operation during her tenure at State

 

The timing of this release is curious. This is a bona-fide scoop, and yet Newsweek published it on a Saturday morning — perhaps the lowest-attention spots in the news cycle. Ross frames this oddly, too, in the lead:

 

Enemies of Hillary Clinton waiting to discredit her bid for the White House are likely to seize on news that one of the biggest benefactors to the Clinton Foundation has been trading with Iran and may be in breach of US sanctions imposed on the country.

 

 

 

Where to start with this paragraph?

 

First of all, “enemies” should be opponents, unless one is so invested in Hillary 2.0 as to mistake the latter for the former.

 

Mostly, though, is the big story here that Hillary’s opponents are “likely to seize” on evidence of corruption — or the evidence of corruption itself?

 

Would Newsweek have covered Watergate with the lead, “Enemies of Richard Nixon are likely to seize on the Oval Office tapes in an attempt to discredit him”?

 

I rather think not.

 

 

.

[keepthefaith]

Like violating the Constitution has been a issue the last 6 or 7 years. We all know both she and the current creep in office should be in jail but the Rhino's have neither the will or the balls to do anything.

Yes. The constitution card is played almost as often as the race card. Not condoning the actions of Hillary, Barack and others but I think many people are getting worn out with both of those answers.

Edited April 22, 2015 by keepthefaith

[OCinBuffalo]

Yes. The constitution card is played almost as often as the race card. Not condoning the actions of Hillary, Barack and others but I think many people are getting worn out with both of those answers.

So, are we supposed to pretend that the race card == the Constitution card? Are we supposed to just ignore it when the Constitution is violated, and we know it is violated, because we all took Regents Social Studies in 11th grade? What is the alternative, and what "people" are getting worn out exactly....besides reasonable Democrats? The far-left loons don't care. 1. They are loons 2. They have been actively pursuing the destruction/replacement/abandoning of the Constutiton for years. But, a reasonable D? Yeah, I can imagine taking a beating from the rest of the political spectrum...because you actually bought Obama...wears you out.

 

Too bad. Every time these a-hole far left loons, that you decided to put into office, ignoring their inexperience and incompetence, and, merely because you wanted to self-congratulate for being part of "the first black president", screw up? It's on you.

Edited April 22, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[OCinBuffalo]

Newsweek’s Rory Ross reported this week that the largest individual donor to the Clinton family business has conducted trade with Iran, perhaps in breach of US sanctions. Ukrainian energy mogul Victor Pinchuk has connections to the Clintons that go back almost a decade, and financial connections to the regime in Tehran that go much farther:

 

The fourth richest man in Ukraine, Pinchuk owns Interpipe Group, a Cyprus-incorporated manufacturer of seamless pipes used in oil and gas sectors.

 

Newsweek has seen declarations and documents from Ukraine that show a series of shipments from Interpipe to Iran in 2011 and 2012, including railway parts and products commonly used in the oil and gas sectors.

 

Among a number of high-value invoices for products related to rail or oil and gas, one shipment for $1.8m (1.7m) in May 2012 was for “seamless hot-worked steel pipes for pipelines” and destined for a city near the Caspian Sea.

 

Both the rail and oil and gas sectors are sanctioned by the US, which specifically prohibits any single invoice to the Iranian petrochemical industry worth more than $1m.

 

 

In other words, Interpipe should have been slapped with penalties and sanctions for its operations with Iran. Pinchuk’s company has a US subsidiary, which means that US sanctions apply across the entire organization. The agency for imposing penalties for sanctions violations in these cases, Ross notes, is the State Department. Who was in charge at the State Department during this period? None other than Hillary Clinton.

 

Pinchuk was among an elite few dumping tons of money into the Clinton Foundation, some of whom have interesting connections for a former Secretary of State:

 

 

Then there are checks worth millions of dollars from company executives, philanthropists, billionaires and foreign organizations, among them the Ukranian Victor Pinchuk, the Saudi Mohammed al-Amoudi and Rilin Enterprises, which is led by Chinese billionaire Wang Wenliang, a member of the Chinese parliament.

 

The contributions are legal, but funds from individuals or entities that have considerable diplomatic or economic clout to defend in Washington, expose Clinton to suspicions of conflict of interest since the Democrat gains directly from the success of the foundation which has carried her name since 2013.

 

 

 

Even as far back as 2008, prior to Hillary Clinton becoming SecState, Pinchuk was one of the larger donors to the foundation — between $1 million and $5 million, according to the disclosure. While serving in that role for four years, Pinchuk coughed up at least $8.6 million, but that was just a down payment for what was planned to be a much bigger donation for the Clinton Global Initiative, supposedly a separate operation during her tenure at State

 

The timing of this release is curious. This is a bona-fide scoop, and yet Newsweek published it on a Saturday morning — perhaps the lowest-attention spots in the news cycle. Ross frames this oddly, too, in the lead:

 

Enemies of Hillary Clinton waiting to discredit her bid for the White House are likely to seize on news that one of the biggest benefactors to the Clinton Foundation has been trading with Iran and may be in breach of US sanctions imposed on the country.

 

 

 

Where to start with this paragraph?

 

First of all, “enemies” should be opponents, unless one is so invested in Hillary 2.0 as to mistake the latter for the former.

 

Mostly, though, is the big story here that Hillary’s opponents are “likely to seize” on evidence of corruption — or the evidence of corruption itself?

 

Would Newsweek have covered Watergate with the lead, “Enemies of Richard Nixon are likely to seize on the Oval Office tapes in an attempt to discredit him”?

 

I rather think not.

 

 

.

So...leak it to Newsweek(which is totally compromised by leftist hacks) before anybody else gets it, and they promptly nerf the story?

 

Hilarious. 1. That they think this was going to work. 2. That they think they are going to avoid scrutiny by FOX news and the WSJ, the most trusted media outlets in the country( like it or not, leftists)

[keepthefaith]

So, are we supposed to pretend that the race card == the Constitution card? Are we supposed to just ignore it when the Constitution is violated, and we know it is violated, because we all took Regents Social Studies in 11th grade? What is the alternative, and what "people" are getting worn out exactly....besides reasonable Democrats? The far-left loons don't care. 1. They are loons 2. They have been actively pursuing the destruction/replacement/abandoning of the Constutiton for years. But, a reasonable D? Yeah, I can imagine taking a beating from the rest of the political spectrum...because you actually bought Obama...wears you out.

 

Too bad. Every time these a-hole far left loons, that you decided to put into office, ignoring their inexperience and incompetence, and, merely because you wanted to self-congratulate for being part of "the first black president", screw up? It's on you.

It's hardly on me as far as putting those you mention in office. I never said the race card = the constitution card. I simply said that both of those cries are over-used.

[Magox]

Like violating the Constitution has been a issue the last 6 or 7 years. We all know both she and the current creep in office should be in jail but the Rhino's have neither the will or the balls to do anything.

 

When you say Rhino's, I take that as the adults in the room.

[IDBillzFan]

 

When you say Rhino's, I take that as the adults in the room.

 

When you talk about adults in the room, I take that as meaning John McCain and Lyndsey Graham?

[Magox]

 

When you talk about adults in the room, I take that as meaning John McCain and Lyndsey Graham?

The term RHINO's are usually used by intransigent hard-heads who have no earthly idea of the concept of governing.

 

Half the country is made up of those who are in the middle or lean to the left, the other half are those that are in the middle or lean to the right. Purists, who I consider to be toxic to the political process expect the government to be run completely to one side. So, when I see that the term RHINO is used for someone that these hard-heads disagree with on a few issues, yet on at least 85% of the rest of the issues they agree on, and then decide to sit out the elections or disparage these "RHINO's" simply because they aren't as pure as they are. Well.... I just happen to believe not only is it impractical but completely counter productive.

 

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[3rdnlng]

The term RHINO's are usually used by intransigent hard-heads who have no earthly idea of the concept of governing.

 

Half the country is made up of those who are in the middle or lean to the left, the other half are those that are in the middle or lean to the right. Purists, who I consider to be toxic to the political process expect the government to be run completely to one side. So, when I see that the term RHINO is used for someone that these hard-heads disagree with on a few issues, yet on at least 85% of the rest of the issues they agree on, and then decide to sit out the elections or disparage these "RHINO's" simply because they aren't as pure as they are. Well.... I just happen to believe not only is it impractical but completely counter productive.

 

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

So, let's go back a few years. If i was an ardent supporter of Ronald Reagan, would I still be considered a RINO?

[/dev/null]

I wonder if they make ankle bracelets big enough for her?

Canklets

[Magox]

So, let's go back a few years. If i was an ardent supporter of Ronald Reagan, would I still be considered a RINO?

 

I don't know, he supported "amnesty", he raised taxes and increased regulations in California as Governor. Reagan was a whole hell of a lot more moderate than today's tea party supporters. There is no rationally denying that.

[Dante]

The term RHINO's are usually used by intransigent hard-heads who have no earthly idea of the concept of governing.

 

Half the country is made up of those who are in the middle or lean to the left, the other half are those that are in the middle or lean to the right. Purists, who I consider to be toxic to the political process expect the government to be run completely to one side. So, when I see that the term RHINO is used for someone that these hard-heads disagree with on a few issues, yet on at least 85% of the rest of the issues they agree on, and then decide to sit out the elections or disparage these "RHINO's" simply because they aren't as pure as they are. Well.... I just happen to believe not only is it impractical but completely counter productive.

 

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

A high percentage of the people were against the American Revolution or moderates you could say. I guess they were toxic to the British. Turned out the extremists were noble and correct.

[Magox]

A high percentage of the people were against the American Revolution or moderates you could say. I guess they were toxic to the British. Turned out the extremists were noble and correct.

The fact that you would compare the two scenarios says it all.

[B-Man]

Today, Reuters has another Clinton-related bombshell that will not be greeted warmly in Whitehaven. According to their exclusive report, the Clinton’s charities are going to refile their tax returns after the news outlet “found errors in who they reported donations from governments.” What’s more, the Clinton Foundation may reportedly conduct an internal audit of some of their returns in order to identify further errors.

 

The errors, which have not been previously reported, appear on the form 990s that all non-profit organizations must file annually with the Internal Revenue Service to maintain their tax-exempt status. A charity must show copies of the forms to anyone who wants to see them to understand how the charity raises and spends money.

 

The unsettled numbers on the tax returns are not evidence of wrongdoing but tend to undermine the 990s role as a form of public accountability, experts in charity law and transparency advocates interview told Reuters.

 

“If those numbers keep changing – well, actually, we spent this on this, not that on that – it really defeats the purpose,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government transparency advocacy group.

 

 

 

There has been some speculation that the general public is either uninterested in all this or that it is simply too complicated for the voting public to understand. While it is possible, neither of those concerns seems especially well-founded for the moment. The most damaging scandalous allegations in politics are those that are easiest to summarize and which appear to confirm a preexisting narrative. The Clinton Foundation scandals can be easily summarized – American influence for sale – and they also highlight Clinton’s penchant for secrecy and corruption.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hillary Clinton 2004: Heterosexual marriage is a fundamental bedrock principle of civilization

 

 

 

.

[Rob's House]

The term RHINO's are usually used by intransigent hard-heads who have no earthly idea of the concept of governing.

 

Half the country is made up of those who are in the middle or lean to the left, the other half are those that are in the middle or lean to the right. Purists, who I consider to be toxic to the political process expect the government to be run completely to one side. So, when I see that the term RHINO is used for someone that these hard-heads disagree with on a few issues, yet on at least 85% of the rest of the issues they agree on, and then decide to sit out the elections or disparage these "RHINO's" simply because they aren't as pure as they are. Well.... I just happen to believe not only is it impractical but completely counter productive.

 

Throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

The problem with a lot of Rhino's isn't that they differ in a few side issues but often that they're willing to cede the core of their position in exchange for being able to sprinkle a little conservatism around the periphery.

[Magox]

The problem with a lot of Rhino's isn't that they differ in a few side issues but often that they're willing to cede the core of their position in exchange for being able to sprinkle a little conservatism around the periphery.

No, it's not that. It's that some people don't actually have opinions that go in lockstep with others that they usually attend to agree with 100% of the time.

 

sprinkling a little conservatism around the periphery gives the impression that they disagree with their non "rhino" counterparts more often than not. Where in all actuality that simply isn't even close to being the case.

 

It's ok to be disagreeable and have differing opinions. Perfect example is immigration reform. The numbers and math dictate that it is a logical decision to come up with a more efficient immigration policy that encourages a controlled inflow of immigrants. Also, reason dictates that we aren't going to deport the illegals that are already here. It makes sense to take steps to limit inflows of illegal immigration but at the same time providing a process that gives legal status to the ones that are here that would incorporate them to the system. There not only would be additional inflows of taxation but safety net programs such as S.S would benefit.

 

Without immigration, the economy would have stagnant population growth. Stagnant population growth is a long-term killer for economic growth.

 

This is an issue that should be ok to have respectful dialogue, rather than have the nativists attempt to purge members of the party they tend to support simply because they don't agree with them on this issue.

 

Perfect example, can you actually believe that many of these same people believe Rubio is a RHINO? Yet if you look up the Heritage foundation's scorecard of conservatism, he rates extremely high and a perfect 7 for 7 (according to their scores) on the issues they care about.

 

The point is if you want to expand the party and increase the size of the tent (which is what Reagan did) then in order to that, you have to have more differing points of view.

 

It is unrealistic to believe that if the GOP had it let's say Dante's way and that they were all hard line tea partiers that somehow you would change the landscape of the constituents on the electoral map to be more hardline right wingers. That is simply fantasy.

 

No one is saying abandon your principles, you can stand up for them advocate and make your positions known. The point is to not try to purge those that you don't always agree with simply because they aren't as much of a purist as some people would like. When you go into more moderate swing states, we have seen what happens when you purge those that you agree with more often than not but not all the time The more hard line candidate often loses. Obviously that's not always the case. It's largely dependent on the quality of the candidate. Ted Cruz is a perfect example, he espouses very conservative views, but he's a talented politician. He wins . But look at Angle from Nevada or the kook from Delaware. Both of these candidates weren't ready for prime time, yet the primary process and outside support purged the more moderate candidates.

 

What was the result, another six years of Harry Reid, rather than someone who would have voted in the opposite direction of him 85% of the time.

[Nanker]

Canklets

Ask, and ye shall receive: