Tag Archives: political parties

Get Off My Lawn

Posted on by
Reply

The union looking to organize workers at Boeing’s South Carolina plant has put its plans in a holding pattern, claiming workers are so opposed to signing up that they chased labor leaders off their porches at gunpoint.

Poor babies. That’s private property you’re trespassing on. Get off. Stay off until you have the owner’s permission. How is that so hard to understand? Even by a union hack.

More importantly, though: how did those union hacks get these workers’ home addresses? Who gave up that private information without the workers’ permission?

It also appears the union is making all of this up. The police say they’ve received no reports of any such behavior either in North Charleston, the location of the plant, or in the surrounding areas.

The hacks did go crying to their momma though.

The union filed an unfair labor practice with the National Labor Relations Board in which it alleged that “two organizers were threatened at gunpoint and others reported hostile and near-violent confrontations,” according to a union press release.

It’ll be interesting to see President Barack Obama’s NLRB make the case that ejecting trespassers from private property is somehow unfair.

Hillary Clinton’s “Reset”

Posted on by
Reply

From Thursday’s The New York Times comes this lurid tale of money and women.

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale [to Rosatom of a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West] gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by…Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

2009-2013, you’ll recall, was Hillary Clinton’s term as Secretary of State.

There’s this additional money:

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr Clinton received $500,000 [that pay disparity, again] for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

Clinton’s response to this? Here it is, through her National Press Secretary, Brian Fallon:

[No one] has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.

Notice that. She didn’t deny the NYT‘s reporting, she wholly ignored the question of her involvement in the turning over of American uranium mines to Russia, instead all she had was a “You got nothin’ on me, copper.”

Clinton’s “Reset” button for Russia actually translates from the Russian as “overcharged.”

She’s overcharged for, indeed. For Americans. Cheap, though, for Russia.

But we–and she–are just haggling over her price.

Wages

Posted on by
2

Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has been making a big deal about what she claims is the outrageous pay of company CEOs compared to their employees. Here’s a graph, via AEIdeas‘ Carpe Diem and Mark Perry that indicates how well she’s walking that talk.ClintonWage

Or is this fact just another of campaign season distraction and attack from the Hillary Truth?

Hmm….

Then Get Out Of The Way

Posted on by
1

President Barack Obama had some choice words about the Loretta Lynch nomination at a press conference with Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi.

What are we doing here? I have to say, there are times where the dysfunction in the Senate just goes too far. This is an example of it. It’s gone too far. Enough. Enough. … This is embarrassing, a process like this.

It is enough, Mr Obama, and it is embarrassing. When are you going to get your Senate Democrats out of the way and allow a vote on the anti-human tracking bill that your fellow Democrats are holding up? Your fellow Democrats are cynically blocking the bill because they demand that Federal tax dollars be available to pay for abortions, and the bill continues a decades-long prohibition against that misuse of Americans’ money. Your fellow Democrats would rather allow human trafficking to continue apace than not have public funds available for abortions.

It’s also a bill that those same Democrats of yours knew when they voted affirmatively to pass it out of committee onto the Senate floor contained that prohibition.

As soon as your Democrats allow a vote on that bill, the Lynch confirmation will come up.

Get off the dime, Mr Obama.

Naturally

Posted on by
Reply

The board of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has decided to continue accepting donations from foreign governments, primarily from six countries, even though Hillary Clinton is running for president….

Other governments will be encouraged to contribute to the Foundation’s Clinton Global Initiative, carefully ignoring the fungibility of money.

Corporate campaign money is bad. But foreign government…money is good. She will, after all, be dealing with those foreign governments as peers (in every sense of that word) if she’s elected, not those corporations.

Oh, and the evils of corporate campaign money? That’s for the little people. Clinton’s campaign organizations, PACs, etc are expected to raise $1-$2 billion this campaign season.