Tag Archives: political parties

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.

There’s a Hint Here

Posted on by
Reply

Hillary “Emails” Clinton had her immediate staff hold a number of conference calls with “supporters, party operatives, former staffers and elected officials” to assure them of her enthusiasm and support of their efforts for the coming campaign.

Those on the receiving end were hoping for more.
…
Some supporters said they were hoping to hear more specifics about campaign events or voter outreach strategies.

Typical Democrats. “More specifics” and “outreach strategies”—aren’t these what those on the receiving end supposed to develop? Even if not, do not these worthies have the initiative to work on those questions without waiting to be told what to do?

Is this really a party to be taken seriously as fit to govern America?

Who’s Protecting Whom?

Posted on by
Reply

The Drug Enforcement Agency has the way of the Secret Service, at least in Colombia: partying with prostitutes. DEA seems to have taken the thing a step further, though: the parties appear to be funded by the drug cartels the partying agents were sent to investigate.

The agents’ punishment? Two weeks of suspension. Naturally, Congress is…dismayed…both with the behavior and with the wrist-slap. How the anger is expressed is instructive, though. DEA Administrator Michelle Leonhart testified in front of the House Oversight Committee that there’s not much more she can do; civil service system law and regulations keep her from doing more. She’s not even allowed to have input on the sanctions to be applied for such misbehavior.

The solution to such impediments is obvious.

However, Congressman Stephen Lynch (D, MA) won’t can’t see that obvious solution. Instead, he’s accusing Leonhart of having a hand in the failure:

You’re protecting the people who solicited prostitutes who had 15 to 20 sex parties, went through this whole operation, and used taxpayer money to do it.

And there’s the Committee’s Ranking Member, Elijah Cummings (D, MD) asking Leonhart

Do you think you’re the right person for this job?

Of course, there’s no thought by the Democrats (and apparently none by the Republicans, either) to changing the civil service laws that Leonhart thinks handcuff her. There’s no thought here to curtailing the power of the various civil service unions so that Agency and Department heads can fire miscreants promptly for misbehavior.

Gotta protect those unions. There’s too much money at stake here.

Assault on Conservatives

Posted on by
Reply

…by the Obama administration is continuing in spades. This time, it’s a naked assault on a conservative Congressman, Jason Chaffetz (R, UT). The Secret Service “leaked” information concerning a decade old application for work with the SS submitted by Chaffetz and which was rejected by the SS. This sort of thing is confidential, which SS employees know full well.

Supposedly, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson personally called Chaffetz after the release of that confidential information, as did Secret Service Director Joseph Clancy.

However.

Chaffetz is Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and he’s

been relentless in his scrutiny of the [Secret Service], particularly in the wake of a March incident where agents returning from a party drove into an active bomb investigation scene. Chaffetz earlier this week subpoenaed the two agents in question—a step Johnson called “unprecedented and unnecessary.”

He’s also been an ardent critic of Obama administration policies all across the board.

Now, it’s certainly true that, in the larger scheme of things, this is a relatively minor matter. But regarding that larger scheme of things, this is a part of that larger scheme.

In light of that, what’s the value of these…apologies?

How do they make Chaffetz, the victim of this assault on privacy, whole?

How do they give any material assurance that this miscreancy won’t be repeated?

What’s really needed is a wholesale replacement of management (I won’t say leadership) of DHS and of the Secret Service.

Remember this in the fall of 2016.

Liberals and Unions

Posted on by
Reply

In December 2014, the NLRB passed a final rule on a partisan 3-2 vote that greatly shortens the time for a workplace union-organizing election. … Mr. Obama issued a “memorandum of disapproval”—essentially a veto—to kill the Congressional measure [to overturn the rule] and preserve the NLRB rule.

From now on unions will have unlimited time to prepare their campaigns to organize a workplace, springing the election paperwork on an employer when they figure they have the best chance to prevail. By reducing the time before an election to as little as two weeks from the current average of 38 days, unions will be able to lobby workers and make their case before a company can counter with its own argument.

Because with Liberals and unions, there’s only one side to a story. No need to hear from anyone else.