Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Bob McCarty Weekly Recap: Oct. 18-24, 2015

Though I spent much of the week engaged in offline research and writing, I did manage to knock out a few pieces for publication. Those pieces and other details of my week appear below in this weekly recap for the week of Oct. 18-24, 2015.

Butters, my office assistant, on guard.

Sunday, Oct. 18

While I published nothing new on my website Sunday, I did manage to air some opinions on my Facebook page. For instance:

• When I learned Captain America was battling right-wing conservatives in Comicbookland, I called that “INK that st-INK-s”;

• After reading a CNN report about astronaut Scott Kelly breaking the American record for number of days in space, I said “I don’t miss him.” As far as I’m concerned, the husband of former Arizona congresswoman Gabby Giffords can stay in space indefinitely — or until he backs away from his belief that gun laws need to change because of the act of one nutcase;

• I shared a two-year-old photo (above) of Butters, my office assistant, on duty; and

• On the day before the fourth anniversary of the release of the paperback version of my first nonfiction book, Three Days In August, I shared a photo of a war hero, whose life is chronicled in the book, shaking hands with a country music superstar, Toby Keith.

Kelly Stewart & Toby Keith

Click on image above to order a copy of Three Days In August by Bob McCarty.

Monday, Oct. 19

On Monday, I published a piece that might make you sit up and take notice of what could happen, real and imagined, to your retirement plan in the not-too-distant future. At the same time, it qualifies as shameless self-promotion of my crime-fiction novel, The National Bet. Either way, I think it’s worth reading. You’ll find it under the headline, Bob McCarty: ‘I Had No Advance Knowledge of President Obama’s Sinister Plan to Hijack Your Retirement Savings.’

Click on image above to order your copy of The National Bet by Bob McCarty.

Click on image above to order your copy of The National Bet by Bob McCarty.

That same day, I marked the aforementioned publishing milestone by publishing an article under the headline, Pentagon ‘Witch Hunt’ Continues as Book About Wrongful Prosecution of Green Beret Marks Fourth Anniversary. In sharing the article on Facebook, I made a statement and asked a question:

Even after beating this “drum” for more than four years, it seems too few people give a damn unless they see one of their own family members impacted by this witch hunt. Do you give a damn?

Sadly, the answer for most people is “No.”

In addition, I shared more observations and opinions on Facebook. Among them were the following:

• I wrote, “I smell a lawsuit,” after reading about a shootout at the OK Corral that mistakenly involved real bullets;

• I labeled Richard Branson’s opinion piece about drug policy a “headscratcher”;

• I wrote, “Glad to see this. I’ve never paid for a review or for social media “friends” to promote my books — and never will,” after reading a piece about Amazon suing more than 1,000 people over fake reviews; and

• I shared some old memories, including the Facebook cover photo (below) that I had used three years earlier.

My Facebook cover photo Sept. 22, 2012.

I used this graphic as my Facebook cover photo Sept. 22, 2012.

Tuesday, Oct. 20

I published nothing new on my website Tuesday, but I did use Facebook to alert people to several items, including:

• A challenge issued to folks following my coverage of the military justice saga of Army Maj. Christian “Kit” Martin:

Your mission should you choose to accept it: 1) Watch this interview; 2) Read the letter I sent recently to Army Chief of Staff General Mark A. Milley; and 3) Contact the officials listed at the end of this piece, and let them know you believe Maj. Christian “Kit” Martin deserves better than he’s receiving at the hands of the military justice system.

• A radioactive waste-related story I had published In January 2015; and

• Two great LifeZette articles, Time for Senate Geezers to Go and Paralyzed by Bureaucracy, by my California friend Katy Grimes.

Wednesday, Oct. 21

After coming across reports on the CBS Evening News and in the The Los Angeles Times about the inherent dangers of radioactive waste colliding with an underground fire in St. Louis County, I tried Wednesday to rekindle interest in a story I had published for the first time in January 2012 and, again, nine months ago. Published under the headline, Will Missouri Legislators Finally Decide to Pay Attention to Radioactive Waste Issues Outside of Saint Louis County?, it concerns radioactive waste issues in St. Charles County, Mo., and a state agency report due to be published in January 2016. It’s a must-read if you live anywhere near St. Louis!

Click to read about my

Click on image above to read the story I published Jan. 23, 2012, and, again, nine months ago, about radioactive waste issues outside of St. Louis County, Mo., and about a state agency report due to be published in January 2016.

I also pointed my Facebook friends to a Washington Post article about the “trap” that is the U.S. military’s whistleblower law and how it allows general officers to “get away with it” while innocent men and women suffer. In turn, I pointed them to my own article about abuse by an Army two-star general that has a career Army officer facing sexual assault allegations made against him by a woman who is a convicted felon.

Thursday, Oct. 22

On Thursday, I covered the first several hours of the congressional “lie-athon” with a piece under the headline, House Benghazi Committee Grills Hillary Clinton. I had to stop when I, along with members of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, took a lunch break. I was afraid I might lose my lunch if I continued to watch the hearing.

Friday, Oct. 23

On Friday, I published nothing new on my website but did express disappointment over the following news items:

• I wrote, “Shaking my head in disbelief even though I’m not surprised. Or something like that,” after reading news about the Department of Justice opting against prosecuting former IRS official Lois Lerner;

• In sharing this sad news, I wrote, “I’m sick of reading reports in which ‘unnamed military officials’ are cited as having confirmed details about the activities of elite warriors. They are known as “quiet professionals” for a reason. Divulging details about their activities, even after their deaths, only serves to put future missions at greater risk. That said, I still offer my SALUTE to Sergeant Wheeler, a fellow Okie!”; and

After reading that drinking beer slows down Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, I shared a far-less-serious note, writing, “It’s true! I can’t remember the last time I shook uncontrollably after enjoying a beer”. All jokes aside, I was quite surprised to hear that beer could actually have some medicinal properties. I have heard that some strains of cannabis, like the walter white strain, can help with a whole host of medical problems including Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s, but beer surprised me even more.

Saturday, Oct. 23

Today, I plan to read through some trial transcripts I received during the week while also watching some college football on television, so don’t expect anything more from me today.

FYI: Related to one of those trial transcripts, I was able to track down the female accuser of a U.S. Soldier who had reportedly moved from her hometown in Europe to California and married a different U.S. Soldier she had met in her hometown. It turns out she didn’t move to the Golden State at all. Instead, I found proof she is living and working in another state more than a thousand miles away. Stay tuned as I try to help the Soldier she accused of rape — who’s already completed his prison sentence and is living as a convicted sex offender — have his sentence overturned. Meanwhile, enjoy your weekend!

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter. Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same. To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

House Benghazi Committee Grills Hillary Clinton

Led by U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Select Committee on Benghazi, a hearing is now underway at Public Hearing 4 – Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Hopefully, the truth and indictments — of the Democrat Party’s presidential frontrunner and others — will follow soon.

Stay tuned for updates.

UPDATE #1: Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the ranking Democrat on the panel, is calling “bullshit” on Republicans for demanding the truth. He’s the first person today to characterize the hearing as a GOP effort to derail Hillary’s presidential campaign. Shameful!

UPDATE #2: Not unexpectedly, Representative Cummings pulled the Rep. Kevin McCarthy “card,” claiming the Benghazi hearings are aimed at derailing Hillary. Says GOP accusations are baseless. Cites Democrat report saying GOP claims unsubstantiated.

UDPATE #3: Representative Cummings says hearings are waste of money, show no nefarious activities, don’t change basic conclusions of eight previous investigations.

UDPATE #4: Hillary now reading from prepared statement, beginning with fluff. Says “I knew and admired Chris Stevens. He was one of our nation’s most admired diplomats.” Cites Stevens’ mothers memories of her son. Now giving generic appreciation for others — whom she didn’t know — who were killed during firefight. Now citing how “losing any one of” 70,000 employees “during my tenure was deeply painful.” So disingenuous. Now telling story about receiving caskets at Andrews AFB.

UDPATE #5: Hillary’s saying, despite so many previous investigations, she wants to share how we can move forward, beyond “this tragedy.” Said Chris Stevens understood the dangers he faced. Says he volunteered. Says he understood we will never prevent every act of terrorism. In other words, she’s trying to get us to believe his death is the price of doing business.

UDPATE #6: Hillary says Stevens “chose to go to Benghazi because he understood America needed to be represented in Libya at that pivotal time” and he understood weapons in the Middle East “could not fall into the wrong hands.” Hasn’t mentioned the video yet. Why?

UDPATE #7: Hillary says we have a responsibility to provide our diplomats everything they need to do their jobs effectively. Now, she’s name-dropping about “accountability review board” set up after the deadly attacks at Benghazi. Cites 29 improvements needed. Says she was putting them in place. “Day late dollar short” comes to mind.

UDPATE #8: Hillary’s final observation: her “pride” while traveling the world. Sounding more like a presidential candidate than someone who’s about to have to answer tough questions. She must be hoping most Americans will tune out after she finishes her opening statement. It will be interesting to see how the nation’s news media treat this hearing. The American people “expect us to lead,” she said. Shaking my head.

UDPATE #9: Chairman Gowdy tells Hillary she’s long-winded but he’s not going to cut her off. Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) takes over. I missed first question he asked. In her answer, she seems to be explaining what her State Department was doing prior to Benghazi eruption. Representative Roskam cites opposition Hillary faced within State Department. Top career diplomat said, paraphrasing, “giving weapons to those seeking to seize government control” hasn’t worked out well. Hillary laughs. Representative Roskam said Hillary persuaded Obama to go that way anyway. She puts blame on president. Wow!

UDPATE #10: Hillary says it was a “difficult decision.” Uses phrase, “at the end of the day,” many times. How many times can Hillary blame Obama for this mess? Talk about trying to distance herself from disaster — wow! Hillary says she conducted “due diligence.” Near argument ensues. Hillary cuts off Representative Roskam. Blames president again.

UDPATE #11: Representative Roskam paints picture of Hillary steering the ship of State, casts doubt on whether Obama was behind the efforts in Libya. Hillary used word “recall” for the first time!

UDPATE #12: Chairman Gowdy yields time to Representative Cummings. Predictably, he throws propaganda softballs, talks about members of Accountability Review Board, including Ambassador Thomas Pickering and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullens. Hillary says she takes responsibility for what happened in Benghazi, but blames result on folks in charge of security at Benghazi. Says such issues don’t come before secretary of state. Says she took ARB findings seriously and began implementing them.

UDPATE #13: Representative Cummings blames folks at State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security for failures at Benghazi. Asks Hillary to respond to accusations by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) that Hillary approved security measures. Representative Cummings hypes his honesty and integrity before saying emails his colleagues obtained confirm that Hillary did not reject security requests as Republicans claim. Hillary says she’ll try to explain how confusion may have surfaced. Blames tradition of the “stamp” at State Department for decisions being tied to her.

Benghazi Hearing Screenshot

Rep. Susan Brooks (R-Ind.) shows stacks of hundreds of Hillary’s emails — including daily and hourly updates — and asks Hillary Clinton what Ambassador Stevens was supposed to do in Benghazi and how long he was to stay.

UDPATE #14: Chairman Gowdy recognizes Rep. Susan Brooks (R-Ind.) who shows stacks of hundreds of Hillary’s emails — including daily and hourly updates — prior to September 2012 and asks why there were so few emails about Libya in 2012. Asks what Ambassador Stevens was supposed to do in Benghazi and how long he was to stay. Hillary’s answer: empty.

UDPATE #15: Representative Brooks cites emails from Hillary’s right-hand gal, Huma Abedin, and other senior staffers in 2011 and prior to Benghazi in 2012. Asks why attack on U.S. compound in Libya was not mentioned in emails. Hillary says she did not do the vast majority of her work with emails.

It’s 10:18 a.m. Central. More later.

UDPATE #16: Twelve minutes later, I’m back. Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) asks Hillary about her efforts to work with Department of Defense to assess security challenges at diplomatic outposts. Hillary thanks her for her service, kisses butt, then begins spinning answer. Says it’s challenging to get military assets into countries that don’t want them there. Says Libya didn’t want any foreign military there. Says “our military did everything they could” in response to attack at Benghazi.

UDPATE #17: Representative Duckworth continues, same subject. Asks if process of State Department working with DoD has produced substantive results. Hillary says she began implementing the recommendations before she stepped down. Says process should be institutionalized.

UDPATE #18: Representative Duckworth asks Hillary about efforts to keep State Department employees informed. Hillary recalls veteran diplomats complaining about security being too tight to do their jobs. An effort to account for her slipshod handling of classified information via emails? I think so.

UDPATE #19: Representative Martha Roby (R-Ala.) asks Hillary about confusion and uncertainty in Libya prior to Benghazi attack and about Hillary’s drop in interest in Benghazi in 2012. Points to email in which one staffer writes about Hillary asking if we still have a presence in Benghazi. Hillary denies: “I can’t comment on what has been reported. Of course, I knew we had a presence in Benghazi….” From there, she leaps ahead to the post-Qaddafi elections in Libya and almost takes credit for the dictator’s ouster. “We did an enormous amount of work” and “the Libyans did not feel they could welcome a peace-keeping mission.” Representative Roby doesn’t buy into it, asks why her staffers would make things up about Hillary, asks Hillary to turn to Tab 31 of exhibits.

UDPATE #20: Hillary asks Representative Roby for names of staffers behind emails. Upon hearing names, Hillary says “they were not on my staff.”

UDPATE #21: Representative Roby says she’s frustrated by Hillary brushing off content of staffers’ emails, then moves on to security issues at Benghazi. Says staff of 10 security agents in 2011 reduced to only three prior to the attack at Benghazi. Asks Hillary why the cutback. Hillary explains Ambassador Stevens had two personal security members, so that made five. Said the ambassador “felt very comfortable” with the total of five security folks.

UDPATE #22: Following brief spat between Representative Roby and Hillary, Chairman Gowdy recognizes Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.). He throws softballs. “You knew we had a presence in Benghazi,” he said. “Of course, I did,” she replied. He berates GOP’s obsession with emails, including some by “junior staffers.” Criticizes spending millions of dollars to investigate Benghazi. Says “not a single solitary thing” has been produced by investigation. He sounds as if he’s bucking for a post in Hillary’s administration.

UDPATE #23: Representative Smith asks Hillary to explain what is the proper balance between providing security and making it possible for diplomats to do their jobs? Hillary replies with a lot of time-wasting.

UDPATE #24: After Representative Smith asks lame budget question, Chairman Gowdy recognizes Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) who criticizes Smith for offering inaccurate information. After that, he begins lambasting Hillary about her apparent lack of awareness of the situation in Libya.

UDPATE #25: Representative Westmoreland asks Hillary if she was aware of the volume of intelligence being generated about Libya. After she assures him she was aware, he asks her what she did in response to the intelligence. She says “there was never any recommendation by anyone… to leave Benghazi even after the two incidents you mentioned.”

UDPATE #26: Representative Westmoreland asks Hillary if she was aware of “other 18” attacks in Benghazi cited in book by former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morrell. She said she was not.

UDPATE #27: Representative Westmoreland asks Hillary how many instances it would have required for Hillary to decide to “protect our people” over there. Hillary blames “security professionals who made the decisions about what kind of security would be provided.” Dodges bullet (no pun intended). “They were the ones making the assessment. No one ever came to me and said we should shut down our compound in Benghazi.” Representative Westmoreland asks Hillary to explain how she expected Ambassador Stevens to do his job with inadequate security. Hillary says State Department and CIA has “an agreement,” but acknowledges it was not a written agreement. Representative Westmoreland asks Hillary why she exchanged so many emails with friend Sidney Blumenthal but her “friend” Ambassador Stevens did not. And he asked if the man who asked for additional security 20 or more times had Hillary’s email address. Hillary said she didn’t believe he did.

UDPATE #28: Chairman Gowdy recognized Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) who asked her about why “diplomatic security” was not mentioned “in any material way” in 270 pages of her report. She couldn’t really explain why anyone has been held accountable to date before saying the ARB didn’t believe anyone should be fired. “You’re telling me you had no authority to….” She says she followed the law. Representative Pompeo asks how many security requests were made regarding Benghazi. Hillary pleads ignorance. Representative Pompeo asks why she’s so quick to read Blumenthal’s emails when she ignores hundreds of emails from people working for her. She stumbles and bumbles, says Blumenthal “is a friend of mine.” She says “he had no official position in the government.” Representative Pompeo cites nature of Blumenthal emails and tells Hillary “the record does not reflect that.” In short, he calls Hillary a liar!

UDPATE #29: Representative Pompeo asks why security requests didn’t result in added security. She blames security professionals. Pompeo doesn’t buy it.

UDPATE #30: Representative Pompeo asks Hillary if she was aware that her people in Benghazi met with known terrorists in Libya less than 48 hours before the attack in Benghazi. She says “I know nothing about this” twice before asking to whom, specifically, he was referring.

UDPATE #31: Chairman Gowdy recognizes Representative Linda Chavez (D-Calif.) who asks Hillary if Blumenthal was her “primary intelligence officer.” Predictably, she says he was not before reiterating that she did not use email as her primary communications tool for discussing issues. She goes on to explain how her people were experienced and met with Qaddafi many times.

Screenshot shows Rep. MIke Pompeo (R-Kan.) and others on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday.

Screenshot shows Rep. MIke Pompeo (R-Kan.) and others on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday.

UDPATE #32: Representative Chavez asks Hillary about statements made by Representative Pompeo on NBC’s “Meet the Press” (i.e., that Blumenthal was Hillary’s chief intelligence advisor). Not surprisingly, Hillary agreed that Blumenthal was not her top intel advisor. Chavez goes on to ask Hllary what she did upon learning about the attack. In response, Hillary spins exotic tale.

UDPATE #33: Representative Chavez ends by quoting then-CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus as having said his people did everything they could. Hillary agreed.

UDPATE #34: Chairman Gowdy recognizes Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) who asks Hillary about alleged video that allegedly incited protest that preceded Benghazi attack. Says Hillary was the mastermind behind effort to blame attack on “the video.” Hillary’s response: She continues to blame the video, saying it had been shown on Egyptian television viewable in Libya. Says she used the word “some” to explain the number of people who blamed the video. Jordan doesn’t buy it.

Hillary's email to family members shows she describes Benghazi attackers as having been members of an al-Qaeda-like group.

Hillary’s email to family members shows she describes Benghazi attackers as having been members of an al-Qaeda-like group.

UDPATE #35: Representative Jordan slices, dices and peels Hillary’s false statements. Shows her email to family members in which she describes attackers as having been members of an al-Qaeda-like group. Hillary rejects. Jordan shows another email 27 minutes after her “it’s a video” statement. Jordan says, 56 days before the U.S. presidential election, she talked politics instead of truth. Says “Americans can live with the fact that sometimes good people give their lives for this country, but what they can’t take is when their government is not square with them.”

UDPATE #36: Hillary responds by saying we did the best we could with the information we had. Says she explains more in her latest book. Blarney! She says she was trying to put out flames everywhere. Representative Jordan calls out Clinton for saying he “insinuated.” He says he read her words. Nothing more. She says, “I’m sorry it doesn’t fit your narrative.”

UDPATE #37: As last man to speak before lunch break, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) accuses GOP colleagues of having “nothing new to tell the American people” that alters the conclusions of the investigations to date. Ends by citing long list of so-called “facts,” pointing to outside efforts that called for Hillary to testify before Benghazi committee and asks Hillary what it’s like to be subject of such a probe. Hillary responds by saying, “It’s a very painful accusation” before going on with a Hollywood-quality performance about the pain she’s endured. Give me a break!

UDPATE #38: Chairman Gowdy recognizes himself and berates Representative Schiff for his B.S. Cites concerns family members of the fallen have regarding the investigations to date. Points to Blumenthal emails as problematic. Asks Hillary who at the White House rejected Blumenthal’s interest in employment. Hillary said she didn’t know. Asks Hillary more about Blumenthal. Mentions Blumenthal was employed by Clinton Family Foundation and has worked at Media Matters and other left-wing entities. Worth noting: Just after the one-hour mark in the hearing, the woman sitting behind and to Hillary’s right writes frantically after Hillary is asked to give her definition of “unsolicited” by Blumenthal. I expect that to be a newsworthy item in days to come.

UDPATE #39: Chairman Gowdy continues to berate Hillary. Hillary continues to plead ignorance about Blumenthal’s emails and claims she doesn’t know who wrote them if not Blumenthal.

UDPATE #40: Very interesting catfight between Chairman Gowdy and Hillary. Chairman asks Hillary if President Barack Obama knew Blumenthal was advising her. She says she doesn’t know. Gowdy continues to lambaste Hillary over Blumenthal. By the way, I’m fairly certain the woman mentioned in Update #38 is Cheryl D. Mills.

UDPATE #41: When Hillary says she doesn’t know how this hearing is helping get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi, Chairman Gowdy offers to help her understand. She continues to explain before Chairman Gowdy explains why the hearing is relevant. “I think it is imminently fair to ask why Sidney Blumenthal had unfettered access to you.” Representative Cummings interrupts and asks for time. Given time, he accuses Gowdy of making false statements regarding Blumenthal. Gowdy shuts him down, explaining how his statements were NOT false. Cummings is out of control, ranting!

UDPATE #42: It’s apparent that Democrats are scared. Chairman Gowdy is not backing down. Loved how Gowdy mentioned 27 outstanding discovery requests made to the Executive Branch. The committee adjourned — for lunch, I suspect.

FYI: Sorry, but I won’t be able to follow the hearing if it resumes after the noon hour. I will, however, provide updates if any surface later.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Will Joe Biden Select ‘Indian’ Warren As Running Mate?

EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico and retired corporate government relations executive whose life experience includes having served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.

Biden-Warren

Will Joe Biden run, or will he not?  That is the question.

If I had to venture a guess I’d say that, before year’s end, Hillary Clinton will be either sitting on the bench or exchanging her large selection of polyester pantsuits for a selection of orange or black-and-white striped jumpsuits.  Her campaign is in steep decline, and when the talking heads on the major networks, CNN, and MSNBC begin to devote major segments to the question of her political future, the end cannot be far away.  But who do the Democrats have to replace her?  Unlike Republicans, the Democrats have little or no “bench” strength.  Bernie Sanders, the doddering old socialist from Vermont is drawing large crowds, but we can’t be sure if people come to hear his plan for turning the U.S. economy into another Greek economy, or if they come to see whether or not the “Black Lives Matter” storm troopers will once again drive him from the speaker’s platform.

On Aug. 22, Elizabeth Warren, the freshman Democrat senator from Massachusetts, was summoned to Biden’s official residence at the Naval Observatory in Washington.  And while their meeting was not videotaped for public consumption, there’s not much doubt about the subject matter of their chat.  They discussed the very real possibility that Hillary will soon be forced out of the race, perhaps with criminal indictments lodged against her.

So exactly who is Elizabeth Warren and what has she ever done, if anything, to make her a viable candidate for president or vice president of the United States?  Warren has roughly the same presidential qualifications as Barack Obama, who was roughly as qualified as, say, Rosie O’Donnell.  Yet they are the sort of candidates most liberals prefer because they’re full of you-know-what.  In other words, like Obama, she has no presidential qualifications whatsoever.  And wouldn’t it be fun to see Warren, who has spent her entire adult life lecturing about personal and corporate bankruptcy, debate Donald Trump, who is not only skilled at using the bankruptcy statutes to his benefit, but who has become a multi-billionaire trying not to go bankrupt?

Warren graduated from Rutgers Law School in 1978, and has since taught at a number of major law schools, including Houston, Texas, Michigan, Penn and Harvard.  During that academic career, she gained fame as a leading authority on the subject of bankruptcy law.

Warren freely admits that for most of her adult life she was a Republican.  However, she has also explained that she became a Democrat in 1995 when she stopped believing in a free market economy… i.e., capitalism.  In fact, it is she who has taught Barack Obama to say that, if you’ve achieved some financial success in your life, or if you’ve built a large and profitable business, “you didn’t build that, somebody else made that happen.”

In 2012, after announcing her candidacy for the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts, the Boston Herald reported that Prof. Warren had described herself on Harvard job applications as being part Cherokee and part Delaware Indian.  In the debate that followed it could not be proved that she had any Indian blood whatsoever in her lineage.  Instead, she supported her claim by saying that, as a young woman, she could remember her older brothers speak of their Native American heritage.  And since it looked good on a Harvard job application she simply ran with it.

Warren was elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2012, defeating Sen. Scott Brown and regaining the Kennedy seat in the U.S. Senate.  However, the fact that she was the first female senator from Massachusetts was rarely mentioned by Warren or other Democrats… presumably because they did not wish to call attention to the fact that the first black man elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts was Republican Ed Brooke, elected in 1966, some 46 years earlier.

And that brings us to vice president Joe Biden.  The current vice president of the United States grew up in Scranton, Pa., and Wilmington, Del., where his father worked as a used car salesman, providing a practical grounding for Biden’s later political career.  He met his first wife while he was a student at the University of Delaware and she a student at Syracuse University.  Even at that early stage of their relationship he told her that his long term goal was to become a member of the United States Senate by age 30, before running for president of the United States.  During his college career he majored in history and political science, earning a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1965, ranking 506th in a graduating class of 688… not necessarily the greatest predictor of long term success at the top of the political world.

After earning a law degree in 1969 Biden was elected to the Newcastle County (Del.) Council, and just two years later he ran successfully for a seat in the U.S. Senate.  However, on Dec. 18, 1972, just days before he was to take his seat in the U.S. Senate, he suffered the first of two major family tragedies in his life.  His wife and three children were involved in an auto accident while Christmas shopping in a small town west of Wilmington.  His wife and year-old daughter were killed and his two sons were seriously injured, but both recovered fully.

During his Senate career, which spanned six full terms, he was a member and former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee where he gained a well-deserved reputation for being wrong on almost every significant foreign policy issue.  He was also a longtime member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, serving as chairman of the committee for eight years and ranking minority member for eight years.  He served as chairman in 1987 when Senate Democrats conducted the shameless public “drawing and quartering” of conservative Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, and as ranking minority member in 1982, during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, a partisan sideshow that Justice Thomas referred to as a “high-tech lynching.”

In 1987, Biden launched the first of two campaigns for the presidency.  However, in September 1987 he was publicly denounced for having plagiarized several lines from a speech by Neil Kinnock, leader of the British Labour Party.  His dishonesty quickly became a national issue, and he was forced to abandon his presidential ambitions.

But then, beginning in 2003, Democrats began to take notice of a young man they thought might be a future Democratic presidential candidate, an attractive young black man from the south side of Chicago, a former “community organizer” and a sitting member of the Illinois state senate, a man named Barack Hussein Obama.  The only problem was that, having been born with dual US-British citizenship, and having acquired dual U.S.-Kenyan citizenship at age 2, Obama was ineligible to serve as president of the United States.

To solve that problem, Democrats introduced two resolutions in the 108th Congress in 2003, and two resolutions in the 109th Congress in 2005, all aimed at amending the U.S. Constitution to make Obama eligible for the presidency.  They even went so far as to pluck him from almost total political obscurity and gave him the plum assignment of making the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  It was the political launching pad that sent Obama to the United States Senate in 2005 and to the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.

But Democratic leaders were still concerned about Obama’s lack of eligibility and his complete lack of experience.  In an attempt to submerge the issue of his ineligibility, Democratic leaders caused then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, chairman of the 2008 Democrat National Convention, and Alice Travis Germond, convention secretary, to delete the words, “… and that the following candidates for President and Vice President of the United States are legally qualified to serve under the provisions of the United States Constitution,” from official nominating certifications sent to 49 of the 50 states, certifications that allowed state election officials to print ballots.

Although one would think that either the delegates to the Democratic National Convention, the Democratic members of the U.S. Electoral College, or at least one member of the U.S. Congress, Democrat or Republican, would care enough about the Constitution to question Obama’s eligibility, that was not the case.  All failed in their constitutional obligations and in November 2008, the low-information voters of the United States caused Barack Obama and Joe Biden to be elected president and vice president of the United States, respectively.

But there was a reason Biden was selected as Obama’s running mate.  Democrats knew from the outset that, not only was Obama totally without experience and qualifications, he was hopelessly naïve and was unable to utter a simple declaratory sentence without having a teleprompter telling him what to say.  To resolve that problem they caused Biden to be selected as Obama’s running mate.  With Biden occupying the vice president’s chair, he would be in a position to whisper in Obama’s ear, hopefully preventing him from making any really stupid mistakes.

Unfortunately, that’s not the way things worked out.  Within five minutes of entering the Oval Office, Obama made it quite clear to Biden and everyone else that he didn’t need anyone’s advice.  What we have witnessed since that day is much like a high school student who won a Kiwanis Club “President for a Day” contest and who arrived at the White House with no one but his high school social studies teacher (in Obama’s case, Valerie Jarrett) as his principal advisor.

On May 30, Biden suffered the second major personal family tragedy of his life.  His son, 46-year-old “Beau” Biden, a former attorney general of Delaware, died of brain cancer.  It is reported that the younger Biden’s deathbed wish was that his father seek the 2016 Democratic nomination for president of the United States.

With the impending demise of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, there is every reason to believe that Biden will enter the race.  But there is also every reason to believe that, if he does, Democrats across the country will use Beau Biden’s death, shamelessly, as a sympathy factor to help gain support for his campaign.  They used that tactic in 1964 to help LBJ win in the wake of JFK’s death, and there’s no reason to believe they won’t use the same classless tactic again in 2016.

SEE ALSO: This 2006 video revealing how then-presidential candidate Biden feels about another group of Indians and this post about how he missed an opportunity for another ‘Big F—in Deal’.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Clinton Quest for Wealth, Power and Fame Continues

EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico and retired corporate government relations executive whose life experience includes having served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.

Click on image above to read article at Family Security Matters.

Click on image above to read article at Family Security Matters.

In an Oct. 21, 2008, column (“Massive Fundraising Misdeeds Prove Obama is Bought, but Who Owns Him?“), we disclosed what should have become the nation’s largest ever campaign finance scandal.

Just days earlier, Obama had boasted that his fundraising base had increased by 1 million people, from 1.5 million to 2.5 million, in the five-month period between May and October 2008, and that the total amount raised approached $600 million. This represented a significant increase from his May 31, 2008, report when he claimed that one-fourth of his $265 million, or $66.26 million, came from those contributing $2,000, or more… some 33,200 people. Political leaders and campaigners promote their causes and fundraise using a variety of methods such as SMS marketing for political campaigns. This ensures that they get their policies to a variety of different people and hopefully get loads of funds from their supporters.

If we can assume that, as of October 2008, 25 percent of his contributions still came from individuals giving $2,000 to $2,300, that major contributor base would have grown from 33,200 to 65,200 people in a time span of just five months.

While it is true that Obama is the kind of guy who could read Bill Clinton’s golf scorecard off a teleprompter and make it sound convincing, simple arithmetic should have told him that 75 percent of his October total, or $450 million, could not be contributed by 2.44 million people in “$5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford,” as Obama assured us. Each of those 2.44 million people would have had to contribute, on average, $185 to create a pool of $450 million, and that simply does not happen. It has never happened before in American politics and it did not happen in 2008.

So what was the truth of the matter? In our July 25, 2008, column, and again in our Oct. 21,
2008, column, we pointed out that UBS Americas, headed by Robert Wolf… along with George
Soros, one of Obama’s top two money men… had been accused of highly unethical and illegal
banking practices in six months of hearings by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations. According to an article in The Nation, UBS Americas, a subsidiary of UBS, of
Zurich, Switzerland, had advised wealthy Americans, including many of our most unwholesome
characters, how to shelter funds from the IRS, as well as from prosecutors, creditors, business
associates, family members, and each other. One such piece of advice was in the form of long-term investments into foreign companies such as buying a2 milk shares for example, but there were more dishonest methods as follows.

In a Statement of Facts in the criminal trial of former UBS executive Bradley Birkenfeld, it was alleged that UBS took extraordinary steps to help American clients manage their Swiss accounts without alerting federal authorities. Rather than recommend Americans put their money into legitimate endeavors such as foreign forex trading platforms (like Bitcoin Up Erfahrungen hier) to increase their wealth naturally – UBS chose an unlawful route instead. For example, UBS advised American clients to avoid detection by using Swiss credit cards to withdraw funds, to destroy all existing off-shore banking records, and to misrepresent the receipt of funds from their Swiss accounts as loans from the Swiss bank. According to The Nation, UBS established an elaborate training program which taught bank employees how to avoid surveillance by U.S. Customs and law enforcement, falsify visas, encrypt communications, and secretly move money into and out of the country… ” Americans seeking to bolster their wealth honestly and legitimately may be able to find what they’re looking for in the form of cryptocurrency investments. This has been an effective strategy for people across the world. Check this out for example to see how one might Bitcoin bei der Sparlasse kaufen. Again, not everyone wants to turn a profit properly and righteously in a manner such as this.

It was the perfect instrument for funneling illegal campaign contributions into the coffers of an unscrupulous American politician. Putting two and two together, I suggested that a very wealthy individual, a cartel, or an Islamic terrorist group, wishing to influence the outcome of a U.S. presidential election, could transfer unlimited sums of money through this device. A U.S. recipient, such as the Obama campaign, could have received tens of thousands of illegal foreign contributions via Swiss credit card transfers, with names, addresses, etc. of bogus contributors… “borrowed” from the campaign’s list of $10 and $20 contributors… being entered by teams of staffers working in a “boiler room” setting. The owners of the Swiss accounts would receive periodic statements indicating: a) debits of varying amounts, up to $2,300 each, and b) offsetting credits provided by the cartel, or by the wealthy, but unnamed, “international financier.”

For most of the super wealthy, especially those attempting to hide income and assets from U.S. authorities, an unexplained debit and credit of $2,300, or less, would not even raise an eyebrow. They would assume that a bank employee had simply made a data entry mistake, followed by an immediate correction. They would have no way of knowing that a sum of money had actually been withdrawn from their account and contributed to the Obama campaign, with a like amount deposited in the account by an illegal foreign source… the entire transaction facilitated by a high-ranking bank employee. So who would ever know the source of such contributions?

In an Oct. 20, 2008, article in Newsmax, writer Kenneth Timmerman provided details from Federal Election Commission records that gave substantial weight to my theory. In studying Obama’s FEC filings, Newsmax found more than 2,000 donors who had given substantially more than their $4,600 limit ($2,300 in the primaries and $2,300 in the General Election). The law requires that such excess contributions must be returned to the donor within 60 days. However, many of the donors contacted by Newsmax said that they had not made those large contributions to Obama. They had not been contacted by the Obama campaign, nor had they received refunds.

What Newsmax reported one day earlier in studying Obama’s FEC filings were some 66,383 highly suspicious contributions, from 37,265 donors, in which contributions were not rounded to even dollar amounts. For example, Newsmax reported that an insurance agent from Burr Ridge, Ill., gave a total of $8,724.26. He gave in odd amounts such as $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, $118.15, and one of $2,300.

A self-employed caregiver in Los Angeles made 36 separate contributions totaling $7,051.12. Thirteen of her contributions were later refunded. However, in an odd coincidence those 13 refunds, in amounts such as $233.88 and $201.44, came to an even $2,300, the maximum amount allowable in any one election.

One contributor interviewed by Newsmax, a retired schoolteacher from Rockledge, Fla., gave a reported $13,800… $9,200 over his limit. However, the contributor did not remember giving that much money to Obama, nor has anyone from the campaign ever contacted him about a refund.

Of the 66,383 contributions in odd amounts, 44,410 were in unrounded amounts of less than $100, 15,269 contributions were in unrounded amounts of between $101 and $999, and 704 contributions were in odd amounts greater than $1,000. Lest anyone suggest that those 37,265 donors either emptied their piggy banks or emptied their pockets and purses periodically and just sent it all to Obama, pennies and all, allow me to suggest something a bit more Machiavellian.

Those 66,383 contributions were the proceeds of foreign currency conversions, smuggled into the country in foreign credit card receipts, and converted to U.S. dollars.

According to Newsmax, the Obama campaign finance reports contained some 370,500 unique names… a far cry from the 2.5 million contributor base claimed by the campaign. Of course, when your money is coming in large chunks from offshore accounts, such as hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time from the Middle East and from third-world African countries, then laundered though UBS accounts in Zurich, it takes a bit of creativity to put authentic-sounding names on all of it for the FEC records.

Hillary's Boilermaker by David Donar at http://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com.

(Circa 2008) Hillary’s Boilermaker by David Donar at http://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com.

But now there is new evidence that UBS continues to be a Democrat Party playpen. The Wall Street Journal reported July 30 that, in early 2009, shortly after being sworn in as U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton flew to Geneva where she met with the Swiss foreign minister. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the status of an IRS lawsuit against UBS in which the IRS was attempting to obtain the identities of Americans with secret Swiss bank accounts… under normal circumstances, a matter that would be negotiated by the U.S. Treasury Department.

The Swiss foreign minister insisted that, if the IRS case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank could face prosecution on both sides of the Atlantic, either facing criminal charges in US courts, or in Swiss courts for violating Swiss bank secrecy laws.

According to the Journal report, a few months after the meeting, Clinton reported a tentative settlement. As part of the deal, UBS agreed to give up information on 4,450 American account holders, out of a total of more than 52,000 accounts containing an estimated $18 billion in untaxed cash. This amounted to roughly 8.6 percent of the total number of accounts sought by the IRS. But what is so unusual about the Clinton-negotiated settlement is that:

A. In the wake of the negotiations, total UBS contributions to the Clinton Foundation increased from less than $60,000 through 2008, to a cumulative total of $600,000 by the end of 2014;

B. UBS joined the Clinton Foundation in creating a pilot entrepreneurship program in which the bank agreed to provide some $32 million in business loan guarantees;

C. UBS agreed to underwrite a $100,000 charity golf tournament; and

D. UBS agreed to pay Bill Clinton a $1.5 million honorarium, the largest since he left the White House, “to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann.”

As might be expected, the Journal reported they could find “no evidence” of a direct link between Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the case and the bank’s donations to the Clinton Foundation, nor to its hiring of her husband for a $1.5 million series of informal chats with a bank executive.

Just as the Obama campaign was able to cover its tracks in 2008 when the UBS Bank appeared to be complicit in helping the campaign smuggle many millions of dollars in illegal contributions into the country, it appears as if the Clintons have been milking the same Swiss Bank in their unending quest for wealth, power, and fame. And the beat goes on… and on, and on.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter. Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same. To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Paul Hollrah Analyzes Upcoming GOP Presidential Debates

EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico and retired corporate government relations executive whose life experience includes having served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.

Editorial cartoon courtesy David Donar at http://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com.

Editorial cartoon courtesy David Donar at http://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com.

The Republican National Committee plans to conduct at least nine debates in the 2015-16 presidential primary season, the first of which will be held at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland Aug. 6, 2015. The debate will be co-sponsored by Fox News and Facebook and moderated by Fox News Channel anchors, Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace. And although the RNC is determined to hold far fewer debates than the twenty held during the 2012 primary season, the party has left the door open to the possibility of up to three additional debates if the need arises.

In a July 28 column, Kristol Clear Straw Poll #5, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol expresses what a great many people have been thinking, which is that the GOP debate format agreed to by Fox News and the RNC falls far short of the ideal.

Fox News has announced that, in order to avoid having as many as 16 candidates on the stage at one time, each vying for their share of face-time before the a national TV audience, they will limit the number of candidates to ten. Those candidates will be the top ten candidates taken from an average of the five most recent national polls… the polls to be selected by Fox.

According to one analysis of five recent national polls, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump and Scott Walker are almost certain to be selected, while the two remaining slots will be filled by either Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Rick Perry or Rick Santorum. Carly Fiorina, George Pataki and Lindsey Graham, each polling at roughly one percent, are apparently out of the running for the first debate.

Kristol has issued a fervent plea to Fox News and the RNC. He asks that they please abandon the “poorly-conceived ten-person, one-main-stage format” while there is still time. He argues that there simply will not be a “statistically significant difference between the 8th through 10th place finishers and the 11th through 13th places.” I would argue that there is insufficient reason to arbitrarily exclude any six of the 16 candidates. Kristol suggests that, out of fairness, the sponsors change the format to two eight-person debates, to be held on successive nights, or, in the alternative, two five-person debates and one six-person debate on three successive nights.

In order to demonstrate how the single ten-person debate would deny primary voters the opportunity to discover what some of the best, most capable, but lesser known candidates have to offer, I have developed a rating system which, as objectively as possible, points to some significant strengths and weaknesses in the candidates that the casual observer might overlook.

The rating system I have developed utilizes six separate factors: eligibility, personal appeal, experience, directness, the Trump factor and position on the issues, each scored on a scale of one to ten. (The “Trump Factor” being a measure of the extent to which each candidate has either adhered to or ignored Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment, re: the Trump candidacy.)

A quick analysis of the sixteen candidates produces the following results:

Click on image above to read article that explains the red "0" next to four candidates' names.

Click on image above to read article that explains the red “0” next to four candidates’ names.

Using the above analytical format, the participants in the August 6th debate would be, in order of ranking: 1) Carly Fiorina, 2) Mike Huckabee, 3) Scott Walker, 4) Donald Trump, 5) Ben Carson, 6) John Kasich, 7) Chris Christie, 8) Rand Paul, 9) Marco Rubio and 10) Rick Perry. Those watching the debate on TV would be, in order: 11) George Pataki, 12) Lindsey Graham, 13) Ted Cruz, 14) Rick Santorum, 15) Bobby Jindal and 16) Jeb Bush. Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore has just announced and cannot be properly evaluated.

What is most interesting about the admittedly subjective analysis is that former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who regularly polls at 2% or less because she lacks name recognition, comes out tied for first place with Mike Huckabee, each winning 56 out of a possible 60 points, while Jeb Bush, the darling of the mainstream media and establishment Republicans, comes in dead last. Bush comes in last because: 1) he is not an appealing candidate, 2) he was one of the first to openly criticize Donald Trump and 3) he has a history of pandering to liberal special interests.

To date, only three of the sixteen candidates have distinguished themselves from the others. Carly Fiorina and Mike Huckabee have unabashedly taken the fight to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, while Donald Trump has created a firestorm with his straight-from-the-shoulder characterization of many of the illegal aliens streaming across our southern border.

What is clear is that the same not-dry-behind-the-ears incompetents who’ve managed Republican presidential campaigns since Reagan left the White House are still hanging around Washington, just waiting to see how many more presidential campaigns they can screw up. In the past two weeks they have blindly led at least seven or eight of the establishment candidates to deal with the Trump campaign in the most counterproductive way, saying some really dumb things about a totally fearless man who can always be counted upon to deliver more punishment than he receives… proving once again that it’s not always a good idea to poke at a hornets’ nest.

The Washington inside-the-Beltway political consultants are unaccustomed to honesty and forthrightness in campaign rhetoric and Donald Trump, a breath of fresh air, is now conducting a graduate seminar for them. As a case in point, two young female guests on The O’Reilly Factor on Monday evening, July 27… young women who were not alive when Ronald Reagan was president, but who now market themselves as knowledgeable campaign strategists… were both asked how the other candidates should react to Trump’s surge in the polls. True to their training, both provided the only answer they knew. They said, “It’s time for them to go on the attack. They need to go negative.” That is precisely what Trump’s opponents should not do.

What GOP establishment candidates totally ignore is the fact that Americans, in general, and conservatives and Republicans in particular, have been yearning for nearly thirty years for a presidential candidate with the courage to “tell it like it is.” They’ve longed for a conservative willing to take on the mainstream media, bare-knuckled, a leader with enough “rough edges” on him/her to scare the crap out of liberals and Democrats, both inside and outside the mainstream media. For now, at least, Donald Trump looks like a man who fits that description, although if his approach to campaigning has had any impact at all on more conventional Republicans, the GOP debates may yet uncover another contender or two.

In the meantime, while the establishment candidates are busy attacking one of their own, Mike Huckabee and Carly Fiorina are out there doing “the Lord’s work,” exposing Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the frauds they are. But if Trump’s method and message fails to teach the establishment a few powerful lessons, then it looks as if some of us old “graybeards,” veterans of the Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan campaigns, will be forced to come out of retirement to show them how it’s done.

SEE ALSO: Off-The-Radar Presidential Candidates Placed in Spotlight and Joe Biden Misses Opportunity for Another ‘Big F—in Deal’.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.