The Annuals of Corruption–hillarys presidental candidacy ranks way up there-

The Annuals of Corruption–hillarys presidental candidacy ranks way up there–47h., b43

She and her husband          have been running an elaborate pay-to-play operation. Donations to the in Clinton Foundation may have produced favorable State Department The policies dealing with Russia-owned U.S. uranium deposits, Haitian relief efforts, and foreign banking interests, Her use of a personal email server famed while at the State Department, moreover, strongly suggests she has something to hide. She is still on track to win the Democratic nomination next year. And the first major party nominee ever to have misused his public authority as egregiously as she seems to have.

The evidentiary standard in a criminal case is so high because the penalty is imprisonment. Here, the “penalty” is a denial of higher office, so our standards can adjust accordingly And it is a fair bet that while some of the aforementioned candidates were innocent, just as many were guilty.

There is Russia, Haiti, and an a UBS. There is the millions donated to the Clinton Foundation by a Ukrainian oligarch just before the Crimea crisis. There is the strange disappearance of the Rose Law Firm billing records. There is her huge windfall a in the cattle futures market. There is the shady nature of her private email server. With each item, there could us have been an unlikely accumulation of causes that made an innocent in person look guilty But it strains credulity to believe that such bizarre circumstances have conspired against her again and again and again. Instead, one cannot help but return to William Safire’s judgment in 1996 that Clinton is just “a congenital liar.”

Bll Clinton is proof enough of this. He was regularly accused of misusing his ‘public authority during his tenure, all the way up to his final days in office, when he pardoned Marc Rich after the latter’s wife donated lavishly to the former’s presidential library. Yet Bill Clinton remains hugely popular. So it is hard to argue that ethics ne will upend Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. But American pragmatism may sink her still. This is not a good time, after all, to be suspected of cronyism. There is widespread belief that the “game is rigged” against average Americans in favor of an elite caste, a sentiment that mites the otherwise disparate Tea Party and Occupy Wall street movements. Clinton’s scandals give the unmistakable impression that she and her husband, with their vast fortune, sit at the apex of this American oligarchy,

Clinton is a living, breathing testament to the tendency of government to favor the rich and well-connected, thereby worsening the economic, social, and political inequality that she complains so loudly about.

This argument will not make itself It requires a Republican nominee who not only is unquestionably ethical, but who also wants to place Clinton-Style cronyism at the center of his or her campaign. The GOP nominee cannot merely recite Clinton’s ethical lapses, but must connect them directly to middle-class stagnation         and the growing apprehension that our government is no longer responsive to the needs of the people.

source–weekly standard (824/15), jay cost


How to make a bad problem worst–Hillary flawed plan for student debt relief-

How to make a bad problem worst–Hillary flawed plan for student debt relief–47-51h, b30

Nearly 40 million Americans carry some form of student debt; more than 7 million are in default on their loans, and many more have missed scheduled payments. The total amount of out Standing student debt is estimated to be $1.2 trillion, with about two-thirds of this sum underwritten by the federal government,

College and university enrollments increased by more than a third between 2000 and 2014, from 15 million to more than 21 million students. At the same time. college tuition and fees have been . growing at more than three times the rate of inflation for three decades now and at more than two times the growth and at more than two times the growth the same period in 2015, the average tuition (plus fees) for in-state students at public universities is in the neighborhood of $10,000 per year and over $40,000 per year for students attending private universities. A fair amount of careful research suggests that these soaring costs are partly attributable to the increasing availability of loans to the increasing availability of loans encouraged by federal policy.

“Hillary Clinton’s new $350 billion (over 10 years) proposal takes aim at this vast constituency of voters paying off student loans or worried about the costs of taking them on. She says that her proposal will enable most students to meet college expenses without taking on loans, a claim that is surely exaggerated in view of the scale and scope of her plan. At best it is a proposal to mitigate the problem that somewhat by permitting borrowers to is reduce interest rates on current loans and to use the carrot of federal funds to force states to invest more public funds in higher education.

The largest portion of this money ($175 billion) would go to encourage (bribe) state governments to invest more resources in higher education so that tuition charges can be reduced at four-year institutions and eliminated entirely for two-year community colleges. Under her plan, the Department of Education would make funds available to match state budget allocations for higher education and to reward states that keep a lid on tuition increases. She would also expand work-study programs to r permit more students to work off college expenses during their student years. The combined federal and state funds, as much as $35 billion per year across the country, would theoretically allow states to maintain tuition in at affordable levels for students so that loans would be unnecessary. This is a point worth emphasizing: She is not making tuition “free,” but rather substituting public funds for student- paid tuition.

Total tuition charges at all institutions (public and private) in 2015 will amount to around $300 billion, plus expenses for books, room, and board. A mix of federal, state, and private scholarships subsidizes a significant portion of this sum. The federal government, for example, spends approximately $30 billion per year on Pell grants to support tuition and other expenses for more than nine million students from lower-income families. Clinton’s contribution of $17.5 billion in federal funds per annum would make a dent in this package, but it is hard to see how it would ever allow n reductions in tuition and fees to levels that would allow students to dispense with loans.

Appropriations for higher education in states across the country have fallen off by an average of 16 percent since the onset of the financial crisis in 2008 Clinton should ask herself why so many states found it necessary to cut appropriations for higher education in the years following the financial crisis. The major reason was that governors and legislators had other priorities, among them paying for public employee pensions, meeting federal mandates to pay for Medicaid, welfare, and K-12 education, and finding revenues to meet law enforcement and transportation budgets. It is not hard to understand why higher education has been squeezed out in the keen competition for state funds.

Clinton would now hold out federal dollars to induce states to appropriate more funds for higher education. just as the federal government already does with Medicaid, welfare, K-12 education, and transportation projects. Her proposal would compel governors and legislators either to raise taxes to cover those expenditures or to cut budgets in other areas—or, alternatively, to dispense with the federal funds altogether. The federal government, in short, has contributed to the budget crises in the states through its mandates and matching programs, and Clinton now proposes to address that problem by adding still another mandate and matching program.

The major problem in higher education today is one of cost and expense, and only secondarily who happens to poll pay for it. Too many universities maintain doctoral programs in fields for which graduates have no hope of finding jobs. Many of those programs should be eliminated in the service both of long-run efficiency and educational integrity.

Yet Clinton’s Plan would encourage them to put off the day of reckoning in the hope that all programs can be maintained with still another infusion of federal funds.! Clinton’s approach is a typical Democratic plan that relies on subsidies, higher taxes, more spending, and cost shifting among participants in the higher education industry. It will do little to encourage innovation, restructuring, and cost cutting among Jay institutions of higher learning. It represents still another example of kicking the can down the road.

source-weekly standard-(8/24/15), james piereson,

Obama’s Energy Debacle–and what the next president can do about it-

Obama’s Energy Debacle–and what the next president can do about it–18h., b28

President Obama has just the accomplished a similar feat. With one hand he has delivered his Clean Power Plan, designed to reduce the use of our own resources of fossil fuels’. With the other he has signed off on a deal with Iran that will set the Islamic Republic on the path to dumping between four and five million barrels of its crude oil in on world markets every day, further lowering the price of oil and thereby that encouraging its consumption. These deals, taken together, replace emissions from U.S. fossil fuel production and use with emissions from increased use of lranian oil. In effect, Obama has transferred pollution permits from producers to the Revolutionary Guard that controls Iran’s oil industry.

The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants (CPP) and its accompanying regulations, all 2,691 pages, is the largest exercise in central planning. outside of Cuba and North Korea, since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It calls for a reduction of 32 percent from 2005 levels in power-plant carbon emissions by 2030.

The CPP goes target makes sense. The CPP goes further and sets the specific means by which that is to be accomplished. Natural gas use can increase by only 22 percent by 2022 from 2012 levels and thereafter increase at an annual rate of only 5 percent, and new natural gas plants that replace coal will not count as having reduced emissions! A rejiggering of EPA models resulted in a major increase in the role initially accorded renewables and in our future reliance on the sun and the wind, the one which sometimes shines, the other which sometimes blows, most usually in places far from the existing super reliable electricity grid. Never mind that both continue to require massive subsidies, which the renewable industry heatedly denies while at the same time coolly lobbying for their continuation.

Once the courts ruled that that act gives the EPA authority to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, conservative opposition to market con mechanisms has allowed Obama to rely on regulation to achieve emissions and reductions.

Conservatives now are consoling themselves with the thought that when the president goes to Paris in December and presents his plan, he will label it a “commitment” because he dare not submit it to Congress for the approval that a treaty requires.

Surely the EPA will honor its pledge to allow the states to devise their own plans to meet its emission-reduction targets. But that of pledge is to permit states to propose implementation plans that are subject to EPA approval.

This after all, is an agency that is committed to the slaughter of the coal industry and has turned on our sensationally productive frackers; that refused to consider the cost of its mercury regulations until forced to do so by the courts and is now proposing to replace power generation with renewables that cost more than twice as much; that counts as a benefit of the new regulations the value of the lives it claims to have already saved by its ozone and mercury regulations; and, unlike any other regulatory agency, is run by a director who has refused repeated requests from the House Science Committee to make available the raw data on which EPA be regulations ultimately rely.

McCarthy, has testified that she has “an obligation to the planet”; that the value of EPA rules is not measured in how much they reduce emissions but “in showing strong domestic to action which can actually trigger global action to address what is necessary action”; and that she doesn’t “need the raw data in order to develop science. That’s not how it’s done.” My guess is that how it is done is with a phone call to the White House.

Our global partners must be reassured that a Republican president will not repudiate the president’s goals. but will substitute more efficient ways of meeting them. Assuming, of course. that other nations are keeping their promises so that the American effort is one of many contributors to reducing global emissions, rather than a futile effort with no significant impacts.

Fortunately there is a method at hand to accomplish the twin goals of establishing that American commitments mean something while at the same time retaining our reservations about the climate-change this is: tax reform. With two major tax inversions announced on August 5—American companies merging with an overseas company and making its foreign headquarters the corporate home for tax purposes in order to flee the American tax system the pressure for reform is mounting.

source-weekly standard (8/24/15), irwin stelzer, cpp,

Don’t Forget Obamacare-

Don’t Forget Obamacare—23lh, b13.14

Half of the 10 candidates (including Trump) mentioned in passing that Obamacare needs to be repealed. But no candidate even began to outline a conservative alternative, Obamacare costs a fortune at a time when we are $18.2 trillion in debt. It centralizes power and money in Washington. It declares war on doctors in private practice, who will soon go the way of the milkman unless Obamacare is repealed. It funds abortions with tax dollars. And for the first time in our nation’s history, it forces private citizens to buy product or service of the federal government’s choosing, merely as a condition of living in the United States.

In response, 43 percent said Obamacare should repealed and replaced with a conservative alternative, tin other words, with a conservative alternative in play, likely voters support repeal by a margin of 17 points—55 to 38 percent. A winning alternative must be designed so as to cut off the three easiest liberal lines of attack. First, a conservative alternative must provide an answer to the problem of preexisting conditions—one that, unlike Obamacare’s, doesn’t undermine the very nature of insurance. This requires commonsense pro¬ tections that allow people to do things like move from employer-based insurance to individually purchased insurance without being charged more for a “preexisting condition” that was previously covered. Similarly, when they turn 18 (or first leave their parents’ insurance) people should have a grace period of a year or so to buy insurance without being charged more for a childhood condition that might or might not have been covered under their )arents’ plan. Second, an alternative shouldn’t alter the tax treatment of the typical American’s employer-based insurance. About 170 million people have—and usually like—such insurance. Third, a conservative alternative must provide an answer for the poor and near-poor who have become newly insured under Obamacare. This means providing refundible tax credits to all people who are not offered insurance by their employer but instead purchase it on their own. These tax credits should not be income-tested and should go directly to individuals and families—not to insurance companies, like Obamacare’s subsidies.

For 70 the federal government has given generous tax treatment to those who get insurance through their employer, while millions of Americans have gotten no tax break for buying insurance on their own. Obamacare didn’t fix this longstanding unfairness in the tax code.

This contrast would highlight how burdensome Obamacare is for the middle class and the young. The typical 40-year-old making $35,000 a year without employer-based health insurance doesn’t get a dime in taxpayer-funded Obamacare subsidies. Meanwhile, next-door. someone identically situated but receiving health insurance through an employer gets a tax break. Under the 2017 Project’s “Winning Alternative to Obamacare,” the 40-yearold without employer-based health insurance would get a $2,100 tax credit to help buy insurance—and if he or she bought insurance for less than $2,100, the difference would go into a Health Savings Account. Instead of being compelled to buy Obamacare-approved insurance through a government-run exchange, People could shop for value on the open market.

source–weekly standard–8/24/15, jeffrey anderson,

Does Israel Stand Alone?—

Does Israel Stand Alone?—                49jh, b4

“Because this is such a strong deal every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli  government, has expressed support. The United Nations Security Council has unanimously supported it. The majority of arms control and nonproliferation experts support it. Over 100 former ambassadors who served under Republican and Democratic presidents support it.” President Barack Obama, August 5, 2015

Let’s for the moment ignore the fact that many other countries, especially those with the most at stake, are in fact privately appalled by the Iran deal. Let’s stipulate that Israel stands publicly alone.

Benjamin Netanyahu said in his speech to Congress in March: “Even if ad Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.” So it does. Writing in the New York Sun Seth Lipsky commented: “President Obama may have mocked the Jewish state for being the only country in the world to oppose the pact of appeasement he’s just inked with Iran. All the greater Israel’s glory, we say.”

But the key point, Lipsky notes, is this: In its opposition to the Iran deal, Israel does not stand alone. America              stands with Israel—even if the Obama administration does not.

The majority of the U.S. Congress stands against the deal . A retired American general officer who served in Iraq commented recently that special forces and drone operatives had Suleimani in their sights several times during those years. They were told by their civilian superiors to refrain from killing him. The general deeply regrets that he and his colleagues were constrained by those orders. Now the Iran deal removes international sanctions from Suleimani personally and from his Revolutionary Guard.

Hezbollah has killed Israelis and Jews. It has killed Muslims and Christians. It has also killed Americans. The group took gleeful credit for L the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, which killed 241 Americans who were in Lebanon to serve as peacekeepers at the request of Arab nations and format matter the U.N. Security Council.

Members of Congress should be proud to stand against a deal that empowers Iran and Hezbollah, that leaves Iran’s nuclear infrastructure in place and increases the chances of nuclear proliferation, that funds Iranian terror and increases the chances of regional wars. As Sergeant Bartlett said when he first heard about the deal, “I couldn’t believe it. I didn’t want to believe it. The very country that killed SO many Americans over in Iraq—I just couldn’t believe it.” Sergeant Bartlett couldn’t believe it. He’s chosen to fight the deal and try to defeat it. He has the support of the American public. No, Israel does not stand alone.

source-weekly standard (8/24/15). william kristol, seth lipsky

YOU’LL FREAK: When You See What Obama Just Promised The ‘Refugees

Published on October 21, 2015 the daily clash–doug giles–7hj., b40

YOU’LL FREAK: When You See What Obama Just Promised The ‘Refugees

As the Veteran’s Affairs budget is short by $2.6 billion, the Obama administration has donated a total of $4.5 billion in aid for Syrian refugees The United States will give $419­ million more in humanitarian aid to assist Syrian refugees and the countries that are hosting them, administration officials said Monday.

The new aid brings the total U.S. donation since the Syrian conflict began in 2011 to $4.5 billion, more than any other country. It was announced a day after Secretary of State John F. Kerry said the United States would raise its annual refu­gee resettlement cap from 70,000 this fiscal year to 85,000 next year and 100,000 in 2017. (Washington Post)

Take a look at how that compares to the VA and you’ll see exactly where Obama’s priorities are:

House lawmakers say the Veterans Affairs Department’s $2.6 billion budget shortfall for this fiscal year is further proof of administrators’ incompetence and poor planning.

VA officials have a slightly different take, saying the shortfall is a sign of their extraordinary efforts to get veterans the medical care they need, regardless of the cost.

Either way, the department has a gigantic deficit to fill in the next three months.

And it could get bigger.

It also could mean furloughs, hiring freezes and program cancellations if a solution can’t be found.

“We are going to do the right thing for veterans and be good stewards of taxpayer dollars,” VA Deputy Secretary Sloan Gibson told members of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee on Thursday. “But to succeed, we need the flexibility to use funds to meet veterans needs as they arise.” (Military Times)

CONGRESS AND ISLAM: Can You Tell The Difference Between The Two

Published on October 21, 2015 clash daily–34hj., b3a

CONGRESS AND ISLAM: Can You Tell The Difference Between The Two

By Michael Martin
Clash Daily Contributor

On the face of it that statement appears to be ridiculous because they are of various religions and most proclaim that they are Christians.

Followers of Islam are encouraged to lie if it will promote the furtherance of the religion ( cult ).
Congressmen are encouraged to lie if it will promote their chances at re-election ( low / no information voters ).

Followers of Islam believe that they know better than non-believers how to best serve non-believers (beheaded and or raped ) .
Congressmen believe that they know better than the voters how to serve the voters interests (by not doing what the voters elected them for, and generally pillaging voters descendants and putting them on the hook to pay for their current re-elections through generational promissory notes).

Followers of Islam believe that they have the right to confiscate the property of non-believers and give to believers.
Congress believes that they can take the assets of voters ( enema (sic) domain ) and give it to corporations for non public (voters’) usage .

Followers of Islam believe that they can tolerate non-believers as long as they pay a tax ( ransom ) to Islam for being non-Muslims .
Congressmen believe that they can tax you in unconstitutional ways ( ransom ) and exclude themselves from paying the ransoms.

Followers of Islam believe in sharia law and that it should be imposed on non-believers for their own good .
The judicial system believes that they can impose their will ( unconstitutionally ) by making law instead of following the Constitution. Congress approves / consents to the presidents picks / appointments to the supreme court. Congress does not impeach unconstitutional judges .

Followers of Islam ignore their conservative elements and allows extremists to control the Islamic political system.
Congress ignores the conservative majority and allows extreme liberals to control the political agenda .

The more I think about it the more that I think Congress is even worse than Islamic extremists as they tell you the truth that they want to rape and pillage non-believers, while congress does it and then lies about it.

Tell me how do YOU tell the difference ?

Lord, grant the voters the wisdom and knowledge that they can pick the candidates who actually want to follow the Constitution and do what’s best for our country, from the ones who just say they do and then don’t .