Hillary would appoint Bill on economy

Hillary Clinton will put Bill “in charge of revitalizing the economy” turns into a twofer.

The Hill

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton is beginning to hint at what role her husband, former President Bill Clinton, could have in her administration if elected president.

At a campaign stop in Fort Mitchell, Ky., Clinton said her husband would be “in charge of revitalizing the economy.”

ABC news

“My husband, who I’m going to put in charge of revitalizing the economy, ’cause you know he knows how to do it,” Clinton told the crowd at an outdoor organizing rally. “And especially in places like coal country and inner cities and other parts of our country that have really been left out.”

So Lady Estrogen wants to put Bill in charge of the economy? Well, Bill’s experience with/in the private sector is almost as absent as hers. She’s running on his record and accomplishments? Many people don’t think he deserves a feather in his hat there.

It all sort of depends on the definition of “economy,” doesn’t it?

 

I’m sorry, did I forget about her earning millions for speeches to Goldman and Wall Street? Or Bill earning loads of cash for speeches and running a fraud charity? That experience could come in handy. Selling influence takes loads of practice… to do it right.

Hillary made around 20 million in speeches just since 2013. Hillary’s net worth is about 31 million and Bill’s is about 80 million. Just the middle-class paupers people think they are.

When Hillary talks about economic woes and 2009 with the recession, it is interesting that her income was not hindered in any way in 2009. Hill and Bill did quite fine. Then much better when she left office — after lighting up and burning down the Middle East.

According to MoneyNation reports here and here:

In 2009, Bill and Hill earned $10,084,843, Hillary earned $227,195. She made 52.7k in book sales in 2009. Then after leaving office. she cashed in on speaking fees. “In 2013 Hillary Clinton’s per year earnings from speeches was $9.7 million. In 2014 Mrs. Clinton earned $10.5 million in income from speaking fees.” (MoneyNation) Hill’s net worth peaked in 2009 at about 30 million. A sudden unexplained drop between 2010-2011 has people wondering where a big chunk of money went or if she transferred it, perhaps to Bill? No market forces appear to have caused the significant drop. She’s out of touch.

So Hillary now decided it a great campaigning point to bring in Bill on the economy, an area she knows nothing about. And Bill, with the Clinton Foundation, doesn’t impress anyone as the gold standard of economic virtue. Haiti voodoo-economics? They speciously prosper as America disintegrates around them. Not to omit their NAFTA and trade policies.

After cornering the market on speaking fees — influence peddling — Hill and Bill are just what we need to put the car back on the economic road. (achem) Wasn’t it Bill who built “the Bridge to the 21st Century?” The Onion satirized it this way back then.

Hillary’s philosophy is drink up, America, “what difference at this point does it make?
Of course, it does make one wonder what the market value of bullshit is these days?

Let me recap their design theme: The Bridge to the 21st Century will intersect with the Hillary Highway to Hell at 1600 Penna. Ave., Washington, DC. — Plan accordingly.

Money flows from 50 top donors

Close to Half of All Super PAC Money Comes from 50 Donors

(Washington Post) – A small core of super-rich individuals is responsible for the record sums cascading into the coffers of super PACs for the 2016 elections, a dynamic that harks back to the financing of presidential campaigns in the Gilded Age.

Close to half of the money — 41 percent — raised by the groups by the end of February came from just 50 mega-donors and their relatives, according to a Washington Post analysis of federal campaign finance reports. Thirty-six of those are Republican supporters who have invested millions trying to shape the GOP nomination contest.

In all, donors this cycle have given more than $607 million to 2,300 super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations. That means super PAC money is on track to surpass the $828 million that the Center for Responsive Politics found was raised by such groups for the 2012 elections.

More: http://www.teaparty.org/close-half-super-pac-money-comes-50-donors-158566/

Cruz: ‘we’ll take money from anyone’

In an interview with CNBC, Ted Cruz declared “we’ll take money from anyone.”

( Politico By Nick Gass )

Ted Cruz doesn’t care where the money comes from.

Even as his campaign has pushed a populist message and he has railed against Wall Street “crony capitalism” repeatedly, the Texas senator indicated Friday that he is not beneath accepting donations from anyone, including from members of the financial industry, which has already contributed $12 million to his campaign.

Appearing on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” Friday, Cruz again referred to the Dodd-Frank Act as benefiting large banks at the expense of the “little guy,” or smaller community banks. Co-anchor Andrew Ross Sorkin then pressed the candidate about his “rivals” criticizing him for soliciting donations from the same people whose industry has spoken out on the campaign trail.

“Look, we’ll take money from anyone. In fact, Andrew, I would love a check right now. It’s $2,700, or you could go to TedCruz.org,” Cruz said.

Tea Party.org

Read: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/ted-cruz-campaign-contributions-222008#sthash.GPnjZ099.dpuf

New American System

A troubling thought:

“Within the army of Republican presidential candidates, the vast majority are either ignorant of or refuse to accept the reality of who the opponents are and the depth to which the nation has sunk.”

Obamism and Neo-fascist America

By Steve McCann – August 10, 2015 | American Thinker

The philosophical foundation of the American Left and the Democratic Party is a proprietary hybrid of Fascism. While in lockstep with the economic and political tenets of Fascism, the unique feature of the current American iteration is anti-nationalism as reflected in the belief that the United States is the locus of malevolence in the world as compared to militant nationalism of Italy and Germany in the 1920’s and 30’s.

Sheldon Richman in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics describes Fascism as follows:

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalistic veneer.
Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices; fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.
Under fascism, the state, through official agencies, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans”.

The concept of a corporate state has been a staple of the American Left since Franklin Roosevelt. It was FDR that initiated the National Labor Relations Board to make the Government the final arbiter in labor issues. The National Recovery Act governed all aspects of manufacturing and commerce and the Agricultural Adjustment Act which introduced central planning to agriculture. It is generally acknowledged today that this approach by Roosevelt prolonged the Great Depression by another five years. (Jonah Goldberg’s masterpiece Liberal Fascism convincingly demonstrates the fascist roots of today’s liberalism.)

Beginning in the 1960’s the American Left, while nominally in favor of Marxism, had as their foundational tenets narcissism and rampant anti-Americanism. However, as the societal and economic seeds of Fascism were already planted and generally accepted by a sizable segment of the populace, it was a short logical leap, therefore, to become proponents of the economic and political precepts of Marxism’s closest cousin. […/]

Continue reading>

Once again, remember the top quote, from the closing of the article:

Within the army of Republican presidential candidates, the vast majority are either ignorant of or refuse to accept the reality of who the opponents are and the depth to which the nation has sunk.

This was published before Democrats first debate, which was more less a coming out party for the new American system. The emphasis was about socialism, but in the background is all this ideological baggage that goes with and into such a system.

As the article suggests, Obama has gone a long way in instituting — beyond setting the foundations for — this toxic system. And a key component of all his efforts was to make each element hard to rip out at its roots. We see how hard it’s been trying to weed out ObamaCare, which is only one of the things he planted. The EPA regs, the Iran deal, illegals and his executive amnesty are just a few more. Throw sanctuary cities on top.

Of course we talk about getting rid of them but have yet to do it. Plus Obama is not through yet. Even one or two are troubling, but combined together they all have an even greater effect. (one on one they make up the fabric of the greater whole) Add to it his social justice component which is just another economic tool. We were in trouble as a country before but now with what he has done, what are the odds that we can undo it all?

Hillary trails on campaign trail

This should make hillary spew her morning coffee. Oh, should but like Obama she’s too arrogant and in denial. Perhaps if her voters, the ones who don’t trust her either, wake up to say this is not what we were promised and what we signed on for?

Poll: Hillary Clinton in trouble in three key swing states

By Kelly Cohen – 7/22/15 | Washington Examiner

Hillary Clinton is trailing three leading Republican candidates in three key swing states.

In Colorado, Iowa and Virginia, the former secretary of state trails former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in hypothetical general election matchups, according to new Quinnipiac University polls released Wednesday.

Against Bush, Clinton trails 36 percent to 41 percent in Colorado, 36 percent to 42 percent in Iowa and 39 percent to 42 percent in Virginia.

more Washington Examiner

Commentary from the gallery

What we need with Hillary is something like the misery index for the economy. My theory was the Dems didn’t care about the trust factor. They vote for them anyway, almost in spite of it — maybe because of it. So I don’t hold my breath for distrust to take her down, alone. Must be more.

The Dems must be made to feel as depressed and pathetic as they really are for the country to get anywhere. But it is quite hard to give people a conscience when they have none. If they can just see the pile of manure they put in the middle of the room, and take in the aroma, maybe just maybe we can get some reaction out of them.

This is sort of like chem trails on planes. You can make all kinds of explanations or theories about them but one cannot deny seeing them with their own eyes. Seeing Hillary flounder in the polls is obvious to us. Can Dems make a good enough explanation for the cause to shake their confidence? Trustability does come to bear, but there is much more with Hillary. She is as polarizing and disconnected from normal, working class people as possible. It’s obvious. But she tries to mock CEOS and all while she is virtually in bed with them.

Will Soros pull the plug on Heiress Hillary at some point? Will he leave her to whither in the vine? Will the very support she is tied to finally say Basta Hillary, enough?

A case against her run.

Another question on Hillary remains. Why would she really want to run anyway? I’m being serious. She and Bubba — the Tookie of the charity world — have a pretty good racket er operation. Why does she really need to run? The answer of course is, you know, power and influence. The influence racket requires the power center to really have massive affect.

It worked great when she was Sec of State. If not for running for president, and her aspirations for the White House, they could be very comfortable. No hassles, raking in their piles of doe from all their connections. It is the influential political connection they need. But they still have that, Bubba has proved hugely popular, so is Hill for that matter. They could do well outside, like most institutionally connected liberals. And they would/do make it a family business. It crosses political lines. So why not just be happy in that high life they’ve extorted and built on the backs of America and its politics? (or the little people)

It’s a very lucrative racket for the grifters.

They also have their media connections and influence. What is lacking? Not much. No, the only possible reason — take altruism out — is that she wants access to the reins of power to get the greatest possible bang for the bucks. She really doesn’t care about people or anyone else. She thinks as long as she (or they) are at the center, then everyone else will be happy. Or as long as she is eating on the right side of the mushroom — like Alice in Wonderland — everything else automatically falls in place. Life will be good, people happy, the world comfortable in its chaotic bliss. Long as they benefit personally, what’s not to like?

The audacity of money

We could be reaching a whole new saturation level in politics today, especially concerning America’s favorite beyotch, HRC.

Well, if the speaking fees (and amenities to match) were not enough to draw even the ire of MSM, then it has gotten worse since. But it is still all about money, surprise. That’s what Clintons are about, after all, and lots of it.

Last year at this time, MSNBC even got into the outrage that HRC was getting 275,000 for an hour-long speech at SUNY Buffalo. Then MSM dared to ask the question of all questions: why did Hillary take the money? Why couldn’t she wave the fee or just do it for free? That would never cross Hillanista’s mind. And she also could not forgo the rich amenities she demands with it either. Like a crook leaving some cash behind, she could not do that. The money is the whole point. How much are her words worth?

Now we have the uncovering of the Clinton cash component entangled with her corrupt State Department term. Then we have Hillary’s pronouncement of her 2.5 billion dollar campaign plan for 2016. Maybe that kind of cash was meant to scare Republicans. Alright, can you imagine Rand Paul raising and waging 2.5 billion dollars? I don’t think that’s going to happen. What about any other contender? Not likely but a 5 billion-dollar election for president? What does that say about America? Jeb, are you up for that?The whole point is what does it say about the Clintons? By the next election, how about a quarter of a trillion? Trying to ante up in this high-stakes game makes it extremely difficult.

So are Clintons out to buy our process? We already know they are globalists with their eyes set on the world. Is this their means? They can claim, while doing it, that they are doing a lot of good. The moral to the story, from progressives’ perspective, is what does it matter how many millions they are raking in if they are doing some good? (how much does mosquito netting cost these days?) The Clinton Global Initiative is really the Clinton Initiative — by Clintons for Clintons.

Contrast that with Hillary’s campaign. It seems oddly ironic to run a campaign theme of fight for the little guy, her anti-one-percenter theme. The Clintons entire objective is to raise money — and there are no glass ceilings. But they think they can get away with it because, after all, they are the Clintons. Who can deny the Clintons what they want?

So will America empty its pockets into the coffers of Clintons to get another Clinton elected? Isn’t it time America puts the Clinton Clowns out to political pasture? If not now when? We cannot separate them from their cashola but we can say enough public offices on our dime. They prove how effective they can be without political power — shadow government and all — so why give that to them, too? (be glad to get rid of them)

Their collective political bios should already be written and finished. What more do Clintons need or want to get from our government? Because we know it is about what America will do for them, not what they would ever do for America.

Plus, we will have another guy leaving the White House to suck oxygen out of the universe. That is bad enough on the face, so why put another Occupier into the Oval Office again on top of it? Hillary shows how lucrative the speaker circuit is for her. Same for Bill. And Obama is bound to enrich his wealth on the same and he’ll have his ___ organization. This stuff just keeps going on and on and on, and it seems nothing is going to stop it.

Obama’ amnesty freebies

NY Times — Assoc. Press | FEB. 14, 2015

WASHINGTON (AP) – Millions of immigrants benefiting from President Barack Obama’s executive actions could get a windfall from the IRS, a reversal of fortune after years of paying taxes to help fund government programs they were banned from receiving.

Armed with new Social Security numbers, many of these immigrants who were living in the U.S. illegally will now be able to claim up to four years’ worth of tax credits designed to benefit the working poor. For big families, that’s a maximum of nearly $24,000, as long as they can document their earnings during those years. … More>

Moving right along:

Determining Alien Tax Status — (per IRS guidelines)

If you are an alien (not a U.S. citizen), you are considered a nonresident alien unless you meet one of two tests. You are a resident alien of the United States for tax purposes if you meet either the green card test or the substantial presence test for the calendar year (January 1-December 31).

Certain rules exist for determining the Residency Starting and Ending Dates for aliens.

In some cases aliens are allowed to make elections which override the green card test and the substantial presence test, as follows:

Nonresident Spouse Treated as a Resident
Closer Connection To a Foreign Country
Effect of Tax Treaties

You can be both a nonresident alien and a resident alien during the same tax year. This usually occurs in the year you arrive or depart from the United States. If so, you may elect to be treated as a Dual Status Alien for this taxable year and a Resident Alien for the next taxable year if you meet certain tests. (Refer to section “Dual-Status Aliens” – “First Year Choice” in Publication 519, U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens.)

A resident alien who is required to establish his/her U.S. residency for the purpose of claiming a tax treaty benefit with a foreign country should refer to Certification of U.S. Residency for Tax Treaty Purposes.

Substantial Presence Test

You will be considered a U.S. resident for tax purposes if you meet the substantial presence test for the calendar year. To meet this test, you must be physically present in the United States on at least:

31 days during the current year, and

183 days during the 3-year period that includes the current year and the 2 years immediately before that, counting:

  • All the days you were present in the current year, and
  • 1/3 of the days you were present in the first year before the current year, and
  • 1/6 of the days you were present in the second year before the current year.

Not only can they claim tax benefits for being here, but if they owe tax in certain countries, they can seek an exemption by getting a certification from IRS.

Certification of U.S. Residency for Tax Treaty Purposes

U.S. citizens and U.S. residents sometimes need certification of U.S. residency to claim a tax treaty benefit or a reduction of VAT tax with a foreign country. Such persons should file Form 8802 with the IRS to obtain such certification of residency.

The IRS provides this residency certification on Form 6166, a letter of U.S. residency certification. Form 6166 is a computer-generated letter printed on stationary bearing the U.S. Department of Treasury letterhead.

So the agency designated as enforcement arm for Obamacare is the same one enforcing Obama’s amnesty program. Note also that alien is a correct term for a non-citizen.

Can you say waste and abuse?

GOP blasts $215M cost for consumer bureau office with waterfall

By Tim Devaney – 07/02/14 | The Hill

Republican lawmakers blasted renovation plans for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s headquarters after an inspector general report said costs could top $215 million.

Federal Reserve inspector general Mark Bialek wrote that a “sound business case” cannot be made for renovating the building the agency rents at 1700 G St. NW, near the White House.

When first announced four years ago, the renovation project had a $55 million pricetag. By 2012, the CFPB revised the projected cost to $95 million and again last year raised the estimate to $150.8 million.

The CFPB’s renovations, which include a four-story glass staircase, two-story waterfall and a sunken garden, have angered House Republicans who say the agency is being wasteful with taxpayers’ money.

“When they passed the Dodd-Frank Act, Democrats in Congress and the White House made the CFPB unaccountable to taxpayers and to Congress,” House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) said in a statement.

“We’re seeing the results of this dangerous unaccountability today in a Washington bureaucracy that is running amok, spending as much as it wants on whatever it wants,” he continued. “It’s outrageous.”

In January, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), chairman of the Financial Services subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, requested the inspector general report, which his panel released Wednesday.

McHenry slammed the CFPB, calling the findings “deeply troubling.”

“The continuously growing price tag is a tremendous waste of funds and, amazingly, there is still no assurance the $215 million price tag won’t grow higher,” he said in a statement.

McHenry pointed out that the CFPB is spending more than $590 per square foot to renovate the building — far more than the comparative costs for building the Trump World Tower in New York ($334) and Bellagio Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas ($330).

The CFPB did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the inspector general’s report.

Before Congress in January, CFPB Director Richard Cordray, though, defended the renovations.

Cordray said the agency had selected a “tough building” but denied charges that the renovations were opulent and wasteful.

“The notion that we would try to build some kind of palace that we don’t own or control makes no sense to me,” he told lawmakers.

The renovation costs are only the latest controversy to hit the CFPB, which has been in the crosshairs of House Republicans since it was created. GOP lawmakers have long questioned the structure of the independent agency, because it does not rely on Congress for funding.

Recently, CFPB employees also accused the management of workplace discrimination. One black employee even compared it to working in a “plantation.”

Republicans have seized on those controversies, arguing that the agency needs more congressional oversight.

McHenry on Wednesday said the agency was “unaccountable” to Congress.

“The findings of the inspector general’s investigation are deeply troubling and lead to even more questions about the unaccountable design of the CFPB,” McHenry said.

“It has become abundantly clear that it’s not 1700 G Street that needs an overhaul, but rather the entire structure of the CFPB,” he added. – The Hill

 

So, 590.00 per square foot for a renovation? Apparently they don’t see this as excessive, on a building they don’t even own. I know, this had to be another intentional poke in the eye. How could they not notice this abuse?  If not, I have a water feature they might be interested in trying.

Well, as former congressman James Traficant used to say: “Beam me up, Scotty!”

Give me a “W”. Give me an “A”…….

Trial lawyer lobby: Democrats’ golden parachute

The many, the proud, the arrogant… and the powerful

Trial Lawyers Spend Big on Democrats

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
April 2, 2014 8:10 am

Rep. Bruce Braley (D., Iowa) shot to fame last week for his cringeworthy gaffe, making Iowans question whether or not he really is the man for the Iowa Senate seat, for which he is running.

In front of a group of trail lawyers, Braley mocked Grassley saying he is “a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school.”

Though he has since issued an apology, Braley’s dig at Grassley could cost him the election as Americans are becoming weary of lawyer politicians and a legal system they believe is out control. […]

More: http://freebeacon.com/politics/trial-lawyers-spend-big-on-democrats/

Becoming? Americans have been weary of them for years. It’s the kind of self-serving flatulence that’s ruining our environment. (not the only)

John–“two Americas”– Edwards should be their poster child. If people think Democrats stand for the little guys, think again.

“I loved it for the decades I did it, and I think it’s what I was born to do,” — Edwards said on opening a new law firm last fall, with an office in DC.

It’s always for the poor, little people. (wink wink)

RightRing | Bullright

The Great Demise of US

Well, let’s start the week off right. This ties to my recent post “Justifiable Insurrection“. If you thought that was a little vague, here are some details to fill it in – complete with insider spook confirmations.

Sources confirm enemies within are close to their goal

March 19, 2014 | Examiner

Anthony Martin

Throughout the history of the United States, the enemies of freedom have always been at work to destroy the foundation and fabric of the nation. But now sources have confirmed that not only have these enemies been hard at work to negate the liberties Americans have come to expect, but they are close to reaching their ultimate goal of the total destruction of this Republic as a free nation.

The tactical framework by which the enemies within seek to reach their ultimate goal is multi-pronged. The first plank was the implementation of a significant part of the goals of the progressive movement in the early 1900s, again in the 1930s and 40s, again in the 1960s and 1990s, and yet again from 2008 until the present.

The progressive movement viewed the U.S. Constitution as its main roadblock to “progress,” which was the newspeak term they used for regression. Thus, they sought to dismantle as much of the Constitution as the citizens would allow under various leaders such as Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama.

Wilson believed in eugenics, or the genetic perfecting of the human race as a means of getting rid of the “undesirables.” He also threw persons of German/Austrian/Hungarian descent into concentration camps during World War I. FDR utilized the same tactics during World War II, except it was persons of Japanese descent who were rounded up and incarcerated without charges of wrongdoing, without warrants, and without a trial.

FDR also tried to ignore the Constitution by packing the Supreme Court with his favorites, adding new members without the approval of Congress or a change in Constitutional law to allow it. This he attempted to do because the Court had declared many of his social programs to be unconstitutional.

But perhaps the worst the thing FDR did was to rob Americans of their gold. The government had been keeping records of who bought gold for quite some time. And when the government ran out of money during the Great Depression, which had been prolonged and intensified by FDR’s reckless spending, he confiscated all the gold, just like that. He notified Americans who had bought gold that they were to turn it in to the government. And like sheep, most Americans at the time “obeyed.” But then Roosevelt decided like a good little crook that if these citizens wanted their gold back, they would have to pay at least twice what it was worth when the government confiscated it. This was nothing but a scheme, a criminal scheme, to force Americans to turn over their property to the federal government so that FDR’s regime could charge them double for it and help the feds get some much needed money to fund the reckless spending FDR had implemented.

Criminal theft is still theft even when the government does it. But no one was ever forced to pay for their crimes against the citizens of the United States. /…

More http://www.examiner.com/article/sources-confirm-enemies-within-are-close-to-their-goal

The next report, which he adds daily, is this one:

‘You have no idea how bad it is,’ says ex-spook on destruction of US

On Wednesday it was reported that America’s enemies within, mainly those who are part of the “progressive movement,” are very close to their ultimate goal of the complete demise of the Republic has envisioned by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Today there is even more disturbing news.

An “ex-spook” as they are known, in other words a retired member of the CIA, stated concerning the effort to destroy the U.S., “You have no idea how bad it is.” The enemies of freedom and the Constitution within the country, he said, have now succeeded in putting most of their goals in place. “Think of how far they have come since 2008,” he continued, “Most Americans don’t even recognize their own country anymore. They feel like foreigners in their own land.” /…

The progressives/Marxists/collectivists are willing to do anything to advance their agenda, even if it means lying incessantly to the public, or even toying with the lives of citizens, using them as guinea pigs for mass social experimentaion.

An example of one of the most despicable of these experiments is to be found during the mid-1960s under President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ). Very few except those with high security clearances within the government and LBJ’s inner circle knew about this program. Even fewer know about it today. It was never reported or acknowledged. And most who knew the details are now deceased. A few, however, are still alive and well, and they know the full story. /…

More http://www.examiner.com/article/you-have-no-idea-how-bad-it-is-says-ex-spook-on-destruction-of-us

Author’s note:

My latest entry is now available at my blog at The Liberty Sphere under the section, “Musings After Midnight.” It is titled, “The latest news from the underground patriot movement, including warnings of more gov’t harassment of conservatives, libertarians, and gun owners.

 
This is good daily accounting of the agenda chock full of details.
Follow the yellow brick road…. and daily installments.

Previous post: Justifiable Insurrection. Is an American Spring in our future?

Surprise, biggest political donors not Republican

None of the Top 10 Biggest Political Donors are Republican

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
February 18, 2014 2:20 pm

The Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) released its list of top all-time donors. It totaled contributions fro 1989 to 2012 from PACs and individuals affiliated with the heavy hitter organizations.

CRP designated each of the heavy hitters as Democrat, Republican, or “on the fence,” meaning between 40 and 59 percent was donated to each party. In some cases, percentages did not add up to 100 due to third party donations.

None of the heavy hitters in the top 10 were Republican (three organizations in the top 10 were on the fence). A Republican-leaning organization did not make an appearance on the list until number 17.

Details: http://freebeacon.com/none-of-the-top-10-biggest-political-donors-are-republican/

Doesn’t quite fit the narrative. Surprise!

RightRing | Bullright

Profits survived the Nazi era


In the spring of 1945, Harald Quandt, a 23-year-old officer in the German Luftwaffe, was being held as a prisoner of war by Allied forces in the Libyan port city of Benghazi when he received a farewell letter from his mother, Magda Goebbels — the wife of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels.

The hand-written note confirmed the devastating news he had heard weeks earlier: His mother had committed suicide with her husband on May 1, after slipping their six children cyanide capsules in Adolf Hitler’s underground bunker in Berlin.

“My dear son! By now we’ve been in the Fuehrerbunker for six days already, Daddy, your six little siblings and I, to give our national socialistic lives the only possible, honorable ending,” she wrote. “Harald, dear son, I want to give you what I learned in life: Be loyal! Loyal to yourself, loyal to the people and loyal to your country!”

Quandt was released from captivity in 1947. Seven years later, he and his half-brother Herbert — Harald was the only remaining child from Magda Goebbels’ first marriage — would inherit the industrial empire built by their father, Guenther Quandt, which had produced Mauser firearms and anti-aircraft missiles for the Third Reich’s war machine. Among their most valuable assets at the time was a stake in car manufacturer Daimler AG. (DAI) They bought a part of Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (BMW) a few years later.

Lower Profile

While the half-brothers passed away decades ago, their legacy has endured. Herbert’s widow, Johanna Quandt, 86, and their children Susanne Klatten and Stefan Quandt, have remained in the public eye as BMW’s dominant shareholders. The billionaire daughters of Harald Quandt — Katarina Geller-Herr, 61, Gabriele Quandt, 60, Anette-Angelika May-Thies, 58, and 50-year-old Colleen-Bettina Rosenblat-Mo — have kept a lower profile.

The four sisters inherited about 1.5 billion deutsche marks ($760 million) after the death of their mother, Inge, in 1978, according to the family’s sanctioned biography, “Die Quandts.” They manage their wealth through the Harald Quandt Holding GmbH, a Bad Homburg, Germany-based family investment company and trust named after their father. Fritz Becker, the chief executive officer of the family entities, said the siblings realized average annual returns above 7 percent from its founding in 1981 through 1996. Since then, the returns have averaged 7.6 percent.

“The family wants to stay private and that is an acceptable situation for me,” said Becker in an interview at his Bad Homburg office. “We invest our money globally and if it’s $1 billion, $500 million or $3 billion, who cares?”

Wartime Profits

Together, the four sisters — and the two children of a deceased sibling — share a fortune worth at least $6 billion, giving each of them a net worth of $1.2 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. They have never appeared individually as billionaires on an international wealth ranking

/…

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-27/nazi-goebbels-step-grandchildren-are-hidden-billionaires.html
Related post: https://rightring.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/history-hitler-holocaust-denial-databases-and-destruction/

Economically-challenged Obama gets ‘stable’ voucher

[H/T and cred to Dave]

Former GOP Senator Judd Gregg to Moneynews: US Debt-to-GDP Ratio Is Exploding

Monday, 10 Jun 2013 07:04 AM
By Glenn J. Kalinoski and David Nelson

The debt-to-GDP ratio in the U.S. is moving to dangerous levels seen in Europe, said former Republican Senator Judd Gregg.

“We know that once a country’s cost is at 60 percent debt-to-GDP level they’re in trouble,” he told Newsmax TV in an exclusive interview.

“Historically our debt-to-GDP level is 35 percent up until three, four years ago. Then it’s bounced,” said the veteran politician, who also was governor of New Hampshire and a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“Now it’s up to around 70 percent. It’s headed toward over 100 percent. You look at Greece, you look at Spain, you look at Italy, you look at France. Their debt-to-GDP ratios exceed 100 percent and they’re essentially in bankruptcy or headed in that direction. Unfortunately, our debt-to-GDP ratio is heading in that direction, too.”

The Republican discussed his service on the Simpson-Bowles Commission, which he said came to the conclusion that “we could stabilize [at] 70 percent and we’d be doing a good job.” Gregg said that would require a reduction in spending by, “at that time, that was two years ago,” $4 trillion over 10 years.

“Now we need to reduce spending by approximately $5 trillion over 10 years in order to hit that same number.” Gregg said.

Putting politics before people was another topic Gregg covered when discussing his time on Capitol Hill.

“There’s a natural tendency in Congress to want to get re-elected first and not worry too much about anything else,” he said. “It’s a difficult issue because these are complex questions. They involve very important issues that affect all Americans — Medicare, Social Security, tax reform,” he said.

“When you step on to that ground, you’re stepping on to a very volatile area of politics. But at its core is a question of whether or not we have a solid country, and if you don’t have a solid country, then you’re not doing your job as a member of government.”

/… see more:

http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/Judd-Gregg-Debt-GDP-Economy/2013/06/10/id/508927?s=al&promo_code=13C77-1

Sort of has a sense of urgency to it, doesn’t it? IF it were an emergency room they’d call it trauma. Well, to everyone but Obama.

Now for the real puzzler….

S&P revises U.S. credit outlook to ‘stable’

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s on Monday upgraded its credit outlook for the United States government to “stable” from “negative,” saying the chances of a downgrade of the country’s rating is “less than one in three.”

In August 2011, S&P became the first credit rating agency to downgrade the sovereign U.S. credit rating from top-rated “AAA” to “AA+,” the second highest rating, and had left the U.S. credit outlook at “negative” at that time.

S&P said in a release that the recent improvements in tax receipts and steps taken to address longer-term budget issues improved the outlook for the United States. The agency raised concerns about the ability of policymakers to tackle long-standing issues due to a deepening of a partisan divide in Washington in the last decade, however.

“We believe that our current ‘AA+’ rating already factors in a lesser ability of U.S. elected officials to react swiftly and effectively to public finance pressures over the longer term in comparison with officials of some more highly rated sovereigns and we expect repeated divisive debates over raising the debt ceiling,” the agency said in a statement.

Rival agencies Moody’s and Fitch currently both hold triple-A ratings on the United States.

(Reporting by Dan Burns; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and W Simon)

http://www.insightbb.com/reuters/default.aspx?doc=2013-06-10T132742Z_2_BRE9590K8_RTROPTT_0_NEWS-US-USA-RATING-SP.XML

Thanks to Dave for the articles.

Anyone have a clue about the soundness, reasoning, or sheer “politics” of this S&P revision?  And the funniest part is here is the pretender prez-I-dent declaring how bad the sequestration is going to be for the economy and demonizing fiscal politics.  Then comes this.

And the fed has been flooding us with money and monetizing our debt….which incidentally is only going up(drastically) with this meathead, tone deaf, economics-challenged prez.  Of course, that is to presume he even cares!

I’m only grateful the S&P does not install  road signs in America. Remember irrational exuberance? Welcome to Obama’s economy of rational fear. Then again, I guess even S&P doesn’t believe what Obama says.

Thousand dollar record

1891 $1,000 Treasury note achieves $2.5m auction record at Heritage

By Paul Fraser Collectibles on April 29, 2013

The unique 1891 $1,000 Treasury note is now the most valuable US banknote

The only known example of the 1891 $1,000 Treasury note in private hands has set a new world record for a US banknote at auction, leading Heritage Auctions‘ April 24-26 & 28 Currency Signature Auction in Chicago.

The note’s vignette depicts General Meade, ‘a damned old goggle-eyed snapping turtle’

The note’s provenance includes some of the most prominent names in US currency collecting, further increasing its desirability for those prepared to make a bid. Starting it $1.2m, it quickly rose past its expected sale price of $2m to sell for $2.5m – a 29.2% increase.

The only other example has been housed in the National Numismatic Collection of the Smithsonian Institution since it was transferred there by the treasury department shortly after printing.

Like the Grand Watermelon, the 1891 note features a striking vignette of General Meade, who is noted for taking control of the Army of the Potomac on the eve of the US civil war’s Battle of Gettysburg. He was once described as “a damned old goggle-eyed snapping turtle” and was renowned for his bad temper, which the engraver has certainly portrayed on the note.

Read more http://www.coinweek.com/currency/currency-auctions/1891-1000-treasury-note-achieves-2-5m-auction-record-at-heritage/

Cha-ching