One flew over Clinton’s legacy

A day in the life of Hillary news. It lives on and on and on.
)Really? — “Former NY Times Chief: Clinton Is ‘Fundamentally Honest’”

At what point in her tenure — covering a whole multitude of scandals — can we say “Hillary Clinton is fundamentally dishonest?” I think even the people get that one. They may care or not, but they get it.

From the Free Beacon article:

“A former student of [Jill Abramson’s] who is a leader of Harvard’s Institute of Politics, thinks a gender-related double standard gets applied to Clinton. “We expect purity from women candidates,” he said.

Right, so it’s sexist to question Hillary’s poor judgement, flip-flopping, scandals and finally not to trust her. Though Abramson herself charged sexism after NYT fired her.

)If the shoe fits — “Clinton Complains About Super PACs and Big Money in Politics”

“At a Monday rally in Madison, Wisconsin, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton mourned the role of big money and super PACs in politics, although she has benefitted heavily from them.

Clinton decried the Supreme Court decision Citizens United, which ruled that independent political expenditures could not be regulated by the federal government due to the First Amendment.” — Wa Free Beacon

When in Rome… and Hillary is definitely in Rome. She’s in Wisconsin, home of the union lobby that used every bit of special interest leverage it could to oust Walker and lost.

Still, Clinton cannot prove her point considering the tens of millions in pac funding employed by Bush, on his behalf, or others this cycle that had little to no effect. Let’s not forget the Citizen’s United case directly related to telling the truth about her career.

Pot meets kettle:

“Clinton’s close ties to Wall Street have also been a point of contention in the campaign as much of her campaign’s financial support comes from large Wall Street firms. She has given many paid speeches to Wall Street firms.

Goldman Sachs infamously gave her $675,000 to give just three speeches.”

)Speaking distrust: “Report: FBI Moves to Interview Top Clinton Aides in Email Probe”

“FBI officials are preparing to question top Hillary Clinton aides at the State Department in the latest leg of the federal government’s probe into her unsecured email system.”…

“The interviews, along with the case’s final review, could take weeks to complete, threatening to haunt the former secretary of state for the remainder of the presidential primary elections.” — Free Beacon

And yet the saga of scandal and genesis of distrust of Hillary continues to dog her.But she lectures on the evils of money and its influence. What about the evils of those in power, and their use of its resources?

)So Clintonesque — “Loretta Lynch’s law firm tied to Hillary Clinton”
WND and Jerome Corsi report on Clintons’ ties to Loretta Lynch’s former law firm.

Maybe it is no wonder she seems confident. So conflict of interest anyone? But then both Clintons and Obama are walking talking conflicts of interest, everywhere.

I’ll take honesty for a million, Alex…. Who is Hillary Clinton?

One for the Democrat kitty

Bonus round on money and influence: “Moran Registers to Lobby for Groups That Were Among His Top Donors in Congress” — Washington Free Beacon:

Former Rep. Jim Moran (D., Va.) has registered to lobby on behalf of firms who were among his top funders throughout his political career in Washington.

And no one is really surprised. All that above reported in just one day.

But Jill Abramson says there is absolutely good reason to trust Hillary — er to believe her. Couple that with her promise to continue Obama’s deceitful legacy of distrust.

You can’t ask for more hope of no change than that.

Organizing for [Obama] Action

With all the calls Democrats make to rein in Tea Parties’ activism, they ignore OFA.
Schumer is mum on that.

Rep. Schock Highlights Organizing for Action, a 501(c)4 Openly Working for Obama
June 2013

Having established that no significant campaign cash was flowing through these groups, Rep. Schock then pulled up the description of Organizing for Action, a 501(c)4 whose stated mission is to “support President Obama in achieving enactment of the national agenda Americans voted for on Election Day 2012.” OFA describes this agenda as including legislation on “gun violence prevention, sensible environmental policies to address climate change and immigration reform.” Despite the obvious political overtones, OFA’s work is considered within the proper realm of a 501(c)4 activity, i.e. promoting social welfare. /…

Democrats in the hearing argued that scrutiny is appropriate for any group engaged in political activity and applying for 501(c)4 status. They further suggested the conservative groups filed for 501(c)(4) status in order to hide their donor lists, implying these organizations were hiding large influxes of cash. In ‘response, Rep. Schock asked three Tea Party groups giving testimony to state their annual budgets.

More: www.breitbart.com

 

Have a little politics with your hypocrisy. “Political overtones” is a giant understatement.

The OFA staffers run president Obama’s twitter account, and sign tweets BO for Obama. Yet you can bet their tax-exempt status was never in question – nor will it be.

Here’s the script on the twitter account for Barack Obama

Barack Obama Verified account
@BarackObama
This account is run by Organizing for Action staff. Tweets from the President are signed -bo.
Washington, DC · barackobama.com

What is OFA?

“Organizing for Action is the grassroots movement built by millions of Americans to pass the agenda we voted for in 2012.”

It’s Obama’s personal campaign. No, no politics or political advocacy going on there.

Is IRS checking that Twitter feed and monitoring every tweet? They are probably too busy trying to get all the names, donors, copies of speeches, writing and reading material of Tea Party groups, and thinking up questions to ask them for pending 501 status. That’s what Schumer wants them to redouble their efforts on.

And try to name one part of government he hasn’t politicized as well.
Time to rename IRS, now Obama’s ‘Internal Revenge Service’.

RightRing | Bullright

Politics of Big-Government, Schumer style

 

Schumer Calls for Using IRS to Curtail Tea Party Activities

Democratic senator says Obama should bypass Congress, use executive powers

BY: Alana Goodman | Free Beacon
January 23, 2014 5:38 pm

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) proposed using the Internal Revenue Service to curtail Tea Party group funding during a speech on how to “exploit” and “weaken” the movement at the Center for American Progress on Thursday.

Arguing that Tea Party groups have a financial advantage after the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, Schumer said the Obama administration should bypass Congress and institute new campaign finance rules through the IRS.

“It is clear that we will not pass anything legislatively as long as the House of Representatives is in Republican control, but there are many things that can be done administratively by the IRS and other government agencies—we must redouble those efforts immediately,” Schumer said.

“One of the great advantages the Tea Party has is the huge holes in our campaign finance laws created [by] the ill advised decision [Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission],” Schumer said. “Obviously the Tea Party elites gained extraordinary influence by being able to funnel millions of dollars into campaigns with ads that distort the truth and attack government.”

The Obama administration proposed new IRS restrictions on campaign related activity by tax-exempt groups last November. The rules would crack down on “candidate-related political activity,” which includes advocacy “for a clearly identified political candidate or candidates of a political party” and communications that are “made within 60 days of a general election (or within 30 days of a primary election) and clearly identify a candidate or political party.”

Last May, the IRS admitted to singling out Tea Party groups for increased scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status. The scandal forced the resignations of IRS Commissioner Steven Miller and director of Tax Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner.

Schumer was one of several Democratic senators who sent a letter in 2012 calling on the IRS to investigate tax-exempt groups for allegedly engaging in political campaign activity. He was also the architect of the 2010 DISCLOSE Act, legislation targeting the Citizens United ruling that failed to pass Congress. Senate Democrats introduced a similar bill in 2012.

Schumer also proposed electoral reform in his speech. “Our very electoral structure has been rigged to favor Tea Party candidates in Republican primaries,” he said.

He argued that this is due to the political makeup of primary voters and gerrymandering by Republicans who “draw districts where a Democrat could never be elected.”

Schumer recommended a primary system “where all voters, members of every party, can vote and the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, then enter a run-off.”

The senator claimed there was a divide between what he called “Tea Party elites”—namely, the Koch brothers—who support small government policies, and the “Tea Party followers,” who support government programs such as Medicare and public education.

He said the small government mantra espoused by Tea Party leaders is the “core weakness of the Tea Party, and one we can exploit to turn American politics around to the benefit of our nation.”

According to Schumer, many Tea Party supporters are drawn to the movement because of their concerns about a changing country that “white Anglo-Saxon men are not exclusively running” anymore.

“The Tea Party rank-and-file know it’s a different America,” said Schumer. “It looks different; it prays different; it works different. This is unsettling and angering to some.”

He also compared the Tea Party to the Prohibition movement, and argued that its policies were “the route of the Know-Nothings, Prohibitionists, Father Coughlins, and the Huey Longs, towards anger, negativity and even hatred.”

Schumer’s speech comes at a time when both the Tea Party and President Barack Obama are facing record-low approval ratings.

Just 30 percent of Americans view the Tea Party favorably, according to a Gallup poll released last month, while 51 percent view the movement unfavorably.

Meanwhile, President Obama’s job approval rating has plummeted to 43 percent on the heels of the botched Obamacare rollout, according to the RealClearPolitics polling average. His disapproval rating is also 51 percent.

The political world that Schumer is obsessed over, however real, is one where groups of people organized albeit loosely might have an affect on the political process.  To combat that preconception, he calls for the government tentacles to take a more aggressive and active roll in politics than they already do. 

The solution is direct government politicking. More than even arbiters,  he sees government advocacy on behalf of Democrats as righteous. Yes, have government bureaucracy clearly advocating for one political Party if not individual politicians. He envisions a country where an activist government must assure partisan election  results – controlling the strings of power.

That is nothing new for big-government Democrats, just that now they can so openly advocate it rather than conspiring in back rooms to pursue it. The hypocrisy of his position is so obvious but that never stopped the Democrats before. So why not use their favorite government agencies to affect elections? They use it for anything else politically related.

And do it through executive authority. What’s wrong with that? They do all the other stuff with executive power. Between EPA, the DoJ, and the IRS, and stacked courts, with a president willing and able to use his pen to legislate, they can accomplish a myriad of items in their agenda.

But then he never sees government running errant of its duties out of reach for career politicos to exploit in their favor.  They see that as the purpose of government rather than representing the people, it derives its power from. It’s a formula completely inverted from the visions of the founders but that matters not to them nor does their hypocrisy. The problem is always the unbridled freedom of the people. Must stop that.

RightRing | Bullright