,hl=en,siteUrl='http://0ldfox.blogspot.com/',authuser=0,security_token="v_SeT2Tv8vVdKRCcG9CCW-ZdIfQ:1429878696275"/> Old Fox KM Journal

Thursday, July 30, 2015

Homicide rates of western counties...

link

  • Avatar
    Pardon me, Mr. savannachimp, but I can't let that stand. You are shamelessly blowing total Hot Air up our skirts here and it's embarrassing. We're not all gullible fools here, you know.
    You said: "Every other Western country has people with the same mental issues. We don't have the same level of slaughter, and it's not because we're locking everybody up."
    But the facts don't bear out that conclusion at all:
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    A much nice, neater table with pretty little flags is on view athttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (which you'll find easier to see), but:
    Country Rate Count Region Subregion Year Listed
    Anguilla (UK) 7.5 1 Americas Caribbean 2012
    Antigua and Barbuda 11.2 10 Americas Caribbean 2012
    Aruba (Netherlands) 3.9 4 Americas Caribbean 2010
    Bahamas 29.8 111 Americas Caribbean 2012
    Barbados 7.4 21 Americas Caribbean 2012
    British Virgin Islands (UK) 8.4 2 Americas Caribbean 2006
    Cayman Islands (UK) 14.7 8 Americas Caribbean 2009
    Cuba 4.2 477 Americas Caribbean 2012
    Dominica 21.1 15 Americas Caribbean 2010
    Dominican Republic 22.1 2,268 Americas Caribbean 2012
    Grenada 13.3 14 Americas Caribbean 2012
    Guadeloupe (France) 7.9 36 Americas Caribbean 2009
    Haiti 10.2 1,033 Americas Caribbean 2012
    Jamaica 39.3 1,087 Americas Caribbean 2012
    Martinique (France) 2.7 11 Americas Caribbean 2009
    Montserrat (UK) 20.4 1 Americas Caribbean 2008
    Puerto Rico (US) 26.5 978 Americas Caribbean 2012
    Saint Kitts and Nevis 33.6 18 Americas Caribbean 2012
    Saint Lucia 21.6 39 Americas Caribbean 2012
    St Vincent & Grenadines 25.6 28 Americas Caribbean 2012
    Trinidad and Tobago 28.3 379 Americas Caribbean 2012
    Turks and Caicos Islands (UK) 6.6 2 Americas Caribbean 2009
    United States Virgin Islands (US) 52.6 56 Americas Caribbean 2010
    Belize 44.7 145 Americas Central America 2012
    Costa Rica 8.5 407 Americas Central America 2012
    El Salvador 41.2 2,594 Americas Central America 2012
    Guatemala 39.9 6,025 Americas Central America 2012
    Honduras 90.4 7,172 Americas Central America 2012
    Mexico 21.5 26,037 Americas Central America 2012 See notes below.
    Nicaragua 11.3 675 Americas Central America 2012
    Panama 17.2 654 Americas Central America 2012
    Bermuda (UK) 7.7 5 Americas Northern America 2012
    Canada 1.6 543 Americas Northern America 2012
    Saint Pierre and Miquelon (France) 16.5 1 Americas Northern America 2009
    United States 4.7 14,827 Americas Northern America 2012
    Argentina 5.5 2,237 Americas South America 2010
    Bolivia 12.1 1,270 Americas South America 2012
    Brazil 25.2 50,108 Americas South America 2012
    Chile 3.1 550 Americas South America 2012
    Colombia 30.8 14,670 Americas South America 2012 See notes below.
    Ecuador 12.4 1,924 Americas South America 2012
    French Guiana (France) 13.3 30 Americas South America 2009
    Guyana 17.0 135 Americas South America 2012
    Paraguay 9.7 649 Americas South America 2012
    Peru 9.6 2,865 Americas South America 2012
    Suriname 6.1 33 Americas South America 2012
    Uruguay 7.9 267 Americas South America 2012
    Venezuela 53.7 16,072 Americas South America 2012
    ================================================
    Then, there are actually:
    1.) Only five countries with lower homicide rates than in the US in the west. 
    2.) 38 Countries, if my count is right, in total in the west counted by UNODC.
    3.) 32 Countries show higher murder rates than the US (they count PR & VI, separately).
    4.) 6 Countries in the UK (where I believe handguns are banned) and 3 countries in France have higher homicide rates with just one French jurisdiction enjoying a lower rate.
    5.) Statistics are always problematic because one cannot know how many police, military, or judicial killings are counted as homicide (Intentional homicide, as defined by UNODC, is "unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person"), and one even marvels if Mexico, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Brazil, or Venezuela are CAPABLE of counting their homicides. I doubt it.
    So you may want to amend your through-your-hat statement about "every other western country," and begin taking potshots at your fellow United Kingdom realm subjects and French neighbors to the east. I won't hold my breath.
    Cheers.
    P.S. Oh wait, THIS is what you and the Toronto bureaucrats call multicultural? 
    The most common reported ethnic origins[3] of Toronto residents are those from England (12.9%), China (12.0%), Canada(11.3%), Ireland (9.7%), Scotland (9.5%), India (7.6%), Italy (6.9%), the Philippines (5.5%), Germany (4.6%), France(4.5%), Poland (3.8%), Portugal (3.6%), and Jamaica (3.2%), or are of Jewish ethnic origin (3.1%). There is also a significant population of Ukrainians (2.5%), Russians (2.4%), Sri Lankans (2.3%), Spanish (2.2%), Greeks (2.2%), people from the British Isles in general (2.0%), Koreans (1.5%), Dutch (1.5%), Iranians (1.4%), Vietnamese (1.4%), Pakistanis(1.2%), Hungarians (1.2%), Guyanese (1.1%), and Welsh (1.0%). Communities of Afghans, Arabs, Barbadians,Bangladeshis, Bulgarians, Colombians, Croats, Ecuadorians, Grenadians, Macedonians, Mexicans, Nepalis, Romanians,Salvadorans, Serbs, Somalis, Tibetans, Trinidadians, and Vincentians are also recognized. Established ethnic neighbourhoods such as Chinatown, Corso Italia, Little India, Greektown, Koreatown, Little Jamaica, Little Portugal andRoncesvalles celebrate the city's multiculturalism.[4]"
    2.2% Spanish! Wow, that's got to be some great Cinco de Mayo up there. Whoops no one to celebrate the 26th of July Movement, it seems. 'cept you.

Thursday, July 23, 2015

No President has ever made a long-term arms control agreement on his own authority.

link
"... this deal may represent the single worst policy outcome of all of Obama’s illegalities.
Mike Ramsey has set forth the case that the Iranian deal is unconstitutional both under the original meaning and under modern law.  Under the original meaning, the Constitution’s provides the way to make major international agreements – through supermajority approval in the Senate, as set forth in Article II, Section 2.  Moreover:
Making major international agreements in the way the text prescribes is not just an eighteenth-century relic; it is the usual course for the United States today (subject to some exceptions noted below).  And the usual course is that if an agreement cannot get two-thirds approval in the Senate, there is no agreement.
What then are the possible justifications for it?  First, the “deal is an executive agreement, done on the President’s independent authority.”  But under the original meaning, there is a strong argument that executive agreements must relate to temporary and minor matters.  Moreover, a similar result obtains under modern law:
the agreements made by prior Presidents under this power have been minor and typically limited to settlements of claims, arrangement of military affairs, diplomatic recognition, and other matters within the President’s military and recognition powers.  No President has ever made a long-term arms control agreement on his own authority.
Second, “The deal is a nonbinding “political commitment” rather than a treaty.  Ramsey claims such nonbinding actions are legitimate under both the original meaning and modern law.  But the Iran deal:
doesn’t look like a nonbinding agreement.  Iran appears to understand it as a binding agreement.  And at least some of its terms appear to (purportedly) constrain U.S. action in the future, beyond the end of President Obama’s term.  It’s likely that a vocal defense of the agreement as nonbinding would substantially undermine the deal.
Finally, Congress will approve the deal.  While the original meaning does not allow a majority of each house of Congress to approve a treaty, in modern times sometimes Congress has done so.  But Congress is very unlikely to approve the deal.
Not only is the deal unconstitutional, its unconstitutionality is essential to it occurring.  If the President had to secure two thirds of the Senate or a majority of both houses, this deal almost certainly would not be approved.
Thus, once again, this President is taking illegal action to make an end run around the Congress to do things that are extremely problematic.  But this time, I fear, the consequences of his action may be worse than in the other cases.  The Iran deal is dangerous."

"Liberal -> Progressive

link

When a political movement changes labels, that usually means its adherents are unelectable.
Take the Democrats in 2004. When the presidential candidacy of Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, a liberal protégé of the state’s senior senator, Ted Kennedy, went down in flames, their party almost immediately switched from the buzzword “liberal” to “Progressive.” Not only was this changing the subject, it was reaching for the latter term’s historically bipartisan connotations. The Democrat Woodrow Wilson had been adapting himself to a doctrine first put into circulation in national politics by a Republican, Theodore Roosevelt.
The initiators of the change in emphasis, Democratic consultants Paul Begala and James Carville, declared that the Democratic Party needed to reexamine itself. But then it turned out that the new label was only semantics. Four years later, Barack Obama, despite running from the center, showed that when off teleprompter (advocating spreading the wealth), he was very much in sync with his predecessor candidate. By the 2012 election, he no longer even donned the camouflage, but ran as an unapologetic liberal.

Friday, July 10, 2015

Allen West -- Facts about Socialism

link

...
"Then again, has anyone ever articulated to the American people what socialism is as a governing philosophy – and that it has failed every time it’s tried? Perhaps the GOP nominees should stop with the circular firing squad and just do a simple comparative assessment between the ideals of a Constitutional Republic and a Progressive Socialist state.
So I figured this ol’ southern fella would give them a helping hand, with five facts about socialism you need to share with every Democrat you know.
1. First of all, socialists believe in wealth redistribution. This is the most threatening principle for a free market/free enterprise opportunity economy. It seeks to punish those who have worked hard to earn and achieve and believes that it is the job of the state to “level a playing field.” We hear the poll-tested marketed lexicon of fairness, fair share, economic patriotism, and other gimmick words that sound nice. My question is simple; when will progressive socialists share their iPhones, iPads, and all the other niceties they have?
Wealth redistribution does not work because it basically says the indomitable individual industrial entrepreneurial spirit does not (and should not) exist. And if anything has built this great nation to its impeccable level of exceptionalism, it has been individual industrialism. But if socialists have their way, success and achievement become targets of envy.
You know, this past weekend the USA Women’s Soccer team won their third World Cup — unprecedented. Carli Lloyd completed a first ever hat trick in men’s and women’s World Cup history. Every team from all the nations represented had the chance to win the World Cup, but one team was the champion. It was the most widely viewed sports event and we even watched in our home. It brought out all Americans because we like winning. Socialists don’t like winning, they like believing they can choose the winners. Socialists would have redistributed goals from Team USA to Japan in order to promote fairness. We don’t accept that on the soccer pitch — why do we accept that as a governing principle for our nation?
2. Socialists believe in nationalizing the economic production of a country, they do not believe in the private sector, the free marketplace of ideas. They believe in their control and I remember one Rep. Maxine Waters making a mistake and saying that we should nationalize the airlines — she caught herself.
When you consider legislation offered such as Obamacare, it’s about government having a preeminent role and competing against the private sector. You hear the liberal progressive socialists of the left talk about government investments — that is simply not possible. Government does not invest, it spends, and it spends other people’s money.
And the fallacy of socialism is that it works out REALLY well until you run out of other people’s money. If the government gets into the business of public sector growth and engagement in the marketplace, you end up with crony capitalism. You end up with a government that believes it can pick those winners and losers in the marketplace — Solyndra anyone?
What’s worse, the private sector cannot compete with government nationalization of production because government can just raise taxes to increase capital, or print money. Folks out in the free enterprise world cannot do that — thank God.
But just as we saw the shares of three healthcare companies skyrocket after the recent SCOTUS decision in King v Burwell — government should not be able to mandate to individual citizens that they MUST purchase a private sector commodity — inconsistent with the Commerce Clause — but very beneficial to the business that the government has chosen to coddle. In these past Obama years, we’ve seen an incredible intrusion of the federal government into the private sector — case in point, college student loans. It never ends up well — but that’s what Obama, Sanders, and presumably Hillary Clinton embrace.
3. Socialists believe in the creation and expansion of the welfare nanny-state. That is the purpose of wealth redistribution: the move away from the opportunity society to the dependency society. And all one has to do is look at the increase of Americans in poverty and on food stamps in these past six years. Consider the Great Society programs of Lyndon Johnson, especially the REALLY nutty idea of government providing checks to women who have children out of wedlock…with an interesting caveat, no man in the home.
So government removed Dad from the home and that especially affected the black community which 50 years ago had almost 77 percent two-parent households — today that number is barely 25 percent. Socialists come up with these GREAT ideas — mostly billed as free — but the truly intended consequences are detrimental for the society. As Wall Street Journal editorial board member Jason Riley pleads in his book, Please Stop Helping Us. But that is the issue, in that socialism is emotional in its core and these elitists truly believe they can feel better by helping someone — when actually they are promoting the soft bigotry of low expectations.
The dependency society that results from the expansion of the welfare state breeds a lack of drive, determination, and initiative. Socialists do not believe we need a safety net for those who slip off the ladder of success and achievement, which advocates for the individual to get back up and climb. Socialists believe in a hammock — which eventually dry rots.
4. Socialists actually believe in social utopianism — they call it social justice. What this means is that socialists believe it’s not the individual who has the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. It is a collective right granted by testate to guarantee happiness. Which is why socialists believe they must redistribute wealth, nationalize production, and give everyone a hammock.
Socialists do not believe in individual exceptionalism – as a matter of fact, “you did not build that” — someone else made it possible. And therefore justice is the sharing of what you THINK you have achieved – you can bet Hope Solo and Abby Wimbach are not about to give up that World Cup!
Socialists do not believe that if you work hard you can have a better life. They believe you must work hard in to spread it around — shared prosperity — because that is what makes a society happy – and makes them feel good, the essence of collectivism as the individual is lost.
Heck, it was MSNBC commentator Melissa Harris-Perry who even stated that parents do not have their own children — that they belong to all of us. Way wrong answer there, Mel.
I don’t need reparations. I just wanted to be a part of the opportunity society, not one based on classifying me as a victim needing standards to be altered to achieve justice for me. Socialists don’t believe individuals can be a victors — not on their own. The State exists to provide its version of justice — which is horribly unjust. Socialists like Julian Castro believe Fair Housing means socially engineering neighborhoods, and if you do not fit their definition — a utopian vision — you are in violation of being socially just.
5. Lastly, Socialists embrace the secular society. Why? Because faith has to be rooted in the State. Here in America, if God is removed from the public sphere, then who becomes the grantor — and subsequently the taker — of your unalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
The recent SCOTUS decision on redefining marriage — well, it has resulted in a State punishing citizens for their religious beliefs. That is exactly why folks fled Europe for America in the first place — religious freedom and liberty. There is a reason why we sing God Bless America — and He has, but that is not what socialists prefer.
It was Karl Marx who termed religion as the “opiate of the masses.” Nah Karl, we just know you should never put your faith in man. The Founding Fathers invoked Divine Providence as they signed their 56 names to the Declaration of Independence. They realized King George III was a flawed human being and the divine rights theory was not the way towards individual liberty — freedom comes from the natural rights theory. And that is why our individual rights are granted from our Creator, God — not Obama, Sanders, or Clinton.
It is a time for choosing, America. This socialism stuff may sound enticing but let me end again with the words of Churchill: “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
I hate being miserable, and I certainly don’t want to share misery with anyone. That’s not how we roll in America folks!"

Wednesday, July 08, 2015

Abercrombie & Fitch

History link

As early as 1913, A&F had adopted the slogan, "The Greatest Sporting Goods Store in the World".[9]

That was THEN:

"Founded in 1892 in the Manhattan borough of New York CityNew York, by David T. Abercrombie and Ezra Fitch, Abercrombie & Fitch was an elite outfitter of sporting and excursion goods, particularly noted for its expensive shotguns, fishing rods, fishing boats, and tents. In 1976, Abercrombie & Fitch filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, finally closing its flagship store at Madison Avenue and East 45th Street in 1977.[5]     
[We used to spend many pleasant lunch hours in that store marvelling at the excursion, safari, expedition, and exploration gear and wonderful merchandise that they sold.  They regularly outfitted Teddy Roosevelt.  They had a shooting range in the basement and a pool on the roof.   In 1938, 40% of sales at the great flagship Madison Avenue store was guns.  There was a gorgeous collapsible 4-man wooden boat with canvas cover that could be back-packed anywhere that a man could walk or hike.  Twelve floors, we loved that place.]


Shortly thereafter the name was revived in 1978, Oshman's Sporting Goods, a Houston-based chain owned by Jake Oshman,[6] bought the defunct firm's name and mailing list for $1.5 million[7] ($5.2 million in 2013 dollars).[8]Oshman's relaunched A&F as a mail-order retailer specializing in hunting wear and novelty items. It also opened shops in Beverly Hills, Dallas, and (by the mid-1980s) New York City. Finally, in 1988, Oshman's sold the company name and operations to The Limited, a clothing-chain operator based in Columbus, Ohio.[9] "

And this is NOW:

"Product criticism[edit]

In 2002, A&F sold a shirt that featured the slogan "Wong Brothers Laundry Service – Two Wongs Can Make It White" with smiling figures in conical Asian hats, a depiction of early Chinese immigrants. The company discontinued the designs and apologized after a boycott started by an Asian American student group at Stanford University.[82] That same year, abercrombie kids removed a line of thong underwear sold for girls in pre-teen children's sizes after parents mounted nationwide storefront protests. The underwear included phrases like "Eye Candy" and "Wink Wink" printed on the front.[83]


More T-shirt controversies occurred in 2004. The first incident involved a shirt featuring the phrase, "It's All Relative in West Virginia," a jab at alleged incestuous relationships in rural America. West Virginia Governor Bob Wise spoke out against the company for depicting "an unfounded, negative stereotype of West Virginia", but the shirts were not removed.[84] Later, another T-shirt that said "L is for Loser" next to a picture of a male gymnast on the rings gathered publicity. The company stopped selling the shirt in October 2004 after USA Gymnastics president Bob Colarossi announced a boycott of A&F for mocking the sport.[85]
In 2005, the Women and Girls Foundation of Southwest Pennsylvania launched a "Girlcott" of the store to protest the sale of T-shirts displaying sexist messages such as "Who needs brains when you have these?", "Available for parties," and "I had a nightmare I was a brunette." The campaign received national coverage on The Today Show, and the company pulled the shirts from stores on November 5, 2005.[86] Five days after this media coverage, A&F pulled two of the shirts off of its shelves, released an apology to girls for producing the T-shirts, and agreed to have corporate executives meet with the "Girlcott" girls at the company's headquarters.[87]
Bob Jones University, a non-denominational Protestant university located in GreenvilleSouth Carolina, and its affiliated pre-collegiate schools, along with other Christian schools have prohibited A&F and Hollister clothing from being "worn, carried, or displayed" on its campuses because of "an unusual degree of antagonism to the name of Christ and an unusual display of wickedness" in the company's promotions.[88]
After A&F raised its price points in 2004, its products have been described as overpriced.[81] After the company opened its flagship store in London, England and Paris, France, the brand was criticized in the United Kingdom and France because the merchandise that was offered to the customers cost double (or a direct $/£ - $/€ swap) compared to prices found in the U.S.[89]
A T-shirt controversy arose again over A&F's Back-to-School 2009 collection of "humor tees".[90] One shirt proclaims "Show the twins" above a picture of a young woman with her blouse open to two men. Two other shirts state "Female streaking encouraged" and "Female Students Wanted for Sexual Research".[90] The American Family Association disapproved of the influence of the "sex-as-recreation" lifestyle shirts, and asked the brand to remove its "sexualized shirts" from display.[90]"

You've come a long way, baby.

Tuesday, July 07, 2015

Carly for America

link

Dear Terry,

I have known Carly for over 25 years -- I am honored to have worked with Carly at AT&T, and then at Lucent Technologies when it began in 1995. As someone who worked for her, I always respected how she could at once put people at ease so that they felt heard and valued, but also be gently pushing the group toward a consensus on vital issues. Because of her ability to listen, build teams, work hard and make smart choices, Carly rose through the ranks easily. She was determined to do things and do them well. 

As someone that has worked for and known Carly for more than two decades I can tell you that she has unmatched intellect, integrity and leadership abilities. 

I've continued to watch Carly grow. I've watched her manage through flush times and lean times; her approach to solving problems never changed. Her natural ability to lead continuously impresses me: she surrounds herself with competent people, empowers them to find solutions and she works collaboratively with them in implementation. She never avoids the tough decisions and always takes responsibility for those she has made.

I believe it would be refreshing to have Carly lead our nation -- we have enormous problems facing us right now. The old, professional political class isn't working anymore. We need a leader with the skill to find solutions to problems, the courage to make tough decisions and the integrity not to blame someone else when things go wrong. I know from personal observation that Carly is that leader and am confident she will introduce Americans to a new era of leadership.

There is much about Carly’s career that people don’t know. Please visit FromSecretarytoCEO.com to learn more and please be sure to share it with your friends, colleagues and neighbors. 

Sincerely,
Bill Rohrbach



Friday, June 26, 2015

Devil in a Deep Blue Pantsuit

Hillary Clinton

link

Devil in a Deep Blue Pantsuit


Hillary Clinton’s run for the presidency is driven by a lust for power, a sense of entitlement, and enough conceit to fancy herself the best one for the job.  But none of these insures her success.  To drive Hillary’s engine of ambition back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will require both high maintenance and high-octane fuel.

To date, the Clinton campaign has been sputtering, even as her handlers insist it’s right on track.  Just to make sure, however, they reissued a “let’s do launch” invitation from their candidate to the American electorate.  Clinton showed up on Roosevelt Island, in the middle of New York City’s East River, wearing a signature blue pantsuit.  She clapped, waved, grinned, and pointed in supposed recognition to the small gathering of faithful.  Bill was there in a bright red polo, trying to look inconspicuously supportive.  Chelsea and hubby, Marc Mezvinsky, wore shades of white.  Together their little family looked essentially like the America flag.

If the choice of colors wasn’t calculated, the rhetoric certainly was.  Hillary’s long-awaited debut proved unenlightening but very telling.  Before then, she’d been in peripatetic listening mode, nodding her head at selective groups of those “average Americans” she hopes to lift from their misery.  With her newly acquired knowledge, it was time for Hillary to lay out a campaign blueprint that highlighted her views on the most pressing issues of our time.

If you anticipated fresh insights, fugettaboutit.  In their place was a predictable laundry list of hackneyed generalizations, the biggest of which is that Republican policies are bad and hers are good.  No middle ground between party lines was considered.  No hopeful concept of moving America forward as a united, determined people. Her message – impure and simple – was vintage Hillary, reminding us that the messenger is the same divisive figure who was dumped by worried Democrats in her last presidential run.

But this time around, Hillary isn’t sparring with another serious Democrat.  She’s fighting for her political life against a slew of Republicans, and she will come out swinging.  A lot of the swing will be swagger; nobody can be more shrill or more smarmy than Her Heinous.  She can gleefully tar the Republican field as a bunch of choirboys singing the same off-key tune, then turn around and pretend to be unfairly bullied by the lot of them.

Nothing would make Hillary happier than to see Carly Fiorina dropped from the GOP lineup…and the sooner, the better.  That would admirably serve Hillary’s a-gender, which it is predicated on a Republican war against women and the urgency of electing her the first female president of the United States.  Count on her playing the grandmother card at every whistle stop.

Polls show that Hillary is not considered particularly trustworthy.  But a candidate doesn’t have to be loved to be elected.  All she has to do is convince enough voters to dislike – and even fear – her opponent more than they do her. 

To this end, she frames her arguments in “us against them” terms.  This is a clever move, because it requires no plausibility and gets the most applause from a partisan crowd.  I remember Madeleine Albright telling an audience of Wellesley women that they needed to “push back” against Republicans.  It obviously never occurred to the former secretary of state that there might be Republicans like me in the reunion crowd.  Liberals are like that.  They cannot imagine anybody – especially females with a college degree – not holding to the same superior convictions.  Hillary is determined to lift to the executive level the puerile charge of Nancy Pelosi that if Republicans took control of the Senate, it would be the end of civilization as we know it.

We can expect to see this “good versus evil” thread running through the entire fabric of her campaign.  The choice she offers will be clear: either you rise with caring Democrats, or you suffer with selfish Republicans.  A liberal acquaintance of mine confided that some of the Republican contenders “frighten” her, particularly Scott Walker. 

Asked why, she said that he had not gone to college.  This is untrue, of course, but the main point is that liberals parade as egalitarians until snobbery suits them better.  And while it may now be acceptable, for example, to perceive race in other than black and white terms, and gender as something neither male or female, such latitude is not allowed in party politics.  For Democrats, the true sign of political correctness is to vote Democratic.

So once again Hillary Clinton finds herself foraging on the floor of the liberal forest primeval for the same old-growth wood by which to frame her political platform.  She’ll recycle the tired bundle of charges against her opponents, such as “trickle down” economics, the war on women, class warfare, white privilege, the threat of global warming, the villainy of voter I.D., the tragedy of the minimum wage, the weakness of present gun laws, and no boots on the ground.  While she is hesitant to associate herself with the policies of the Obama administration, Ms. Clinton excuses them as worthy attempts to recover from Bush’s legacy of the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression.  (By the way, those of us who were around in the ’30s find that comparison laughable.)

It’s commonplace for politicians to tell us what ails America.  The harder part is to propose a cure that is something more than a promise, a platitude, or a pipe dream.  The easiest gesture in politics is to point a finger at – or maybe even give the finger to – the other party.  Hillary excels in all of the above.  She is already promising to provide free college tuition to everyone in America, as if that would solve the educational crisis of K through 12.
Rahm Emanuel recognized that every crisis has the potential for political gain.  He may have felt like eating those words when his Chicago mayoral re-election was in jeopardy, but his advice is not lost on Hillary.  The more crises, real or imagined, the more she can cluck and harangue that something must be done and she is the woman to do it. 

She likes to warn that “we have come too far” to allow those nasty Republicans to turn back the clock.  And as Obama did in reference to the recent tragic murder of blacks in a Charleston church, Hillary is quick to inject politics into everything.  She wraps herself in a mantle of self-righteousness, admonishing that there is something “wrong” with a country when communities do not trust the cops that patrol them.  On Roosevelt Island she proclaimed that there was something wrongwhen the leading hedge fund operators make more than all the kindergarten teachers combined.

Who knows if the stats she spouts are even true?  And who in her camp even cares?  Hillary knows that her base is so passionately loaded for Wall Street bear, they aren’t particularly bothered by the inherent hypocrisy of a rich woman whose wealth has been considerably enhanced by Wall Street cronyism; whose son-in-law, standing on the stage behind her, is a Wall street trader and hedge fund founder; and whose own daughter started her post-college career in the same lucrative trade.  When pressed about the sizeable Clinton fortune, Hillary replied, “Bill and I feel truly blessed.”

Once a Republican standard-bearer is chosen, Hillary will likely ratchet up the fear rhetoric even further.  She understands that a defeat in 2016 would spell her political doom.  She would be a pariah in her own party, possibly ushering in a long Democrat power drought.  Requests for her and Bill to deliver high-priced speeches would dry up as well.  And the Clinton foundation would fall into deeper disarray.  So what’s a woman running for president of the United States to do?  Whatever it takes!

Hillary Clinton’s run for the presidency is driven by a lust for power, a sense of entitlement, and enough conceit to fancy herself the best one for the job.  But none of these insures her success.  To drive Hillary’s engine of ambition back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue will require both high maintenance and high-octane fuel.

To date, the Clinton campaign has been sputtering, even as her handlers insist it’s right on track.  Just to make sure, however, they reissued a “let’s do launch” invitation from their candidate to the American electorate.  Clinton showed up on Roosevelt Island, in the middle of New York City’s East River, wearing a signature blue pantsuit.  She clapped, waved, grinned, and pointed in supposed recognition to the small gathering of faithful.  Bill was there in a bright red polo, trying to look inconspicuously supportive.  Chelsea and hubby, Marc Mezvinsky, wore shades of white.  Together their little family looked essentially like the America flag.

If the choice of colors wasn’t calculated, the rhetoric certainly was.  Hillary’s long-awaited debut proved unenlightening but very telling.  Before then, she’d been in peripatetic listening mode, nodding her head at selective groups of those “average Americans” she hopes to lift from their misery.  With her newly acquired knowledge, it was time for Hillary to lay out a campaign blueprint that highlighted her views on the most pressing issues of our time.

If you anticipated fresh insights, fugettaboutit.  In their place was a predictable laundry list of hackneyed generalizations, the biggest of which is that Republican policies are bad and hers are good.  No middle ground between party lines was considered.  No hopeful concept of moving America forward as a united, determined people. Her message – impure and simple – was vintage Hillary, reminding us that the messenger is the same divisive figure who was dumped by worried Democrats in her last presidential run.

But this time around, Hillary isn’t sparring with another serious Democrat.  She’s fighting for her political life against a slew of Republicans, and she will come out swinging.  A lot of the swing will be swagger; nobody can be more shrill or more smarmy than Her Heinous.  She can gleefully tar the Republican field as a bunch of choirboys singing the same off-key tune, then turn around and pretend to be unfairly bullied by the lot of them.

Nothing would make Hillary happier than to see Carly Fiorina dropped from the GOP lineup…and the sooner, the better.  That would admirably serve Hillary’s a-gender, which it is predicated on a Republican war against women and the urgency of electing her the first female president of the United States.  Count on her playing the grandmother card at every whistle stop.

Polls show that Hillary is not considered particularly trustworthy.  But a candidate doesn’t have to be loved to be elected.  All she has to do is convince enough voters to dislike – and even fear – her opponent more than they do her.  To this end, she frames her arguments in “us against them” terms.  This is a clever move, because it requires no plausibility and gets the most applause from a partisan crowd.  I remember Madeleine Albright telling an audience of Wellesley women that they needed to “push back” against Republicans.  It obviously never occurred to the former secretary of state that there might be Republicans like me in the reunion crowd.  Liberals are like that.  They cannot imagine anybody – especially females with a college degree – not holding to the same superior convictions.  Hillary is determined to lift to the executive level the puerile charge of Nancy Pelosi that if Republicans took control of the Senate, it would be the end of civilization as we know it.

We can expect to see this “good versus evil” thread running through the entire fabric of her campaign.  The choice she offers will be clear: either you rise with caring Democrats, or you suffer with selfish Republicans.  A liberal acquaintance of mine confided that some of the Republican contenders “frighten” her, particularly Scott Walker. 

Asked why, she said that he had not gone to college.  This is untrue, of course, but the main point is that liberals parade as egalitarians until snobbery suits them better.  And while it may now be acceptable, for example, to perceive race in other than black and white terms, and gender as something neither male or female, such latitude is not allowed in party politics.  For Democrats, the true sign of political correctness is to vote Democratic.

So once again Hillary Clinton finds herself foraging on the floor of the liberal forest primeval for the same old-growth wood by which to frame her political platform.  She’ll recycle the tired bundle of charges against her opponents, such as “trickle down” economics, the war on women, class warfare, white privilege, the threat of global warming, the villainy of voter I.D., the tragedy of the minimum wage, the weakness of present gun laws, and no boots on the ground.  While she is hesitant to associate herself with the policies of the Obama administration, Ms. Clinton excuses them as worthy attempts to recover from Bush’s legacy of the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression.  (By the way, those of us who were around in the ’30s find that comparison laughable.)

It’s commonplace for politicians to tell us what ails America.  The harder part is to propose a cure that is something more than a promise, a platitude, or a pipe dream.  The easiest gesture in politics is to point a finger at – or maybe even give the finger to – the other party.  Hillary excels in all of the above.  She is already promising to provide free college tuition to everyone in America, as if that would solve the educational crisis of K through 12.

Rahm Emanuel recognized that every crisis has the potential for political gain.  He may have felt like eating those words when his Chicago mayoral re-election was in jeopardy, but his advice is not lost on Hillary.  The more crises, real or imagined, the more she can cluck and harangue that something must be done and she is the woman to do it. 

She likes to warn that “we have come too far” to allow those nasty Republicans to turn back the clock.  And as Obama did in reference to the recent tragic murder of blacks in a Charleston church, Hillary is quick to inject politics into everything.  She wraps herself in a mantle of self-righteousness, admonishing that there is something “wrong” with a country when communities do not trust the cops that patrol them.  On Roosevelt Island she proclaimed that there was something wrong when the leading hedge fund operators make more than all the kindergarten teachers combined.

Who knows if the stats she spouts are even true?  And who in her camp even cares?  Hillary knows that her base is so passionately loaded for Wall Street bear, they aren’t particularly bothered by the inherent hypocrisy of a rich woman whose wealth has been considerably enhanced by Wall Street cronyism; whose son-in-law, standing on the stage behind her, is a Wall street trader and hedge fund founder; and whose own daughter started her post-college career in the same lucrative trade.  When pressed about the sizeable Clinton fortune, Hillary replied, “Bill and I feel truly blessed.”

Once a Republican standard-bearer is chosen, Hillary will likely ratchet up the fear rhetoric even further.  She understands that a defeat in 2016 would spell her political doom.  She would be a pariah in her own party, possibly ushering in a long Democrat power drought.  Requests for her and Bill to deliver high-priced speeches would dry up as well.  And the Clinton foundation would fall into deeper disarray.  So what’s a woman running for president of the United States to do?  Whatever it takes!

Read more: 

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/06/devil_in_a_deep_blue_pantsuit.html#ixzz3e8ulMLyD
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook