Did Foreign Governments Buy Influence With Hillary? + More – Daily Digest

Posted on Fri 03/20/2015 by


The Patriot Post ~


“The mobs of the great cities add just so much to the support of pure government as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.” –Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, Query XIX, 1782


Did Foreign Governments Buy Influence With Hillary?

Hillary Clinton may be too mired in international connections to be an unbiased president – or hold any other public office for that matter. While the Clintons couldn’t accept donations from foreign governments to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was secretary of state, it didn’t stop politicians in high positions in the Ukrainian, Chinese and Saudi Arabian governments from giving millions. The Wall Street Journal reports, “All told, more than a dozen foreign individuals and their foundations and companies were large donors to the Clinton Foundation in the years after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state in 2009, collectively giving between $34 million and $68 million, foundation records show. Some donors also provided funding directly to charitable projects sponsored by the foundation, valued by the organization at $60 million.” While every donor WSJ spoke with claimed they were only giving to a charity they believed in, they also had the potential to buy Clinton’s attention. The Clintons certainly know how to play this shadowy political game, as Hillary just happened to stall on disclosing the donors to her charity.

U.S. Negotiations Give Iran Just Enough to Make the Bomb

Because of U.S. negotiations, Iran will reduce the number of its centrifuges whirling up useable radioactive material to 6,000 machines, according to the Associated Press. In turn, the U.S. would agree to ease sanctions. This is a bum deal for Secretary of State John Kerry if he wants to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. In February, former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell said a safer negotiation route would have been to not focus on the number of centrifuges Iran possesses. “If you are going to have a nuclear weapons program, 5,000 is pretty much the number you need,” Morell said. “If you have a power program, you need a lot more. By limiting them to a small number of centrifuges, we are limiting them to the number you need for a weapon.” In other words, Kerry and Co. just stymied the ability for Iran to fuel its nuclear energy program, but left it just enough hardware to mix up a nuclear bomb. Let’s hope all the details of this deal are not yet disclosed. Did Iran open itself up to monitoring and scrutiny? Or are they given a bunch of tools for nuclear enrichment and some space? The Associated Press continued, reporting that the vast majority of lawmakers in the House sent a letter to Barack Obama saying they will decide if the U.S. will ease sanctions against Iran. It’s a good check on Obama’s power. More…

Islamic State Hits Tunisia

The Islamic State claimed credit Thursday for an attack on a Tunisian museum leaving 23 dead. The Associated Press reports, “Tunisian security forces … arrested nine people, the president’s office said, adding that five of them were directly connected to Wednesday’s attack on the Bardo by two gunmen who were later slain by police. The other four suspects who were arrested in central Tunisia were part of a cell supporting those involved in the attack, the statement said.” A significant number of Tunisians have joined ISIL, and Tunisian president Beji Caid Essebsi promised a “merciless war on terrorism,” as well as that the they would fight “savage minorities … to our last breath.” The North African nation has already been dealing with radical Islamists for some time, rejecting an Islamist government that arose early in the so-called “Arab Spring.” To make matters worse, it is bordered to the east and south by Libya, which descended into chaos following Barack Obama’s “leading from behind” strategy to oust Moammar Gadhafi. Tunisian officials say the attacking jihadis trained in Libya. It won’t be easy for Tunisia to resist the growing unrest in the region.

Twenty Blacks Victimized in Shootings

You’ve probably heard about the 20 black victims in numerous shootings between Sunday afternoon and Monday morning. The violence helped propagate the “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative and further riled Barack Obama, Eric Holder and their co-conspirators in the Leftmedia, all of whom raised alarm over the recent deaths of blacks involving white police officers. Well, the first part is true anyway – though you’d be forgiven for having no idea what we’re talking about. The shootings, all of which took place during a 24-hour period, bloodied the streets of Chicago but were largely absent from the headlines. Obama hasn’t said a word about these deaths, probably because it was black-on-black crime, which doesn’t translate into political constituency race-bait like a good cop killing a street thug does. Here’s what we know about Chicago murder rates from the latest year of data: The black murder rate was approximately 34 per 100,000, the Hispanic rate was 11 per 100,000, and the white rate 3 per 100,000. Translation: This isn’t a “gun problem”; it’s a young black male problem. And it’s a cultural epidemic the mainstream media largely ignores. Of course, if this recent black-on-black bloodletting had instead been white-on-black crime, Al Sharpton and Co. would be there faster than you can say “Racist!” More…

ESPN Host: Blacks Should Vote Republican

ESPN host Stephen A. Smith is known for making controversial statements. When Smith visited Vanderbilt University Tuesday, he once again made headlines by saying blacks should vote Republican because they misunderstand history. “What I dream is that for one election, just one, every black person in America vote Republican,” Smith said. “Because from what I’ve read, and I’m open to correction, but from what I’ve read, Barry Goldwater is going against Lyndon B. Johnson. He’s your Republican candidate. He is completely against the civil rights movement. Lyndon B. Johnson was in favor of it. What happens is, he wins office, Barry Goldwater loses office, but there was a Senate, a Republican Senate, that pushed the votes to the president’s desk. It was the Democrats who were against civil rights legislation. So because President Lyndon B. Johnson was a Democrat, black America assumed the Democrats were for it.” Instead, Johnson instituted the “Great Society,” which only mired blacks in decades of poverty and violence. If blacks were more open to voting for the GOP, they would not only inject more competition into the political process, they might find their situation improved. More…

For more, visit Right Hooks.


Aftermath of the Israeli Election

Now that liberals’ hopes for a leftward turn in Israel have been dashed thanks to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s unexpected (and resounding) election victory, the question becomes just how an angry and chastened Barack Obama will react. Our Sore Loser in Chief waited until yesterday to congratulate the Israeli PM on his historic fourth term. We already know Obama supported the opposition led by Isaac Herzog and his Zionist Union Party, but now he will have to attempt to strike an Iranian deal with opposition both at home and with America’s long-standing Middle Eastern ally.

One initial reaction from the Obama administration dealt with the tactics used in the Likud Party’s victorious campaign. “[T]here has been a lot of coverage in the media about some of the rhetoric that emerged … that was propagated by the Likud Party to encourage turnout of their supporters that sought to, frankly, marginalize Arab-Israeli citizens,” a scandalized White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest complained. “The United States and this administration is deeply concerned by divisive rhetoric that seeks to marginalize Arab-Israeli citizens.” In other words, Netanyahu’s win was RACIST!!!

Obama has a hammer, so every problem looks like a nail.

Perhaps the worst “sin” committed by Netanyahu in the closing days of his campaign, though, was his inaccurately reported abandonment of the two-state strategy favored by the United States and other allies. What he actually said was that a two-state solution almost certainly not going to happen in the foreseeable future because conditions don’t merit it. “I’m talking about what is achievable and what is not achievable,” Netanyahu clarified Thursday. After all, it’s not the Israelis who reject peace.

Nevertheless, one White House official wistfully noted, “This screws up the peace process.” The official argued Netanyahu’s win would embolden the prime minister to establish more Jewish settlements in an effort to undermine the possibility of a Palestinian state.

Several experts in American-Israeli relations believe this disagreement between the two nations over the Palestinian issue may manifest itself at the United Nations, where the United States has often shielded our ally against the excesses of anti-Semitic rhetoric and resolutions. One senior White House official noted, “We are signaling that if the Israeli government’s position is no longer to pursue a Palestinian state, we’re going to have to broaden the spectrum of options we pursue going forward.”

These options could include the United States finally allowing the passage of resolutions condemning Israel’s settlements on areas considered Palestinian territory or calling for Israel’s blanket withdrawal from the West Bank. Another direction for the Obama administration would be to drop its opposition to plans for the Palestinian Authority to formally join the International Criminal Court in April.

In any case, the Netanyahu victory may allow for a more international route toward a two-state solution for the Palestinian conflict, meaning the United States may back Middle East peace plans imposed on Israel by the United Nations.

But there are others who want to rein in the Israelis as well, and they may use Netanyahu’s victory to justify their intentions. Last month, the European Union was reportedly considering new sanctions against Israel to spur them to action on Palestinian issues. “The assumption in Europe is that after the election Israel will have a rightist government, in which case it would be easier for them to advance these measures,” said one Israeli official. Sanctions would be targeted at European companies that work in settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, not necessarily at Israel.

The idea of additional settlements has also drawn the ire of the Obama administration. Earnest remarked last November that such a move – to build 2,500 new homes in East Jerusalem – would “distance Israel from even its closest allies.”

In terms of the relationship between the United States and Israel, March has been a tumultuous month. It began with Netanyahu’s stirring address to a joint session of Congress and continued with his surprising electoral victory on Tuesday.

Yet for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the supposed demise of the two-state solution, the larger difference between the U.S. and Israel remains the latter’s staunch opposition to Obama’s looming nuclear deal with Iran. Clearly, Obama was hoping to have a prominent obstacle out of the way, particularly as Netanyahu’s visit served to steel the spine of 47 Senate Republicans whose open letter to Iran reminded both the mullahs and the Obama administration of the Senate’s constitutional role in major agreements with other nations.

In his address to Congress, Netanyahu vowed Israel would act alone to defend itself if it had to. With his re-election, it appears even more likely that over the next two years our petulant president will do his part to make sure our longtime ally is more isolated than ever.

Christie Has Some Marketing to Do

When Chris Christie won election as governor of New Jersey in 2009, his swift upward trajectory to national leadership seemed inevitable. After all, here was a Republican who had won in a solidly blue state, had brought an unprecedented – and many considered refreshing – dose of bluntness to the governor’s mansion, and was ready to take on New Jersey’s powerful teachers unions. Here was leadership that Republicans not only in the Garden State but nationwide could rally behind.

How much has changed.

With the 2016 presidential field already taking shape, Christie, once a steady name among political prognosticators, seems to be losing supporters in less time than it takes to back up traffic on the George Washington Bridge.

His national endearment among many conservatives seemed solidified early on in his governorship, when he proposed that public workers in the state pay more toward their benefits as part of a plan to save New Jersey’s perpetually underfunded pension system – a bold move for Jersey’s political climate. That same year, he signed a bill capping annual property tax increases at 2% – a huge feat in the state that consistently ranks among the worst in the nation for property tax burdens. Here was a fiscal conservative succeeding in a blue state.

Despite the fanfare, however, five years after taking office, Christie has yet to deliver many concrete changes in the Garden State. New Jersey ranks last in the Tax Foundation’s business tax climate index, causing businesses to set up shop elsewhere; the state’s unemployment has been the worst among its neighboring states; the pension system remains in dire straits; and, according to New Jersey’s Asbury Park Press, property taxes increased at their fastest rate in 2014 notwithstanding the 2% cap.

Additionally, while national accolades flowed, back home Christie began to develop a reputation as a bully whose heated arguments with voters at town hall meetings soon became legendary. On the eve of the 2012 presidential election, his sudden “bromance” with Barack Obama was an unforgivable sin to many conservatives. And in 2013, he put a dent in his support among the state’s conservatives for backing out of defending traditional marriage, removing the final barrier against same-sex marriage in the state.

Then there was Bridgegate, in which members of Christie’s staff allegedly ordered lane closures on the heavily traveled George Washington Bridge, which connects Fort Lee to upper Manhattan, in political retribution against the mayor of Fort Lee for not endorsing Christie’s re-election. Although direct ties to Christie never emerged, many familiar with how Christie runs his shop find it hard to believe the governor had no knowledge. Indeed, the Christie inner circle has become legendary not only for its impenetrability but also for its strikingly shrinking size – a fact that doesn’t bode well for a potential presidential run.

Last month, for example, PolitickerNJ.com, the state’s go-to political news site, reported that 90% of the governor’s top staffers have left (or been fired), including his chief of staff and spokesman. Additionally, one of his longtime friends and key allies in the New Jersey state senate, Joe Kyrillos, is reportedly flirting with the idea of supporting Jeb Bush for the White House.

Yet, despite it all, Christie is plowing ahead, assembling staffers and launching a PAC – Leadership Matters for America – in preparation for a 2016 run. Longtime Christie advisor Mike DuHaime claims that if Christie decides to run he will win. But not everyone is convinced. According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey released earlier this month, 57% of Republican primary voters said they couldn’t see themselves voting for Christie; only 32% could.

While in the political world a lifetime remains between now and the primary elections, it may take that long for Christie to convince primary voters his leadership style is not only what America needs, but also one it can live with.

For more, visit Right Analysis.


For more, visit Right Opinion.


American playwright Epes Sargent (1813–1880): “Republics, like individuals, who are benefited by personal sacrifices, are proverbially ungrateful.”

Columnist Jonah Goldberg: “Working at Starbucks makes you no more qualified to be a discussion leader about race than working at Jiffy Lube makes you well-suited to discuss radical Islam. And while it’s all too easy to mock the entire enterprise, what really bothers me is the underlying assumption. Most Americans lament the political polarization of our country. … One of the reasons it has become such a problem is that we mistake causes for remedies. … Among my problems with this relentless hectoring about the need for conversations or ‘honest dialogue’ or ‘frank talk’ is the way in which those calling for such things never actually want a real conversation. They want to speechify and indoctrinate. … But my biggest problem with it is that I think the last thing this country needs is to make more spaces political. If you want to know why things are so polarized, you could start by noting how much more politicized everything is. When politics invades our homes, schools, workplaces, movies, TV shows, video games, sports and every other part of our culture, is it any wonder that our culture becomes politicized? And when culture is politicized, is it so shocking that politics becomes polarized?”

Columnist David Harsanyi: “Some liberal pundits have suggested that Obama’s [idea of a comprehensive climate] deal might force Republican candidates to take unpopular positions on climate change in the 2016 cycle. It might. But Republicans have a far more powerful case to make about the Democrats’ disregard for the norms of American lawmaking. It’s too bad that the GOP has done so little to stop him. We live in a political environment where progressive goals are treated as moral endeavors and Constitutional constraints are treated as procedural inconveniences that can be bypassed for the good of the nation – nay, the world. No president has been as openly contemptuous of checks and balances as this one. If there are no repercussions, he might only be the first in a long line of presidents we say that about.”

Fred Thompson: “Valerie Jarrett commented on her longevity as presidential adviser, saying she’ll be at the White House ‘until the lights go off.’ And with all these new EPA regs on coal plants, that may be sooner than she thinks.”

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform – Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen – standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.

Read more excellent articles at The Patriot Post