Tag Archives: rush limbaugh

Real progress now evident on resolving the greatest political scandal in American history, the Russia election meddling hoax perpetrated in the 2016 national election

“Russia Hoax will be fully aired and miscreants brought to justice”

 

Following the disclosure that U.S. attorney John Durham has been tasked with investigating and prosecuting potential crimes in the origin of the Russia Hoax, we learned some very encouraging facts that suggest that the Russia Hoax will be fully aired and miscreants brought to justice.  Like Howie Carr, who had a front-row seat when John Durham went after corruption in the FBI Boston office, I am “cautiously optimistic” (Howie’s term) that Durham and his boss A.G. Barr want to get to the bottom of the hoax and put those who may have committed crimes in prison.

In Boston, Durham faced a gigantic scandal that was very damaging to the FBI and did not blink.  He got John Connelly, Whitey Bulger’s protector, sentenced to 40 years in prison.  This does not sound like a prosecutor who can be persuaded to lay off getting to the truth in order to protect the reputations of important people and institutions.

But we must concede that there are plenty of reasons to worry that that the biggest political scandal in American history — the political weaponization of both the federal intelligence and law enforcement communities to spy on political opponents of the sitting president and remove a duly elected president from office — will be swept under the rug.  Even a sober-minded man of integrity like William Barr might be persuaded that the harm to public trust in our system would be too profound and that our allies and foes overseas might see us as so weakened that they would take actions inimical to our interests.

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh provided a fascinating insight into the level of distrust the conservative base has in the ability of our institutions and their leaders to right themselves.  After reviewing what Durham could accomplish, he came back after a commercial break and said:

Holy cow. Some of you people are on fire out there today. I checked the email during the break, and I got a bunch of people sending me notes. “I don’t care about this guy’s resume. I’m fed up with hearing about people’s resume!” They’re talking about the guy that Barr has appointed. “I’m gonna wait see results. I don’t care what this guy’s done. You know, that’s all we get. We get resumes, we get past history, we get performance, we get our hopes raised, we get our expectations raised, and then nothing ever happens.”So you can stuff this guy’s resume, Mr. Limbaugh, as far as I’m concerned. I’m waiting to see if anybody delivers on this.” I understand the sentiment, folks. I understand the sentiment. I can count as easily as you can the number of times over whatever length of time in the past you want, 30 years, 10 years, 15, five, it doesn’t matter. The number of times we’ve been led to believe that heads are gonna roll, things are gonna happen, the bad guys are gonna get caught. I mean, for two years we’ve heard, “Breaking news! Breaking news! “The bottom’s gonna fall out tomorrow,” and it never does. “Breaking news! Breaking news! Heads are gonna roll tomorrow,” and they never do. “Breaking news! Breaking news! Full operation exposed, details tomorrow morning,” whatever. Never happens. I understand that.

Keeping in mind the need to understand how fiercely the permanent bureaucracy and globalist faction in both parties want to frustrate President Trump’s agenda, and how damaging a thorough housecleaning would be for them, let’s review the reasons to hope that there will be a serious follow-through by Barr, Durham, and John Huber (the U.S. attorney for Utah who was tasked by A.G. Sessions with investigating the Clinton Foundation and surveillance abuses), especially after the I.G. Horowitz report is released, as is expected within the next 2 or 3 weeks.

Eric Felten noticed something already on the public record last October: that Durham already was investigating leaks to the media from the FBI.  This means that at least seven months before his role was revealed, and months before William Barr took office, Durham was on the case.  The revelation came not from a leak, but from testimony by James A. Baker, the FBI’s general counsel under James Comey.

The testimony is excerpted by Felten in RealClearInvestigations.   Jim Jordan of Ohio was quizzing Baker:

“So did you talk to Mr. Corn about anything that the FBI was working on,” Jordan asked, “specifically the now infamous Steele dossier?”

Suddenly, Baker’s lawyer, Dan Levin, jumped in: “One second,” he said before he and his client had a conversation off the record.

When the microphones were back on, Levin declared he would “not let [Baker] answer these questions right now. You may or may not know, he’s been the subject of a leak investigation which is still — a criminal leak investigation that’s still active at the Justice Department.” And so Levin concluded, “I’m sorry. I’m cutting off any discussion about conversations with reporters.”

North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows wanted to make clear what Baker’s lawyer was claiming: “You’re saying he’s under criminal investigation? That’s why you’re not letting him answer?”

“Yes.”

Levin and the lawmakers sparred a bit over whether Baker was invoking his Fifth Amendment rights, and the congressmen finally got around to asking who was leading this criminal probe:

“There is an ongoing investigation by whom?” Jordan said.

“The Justice Department,” Levin responded.

“I mean, is the inspector general looking at this or is this—”

“No,” said Levin, “it’s Mr. John Durham, a prosecutor.”

The specter of Durham haunts the rest of the interview. Baker can’t talk about what he told his old friend David Corn in their conversations about the dossier because it would put Baker in legal jeopardy.

The fact that this was kept secret so long, even in the face of this admission slipping  out and remaining unnoticed, suggests that the Durham investigation — and maybe Huber’s too — is doing exactly what effective prosecutors do: keeping grand jury proceedings secret, applying pressure to witnesses to sing, maybe offering deals for lighter prosecution and sentence recommendations if they implicate higher-ups, and going for convictions by trial juries, not in the court of public opinion.

The very same James A. Baker, interestingly enough, is anticipating release of the Horowitz report, and conceding that the IG will find “mistakes.”

Baker, who admitted last week the inspector general makes him “nervous,” said the government watchdog will probably find some errors.

“The inspector general is looking at everything we did,” Baker said on CNN. “If the IG usually finds mistakes that we made, so I expect him to find mistakes this time.”

Baker said last week at an event in Washington, D.C., that he took a leading role in overseeing the FISA warrant applications to obtain the authority to spy on Page. Baker said on Monday he does not believe there was any intent from the people he worked with to do “anything wrong or illegal,” including politically motivated spying.

A second serious implication of all of this is that when Barr was recruited to become AG for the second time, he knew that Durham already was at work on busting open at a minimum the collusion between FBI senior officials and media figures to perpetrate the Russia hoax on the public and lead to the appointment of a special counsel via the resulting public pressure.

I have long believed that the only reason a man like Barr, who was earning millions of dollars a year as a DC lawyer at the very top of his profession, could be lured back into the snake pit of DC politics under Trump would be his devotion to the integrity of our legal/judicial system.  If he were a cynic just interested in preserving the establishment that let him succeed so mightily, why not just stay where he was? He had to know that taking on the task of rescuing the system from its abusers would lead to the sort of vilification he now is enduring.

I think that the same logic can be applied to another revelation we learned yesterday: that Durham has enlisted the CIA‘s head Gina Haspell to aid in his probe. Is this a danger sign or an indication that someone highly knowledgeable is on the case?

My friend Mike Nadler observes in an email: “As a career bureaucrat, Haspell seems to love her agency and may not tolerate its misuse for partisan political purposes.” I would add to that historically the CIA was very much a boys’ club. Haspell’s reputation was as a devoted career official, who no doubt endured a lot as a woman coming up the ranks. She may not be part of the club, but rather a harbinger of a new order at the CIA.

However, it must be considered that she could be implicated, in which case she could be obfuscating and trying to torpedo the investigation (which seems unlikely if Barr and Durham are as serious as I suspect they are) or alternatively that she is spilling what she knows. Sundance asks:

Who was the CIA Deputy Director of the National Clandestine Service for Foreign Intelligence and Covert Action over Europe, while John Brennan and Peter Strzok were running their European 2016 counterintelligence operations?….

And Sundance says that it was Haspell. So she probably knows a lot.

 

[From an article by Thomas Lifson, published by AMERICAN THINKER]

 

…………………………………………………………….

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

“Democrats have done more to damage US electoral process than Putin ever thought about doing”

Rush Limbaugh comments:

Democrats have done more to damage the integrity of the American electoral process than Vladimir Putin could in his dreams! With what these people have done for the last year and a half — basically get people thinking the election was stolen, that it was illegitimate, that the Russians didn’t want Hillary and wanted Trump and made it happen — look at what they have done to the image, the reputation of the American electoral system and process.

"People should go to prison" for trying to destroy the US election process.

These people are doing the damage to it, and they continue to do it, because they can’t show any evidence whatsoever the Russians succeeded in determining the outcome of a presidential race. And we’ve got multiple sound bites from Obama himself admitting that it would be impossible to do. Our election, presidential election system is way too complex. You couldn’t know enough in advance of where you would have to start playing games to pull anything off because the Electoral College, precincts, voter turnout. You just… It couldn’t be done. If it could, the Democrats would never lose.

If they had found a way, if they had found a way to tamper with presidential elections, do you think they would ever lose one? No. But they do. They haven’t found any evidence that the Russians succeeded, and yet they continue to talk about it and validate the idea that spies are worthwhile. These people need to be held accountable for this.

The 2016 election was the most egregious encroachment into the political process that has ever been recorded and makes Watergate look like spitball contest. People need to go to prison.

 

[From an article published by Steadfast and Loyal]

 

……………………………………………………

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

“The Constitution as we Americans know it is what is truly on the ballot in the 2016 presidential election”

Despite the clear victory that billionaire businessman Donald Trump scored in the Republican primary, earning the title “presumptive GOP presidential nominee,” he still faces staunch opposition from some on his side of the aisle.

In fact, after nearly disappearing following their crushing defeat in Indiana, the NeverTrump movement has seemed to enjoy a resurgence in recent weeks, rekindling speculation regarding efforts to “dump Trump” at the GOP convention in July.

But conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh just issued a reminder to those planning to sabotage the presumptive GOP nominee, letting them know that there are bigger things to worry about than keeping Trump out of office.

“The Constitution, as you know it and I know it, is now what’s on the ballot in this presidential election in 2016,” Limbaugh posted to his Facebook page. “And of course the answer to this is not ‘Never Trump.’ The answer to this is ‘Never Hillary.’ The answer to this is ‘Never Tyranny,’” he added.

As usual, Rush was correct in his observation. The potential unconstitutional nightmare that would inevitably arise from a Hillary Clinton presidency should send a chill down the spine of anyone who loves this country and reveres the founding documents that serve as a foundation for our society.

Is Donald Trump the perfect candidate? Not remotely. Is he at times crass, rude, unrefined and unknowledgeable on certain issues? Yes, he is.

Is he nonetheless light years ahead of Clinton when it comes to recognizing the issues our nation faces and proposing solutions to change our destructive course? Most certainly, and that should be the main thing that NeverTrumpers are reminded of constantly.

Donald Trump may have his flaws, but he remains a much better choice than the only other person with even a remote chance of winning November’s general election, Hillary Clinton — no ifs, ands or buts about it.

Voting for Trump in this election is the only way to prevent a tyrannical Hillary Clinton from assuming office and doing her worst.

 

[Published by CONSERVATIVE TRIBUNE]

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  Have you enjoyed having an Oval Office Occupant for the last eight years who is not remotely qualified to hold the job, who has lied to the citizens of this formerly great country virtually every time he opened his mouth to speak, and who has demonstrated time and time again that he sought the highest office in the land only to enrich himself and never because he cared about making this a better country to live in?  Do you like having an OOO who is the laughing stock both of our allies and our enemies? Obama does not know how the political game is played, which means he has been forced to go through on-the-job training…and you have seen lots and lots of examples of how well that has worked out. The man has been humiliated virtually since his first day in office because he was so poorly prepared for the job…and the USA has been humiliated because this country elected him. Twice. We have said this before, and we must now say it again: If the US elects Hillary Clinton to the position of our next OOO…the wife of the last OOO who was impeached, a woman who has proven to possess fewer ethics and scruples than her husband, and someone who is even more determined to enrich herself while in office than Bill Clinton was…then we, the citizens of this formerly great country, will all have front row seats to the demise of the USA. If you think that could not possibly happen, you are living in a dream world.  At the very least, vote for a candidate who is too well off to be bought.  Hillary Clinton is not, and can be bought by anybody.  How do we know that?  Because she knew she was breaking the law when she set up her home-based email server, but she did it anyway.  Because we have watched her lie, and lie, and lie some more…about the email scandal, about the Benghazi scandal, about the scandals that took place back in Arkansas, about the scandals that followed her to Washington.  Hillary has had years to perfect her lying skills, all while watching her husband take mistresses by the dozens…and rather than do what most other women would do, which is to object to being made a fool, she has simply gritted her teeth and enabled Bill so she could use him and many, many others in order to climb over them to the Oval Office.  If Hillary has her way, she will be the first elected woman to our highest office, and she will also be our first truly tyrannical Oval Office Occupant.  She and Obama are completely alike in one important aspect: They do not care at all about us Americans, they care ONLY about themselves.

 

………………………………………

 

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The same people who said “sign up or pay a fine” when they brought you their wonderful Obamacare program are now insisting they should control your Internet, too…

If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet. Sounds uncomfortably familiar…

FCC Chairman Wheeler would only release a four-page summary of the plan. Under the guise of something dubiously called “net neutrality,” Barack Obama’s FCC is promising to use its heavy hand to “regulate” the Internet so that its use is “fair.”

We’re being told not to worry… nothing in the secret 332-page plan should be a cause for alarm and if you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet.

Fortunately, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai has actually seen the 332-page edict and we’ll let his warning speak for itself:

First, President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American people, decide the future of the online world.

       Second, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will increase consumers’ monthly broadband bills. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. Indeed, states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money.

       Third, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will mean slower broadband for American consumers. The plan contains a host of new regulations that will reduce investment in broadband networks. That means slower Internet speeds.

       Fourth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will hurt competition and innovation and move us toward a broadband monopoly. The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated monopoly is what we’ll get. We shouldn’t bring Ma Bell back to life in this dynamic, digital age.

       Fifth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab. Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation. There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.

And sixth, the American people are being misled about what is in Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s massive intrusion into the Internet economy.

You read that right. New taxes… less choice… slower Internet speeds…and that’s just for starters.  Obama’s entire philosophy about government — because that’s all he’s ever done, is work at a government job — is very simple. In a nutshell, it’s this: “Government always knows best…and when I’m in charge of the government, I always know best.”

Socialism For The Internet

That’s what Seton Motley, the president of Less Government and an expert on the subject, calls it.  Motley adds: “It’s an assault on the industry to effect an ideological outcome” so “the government will be able to pick winners and losers.”

       Washington Times columnist and syndicated radio talk show host Tammy Bruce goes a step further and claims: “The Internet must be killed because it dares to keep turning on the light in a room that the left wants to remain dark.”   Bruce goes on: “This would be done to make the Internet more ‘fair,’ of course. But the truth of the matter is it’s an excuse to essentially nationalize the Internet. The moment that’s accepted, all bets are off….”

       Senator John Thune says: “It is a power grab for the federal government by the chairman of a supposedly independent agency who finally succumbed to the bullying tactics of political activists and the president.”

       But radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh may have said it best: “[D]o you want the people who gave you Obamacare running your Internet service? Do you want them in charge of what you can get and when you can get it and how much it’s gonna cost you?”

[from PATRIOT UPDATE]

 

NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  If you use the Internet, you already know how expensive it can be NOW.  The same liar who told you that his new healthcare plan was going to “save the average family $2500 a year” wants you to believe he has your best interests at heart as he takes over the Internet.  Once the US government controls the Internet, do you think it will possibly get cheaper? And better? And faster? Not a chance! As painful as it is to say, the US government does not know how to get out of its own way, even when it’s NOT lying!  So far, everything Obama has touched has gotten worse.  Huge budget deficits. The military situation in the Middle East. Astronomical increases to federal debt…which American citizens are legally responsible for paying. A healthcare program that individuals and businesses all hate because it takes away everyone’s ability to choose, and it costs lots more, not less. Obamacare was presented — sold — with malice and with lies.  Deliberate lies. We were just too stupid to be told the truth, remember? And you think that same White House is going to tell you the truth now about its plan to control the Internet? You don’t think there is probably a very good reason that Obama and his FCC have not released the text of his takeover plan?  Obamacare was all about controlling US citizens by controlling their health care options.  The Internet takeover plan is just more of the same.

 

………………………………………

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

We the people still know how to think, Mr. President…

There’s an adage that if it has a flat bill, feathers, webbed feet and it quacks, it’s a duck – regardless of what color it is. This is something that Obama would do well to remember. But he conveniently chooses to overlook that fact. Either that or he wants to believe we will.

In his interview with the New Yorker magazine, he blamed his falling poll numbers on white people who dislike him because he is black. I would expect such puerile, indefensible utterances from Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton, but not from the president. Especially since white people voted him into office. But he’s not interested in letting facts get in the way of his state of denial.

Mychal Massie

Mychal Massie

His latest sulking attack was directed at Rush Limbaugh and Fox News when he blamed what he views as Washington’s gridlock on his failure to convince Americans that he is “not the caricature that you see on Fox News or [hear from] Rush Limbaugh,” as noted by Kathy Shaidle at WND.com. (“Obama blames Limbaugh for ‘caricature’ status,” Jan. 23, 2014)

Obama continued his pathetic lament, “The issue has been the inability of my message to penetrate the Republican base so that they feel persuaded that I’m not the caricature that you see on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh, but I’m somebody who is interested in solving problems and is pretty practical, and that, actually, a lot of the things that we’ve put in place worked better than people might think.”

To which I respond, “The problem is, sir, people are thinking and they’re paying attention. They don’t want what you are peddling.” And let me also point out that his lament is a thinly veiled attempt to have black people say, “Obama is trying, but the evil ‘white’ Republicans won’t let him get things done.”

This lament by Obama is incomprehensible because he is purposefully denying that people are thinking. People are thinking about the epic and repeated lies he told about Obamacare. People remember him telling us if we liked our current health plans we could keep them. People are thinking about him telling us if we liked our doctors we could keep them. People are thinking about him telling us Obamacare would reduce our health premiums. People are thinking about his illegal gun-running operation that resulted in the murder of Border Agent Brian Terry, ICE Agent Jaime Zapata and hundreds of innocent Mexicans.

People are thinking about his using executive orders to bypass Congress and force through onerous legislation. People are thinking about him lying about the Supreme Court during his State of the Union message. People are thinking about him berating congressmen during his speeches. People are thinking about him telling a person who complained about his policies driving up fuel prices to “buy a car that gets better gas mileage.” People are thinking about him ignoring the funerals of the former heads of state of America’s closest two allies when he did not attend the funerals of Margaret Thatcher and Ariel Sharon. People are thinking about his support of the Muslim Brotherhood.

People are thinking about him refusing to lift a finger to save Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods who were murdered in Benghazi. People are thinking about him lying that Benghazi was caused by a movie.

People are thinking about his wife using her position as a taxpayer-provided American Express Black Card holder to take repeated lavish vacations and parade about as if she were royalty. And as his wife is throwing her lavish lifestyle in our faces and saying disparaging things about our country, We the People are thinking that nearly 50 million people are on food stamps and that the true unemployment numbers are an unprecedented 37.2 percent, according to influential Wall Street adviser David John Marotta.

You’re wrong, sir, We the People are thinking. We’re thinking that we do not approve of what you are doing to our America. We the People are thinking that you are a caricature of what we expect, no, what We the People demand in our president.

We the People are thinking how offensive and dishonorable you are to resort to playing the race card in an attempt to gain sympathy and foment discord.

We the People are thinking about what you are doing, not what color you are – as you repeatedly suggest.

President Harry Truman famously said, “The buck stops here.” You, sir, say it’s not your fault, blame President George W. Bush and use the color of your skin to avoid facing and/or admitting the truth.

Oh, we’re thinking, sir. We the People are thinking what an abysmal disappointment you are and that we cannot wait for your term to end. And, if, as you claim, that makes you the caricature that America sees on Fox News or hears from Rush Limbaugh, then so be it.

And we do not apologize if the truth offends you.

[by Mychal Massie, writing for WND.com]

……………………………..

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

New York Times provides a new look at ‘vast vanity project’ called the Clinton Foundation…

Seen as potentially devastating turn of events for Bill and Hillary

Is the New York Times being guest edited by Rush Limbaugh? Today it runs with a fascinating takedown of the Clinton Foundation – that vast vanity project that conservatives are wary of criticising for being seen to attack a body that tries to do good. But the liberal NYT has no such scruples. The killer quote is this:

For all of its successes, the Clinton Foundation had become a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.

Over a year ago Bill Clinton met with some aides and lawyers to review the Foundation’s progress and concluded that it was a mess. Well, many political start-ups can be, especially when their sole selling point is the big name of their founder (the queues are short at the Dan Quayle Vice Presidential Learning Center). But what complicated this review – what made its findings more politically devastating – is that the Clinton Foundation has become about more than just Bill. Now both daughter Chelsea and wife, and likely presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton have taken on major roles and, in the words of the NYT “efforts to insulate the foundation from potential conflicts have highlighted just how difficult it can be to disentangle the Clintons’ charity work from Mr Clinton’s moneymaking ventures and Mrs Clinton’s political future.” Oh, they’re entangled alright.

Clinton Foundation: "vast vanity project"
The NYT runs the scoop in its usual balanced, inoffensive way – but the problem jumps right off the page. The Clintons have never been able to separate the impulses to help others and to help themselves, turning noble philanthropic ventures into glitzy, costly promos for some future campaign (can you remember a time in human history when a Clinton wasn’t running for office?). And their “Ain’t I Great?!” ethos attracts the rich and powerful with such naked abandon that it ends up compromising whatever moral crusade they happen to have endorsed that month. That the Clinton Global Initiative is alleged to have bought Natalie Portman a first-class ticket for her and her dog to attend an event in 2009 is the tip of the iceberg. More troubling is that businessmen have been able to expand the profile of their companies by working generously alongside the Clinton Foundation. From the NYT:

Last year, Coca-Cola’s chief executive, Muhtar Kent, won a coveted spot on the dais with Mr. Clinton, discussing the company’s partnership with another nonprofit to use its distributors to deliver medical goods to patients in Africa. (A Coca-Cola spokesman said that the company’s sponsorship of foundation initiatives long predated Teneo and that the firm plays no role in Coca-Cola’s foundation work.)

In March 2012, David Crane, the chief executive of NRG, an energy company, led a widely publicized trip with Mr. Clinton to Haiti, where they toured green energy and solar power projects that NRG finances through a $1 million commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative.

This is typical Clinton stuff. The second thing I ever wrote for this website was about how corporations invest in politicians as a way of building their brand and raising their stock price. It can lead to some funny partnerships. This, from 2011:

Just this month, bedding manufacturer Serta announced that it will be sponsoring Bill Clinton’s keynote address to an industry conference in August. “To us,”’ said the head of the company, “Clinton represents leadership. This appearance shows Serta is a leader and is taking a leadership position. This singles us out.” Some might say that it is beneath a former president to basically endorse Serta’s new “Perfect Sleeper” line, even with its “revolutionary gel foam mattress”.

The cynical might infer from the NYT piece that the Clintons are willing to sell themselves, their image, and even their Foundation’s reputation in exchange for money to finance their personal projects. In Bill’s case, saving the world. In Hillary’s case, maybe, running for president.

It’s nothing new to report that there’s an unhealthy relationship in America between money and politics, but it’s there all the same. While the little people are getting hit with Obamacare, high taxes and joblessness, a class of businessmen enjoys ready access to politicians of both Left and Right that poses troubling questions for how the republic can continue to call itself a democracy so long as it functions as an aristocracy of the monied. Part of the reason why America’s elites get away with it is becuase they employ such fantastic salesmen. For too long now, Bill Clinton has pitched himself, almost without question, as a homespun populist: the Boy from Hope. The reality is that this is a man who – in May 1993 – prevented other planes from landing at LAX for 90 minues while he got a haircut from a Beverley Hills hairdresser aboard Air Force One. The Clintons are populists in the same way that Barack Obama is a Nobel prize winner. Oh, wait…

[by Tim Stanley, writing for The Telegraph (UK)]

………………………………

As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis
normal@usa1usa.com
612.239.0970

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized