Thursday, October 29, 2015

China_prison_0910

Time Magazine photo of Chinese prisoners

By Nancy Thorner –

Tradition has it that when Lord Cornwallis surrendered at the Siege of Yorktown, the British band played the tune “The World Turned Upside Down.” That’s what I felt when Jim Webb said one of the most profound statements ever heard in any political debate during the first Democrat debate of this political season on Tuesday, October 13, 2015. It was all the more amazing as the debate was among Democrats, where socialist and politically-correct cliches abound.

He said:

But if you want a place where we need to be in terms of our national strategy, a focus, the greatest strategic threat that we have right now is resolving our relationship with China. And we need to do this because of their aggression in the region. We need to do it because of the way they treat their own people. . . . . [T]o the unelected, authoritarian government of China: ‘You do not own the South China Sea. You do not have the right to conduct cyber warfare against tens of millions of American citizens. And in a Webb administration, we will do something about that.’

This is not about Benghazi per se. To me, it is the inevitability of something like Benghazi occurring in the way that we intervened in Libya. We had no treaties at risk. We had no Americans at risk. There was no threat of attack or imminent attack. There is plenty of time for a president to come to the Congress and request authority to use military force in that situation. I called for it on the Senate floor again and again. I called for it in Senate hearings. It is not a wise thing to do. And if people think it was a wise thing to do, try to get to the Tripoli airport today. You can’t do it.

Webb’s Libya comments easier to understand

Although Webb’s statements covered two different issues, the easiest to understand are his Libya comments. This excellent article, “Why Hillary’s Upcoming Congressional Testimony is a Total Farce, a Charade to Shield Congress”, posted October 18, 2015, suggests why the bipartisan, uniparty Establishment has protected everyone in the Benghazi debacle. It’s obvious, ever since Romney took a pass on this issue in his 2012 presidential campaign, is that both parties want the Benghazi issue buried, which is why even Republicans have been attacking the House investigation led by Trey Gowdy. As the October 18, 2015 article states:

Both House and Senate Democrats and Republicans were fully immersed in the events which led up to the Benghazi attack via The Congressional Intelligence ‘Gang of Eight.’ Both Democrats and Republican leadership bear responsibility for the outcome. Neither party are willing to expose themselves, and neither Hillary Clinton, nor the White House will allow themselves to be scapegoated.

According to Democrat debate Internet polls, Jim Webb (a Republican who switched to being a Democrat) was a big hit with those viewing the event. It does seem strange that Webb would abruptly quit the race just when he could start to raise some money and become a political force. The possibility of Webb exposing the truth about Libya might have struck a raw nerve with the ruling Establishment?

Then there were Webb’s statements on China, noted earlier, which were possibly perceived as being even more politically incorrect than his Libya remarks: “the greatest strategic threat that we have right now is resolving our relationship with China. And we need to do this because of their aggression in the region” No way does either political party want the public to know that according to Chinese media, it is of importance that the Chinese military be prepared to counter the U.S. in the South China Sea.

China needs oil but most important is military bases

Although China is badly in need of an oil source in the South China Sea, oil is but one part of its goal. If China just wanted the oil, possibly an acceptable compromise could be hammered out. China might even agree to divide oil revenues with its Philippine and Vietnamese neighbors and might also be open to having a Chinese company doing the drilling with China taking the lion’s share of the profits.

It’s the military bases, and especially an airport big enough for jet fighters, that is causing the biggest alarm. All countries of Southeast Asia from Taiwan to Singapore and Indonesia are greatly disturbed at the Chinese military bases, especially on the Spratlys which are within easy fighter range of every major nation along the South China Sea. Here is a good article about South China Sea disputes which, because of overlapping claims, threaten to turn the region into a flash point of global concern.

Here is a good article Q&A: South China Sea dispute – BBC News about South China Sea disputes which, because of overlapping claims, threaten to turn the region into a flash point of global concern.

Vietnam has fought China for centuries, most notably in 1974 in the Battle of the Paracel Islands, and in 1979 along their border. Vietnam isn’t backing down, and since Vietnam has fought China in the past, this is a big flash point. China sharply criticized Vietnam for passing a law in 2012 that claims sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratly Islands.  Viet Nam does have a decent army, but it is just now building a good navy. The rest of countries are quite helpless toward China in the era of appeasement at any price as practiced by Obama.

There’s only one reason for China to build an airport and military base in the middle of the South China Sea: to allow China to fly combat fighters all the way to Singapore, without refueling, as a way to threaten all nations in Southeast Asia with its crushing military force. Even Obama is being forced by distraught Southeast Asia nations into a symbolic protest of China’s recent moves. Action meant to be hidden from the public by the Obama administration was reported by the Washington Post on Tuesday, October 27. China said of a U.S. naval destroyer sailing too close to the Chinese-built Spratley Islands, that the action damages peace and stability.

Why to be cautious and alert in dealing with China

Webb correctly stated that China still is one of the most repressed societies on earth with the largest political prisoner system on the planet, the laogai. Webb is also right on target that China, up to this very moment, is launching cyberattacks on U.S. targets. Webb unfortunately failed to mention that “China is the world’s largest source of IP (Intellectual Property) theft”. The world total of intellectual theft is so great that “it amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars per year, on the order of the size of U.S. exports to Asia.”

Another major problem with China not broached by Webb is the amount of U.S. manufacturing that has been moved to places like China. Our nation has literally experienced a hard time building planes and other defense items without relying on foreign parts from China.

And while the world watches, “the migrant/refugee crisis in Europe and the chaos in the Middle East, the one-party government in China has continued its crackdown on Christians and Buddhists in China. Chinese Christians are being persecuted, churches torn down and crosses removed from remaining church buildings. Both Protestant and Catholic churches have come under attack, as the Communist Party fears that religion, especially Christianity, is winning over the population from the Communist doctrine of atheism.”

Notwithstanding the magnitude of the problems already outlined, our biggest Chinese problem is the economic consequence of our 43-year partnership with China launched by Nixon and Mao in 1972. It was based on China using slave labor to build the U.S. cheap things and the U.S. would send paper (U.S. Treasuries) to pay for it. Today China is selling that paper in a desperate attempt to sustain its economy:

One could vote for Trump on the hope that he would get tough with China on trade, especially intellectual theft. But if elected and Trump followed through, the Chinese could possibly wreck our economy by accelerating their selling of our Treasuries and refusing to buy our goods, thereby devastating our economy with higher interest rates and lower exports. Just a mild slowdown has resulted in China’s selling of American assets, which, in turn, has caused U.S. stocks to fall and for countries like Brazil, who depend on exporting to China, to crater economically.

Does China have history on its side?

Unlike Putin or the Iranian Mullahs who are surrounded by enemies, there is no major power in the South China Sea to check the Chinese navy, except our own shrinking, over-stretched navy and air force that have been fatally weakened by political correct personnel policies and futile “nation building” wars in the Middle East. A simple solution for Chinese fascists to deal with their financial problems — as Hitler did in 1938 when he ran out of money — is to repudiate/sell external debt and use foreign conquest to divert and supply the restless populace. Like Czechoslovakia and Austria in 1938, the Chinese see Southeast Asia as a tempting and easy conquest.

Through our one-sided trade policies, we have financed the Nazi Germany of our time, made desperate by pollution, demographic imbalances and huge internal debts. Like Britain in 1938, we are a disarmed power without a major ally except an exhausted Japan (vs. France then) with Russia allied with our enemy (Germany then, China now)

History is repeating before our very eyes, and the only “major” person in politics or finance telling this horrible truth, even if only for a few minutes, has been former U.S. Senator James Webb, considered a radical for his remarks, and who subsequently dropped out as a contender for president on the Democratic ticket.

Advertisements

Monday, October 26, 2015

L_liberal-conservative_1200x675a

By Nancy Thorner – 

Conservatives like to blame the media, big money, vote fraud, the Republican Establishment, the brainwashing of liberal teachers, etc., for their losses. But the real answer is much simpler and much more damning.

Recently I was talking to a fellow precinct committeeman (a solid conservative) and pointed out how our “Republican” Congressman Bob Dold, was only one of two Republicans to vote to fund Obamacare and Planned Parenthood (among dozens of other liberal votes). Although privy to this information, my friend will still vote without reservations for Dold. Why? Because she considers electing a Republican Speaker of the House the most important vote a congressman makes, and Dold would be there to cast that vote.

Had I not found it necessary to leave, I would have reminded her friend of the way “Republican” Speaker of the House, John Boehner, constantly used Democrats to pass bad bills, even resorting to bullying conservative Republican Congressmen when they refused to follow Boehner’s diktats. With a healthy majority in the House, why should conservative voters fear losing a Republican seat or two in a primary to send a message?

Indeed, without the example of Eric Cantor, John Boehner wouldn’t be trying to retire, and the Establishment wouldn’t be so eager to have Paul Ryan (who they think would be hard to primary) replace him! It’s no accident that the rest of the Republican House leadership is from states like Washington, Louisiana and California where liberals can easily vote in “jungle primaries” to select the most liberal Republican possible.

Is Paul Ryan the right choice for House Speaker?

Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum has this to say about Paul Ryan: “He voted to grant homosexuals special rights in 2007 (ENDA), said yes to the 2008 Wall Street bailouts (TARP), and proudly supports amnesty. Just this year, while voting with the weak leadership to fund every one of President Obama’s priorities, Ryan led the fight in the House to grant the president more power to negotiate trade deals. Ryan’s Democratic fans include Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and pro-amnesty fanatic Rep. Luis Gutierrez.”

On key votes, Ryan has frequently voted against the majority of the House Republican Caucus and those in leadership position, the latest being the Cromnibus legislation of 2014.  Following are other accounts of when Dold broke ranks with the GOP:

  •  In 2007, Ryan was one of 35 members of his party who voted for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act:
  • Back in 2008, when the subprime mortgage crisis threatened to derail the economy, Ryan split from his fellow fiscal conservatives in voting for the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.
  • Also in 2008, Ryan voted to provide up to $14 billion in loans to domestic automakers.

Ryan even tried to cut benefits for disabled veterans, and recently retired veterans, while raising fees to spend more on other government programs.

As Romney’s running mate in 2012, I am hard pressed to think of a VP candidate who brought less to a ticket. He was unimpressive on the stump and even less impressive in his debate with Biden. In terms of being the public face of the Republican Party, in my opinion, Ryan would represent the status quo and would differ little from Boehner.

It is almost a given, considering past voting records, that Illinois’ six Republican congressmen will vote for Paul Ryan for House Speaker. Why not, when almost all of them will not have to face a primary challenge or a decent third party challenge?  With certainty, no Democrat Speaker of the House would be this far removed from its liberal voting base. They would immediately solicit primary and third party challenges. But like an abused wife, the average “conservative” in Illinois will mumble how a “Republican is better than a Democrat”, and then reelect the same ineffective and traitorous legislators with nary a whimper or a protest.

Power of “token” candidates overlooked 

The comment by my political friend regarding her unconditional support of Dold was doubly disappointing, in that a state representative district right next to our own had a primary election March 18, 2014, that illustrated the power of a “token” candidate.

District 51 is one of the most Republican districts in Illinois, yet its state representative, Edward Sullivan, Jr., won re-elections even though he voted for gay marriage, dozens of tax and spending increases, ad nauseum. An individual I know and throughout political circles in Lake County as a strong conservative, finally had enough gumption to stand up and run against Sullivan. Despite raising only $14,000 and being out-spent nearly 30 to 1, this “token” candidate received 43% of the primary vote. A much better candidate decided to run this time around and, not surprising, Ed Sullivan, Jr. decided to retire rather than face certain defeat.

Conservatives have young families and private sector jobs that don’t allow them as much time to spend doing political work as their liberals counterparts. Running for office can cost people jobs, money and slander as the liberal Establishments of both parties engage in retaliation. Nevertheless, retired people can be found, or those with independent means, who don’t have to worry about neglecting their children or losing their source of income. Even “tokens”, as were the candidates who ran and received 31% of the vote against mighty John Boehner in 2014, are enough to force even the big shots to change their positions on issues or retire.

Democrats never hesitate to primary candidates and benefit in time

Liberals don’t use “but we won’t win this time” excuse, not allowing defeat to discourage them. The liberals lost in 1968 with Eugene McCarthy, but came back with George McGovern in 1972 to basically take over the Democrat Party.  As the Goldwater movement of 1964 led the way for the election of Reagan in 1980, the failed liberal movement of 1972 set up the impetus for winning all back under Carter in 1976.  Outlasting Reagan and G.H. Bush, the liberals again won the presidency with Clinton.

The liberal movement even sent a message that Clinton/Gore was not liberal enough which fostered the candidacy of Ralph Nader in 2000.  Is it any wonder that Nader’s platform of “environmental justice; universal healthcare; affordable housing; free education including college; workers’ rights; and increasing the minimum wage to a living wage” is now the platform of every Democrat running for President this year.

From the time of Al “The Pal” Dixon in 1992 to Blanche Lincoln in 2010, Liberals haven’t hesitated to primary anyone who strayed from their line even when it made it easier for a Republican to win. The result: the most left-wing Democrat party in American history still has enough clout to pass anything it wants in Congress and can make it official by retaking the Senate in 2016. Democrats also have a good chance to win the Presidency in 2016, despite lousy candidates with far left positions.  That’s why 21% of the population when polled say they are liberal, yet they dominate the 40% of the population that say they are conservative.    The reason being that liberals are always fighting, while conservatives use every excuse not to collect a few signatures and get somebody on the primary ballot to voice their concerns.

Have conservatives lost the good fight of the past?

In times past conservatives understood a good fight, like their loss in1964 which sowed the seeds of future victories. But other than Kyle McCarter, I’m not aware of any other person challenging the most liberal “Republican” Congressional delegation in the country this side of New York.  Even the most “conservative” congressman, Randy Hultgren, outside of Rep. Darin Lahood who hasn’t been in Congress long enough to establish a credible voting record, voted for the two worst pieces of legislation this year, “Cromnibus” and the “Trans-Pacific Partnership.” McCarter would have a much better chance to defeat “Republican” incumbent Shimkus, if all the rest of his five Illinois congressmen buddies had a primary opponent who would point out their individual unacceptable voting records, even if only “token” candidates.

Conservatives love to wave around copies of the Constitution, but do they really know what it dictates? The President can’t spend a dime unless Congress authorizes it. Congress can reject treaties and presidential appointments, mandate programs the President doesn’t want (by overriding vetoes), and even determine if the Supreme Court can rule on a case.  Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution states: …the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction…with such exceptions and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

It is the same situation at the state level right down to your city council. Liberals understand that ultimate power lies in the legislative body, which is why liberals are always running somebody for those seats regardless of location or political party. It’s the constant desire by liberals to win that mandates liberals to have a slate of candidates running for every office. This practice eventually allows them to take over, even when they initially lose. Conservatives just elect a white knight like Reagan (or even Rauner) and then go back to listening to Rush and complaining about how things are getting worse.

Many “conservative” groups, especially those based in D.C. and Springfield, are double agents for the liberal Establishment. They take conservative money but are secretly paid off to waste money and effort on projects that won’t change anything politically. How many “conservative” groups are telling people how to run for precinct committeeman, or for any other local office they can easily win, as a training ground to eventually run for Congress?  The Illinois Family Action’s executive director David Smith is to be applauded for its effort to enlist precinct committeemen.

Sheer laziness rates high in why conservatives lose

Not discounting the importance of reasons already stated as to why conservatives lose, I believe the biggest reason is sheer laziness. Conservatives would rather watch political news and sports, whine on their local political blog, attend some futile rally or conservative meeting, anything but gathering a few signatures to get on the ballot as precinct committeeman or helping somebody else run for office. Except for mothers with very young children and the crippled/blind, everyone else who is reading this article should now be gathering signatures to put somebody conservative on the primary ballot from precinct committeeman on up. If you are not doing that, you are the real reason why conservatives lose, no matter how many “conservative” activities you do.

Since the filing deadline is November 30 for candidates and January 6 for presidential delegates, people actually have about five weeks to run as a candidate and te  weeks for presidential delegates. First on the ballot is nice, but getting on the ballot is everything if you are a token, and that’s what conservatives desperately lack: tokens to plow the ground for future victories, like Bob Bednar when he ran as a token candidate in 2014 against Ed Sullivan Jr. in Illinois District 51.  Non-token candidates are well aware of the rules and the small value of filing first.

Time is running out, so get busy!  No excuses are accepted!  The future of this nation is at stake.  Many feel that another four years of progressive and unconstitutional reign will lead to the demise of a nation that had such hope and promise when conceived by our Founding Fathers.

As Benjamin Franklin cautioned when a lady asked him: “Well what have we – a republic or a monarchy?” “A republic.” replied Franklin …”if you can keep it.”

Saturday, October 24, 2015

Comments

Thursday, October 22, 2015

Teacher-Abuse-470x303

By Nancy Thorner –

It is often said is that a cover-up is worse than the deed itself. Especially egregious is when the cover-up takes place in a public school system for the purpose of keeping negative information from citizens that would otherwise tarnish and possibly subject its behavior to the scrutiny of law enforcement.

An incident involving an assault of a Highland Park District 112 elementary student took place at a Special Needs Elementary School located in Northbrook on May 27, 2014. North Shore Academy Elementary is a therapeutic elementary school where a number of schools send children who are in need of special attention that their own school districts can’t provide. Highland Park’s District 112 is a participant. At the time six NSSD112 children attended this therapeutic elementary school from H.P. The assaulted child was one of the children. He had attended the same school from 1st grade and was a 5th grade student at the time.

Near the end of the day on May 27, 2014, a teacher assistant became frustrated with the subject and with force laid hands on him. Upon returning home from school, the subject’s mother saw that her child’s neck was red and was told by the child about the aggravated assault that had taken place.

The mother immediately, on the same day, called school officials at North Shore Academy Elementary to report the assistant teacher’s assault on her child; however, the school officials had no knowledge of the incident, and, as required by law, no certified teachers were present or near the classroom at the time of the assault.  Neither did the teacher assistant tell anyone about the incident. The mother was informed that proper school and district policy and procedures would be pursued.
What followed was that school officials requested the family not go to the police, maintaining that the school’s policy and procedures were adequate to conduct an investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, administrators assured the family that the teacher assistant had been placed on leave and later on that he had been disciplinary fired for not following protocol. Because of the action taken, the family trusted that the school had dealt appropriately with the matter by following its policy and procedural investigation. Of note is that shock was expressed at the time by administrators regarding the behavior of the teacher assistant.  He was considered “a nice guy.”
In April, May and June of this year, the mother, greatly concerned about the placement of her special needs child into a public special education class room in HP District 112, filed a due process of disagreement on placement and education.  Her filing was based on a breakdown of school trust perceived by the entire subject’s family.  District 112 was seemingly seeking to implement a public school program to save the district money by not paying to send the subject to a special therapeutic middle school for the 2015-2016 school year.
The child’s family was in agreement over how it viewed the situation.  A school trust breakdown existed, which elicited the need to look into how school officials had handled the assault investigation. What was ascertained is that school administrators were untruthful in telling the family that all established policy and procedures had been followed by both the school and district. Further research revealed that no reports of the incident had been submitted to the police or the DCFS, which district policy and Illinois law mandates.
The North Shore Academy Elementary (NSA-E), North Suburban Special Education District (NSSED), and District 112 are now claiming that the assistant teacher hadn’t been fired as the mother was told a year earlier, but instead tendered his resignation. In so doing the assistant teacher’s Illinois state board of education teaching license remained free of any noted disciplinary infractions.  His teaching license to this day still remains clear of any derogatory remarks.
 
According to public record, on July 29th, 2015, the NSSED teacher assistant at North Shore Academy Elementary therapeutic day school in Northbrook, Illinois, was arrested, after admitting his guilt, by the Northbrook Police Department and charged with battery pursuant to the cover-up of the classroom assault occurring on May 27th, 2014, during school hours of a District 112 student.  It was concluded that administrators and school personnel failed the Illinois mandated laws of policy and procedure to call and report the abuse of a student to local police and DCFS during their own “investigation”.  In this case administrators were protecting their own instead of a student with special needs.
It is shameful that NSSD112 wants to save money by trying to cut corners instead of meeting the educational needs of ALL students in District 112.  As District 112 has decided it no longer wants to fund NSSED (North Suburban Special Education District), the cost to District 112 is $60,000 per child to attend.

Discrimination should not be taking place on the backs of those students who are needy both emotionally and mentally and physically handicapped in contrast to those who are at the top of their class in intellect and ability.  Also, the assault of a disabled child should be treated with the respect and honesty it deserves, as the education of every child matters, whatever their potential may be.

It was only after the family became involved that the DCFS (Department of Children Family Services) was notified and became involved. District and school employees routinely call DCFS (Department of children family services) to report abuse of children in a school situation.  While some of the calls may be unwarranted. as well as intrusive, the incident that took place warranted a call to DCFS.  It  involved a school employee who intentionally assaulted a student with disabilities associated with autism, as well as serious health conditions of epilepsy and asthma. Yet administrators turned a blind eye, failing to placing a “good faith” mandated reporter call (all administrators are mandated reporters) to evade public attention. The family does not want this to happen to any other student, special needs or not , and appreciates all the support shown and given during this unfortunate time.

Incidents of cover-ups are frequent in all walks of life.  School administrators will continue to hide undesirable happening from the public which might damage them in the public’s eye, unless concerned citizens take on the role of becoming citizen reporters.  Knowing that the public isn’t in a state of comatose and that actions are being scrutinized, will hopefully result in justice being served and in administrators who are forthright initially so a cover-up isn’t necessary.

Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 09:28 AM | Permalink

Technorati Tags: Illinois Review, Nancy Thorner


Saturday, October 17, 2015

Common Sense Prevails in Climate Change Presentation

Comments

Tuesday, October 13, 2015

Heartland's 31st Benefit Dinner

Left to right:  Joe Morris, Donald J. Devine, and Jameson Campaigne

 

By Nancy Thorner – 

The Heartland Institute, CEO, Joe Bast, celebrated its 31st anniversary with a reception and dinner at The Cotillion in Palatine, Illinois, on Thursday, October 8, 2015.  Since 1984 Heartland has devoted itself to supporting individual freedom by discovering, developing, and promoting free-market solutions to social and economic problems.

The theme of this year’s celebratory event was “The Heartland versus The Ruling Class”, borrowed from the title of a recent book by the event’s keynote speaker, Angelo CodevillaThe Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America and What We Can Do About It .  Angelo Codevilla is a former staff member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, professor emeritus of international relations at Boston University, and the author of fifteen fine books on politics, arms control, and intelligence.

In his book, Codevilla accordingly identifies the people and organizations at the heart of the attack on American freedom:

“The Ruling Class is a bipartisan group of political elites educated at universities known for their left-wing biases, convinced of the soundness of their opinions even when they know little or nothing of substance, whose success largely depends on access to politicians or being part of a vast government bureaucracy.”

Codevilla’s words certainly ring true as the 2016 election cycle unfolds. Many voters are fed up with a ruling class that is not listening to them and is further demeaning their intelligence by imposing upon them unacceptable, unsolicited opinions and rulings.  According to a new CBS News poll of October 10, 2015, Trump and Dr. Carson, having criticized the political establishment, are still dominating the Republican presidential race.

Heartland's Benefit - Charlie Kirk Heartland's Benefit - Angelo Codevilla

Charlie Kirk                                                    Angelo Codevilla

Charlie Kirk, of Turning Point USA, introduces Angelo Codevilla

It was appropriate that Dr. Codevilla was introduced by Charlie Kirk, as both are of the same persuasion in  their assessments of how the ruling class is negatively impacting society. Charlie Kirk is the Founder and Executive Director of Turning Point USA, a 501(c) 3 non-profit organization birthed on June 5, 2012.  The organization’s mission is to identify, educate, train, and organize students on college campuses in all 50 states to promote the principles of fiscal responsibility, free markets, and limited government.  Still in his early 20’s, Kirk conceived of organizing a group that would train young people to be “community organizers” on the Right while still he college. Jim Lakely, Communications Director for The Heartland Institute, without hesitation when approached by Charlie Kirk several years ago, helped Kirk realize his dream. Turning Point USA now has a full time staff of 53.

Charlie Kirk spoke of the ruling class in higher education as indolent people who work on college campuses as academicians and professors.  Even though the Left has become the ruling class on college campuses, it has made a serious error.  How so?  The Left rose to power by railing against the very machine it has now become. While Liberals consider free speech paramount to intimidation, speech is not considered free unless they are the ones doing the speaking.

Angelo Codevilla recounts historical trends as harbingers of what followed 

Angelo Codevilla set the tone for his remarks by stating that “in every society there is some element that sets the tone for the rest of it.”   George Washington made an enormous contribution in what America became by embodying the precept that all men are created equal. In regards to Clinton, it wasn’t so much what he did, but that a substantial portion of the American people approved of it.  This question was then entertained by Codevilla: “Who do American men seek to imitate today when the moral compass is so far removed from what it was in the time of George Washington?”

Soon after the era of this nation’s founding, continued Codevilla, a society began to develop in which races were considered unequal. Some were deemed better than other, leading to a belief in moral inferiority.  Southerners were considered inferior human beings.  As such Codevilla equated the Civil War as a battle between racial and moral convictions, with moral convictions winning out.

The beginning of the 20th century saw a new class of society emerge who believed they were the rightful rulers. It was a time when the Chautauqua movement flourished and the ACLU came into being. Up until the time of Roosevelt, there existed a tug of war between those who favored limited government over those who wanted more government control. But it was under FDR that the ruling class assumed power, when decisions were to be made by the brightest and best government officials, not by technocrats.

As reflected by Codevilla, we no longer live in a republic where laws are made by legislators. They are instead made and enacted by unelected bureaucrats, whose judgments go unchallenged.  It is rule by decree, where the ruling class wins support by the goodies they generously dispense. It is an era where the law means what an administrator says it means. Consider the convoluted way in which Supreme Court Justice John Roberts was able to vote in favor of Obamacare by twisting the meaning of words.   It is a definition of absolute power when a ruling class can turn men into women.  When a child can declare that they are either a boy or a girl at any given time.   When fetuses out of the womb are simply fetuses to be dissected for their parts.

What can we do?  Speak the truth and argue.  It is important to know the subject so a convincing argument can be make. Recently Senator Ted Cruz did so when he confronted the Sierra Club president over global warming.  Some hope remains for this nation in facing the political aspect of the current era, as on both the  Right and the Left a massive objection has developed against the existing ruling class. Regarding the social aspect, Dr. Codevilla has noticed how the quality of freshman college students has declined over the years.  Here the bullet must be bitten. But of utmost important is the need to reduce the size and scope of government.  This will be up to us!

Dr. Donald J. Devine presented Heartland Liberty Prize by Campaigne and Morris

A highlight of Heartland 31st Anniversary Benefit Dinner was the presentation of this year’s Heartland Liberty Prize to Dr. Donald J. Devine by Jameson Campaigne, founder and president of Green Hill Publishers and Jameson Books, and Joe Morris, President, Lincoln Legal Foundation.  The award recognizes outstanding contributions to the defense of liberty.  Dr. Devine is a political scientist, author, and former Reagan official.  “The Washington Post” labeled Donald Devine as Ronald Reagan’s “terrible swift sword of the civil service” when he served as Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management during Reagan’s first term, “The New York Times” called him “the Grinch,” and the ‘Federal Times” titled Divine the “Rasputin of the reduction in force” – all because he helped cut 100,000 bureaucratic jobs and save over $6 billion reducing generous benefits.  Devine’s most recent book, America’s Way Back, all about reclaiming Freedom, Tradition, and Constitution, was available for purchase and autographing.

Dr. Devine emphasized how the size and scope of government can be cut if there is a determination and will to do so.  While a cut is seldom proposed by an administrator, this is what must be done!  As Devine remarked, “This nation won’t be saved by having the Republican Party in charge of government, but only by the involvement of ‘We the People.”‘

Fascinating was a discussion by Devine about economic depressions in America’s history.  Most people are aware of the “Great Depression of 1929” and of the current one, but there was also another depression, the depression of 1987.  This depression occurred during the Reagan administration.  What did President Reagan do about the depression?  Instead of throwing money at the severe economic downturn as a way to artificially prop up the economy, and likewise increasing regulations, Reagan did nothing. It worked, ushering in five years of prosperity.

The final cabinet meeting Dr. Devine attended in the Regan administration was described in this way: Said Ronald Reagan:  “No country has gone this far down the road away from freedom and has been able to come back, but this is my challenge to you.”

Heartland's Benefit - Tom Morrison  Heartland Benefit - Joe Bast in hard hat

Welcome by Rep.Tom Morrison of IL 24th District

The Honorable State Representative, Tom Morrison, served as master of ceremonies for the evening, as one of The Heartland Institute’s strongest allies in the Illinois state legislature since elected in 2011. Morrison represents Palatine and neighboring communities. With its move from Chicago to Arlington Heights, Heartland  is now in Morrison’s 24th Representative District.

Morrison intoned these famous words of Ronald Reagan, in extolling about the kind of world we want to leave to our children.

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”

Morrison cautioned how Republicans must do better at communicating their message of freedom to the other side, lest the other side wins by default.

Opening Remarks by CEO Joseph Bast covered Heartland’s accomplishments over past year

Opening remarks were presented by Heartland’s president and CEO, Joseph Bast, during which he spoke of the the many accomplishments of The Heartland Institute during the past year.  Foremost was the amazing renovations that were accomplished from top to bottom to its new home at 3939 North Wilke Road in Arlington Heights, IL.  The renovations took ten months to complete, which created a challenge, given the lease at Heartland’s former Chicago headquarter had run out two months before the new headquarters could be occupied by Heartland staff.  White helmets were part of each table’s centerpiece, as a symbol of how Heartland’s new Arlington Heights headquarters was transformed into the amazing headquarters and workplace it is today. Joseph Bast, in a show of relief and pride over the completed renovations, wore a white helmet during a portion of his remarks.

Among other accomplishments cited by Bast were:

  • “The Neglected Sun”, a German publication, will soon be republished with free copies sent to 5000 individuals.
  • Heartland recently created and launched this new website, leftexposed.org, a Heartland Institute project devoted to creating accurate profiles of prominent individuals and organizations on the political Left with a special focus on groups in the global warming (a.k.a “climate change”) debate.
  • New also at Heartland is PolicyBot, a search engine and database containing more than 32,000 reports, news articles, and commentaries from some 300 think tanks and advocacy groups, including those of The Heartland Institute. Publications can be searched by keyword, author, publisher, and date of publication, making it an ideal resource for researchers and legislative staffers.

Looking ahead in facing the future

The Heartland Institute will continue in its mission to fight to preserve liberty and to advance free markets.  Such is essential if a nation founded on the principle of individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is to remain a sovereign and free nation, able to prosper and to flourish.  Unfortunately this nation no longer ranks among the top ten freest nations in the world. We’ve fallen to 12th place.

The history of humanity reveals individual liberty has always been the exception while slavery and tyranny were the rule. May this nation not succumb to what Thomas Jefferson wrote as the natural progress of things. . . “for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”

Photos by Nancy Thorner 

Wednesday, October 07, 2015

Thorner: Will Ted Cruz be the Establishment’s Final Ploy to Stop Trump?

Ted-cruz-obama-care

By Nancy Thorner – 

Despite the media and the Republican establishment spin that Trump is fading, Trump is beating Hillary 48 to 41% in the key swing state of Iowa according to the NBC News Marist Poll. An excellent article by Bloomberg.com was published in the Chicago Tribune on Sunday, October 4 about polling problems. It shows why even this result may still be too tilted to Hillary.

In Europe, polls misfired this past year in Greece, Israel and Great Britain where polls results were off by wide margins. The Bloomberg article blames inaccurate polling results on individuals not picking up their phone when pollsters call due to the decline of landlines. But a common thread to all these “bad” poll numbers in Europe was the polling bias against candidates the local liberal media didn’t favor. Anti-establishment and anti-liberal media voters are apparently hanging up on pollsters from liberal media organizations all around the world.

With this in mind, Trump is probably doing better than what his polls indicate. With a hard core 30-35% of the primary vote, Trump can win the nomination in the winner take all primaries with a splintered opposition, the same strategy Jeb hoped to employ. Trump will benefit from the rigging of the rules by the Republican establishment unless that same establishment can settle behind one anti-Trump candidate.

Possible Anti-Trump Candidate 

But who could that be? Even though a rising star and looked upon as an honorable person and a world-respected surgeon, Dr. Ben Carson will have a tough time winning the Republican nomination. He has some surprising history on abortion, guns, wars, and Wall Street which so far has remained below the public radar.

Senator Rubio has a major problem with the base because he really supports amnesty for illegals, having said one thing in Spanish and just the opposite English. Carly Fiorina is unelectable with her terrible business record and other problems. The fact her “charity” has given a half million to Planned Parenthood should be enough to send her back to single digits in the polls. Jeb and Kasich are way behind despite media adoration.

Running a third party, as threatened by Bill Kristol if Trump wins the Republican nomination, won’t stop Trump any more than running John Anderson stopped Reagan in 1980. Anderson actually took votes away from Carter, and so will any “centrist” the establishment puts up. Trump is not Bush, the father, who had few major policy differences with Clinton after raising taxes, nominating liberal Supreme Court Justice Souter and backing away from the Second Amendment. That allowed Perot to flourish as a protest candidate.

For a man who has been attacked as a know-nothing blowhard, Trump is the only candidate who has released detailed policy initiatives on immigration, the Second Amendment and taxes. His tax plan brought approval from conservatives like Mark Levin in eliminating the loopholes the crony capitalists on Wall Street love. Trump continues to play to the Reagan Democrats by defending gun rights, as he did with his immigration and trade plans, despite unremitting media and Republican establishment hostility (or silence, as in the case of gun rights).

Observers like Sharyl Attkisson are commenting on Trump’s crossover appeal. What Attkisson is seeing is being backed up by polling of Reagan Democrats. Consider Macomb County in Michigan. It has a population of approx. 850,000 people and is a prominent swing region. Macomb is known for a strong independent streak and is the home of many Reagan Dems.

According to pollster Steve Mitchell, “all the GOP candidates being polled against Hillary in that critical Macomb region are beating her soundly…. The Teamsters have threatened not to endorse Hillary thanks to her position on the Keystone Pipeline and Trump’s popularity with their members makes a Trump endorsement by the Teamsters a real threat. Many Reagan Democrats will vote for Trump only in the General Election, but some of them will vote for the first time in the Republican primary, especially if some unions like Teamsters get behind him.”

Polls in State of Fluctuation, but Trump Maintains Lead

While the latest IBD/TiPP Poll shows Donald Trump in second place and seven points behind Ben Carson, Donald Trump holds a commanding nine point lead over Ben Carson according to a new Pew Research poll. CNN reports how Trump now garners 25 percent of the vote to Carson’s 16, with eight each for retired Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.  Texas Senator Ted Cruz checks in at six percent, while Florida Gov. Jeb Bush struggles at 4%. Other polls show Trump running around 35%. Get away from the media polls and Trump goes back up well over 30%.

Given the absolute hatred shown by the media toward Trump (which undoubtedly includes juggling the samples to get the “right” results), might Trump actually be under polling and Carson over polling due to voters intimidated not to say what they really think, as referenced earlier in recent overseas elections?

The 4% for Jeb Bush in the CNN poll is also an outlier, but Jeb’s implosion in other polls is undeniable. Jeb continues to make mistake after mistake, like when he claimed that Boehner did a good job as House Speaker. It is worth noting that  among Iowa Caucus voters Jeb is also near 4%

Money Influences Campaigns

With the millions Jeb collected before he announced his presidential bid, he had hoped to run-out-the-clock of all other Republican candidates should he have a poor start in Iowa, etc. Jeb has the money needed to run ads against anyone who would dare to challenge what he perceives as his right to become the next president.

These ads could be effective on the lesser known Republican challengers, but could Jeb’s immense Super-Pac war chest $103 million plus, begin to make a dent in the support of a man already universally known and reviled by every media outlet, Donald Trump? What’s worse, this (mostly) wasted money for Jeb has sucked up money the Establishment desperately needs for down ballot races.

The Chamber of Commerce spent tens of millions in 2014 and still was just barely able to squeeze Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran past the primary finish line, while losing a very big fish in Eric Cantor over the immigration issue. Now the Chamber will have to fund Establishment hacks from President (as Jeb fails) to U.S. House races. The Senate will need to spend even more money than it did in 2014 to protect its incumbents. This hatred of the Republican Leadership has even reached the Vice Chairman of the RNC. Because of all the bad votes from the Cromnibus in December 2014 to the present vote for Boehner’s successor, there are potentially dozen of Cantors to defend in the House primaries.

Ted Cruz, the Alternative Establishment Candidate?

In short, the Establishment may have to do triage and jettison trying to elect Jeb or any other establishment favorite for President. It is therefore far more important to keep an iron grip on Congress. The Establishment does have an alternative in Ted Cruz, who is not as anti-Establishment as he presents himself to voter with his background: Ivy League education, George W. Bush administration official, Texas Solicitor General appointed by the present Texas Governor (then Texas Attorney General) Greg Abbott and the unprecedented appointment of “vice chairman of grassroots outreach for the Senate Republican campaign arm” right after his election.

Cruz’ wife Heidi Nelson Cruz was also in the Bush administration as an economic director for the Western Hemisphere with the National Security Council (a “trade expert” on NAFTA). Additionally Heidi Cruz was a member of the Council of Foreign Relations and worked for Goldman Sachs.  Even Ronald Reagan, a Bohemian Club member, wasn’t this connected to the ruling Establishment!

Cruz has helped the Establishment at other times besides the 2014 primaries. During the “Gang of 8” attempt in the Senate to pass illegal amnesty in all but name, Cruz offered a compromise amendment to expand H-B visas by 500%. When Cruz first run for Senate in 2011, he was far softer on immigration matters, even supporting birthright citizenship:  Cruz also lent support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership in an April 2015 Wall Street Journal editorial with the very Establishment Paul Ryan. He later flipped his vote against the TPP after the House by the bare minimum of 218 voted to allow Obama to negotiate this treaty. Like defeating embattled Republican Senate Incumbents in 2014, Cruz could have sunk this treaty had he had opposed it from the very beginning.

Rick Perry, by dropping out has allowed dozens of Texas legislators to endorse Cruz, who should take almost all of Texas’ 155 delegates that are up on March 1. If Cruz can sweep away Carson and Huckabee in Iowa, he should get the lion’s share of the religious conservative vote, which is about half the primary vote in crucial early primary states like Iowa and South Carolina. Cruz is spending a million dollars on Christian radio ads between now and the end of the year. The rest of the candidates who could appeal to this voting bloc can’t afford to do likewise.

A Quartet of Candidates to Follow: Trump, Rubio, Jeb, and Cruz

Trump is now mocking Marco Rubio’s baby face and his tendency to sweat and look sleazy under pressure. That’s because Rubio is the last man standing, in addition to Cruz, who could stop Trump. But will Jeb allow his money to be spent for Rubio who back stabbed Jeb’s initial effort?  Or will he instead direct his money to go to down ballot races the Establishment needs even more?

Compared to Trump, Cruz has been “flexible” in the past. The nightmare scenario for the Establishment is a hostile Congress and a Trump Presidency. To prevent that, having Jeb’s money spent on down ballot races while letting Cruz take out Trump looks increasingly like the best solution for the establishment.

Phyllis Schlafly had these words of wisdom to impart on October 6, 2015, with her commentary, “The Establishment Looks for a New Plan B”:

“Plan A, of course, was to assure the nomination of Jeb Bush, whose views are the perfect reflection of the Republican donor class. But despite many months of campaigning, $114 million of political funds raised through June 30, and two presidential debates watched by a record-setting average of 24 million people, Jeb Bush has dropped to sixth place, registering only four percent in the latest Pew poll”. . . . “It may be that the only alternative left for these Republican would-be kingmakers is the late entry of a new candidate to enter the race. We are already hearing rumblings about resurrecting Mitt Romney.”

Schlafly then gives this warning:

“When the establishment is allowed to pick the Republican nominee, a candidate unable to win the support of the all-important middle-class America is the result. Establishment candidates have been unable to win the popular vote in five out of the last six elections, and that outcome is not something any Republican should want to repeat.”

Phyllis is right and that’s why Ted Cruz, with his anti-establishment image, is the only one who could possibly replace Trump, and go on to victory in 2016. Those who know the Constitution are aware that the key to power in the U.S. is Congress, not so much the Presidency. In the end, the Republican establishment will probably swallow Cruz to hold on to their power in Congress.

Saturday, October 10, 2015

O-TED-TURNER-facebook

Millionaire Ted Turner is funding a new generation of journalists to promote Agenda 2030

By Nancy Thorner and Bonnie O’Neil – 

There was a time, not too long ago, when American patriotism was encouraged in most every public place:  our schools, churches, government, youth and adult sport events, media sources, and most of all within our hearts.  We were grateful for the freedoms and liberties offered us by our amazing Constitution and which were protected through the years by our forefathers.

We know there are liberals among us that are determined to change our culture, ignore our history, and minimize our amazing achievements.  For the most part, we considered these liberals harmless. We no longer can afford to have that mindset. Powerful people have partnered with the United Nations in an effort to make significant changes to America that most likely will destroy all we have built and accomplished.

The United Nations Agenda 21 (“Earth Summit) and the more aggressive U.N. Agenda 2030 are designed to take away freedoms and liberties granted us from the inception of our country.   If its founders and promoters succeed, America will look very different within a surprisingly short period of time.

Both U.N. Agendas involve a massive plan that requires a fortune to fund.  How do hard core socialists convince freedom loving people who have worked hard all their lives to willingly give the government more money than seems reasonable to support a plan that will destroy their way of life?   What powerful enticement is there that would prevent people from revolting when their money, freedoms, and liberties are taken one by one by their state, county and federal government.   The United Nations has been pondering such a plan for decades and now think they have the answer.

 

Ploys to Suck in the American People

First they must disassociate their plan with others like it, such as the failures of dictators like Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. They have to find a common cause that would be so compelling it would trump all else.  Their conclusion is to convince people our planet is in danger.  We must change our way of life to save our lives.  The agenda is to convince enough of us that our behavior must be changed in order to prevent a catastrophic, massive change in the Earth itself.   We must be brainwashed into thinking humans are destroying the Earth due to their behavior, and the U.N. alone has the way to save it.

Those who argue this issue with the facts are maligned.  Professors who disagree are shunned in their universities.  One scientist, Willie Soon, stood up against false attacks on the Left to discredit him.  Scientists who provide facts to the contrary are denied publication and their work is largely ignored.  Even when deception was uncovered that perpetrators of Climate Change had falsified records, in what became known as “Climategate” in November of 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climate Research Unit, there was no significant outcry from the media or governing agencies.  Nor was there any outrage with a 2014 report that indicated how 95% of global warming models are wrong. Consider also the inquisition reported recently to punish climate change deniers.  Once a mindset has been established; the rhetoric that man is destroying the planet must remain the same in order to accomplish set goals.

 

Funding source of Agenda 2030

Funding for the propaganda to continue unobstructed is likewise a problem to the U.N. 2012 and 2030 Agendas.  How does one obtain the necessary funding from sources that are the ultimate losers in this experiment?  Secretary General Angel Gurria, head of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), admitted that without the wealthy private sector, their plan isn’t going to happen, as there are budgetary constraints in every country.

So who is funding this trillion dollar, massive experiment that will change the lives of you and me?   The following was published by FoxNews.com.on May 23, 2015, but you might have missed it, because there was no other substantial coverage provided the public:

“EXCLUSIVE: The United Nations Foundation created by billionaire Ted Turner, along with a branch of media giants like Thomson Reuters, is starting to train a squadron of journalists in order to subsidize media content in 33 countries — including the U.S. and Britain — in an effort to popularize the controversial experiment, the U.N. sponsored Sustainable Development Goals, prior to a global U.N. summit this September.  That is when U.N. organizers hope they will be endorsed by world leaders.  It is intended to help breathe some new life into a sprawling U.N. effort — supported by, among others, the Obama administration — to create a global social and environmental agenda they hope to have in place within the next 15 years.”

Buying into by responding to the U.N. scare tactics are an amazing amount of people from various levels of income.

A “Giving Pledge” was set up and originally announced by Warren Buffett and Bill Gates in 2010, to encourage the wealthiest people in the world to give most of their wealth to philanthropic causes.  So far it has been signed by 137 billionaire or former billionaire individuals or couples.  Interesting is that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, among the notable younger pledgers, was an attendee at the White House state dinner for Xi Jingping, the President of Communist China on Friday, September 25, 2015.

 

PR Promotion of Agenda 2030

In Central Park in NYC the U.N. Global goals were advanced at an open-air event titled “Global Citizen Festival” the following day, September 26.   The festival was the ambitious undertaking of “Project Everyone”, whose mission is to share the U.N. global goals with 7 billion people in 7 days through the power of the radio. The “Global Citizen Festival” in NYC was the first event of “Project Everyone,”ending on October 2nd.

Television network MSNBC, through its partnership with the “Global Citizen Festival”, declared it was “committed to connecting the audience with the stories and values that bring purpose and attention to our global community.”   Other media partners sponsoring “Project Everyone” or broadcasting the NYC event included NBC News and CNBC.  Corporate partners aligned with “Project Everyone” are The Huffington Post, Yahoo!, YouTube, and Wikipedia, which together have the ability to influence and propagandize an amazing  percentage of American people.

Those who used Google Chrome as a search engine on September 25th found notice on the bottom of the Internet page urging people to click on a link to learn more about the U.N.’s global goals to “end poverty, climate change, and injustice.”  That link led to the U.N.’s “sustainable development goals.”

There is more planned to help launch the U.N.’s thirty-year global goals.  Movie theaters around the country and the world were enlisted to promote the so-called “Global Goals Campaign” through a 60-second ad narrated by Liam Neeson (as the voice of God) and featuring animated creatures (as U.N. officials) calling on the nations of the world to “defeat climate change.” Additionally there is an effort by the movement to get the “Global Goals Campaign” onto every website and billboard, broadcast on every TV and radio station, in every cinema and classroom, pinned to every community notice board, and sent to every mobile phone.

Listen here to Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, on public record about Agenda 2030:   She warns that because this is the first time in the history of mankind that we are intentionally changing the economic development model, one that has reigned for at least 150 years, we must understand it will take time.

 

Will the Push to Enact Agenda 2030 in 15 Years be realized?  IT ALL DEPENDS ON YOU!

Obviously, there are those who want to hasten that time and are taking steps to make that happen.  As noted earlier in a Fox report on May 23 of this year, the advancement of United Nations Agenda 2030 and its encroachment on our nation are being promoted by a progressive, mainstream media. Consider that the media gave unprecedented exposure and exceedingly favorable coverage to Pope Francis, as he too spoke a supportive message for the U.N. Agenda, while U.N. promoters stayed in the background, quietly beneath the radar.  The Pope’s U.N. message was not lost on the masses.  Pope Francis began his address at the U.N. on September 25th by advancing the message of U.N Agenda 2030 to end poverty and hunger, fight inequality, and conquer climate change.

The period from 2015 to 2030 is when the transition from oil and gas is scheduled to take place and when the global capitalist system, powered by the use of energy and resources for the benefit of humankind, will be overturned.  As stated in an article by David Snyder:

“Eventually, the globalists want to fundamentally transform virtually everything about our society.  This includes our economy, our government, our entertainment, our social interactions, our families, and even our religious beliefs. So do not be deceived by the crafted language.  The “New Universal Agenda” is far, far more dangerous than Agenda 21 ever was, and it is a giant step forward into a one world system governed by bureaucratic control freaks.”

Who is protecting us from this worldwide plan to change our planet?  It may be just those of us who know the whole truth.  We need to inform others, speak to groups, and sound the alarm to all within our sphere of influence.  It appears we no longer can trust those whom we have always considered trustworthy.  The key is to be aware and warn others that there are key people in our government (elitists) who are working towards changing our lives, based on unproven facts and actual fiction.


Thursday, October 08, 2015

Thursday, October 01, 2015

Bill-and-hillary-clinton

By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold – 

Hillary Clinton’s old emails are popping up everywhere. The State Department found some about Benghazi, the administration some with David Petraeus, and the FBI some that were deleted. The “drip, drip drip,” as Hillary recently described the on-going reporting about her emails, is having some effect on Hillary’s slide in the polls and likewise raising doubts among supporters. But is this enough to derail Hillary’s campaign?

On Sept. 28th “The O’Reilly Factor” examined here the latest in the controversy surrounding the former Secretary of State and presidential hopeful.

Now husband Bill is coming to Hillary’s rescue.

In an interview aired on CNN on Sunday, September 20, Clinton remarked:

“You know, at the beginning of the year, she was the most admired person in public life,” he said. “What happened? The presidential campaign happened. And the nature of the coverage shifted from issue-based to political.” “I have never seen so much expended on so little,” the former president said. “The other party doesn’t want to run against her. And if they do, they’d like her as mangled up as possible.” “She did say she was sorry that her personal email caused all this confusion.”

It must be remembered that Hillary is an attorney and a long time politician. Nothing she does is without some purpose, despite claims to the contrary. The underlying Clinton strategy is to deny allegations and ignore requests for more information. Eventually the news cycle will turn to other things, but if something breaks, the scandal is now “old news,” and eventually reporters will stop asking. Unfortunately for Hillary, Congress has not gotten the message that there’s nothing more to ask.

In the next couple of weeks (October) Hillary will once again appear before the House Select Committee on Benghazi. A good attorney never asks a question which he does not know the answer, and the Republicans on the committee are all attorneys. Here are a few questions which will either elicit good answers or constitute perjury. A candidate running for high office cannot afford to plead the fifth amendment.

  •  Question One:  It has been suggested that you used a private email server to shield your communications from FOIA requests. How do you respond to this allegation?

Hillary claims that the State Department knew and approved of her use of a private server. However, State did not qualify their response to requests for emails by Congress or private parties suing for their release. State seemed to be ignoring these requests until a federal judge lowered his hammer. Everybody seemed to be surprised when the Washington Post revealed its existence last March, 2015.

  • Question Two: The use of an attorneys to perform certain tasks is called “work product,” which is subject to client-attorney privilege. Was this a lawyerly attempt to conceal the process of separating public from private email and the contents of those messages from the government, public, and ordinary judicial review?

Activities of this nature by attorneys is called “work product” and is protected by the attorney-client privilege. This means the attorney cannot be compelled to reveal any details except under extraordinary circumstances. Hilary claims she did not take a direct role in this process, and theoretically can’t be forced to respond. It is usually done to deny or delay future inquiries. However the attorneys were not authorized to possess classified material even briefly. Commission of a crime is not protected under color of law.

  • Question Three: You previously maintained, under oath, that no classified documents were stored, received or transmitted from your private server. The Inspectors General and State Department have determined otherwise. As head of the department, you were ultimately responsible for classification. Please respond to these allegations.

This is proven to be false on both counts, based on the Inspectors General reports, and news from State.

  • Question Four: You affirmed, under oath, that all official emails on your server were transmitted to State, yet several hundred emails from you have surfaced which were not in your transmittal. How do you explain this omission?

This too is undeniable. Nearly 900 emails between Clinton and General Petraeous were released by State last week, and none were included in the 50,000 or so printed pages she submitted to State. Secondly, there is a two month gap in emails surrounding the Benghazi incident. It is unbelievable that the Secretary of State had nothing to say other than face to face.

On Wednesday, September 30, it was learned that FBI Director James Comey has started briefing select lawmakers on the status of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private server, confirming that investigators are actively looking for evidence the server was compromised by a foreign entity or hacker.  The same source revealed that FBI Director Comey has reassured lawmakers that his “top people” are handling the investigation and that no resource is being spared.  His team is working “24/7” to determine whether classified information was compromised.

Will the high-stakes investigation be influenced by politics?  Let’s hope that the FBI does its work professionally, even as it’s done in secret so the ability to do due diligence is not jeopardized in any way.

Hilary is an attorney, and historically speaking, not a particularly good nor ethical one. This whole affair has the appearance of someone hiding behind the law. Now it looks like the law might actually tip over and crush Hillary, unlike what the many past Bill and Hillary scandals failed to do.