Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : How Quickly Can Obama Totally Destroy the US? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John who wrote (14308)	3/8/2015 7:26:08 PM
From: joseffy	Respond to of 16547

Emails May Be a Key to Addressing 'Pay to Play' Whispers at Clinton Foundation There are not two Clinton controversies. There is one big hairy deal. National Journal By Ron Fournier March 8, 2015 Excerpt: "Follow the money." That apocryphal phrase, attributed to Watergate whistleblower "Deep Throat," explains why the biggest threat to Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential dreams is not her emails. It's her family foundation. That's where the money is: corporate money, foreign money, gobs of money sloshing around a vanity charity that could be renamed "Clinton Conflicts of Interest Foundation." What about the emails? Hillary Clinton's secret communications cache is a bombshell deserving of full disclosure because of her assault on government transparency and electronic security. But its greatest relevancy is what the emails might reveal about any nexus between Clinton's work at State and donations to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Foundation from U.S. corporations and foreign nations. Under fire, Bill Clinton said his namesake charity has "done a lot more good than harm" – hardly a ringing endorsement. One of his longest serving advisers, a person who had worked directly for the foundation, told me the "longtime whispers of pay-to-play are going to become shouts." This person, a Clinton loyalist and credible source, has no evidence of wrongdoing but said the media's suspicions are warranted. "The emails are a related but secondary scandal," the source said. "Follow the foundation money." Is the foundation clean? Is it corrupt? Or is the truth in the muddy middle, where we so often find the Clintons? Due to the fact that Hillary Clinton chose to skirt federal regulations and house her State Department emails on an off-the-books server, even the most loyal Democrat can't honestly answer those questions without an independent vetting of her electronic correspondence. Without those emails, we may never be able to follow the money. Could that be why she hasn't coughed up the server? Disclosure: I've known and respected the Clintons since the 1980s, when I covered the state politics for the Arkansas Democrat (now the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette) and The Associated Press. Over the years, they've been kind to my family, and my career obviously benefited from their rise. Of all the public servants I've covered since moving to Washington in 1993, none approach the Clintons in terms of both strengths and weaknesses. While I've never called them corrupt, (the Whitewater land deal was legitimate), I can tell you almost 30 years of stories about their entitlement, outsized victimization, and an aggravating belief in the ends justifying the means. Which is why I wasn't surprised when veteran Clinton chronicler Todd S. Purdum of Politco compared her to Richard Nixon. Not even Clinton's harshest critics could claim that Servergate (or Chappaquadata, or whatever it may come to be called) constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor. But it does connote a reflexive wariness about her enemies – a wariness that sometimes seems to border on paranoia – that has long dogged Clinton, and that struck at least a few old Nixon hands as familiar … "There is, of course," Purdum continued, "a bitter paradox in the fact that Clinton, as a young staffer on the House Judiciary Committee, actually worked on Nixon's impeachment." I wonder what a young Hillary Clinton would think of a private charity run by a former U.S. president and a potential future president that collected hundreds of millions of dollars from countries and companies hoping to influence the pair. Actually, I don't wonder: She would think it smells. And yet, a New York developer donated $100,000 to the foundation about the same time Hillary Clinton helped secure millions of dollars in federal assistance for the businessman's mall project. snip The Rest

To: John who wrote (14308)	3/8/2015 7:30:01 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By John Respond to of 16547

Garbage Man Sentenced To 30 DAYS IN JAIL For Picking Up Trash Too Early Well this is garbage. A sanitation worker in an Atlanta suburb has been sentenced to 30 days in jail for working too early. Kevin McGill had been working for only a few months for a company contracted to do sanitation work in Sandy Springs when he was cited for picking up trash just after 5 a.m. one morning, according to WSB-TV. That violated a city ordinance which limits trash pickup to between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. The statute is in place because residents have complained that early pick-up disrupts their sleep. When McGill showed up to court to answer the citation, Sandy Springs prosecutor Bill Riley sought the maximum punishment against him — 30 days in jail. And in a trashy move, a judge granted Riley the request. More garbage here It sure is nice to know that crime is so slow in Atlanta that they have the time and money to go after these big mean criminals. It makes me call BS over claims of jails being too full and court time too busy.

To: John who wrote (14308)	3/9/2015 6:34:59 PM
From: joseffy	1 Recommendation Recommended By John Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16547

Vacating Boehner’s Empty Chair ............................................................ By: Daniel Horowitz \| March 9th, 2015 ________________________ As Barack Obama rushes the gates of our Republic in his final two-year assault, there is nothing standing in the path of his destruction. There is nobody standing guard by the gate, aside from two empty chairs. One of those chairs belongs to House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and the other belongs to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). It’s a little known fact that any House member can force a vote to remove Boehner from the speakership and to provide recourse against the ruling class oligarchy. The past few months have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that the only way Obama will be checked is by a change in GOP leadership. Given that the Senate is already a lost cause because of the coalition of GOP progressives, the only recourse for conservatives is to have the House serve as the last line of defense for our system of governance. It’s time conservatives use the House rules to oust John Boehner from the speakership. It’s time to have a party leader who fundamentally believes, and is willing to fight for, our values, principles and goals. At the beginning of January, we noted how roughly 30 Republicans could have defeated John Boehner’s election on the floor of the House and represent the 60 percent of Republicans who opposed Boehner for Speaker in a public poll released earlier that month. Twenty-five Republicans heeded the public’s call, but if not for Mario Cuomo’s funeral and a snow storm, as many as several dozen more Republicans would have likely joined in the effort. With a number of members off the floor, the threshold for Boehner to obtain a majority was lowered substantially, thereby creating a self-defeating expectation of failure. At the time, Conservative Review’s Liberty Score™ was the only scorecard to key vote the Speaker’s election. The past few months have proven that to be the correct choice. This time there are no excuses. It’s a little known fact that any House member can force a vote to remove Boehner from the speakership and to provide recourse against the ruling class oligarchy. But until Boehner can demonstrate that he will garner enough Democrat votes, the message for conservatives is clear: if Boehner lives by Democrat votes, he will go down with Democrat votes. According to House rules, any member can offer a motion to vacate the speaker’s chair and force a de facto ‘vote of no confidence’ in the Speaker. Under normal circumstances, an individual member has no power to force a vote on any bill or resolution, but the motion to vacate is “privileged.” There is nothing Boehner can do to block the motion. And once again, if all the Democrats vote against Boehner, it only takes about 30 Republican ‘no’ votes to force a new speaker’s election. If Pelosi keeps a few extra Democrats off the floor it might take a few dozen more Republicans with a spine. But if all the members who have claimed to want a new Speaker would pull the trigger, there would be enough votes. Some are citing a Hill article claiming Pelosi would have Democrats vote with Boehner as evidence that this plan would fail. However, that story was planted by Boehner’s team and is an unlikely reflection of the likely outcome. Most of the Democrats remaining in the House hail from liberal districts and would have a hard time justifying a vote for Boehner. Moreover, if Boehner wants to win a vote of no confidence with Democrats, let him do so. It will lay bare before the public that he owes his speakership to the Democrat party, not the democratically elected Republican majority. But until Boehner can demonstrate that he will garner enough Democrat votes, the message for conservatives is clear: if Boehner lives by Democrat votes, he will go down with Democrat votes. In the coming weeks, those who faltered during the January Speaker’s vote might get a second chance to redeem themselves. Many of the new members wanted to give Boehner the benefit of the doubt and voted in January to keep him in the speaker’s chair. The thought was that by voting for him, it would encourage and even pressure Boehner to give conservative freshmen a seat at the table. Yet, not only have conservatives been cut out of the process, Boehner is now running ads against those who opposed funding amnesty in the DHS funding bill, which was Boehner’s own position back in December when he lobbied for the Cromnibus bill. Some members are making excuses for Boehner, noting that McConnell and Senate Republicans sabotaged the fight against amnesty even more than Boehner. It’s true that McConnell is just as much a part of the problem, but there is no effective way of deposing him at this point. The only way to reclaim the power of deterrent against Obama is by electing a new House leader who will make it clear he is not terrified of using the power of the purse and messaging it effectively. With Boehner actively collaborating with Pelosi on agenda items and a floor schedule full of liberal legislation instead of winning conservative bills, conservatives have hit rock bottom. The fear some members have of being marginalized or losing their token committee assignments is a non-sequitur. They are already marginalized and have no control over the Pelosi-Boehner oligarchy. There are no longer any excuses for not trying to use every tool in the wood shed to shake up an irrevocably broken House leadership. In the coming weeks, those who faltered during the January Speaker’s vote might get a second chance to redeem themselves. *Daniel Horowitz is the Senior Editor of Conservative Review.* If you want to know where your member of Congress stands on the conservative spectrum and receive updates on the issues that matter most to conservatives, register for a Conservative Review® account today.