Hitlery Personally Took Money From Companies That Sought To Influence Her

Hillary Clinton Personally Took Money From Companies That Sought To Influence Her – Vox

.

.
Almost a decade ago, as Hillary Clinton ran for re-election to the Senate on her way to seeking the presidency for the first time, the New York Times reported on her unusually close relationship with Corning, Inc., an upstate glass titan. Clinton advanced the company’s interests, racking up a big assist by getting China to ease a trade barrier. And the firm’s mostly Republican executives opened up their wallets for her campaign.

During Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, Corning lobbied the department on a variety of trade issues, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The company has donated between $100,000 and $250,000 to her family’s foundation. And, last July, when it was clear that Clinton would again seek the presidency in 2016, Corning coughed up a $225,500 honorarium for Clinton to speak.

In the laundry-whirl of stories about Clinton buck-raking, it might be easy for that last part to get lost in the wash. But it’s the part that matters most. The $225,500 speaking fee didn’t go to help disease-stricken kids in an impoverished village on some long-forgotten patch of the planet. Nor did it go to a campaign account. It went to Hillary Clinton. Personally.

The latest episode in the Clinton money saga is different than the others because it involves the clear, direct personal enrichment of Hillary Clinton, presidential candidate, by people who have a lot of money at stake in the outcome of government decisions. Her federally required financial disclosure was released to media late Friday, a time government officials and political candidates have long reserved for dumping news they hope will have a short shelf life.

Together, Hillary and Bill Clinton cleared $25 million on the lecture circuit over the last 16 months, according to a Hillary Clinton’s personal financial disclosure required of presidential candidates. A lot of the focus will naturally go toward the political argument that Clinton’s wealth makes her out of touch. The US has had plenty of good rich presidents and bad rich presidents. What’s more important is whether they are able to listen to all of the various interests without being unduly influenced by any of them.

There’s a reason government officials can’t accept gifts: They tend to have a corrupting effect. True, Hillary Clinton wasn’t a government official at the time the money was given. But it is very, very, very hard to see six-figure speaking fees paid by longtime political boosters with interests before the government – to a woman who has been running for president since the last time she lost – as anything but a gift.
Who gave and gave and gave and lobbied?

Corning’s in good company in padding the Clinton family bank account after lobbying the State Department and donating to the foundation. Qualcomm and salesforce.com did that, too. Irwin Jacobs, a founder of Qualcomm, and Marc Benioff, a founder of salesforce.com, also cut $25,000 checks to the now-defunct Ready for Hillary SuperPAC. Hillary Clinton spoke to their companies on the same day, October 14, 2014. She collected more than half a million dollars from them that day, adding to the $225,500 salesforce.com had paid her to speak eight months earlier.

And Microsoft, the American Institute of Architects, AT&T, SAP America, Oracle and Telefonica all paid Bill Clinton six-figure sums to speak as Hillary Clinton laid the groundwork for her presidential campaign.

.

.
And that list, which includes Clinton Foundation donors, is hardly the end of it. There’s a solid set of companies and associations that had nothing to do with the foundation but lobbied State while Clinton was there and then paid for her to speak to them. Xerox, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, in addition to Corning, all lobbied Clinton’s department on trade matters and then invited her to earn an easy check.

By this point, most Clinton allies wish they had a button so they didn’t have to go to the trouble of rolling their eyes at each new Clinton money story. The knee-jerk eye-roll response to the latest disclosure will be that there’s nothing new to see here. But there’s something very important to see that is different than the past stories. This time, it’s about Hillary Clinton having her pockets lined by the very people who seek to influence her. Not in some metaphorical sense. She’s literally being paid by them.

That storyline should be no less shocking for the fact that it is no longer surprising. The skimpy fig leaf of timing, that the speeches were paid for when she was between government gigs, would leave Adam blushing. And while most Democrats will shrug it off – or at least pretend to – it’s the kind of behavior voters should take into account when considering whether they want to give a candidate the unparalleled power of the presidency. It goes to the most important, hardest-to-predict characteristic in a president: judgment.

Read Clinton’s full financial disclosure report here.

.

.

Thanks Barack… Federal Regulation Cost American Businesses And Consumers $1.88 Trillion In 2014

Report: Cost Of Federal Regulation Reached $1.88 Trillion In 2014 – Washington Free Beacon

.

.
The cost of federal regulation neared $2 trillion in 2014, according to a new report by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State, a report by Clyde Wayne Crews, CEI’s vice president for policy, also reveals that the U.S. debt now exceeds the size of China’s economy.

“Federal regulation and intervention cost American consumers and businesses an estimated $1.88 trillion in 2014 in lost economic productivity and higher prices,” amounting to roughly $15,000 per household, the report said.

The report found that the federal bureaucracy – made up of 60 agencies, departments, and commissions – has 3,415 regulations in the process of being finalized, meaning that the number of regulations far surpasses the number of laws passed by Congress.

“In 2014, agencies issued 16 new regulations for every law – that’s 3,554 new regulations compared to 224 new laws,” the report said.

CEI, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, found that the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, Interior, Health and Human Services (HHS), Transportation (DOT), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) account for 48 percent of all federal regulations.

The EPA issued 539 final rules in the Federal Register last year, up 12.5 percent in five years.

Enforcing regulations alone cost the government $59.5 billion in 2014.

Government regulation has led to a hidden “tax” for Americans, the report said, as businesses pass along compliance costs to consumers.

“Economy-wide regulatory costs amount to an average of $14,976 per household – around 29 percent of an average family budget of $51,100,” the report said. “Although not paid directly by individuals, this ‘cost’ of regulation exceeds the amount an average family spends on health care, food and transportation.”

Aside from passing costs onto consumers, the report said, regulation is a way for the federal government to further agendas without relying on the legislative system.

“Rather than pay directly and book expenses for new initiatives, federal regulations can compel the private sector, as well as state and local governments, to bear the costs of federal initiatives,” the report said.

Regulations hit small businesses the hardest, averaging $11,724 per employee for firms that employ fewer than 50 people in 2012. The overall cost per employee for all companies comes to $9,991.

The cost of regulation has grown so large, according to the report, that if it was a country “it would be the world’s 10th largest economy, ranking behind Russia and ahead of India.”

The regulatory state has been growing for decades. The report notes that 90,836 rules have been issued since 1993.

The Federal Register, the government’s official record for all federal regulations, was
77,687 pages long at the end of 2014, the sixth-highest page count in history.

“Among the six all-time-high Federal Register page counts, five have occurred under President Obama,” CEI said.

The report also noted that the national debt, which currently stands at $18.152 trillion, is now larger than China’s economy. China surpassed the U.S. to become the largest economy in the world last December.

“The national debt topped $18 trillion in December 2014,
the same month the International Monetary Fund calculated China’s economy to
be worth $17.6 trillion in terms of purchasing power parity, making it the world’s largest economy (albeit still significantly lagging the United States on a per capita basis),” CEI said.

.

.

Obamanomics: Major U.S. Retail Chains Closing 6,000 Stores

Retail Apocalypse: Major Chains Closing 6,000 Stores – WorldNetDaily

.

.
The long feared “retail apocalypse” may be hitting with little or no fanfare if a growing list of store-closing plans by major chains is any indication.

Major U.S. retailers have announced the closing of more than 6,000 stores from coast to coast. The list includes only those retailers that have announced plans to close more than 10 outlets this year and next.

For example, 1,784 Radio Shack stores are vanishing, 400 stores in the Office Depot/Office Max chain by 2016, and 340 Dollar Tree/Family Dollar stores.

The growing list of stores getting shuttered coincides with the decline in discretionary consumer spending over the past six months.

“Expect to see more storefronts closed at malls across the country,” one retail watcher told WND. “It’s getting ugly out there.”

Another factor, the source said, is that Americans’ credit is maxed out – a problem that will impact holiday season sales later this year. Add the demand of rising taxes, housing and health-insurance costs and you’ve got a formula for belt-tightening across the board.

Expected to be hit hardest by the trend are poorer- and lower-middle class neighborhoods. The recent riots in Baltimore are expected to make retailers even more skittish.

See the big list:

.

.

.

U.S. Economy Slows To A Crawl As GDP Grows A Scant 0.2% In First Quarter

U.S. Economic Growth Nearly Stalls Out – Wall Street Journal

The U.S. economy slowed to a crawl at the start of the year as businesses slashed investment, exports tumbled and consumers showed signs of caution, marking a return to the uneven growth that has been a hallmark of the nearly six-year economic expansion.

Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services produced across the economy, expanded at a 0.2% seasonally adjusted annual rate in the first quarter, the Commerce Department said Wednesday. The economy advanced at a 2.2% pace in the fourth quarter and 5% in the third.

Economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal had expected growth of 1% in the first three months of this year, though many were braced for a surprise to the downside.

The latest reading on the economy came hours before Federal Reserve officials released their policy statement, in which they said slower growth reflected, in part, “transitory factors.” The Fed gave no new explicit clues on the timing of interest-rate increases, but the slower growth made the timing a bit more uncertain.

The first-quarter figures repeat a common pattern in recent years: one or two strong readings followed by a sharp slowdown. First-quarter GDP growth had averaged 0.6% since 2010 and 2.9% for all other quarters. That has worked out to moderate overall expansion but no growth breakout.

.

.
“This is another quarterly number which confirms the long-term slow-growth thesis, but there are good odds we get a bit of a bounce later in the year from stabilized business spending and the housing markets, which are setting up quite promising,” Guy LeBas, chief fixed-income strategist at Janney Montgomery Scott, said in a note to clients.

Last year, economists pinned much of the blame for a bad first quarter – GDP shrank 2.1% – on unusually harsh weather. This year, multiple factors appear to be at work, including another bout of blizzards, disruptions at West Coast ports, the stronger dollar’s effect on exports and the impact of cheaper oil.

Better weather, a return to normal at port terminals and steadying investment could boost growth later this year.

“We expect the economy will rebound in [the second quarter] and beyond, similar to last year,” said Michelle Girard, economist at RBS Securities.

But not all the factors behind the slowdown appear temporary. A stronger dollar and cheaper oil could persist, keeping exports and energy-sector investment at bay.

As well, rising inventories kept the U.S. economy out of recession, contributing 0.74 percentage point to GDP in the first quarter. A second-quarter repeat is unlikely.

Joseph LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist at Deutsche Bank, said producers probably will allow inventory positions to run off rather than building them up even more. “This tells us that current-quarter growth is likely to run around 2.5%, not the 4% snapback we had previously been anticipating,” he said.

U.S. households will have to pick up spending to help the economy grow. Wednesday’s report showed consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of economic output, decelerated to a 1.9% pace in the first quarter, down from 4.4% growth in the fourth quarter.

Rather than using savings from cheaper gasoline to buy more goods and services, Americans have been setting money aside for a rainy day. The personal saving rate at 5.5% in the first quarter was the highest since 2012. The figure was 4.6% in the fourth quarter.

Another key driver of the economy, business spending, also has faltered of late. Nonresidential fixed investment – which reflects spending on software, research and development, equipment and structures – retreated at a 3.4% rate, compared with a 4.7% rise in the fourth quarter.

Energy companies in particular are feeling the effects of cheaper oil. Business investment in structures fell 23.1%, led by a 48.7% contraction for mining sector spending on shafts and wells, Commerce said.

A stronger dollar, meanwhile, has made domestically produced goods more expensive overseas and foreign products cheaper inside the U.S. Combined with disruptions at West Coast ports, trade was constrained. In the first quarter, exports fell at a 7.2% rate, compared with 4.5% growth in the fourth quarter. Imports rose 1.8%, compared with 10.4% in the fourth quarter.

Federal government spending added little to the economy in the first quarter, expanding 0.3%, compared with a 7.3% fall in the fourth quarter.

Real final sales of domestic product, a measure that excludes changes to inventories, shrank at a 0.5% pace, compared with a 2.3% rise in the fourth quarter.

Alongside weak growth in the quarter, prices fell.

The price index for personal consumption expenditures – the Fed’s preferred measure for inflation – declined at a 2% annual rate, well below the central bank’s 2% inflation growth target. Core prices, which exclude volatile food and energy components, were up 0.9%, the lowest level since 2010.

.

.

Hillary Speaks To Women About Women At Women’s Summit – Ed Responds


.
The following quotes were taken from the above-embedded speech by Hillary Rotten Clinton at the 6th annual Women in the World summit. After each one, I have posted a response in the hopes that every leftist in America will take a few moments out of his or her (or its) utterly pointless day to write me some hate-mail.

Let’s begin.

“It doesn’t matter whether you’re a student or an artist, a journalist, an ambassador, maybe even a future president. We all have our stories.”

Fortunately for America, you’re none of those things.

“Some of you, I know, were with me in Beijing back in 1995 at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women. Representatives from 189 countries came together to declare with one voice that human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights, once and for all.”

I wonder how many Islamic countries were involved in that event. No matter, I’m sure that by now every Muslim-run nation on Earth has fully embraced women’s rights. After all, wasn’t it you who once said that Islam respects the fundamental dignity of all human beings?

“All the evidence tells us that despite the enormous obstacles that remain, there has never been a better time in history to be born female.”

Especially if you’re born in the United States, and your last name is Clinton.

“Yes, we’ve cut the maternal mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive healthcare, and safe childbirth.”

Yes, and while the maternal mortality rate has surely been cut substantially over the decades, leftists like you have worked overtime to help dramatically increase the mortality rate of unborn infants. How proud you must be.

“All the laws we’ve passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced.”

You mean like the various Obamacare laws that you claim the president has every right to amend whenever he sees fit? And don’t even get me started on the immigration laws he habitually ignores or rewrites whenever the mood strikes him. By the way, I’m not holding my breath waiting for you to express outrage over any of Barack’s numerous, impeachable offenses. If you had any genuine respect for the law, you wouldn’t have intentionally destroyed untold thousands of emails belonging to the American people from your illegally-employed, private computer server in Chappaqua.

“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will, and deep-seeded cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

Are you referring to the deep-seeded cultural codes and religious beliefs of genuine Christians and Jews who don’t just pay lip-service to them in order to win elections, but actually live them every day? Just curious.

“As I have said, and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century. And not just for women, but for everyone.”

Well then, it’s a good thing there’s a section of Obamacare that forces single men to pay for maternity coverage that they can’t possibly use, don’t you think?

“If we closed the gap that remains in the workforce between men and women, our economy in the United States would grow by nearly 10 percent by 2030.”

It’s too bad that leftist policies – like the ones you’ve spent your entire adult life promoting – encourage women to have children out of wedlock, and then reward them with taxpayer dollars for sitting on their asses and watching ‘The View’. That’s got to be disappointing.

“The lack of quality, affordable childcare, unequal pay, work schedules that are not only far from predictable but often simply unfair, fall disproportionately heavily on women.”

It seems to me that there are only two realistic ways to make childcare more affordable. A.) Force childcare facilities – which are mostly run by women – to charge less for their services, or B.) force women to stay home and take care of their own kids while their husbands work. Beyond that, the notion that there is any real inequality in pay between men and women who work equal numbers of hours at equally difficult jobs is just another leftist myth invented by politicians like you. By the way, what is it about unpredictable work schedules that makes them less fair to women than men?

“It is outrageous that America is the only country in the developed world that doesn’t guarantee paid leave to mothers of newborns.”

So, not only should companies be expected to hire an equal number of women and men – even though only women take maternity leave – but now they should be forced to pay women who’ve chosen to have kids wages for not working? How is that fair to all the other employees who still have to put in a 40-hour workweek before receiving a paycheck?

“It’s hard to believe that in 2015 so many women still pay a price for being mothers.”

What, you mean that after all this time people are still expected to incur the costs associated with the decision they make? I am fucking shocked beyond words.

“It is also hard to believe that so many women are still paid less than men for the same work, with even wider gaps for women of color.”

That truly is hard to believe, mostly because it isn’t so. Think about it, if such an absurdity were true, what employer in his right mind would ever hire a white man again?

“Now, when I talk to men about this – which I frequently do – I remind them, if it was your wife or your sister or your daughter or your mother getting taken advantage of at work, you would suffer, your kids would suffer, your family would suffer, and you’d want to do something about it.”

I sure would, and it’s a damned good thing that’s never happened to any woman I know.

“America moves forward when all women are guaranteed the right to make their own healthcare choices, not when those choices are taken away by an employer like Hobby Lobby.”

What rights or choices were taken away from women by that company, exactly? Are you suggesting that Hobby Lobby’s female employees are no longer allowed to use contraceptives? As far as I’m aware, the only thing its owners have ever asked for is that they not be forced by the government to add contraception coverage to their employees’ health insurance policies, because their religious faith does not allow them to disseminate birth control – especially the abortion-inducing drugs included in the infamous Obamacare mandate. Since when does anyone have a right to force the people they work for to provide them with contraceptives that they can easily and cheaply buy on the open market themselves? For that matter, when did products designed to prevent people from conceiving children get redefined as elements of health care?

“when we deny women access to retirement that is secure; when we continue – as we do – to discriminate against women in the Social Security system, we are leaving too many women on their own.”

How are “we” denying women access to a secure retirement? Is there some law I haven’t heard about that prevents American citizens of the female persuasion from saving money in a private account for that purpose? As for Social Security, payments from that system are based on lifetime earnings figures, so the more you make and pay into it over the years, the larger your S.S. checks will be when you retire. A person’s gender has nothing to do with that equation, and the truth of the matter is that women generally live longer than men by several years, so they actually receive a larger percentage of S.S. funds overall.

“We move forward when gay and transgender women are embraced as our colleagues and friends, not fired from good jobs because of who they love or who they are.”

What exactly is a transgender woman? Do you mean a man who wears dresses and pretends to be a woman? And when was the last time you heard of someone being fired simply because they weren’t heterosexual? Just what decade are you living in, anyway?

“We move forward when women who came to this country in search of a better life can earn a path to citizenship.”

That’s been going on since this nation was founded. So, unless President Obama drafted an executive order recently that prevents women from legally immigrating to the U.S. and doing what is required under the U.S. Code to become a naturalized citizen, what’s the problem?

“There are those who offer themselves as leaders who even play politics with the nomination of our nation’s chief law enforcement officer…”

Yes there are. That’s because the Attorney General of the U.S. is a political appointee, and the most recent nominee for that office will be replacing the most politically biased AG in the history of the republic. Of course, I wouldn’t expect someone like you to understand partisan bickering over presidential appointments. Why, you’re as pure as the wind-driven snow when it comes to such things, right? I mean, you’ve never spoken out politically about a Republican president’s choice for – say – the federal judiciary, have you?

“Here in the United States, just last week we saw fast-food workers marching in the streets, asking for nothing more than a living wage and a chance at the American dream.”

What they were actually doing was calling for the unionization of the entire fast-food industry, and insisting that their employers pay them $15 an hour to do entry-level jobs that most well-trained chimpanzees would do for a bunch of grapes and a ripe banana. Then they went on to threaten larger protests in the future if their unreasonable demands weren’t met. But then, who cares about little things like facts when you’re committed to demonizing American businesses for purely political gain, right?

Sincerely,

Edward L. Daley

.

Who Is Dennis Michael Lynch?


.
Dennis Michael Lynch (born August 28, 1969) is an American entrepreneur, documentary filmmaker, and conservative commentator. He is the founder and CEO of TV360Media, a company specializing in the production and distribution of digital film, and often appears as a guest on Fox News and TheBlaze. He is currently running for President of the United States as a conservative Republican.

Official Campaign Website
Facebook
Twitter
Youtube
Documentary: They Come To America

.
VETERANS TEAR DOWN OBAMA BARRICADES AT WWII MEMORIAL

.
SEAN HANNITY TELEVISION SPECIAL: THE COST OF AMNESTY

.
BUNDY RANCH STANDOFF

.
DML FOR AMERICA PAC

.
SPEECH AT NEW HAMPSHIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADERSHIP SUMMIT

……………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.

Starbucks Wants Employees To Harass And Confront Customers Over Racism (Brian Anderson)

Starbucks Wants Employees To Harass And Confront Customers Over Racism – Brian Anderson

.

.
Here’s your overpriced pretentious specialty coffee drink, and would you like to check your white privilege with that? Apparently, Starbucks is not content with being the home to douchey hipsters pretending to be writers; they also want to be the destination for uncomfortable racial confrontations. The coffee giant is encouraging its employees to give customers crap about racism.

Fortune reports:

Beginning on Monday, Starbucks baristas will have the option as they serve customers to hand cups on which they’ve handwritten the words “Race Together” and start a discussion about race. This Friday, each copy of USA Today – which has a daily print circulation of almost 2 million and is a partner of Starbucks in this initiative – will have the first of a series of insert with information about race relations, including a variety of perspectives on race. Starbucks coffee shops will also stock the insert.

As for that “variety of perspectives,” we should look no further than Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz to see what the company thinks about race relations in this country:

The initiative follows several months of consultations with employees that started in December, in part as a result of protests that roiled several U.S. cities after grand juries declined to indict white police officers in the killings of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., near St. Louis, and 43-year-old Eric Garner in Staten Island, N.Y.

Schultz has met with almost 2,000 Starbucks employees since then in cities hit most directly by racial tension and anti-police brutality protests in the last year, including Oakland, St. Louis, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Seattle, where Starbucks is based.

In other words, Schultz comes from a perspective that white people are racists, that cops victimize black people, and that our entire society unfairly places non-whites in a position of disadvantage. So when he says he wants Starbucks employees to engage customers in discussions on race, clearly he wants to push his guilty liberal position of “blame whitey” for everything.

I don’t drink coffee, but if I did, I sure as sh*t wouldn’t get it from Starbucks. But let’s just say that I was getting a burrito at Chipotle and the tortilla guy started in with me about my white privilege. My response would be to tell him to go to hell and I would never buy food from that company again. People simply don’t want to take crap from some minimum wage dork.

Even Fortune acknowledges this is a bad move:

The potential exists for arguments to break out (not for nothing this topic is the third rail of U.S. politics), and some may fairly question any move that could potentially slow in-store service.

I don’t doubt that a good portion of Starbucks customers are liberals that will love this, but sooner rather than later, a barista is going to pick a racism fight with the wrong person. Especially considering how cranky some people are before they have their morning coffee.

CEO Schultz has already alienated gun owners by bowing to pressure from Moms Demand Action and proving he doesn’t respect the 2nd Amendment. Now he seems intent on narrowing his customer base to persons of color and those who admit to their white privilege. Under this business model, pretty soon you won’t be able to get a cup of coffee unless you believe in man-made global warming.

.

.