Let's face it: Hillary Clinton is the least honest, most corrupt individual ever to win the Democratic nomination. Donald Trump is the least qualified, coarsest and least appealing candidate ever nominated by the Republicans. But, one of them has to win, so the voters must overlook those personal flaws and come to a decision. Hillary Clinton is a woman with a great resumé and few accomplishments. She was elected to the Senate from New York, but if her name was merely Hillary Rodham, she never would have been able to carpetbag her way into the seat in a state in which she had never lived. A mere detail, that – for Hillary Clinton has been above the law for her entire adult life. Most things she touches fall apart – from Hillarycare to the Russian Reset to Benghazi. She received millions of dollars of donations to the family foundation while she was Secretary of State (and probably while she was a senator, too). She has shifted her position on many major social issues, espousing the “traditionalist, family-friendly position” just long enough to win some votes for herself or her husband, and then moving inexorably to the left and, eventually, not only switching her positions on such things as traditional marriage, welfare reform, crime and punishment, to name a few, but also, once switching, becoming completely contemptuous of anyone who holds the very position she once held herself. If there ever was a candidate who does not deserve our vote, it is Hillary Clinton. We don’t know if Donald Trump will try to take advantage of women while President; but we know that Mrs. Clinton’s husband did. Mr. Trump’s character, integrity and behavior may well be every bit as weak as Mrs. Clinton’s. We are not happy with that. But his Supreme Court nominees will be superior to hers; his tax plan is superior to hers, he will correctly identify Islamic terrorism; he will defend American interests; he will build the Keystone pipeline; and he will respect the Constitution, including the Second Amendment; and he will not fall prey to the political correctness that has captured the American establishment.
By John Shaffer Let's face it: Hillary Clinton is the least honest, most corrupt individual ever to win the Democratic nomination. Donald Trump is the least qualified, coarsest and least appealing candidate ever nominated by the Republicans. But, one of them has to win, so the voters must overlook those personal flaws and come to a decision. Hillary Clinton is a woman with a great resumé and few accomplishments. She was elected to the Senate from New York, but if her name was merely Hillary Rodham, she never would have been able to carpetbag her way into the seat in a state in which she had never lived. A mere detail, that – for Hillary Clinton has been above the law for her entire adult life. Most things she touches fall apart – from Hillarycare to the Russian Reset to Benghazi. She received millions of dollars of donations to the family foundation while she was Secretary of State (and probably while she was a senator, too). She has shifted her position on many major social issues, espousing the “traditionalist, family-friendly position” just long enough to win some votes for herself or her husband, and then moving inexorably to the left and, eventually, not only switching her positions on such things as traditional marriage, welfare reform, crime and punishment, to name a few, but also, once switching, becoming completely contemptuous of anyone who holds the very position she once held herself. If there ever was a candidate who does not deserve our vote, it is Hillary Clinton. We don’t know if Donald Trump will try to take advantage of women while President; but we know that Mrs. Clinton’s husband did. Mr. Trump’s character, integrity and behavior may well be every bit as weak as Mrs. Clinton’s. We are not happy with that. But his Supreme Court nominees will be superior to hers; his tax plan is superior to hers, he will correctly identify Islamic terrorism; he will defend American interests; he will build the Keystone pipeline; and he will respect the Constitution, including the Second Amendment; and he will not fall prey to the political correctness that has captured the American establishment. By John Shaffer Everyone is talking about the “Donald Trump hot mic” tapes from 2005, in which he makes crude, lewd, offensive and demeaning comments about some his desires toward a couple of attractive women. He probably didn’t realize he was being recorded, but no matter – he said the words and used the vulgar and offensive terms, and he has paid a price for it, as reflected in an appreciable drop in his polling numbers. Several prominent Republicans have distanced themselves from the candidate. And if the Republicans are upset, the Democrats are vicious in their denunciations of Mr. Trump. The Republicans were equally disdainful of President Bill Clinton, who not only said things every bit as bad as Mr. Trump’s tape but who also “had improper relations” with more than his share of females. The Democrats, you will remember, defended Mr. Clinton, made excuses for Mr. Clinton, downplayed Mr. Clinton’s behavior, and in the end failed to remove him from office when he was impeached And leading the defense of Mr. Clinton was the loyal, dutiful, stand-by-your-man wife of Mr. Clinton, Hillary Clinton, champion of feminism.
By John Shaffer The reasons that we so strongly opposed the Obamacare legislation was because we knew that it would be expensive and coercive, would limit choices, would interfere with the workings of the marketplace, would damage the healthcare delivery system, would empower government while reducing consumer choices . . .well, we could go on, but you get the idea. The reasons, by the way, were just about the same reasons that we opposed Hillarycare back in the 1990s. Well, all of those things have come true, and more besides. Almost all of the state “exchanges” have shut down or are on the ropes; insurers have stopped offering plans in many localities; deductibles have soared so out-of-pocket costs are greater for many millions of people; and many of the folks who were called “uninsured” still are – specifically those who chose not to buy health insurance because they were young and healthy and would rather spend their money on something else. They are still refusing to buy into Obamacare, even at the cost of the fine. (Yes – remember that important fact that the Obama administration has forgotten when it reports its supposedly glowing numbers for the increasing number of “insured”) Before Obamacare there was a free market. With Obamacare, if one does not have insurance, one is fined. So, the government is coercing people to sign up or be penalized. We have a hard time spinning that as a positive sign of Obamacare’s popularity.
By John Shaffer The first “great debate” is over, and Hillary Clinton won, according to the TV polls. Mrs. Clinton surely did not appear to be affected by her recent health issues, and she had a few sharp retorts and employed them at the right times. Give her credit for experience and for exceeding expectations; but let’s give Mr. Trump at least a bit of credit too, for he stood face-to-face with the most famous woman in the world and held his own. Mr. Trump was on the defensive more often than not, and Mrs. Clinton was more aggressive. Mr. Trump missed some opportunities, and had some inconsistencies. On one hand he complained about the national debt, but on the other, that we do not spend enough government money in the cities. Mrs. Clinton accused us all of racism, although we suppose she excludes her supporters from that charge. The moderator didn’t think things such as Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, 30,000 deleted emails, Obamacare, or the IRS or VA scandals were important enough to discuss; but perhaps the next moderator will raise questions about them, and that may tend to put Mrs. C. on the defensive, which could change the audience’s view of the whole proceeding. A couple of weeks before the debate, Mrs. Clinton called Mr. Trump’s supporters (well, “half of them”) a “basket of deplorables,” summarily guilty of racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamaphobia, and who knows what else. Sad to say, but this is the standard view that the progressive left (in fact, the mainstream left as well) has expressed for fifty years or more. Their basic principle is this: the left does not believe that anyone has a legitimate reason for espousing a conservative viewpoint.
By John Shaffer By now many of you readers are aware that your editor was on the sick list from early Wednesday morning (about 2:30 am) through 2:00 pm on Saturday. We had pneumonia and some very low blood counts. The good news is that there is no indication that the lymphoma has relapsed. We are gaining strength and are recovering each day. We thank everyone for prayers and kind thoughts. All the medical personnel we dealt with were top-notch, whether in Troy, on the ambulance, or at Geisinger, and we thank them all very much. Special thanks to my wife, and the staff of the newspaper, for doing their usual great job, and for keeping things going in our absence; and to our daughters who came from New York state and Alabama, or sent prayers from Nashville, and to my brother who drove down from Maine.
By John Shaffer Let’s begin by saying that everyone can get sick, and it is not unusual for a presidential candidate to take ill, and to recover. Hillary Clinton’s September 11th episode raises many questions, and those about the state of her health are the least important. What is more important is the reaction of the candidate and her campaign. And specifically we refer to the statement from Mrs. C.’s physician in which she discloses that on Friday, September 9, Mrs. Clinton was diagnosed with pneumonia (a mild, non-contagious type). Sounds routine, and a “we wish you a speedy recovery” type of thing – except that statement was not issued until hours after Mrs. C’s September 11th collapse.
By John Shaffer Back in January, four Americans illegally held by Iran were released. At the same time, the United States made a “secret” payment to Iran of $400,000,000. Not a ransom, the State Department assured us – rather, “a coincidence.” Yes, it was so coincidental that the planeload of cash was delivered at precisely the moment that the hostages were returned; which happened to be on the day that most sanctions on the Iranian regime were eased or removed. Well, while $400 million might not buy as much as it used to, in the hands of a regime that chants “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” it’s sufficient to cause a lot of mischief – or destruction.
But coincidental or not, that payment barely scratched the surface, for the Obama administration also paid to Iran $1.3 billion dollars, based on a claim that Iran had dating from the days of the 1979 revolution that deposed America’s ally, the Shah of Iran (who for all his many faults, was a friend of the United States) and replaced him with the rule of the Ayatollahs, (whose faults are at least equal to the Shah’s, and who hate America and Israel and aren’t afraid to prove it). By John Shaffer Colin Kaepernick, quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers, told an interviewer that he had twice refused to stand for the National Anthem prior to football games. “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color…There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder,” Mr. Kaepernick said. Until two weeks ago Mr. Kaepernick seemed perfectly fine with the anthem, so his position makes one wonder if something took place very recently that provoked his response. Another point – is it accurate to claim that a nation “oppresses black people” when it twice has elected a black President? For that matter, how oppressed does Mr. Kaepernick feel in a society where he has earned millions to play football? As to the bodies lying in the streets – there are hundreds more black bodies killed by other blacks than there are killed by policemen. Mr. Kaepernick ignores those hundreds (thousands, actually) and instead sees only the handful of shootings by police – and jumps to the conclusion that all those are murders by racist cops. Even worse, Mr. Kaepernick ignores the hundreds of millions of Americans who treat people of all races with respect, and he ignores the hundreds of laws intended to prevent or to punish illegal racial discrimination. A country that “oppresses black people” would hardly make it illegal to oppress black people. Furthermore, Mr. Kaepernick’s use of the word “oppress” reflects an ignorance of what true oppression is, and there are dozens of countries in the world where he could find examples. He also ignores the millions of black people who, along with white, brown, red, yellow and other people are protected by police, and also fails to note that most of those high-profile police shootings were not in fact racial murders, but were line of duty shootings, usually involving criminals behaving in a criminal or threatening manner.
By J0hn Shaffer In case you might believe that self-enrichment is the only motivation behind the Hillary Clinton email scandals, this week we have more evidence that secrecy also is lurking behind that dark curtain. Excerpts from a forthcoming book on Bill Clinton were released this week. One of the most intriguing recounted a conversation said to have taken place at the home of former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, with invited guests former Secretaries Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice and then-Secretary Hillary Clinton. Asked for "one bit of advice" for the current Secretary, Mr. Powell is supposed to have advised her to use her own email, except for classified information. Mrs. Clinton is said to have repeated this advice during her FBI interview, in an apparent effort to be absolved of the blame herself. In Mr. Powell's time at State, email was somewhat primitive. After the news broke about Mrs. Clinton's email, Mr. Powell was not pleased, and told People magazine that he has no recollection of the conversation but did send a memo which described how he used his personal account - strictly for private things. He says that Mrs. Clinton is "trying to pin" the blame for her email practices on him. Oh, Mrs. Clinton already had been using her private server and email long before Mr. Powell's conversation or memo.
By John Shaffer
Charity begins at home, we are told, and a certain home in Chappaqua, NY is overflowing with the milk of human kindness. Yes, giving is ingrained in the home of Bill and Hillary Clinton, the former and future Presidents. In 2015 they raked in an income of $10,745,378, which is nothing to sneer at, considering neither one of them actually was employed by anybody. Since that January day in 2001 when they left the White House “dead broke,” if we may use the phrase of a prominent American political figure, Mr. & Mrs. C. have banked nearly $250 million. Some of that came from memoirs, which attract massive advances from publishers. The Clintons may be brilliant writers, but pen and ink are sidelines; their real earning power comes from their amazing powers of oratory. Their speeches and talks command staggering sums (The pair made $6.7 million in speaking fees last year and $10.5 million in 2014.) We would love to tell you what it is they have to say and why it is so valuable (in more than one sense of the word) but alas, this we cannot do; for one of the conditions of Mrs. Clinton's speechifying is that she controls the content. No recordings, no printed copies – well, actually, Hillary’s contracts insist that the listener pay for a stenographer, and further insist that which the stenographer produces becomes the exclusive property of Hillary herself, never to see the light of day. By John Shaffer The book of Ecclesiastes says “there is no new thing under the sun.” Far be if from us to disagree with Holy Scripture, but if not “new” this year’s presidential election is as close to it as we ever have seen, because each of our major parties has nominated candidates who turn off more voters than they turn on. Following are illustrations of how typical voters, disappointed, discouraged and disgruntled, might describe the candidates they don’t want to support, but may have to:
The Republicans had seventeen candidates to pick from, and, due to circumstances that seemed to start at pride and descended into an inability to get out of each other’s way or settle on an alternative, they ended up nominating the candidate with the least experience, the least competence, the least demonstrated ability to handle the office of any of those candidates it nominated back in those days when the party was “grand” and “old.” Barack Obama may be the most thin-skinned, egotistical, uninformed, unknowing and unaware presidents ever, but Mr. Trump would top him in every one of those categories. His biggest problem, aside from the fact that he is unprepared to be president, is that he finds it necessary to say what’s on his mind – not a bad quality, when one gathers evidence, listens to those who are knowledgeable, marshals facts and speaks precisely and clearly. It is a bad quality when one’s thoughts are undisciplined, when one reflexively lashes out and when one lacks command of the facts. By John Shaffer Our major parties have picked their candidates for president. Despite much internet bandwidth being filled about how the two parties are more alike than different, there are stark differences, and despite some fraying around the edges the Republican party is (in today’s parlance) the more conservative and the Democrat party the more liberal.
Yes, there are things that both parties support today that they did not support four or eight years ago, but there is one massive, major, and perhaps unbridgeable difference between the two party platforms, and also between most candidates from the respective parties. That issue, in case you haven’t guessed, is abortion. Here are the abortion planks directly taken from each party’s 2016 platform. Republican: Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the non-consensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide. Republican leadership has led the effort to prohibit the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion and permitted States to extend health care coverage to children before birth. By John Shaffer With sickening frequency, American police officers are being targeted, shot and murdered. In the latest episode, in Baton Rouge, the killer lured the officers into ambush and opened fire. A few days earlier, in Dallas, officers were ambushed as they were providing security at a rally to support black victims who had been shot by white police officers in other cities. The Dallas shooter said he wanted to kill white cops. The Baton Rouge killer wanted revenge for an incident in that city where a black man was killed by white policemen. The policemen were targeted, not as individuals, but because they wore the uniform. So far this year, 509 US citizens have been killed by police. 238 were white, 123 were black; 79 were hispanic, and 69 were of other races or race is unknown. According to a study by The Washington Post, “the great majority of people who died at the hands of the police fit at least one of three categories: they were wielding weapons, they were suicidal or mentally troubled, or they ran when officers told them to halt.” In 2015, 965 people were shot by police. 564 of those killed were in possession of a gun; 281 were in possession of another weapon; and 90 were unarmed. The Post found that white police officers killing unarmed black men represent less than 4 percent of fatal police shootings.
By John Shaffer The Director of the FBI, after presenting the lies told by Hillary Clinton about her emails and her private server, determined that she had no intent to do anything wrong, and he recommended she not be prosecuted. Fresh from a meeting with the husband of Mrs. Clinton, a meeting that overflowed with chance and spontaneity as only a meeting that takes on a private jet plane on the airport tarmac can overflow, and which touched no subject beyond golf and grandchildren, the Attorney General of the United States followed the FBI Director’s recommendation and did not charge her.
This was in keeping also with the wishes of the current President of the United States, for he made public statements of support for Mrs. Clinton several times during the course of the investigation and isn’t it good to know that in America, the President can freely unburden himself of his deepest wishes without any concerns about the appearance of interfering in the decisions of his subordinates. It is also good to know that we live in an America where one’s station in life cannot influence the course of justice. Imagine! There are places in the world where high officials can commit all kinds of crimes and get away with it because prosecutors and investigators are mere tools of the government and dare not act independently. The citizens of the United Kingdom have voted to “exit” the European Union. The vote was supposed to be a nail-biter, and few polls predicted that the voters would choose to exit; but they did, by a 52% to 48% margin – just about the percentage Barack Obama won in his elections (52.9% in 2008, 51.1% in 2012). The losers in the UK exit vote already are circulating petitions for another vote. Of course, had the “exit” voters lost, the decision would be considered to be final and talk of a re-vote would be seen as a disdain for democracy.
But the decision may prompt other votes. Scotland, where over 60% of the voters favored remaining within the European Union, is ruminating about withdrawing from the UK; and there is talk that Northern Ireland, which also opposed the exit, may seek some type of union with Ireland; and in a sign that the UK’s feelings are not unique, “exit” votes are possible in several other members of the European Union. The reaction by the European trans-national establishment to the exit vote shows as much as anything why the unionists lost and the exiters won. |
Local ColumnistsFind articles by date or topic through quick links below. Categories
All
Archives
March 2020
|