Posted on 11/17/2014 1:32:05 AM PST by Rummyfan
The economic prosperity that the United States experienced under Bill Clinton can be experienced again, the former president argued on Saturday evening, during a speech in Little Rock.
"We had 100 times as many people move from poverty into the middle class," he told an appreciative audience during a cocktail hour hosted by POLITICO, marking the 10th anniversary of the Clinton Presidential Center.
"This shows the importance of policy," he continued. "We can do this again.”
The anniversary served as something of a reunion for former Clinton aides, with dozens of them descending on Little Rock for speeches and panels about the president's legacy, and some hints about how it might endure.
(Excerpt) Read more at capitalnewyork.com ...
HUH?
Oh! The HUBRIS! !!!
Gag me. Schoolbus.
Yes, the Contract With America was pretty cool, huh?
He did that after we the people sent a Republican congress to Washington.
Looked for a policy suggestion, found none.
Whoopie! We can have another dot.com boom! /s
1) Clinton’s own words show his often expressed innate hostility to, and utter contempt for, the core principles of the American founding:
``If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government’s ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.’’ -- President Bill Clinton, August 12, 1993
``The purpose of government is to reign in the rights of the people’’ –- Bill Clinton during an interview on MTV in 1993
``We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans…that we forget about reality.’’ -- President Bill Clinton, quoted in USA Today, March 11, 1993, Page 2A, ``NRA change: `Omnipotent to powerful’’’ by Debbie Howlett
“When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly… that they would work for the common good, as well as for the individual welfare… However, now there’s a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there’s too much freedom. When personal freedom’s being abused, you have to move to limit it.” – Bill Clinton, April 19, 1995
2) Clinton inevitably pursued his own political advantage at the expense of American interests and national security. Here is just one of many possible examples:
It is well documented that Clinton and the Democrats took illegal campaign money from groups and individuals tied directly to the Chinese People’s Republican Army. It is therefore not surprising that In January 1998 Clinton went against the advice of then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Pentagon experts by lifting long-standing restrictions against the export of American satellites to China for launch on Chinese rockets. Not only did he move control over such decisions from the more security-focused State Department to the Commerce Department, but he intervened in a Justice Department investigation of Loral Space & Communications, retroactively enabling Loral to sell critical missile technology to the Chinese. Interestingly enough, Clinton’s decision was made at the request of Loral CEO Bernard Schwartz, whose earlier $1.3 million campaign donation made him the single biggest contributor to the Democratic election effort.
The result, as stated eloquently by syndicated columnist Linda Bowles, was that “the Democrats got money from satellite companies and from Chinese communists; China got supercomputors, advanced production equipment and missile technology; Loral got its satellites launched at bargain basement prices . . . and the transfer of sensitive missile technology gave China [for the first time] the capability of depositing bombs on American cities.” Incidentally, Loral ultimately failed to benefit from this permanent injury to America’s security interests: in July 2003, the company filed for bankruptcy protection, and in order to raise cash was forced to sell its most profitable business – a fleet of communications satellites orbiting over North America.
3) On two occasions, Clinton used military action for the specific purpose of distracting the American public from the fallout of the Lewinsky affair:
• On August 20, three days after Clinton finally admitted publicly to the Lewinsky affair, the news media was poised to focus on that day’s grand jury testimony by Monica Lewinsky. That same morning, Clinton personally went on national television to gravely announce his bombing of a Sudanese “chemical weapons factory,” and a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. It was the first time most Americans ever heard the name of Osama bin Laden. The factory bombing in Sudan killed an innocent night watchman, but accomplished little else. It later was proven that the plant was making badly needed pharmaceuticals for people in that poverty-stricken part of the world, but no chemical weapons.
Several months later, the U.S. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, part of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, stated: "...the evidence indicates that the facility had no role whatsoever in chemical weapons development." Kroll Associates, one of the world's most reputable investigative firms, also confirmed that there was no link in any way between the plant and any terrorist organization. As for the Afghanistan bombing, it failed to do any damage at all to bin Laden or his organization. Clinton’s action was accurately characterized by George W. Bush when he said right after 9-11: "When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt.
Clinton’s pointless and murderous military actions did not make Americans safer that day, although they did destroy an innocent life, and for all the good they did certainly could have been delayed in any case. But they did succeed in diverting media attention from Lewinsky’s grand jury testimony for a 24-hour news cycle, which was the main point. So I guess, they weren’t a total loss.
•On December 16, 1998, on the eve of the scheduled House vote on his impeachment, Bill Clinton launched a surprise bombing attack on Baghdad. As justification for this exploit, he cited the urgent threat that Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction posed to America, and the need for immediate action. Almost immediately, the House Democrats held a caucus and emerged calling for a delay in the impeachment proceedings. House minority leader Dick Gephardt made a statement: "We obviously should pass a resolution by saying that we stand behind the troops. I would hope that we do not take up impeachment until the hostilities have completely ended."
Conveniently, a delay so near the end of the House term would have caused the vote to be taken up in the next session – when the newly elected House membership would be seated with more Democratic representation, thereby improving Clinton’s chances of dodging impeachment.
The Republicans did, in fact, agree to delay the hearings, but only for a day or two. Amazingly, Clinton ended the bombing raid after only 70 hours -- once it became clear that in spite of the brief delay, the vote would still be held in the current session.
Once the bombing stopped, Clinton touted the effectiveness and importance of the mission. As reported by ABC News : “We have inflicted significant damage on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction programs, on the command structures that direct and protect that capability, and on his military and security infrastructure,” he said. Defense secretary William Cohen echoed the point: “We estimate that Saddam's missile program has been set back by at least a year.”
Whether or not one buys Clinton’s assessment of that mission, it is difficult to believe that its timing was so critical that it required commencement virtually at the moment the House was scheduled to vote on the impeachment. I think the most reasonable conclusion is that Clinton cynically deployed US military assets and placed military personnel in harm’s way for purely political reasons.
4) Clinton’s reckless sexual behavior was a threat to American national security:
Clinton and his supporters have been very effective in persuading large numbers of Americans that the Lewinsky scandal was “only about sex.” But I see a bigger issue here, because Clinton is on record as saying that he would have done anything to keep knowledge of the Lewinsky affair from becoming public.
To me, that statement raises a very serious question: What if, instead of sending her recorded Lewinsky conversations to Ken Starr, Linda Tripp had instead secretly offered them for sale, say, to the Chinese government? Or to the Russians? Or even to agents of Saddam?
What kind of blackmail leverage would those tapes have provided to a foreign government in dealing with America on sensitive trade, security or military issues? One of the few things Clinton ever said that I believe is that he would have done anything to keep the Lewinsky affair secret. Given his demonstrated track record of selling out American interests for personal or political gain (and there are more examples that I could have cited here), how far would he have gone in compromising America’s real interests in order to protect his own neck when threatened with blackmail?
Pretty far, I believe. Equally distressing is the prospect Clinton might, in fact, have succumbed to foreign black mail on other occasions in order to hide different sexual episodes that ultimately did not become public. There is no way to know, of course, but I prefer presidents for whom such a scenario is not a plausible possibility.
And don’t even get me started on the war crime in Kosovo.
WAR IN KOSOVO
During Bill Clinton’s 1999 NATO-led war in Kosovo – which according to some estimates cost as much as $75 billion – we bombed Belgrade for 78 days, killed almost 3,000 civilians, and shredded the civilian infrastructure (including every bridge across the Danube.)
We devastated the environment, bombed the Chinese embassy, came very close to engaging in armed combat against Russian forces, and in general, pursued a horrific and inhumane strategy to rain misery on the civilian population of Belgrade in order to pressure Milosevic into surrendering.
Why did we do all that? The US did not even have an arguable interest in the Balkans, and no one ever tried to claim that Serbia represented any kind of threat to our nation or our interests.
But for months the Clinton administration had told us that Milosevic was waging a vicious genocide against Albanian Muslims, and needed to be stopped. The New York Times called it a “humanitarian war.” In March 1999 – the same month that the bombing started – Clinton’s State Department publicly suggested that as many as 500,000 Albanian Kosovars had been murdered by Milosevic’s regime. In May of that year, as the bombing campaign was drawing to a close, Secretary of Defense William Cohen lowered that estimate 100,000.
Five years after the bombing, after all the forensic investigations had been completed, the prosecutors at Milosevic’s “War Crimes” trial in the Hague were barely been able to document a questionable figure of perhaps 5,000 “bodies and body parts.” During the war, the American people were told that Kosovo was full of mass graves filled with the bodies of murdered Albanian Muslims. But none were ever found.
BILL CLINTON ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE
During the election cycle of 1992, George H.W. Bush lost his job after Bill Clinton hammered him relentlessly for having caused the “worst economy of the last 50 years.”
In fact, as CNN’s Brooke Jackson has reported: “Three days before Christmas 1992, the National Bureau of Economic Research finally issued its official proclamation that the recession had ended 21 months earlier. What became the longest boom in U.S. history actually began nearly two years before Clinton took office.” See (See http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/31/jackson.recession.primer.otsc/).
By the same token, Clinton is generally perceived as having a stellar economic record during his own presidency, in spite of the fact that the economy was already starting to decline during the last year of his term after the stock market crashed in March 2000.
According to a report by MSNBC: “The longest economic expansion in U.S. history faltered so much in the summer of 2000 that business output actually contracted for one quarter, the government said Wednesday in releasing a comprehensive revision of the gross domestic product. Based on new data, the Commerce Department said that the GDP — the country’s total output of goods and services — shrank by 0.5 percent at an annual rate in the July-September quarter of 2000.” See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3676690/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/gdp-figures-revised-downward/.
He is forgetting the need for 8 years of Reagan to springboard off into prosperity before the Hillary takes the reigns as poser in chief.
All you need is the head of Goldman Sachs in your hip pocket, again.
He left the next administration with the tech bubble burst, sanctions in Iraq that had caused the death of 500,000 children and teens during his Presidency, and an AQ that was largely unchecked in spite of numerous attacks during his administration.
Mmmmmm......100 times as many people moved from poverty into the middle class due to Clinton policies?
Looks like Clinton is Grubering.....must think Americans are stupid.
Clinton plumb "forgot" MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber crunched those numbers for the ever-ambitious Clintons....basing the numbers on the Clintons' knee-bending abortion worship. Read on.
=========================================
World Net Daily reported November 14, 2014
BY Jerome R. Corsi / FR Posted by Cincinatus' Wife
NEW YORK – Obamacare architect, Jonathan Gruber, (exposed for his frank admissions that passing Obama's signature legislation required lying to "stupid" Americans)......published a paper during the Clinton administration observing that legalizing abortion saved the government $14B in assistance to economically disadvantaged mothers, including African Americans.....and lowered crime.
MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber argued in his Clinton paper that without the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, “marginal children” would have been born to many poor mothers. Gruber said statistics show these aborted children would have been 70 percent more likely to live in a single-parent family, 40 percent more likely to live in poverty, 50 percent more likely to receive welfare and 35 percent more likely to die as an infant.
Economist Steven D. Levitt and journalist Stephen J. Dubner in their bestselling 2005 book, “Freakonomics,” relied on MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber’s work to argue that legalizing abortion was responsible for an approximately 50 percent reduction of crime in major urban centers in the early 1990s. more at wnd.com
Gruber advised on Hillarycare as part of the progressive's "Alliance for Health Reform."
SOURCE Health Reforms May Hurt Uninsured - Study analyzes hospitals in California
THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE - Saturday, January 30, 1993
Author: Jonathan Marshall, Chronicle Staff Writer
CIRCA 1993---Health care reforms under consideration by the Bill Clinton administration could backfire against uninsured patients, a new study of California hospitals suggests. A move in California in the 1980s to control the upward spiral of medical costs by encouraging price competition produced discounts of nearly 5 percent for paying patients, according to an analysis released by the National Bureau of Economic Research, an academic clearinghouse in Cambridge, Mass.
Price competition is a key element in ``managed competition’’ and ``managed care’’ scenarios being reviewed by a White House task force led by (a very ambitious First Lady) Hillary Clinton.
At the same time, however, the move to competition also slashed the amount of uncompensated care 36 percent from its expected value.
``The bottom line I want to push is that if you lower the price of care, it may . . . not be unambiguously good if it means kicking out the uninsured,’’ said Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist who authored the study. (snip) (no link)
Good point......Democrat in-breeding causes mental defective candidates and appointees (/snix).
EDITED EXCERPT Rahm Emanuel takes over Chicago / May 16, 2011 .... an exciting time in the inbred world of Chicago Democratic politics.... Democratic don, Richard M. Daley ruled for 22 years, inheriting the mayoralty from his father, Mayor Richard J. Daley who held on for a generation. Now the ex-chief of staff of Chicagoan Barack Obama (once a state Senator, now president) was installed. US Treasury Secy Tim Geithner was there, and so was Chicagoan David Axelrod, an O team player.
BTW, Mayor Daley's former chief of staff, Valerie Jarrett, hired Obama's then-fiancé, Michelle, to work in Chicago City Hall. Jarret is now ensconced as Obama's chief policy advisor. In Chicago gangland parlance, "chief policy advisor" means "wire-transfer artist".
Mayor Emanuel's innovative ways commenced early on---his organization was getting $50G's for the best seats at the inauguration (mmmm........that accounts for another couple million scammed from Treasury).
The Chicago mayoralty (and its "benefits") is a job Rham Emanuel has coveted since he was a machine go-fer back in the 1980s..... before he became Bill Clinton's national campaign finance chairman and then a dual role as Clinton's senior White House aide and Goldman Sachs lobbyist and then becoming a multi-millionaire, thanks to a measly few months at a local investment firm...then a US Congressman for four terms---then Obama's White House chief of staff....and other govt jobs.
SOURCE http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/05/rahm-emanuel-new-chicago-mayor-tim-geithner.html
PERSONS AND AGENCIES OF INTEREST TO L/E:
<><> The US Dept of The Census;
<><> The UofM Dept of Joint Program for Survey Method;
<><> Prof Robert Groves appointed 2009 by Obama to head the US Bureau of the Census,
<><> Robert Groves was a UofM professor when the UofM Census contract was inked;
<><> Groves taught in the UofM Dept of Joint Program for Survey Method — which got $2 million annual tax dollars from the Census.
==================================================
CONNECTING THE DOTS:
Obama places COS Rahm Emanuel in dual role
Rahm dictates activities at US Dept of the Treasury
(Cabinet level Treasury agency oversees the IRS).
THE SMOKING GUN---WSJ REPORT--On Jan 20, 2009 Timothy Geithner was appointed Obama's Secy of the Treasury. But within three weeks, the Obama White House tightened its grip on Treasury. Obama put his COS, Rahm Emanuel, in charge of Treasury.
Rahm Emanuel's dual role was an unusual move. When he got to Treasury, WH COS Rahm Emanuel was so involved in the inner workings of the Treasury that the phrase "Rahm wants it" had become an unofficial mantra among subservient govt staffers, prostrate in obeisance, scurrying to accede to Rahm's wishes, according to Treasury government officials.
Reported by WSJ / 05/31/09
More here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124113406528875137.html
=============================================== PERSONS AND AGENCIES OF INTEREST TO L/E:
<><> The US Dept of The Treasury;
<><> US Secy of the Treasury Timothy Geithner;
<><> Rahm Emanuel---Obama COS at Treasury;
<><> US Treasury officials working for Emanuel;
<><> all US Treasury officials contact w/ IRS
=====================================================
CONTACT YOUR CONGRESSMAN/SENATORS Taxpayers demand the Bank Secrecy Act be mobilized at once.
The Bank Secrecy Act passed by Congress, requires banks to establish, implement and maintain programs designed to detect and report suspicious activity indicative of money laundering, govt fraud, and other financial crimes.
The Bank Secrecy Act was enacted to protect the tax-paying public from harm by identifying and detecting money laundering from criminal enterprises, govt fraud, tax evasion, and other unlawful activities.
Taxpayers demand that persons/agencies of interest listed above be scrutinized: (1) copies of checks, (2) wire transfers, (3) bank account statements, (4) invoices, (5) bills, (6) delivery tickets, (7) correspondence including e-mail, employment contracts, loan agreements, and, (8) any other govt books or records. Scrutinize govt bank accounts for suspicious activities: (A) large deposits, (B) funds transferred from one account into another, (C) request for withdrawals.
CONTACT
enforcement@SEC.gov
FBI TIPS PAGE https://tips.fbi.gov/
SAMPLE LETTER:
SUBJECT: Collusion, conspiracy, and bribery
IN RE: financial irregularities
REFERENCE: govt fraud, ID theft, bank fraud, falsified govt documents, illegal wire transfers,
NARRATIVE Taxpayers demand to know the scope and dimension of multiple conspiracies by government insiders to collude in sub rosa deals to personally profit and/or to facilitate redistribution schemes.
OF INTEREST TO LAW ENFORCEMENTCongress should demand the FBI investigate evidence of multiple schemes to falsify govt documents.......and whether illegal wire transfers were employed to deposit govt monies offshore.
Crimes might include---govt fraud, financial conspiracies, collusion, falsifying official documents, ID theft, money laundering, illegal wire transfers, tax evasion, extorting taxpayers, theft of govt monies, misuse of public office, misuse of government positions.
Juanita Broaddrick says WTF?
Bad dope ?
None of that happened until the Dems lost control of Congress.
Oh! The HUBRIS! !!!
*******************************
Clinton and the Democrat Party NEVER admit that the economic improvements during his terms was due to the fact that BOTH houses of Congress were controlled by Republicans for the last 6 years of his tenure. ....The Republicans pushed through the legislation that brought about improvements.
Only twice in modern history has this happened.
1900-1925
Electricity
1990-2002
Internet
Clinton just happened to be there
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.