Author: admin

Transparency? We don’t need no stinkin’ transparency!

The FBI release of long-overdue FOIA files on the controversial Clinton pardon of Marc Rich has caused a stir. Marc Rich was under indictment for income tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering, and prohibited arms trade with Iran. He did not stand trial, instead fleeing to Switzerland to avoid prosecution. His ex-wife became a substantial contributor to Clinton causes, and lobbied for her ex-husband’s pardon. On his last day in office, Clinton granted their wish.

The Clinton campaign is obviously upset at having this information released, as reminding voters of this pardon will once again shed light onto the pay-for-play politics that the Clinton’s have embraced during their tenures in public office (someone should also add nepotism, and point out that Clinton pardoned his half-brother for drug charges as well). However, what is more telling is the statement the Clinton campaign made regarding this release:

“Absent a (Freedom of Information Act) deadline, this is odd,” Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon tweeted.

What I believe Fallon is saying with this statement is that a Clinton administration would not release FOIA files until they absolutely had to under the law, at the legal deadline. This is a continuation of the lack of transparency we have seen under the Obama administration, noted here, here, and here (compare to the Obama administration’s statements on transparency here).

Is America really ready for 4 more years of missing, altered, or denied information?

Brazile out at CNN

Donna Brazile has resigned her role as a CNN contributor, apparently a result of her allegedly providing debate questions in advance to the Clinton campaign. From an article on this subject at the CNN web site:

At the time, Brazile denied giving the campaign advance warning, saying that “as a longtime political activist” she had shared her thoughts “with each and every campaign, and any suggestions that indicate otherwise are simply untrue.”

It reads like a denial (“… simply untrue…”), but the actual statement claims otherwise (shared her thoughts “with each and every campaign…”).

Is it just me, or does this sound like an admission she shared information?

But what if they are right…?

A recent article from CNN asserts that Fox news viewers see the world differently, and (in my opinion) attempts to paint them in a negative light.  However, the examples they use to criticize Fox viewers neglect one critical point: What if they are right? What if America is going in the wrong direction? What if America is not in the midst of the economic recovery the government keeps assuring us is ongoing? What if Hillary Clinton is not the ideal candidate that some would like you to believe?

What should we think when a local government passes a law that takes away your right to negotiate an employment contract directly with an employer? Seattle, Washington did just that with their Secure Scheduling Ordinance. This new law requires a collective bargaining agreement – whether or not you agree with union policies and politics – to achieve flexible hours that a worker might desire or need.

What should we think when companies leave the country – either physically by moving production or logically by “inversion” – at ever increasing rates to avoid some of the highest business tax rates in the world? What should we think when the politicians claim that the solution is to make new laws to force them to stay while raising their taxes even higher? How is this any different than erecting the Berlin Wall to prevent the mass exodus of working-class citizens from East Berlin after WWII? So it’s OK when the “wall” only affects businesses?

What should we think when a leading presidential candidate states that they want to overturn the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United – even though the ACLU agrees that the Supreme Court got it right? (Citizens United was less about campaign money than it was about whether or not the government should be allowed to determine who can speak; imagine what a crooked politician could do with that power!)

Interestingly, CNN chose not to be critical of MSNBC viewers – even though in many cases they held views just as extreme as FOX viewers but in the opposite direction. For instance, 85% of Fox viewers believed that the Wikileak emails raise conflict of interest concerns for Clinton, while only 15% of MSNBC viewers took the same position.  In another example, 83% of Fox viewers leaned towards voting for Trump, while 94% of MSNBC viewers leaned towards Clinton. So it’s OK to be extreme, so long as CNN agrees with your position?

Frankly, the CNN critique of Fox viewers might just be due to jealousy. After all, as CNN noted in the article, 270 out of 1000 poll respondents (the single largest share) stated that they trusted Fox most out of the networks queried; CNN garnered only 154.

Go figure.

Politicians and your “rights”

Arrested Backpage Execs Ask Kamala Harris To Drop Bogus Case She Herself Has Admitted She Has No Authority To Bring

When politicians wielding police power do not have to pay for their errors (intentional or otherwise), what incentive do they have to act in a legal and constitutional manner? Note, too, that while you may applaud their politically-motivated tactics when they attack others, what will happen when they come after your rights?