We used to be able to agree to disagree and still move on with our lives. I did not support Donald Trump in the primaries, and that’s been documented a few times on this blog. Yet he is our President now, and it seems there’s no more any middle ground with the far left in this country. On November 9 I published an entry called “What Just Happened?” but I think it needs to be updated now that the extreme anti-Trump vitrol and increasing riots and facism being displayed by the far left has made itself more visible…
This post will be a little different than usual. I don’t have a specific topic, and those who have been great enough to read this blog may realize that this has been generally less of a blog and more of a series of essays. This is one reason that I don’t post more often because if I did, this would devolve into a mere series of random thoughts.
Our election system has a major problem. Many of us are tired of the two party system, yet we wind up voting for a major party because we feel that a Libertarian candidate can’t win, or we feel that a vote for A is “really” a vote for B. We have, at least at statewide and federal elections a system of voting called “first past the post”, in other words whoever gets the most votes wins. This voting system in and of itself has structural flaws.
So evidently there are many people in complete and utter disbelief that Donald Trump was elected President, but really they shouldn’t be so surprised. Why are the news networks, academics, and Washington insiders so surprised? Because they live in echo chambers – they are primarily surrounded by people whose opinions mirror their own. Continue reading “Tuesday night should not be a surprise.”
I went into last night’s election optimistic but nervous. I gave Donald Trump about 40% odds, which many people thought were way too high. But now that almost all the dust is settled, let’s take a look at what happened, and why we really shouldn’t be shocked at the outcome.
Continue reading “What happened last night?”
“As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation,” The Times reports.
Here’s the high-level summary. There are more details below.
Canadian company Uranium One owned uranium mines in the US and Kazakhstan. Uranium One’s mines account for 20% of the uranium mined in the US. Uranium is used for nuclear weapons, and it’s considered a strategic asset to the US. Russia’s state-owned atomic agency, Rosatom, bought a 17% stake in Uranium One in June 2009. The Russian atomic agency decided it wanted to own 51% of Uranium One in June 2010. To take a majority stake in Uranium One, it needed approval from a special committee that included the State Department, which Hillary Clinton led at the time. Investors in Uranium One gave money to the Clinton Foundation starting in 2005 and through 2011. On June 29, 2010, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 to speak in Russia by an investment bank with ties to Russia’s government that had a buy rating on Uranium One’s stock. In January 2013, despite assurances to the contrary, a subsidiary of Rosatom took over 100% of the company and delisted it from the Toronto Stock Exchange. Clinton was required to disclose all of her foundation’s contributors before she became secretary of state, but the Clintons did not disclose millions of dollars donated by the chairman of Uranium One while the review of the deal was ongoing. “Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million,” The Times reports. “Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.”
Here are some key points from the Times report:
According to The Times, Uranium One’s involvement with the Clintons stretches back to 2005, when former President Bill Clinton accompanied Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra to Kazakhstan, where they met with authoritarian president Nursultan Nazarbayev. Going against American foreign policy at the time, Bill Clinton expressed support for Nazarbayev’s bid to lead an international elections monitoring group. Soon after, Giustra’s company, UrAsia Energy (the predecessor to Uranium One) won stakes in three uranium mines controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-run uranium agency. Months after the deal, Giustra reportedly donated $31.3 million to Clinton’s foundation. Clinton traveled to the ex-Soviet Central Asian state to sign an agreement with the government, admitting Kazakhstan into the Clinton Foundation HIV/AIDS Initiative Procurement Consortium. In June 2009 ARMZ, a subsidiary of Russia’s atomic energy agency Rosatom, finalized a deal for a 17% stake in Uranium One. In June 2010, the Russian government sought a 51% controlling stake in the company that would have to be approved by the American government.
Final say over the deal rested with the foreign investment committee, “including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions of dollars in donations from people associated with Uranium One,” The Times notes. After the deal was approved in October 2010, Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko, said in an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin: “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20% of US reserves.”
A source with knowledge of the Clintons’ fundraising pointed out to The Times that people donate because they hope that money will buy influence. The source said: “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?” “Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown,” The Times concluded. “But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.”
Catholics insulted by Hillary Clinton campaign:
Trump’s supporters a basket of deplorables
FIVE THINGS THAT SCARE ME ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON
Selling out the White House and government favors to the highest bidder, as she has a history of doing with the Clinton Foundation as Secretary of State. The collusion between the Democrats and the mainstream media, exposed through the Wikileaks emails, the fact that the mainstream media jumps on Trump at every indiscretion, yet defends and deflects from Clinton’s crimes.
Her history of complete corruption, including her email server. She has been proven to be grossly negligent with national security data for her own personal convenience, and to avoid having her emails visible by government agencies. There’s ample reason to believe that some of this information could have been hacked, and that foreign and hostile governments have blackmail information on the President of the United States. There is evidence of collusion between Hillary and the Justice Department. Her actions reveal her attitude that she is above the law and not subject to the same rules as the rest of society.
The thought that Hillary will appoint 3 or 4 justices to the Supreme Court who will rule based on political ideology and try to legislate from the bench instead of following the Constitution. Will our First and Second Amendment rights (which Clinton has a record of opposing) be at the whim of liberal justices who feel that they have the ability to rewrite, and/or shred our Constitutional liberties?
Her insatiable desire for more taxing and more spending will blow up our national debt. We have, between national debt and unfunded liabilities, $150 to $200 TRILLION, and Clinton wants MORE taxes and more spending. This is unsustainable and we are approaching a point of no return where our economy will collapse, because Clinton and many other Democrats believe that they can classify every single voter whim as a “right” to be provided at taxpayer expense.
She would completely throw open our borders and erase the meaning of national soveriegnty. Foreign nationals could come and go at will, settling in our country at our taxpayer expense. Clinton herself admitted these refugees cannot be vetted, and ISIS has claimed publically that they plan to infiltrate the refugee program with militant terrorists. Donald Trump is absolutely 100% about his wall policy. Of course not all Mexicans are rapists and murderers (nor did he say that), but we DO have people who are crossing over who mean harm to us, we can’t possibly vet all of them. And Obama & Clinton seem completely dismissive of that issue. We are selling out our national security in the name of political correctness. The increasing wave of terrorist attacks should frighten anyone and give an accurate glimpse of a Hillary Clinton Presidency.
FIVE THINGS THAT MAKE ME SLIGHTLY NERVOUS ABOUT DONALD TRUMP
Trump may not have the temperament. His insistence on doing things his own way not be conducive to the Executive Branch where you need to take the advice of others.
Trump has shown to have some lewd views towards women. While I can’t condone any of things, one has to wonder what these have to do with running the country. We can vote for people without agreeing with everything they’ve done. I agree these are some pretty nasty words on tape, but really people? Lewd behavior 10 years ago vs. decades of criminal behavior, corruption, and collusion? Is there really a choice?
I do criticize his campaign strategy, focusing too much on unimportant negative issues and not highlighting his vision for America and Hillary’s endless flaws.
I do not agree that the best way to handle our trade deficits and job losses overseas is through more tariffs and higher taxes.
I agree that he wants too much spending as well, but I temper that by saying that at least his policies will get free enterprise running again and will provide us a stronger tax base to pay down that debt, while Hillary’s policies will drive wealth and jobs out of the country. Combine that with her insatiable appetite for spending, and the country will be bankrupt in a decade.