Our Constitution has come under attack lately. What was one of our nation’s founding documents has been criticized by pundits on both the right and the left. It’s old, outdated, “just a piece of parchment.” It was written “by old white men from centuries ago” and doesn’t reflect our modern world. Critics say that we live in a different nation than the one that existed during the Founding Era, that the nation is more complicated and thus the Constitution is less relevant. Continue reading “The Constitution – Just an Old Piece of Parchment?”
Dear Senator Sessions:
First, I want to congratulate you on your selection as U.S. Attorney General. While I may disagree with some of your positions, I am glad that the United States will finally have an Attorney General who takes the law seriously, and champions equal justice under the law.
On November 8 and in years past, several states voted to legalize marijuana for recreational and/or medical use. While I myself am not a user of this substance, I do have concerns that the Department of Justice will attempt to reverse the great strides our nation has made toward the ending of draconian laws and failed policies where drug use is concerned. Continue reading “An Open Letter to the Incoming Attorney General”
- The purpose of the electoral college is to prevent majority tyranny – to keep the country from being controlled by just a few major cities with large populations.
- The Presidential campaigns were designed around the electoral college. That’s why Donald Trump did not campaign in New York or California, or try to run up the score in Texas.
- Let’s also remember that while Clinton may have won the popular vote, she did so by running up the score in highly
Socialist liberalDemocrat areas such as California and New York City. Below you will see an analysis of what I’m talking about.
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?”
- Raise taxes on the rich.
- We create more jobs and growth.
“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.”