Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
2016 by the Numbers
https://patriotpost.us/posts/45825
On the news just now, our government is putting into policy, controlling the amount of money one can get for a bonus in the financial industry. Where will that lead?.............
The Dark Art of Political Intimidation
https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/dark-art-political-intimidation
If the guy had pepper sprayed them to protect himself, he'd be in jail. How about the witch yelling to 'kill'? There's a reason people like this live where they do and probably their offspring will be there forever. Victim by choice.
How the leftist school training of our young effected the election.
How the leftist school training of our young effected the election.
Absolutely
Listening to the crying heads makes one wonder, where have you been?...... And this was a down year for us. Wait until Trump sets policy to bring back jobs, create new businesses and eliminates regulations that have already destroyed them.
Donald Trump: 279 electoral votes (likely 320) and 59.23 million votes Hillary Clinton: 228 electoral votes and 59.41 million votes
Senate: 52 Republicans, 47 Democrats (loss of one for Republicans)
House: 237 Republicans, 193 Democrats (loss of seven for Republicans)
Governor: 33 Republicans, 14 Democrats (gain of three for Republicans)
State legislatures: Republicans now control more than two-thirds of all chambers.
The talking heads continue to battle but they don't bother to notice:
Republicans:
33 Governors
over 2/3 of state legislatures.
The country voted out the wicked witch and the socialist party. BO Care monthly payments going up nearly 100% in 2017.
There is a huge job to correct the disaster the BO regime inflicted on our country.
Donald Trump: 279 electoral votes (likely 320) and 59.23 million votes Hillary Clinton: 228 electoral votes and 59.41 million votes
Senate: 52 Republicans, 47 Democrats (loss of one for Republicans)
House: 237 Republicans, 193 Democrats (loss of seven for Republicans)
Governor: 33 Republicans, 14 Democrats (gain of three for Republicans)
State legislatures: Republicans now control more than two-thirds of all chambers.
And Van Jones is calling the election 'white lash against a changing America'.
http://www.vulture.com/2016/11/cnns-van-jones-calls-the-election-white-lash.html
this guy is outrageous. He's on CNN right now ranting. Paris Dennard is a Trump supporter and countering his rhetoric.
GOP expands governorships and holds on to state legislatures
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Republicans have expanded their power in state capitols to their strongest levels in decades, picking up several previously held Democratic governorships while also claiming control of some key legislative chambers.
The Republican gains in statehouses capped a remarkable election in which Donald Trump won the presidency and the GOP held on to majorities in the U.S. Senate and House.
Heading into Tuesday, Republicans already controlled more than two-thirds of the nation’s legislative chambers and 31 of the 50 governors’ offices. By Wednesday, they were inching toward their historical high of 34 governorships set in 1922, with races in North Carolina and Montana still too close to call.
Republicans also won the Kentucky House for the first time in nearly a century and reclaimed the Iowa Senate from Democrats, giving the GOP control of both legislative chambers and the governor’s offices in those states.
---
GOP GOVERNOR GAINS
Republicans took away governors’ offices from Democrats in Missouri, New Hampshire and Vermont.
Former Navy SEAL officer Eric Greitens defeated Democratic Attorney General Chris Koster in Missouri’s costliest-ever gubernatorial race. He will succeed term-limited Gov. Jay Nixon to become just the second Republican governor in the past 24 years. Greitens capitalized on his military service and his work as founder of the veterans’ charity known as The Mission Continues while casting himself as an outsider going up against a career politician.
Vermont Lt. Gov. Phil Scott defeated Democrat Sue Minter to take over the office held by Gov. Peter Shumlin, who chose not to seek another two-year term. Scott is currently the only Republican statewide officeholder in a liberal-leaning state but appealed to voters by pledging to make government more efficient and embracing abortion rights and gay marriage.
In New Hampshire, Republican Chris Sununu defeated Democrat Colin Van Ostern in a race left open by Gov. Maggie Hassan’s decision to challenge Republican U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte. Sununu is the son of former Gov. John H. Sununu and the brother of former U.S. Sen. John E. Sununu. His election ends an era in which Democrats controlled the governor’s office for 18 of the past 20 years.
---
INCUMBENTS ON EDGE
The governors’ races in North Carolina and Montana remained too close to call early Wednesday.
Democratic Attorney General Roy Cooper claimed victory over North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, but the Republican incumbent told his supporters “the election is not over” while citing some still uncounted votes. Cooper was ahead by just a few thousand votes out of more than 4.6 million counted. The race had become a referendum on North Carolina’s rightward shift under McCrory, highlighted by a law that limits anti-discrimination protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and directs transgender people to use public restrooms matching the gender on their birth certificates.
Montana’s Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock was in a close contest against Republican Greg Gianforte, a computer software firm founder who poured millions of his own money into the race. Gianforte had aired more TV ads than all other statewide executive candidates in the nation while Bullock was heavily aided by the Democratic Governors Association.
---
HOLDING THEIR OWN
Lt. Gov. Eric Holcomb won election over Democratic former state House Speaker John Gregg to continue a 12-year run of Republican governors in Indiana. Holcomb, a former state Republican Party chairman, had had been appointed to the state’s No. 2 spot by Gov. Mike Pence and later was nominated as his replacement when Pence dropped his re-election bid in July to run for vice president.
In West Virginia, businessman Jim Justice defeated Republican Bill Cole, the state Senate president, to continue a 16-year stint of Democratic governors in a state that has otherwise been tilting toward Republicans. Justice, a coal and agricultural billionaire, cast himself as a political outsider adept at creating jobs. He will succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin.
---
NO SURPRISES
The results in five other states never seemed in doubt. Republican Gov. Gary Herbert won re-election in Utah, and Democratic Govs. Kate Brown of Oregon and Jay Inslee of Washington also turned back challengers. In Delaware, Democratic U.S. Rep. John Carney Jr. was elected to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Jack Markell. And in North Dakota, Republican businessman Doug Burgum won election to replace Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple, who did not seek re-election.
.
© 2016 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-expands-governorships-and-hold-on-to-state-legislatures/
GOP expands governorships and holds on to state legislatures
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Republicans have expanded their power in state capitols to their strongest levels in decades, picking up several previously held Democratic governorships while also claiming control of some key legislative chambers.
The Republican gains in statehouses capped a remarkable election in which Donald Trump won the presidency and the GOP held on to majorities in the U.S. Senate and House.
Heading into Tuesday, Republicans already controlled more than two-thirds of the nation’s legislative chambers and 31 of the 50 governors’ offices. By Wednesday, they were inching toward their historical high of 34 governorships set in 1922, with races in North Carolina and Montana still too close to call.
Republicans also won the Kentucky House for the first time in nearly a century and reclaimed the Iowa Senate from Democrats, giving the GOP control of both legislative chambers and the governor’s offices in those states.
---
GOP GOVERNOR GAINS
Republicans took away governors’ offices from Democrats in Missouri, New Hampshire and Vermont.
Former Navy SEAL officer Eric Greitens defeated Democratic Attorney General Chris Koster in Missouri’s costliest-ever gubernatorial race. He will succeed term-limited Gov. Jay Nixon to become just the second Republican governor in the past 24 years. Greitens capitalized on his military service and his work as founder of the veterans’ charity known as The Mission Continues while casting himself as an outsider going up against a career politician.
Vermont Lt. Gov. Phil Scott defeated Democrat Sue Minter to take over the office held by Gov. Peter Shumlin, who chose not to seek another two-year term. Scott is currently the only Republican statewide officeholder in a liberal-leaning state but appealed to voters by pledging to make government more efficient and embracing abortion rights and gay marriage.
In New Hampshire, Republican Chris Sununu defeated Democrat Colin Van Ostern in a race left open by Gov. Maggie Hassan’s decision to challenge Republican U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte. Sununu is the son of former Gov. John H. Sununu and the brother of former U.S. Sen. John E. Sununu. His election ends an era in which Democrats controlled the governor’s office for 18 of the past 20 years.
---
INCUMBENTS ON EDGE
The governors’ races in North Carolina and Montana remained too close to call early Wednesday.
Democratic Attorney General Roy Cooper claimed victory over North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, but the Republican incumbent told his supporters “the election is not over” while citing some still uncounted votes. Cooper was ahead by just a few thousand votes out of more than 4.6 million counted. The race had become a referendum on North Carolina’s rightward shift under McCrory, highlighted by a law that limits anti-discrimination protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and directs transgender people to use public restrooms matching the gender on their birth certificates.
Montana’s Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock was in a close contest against Republican Greg Gianforte, a computer software firm founder who poured millions of his own money into the race. Gianforte had aired more TV ads than all other statewide executive candidates in the nation while Bullock was heavily aided by the Democratic Governors Association.
---
HOLDING THEIR OWN
Lt. Gov. Eric Holcomb won election over Democratic former state House Speaker John Gregg to continue a 12-year run of Republican governors in Indiana. Holcomb, a former state Republican Party chairman, had had been appointed to the state’s No. 2 spot by Gov. Mike Pence and later was nominated as his replacement when Pence dropped his re-election bid in July to run for vice president.
In West Virginia, businessman Jim Justice defeated Republican Bill Cole, the state Senate president, to continue a 16-year stint of Democratic governors in a state that has otherwise been tilting toward Republicans. Justice, a coal and agricultural billionaire, cast himself as a political outsider adept at creating jobs. He will succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin.
---
NO SURPRISES
The results in five other states never seemed in doubt. Republican Gov. Gary Herbert won re-election in Utah, and Democratic Govs. Kate Brown of Oregon and Jay Inslee of Washington also turned back challengers. In Delaware, Democratic U.S. Rep. John Carney Jr. was elected to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Jack Markell. And in North Dakota, Republican businessman Doug Burgum won election to replace Republican Gov. Jack Dalrymple, who did not seek re-election.
.
© 2016 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-expands-governorships-and-hold-on-to-state-legislatures/
They are still counting though and haven't included all totals.
Hillary's going away song:
Hillary's going away song:
It was time for the Clintons to MOVE ON!!!!!
Tired of their leftist, living off other people's money, blood sucking tick on the people's back monopoly of our politics.
Her speech was calling out Trump, they will continue to fight him. The flowery words didn't hide the meaning.
The elephants stampede the left. Now it's time for the House and Senate to put the right bills in front of our new President.
"Let me tell you about Florida politicians. I make them out of whole cloth, just like a tailor makes a suit. I get their name in the newspaper. I get them some publicity and get them on the ballot. Then after the election, we count the votes. And if they don't turn out right, we recount them. And recount them again. Until they do."
Just saw Virginia flip. The urban areas wait and see how many votes they need.
Come on Ohio!!!
Rs holding on to the House!!!!
Remember the movie Key Largo. Demons rule most polls, hold their count until they see how many they need and somehow find them. Florida is key. I think there shouldn't be all or nothing states. If we take Virginia, would be a big victory too.
The Clinton Grifter Initiative: 21st Century Barbary Pirates
November 1, 2016
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (R) is greeted by a Saudi official upon her arrival at King Khaled airport in Jeddah February 16, 2010. REUTERS/Susan Baaghil (SAUDI ARABIA - Tags: POLITICS)
Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Clinton Global Initiative is nothing more than a shakedown operation.
We know this thanks to extensive reporting on the subject in – yes – the mainstream media!
Publications like The Economist and the Washington Post can’t even ignore Hillary’s Clinton’s sordid track record.
According to the Washington Post, wealthy foreign donors gave the Clintons tens of millions of dollars while Hillary was Secretary of State. cgi-white-background-1
Indeed, nations such as Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman, with interests potentially at odds with those of the U.S. were among the donor states.
The sleazy nature of Clinton’s grifting is perverted even more when one realizes many of the foreign entities donating to her Grifting Initiative also invest in her political endeavors.
As the Washington Post investigation reports:
The Post investigation found that many top Clinton patrons supported them in multiple ways, helping finance their political causes, their legal needs, their philanthropy and their personal bank accounts. In some cases, companies connected to their donors hired the Clintons as paid speakers, helping them collect more than $150 million on the lecture circuit in the past 15 years.
The real potential is that a Hillary Clinton presidency will exact on the globe a new version of the First Barbary War, whereby President Hillary Clinton will demand other nations pay tribute to the Clinton Global Initiative rather than face US military action.
Barbary States had no real power to go conquer Europe. But they learned they could harass mercantile traffic in sea lanes and take prisoners.
This practice of piracy was supported by Islamic Law. They also figured out they nation states would pay them tribute (tax) NOT to harass flagged ships that were current on their bribery scheme.
Hillary’s saber rattling evokes images of the Barbary Pirates, except in this case the cowardly pirate charging tribute is the mightiest military power in the history of man
Hillary would be a modern day Barbary pirate, except victim states would not pay tribute to America, they’d pay tribute to the Clinton Global Initiative.
We’ve already seen the Clinton Grifting Initiative in action from the State Department. Imagine the perverted heights of evil she’d be able to perpetrate on the American people from a powerful perch in the White House.
http://peoplesspeaker.com/the-clinton-grifter-initiative-21st-century-barbary-pirates/
The Clinton Grifter Initiative: 21st Century Barbary Pirates
November 1, 2016
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (R) is greeted by a Saudi official upon her arrival at King Khaled airport in Jeddah February 16, 2010. REUTERS/Susan Baaghil (SAUDI ARABIA - Tags: POLITICS)
Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Clinton Global Initiative is nothing more than a shakedown operation.
We know this thanks to extensive reporting on the subject in – yes – the mainstream media!
Publications like The Economist and the Washington Post can’t even ignore Hillary’s Clinton’s sordid track record.
According to the Washington Post, wealthy foreign donors gave the Clintons tens of millions of dollars while Hillary was Secretary of State. cgi-white-background-1
Indeed, nations such as Kuwait, Qatar, and Oman, with interests potentially at odds with those of the U.S. were among the donor states.
The sleazy nature of Clinton’s grifting is perverted even more when one realizes many of the foreign entities donating to her Grifting Initiative also invest in her political endeavors.
As the Washington Post investigation reports:
The Post investigation found that many top Clinton patrons supported them in multiple ways, helping finance their political causes, their legal needs, their philanthropy and their personal bank accounts. In some cases, companies connected to their donors hired the Clintons as paid speakers, helping them collect more than $150 million on the lecture circuit in the past 15 years.
The real potential is that a Hillary Clinton presidency will exact on the globe a new version of the First Barbary War, whereby President Hillary Clinton will demand other nations pay tribute to the Clinton Global Initiative rather than face US military action.
Barbary States had no real power to go conquer Europe. But they learned they could harass mercantile traffic in sea lanes and take prisoners.
This practice of piracy was supported by Islamic Law. They also figured out they nation states would pay them tribute (tax) NOT to harass flagged ships that were current on their bribery scheme.
Hillary’s saber rattling evokes images of the Barbary Pirates, except in this case the cowardly pirate charging tribute is the mightiest military power in the history of man
Hillary would be a modern day Barbary pirate, except victim states would not pay tribute to America, they’d pay tribute to the Clinton Global Initiative.
We’ve already seen the Clinton Grifting Initiative in action from the State Department. Imagine the perverted heights of evil she’d be able to perpetrate on the American people from a powerful perch in the White House.
http://peoplesspeaker.com/the-clinton-grifter-initiative-21st-century-barbary-pirates/
And since they don't pay taxes and live off govt. health care for life, the should be able to 'fix themselves up' a bit.....
Chelsea Clinton, $10M Apartment, $3M Wedding, $600K Job: I Just Don't Care About Money
Published June 23, 2014
Chelsea Clinton tried to care about money but couldn't
The daughter of former President Bill Clinton and ex-secretary of state Hillary Clinton explained in a new interview why she left lucrative professions and opted for working with her family’s philanthropic foundation. ‘I was curious if I could care about (money) on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t,’ she said.
By Leslie Larson, New York Daily News
Hillary Clinton insists she isn’t “well-off” and now daughter Chelsea, according to a recent interview, claims she couldn't care less about money.
“I was curious if I could care about (money) on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t,” she told Fast Company in an interview that ran in the magazine's May edition, explaining why she gave up lucrative gigs to join her family’s philanthropic foundation.
Comparing her experience to the average millennial, the 34-year-old former first daughter defended jumping around to different careers — from consulting to a hedge fund to academia to journalism — before finding her true calling working with her parents.
“It is frustrating, because who wants to grow up and follow their parents? I’ve tried really hard to care about things that were very different from my parents … it’s a funny thing to realize I feel called to this work, both as a daughter and also as someone who believes I have contributions to make,” she continued about her reluctant status as a boomerang kid.
The Clinton name likely opened doors for the political heiress, including an eye-popping $600,000 annual salary for an irregular stint as an NBC special correspondent, but Chelsea insists her work speaks for itself.
“I will just always work harder (than anybody else) and hopefully perform better,” said Clinton, who along with former banker husband Marc Mezvinsky, purchased a $10.5-million Gramercy Park apartment in 2013. “And hopefully, over time, I preempt and erase whatever expectations people have of me not having a good work ethic, or not being smart, or not being motivated.”
Clinton wed husband Marc Mezvinsky, a former Goldman Sachs banker who started his own hedge fund, in a lavish 2010 ceremony estimated to have cost $3 million.
(which is a bust, losing money for the investors)
The comments, while not new, have nonetheless garnered a new round of attention in recent days after her mom and likely 2016 candidate, Hillary, was criticized for remarks suggesting she exited the White House "dead broke" and wasn't "truly well off" despite millions of dollars in public speaking earnings.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/06/23/chelsea-clinton-10m-apartment-3m-wedding-600k-job-i-just-dont-care-about-money
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/chelsea-clinton-care-money-article-1.1840138
Hillary: Born a poor black child video:
Policy Prescriptions: Clinton and Trump on taxes
(NOTICE THE MSM WAITED UNTIL TODAY TO RELEASE THIS)
WASHINGTON — One group of Americans will likely see huge changes to their tax bills after this year's presidential election: the wealthiest 1 percent.
They will see a big tax increase if Hillary Clinton wins, or enjoy a huge tax cut if Donald Trump wins.
For everyone else? Both candidates are proposing very small tax cuts.
Tax policy is one of the issues on which the two nominees differ most.
"In almost every meaningful respect these plans are mirror images," said Len Burman, a former Treasury official under President Bill Clinton who is director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project between two nonpartisan Washington think tanks.
Here are summaries of their proposals:
___
TAXES ON HIGHER INCOMES
TRUMP: Would cut the top income tax bracket to 33 percent from its current level of 39.6 percent and would cap tax deductions at $200,000 per household. The wealthy would benefit most from his overall tax proposals, with the top 1 percent of income earners receiving, on average, a tax cut of $214,690 in 2017, according to the Tax Policy Center. The top 0.1 percent would get a tax cut of more than $1 million.
CLINTON: Would increase taxes on the wealthy in several ways: She is proposing a 4 percent surcharge on incomes above $5 million, effectively creating a new top bracket of 43.6 percent. And those earning more than $1 million a year would be subject to a minimum 30 percent tax rate. She would also cap the value of many tax deductions for wealthier taxpayers. About 92 percent of her tax increases would fall on the top 1 percent.
All the changes would increase taxes in 2017 for the richest 1 percent by $117,760, reducing their after-tax income by 7.4 percent, according to the TPC. Taxes for the top 0.1 percent would increase more than $800,000.
___
U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump gives a thumbs up to the crowd after speaking at a campaign rally in Raleigh, North Carolina November 7, 2016.© REUTERS/CHRIS KEANE U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump gives a thumbs up to the crowd after speaking at a campaign rally in Raleigh, North Carolina November 7, 2016. TAXES ON MIDDLE INCOMES
TRUMP: Would reduce the seven tax brackets in current law to three, at 12 percent, 25 percent and 33 percent. On average, middle-income households would receive a tax cut of $1,010, lifting their after-tax income 1.8 percent, the TPC says.
Yet some middle- and lower-income households would see tax increases. That's because his plan eliminates the personal exemption, which currently allows households to reduce their taxable income by $4,050 for each member of the household, including children.
He would replace that with higher standard deductions, but for many single parents and families with three or more children, the standard deduction wouldn't be large enough to offset the loss of personal exemptions. Trump would also eliminate the head of household filing status, which could result in higher taxes for many single parents.
CLINTON: Her proposals would have little impact on the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers. Middle-income taxpayers would receive a tax cut of $110 in 2017.
___
CORPORATE TAX RATE
TRUMP: Would cut the corporate rate from its current 35 percent to 15 percent. It's unclear, however, if he'd allow "pass-through" corporations, which pay taxes on revenue as personal income, to claim the 15 percent rate. Doing so would cost an extra $1.5 trillion, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, which supports lower tax rates.
CLINTON: Would not change the corporate tax rate.
___
"CARRIED INTEREST" LOOPHOLE
TRUMP: Managers for private equity firms and hedge funds can classify their investment profits as "carried interest" and pay capital gains taxes on their income at rates that can be as low as half the regular income tax rate. Trump says he would eliminate the loophole, but hedge fund and private equity managers would be able to pay even lower tax rates should Trump let pass-throughs enjoy his lower 15 percent business tax rate.
CLINTON: Would eliminate the loophole and tax carried interest as ordinary income.
___
ESTATE TAXES
TRUMP: Would eliminate the so-called "death tax" that is currently levied on estates worth more than $5.45 million ($10.9 million for married couples).
CLINTON: Would apply it to more estates, starting with those worth $3.5 million ($7 million for married couples). She would raise the tax rate from 40 percent to 45 percent for estates worth between $3.5 million and $10 million. There would be three additional brackets for larger estates, including a 65 percent rate for estates worth $500 million or more ($1 billion for couples).
___
CORPORATE INVERSIONS
TRUMP: Argues his steep cut in the corporate tax rate would end the practice of corporate "inversions," which occur when a U.S. company acquires a foreign corporation, then relocates overseas to avoid paying U.S. corporate taxes. The U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 percent is the highest in the developed world, though many companies use deductions and other strategies to avoid paying that amount.
CLINTON: Would discourage inversions by making it harder for a U.S. company to classify itself as foreign-owned to avoid U.S. taxation.
___
CHILD CARE
TRUMP: Wants to make child care costs tax-deductible, subject to caps based on income and the average price of child care in a state. It would apply to stay-at-home parents as well. Would expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to benefit lower-income earners who pay little or no income tax. Current law allows parents to claim a credit of up to $6,000 for child care expenses. He'd also let families put aside money in tax-exempt accounts to pay for child care.
CLINTON: Wants to limit child care expenses to 10 percent of a family's income through a combination of expanded government spending and tax credits. Has proposed expanding the current $1,000 child tax credit to $2,000 and making it available even to those with $3,000 or less in income, making it more beneficial for the poor.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/policy-prescriptions-clinton-and-trump-on-taxes/ar-AAjG5Ly?li=BBnbfcL
(remember, Foundations don't fall into these categories, TAX FREE, it's why the Clinton crime family run all their expenses through the Foundation and received massive salaries. The mutt daughter lives in a $10m in NYC and her husband is a flunky who's being kept on due to the name recognition despite his lousy work performance.)
Hillary: Born a poor black child video:
Chelsea Clinton, $10M Apartment, $3M Wedding, $600K Job: I Just Don't Care About Money
Published June 23, 2014
Chelsea Clinton tried to care about money but couldn't
The daughter of former President Bill Clinton and ex-secretary of state Hillary Clinton explained in a new interview why she left lucrative professions and opted for working with her family’s philanthropic foundation. ‘I was curious if I could care about (money) on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t,’ she said.
By Leslie Larson, New York Daily News
Hillary Clinton insists she isn’t “well-off” and now daughter Chelsea, according to a recent interview, claims she couldn't care less about money.
“I was curious if I could care about (money) on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t,” she told Fast Company in an interview that ran in the magazine's May edition, explaining why she gave up lucrative gigs to join her family’s philanthropic foundation.
Comparing her experience to the average millennial, the 34-year-old former first daughter defended jumping around to different careers — from consulting to a hedge fund to academia to journalism — before finding her true calling working with her parents.
“It is frustrating, because who wants to grow up and follow their parents? I’ve tried really hard to care about things that were very different from my parents … it’s a funny thing to realize I feel called to this work, both as a daughter and also as someone who believes I have contributions to make,” she continued about her reluctant status as a boomerang kid.
The Clinton name likely opened doors for the political heiress, including an eye-popping $600,000 annual salary for an irregular stint as an NBC special correspondent, but Chelsea insists her work speaks for itself.
“I will just always work harder (than anybody else) and hopefully perform better,” said Clinton, who along with former banker husband Marc Mezvinsky, purchased a $10.5-million Gramercy Park apartment in 2013. “And hopefully, over time, I preempt and erase whatever expectations people have of me not having a good work ethic, or not being smart, or not being motivated.”
Clinton wed husband Marc Mezvinsky, a former Goldman Sachs banker who started his own hedge fund, in a lavish 2010 ceremony estimated to have cost $3 million.
(which is a bust, losing money for the investors)
The comments, while not new, have nonetheless garnered a new round of attention in recent days after her mom and likely 2016 candidate, Hillary, was criticized for remarks suggesting she exited the White House "dead broke" and wasn't "truly well off" despite millions of dollars in public speaking earnings.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/06/23/chelsea-clinton-10m-apartment-3m-wedding-600k-job-i-just-dont-care-about-money
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/chelsea-clinton-care-money-article-1.1840138
Policy Prescriptions: Clinton and Trump on taxes
(NOTICE THE MSM WAITED UNTIL TODAY TO RELEASE THIS)
WASHINGTON — One group of Americans will likely see huge changes to their tax bills after this year's presidential election: the wealthiest 1 percent.
They will see a big tax increase if Hillary Clinton wins, or enjoy a huge tax cut if Donald Trump wins.
For everyone else? Both candidates are proposing very small tax cuts.
Tax policy is one of the issues on which the two nominees differ most.
"In almost every meaningful respect these plans are mirror images," said Len Burman, a former Treasury official under President Bill Clinton who is director of the Tax Policy Center, a joint project between two nonpartisan Washington think tanks.
Here are summaries of their proposals:
___
TAXES ON HIGHER INCOMES
TRUMP: Would cut the top income tax bracket to 33 percent from its current level of 39.6 percent and would cap tax deductions at $200,000 per household. The wealthy would benefit most from his overall tax proposals, with the top 1 percent of income earners receiving, on average, a tax cut of $214,690 in 2017, according to the Tax Policy Center. The top 0.1 percent would get a tax cut of more than $1 million.
CLINTON: Would increase taxes on the wealthy in several ways: She is proposing a 4 percent surcharge on incomes above $5 million, effectively creating a new top bracket of 43.6 percent. And those earning more than $1 million a year would be subject to a minimum 30 percent tax rate. She would also cap the value of many tax deductions for wealthier taxpayers. About 92 percent of her tax increases would fall on the top 1 percent.
All the changes would increase taxes in 2017 for the richest 1 percent by $117,760, reducing their after-tax income by 7.4 percent, according to the TPC. Taxes for the top 0.1 percent would increase more than $800,000.
___
U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump gives a thumbs up to the crowd after speaking at a campaign rally in Raleigh, North Carolina November 7, 2016.© REUTERS/CHRIS KEANE U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump gives a thumbs up to the crowd after speaking at a campaign rally in Raleigh, North Carolina November 7, 2016. TAXES ON MIDDLE INCOMES
TRUMP: Would reduce the seven tax brackets in current law to three, at 12 percent, 25 percent and 33 percent. On average, middle-income households would receive a tax cut of $1,010, lifting their after-tax income 1.8 percent, the TPC says.
Yet some middle- and lower-income households would see tax increases. That's because his plan eliminates the personal exemption, which currently allows households to reduce their taxable income by $4,050 for each member of the household, including children.
He would replace that with higher standard deductions, but for many single parents and families with three or more children, the standard deduction wouldn't be large enough to offset the loss of personal exemptions. Trump would also eliminate the head of household filing status, which could result in higher taxes for many single parents.
CLINTON: Her proposals would have little impact on the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers. Middle-income taxpayers would receive a tax cut of $110 in 2017.
___
CORPORATE TAX RATE
TRUMP: Would cut the corporate rate from its current 35 percent to 15 percent. It's unclear, however, if he'd allow "pass-through" corporations, which pay taxes on revenue as personal income, to claim the 15 percent rate. Doing so would cost an extra $1.5 trillion, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, which supports lower tax rates.
CLINTON: Would not change the corporate tax rate.
___
"CARRIED INTEREST" LOOPHOLE
TRUMP: Managers for private equity firms and hedge funds can classify their investment profits as "carried interest" and pay capital gains taxes on their income at rates that can be as low as half the regular income tax rate. Trump says he would eliminate the loophole, but hedge fund and private equity managers would be able to pay even lower tax rates should Trump let pass-throughs enjoy his lower 15 percent business tax rate.
CLINTON: Would eliminate the loophole and tax carried interest as ordinary income.
___
ESTATE TAXES
TRUMP: Would eliminate the so-called "death tax" that is currently levied on estates worth more than $5.45 million ($10.9 million for married couples).
CLINTON: Would apply it to more estates, starting with those worth $3.5 million ($7 million for married couples). She would raise the tax rate from 40 percent to 45 percent for estates worth between $3.5 million and $10 million. There would be three additional brackets for larger estates, including a 65 percent rate for estates worth $500 million or more ($1 billion for couples).
___
CORPORATE INVERSIONS
TRUMP: Argues his steep cut in the corporate tax rate would end the practice of corporate "inversions," which occur when a U.S. company acquires a foreign corporation, then relocates overseas to avoid paying U.S. corporate taxes. The U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 percent is the highest in the developed world, though many companies use deductions and other strategies to avoid paying that amount.
CLINTON: Would discourage inversions by making it harder for a U.S. company to classify itself as foreign-owned to avoid U.S. taxation.
___
CHILD CARE
TRUMP: Wants to make child care costs tax-deductible, subject to caps based on income and the average price of child care in a state. It would apply to stay-at-home parents as well. Would expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to benefit lower-income earners who pay little or no income tax. Current law allows parents to claim a credit of up to $6,000 for child care expenses. He'd also let families put aside money in tax-exempt accounts to pay for child care.
CLINTON: Wants to limit child care expenses to 10 percent of a family's income through a combination of expanded government spending and tax credits. Has proposed expanding the current $1,000 child tax credit to $2,000 and making it available even to those with $3,000 or less in income, making it more beneficial for the poor.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/policy-prescriptions-clinton-and-trump-on-taxes/ar-AAjG5Ly?li=BBnbfcL
(remember, Foundations don't fall into these categories, TAX FREE, it's why the Clinton crime family run all their expenses through the Foundation and received massive salaries. The mutt daughter lives in a $10m in NYC and her husband is a flunky who's being kept on due to the name recognition despite his lousy work performance.)
Russian Ultra-Nationalism: A Monster of Moscow’s Making
November 4, 2016 | 09:18 GMT
Forecast
The rise of Russia's far right will undermine the Kremlin's attempts to overcome the country's deepening ethnic, class and religious divides.
The ultra-conservative movement will continue only to grow, thanks to its media influence and militant youth groups.
Moscow will work to curb the forces it has long supported in an effort to ensure that they do not challenge the Kremlin's writ.
Analysis
Since taking power some 16 years ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin has worked tirelessly to bring about the return of conservative and nationalist values. His government has enthusiastically promoted the Russian Orthodox Church, depicting its patriarchs as the state's moral compass. After suffering a period of neglect under the Soviet Union, over 25,000 churches and 800 monasteries have been built or refurbished during Putin's reign. Meanwhile, the Kremlin has also launched a series of youth programs, the largest being Nashi, that teach conservative courses on politics, foreign policy and family values. Finally, after consolidating strategic economic sectors under its control, the government has presented itself as the people's savior from the liberal, decadent oligarchs who once controlled the country's resources.
By stoking these long-dormant sentiments, Putin has managed to shore up his power base and create a moral mandate for Moscow's domestic and foreign policy. Whereas the West could once accuse the Soviet Union of being a "godless nation," the Russian Federation can now claim to have God on its side. This thinking has undergirded several of the Kremlin's actions at home and abroad, including the passage of laws restricting homosexuality and pornography and the launch of interventions into Ukraine and Syria. But Putin's ideological strategy has its drawbacks. Inflaming far-right extremism has given rise to ideologues who want to push the Kremlin further than it is willing to go. And, when the Kremlin balks at their demands, they are no longer shy about voicing their discontent.
The Anatomy of Extremism
Russia's far-right umbrella comprises many different groups. The ultra-conservative moniker applies to Vladimir Zhirinovsky's Liberal Democratic Party, former Investigative Committee chief Alexander Bastrykin, government adviser and economist Sergei Glazyev and Eurasianist crusader Alexander Dugin, among others. The public considers some of these thinkers to be little more than extremist cranks, but others have become wildly popular. Though the ultra-conservatives vary in their intensity and agendas, most advocate three things: an aggressive foreign policy, a crackdown on Muslims and a rooting out of competing ideologies such as communism, liberalism and fascism.
Ultra-conservative demands for a more hawkish foreign policy have translated into calls for a stronger (and perhaps an all-out) intervention in the Ukrainian conflict. Zhirinovsky, Bastrykin, Dugin and several others have publicly criticized Putin for holding back in Ukraine. Most also want Russia to take a firmer military line against NATO and the United States. Moreover, many favor isolationism as a means of protecting Russia from Western threats: Glazyev proposed last year that Moscow cut all financial and economic ties with the West. This extreme suggestion even gained traction within Russia's Security Council before more pragmatic minds in the Finance Ministry prevailed.
Meanwhile, the ultra-conservatives' proposal to crack down more heavily on Russia's growing Muslim population is not a new idea among conservatives, though it has recently gained widespread support. Over half of all Russian citizens identify Islam with terrorism, and 70 percent are wary of Muslims. That said, ultra-conservatives differ greatly in the ferocity of their anti-Muslim beliefs.
The last plank in the far-right platform — eliminating liberalism, communism and fascism — has gained attention in recent weeks after Dugin launched a media blitz against Putin, criticizing him for failing to articulate a new ideology for Russia. Dugin argued that it was not enough to simply root out old ways of thinking but that the Kremlin must also craft a concrete ideology based on traditionalism, enlightenment and exceptionalism. He called his drive to formulate such an identity a "conservative revolution," a term that has worried many in Moscow as they try to prevent revolution of any kind in the deeply divided country.
The Unintended Consequences
But the rise of ultra-conservatism and its close cousin, mainstream conservatism, has done more than just encourage punditry and rhetorical bluster. The Kremlin has actively promoted some far-right groups, but others have arisen on their own. In the Perm region, for instance, the Russian Academy of Sciences' International Relations Department has established an annual forum to train hundreds of experts on Russian national unity. The attendees are then meant to promote conservative Russian values among regional and municipal offices and businesses, spreading the ideology at the grassroots level. Elsewhere, a series of reforms is tipping the educational system toward conservative values. For the past two years, Russian high schools have taught a required course called "We Are Together," which explains why Crimea was "reunified" with Russia. The lesson plan includes accusations that other world powers do not want Russia to be strong and stable. And on Oct. 31, Russia's Security Council proposed the creation of a center to develop an official narrative of historical events, such as the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, that can then be incorporated into curriculums nationwide and into government and media messages.
Over the past year, a number of right-wing TV programs and films have hit the airwaves as well, and several Russian media outlets have stepped up their broadcasts of conservative Soviet-era shows and movies, including a film glorifying Ivan the Terrible. New right-wing TV stations have been established too, and in January, the patriotic-religious channel Tsargrad TV began to broadcast full-time. It is now Russia's fastest-growing station. Founded by hedge fund owner Konstantin Malofeev, the station's regular shows feature Dugin and Russian Orthodox Church leaders. They also frequently guest-star Alexander Borodai and Igor Strelkov, Malofeev's former employees and two of Ukraine's most prominent former rebel leaders. (Strelkov often advocates "cleansings" in Ukraine.) As a whole, Tsargrad TV promotes the principles of the Orthodox faith, calls for a full intervention in Ukraine, offers tips on countering Western propaganda and claims that Muslim migrants in Russia are Islamic State recruiters.
Elsewhere in Russia, a series of conservative-leaning monuments and statues have been built over the past few months that have received significant media attention. In September, a local civic group called The Russian Soul raised a monument of Josef Stalin in Surgut, and on Oct. 14, the first statue of Ivan the Terrible was erected in Oryol with the local government's blessing. The 8-meter (26-foot) likeness of the czar, known as much for his brutal crackdowns as for expanding Russia, was unveiled before a crowd of hundreds of people wearing black and yellow imperial flags. It depicts him sitting on a horse, holding a cross in one hand and a sword in the other. A second statue of Ivan the Terrible will be raised in Alexandrov later this month. Meanwhile, a 17-meter monument of Vladimir the Great is under construction at Moscow's request and will be unveiled by Putin and Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill I outside the Kremlin's gates on Nov. 4. The statue has been condemned by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, who claims the saint is Ukrainian. (Russians, however, argue that Vladimir the Great was baptized in Crimea, a key justification for Russia's 2014 annexation of the region.)
Of course, ultra-conservative activities have not been confined to the classroom and public square. They are now expanding to policing and security as well, a source of serious concern for the Kremlin. On Sept. 24, a group of young activists wearing military uniforms and presenting themselves as "Officers of Russia: Executive Youth Wing" formed a human chain in Moscow to prevent an exhibition of photographs by Jock Sturges. They labeled the controversial images child pornography and considered them to be emblematic of American decadence. It is unclear who supports these Executive Youth Wing activists, but their uniforms were high quality and their protest was choreographed to maximize their media exposure.
In October, evidence also surfaced of an ultra-conservative paramilitary training camp in the woods outside of Moscow. The group, which calls itself the Eurasian Youth Union (ESM), is reportedly backed by Dugin, who is on the U.S. sanctions list for inciting rebellion in eastern Ukraine. The ESM claims it has established similar "war camps" across Russia as part of the Kremlin's patriotic push. The group's stated goal is to train Russian volunteers to fight in eastern Ukraine and to resist potential NATO attacks. According to the Russian-based Center of Economic and Political Reform, the ESM may have received some $300,000 in government funding from 2013 to 2015. It is unclear how many of these camps actually exist, since estimates range from dozens to hundreds. Regardless, many within the ESM are highly critical of Putin and say he is not aggressive enough in Ukraine or against NATO. Dugin has argued that the ESM should not be led or ruled by the Kremlin and that its ideology is more important than state loyalty. Other fringe and anarchist groups have attended the ESM's training courses as well, many of which are openly opposed to Putin and his administration.
All of these developments have given the Kremlin pause. Though Putin's government has long embraced, fostered and promoted conservative ideology, it now worries that doing so may do more harm than good. Putin has come under pressure from liberals and conservatives alike to change Russia's stance on various foreign policy issues, including its activities in Ukraine and its relationship with the United States. As more hawkish rhetoric gains steam, Putin risks being left behind, though he is also aware of the potential repercussions of acting too aggressively abroad.
In the meantime, the rise of such extreme views will make it more difficult for Putin to develop a strategy for unifying his deeply fractured country. Those divisions will only widen in the face of economic crisis, foreign policy failure and demographic change, factors that have already fueled the Kremlin's fears of instability. Worried that the spread of conservatism will make matters worse, the Kremlin has already cracked down on some far-right initiatives. In April, when a Muslim caretaker beheaded a Russian child to send an anti-Russian and anti-Orthodox message, the Kremlin blocked many conservative media sites and stations to keep them from stoking anti-Muslim sentiments and unrest. But the Kremlin is not yet ready to completely give up its valuable constituency. Instead, it will try to strike a balance, curbing the most extreme activities while continuing to rely on far-right groups to prop up its base of support.
https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/russian-ultra-nationalism-monster-moscow-s-making
Russian Ultra-Nationalism: A Monster of Moscow’s Making
November 4, 2016 | 09:18 GMT
Forecast
?The rise of Russia's far right will undermine the Kremlin's attempts to overcome the country's deepening ethnic, class and religious divides.
?The ultra-conservative movement will continue only to grow, thanks to its media influence and militant youth groups.
?Moscow will work to curb the forces it has long supported in an effort to ensure that they do not challenge the Kremlin's writ.
Analysis
Since taking power some 16 years ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin has worked tirelessly to bring about the return of conservative and nationalist values. His government has enthusiastically promoted the Russian Orthodox Church, depicting its patriarchs as the state's moral compass. After suffering a period of neglect under the Soviet Union, over 25,000 churches and 800 monasteries have been built or refurbished during Putin's reign. Meanwhile, the Kremlin has also launched a series of youth programs, the largest being Nashi, that teach conservative courses on politics, foreign policy and family values. Finally, after consolidating strategic economic sectors under its control, the government has presented itself as the people's savior from the liberal, decadent oligarchs who once controlled the country's resources.
By stoking these long-dormant sentiments, Putin has managed to shore up his power base and create a moral mandate for Moscow's domestic and foreign policy. Whereas the West could once accuse the Soviet Union of being a "godless nation," the Russian Federation can now claim to have God on its side. This thinking has undergirded several of the Kremlin's actions at home and abroad, including the passage of laws restricting homosexuality and pornography and the launch of interventions into Ukraine and Syria. But Putin's ideological strategy has its drawbacks. Inflaming far-right extremism has given rise to ideologues who want to push the Kremlin further than it is willing to go. And, when the Kremlin balks at their demands, they are no longer shy about voicing their discontent.
The Anatomy of Extremism
Russia's far-right umbrella comprises many different groups. The ultra-conservative moniker applies to Vladimir Zhirinovsky's Liberal Democratic Party, former Investigative Committee chief Alexander Bastrykin, government adviser and economist Sergei Glazyev and Eurasianist crusader Alexander Dugin, among others. The public considers some of these thinkers to be little more than extremist cranks, but others have become wildly popular. Though the ultra-conservatives vary in their intensity and agendas, most advocate three things: an aggressive foreign policy, a crackdown on Muslims and a rooting out of competing ideologies such as communism, liberalism and fascism.
Ultra-conservative demands for a more hawkish foreign policy have translated into calls for a stronger (and perhaps an all-out) intervention in the Ukrainian conflict. Zhirinovsky, Bastrykin, Dugin and several others have publicly criticized Putin for holding back in Ukraine. Most also want Russia to take a firmer military line against NATO and the United States. Moreover, many favor isolationism as a means of protecting Russia from Western threats: Glazyev proposed last year that Moscow cut all financial and economic ties with the West. This extreme suggestion even gained traction within Russia's Security Council before more pragmatic minds in the Finance Ministry prevailed.
Meanwhile, the ultra-conservatives' proposal to crack down more heavily on Russia's growing Muslim population is not a new idea among conservatives, though it has recently gained widespread support. Over half of all Russian citizens identify Islam with terrorism, and 70 percent are wary of Muslims. That said, ultra-conservatives differ greatly in the ferocity of their anti-Muslim beliefs.
The last plank in the far-right platform — eliminating liberalism, communism and fascism — has gained attention in recent weeks after Dugin launched a media blitz against Putin, criticizing him for failing to articulate a new ideology for Russia. Dugin argued that it was not enough to simply root out old ways of thinking but that the Kremlin must also craft a concrete ideology based on traditionalism, enlightenment and exceptionalism. He called his drive to formulate such an identity a "conservative revolution," a term that has worried many in Moscow as they try to prevent revolution of any kind in the deeply divided country.
The Unintended Consequences
But the rise of ultra-conservatism and its close cousin, mainstream conservatism, has done more than just encourage punditry and rhetorical bluster. The Kremlin has actively promoted some far-right groups, but others have arisen on their own. In the Perm region, for instance, the Russian Academy of Sciences' International Relations Department has established an annual forum to train hundreds of experts on Russian national unity. The attendees are then meant to promote conservative Russian values among regional and municipal offices and businesses, spreading the ideology at the grassroots level. Elsewhere, a series of reforms is tipping the educational system toward conservative values. For the past two years, Russian high schools have taught a required course called "We Are Together," which explains why Crimea was "reunified" with Russia. The lesson plan includes accusations that other world powers do not want Russia to be strong and stable. And on Oct. 31, Russia's Security Council proposed the creation of a center to develop an official narrative of historical events, such as the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, that can then be incorporated into curriculums nationwide and into government and media messages.
Over the past year, a number of right-wing TV programs and films have hit the airwaves as well, and several Russian media outlets have stepped up their broadcasts of conservative Soviet-era shows and movies, including a film glorifying Ivan the Terrible. New right-wing TV stations have been established too, and in January, the patriotic-religious channel Tsargrad TV began to broadcast full-time. It is now Russia's fastest-growing station. Founded by hedge fund owner Konstantin Malofeev, the station's regular shows feature Dugin and Russian Orthodox Church leaders. They also frequently guest-star Alexander Borodai and Igor Strelkov, Malofeev's former employees and two of Ukraine's most prominent former rebel leaders. (Strelkov often advocates "cleansings" in Ukraine.) As a whole, Tsargrad TV promotes the principles of the Orthodox faith, calls for a full intervention in Ukraine, offers tips on countering Western propaganda and claims that Muslim migrants in Russia are Islamic State recruiters.
Elsewhere in Russia, a series of conservative-leaning monuments and statues have been built over the past few months that have received significant media attention. In September, a local civic group called The Russian Soul raised a monument of Josef Stalin in Surgut, and on Oct. 14, the first statue of Ivan the Terrible was erected in Oryol with the local government's blessing. The 8-meter (26-foot) likeness of the czar, known as much for his brutal crackdowns as for expanding Russia, was unveiled before a crowd of hundreds of people wearing black and yellow imperial flags. It depicts him sitting on a horse, holding a cross in one hand and a sword in the other. A second statue of Ivan the Terrible will be raised in Alexandrov later this month. Meanwhile, a 17-meter monument of Vladimir the Great is under construction at Moscow's request and will be unveiled by Putin and Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill I outside the Kremlin's gates on Nov. 4. The statue has been condemned by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, who claims the saint is Ukrainian. (Russians, however, argue that Vladimir the Great was baptized in Crimea, a key justification for Russia's 2014 annexation of the region.)
Of course, ultra-conservative activities have not been confined to the classroom and public square. They are now expanding to policing and security as well, a source of serious concern for the Kremlin. On Sept. 24, a group of young activists wearing military uniforms and presenting themselves as "Officers of Russia: Executive Youth Wing" formed a human chain in Moscow to prevent an exhibition of photographs by Jock Sturges. They labeled the controversial images child pornography and considered them to be emblematic of American decadence. It is unclear who supports these Executive Youth Wing activists, but their uniforms were high quality and their protest was choreographed to maximize their media exposure.
In October, evidence also surfaced of an ultra-conservative paramilitary training camp in the woods outside of Moscow. The group, which calls itself the Eurasian Youth Union (ESM), is reportedly backed by Dugin, who is on the U.S. sanctions list for inciting rebellion in eastern Ukraine. The ESM claims it has established similar "war camps" across Russia as part of the Kremlin's patriotic push. The group's stated goal is to train Russian volunteers to fight in eastern Ukraine and to resist potential NATO attacks. According to the Russian-based Center of Economic and Political Reform, the ESM may have received some $300,000 in government funding from 2013 to 2015. It is unclear how many of these camps actually exist, since estimates range from dozens to hundreds. Regardless, many within the ESM are highly critical of Putin and say he is not aggressive enough in Ukraine or against NATO. Dugin has argued that the ESM should not be led or ruled by the Kremlin and that its ideology is more important than state loyalty. Other fringe and anarchist groups have attended the ESM's training courses as well, many of which are openly opposed to Putin and his administration.
All of these developments have given the Kremlin pause. Though Putin's government has long embraced, fostered and promoted conservative ideology, it now worries that doing so may do more harm than good. Putin has come under pressure from liberals and conservatives alike to change Russia's stance on various foreign policy issues, including its activities in Ukraine and its relationship with the United States. As more hawkish rhetoric gains steam, Putin risks being left behind, though he is also aware of the potential repercussions of acting too aggressively abroad.
In the meantime, the rise of such extreme views will make it more difficult for Putin to develop a strategy for unifying his deeply fractured country. Those divisions will only widen in the face of economic crisis, foreign policy failure and demographic change, factors that have already fueled the Kremlin's fears of instability. Worried that the spread of conservatism will make matters worse, the Kremlin has already cracked down on some far-right initiatives. In April, when a Muslim caretaker beheaded a Russian child to send an anti-Russian and anti-Orthodox message, the Kremlin blocked many conservative media sites and stations to keep them from stoking anti-Muslim sentiments and unrest. But the Kremlin is not yet ready to completely give up its valuable constituency. Instead, it will try to strike a balance, curbing the most extreme activities while continuing to rely on far-right groups to prop up its base of support.
https://www.stratfor.com/analysis/russian-ultra-nationalism-monster-moscow-s-making
What should we do about guns?
The phrase “common sense gun control” gets tossed about constantly by Democrats, especially during election years. But what does it really mean? In this week’s video, Nicholas Johnson, Professor of Law at Fordham University, explains that, once you get past the platitudes about assault weapons and gun show sales, what most politicians really mean by “common sense gun control” is actually “gun confiscation.” Watch the video here to find out what has happened when gun confiscation laws were tried in other countries, and what that experience tells us about whether it could work in the United States.
https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/what-should-we-do-about-guns
What should we do about guns?
The phrase “common sense gun control” gets tossed about constantly by Democrats, especially during election years. But what does it really mean? In this week’s video, Nicholas Johnson, Professor of Law at Fordham University, explains that, once you get past the platitudes about assault weapons and gun show sales, what most politicians really mean by “common sense gun control” is actually “gun confiscation.” Watch the video here to find out what has happened when gun confiscation laws were tried in other countries, and what that experience tells us about whether it could work in the United States.
https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/what-should-we-do-about-guns
What ISIS wants:
https://www.prageru.com/courses/foreign-affairs/what-isis-wants
It's obvious the Shrill won't defeat this. Couldn't do it while in office, it only got worse.
What ISIS wants:
https://www.prageru.com/courses/foreign-affairs/what-isis-wants
It's obvious the Shrill won't defeat this. Couldn't do it while in office, it only got worse.
That's good about the union guys. What's interesting about techies, is they, in a way, actually put themselves out of a job or limit their ability to progress. The tech keeps improving, they are the ones that now are at risk from the new creative ones of the moment.
Good question. If Shrillary wins, CA will have an interesting response. Criminals and Sacramento will celebrate. Funny thing is, many of the techies like Trump, from Google on down. Since we have had Dim control since 1970, it'll will probably just be a low roar but finally heard.
Remembering Andrew Breitbart: ‘F*ck You, John Podesta!’
(videos on the webpage. We had lunch with him in the barrel room at the Harlan Estate (winery) just before he died. Makes on wonder how that really happened..... Good part, Bill brought out the good stuff. Carlos Guttierrez and wife with our group too.)
In 2010, Andrew Breitbart recognized Clinton campaign chair John Podesta as one of the biggest, most corrupt figures in Washington, D.C.
“Fuck you, John Podesta,” he told journalist Dave Weigel, who then wrote for Slate. “What’s in your closet, John Podesta? Big Podesta? Big Soros? Do you want us to play these games? Because we’re playing to win.”
Andrew Breitbart understood that the biggest threats to America were those who pulled the strings behind the scenes to gain enormous personal power, money, and influence.
Podesta is a creature of Washington, D.C., driving the leftist agenda for decades with his fingers in every pot, since serving in the Bill Clinton White House.
He served as the president’s chief of staff during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, working tirelessly to thwart investigations around the scandal-plagued administration. The tumultuous events reportedly spawned an alter-ego for Podesta that aides called “Skippy” — the nasty side of the normally mild-mannered operative.
Podesta also co-founded a massive lobbying firm with his brother, Tony Podesta, but later went on to launch the liberal think tank Center for American Progress and its multi-armed political subsidiaries.
The Center for American Progress has received more than $5.5 million from liberal billionaire George Soros and millions from top American corporations.
The leftist operative has remained close to power for decades and has been the subject of many fawning media profiles over the years.
His lobbyist brother, Tony, has repeatedly reaped the financial rewards of Podesta’s proximity to power, as the pair enjoys unprecedented access to the most powerful people in the world, including questionable ties with Saudi Arabia and Russia.
Podesta expertly leverages his longstanding relationships with government officials to serve his interests and that of his employers.
For example, Podesta praised lawyer Peter Kadzik — who “kept me out of jail” in the Clinton administration — for work in the Obama transition effort. After becoming the Justice Department’s assistant attorney general, Kadzik leaked information to Podesta about the investigation in Hillary Clinton’s email server.
Podesta ran Obama’s transition into power in 2008, vetting the government bureaucrats and building the vast liberal network that would serve in Obama’s eight year administration.
Andrew Breitbart tangled with Podesta during the ACORN scandal, as the liberal operative joined the scandal-tainted organization’s advisory council.
“Since Mr. Podesta was appointed to investigate ACORN, the only thing investigated has been the investigators, Mr. O’Keefe, Ms. Giles, and the publisher of the journalism behind it, yours truly,” Breitbart wrote in the Washington Times in 2009.
When Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State during Obama’s first term, Podesta followed by joining her Foreign Affairs Policy Board.
President Barack Obama convinced Podesta to join his team after getting a “shellacking” in the midterm elections and losing the Democratic congressional majorities. Under Podesta’s direction, Obama went on to use his executive power to thwart Republicans and push his agenda items despite obstruction in Congress.
Podesta left Obama’s administration to join Hillary Clinton’s campaign, where he has orchestrated obstructionism surrounding Hillary Clinton’s biggest scandals and massaged relationships with the media with intimate private dinners at his home.
He has had close ties to an investment fund backed by the Russian government, but transferred his holdings to his children to avoid scrutiny. He claims not to receive a salary for working in the Clinton campaign, but he still manages to pull a $3,000 a month stipend from the campaign and $7,000 a month from Herb Sandler, a major Clinton donor.
Podesta fell prey to hackers in 2015, who successfully penetrated his private Gmail account and delivered his emails to WikiLeaks, who began their daily detailed releases that exposed the inner workings of the Clinton campaign.
Americans now know more about Podesta than ever before, though he remains in a central position of power in the Clinton campaign. Should Hillary Clinton win the presidency, Podesta is due for a prime position in leading the second Clinton White House.