Was There a Quid Pro Quo?

The definition of of “Quid Pro Quo” is: “a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something of value”. Do any prominent people in our political system seem to be engaged in the practice of a “quid pro quo”? Does the name Clinton come to mind?

Well, if not, maybe it should. It seems that every time the Clinton's got paid for a speech or a donation to the Clinton Foundation, something good happened to the donor (mostly financial). That smelled something like a “quid pro quo”, don't you think?

When the Clinton's left the White House in 2001, Hillary declared that she and Bill were “broke” (mainly because of legal fees to fight Bill Clinton's legal woes regarding his philandering and lying before a grand jury). Well, since that time up until the present, the Clinton's net worth has reached more than $150 million. What did they do to amass such wealth in such a short period of time? Did they invent a product, did they introduce a marketable service concept, or did they inherit money in order to be able to generate such a windfall of riches? The answer, quite obviously, is “NO”, they offered themselves, their contacts, and their insider trading among the political and business elite to become extremely wealthy.

The best selling book, by author Peter Schweizer, called “Clinton Cash”, laid out a whole lot of instances where the Clinton's used their influence to get things that other “mortals” couldn't get. Even though Bill Clinton was no longer in office, he was an ex-president, and Hillary was a senator representing New York, and then in 2009, Secretary of State in the first term of the Obama administration, and with her eyes on running for president in 2016. The Clinton's also set up a “slush fund” called the Clinton Foundation, which was set up to perform humanitarian good works around the world. Quite a lofty goal, if they followed through.

From 2001 to the present, the Clinton's used their positions to “feather their nest” financially by getting large speaking fees (from $200,000 to $750,000 per speech) for themselves, and donations to the Clinton Foundation, as “cash cows” to spread their influence around the U.S. and around the world.

Just recently, it has been revealed that during her (Hillary) stint as Secretary of State, Hillary intervened with the IRS on behalf of the behemoth bank UBS, located in Switzerland, in mitigating the problems UBS had with the IRS about foreign bank accounts of Americans. The problem was solved as a result of her intervention, and immediately a donation by UBS ($600,000) to the Clinton Foundation was made, and speaking fees was paid to Bill Clinton (totaling$1.5 million). Was that just a coincidence, or was it a “quid pro quo”?

Another instance in which the Clinton's got involved in was with the cell phone giant company, Ericsson, a Swedish company doing a lot of business in the U.S. Ericsson was accused of dealing with Iran while economic sanctions on Iran were still in effect. Ericsson paid a large speaking fee to Bill Clinton and made a donation to the Clinton Foundation, and voila, the problem they had by violating the sanctions on Iran were settled in Ericsson's favor. Did the position that Hillary held as Secretary of State have anything to do with the outcome? Was this just another coincidence or was this this just another “quid pro quo”?

The list of shady deals as described in the book, “Clinton's Cash”, goes on and on. Were the actions of the Clinton's in creating financial windfalls for themselves and their cronies, if looked at by any impartial observer, would they feel that a “quid pro quo” was attached and in play? And now we have Hillary running for president with a honesty and trustworthy rating at a minus 60%. I think the electorate may have finally seen that both Bill and Hillary are inveterate grifters, and shouldn't be sent back to the White House.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

MORT’s meanderings

Nobel Piece Prize for Voluntary  Submission & Surrender

This year’s Nobel Prize is shared by the two leading practitioners of high crimes & misdemeanors plus felonies, in the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama and John Fool-me-every-time Kerry.

Never since the traitorous Benedict Arnold and the gullible Neville Chamberlain have we seen the likes of such betrayal and stultifying  stupidity.

It doesn’t take a lot of artful diplomacy to cut deals with sworn enemies, when one actively seeks out what the enemy wants most in this world then, doubles and triples the ante, gift wraps it in billion dollar bills and delivers it onto the doorstep of that enemy without receiving a single concession in return.

These two geniuses also deserve a couple of Emees for the worst acting of this or any other season.

                MORT KUFF   © 8-14-2015

200 Retired Generals and Admirals Urge Congress To Reject "Iran Nuke Deal"

This video has Lt. General Thomas McInerney speaking about opposing the horrible Iran nuke deal.

Black “Lies” Matter

Sheriff David Clarke, of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, (a black sheriff) came up with that play on the phrase, “Black Lives Matter”, which is an off-shoot of the radical black group called, “Hands Up Don't Shoot” (a proven discredited phase that came about during the Ferguson, Mo. incident of last year).

This racist loosely-knit organization, “Black Lives Matter” (which is similar to the predominantly white radical group of a few years ago, called “Occupy Wall Street), is going around the country trying to agitate racial incidents, and by shutting down speakers at various political gatherings. They have had some success in a few places and events. The main disruptions have been against mostly Democrats, but it is most likely going to extend to Republicans in the near future.

This group is trying to generate controversy by injecting racial animosity into almost every case where there is a confrontation between a black person and a white law enforcement official. Leaders of this “racist” movement are the usual suspects, Al Sharpton, Professor Cornel West and other “racial arsonists”.

It seems that they are only interested in getting involved in incidents between blacks and whites. They don't seem to care about the enormous uptick of violence and murder that is occurring in the predominantly black communities around the country and its black on black violence, mayhem and looting. I guess that doesn't fit their agenda of roiling up racial discord to further whatever ends they are trying to accomplish,

Meanwhile, predominantly black towns and cities are reeling under the impact of this racial turmoil. It seems that the powers-to-be in the Obama administration are not using the “bully pulpit”, like they should, to stem this movement and the violence it is engendering by its provocative actions. Obama said 6 years ago that he was going to be a racial healer, but it seems he has abdicated that goal and has instead became a racial agitator by injecting himself into various incidents over the years, generally against the cops. Cities such as Detroit, Chicago, Ferguson, Baltimore, St. Louis, and Oakland etc. have become battlegrounds, whereby the police have become the enemy, not the protectors of the community they are sworn to protect. The police in these communities are very hesitant to act and carry out their duties for fears of being arrested and charged with a crime, of losing their job, notwithstanding, the fear of bodily injury by attacks n them by people in the community. Politicians have used the police as scapegoats for the inefficiency of the public officials running these communities (mayors and public prosecutors). By the way, most all these communities under siege, are run by liberal Democrats, might there be a correlation?

So yes, Sheriff David Clarke has coined the proper revision of that phrase of “Black Lives Matter” to “Black Lies Matter”, for that is what it is, a false narrative by black rabble-rousers trying to agitate for more violence and confrontation. Where is our president when we need leadership to stem this violence? Probably on the golf course or hosting a championship sports team at the White House? Rome burns while Nero (Obama) fiddles. How sad!

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Obama's Trojan Horse Strategy

A leader cannot run a country with his head buried in the sand.
After leaving a session with his top military brass at the Pentagon,
President Obama stated his strategy will defeat ISIS, but it will take
a longtime. Then he proceeded to announce that he ordered a
reduction of our military personnel by 40,000.

His Trojan horse turns out to be the training of 60 ragtag Syrian
rebels to join a none existent coalition ground force, to repel the
Jihadists.

There is something terribly wrong with this picture. If this doesn't
concern you, it ought to.

President George H.W. Bush formed a coalition of nations, led by
Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, that on January 17th, 1991 routed
Saddam Hussein's invading forces out of Kuwait and pushed them
back to Baghdad in 42 days.

This man is not qualified to protect our nation. Every facet of his
diplomacy and actions has been weak, wrong or none existent,
exacerbating the situations.

Bending over to bury its head in the sand, an Ostrich exposes its
rear end. This similar action by Mr. Obama has left our country's
rear end exposed, and it is being kicked in, big time by second and
third world countries because of his shame and degradation of our
exceptionalism.

Conservative column from George Giftos

History

We call the men whose signatures appear on the
Declaration of Independence, our FOUNDING
FATHERS.

The children of today's millennials will open their
government issued Kindles in school and read, at
one time there was something known as the Middle
Class, and this president and his members of
government who are creating a welfare state, and to
them they will be known as their FUNDING FATHERS.

Conservative column from George Giftos

Whatever Happened to Reagan's 11th Commandment?

Ronald Reagan once proclaimed that Republican's should observe an 11th Commandment; “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican”. If this bad blood rhetoric continues between primary candidates, it'll assure the election of Hillary Clinton, and a continuation of the disaster that we have now in the White House, by the name of Barack Hussein Obama.

It's normal, in a general election or primary election, for a candidate to disagree with an opponent on policy issues, but when the disagreement gets personal and nasty, the atmosphere is poisoned and those personal attacks will come back to haunt the eventual candidate who'll be running against the Democrat candidate.

We don't need to give ammunition to the Democrats, as they will try to demonize and denigrate the Republican candidate anyway. Look what happened to Mitt Romney in 2012. After an overly bruising Republican primary when personal attacks were brought against Romney by fellow Republicans, those attacks were used by the Democrats to help defeat him in the general election. Of course, Romney helped create his own defeat by not doing what he should have done after the 1st debate he had with Obama, which Romney won, but the bad mouthing by his fellow Republicans exacerbated his losing campaign.

With all this ill wind blowing around the Republican candidates by other Republicans, it does not bode well for whomever gets the Republican nomination. Will those criticized candidates and their loyal supporters turn out in the general election after such an acrimonious display of disrespect for each other? Many Republicans didn't come out to vote for Romney because of real or perceived angst about him personally or of his policies. Look what that got us, four more years of a disaster called Obama. Is that what we want in 2016? You would've thought we learned our lesson in 2012, but like a spoiled brat child, the Republican candidates slime and vilify each other trying to garner votes for their candidacy. But, only one person is going to be the Republican candidate, and if he/she has to overcome the negative attacks of fellow Republicans, we are going to commit political suicide.

It seems that the biggest punching bag at present is Donald Trump. Both he and his detractors are guilty of violating the Reagan 11th Commandment. This has got to stop or we will be saddled with another Saul Alinsky acolyte for another 4 years. What a disaster that will be, all because of the petty actions of fellow Republicans against each other. You don't see Democrats vilifying other Democrats, even though they might not be in total agreement with each other. They stick together come hell or high water.

Republicans, wise up and direct your venom toward the Democrat candidate, most likely Hillary. She is very vulnerable as her negatives approach the 60% level. The people do not think she is honest and truthful. But, we, Republicans, must observe Reagan's 11th Commandment by not speaking ill of other Republicans, and point our efforts to beating the Democrats. If we can win in 2016, our country will be the big winner. If not, may God have mercy upon us.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann