Minnesota Network for Progressive Action

About Comments
The mnpACT! blog welcomes all comments from visitors, which are immediately posted, but we also filter for spammers:
  • No active URLs or web links are allowed (use www.yourweb.com).
  • No drug or pharma- ceutical names are allowed.
  • Your comment "Name" must be one word with no spaces and cannot be an email address.
You should also note that a few IP addresses and homepage URLs have been banned from posting comments because they have posted multiple spam messages.

Please be aware we monitor ALL comments and reserve the right to delete obvious spam comments.



 
Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites

Listed on BlogShares

 
site search

Site Meter
 
  Progressive Political Blog

Progressive Politics in Minnesota, the Nation, and the World

Left and Right Wing Conspiracies And Hillary Clinton

Category: Hillary Clinton
Posted: 06/28/16 01:00

by Dave Mindeman

I spend a considerable amount of time on this blog, debunking GOP myths and challenging conservative policy. I research my topic and make what I consider the best argument I can about the issue.

I have seen some crazy right wing ideas and no matter how many times they are shown to be untrue, they continue to be used as talking and debate points....over and over again. Bill Maher has termed them Zombie Lies.

Well, during this cycle, I have been exposed to the same type of fervor on the left. I never knew it was quite so pronounced as it is, but some of the rhetoric is over the top. I guess I realize why conservatives refer to left wing nuts in their echo chamber, too.

And the problem I see with a lot of this is that these ideas often come from the same sources. Sanders supporters have been passionate about their candidate, but it seems that a certain element in their midst is more concerned about denigrating Hillary then promoting the good and solid ideas of Bernie Sanders.

Let me document some of these which I have come to hear about over the last couple of weeks....

1) Monsanto. There is this idea that Hillary Clinton is some kind of vehicle for Monsanto, to take over the world and flood it with GMO products. They say she is on their board of directors. That she uses her Secretary of State position to push Monsanto products in third world nations. That she has been taking huge sums of money from Monsanto for "favors".

Snopes.com the reliable conspiracy debunker has this one on their list:

But despite the rumor's proliferation across social media, there's no truth to the claim that Hillary Clinton sat on Monsanto's board of directors at any point during her career. Moreover, we found no direct ties between Hillary Clinton and the agribusiness firm in regards to political fundraising. Apart from working with Crawford (whose firm has also provided services for Monsanto), Clinton has no obvious ties to the Monsanto corporation.

Jerry Crawford is an Iowa Democratic activist and lawyer, who has represented Monsanto for legal services. Not on retainer, just certain cases. He has been an Iowa staffer for Hillary and is a personal friend of Tom Vilsack. That connection has been enough to villify Hillary with Monsanto.

2) Laureate University. Laureate is a for profit college company. Not one of my favorite businesses as you probably know from my Kline posts, but the ugly connections inferred to Hillary are a disservice to both Clinton and Laureate. I won't attest to Laureate's honor but the only connection with Laureate is with Bill Clinton and the Clinton Global Initiative.

The university system -- part of Laureate Education Inc., which according to Bloomberg is the world's largest for-profit college chain -- has been a seven-figure donor to the Clinton Foundation, giving between $1 million and $5 million, according to the foundation's website. Laureate has also made five commitments through the Clinton Global Initiative.

Reviews of Laureate have been mixed, but it is not considered among the worst offenders in the for-profit college industry. President Obama took action against the industry (not Laureate) in 2010 as criticism mounted that for-profit colleges encouraged students to take on burdensome levels of debt to pay for subpar educations. And Hillary Clinton herself denounced the predatory practices of for-profit colleges (the for-profit industry not just Laureate) during her first campaign swing through Iowa.

The connection with the Clinton Global Initiative is that education in developing countries were part of CGI's global plan to improve opportunity in the third world. A lot of government public education was not large enough to help the many who needed the education and Laureate was brought on to help with special projects. George Soros was involved with them as well. Bill Clinton was an honorary chancellor for Laureate - and he was paid well, but his name opened up areas to Laureate. Besides a salary to Bill, the company gave as much as $5 million to CGI.

In April of 2015, Bill Clinton resigned his position with Laureate. His staff said it had nothing to do with Hillary ramping up her campaign, but it is possible that she asked him to end the relationship as she worked on her positions for student debt.

Hillary, herself, was never involved with the company. Conspiracy people will never be satisfied, but nothing illegal was ever involved here. And again, Hillary herself, was not involved.

3. Donations from oil and gas companies.

I have talked about this one before, but the quick summary is that Clinton HAS received donations from oil and gas executives. And she has received money from oil and gas lobbyists. But those lobbyists are not paid exclusively by the petroleum industry - they have hundreds of clients. And, as stated previously, Hillary gets 0.2% of her contributions from oil and gas. Bernie gets a lot less but still gets 0.03% of his contributions that way. Paltry amounts when you consider that over 90% of all contributions from this industry goes to Republicans and their party.

4. Trade agreements.

While Hillary Clinton might have a tentative position on the TPP, she has publicly stated her opposition. Given her past history, it is understandable to be a little skeptical, but it is her public position.

However, I want to go back and talk about NAFTA. Bernie criticizes her for Bill's passage of this treaty, but Hillary herself was First Lady at the time and did not vote. And there is a story that David Gergen (White House staff with Clinton and GOP Presidents) recounts in which he had discussions with Mrs. Clinton at the time, where she stated her personal opposition to NAFTA and was troubled by how it might affect workers. She made no public statement at the time so as not to embarrass her husband. But the fact is, that she did not vote on NAFTA itself.

5. Goldman Sachs speeches.

Bernie has used these speeches as a rallying point for his campaign and his supporters. What is the story here? Let's go back to October of 2013. Goldman Sachs and CEO Lloyd Blankfein invited Hillary to participate in a Tech Expo for the company. They paid her the standard fee that she gets for speeches, $225,000 ...they paid twice for 2 appearances within a week. Yes, the average person could never hope to get paid that kind of money and the Roseau Chamber of Commerce isn't going to be inviting her any time soon at those rates. But, given her resume, obviously she can command that kind of money in the marketplace. I can't say that it is right, but it just is. Nothing sinister about it.

Now why doesn't she release the transcripts? If there is nothing there, just make them public? She does have transcripts. The people at those meetings know that she requested a recording and has a stenographer that goes with her. But she intentionally does not allow any other copies and for every speech she has a non-disclosure agreement in place.

Why is that? Is she hiding something? Is this a sinister plot between her and the banks?

I found some anecdotal accounts from people who were there and talked about her appearance. Most said that she talked in general terms about her travels as Secretary of State. Spoke about banking in general. She didn't criticize the banks like she does now, but she didn't say they were doing anything good either. I know we would all like her to take their money and then rip into them for all the damage they did to the economy. But she was a private citizen at the time. It was not her job anymore. And she was their guest and was asked to talk about other things.

Some of the people who were there were asked to talk about what she said during those speeches. They couldn't think of much - not because they were sworn to secrecy, but because they thought it was kind of BORING. The people who attended this expo were young tech geeks and entrepeneurs. Those that were asked could tell you much more about the other main speaker - Elon Musk.

This is just one more aspect of what a person does to protect her privacy after it has been invaded so many times, in so many ways.

6. The dreaded e-mails.

Lastly, just another note about the e-mail controversy. The GOP brought out their "breaking news"/fund raising e-mail to tell us about the lies that Hillary talked about today.....where she discussed her 25 year battle with the right wing conspiracies.

And they couldn't help but link up a story about e-mails "suddenly found in State Dept files"...

"These emails were not among the 55,000 pages of work-related messages that Clinton provided, including one where the then-secretary of state discusses how her official records would be kept. Clinton and her lawyers deleted tens of thousands of messages she claimed were clearly personal." (Michael Biesecker, "More Clinton Emails Released, Including Some She Deleted," The Associated Press , 6/27/16)

Lies. She is telling more lies.

Well, these e-mails were found in the e-mails of the people they were sent to. Personal e-mails to friends and co-workers. Nothing classified. Just personal. She said she deleted personal stuff - all work related material was handed over. No lies here. Just a person worried about protecting her privacy.

But, as every conspiracy theorist will tell you, it must mean that she has other things that she is hiding. Despite a year long investigation and 55,000 pages made public, we are still left with.....a conspiracy theory.

*********************************************************
So, there you have it. The Clinton dossier. I know that none of this will convince anyone that her intentions were honorable. Maybe some of it wasn't honorable, but I believe it was never dishonest. Hillary Clinton has been in a public crucible for 25 years. Experienced the most humiliating personal ugliness imaginable in a very public way. And has been villified over and over and over again.

But all the while, she keeps trying to seek out good public policy. To find ways to pass laws that help the most people. She will do what it takes and suffer personal costs, just to stand up for people who can't.

Yes, the Clintons are a "power" couple and wealth and fame are their reward and tribulation. I am not going to ever say that she did nothing wrong. I, frankly, find it difficult to say that about anybody. She went to great lengths to protect her private dealings, relationships, and words. Maybe too far.

But given her history, how could anybody who could really understand what it is like to be in her shoes, blame her.

I would still like to see her as President of the United States.
comments (0) permalink

We Have A Common Sense Check On The 2nd Amendment

Category: Guns
Posted: 06/27/16 17:59

by Dave Mindeman

There is no question that the SCOTUS ruling on the Texas abortion restrictions case is the biggest and most consequential news of the day. But the other major ruling, the one on gun rights, was very welcome as well.

This ruling "concludes that misdemeanor assault convictions for domestic violence are sufficient to invoke a federal ban on firearms possession".

This decision can take guns out of the hands of potentially violent people.

But there is a more important application as well. This ruling solidifies the notion that common sense gun laws are Constitutional. The Court backs the idea that the 2nd Amendment isn't an absolute guarantee. Public safety can outstrip the right to own a gun.

The majority opinion ideas of the American people have a basis to be the law of the land. Universal background checks. Restrictions on automatic weapons sales. Gun locks. Stand your ground. All of these can become law or be modified in law.

The expansion of 2nd Amendment rights has reached its peak. Only Justice Thomas argued that the right to bear arms takes precedence over gun restrictions. (Sotomayor dissented on other grounds)

There is also something odd about the Thomas dissent...

Section 922(g)(9) is already very broad. It imposes a lifetime ban on gun ownership for a single intentional nonconsensual touching of a family member. A mother who slaps her 18-year-old son for talking back to her--an intentional use of force--could lose her right to bear arms forever if she is cited by the police under a local ordinance. The majority seeks to expand that already broad rule to any reckless physical injury or nonconsensual touch. I would not extend the statute into that constitutionally problematic territory.

Thomas seems to worry a little too much about 2nd amendment rights for potential abusers. I say odd, because it sends us back to the Anita Hill hearings and the accusations that Clarence Thomas pushed unwanted advances onto his employee. His words seem almost defensive.

But beyond that, this ruling gives law enforcement another tool to combat domestic abuse. I think this ruling will save lives.

And the 2nd Amendment will still be OK....trust me.
comments (0) permalink

My Apologies - I Need A Media And Viewer Rant

Category: Media
Posted: 06/25/16 23:38, Edited: 06/27/16 01:47

by Dave Mindeman

The election analysis this year is horribly frustrating. The amount of opinions based on meager and anecdotal information has risen to new heights. Probably because there is just too much airtime to fill on competing 24 hour news channels (and one fabrication channel - spelled F-O-X).

Seriously, how can you possibly examine Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton..or for that matter, Bernie Sanders in any kind of fact oriented way, if your priority is to look for the punch line or insult or outrageous fact that can swing a few extra viewers your way...in an important demographic.

Now I do not lump the entire media into this circus. There are very good news organizations out there that do an excellent job of digging for the basics using real facts. Washington Post - New York Times - NPR come to mind. Generally, I trust the print media more than television cable....because it is a given that they have to take more time to research things because print media is not as susceptible at getting caught up in the need for "breaking news".

Let's take a couple of examples....

Regarding Hillary Clinton's e-mails. Yes, it is a serious issue but to report every single release as if THIS is the story that finally reveals some huge truth is ridiculous. The latest "discovery" of an e-mail buried in the state department files that referenced an e-mail Hillary sent to Huma Abedin about how best to handle an internal process for protecting her privacy had all sorts of sinister threads read into it. If she was "hiding" this one, how many more are out there? Or anything sent from Sec. Clinton to her personal aide must automatically be State Department property. And, of course, this would be the final straw in the FBI case.

No, it isn't. I am not saying that something serious won't come from this investigation, but the vast majority of what is currently "breaking news" on this issue is pure drivel. No matter how much her opponents within the Party and without, want this to be BIG....it simply isn't.

And then there is Donald Trump. Scads of commentators linked the Brexit vote to some kind of boost for the Trump campaign. How would that be? Yes, maybe some of the same type of disgruntled voters are exerting some kind of frustration at the ballot box, but realistically as a benefit to Donald Trump, it's a stretch. And I say that because any reasonable person can look at Trump's reactions and statements about Brexit - and can come to only one conclusion. This guy has no idea what it is about. His only factual comment about it was to talk about how the British pound going down would increase overseas business for his new Scottish golf club. His press conference was more like a Home Shopping Network pitch for becomine a Turnberry member.

Let's just say it bluntly. Trump is an idiot. And if I were a Republican I would be embarrassed to have him as a Presidential nominee.

He knows nothing about economics - only about how to sell...and not only in the honest ways of selling. I have seen better pitches from some pretty low life, dishonest used car salesman. (Not to disparage good used car salesman by comparing them with Trump).

He knows nothing about the military, the weaponry, or what he would look for in asking for expertise. It is all about his allusions of being strong. And if people would just pay attention, he has yet to tell us anything specific about why he believes the military is weak. His facts are only based on his "big brain".

And the media is fearful of calling him on this horse puckey (I'm trying to be nice). They are so busy chasing after people to get reactions to every stupid idea and word out of his mouth that they seem to be incapable of assessing the fact that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

And then there is Bernie. It is obvious that Bernie wants to discuss and talk about policy. Yet, every interview begins and ends with..."why won't you support Hillary"...or "why are you taking so long to drop out"... or "is what you just said a concession speech?"... it's nuts. Has the media become so bored with policy or so determined to get a "breaking news quip" that they gloss over any policy idea as inconsequential? Where is the news outlet that thinks about minimum wage or trade policy or military interventions or the rising poverty rate or infrastructure decline? Can they tear themselves away from "Keeping Up With The Kardashians" long enough to examine a true American issue?

We are stuck with news as infotainment. We are. The profit motive has overwhelmed the news media. There was a time when news networks would take a stand about corporate sponsorships...they would not allow ad funding taint a news cycle or threaten their editors. Now, some news stories look like corporate ads. Or they fear offending their main sponsors. Or are so afraid of getting left behind on a story that they will take any kind of rumor and sell it as fact.

Donald Trump is a media candidate for a media age. This is what has happened to us. I fear we are stuck with it. Like I said, there are some media outlets that I can still respect, but they are getting fewer and fewer. And what is more important, the electorate is supporting the sensational more than the factual. So it is not all the media's fault.

If a candidate like Trump can win an election, then this country is in deep, deep trouble.

And the only real solution to that is us. We need to demand factual information. To separate news from opinion. To recognize a slant in a story...and filter it appropiately. And do our own research so we can recognize real truth.

After Brexit, the British people's most prominent Google search was for the European Union. Hard to believe you can make an informed vote on an issue you know nothing about.

But then, we do have Trump. America can never claim any kind of high moral ground, because we have to explain the Trump phenomenon.

As the British would say, he's a tosser.
comments (1) permalink
« First « Previous

Calendar

« July 2016 »
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31


Latest posts


Archive

(one year)

Categories


Comments



Links


RSS Feeds

RSS 0.91
RSS 2.0

 
 
 
Powered by
Powered by SBlog
 
Copyright © Minnesota Network for Progressive Action. All rights reserved. Legal. Privacy Policy. Sitemap.