RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204518504574423570828980800

Hillary’s Honduras Obsession The U.S. is trying to force the country to violate its constitution. By Mary Anastasia O’Grady Sep. 21, 2009

“The Supreme Court of Honduras has constitutional and statutory authority to hear cases against the President of the Republic and many other high officers of the State, to adjudicate and enforce judgments, and to request the assistance of the public forces to enforce its rulings.”

—Congressional Research Service, August 2009

Ever since Manuel Zelaya was removed from the Honduran presidency by that country’s Supreme Court and Congress on June 28 for violations of the constitution, the Obama administration has insisted, without any legal basis, that the incident amounts to a “coup d’état” and must be reversed. President Obama has dealt harshly with Honduras, and Americans have been asked to trust their president’s proclamations.

Now a report filed at the Library of Congress by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) provides what the administration has not offered, a serious legal review of the facts. “Available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system,” writes CRS senior foreign law specialist Norma C. Gutierrez in her report.

Do the facts matter? Fat chance. The administration is standing by its “coup” charge and 10 days ago, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went so far as to sanction the country’s independent judiciary. The U.S. won’t say why, but its clear the court’s sin is rejecting a U.S.-backed proposal to restore Mr. Zelaya to power.

Seth Lipsky’s latest book is :
The Floating Kilogram: … and Other Editorials on Money from the New York Sun by Seth Lipsky and James Grant

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=the%20floating%20kilogram

https://www.createspace.com/5308488

WILLIAM JENNINGS KRUGMAN

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/william-jennings-krugman/88833/ (Sep. 2014)

Paul Krugman’s latest column in his campaign for inflation turns out to be an endorsement of none other than William Jennings Bryan. He was the Nebraska Democrat who ran for president in 1896 on a campaign for the free coinage of silver, meaning for inflation. The Republicans put up William McKinley, who ran from his front porch a campaign for the gold standard and honest money. Mr. Krugman explains McKinley’s landslide by saying that “the elite mobilized en masse” in the election with the highest campaign spending, as a percent of GDP, in history, and worries whether the wealthy are “similarly mobilized against easy-money policies today.”

KRUGMAN’S KANDIDATE: William Jennings Bryan, lampooned by Grant Hamilton in a cartoon in the Judge magazine, campaigned for inflation in the presidential election of 1896 by running against, among other things, Jewish bankers — a fact the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman omits from his references to Bryan in his latest plea for a more inflationary policy.

Mr. Krugman neglects to mention one feature of 1896. It was not only the campaign that demonstrated that the people were not so easy to convince of the virtues of inflation. It also showed that Americans weren’t going to succumb to a campaign that blamed their troubles on the Jews. Early in his campaign for inflation, William Jennings Bryan had gone onto the floor of Congress and read into the record Shylock’s bond. America, he asserted, could not afford “to put ourselves in the hands of the Rothschilds.” He went on to demand that the Treasury “shall be administered on behalf of the American people and not on behalf of the Rothschilds and other foreign bankers.”

Bryan’s campaign was a repudiation of the faction of the Democrats, led by Grover Cleveland, that stood for honest money. The “Cassandra of the Plains,” Mary Lease, had condemned Cleveland as the “agent of Jewish bankers and British gold.” Bryan won the nomination with his vow, “you shall not crucify mankind on a cross of gold.” The delegates were so transported that they didn’t react until he’d left the stage. Then suddenly the hall erupted with a ovation of whoops and cheers. Some of the Democratic delegates, The New York Sun reported, screamed “Down with gold! Down with the hook-nosed Shylocks of Wall Street! Down with the Christ-killing gold bugs.”

In The Manchurian Candidate, the son of a prominent right-wing politician is captured by the Soviets and brainwashed in a secret Manchurian location. His task is to assassinate a presidential candidate, thus ensuring the election of the demagogic vice-president. Hence, the title “Manchurian Candidate.”

The film has several parallels to current events. The main difference is that in those days, Americans had to be brainwashed into serving enemy interests by psy-ops teams. Nowadays, they come self-brainwashed with some indoctrinative assist from the American educational system.

In the film, a scary lady with leftist sympathies who looks vaguely like Hillary Clinton manipulates her husband into high political office. In real life, a scary lady with leftist leanings who looks vaguely like Angela Lansbury (only scarier) manipulates herself into high political office.

In her case, teams of brainwashers are not required, since she has brainwashed herself into believing that foreign governments are dumping truckloads of cash into her family foundation because she’s such a charming and intelligent woman. And also because Arab sovereigns like nothing better than to do their part to improve the lives of the poor, the hungry, the environmentally underserved, and kids who need braces—in short, the very causes for which the foundation was founded.

While hyperventilating pundits wet their pants commenting on the “historic!” meeting and handshake [1] between President Obama and Cuban dictator Raul Castro in Panama City during the Summit of the America’s this weekend, one veteran “diplomat” just laughs.

“The so-called re-establishment of relations (between the U.S. and Cuba) is really no big deal, “laughs Nikolai Leonov. “These relations were already in place.”

Leonov is described today as a Russian “history professor.” But all during the Cold War Lieutenant Colonel Nikolai Leonov worked as the KGB’s main agent in Latin America. In brief, he knows what he’s talking (and laughing) about.

Leonov was Raul Castro’s case officer starting in 1953 and Ernesto “Che” Guevara’s starting in 1956. Look at those dates closely because here’s what our crackerjack CIA was saying in late 1958:

“Don’t worry. We’ve infiltrated Castro’s guerrilla group in the Sierra Mountains. The Castro brothers and Ernesto “Che” Guevara have no affiliations with any Communists.” (Havana CIA station chief Jim Noel, 1958.) [2]

“But wait!” as the famous infomercial says. “There’s more!”

“Fidel Castro is not only not a communist –he’s a strong anti-Communist fighter. He’s ready to help us in the hemisphere’s anti-communist fight and we should share our intelligence with him.” (CIA Cuba “expert” Frank Bender, April, 1959.) [3]

Weather Underground terrorist and convicted cop killer Kathy Boudin is now surrounded by fellow felons on the staff of the Columbia University School of Social Work where she crusades against the supposedly systemic racism of the justice system.

The septuagenarian Boudin is assistant adjunct professor and director of the school’s “Criminal Justice Initiative: Supporting Children, Families and Communities” (CJI), which appears to be focused [1] on keeping criminals like her out of prison by abolishing imprisonment as a punishment. As her official bio states, the initiative, which she co-founded, “is dedicated to ending society’s reliance on incarceration and retribution and advancing solutions.”

The school, which calls “mass incarceration” a “central social crisis of our time,” is little more than an indoctrination mill that churns out radical left-wing propaganda largely at taxpayer expense.

“There are approximately 1.6 million people in the nation’s prisons and jails and 7 million American children with a parent who is either incarcerated, on parole, or on probation,” according to the school. “The Criminal Justice Initiative focuses on how the social work profession can best address the educational and human needs of individuals, children, families and communities affected by incarceration.”

Boudin served 22 years in prison for her role in an assault on an armored-car in Nyack, N.Y. in which two police officers and a Brinks security guard died. Boudin was paroled in 2003 after telling officials that she took part in the $1.6 million robbery because she felt guilty for being white. Security guard Peter Paige and police officers Waverly Brown and Edward O’Grady died in the 1981 attack. Nine children subsequently grew up without their fathers.

Boudin is no stranger to irony.

Across America, the spirits of a weary nation lift as after cashing in on her last round of six-figure speeches (private jet [1] and presidential suite [2] inclusive) in a surprise announcement that no one expected, Hillary Clinton finally revealed to a breathlessly expectant country that she will run for president.

Why? Not for fame or for glory. Not even to help her brother pick up even more super-rate Haitian mining contracts [3], but to help “everyday Americans.” Everyday Americans, like you.

Or almost like you, if you could afford to spring for her private jet.

What can these everyday Americans, who may be found on the boards of major corporations, non-profits and in the roster of international fugitives, expect from eight years of Hillary Clinton?

That all depends on whether they cheaped it out by flying Hillary out in a Gulfstream 450 with a miserable cramped sixteen seats or whether they stepped up to the Gulfstream 650. Were the crudités fresh? Did the presidential suite make Hillary feel truly presidential? Or did she feel like just another flat broke contender having to deliver speeches to lobbies, corporations and trade groups to keep the wolf away from the door of her latest mansion?

In this brave new era of open government, we will be privileged to see how it all works.

The ultimate Kinsley-esque gaffe — as spotted by the Weasel Zippers in a screenshot of Hillary’s announcement that her campaign is stating that she’s “fought children And families all her career.” It’s both “Hillary Comedy Gold,” as the Zippers write, and one of her rare moments of truthfulness. Margaret Sanger couldn’t have said it better herself.

And as the London Daily Mail notes in their headline, “‘Everyday Americans need a champion’: Wealthy Hillary Clinton finally enters formal race to be president with video telling middle class voters ‘the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top’ of the economy.”

Stacked just like the young women Bill enjoys as part of his own unique brand of “intimate campaigning,” and stacked just like the heels on a fine pair of Gucci calf leather pumps, Byron York writes at the Washington Examiner:

America rejoice! A multi-millionairess serial liar married to a multi-millionaire serial adulterer has just announced for the presidency of our country to save the middle class from impoverishment! (Or was it “income inequality”?) (Or was it “Chelsea Clinton in a Gucci dress, Mateo New York bracelet, Cartier bracelet, Garland Collection ring, Halleh ring,” as appears in this month’s [1] Elle [1]?)

Better tell Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin and Trotsky, not to mention Gil Scott-Heron. His song [2] got it wrong. The Revolution is going to be televised (until we’re blue in the face) and it will start in tony Chappaqua on a posh gated estate with pool and tennis court, guarded by the Secret Service with its own (exceptionally) private email system, infinite closed-circuit video surveillance and who knows what else?

Is everyone throwing up yet? Not even Maureen Dowd is buying [3]. Oh, well, American “liberalism” has been screwing the lower classes for the last fifty years. Why stop now?

That is not as stupid a question as it first sounds. Ostensibly we know her four ready answers.

I. Who Else?

One, there is no other credible Democrat who could run for presidency. The senior party leadership — Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Dianne Feinstein — is shrill and buffoonish. They all have either tried before and failed, or are ossified has-beens — or both. There are no up-and-coming governors with distinguished records of executive success. There are no young charismatic Democratic senators — other than the well-preserved, 65-year-old Harvard populist Elizabeth Warren — out to make a name, who can speak well and mirror image a Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, or Mario Rubio. Congressional-district gerrymandering that encourages ethnic chauvinism and hard-left polarization has almost ensured that there will not be another minority star, like Barack Obama, who can win crossover votes and statewide office as a springboard to the White House.

II. Her Turn

Two, Hillary Clinton, like a Walter Mondale, Bob Dole or John McCain, believes that it is finally her turn. In her case she lost in 2008 and loyally served the man who defeated and often humiliated her (“you’re likable enough, Hillary” Obama condescendingly remarked [1] during a debate of Democratic presidential candidates in January of 2008).

She feels that she was robbed of a sure nomination by the upstart Obama, who cut in front of the line with his inane “hope and change” banalities and subtle race carding, as if racial chauvinism must always trump gender pandering. She blew a huge lead in the primaries, licked her wounds, and now it is time for the party to unite loyally behind her the way she did with Obama.

Remember when Senator Barack Obama assailed President George W. Bush for exceeding his presidential powers? In the twilight days of his own Presidency, Mr. Obama is speaking and acting as if he can determine U.S. foreign policy all by his lonesome.

That afflatus was on display Saturday at the Summit of Americas in Panama City, where the President took umbrage that anyone would disagree with his unilateral forays on Cuba, Iran and climate change. He was especially annoyed at Senator John McCain for daring to point out that Secretary of State John Kerry’s interpretation of his “framework” nuclear accord differs substantially with that of Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.
“That’s not how we’re supposed to run foreign policy, regardless of who’s President or Secretary of State. We can have arguments, and there are legitimate arguments to be had. I understand why people might be mistrustful of Iran. I understand why people might oppose the deal—although the reason is not because this is a bad deal per se, but they just don’t trust any deal with Iran, and may prefer to take a military approach to it,” Mr. Obama said.