THE HYPOCRISY OF THE LIBERAL LEFT, HILLARY, AND THE REAL PARTY OF THE RICH, DEMOCRATS!!       

THE HYPOCRISY OF THE LIBERAL LEFT, HILLARY, AND THE REAL PARTY OF THE RICH, DEMOCRATS!!       

I don’t know about you, but I’m getting just a little tired of the lies of the left when they try to call out the Republican Party for being the Party of the Rich, when all along it’s always been the Democrats! I don’t recall George Soros trying to fix an election for the conservative Right, and I don’t recall him paying BLM or ANTIFA members to shut down progressive Liberal speakers on college campuses. I don’t recall Soros’s voting Machine company accused of fraud in the Idaho Primary for being fixed for candidate Trump, and I certainly don’t recall 98% of the rank and file of congress donating to the Republican Party instead of Obama’s ’Deep State.’

We have the Liberals of the left in the last 24 hours claiming that the middle class has been abandoned, and the rich will only be getting richer, but the truth of the matter is, where was the bipartisan support when Obamacare was front and center, and the door wide open to repeal, and then work together with Republicans to come together and work out a resolution for the Democratic imposed  ‘death spiral’ that still to this day killing Americans on a daily basis?

When I hear Liberals claim that corporations are getting a huge Christmas gift while the ‘Tiny Tim’s’ of the Middle and lower class are getting their crutches taken away! I have to ask myself what ever happened to the Liberals version of America first, and why aren’t’ the first ones on line for getting needed handouts and financial help are ‘not’ America’s minorities, vets, and college students? What about the huge debt that these college kid’s parents to be on hook while Obama intentionally was suppressing the economy so that Americans would have to go to the government to get bailed out, and while doing so becoming obligated and dependent on government, which is what the Obama’s followers and outside financiers are betting on!

Why did Obama abandoned the needs of the American people first, and by doing so increasing the national debt by prioritizing and financing the unvetted and illegal ‘Jump to the front of the line’  DACA elitists, and then doing it over and over again before looking out for America first?

Again we have the ultimate goal of the Liberal left’s Socialist agenda rearing its ugly head, and doing it by driving the American people on to the entitlement rolls, and making them dependent on the ever present bureaucracy? Don’t forget that Obama’s number one goal was to  transform America to a Socialist based third world nation so that the ‘New’ One World Order could rule with their ‘One size fits all’ mandate!

Obama, Hillary, Reid, Schumer, Holder, and Loretta Lynch intentionally  didn’t spend taxpayer’s money on Americans, but their ‘Green Agenda’ that went 100% bankrupt, and who 80% of the contracts to develop that Green Agenda’were given to Obama largest donors, the Obamacare website that was built by a Canadian company’s crony  that Michelle Obama went to college with, financially backing the startup money and weapons for ISIS that just happened to coincide with the lost or missing $6 Billion dollars that went missing mysteriously during Hillary’s tenure at the State Department, and the billions skimmed off our defense, Social Security, and Medicare and Medicaid budgets to pick up the slack when congress didn’t’ approve the funding of Obama’s unconstitutional DACA executive order.

Obama’s AG’s Holder, and than Lynch, ran a progressive interpretative barrier of the laws of the land and constitution in order to help Obama bypass the already on the books immigration laws! What makes this almost funny is that the left keeps harping on and justifying Obama’s open borders and allowing unvetted and illegal immigrants and refugees because we are a country built by immigrants! So, using a little common sense and logic you would have to know that the immigration laws that Obama, and his band of ‘Merry Men are bypassing, were passed by immigrants that they so much defend, that is unless its President Trump’s immigrants who wrote and uphold the law!

WHEN IT COMES TO REPUBLICANS AND THEM BEING THE PARTY OF THE SUPPOSED RICH, SHOW ME HE MONEY!

WHEN IT COMES TO THE DEMOCRATS SCRAPING THE BOTTOM OF THE BARREL TO JUST MAKE ENDS MEET, I GOT SOME LAND IN FLORIDA THAT YOU CAN BUY CHEAP!!

IF 50% OF AMERICANS ARE INVESTED IN THE STOCK MARKET IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER, AS SHOWN TO BE FACTUAL, WHY DO DEMOCRATS THINK THAT THEIR MESSAGE IS GOING TO WIN BACK THE HOUSE AND SENATE WHEN THE STOCK MARKET IS UP, UP, AND AWAY?

DEMOCRATS: THE REAL PARTY OF THE RICH

Free Speech: Right after the Supreme Court’s decision to lift limits on campaign contributions, Democrats and their left-wing supporters assaulted the decision as a boon to Republicans, “the party of the rich.”

This of course is part of a far-wider narrative — slavishly repeated by largely unquestioning liberal media — that the GOP outspends Democrats on campaigns thanks to big-buck donors like the billionaire Koch brothers.

But, as it turns out, that’s a lie — as big a lie, in fact, as “you can keep your insurance,” “you can keep your doctor” and “Obamacare will bend the cost curve down.”

By almost every measure, in fact, it’s the Democrats, not the Republicans, who are the party of the rich.

*Start with Congress itself. Who are the wealthiest members? Well, there are 269 millionaires among Congress’ 535 members. And most of them are Democrats.

*And contrary to the hand-wringing on the left about the Supreme Court’s 5-4 McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling, Democrats far outspend Republicans on elections. It isn’t even close.

*According to OpenSecrets.org, from 1989 to 2014 rich donors gave Democrats $1.15 billion — $416 million more than the $736 million given to the GOP. Among the top 10 donors to both parties, Democrat supporters outspent Republican supporters 2-to-1.

*But what about the villainous Koch brothers, those conservative plutocrats supposedly seeking to control American politics? They rank 59th on the list of big givers — behind 18 unions and No. 1 Act Blue, the massive left-wing fund raiser that gives only to Democrats.

Indeed, a recent book, “The New Leviathan,” says donations to Democrats outstrip those to Republicans 7-to-1. How can this be? Democrat support soars when you include unions, universities, super PAC’s, nonprofits, left-wing interest groups, and — ready for this? — Wall Street (which overwhelmingly favors Democrats).

So, Democrats don’t really want to restrain money in politics. Just the money that goes to Republicans.

Voters need to stop listening to the lies. Since 2008, the number of people who call themselves middle class has plunged from 53% to 44%, according to a new survey by the Pew Research Center.

And, by President Obama’s own admission, his party’s control of Congress and the White House has led to 95% of all income gains going to the top 1% in income.

So please, enough of this about Democrats being the party of the little guy.

IF AT FIRST YOU DON’T SUCCEED, TRY, TRY, TRY AGAIN!

So, the old proverb instructs.

When that didn’t work out for Hillary Clinton, she discovered another one: If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.

During the 2016 campaign, Clinton took every opportunity to promise a reversal of the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case. Starting in May 2015, the Democrat told a gathering of her top donors that she planned to use the court’s decision on political speech and campaign finance as a litmus test for her nominees to the Supreme Court, eventually hoping for a reversal of the precedent. That position remained unchanged all the way through to the final presidential debate with Donald Trump, when Clinton argued that America needed “a Supreme Court … that will stand up to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system.”

Clearly, some kinds of dark and unaccountable money are more dark and unaccountable than others. After two failed attempts to win the presidency, Clinton has formed a new political group called Onward Together, which will raise money for, and encourage engagement in, so-called “resistance” groups that oppose President Trump and his agenda. “More than ever, I believe citizen engagement is vital to our democracy,” Clinton explained in a series of tweets announcing the group. “We’re launching Onward Together to encourage people to get involved, organize, and even run for office.”

Just how will Onward Together reflect Clinton’s values, as expressed during the 18 months she ran for the nation’s highest office? The group has a familiar arrangement, as CNN reported. According to one source within Clinton’s organization, Onward Together is a 501(c)(4) with an associated political action committee that allows unlimited fundraising without any requirement to disclose donors, even though Clinton’s mission for the group explicitly includes finding candidates to run for political office. An aide to Clinton confirmed to CNN that Onward Together would not choose to disclose its donors, either.

The money has already begun flowing to other groups in pursuit of those missions. Three organizations, including Run for Something, have already received funds, and more are lining up. “In some cases, we’ll provide direct funding to these organizations,” Clinton explained in the email announcement of the launch. “For others, we’ll help amplify their work and do what we can to help them continue to grow their audiences and expand their reach.”

If the 501(c)(4) status sounds familiar, it should. That is the exact same tax status under which the group Citizens United operated at the time of its conflict with a candidate named … Hillary Clinton. Formed in 2004, the group produced a film opposing Clinton’s 2008 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, and attempted to buy television advertising to market it within 30 days of a primary. The Federal Election Commission attempted to block such advertising as a violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, better known as the McCain-Feingold law, ruling that unions and corporations were prohibited from campaigning during that blackout period under its auspices.

In its 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, stating that the BCRA’s restrictions violated the First Amendment. “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech,” Kennedy wrote (emphasis mine). If those restrictions on corporations — associations of citizens — remained, it would necessarily have to apply to all corporations, including news outlets and book publishers. The BCRA’s restrictions on political expression and expenditures of corporations “is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions.”

From the publication of this opinion in 2010, Democrats have castigated the decision and the justices that produced it. Barack Obama broke precedent in his 2011 State of the Union speech to criticize the court, and Samuel Alito’s silent protest became a short-lived national scandal. Obama offered continuous official criticism of the decision as late as January 2015, at which point Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders took up the cause for the Democratic primaries.

If Clinton has changed her mind about the Citizens United decision, that would make Onward Together understandable. Citizens United is the law of the land, and Clinton is as eligible to operate within the law as anyone else. However, she has given no indication of any such reconsideration. On her official website — still up and operating — Clinton still lists overturning the court’s decision as the first step in a new campaign-finance regime. “Overturn Citizens United,” it pledges, “the Supreme Court case that unleashed hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate and special-interest money into U.S. elections.” And further, the site implores Americans to “end secret, unaccountable money in politics,” stating that “we need federal legislation to require outside groups to publicly disclose political spending.”

Perhaps Hillary Clinton was against undisclosed political donations before she was for it. Clearly, she is also for citizens uniting for her causes, but not Citizens United for others. If, as some already suspect, Onward Together might end up being a platform for another Hillary Clinton campaign, the hypocrisy of her embrace of undisclosed contributions will prompt another documentary or two when the time comes.

“The hypocrisy of Hillary.”    By Edward Morrissey, a Friend of America!