Patterico's Pontifications

4/29/2015

Hillary Clinton Just Needs To Stop Using The Word “Transparency”

Filed under: General — Dana @ 8:20 pm

[guest post by Dana]

What do you call a brazen individual who has no shame, thus cannot be shamed? Hillary Clinton, of course. She is the very definition of deceitful unmitigated gall.

Today Hillary gave her big speech at Columbia University before a student audience that had been warned by her campaign that “no…recording devices, and placards of any kind” would be permitted in the auditorium.

During her speech, Hillary used a word that I have previously said no Clinton should ever use: Transparency. This because they are clearly unclear on the definition and application of the word…

With that, Hillary discussed the need for the police to wear body cameras:

“That will improve transparency and accountability and it will help protect good people on both sides of the lens,” she said. “For every tragedy caught on tape, there are surely many more” that now go unrecorded.

The patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable,”

It’s comical that today of all days, Hillary chose today to discuss the need for public servants to be transparent and held accountable:

*There are in fact 1,100 undisclosed donors to the Clinton Foundation, Giustra says, most of them non-U.S. residents who donated to CGEP. “All of the money that was raised by CGEP flowed through to the Clinton Foundation—every penny—and went to the [charitable] initiatives we identified,” he says.

The reason this is a politically explosive revelation is because the Clinton Foundation promised to disclose its donors as a condition of Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state. Shortly after Barack Obama was elected president in 2008, the Clinton Foundation signed a “memorandum of understanding” with the Obama White House agreeing to reveal its contributors every year. The agreement stipulates that the “Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative” (as the charity was then known) is part of the Clinton Foundation and must follow “the same protocols.”

It hasn’t.

Oh yes, Hillary, patterns have indeed become unmistakable and undeniable.

(*Read the whole thing)

–Dana

Baltimore Mayor Allegedly Gave Order To “Let Them Loot, It’s Only Property”

Filed under: General — Dana @ 5:18 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake is under fire for allegedly giving a direct order to law enforcement officers regarding the rioters, telling them to “let them loot, it’s only property”. This according to a “very senior law enforcement officer with direct knowledge of the orders given by the mayor and her police commanders…”


Asked directly if the mayor was the one who gave that order, the source said: “You are God damn right it was.”

–Dana

Salon: Smashing Police Cars Is Legitimate

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:47 am

Lovely:

Baltimore’s violent protesters are right: Smashing police cars is a legitimate political strategy

I do not advocate non-violence—particularly in a moment like the one we currently face. In the spirit and words of militant Black and Brown feminist movements from around the globe, I believe it is crucial that we see non-violence as a tactic, not a philosophy.

Non-violence is a type of political performance designed to raise awareness and win over sympathy of those with privilege. When those on the outside of struggle—the white, the wealthy, the straight, the able-bodied, the masculine—have demonstrated repeatedly that they do not care, are not invested, are not going to step in the line of fire to defend the oppressed, this is a futile political strategy. It not only fails to meet the needs of the community, but actually puts oppressed people in further danger of violence.

(I know, I know. It’s a deliberately provocative piece trolling for hits, and I probably shouldn’t be responding to it. Still . . . here goes.)

Actually, as Thomas Sowell has shown, riots such as have occurred in ghetto areas from time to time have a greater negative impact on the residents of those areas than they do on the Establishment. These riots discourage businesses from entering the areas and help ensure a hopeless environment for the good people who live in those communities.

What’s more, we don’t applaud violent thuggishness from anyone, and accepting it in Baltimore is an example of condescension — a mindset that is explained by the lady in this video:

(H/t to my sister.)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1539 secs.