'Smart' Hilary Says Some Stupid Things

Hillary Clinton’s cheerleaders forever portray her as a brilliant woman. She, herself, boasts that her ideas are "smarter."

Really?

Speaking at Georgetown University on Dec. 3, 2014, Secretary Clinton said "This is what we call smart power. Using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security. Leaving no one on the sidelines. Showing respect even for one's enemies. Trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their [our enemies'] perspective and point of view. Helping to define the problems, determine the solutions. That is what we believe in the 21st century will change -- change the prospects for peace."

Reading her Obama-esque remarks closely, what she calls “smart power” is twaddle.

“Every possible tool?” Would include biological weapons? Torture?

“Every possible partner?” Al-Qaida? North Korea?

“Leaving no one on the sidelines?” Negotiate with Islamic terrorists as they behead American captives? Slaughter female teachers in classrooms?

“Show respect for our enemies?” “Try to understand in so far as it is psychologically possible?” As they barbarically behead American captives? Burn pilots?

“Empathize” with their “perspective and point of view.” Whose view? The Islamic State's Al-Baghdadi? Boko Haram's Abubakar Shekau?

Will we allow the likes of Putin, Bashar al-Assad and Pol Pot, “to define the problems and determine the solution”? Accept their “final solution?"

Do we allow Hitler/Stalin-types or a Sharia caliphate to define for us the meaning of liberty and religious freedom?

Mrs. Clinton's words, rather than suggesting brilliance, suggest she is wantonly reckless in her use of language, naive to the point of being suicidal, or has a blithering idiot for a speechwriter. (But what of her judgment if she mindlessly regurgitates drivel written for her?)

Recall her Oct. 24, 2014 Boston speech: “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know, that old theory  -- trickle down economics. That has been tried. It has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.”

If American corporations and business don’t create jobs, who does? Are all jobs created by the government?

Does Mrs. Clinton really believe General Motors, John Deere and our local hospitals don’t create jobs? Smart? Was she again wantonly reckless, utterly unfamiliar with who creates the vast majority of jobs in America, or is she simply repeating the blather handed her by a speechwriter?

But it’s not only her words. Her actions are more reckless. Since she became secretary of state, America’s enemies have had a field day. Russia has gobbled up portions of Georgia, Crimea and the Ukraine. Iran daily moves to having nuclear weapons. North Korea goes nuclear with impunity. Islamic terrorists are beheading Christians and Westerners throughout the Mideast, kidnapping children, bombing churches in Africa, and seizing large chunks of territory. Radical Islam is at war with America. While Americans are being beheaded, “Kumbaya” is no foreign policy.

Mrs. Clinton’s notion of smart power translates to suicide.

And now, Mrs. Clinton has enmeshed herself in an email scandal -- the same Hillary Clinton who in a June 20, 2007 campaign speech blasted the Bush administration: “Our constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret [Bush] White House email accounts. It is a stunning record of secrecy and corruption ... It is everything our founders were afraid of. Everything our constitution was designed to prevent.

So how does Mrs. Smart now justify using a secret email account, and setting up her own personal server -- which has allowed her to scrub any email that suggest wrongdoing, incompetence or corruption?

She mendaciously claims the law was changed after she resigned as secretary of state. If so, why was she blasting the Bush administration for secret emails?

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in 1995 adopted regulations which require preservation of official emails created on non-official accounts. The archivist interpreted the Federal Records Act to apply to email records: “Agencies with access to external electronic mail systems shall ensure that federal records sent or received on these systems are preserved in the appropriate record-keeping system.”

Smart? It is the height of arrogance/stupidity is to excoriate somebody for doing something, and then doing the same thing yourself!

And now, on July 28, when asked about her position on the Keystone Pipeline, Mrs. Clinton answered,  "I will refrain from commenting because I had a leading role in getting that process started ... And I think we have to let it run its course ... This is President Obama's decision, and I’m   not going to second-guess him ... If it’s undecided when I become president, I will answer your question.”

Only a voter too stupid to be allowed the vote would accept this answer. Only a candidate who believes her supporters too stupid to realize that this is a dodge would say something so cynical.

The whole purpose of a presidential campaign is to educate the voters as to your platform! This is reminiscent of Nancy Pelosi's hair-brained Obamacare statement: "We got to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it." But then, if the American people will elect a candidate sans credentials on a platform of "Hope and Change" .... ?

Now, according to the Washington Post, Bill and Hillary have "earned in excess of $25 million for delivering 104 speeches since the beginning of 2014." That's $240,000 per speech! Would you pay $240K, to hear Hillary say any of the "smart" things set out here? So, why are people and foreign governments paying $240K? 

Are they attempting to purchase "smart" or "influence?"

Posted: Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:00 pm, QCOnline.com

By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2015

John Donald O'Shea

Living in Nation that Uses Babies for Parts

On Feb. 6, two investigators, posing as representatives of a fetal tissue procurement company, met with Dr. Mary Gatter, president of Planned Parenthood’s Medical Director’s Council, who oversees its Pasadena affiliate, ostensibly for the purpose of acquiring "intact fetal organs."

Breitbart.com suggests the video shows that Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is violating federal law by being "in the business of selling fetal tissue for compensation."

Cecile Richards, president of PPFA, denies that: "I want to be really clear. The allegation that Planned Parenthood profits in any way from 'tissue donation' is not true."

Profit? Mere reimbursement? Moral bankruptcy? Judge for yourself.

Dr. Gatter: "Our volume ... is 800 [abortions] a year, with 60 in the second trimester. … PPFA is on board with tissue donations, but we have to ask for a waiver ... and we have to lay out ... what our program's going to be like. [Here's] the process worked out with Novogenix  ... in Los Angeles when I was there. … Heather, a Nogovenix  person would come to the site, and our staff would ... get [patient] consent. Then Heather would look at the tissue and take what she required. So logistically, it was very easy for us. We didn't have to do anything. ...

Female Investigator: "What would you expect for intact tissue? What ... compensation?"

Gatter: "What you are used to paying?

FI: "What would make you happy? What would work for you? ..."

Gatter: "OK. $75 a specimen."

FI: "That's way too low. ..."

Gatter: "I was going to say $50. ... I've been in places where they have done it for $50. But see ... we're not in it for the money. ... We don't want to be in the position of being accused of selling tissue ... On the other hand, there are costs associated with the use of our space ...."

FI: "I'd like to start at around $100.

Gatter: "Now this is for tissue you actually take; not just tissue ... where you can't find anything, right?"

FI: "What we can use. ... Intact .....

Gatter: ."Are you looking for eight and nine-week specimens, or only second trimester specimens?

Male Investigator: "Ten to twelve week ... the end of the first trimester … Intact specimens ...  we can work with."

Gatter: "If our usual technique is suction, at 10 to 12 weeks, and we switch to IPAS -- something with less suction --  we increase the odds that we will come out with an intact specimen. But then we're ... violating the protocol that says to the patient, we're not doing anything different in our care of you. ... That's kind of a specious little argument.  I wouldn't object to  asking Ian, that's our surgeon who does the cases, to use an IPAS ...  to increase the odds of getting an intact specimen. … We're signing something that says we're not changing anything ... just because you agree to give tissue. ..."

FI: "It's touchy. ...."

Gatter: "I think they're both totally appropriate techniques; there's no difference of pain involved . ... You have my email?

MI: "Yes."

Gatter: "Write me a  … proposal which I will take to Laurel and others in our organization ... Then ... I will then mention this to Ian, to see how he feels about using a “less crunchy" technique to get more whole specimens. And then ... the next step is I would need to apply to PPFA for a waiver. ... We will need to have a contract. ..."

MI: "What we have used in the past is a 'materials transfer agreement.' ..."

Gatter: "But you know that money is not the important thing for me, but it has to be big enough that it makes it worthwhile for me. ...  It's been years since I talked about compensation, so just let me figure out what others are getting. .."

Regardless of whether Planned Parenthood is making a profit or simply being "reimbursed" for its expenses, I am nauseated.

Recall Dr. Gatter's remark: "So logistically, it was very easy for us. We didn't have to do anything."

Reimbursement?

How can one be reimbursed for not doing anything? What sort of medical doctor refers to a human fetus (an unborn baby) as a "specimen?”

Isn't it the very humanity of the fetus that makes its "parts" (its liver, kidneys, brain) useful? To replace damaged parts in humans? For medical research?

Compare Dr. Gatter's practice of medicine with that prescribed by the original Hippocratic Oath: "I will give no sort of medicine to any pregnant woman, with a view to destroy the child."

Dr. Joseph Mengele, of Auschwitz fame, worked experiments on children that often caused death, and then sent their heads and organs to the SS Medical Academy in Graz for study.

How can Dr. Gatter and Planned Parenthood look at themselves in a mirror and not see Joseph Mengele?

Dr. Gatter, in my opinion, is morally blind to the humanity of the children being crushed to death in PPFA establishments.

For her, the fetus is "sub-human medical waste" -- a "specimen" -- to be disposed of in any politically correct fashion.

Donating the parts (and taking cash under the guise of reimbursement) for research or to "supply human health needs" for her is morality.

But if a fetal liver can be implanted to prevent a toddler with liver problems from dying, why can't fetal tissue be canned and shipped to Africa as food for children who will otherwise starve? If the fetus counts for nothing, what line is there other than political correctness?

If you think I exaggerate, watch the video: youtube.com/watch?v=Xw2xi9mhmuo

Posted: Thursday, August 6, 2015 11:10 pm, QCOnline
John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2105
John Donald O'Shea

How Much Death Must One Deal to Get Life?

President Obama recently commuted the sentences of 46 criminals convicted of drug offenses; 14 were serving life sentences. In doing so, he said:

“Over the last few years, a lot of people have become aware of the inequities in the criminal justices system. The fact that we spend more than $80 billion a year incarcerating people, who oftentimes have only been engaged in non-violent drug offenses. Right now ... people all across the country are coming together with ideas to make the system work smarter, work better, and I’m determined to do my part wherever I can.

“That’s one of the reasons I am commuting the sentences of 46 prisoners who were convicted many years or in some cases decades ago. These men and women were not hardened criminals. But the overwhelming majority had been sentenced to at least 20 years. Fourteen have been sentenced to life for non-violent drug offenses. So their punishments didn’t fit the crime. And if they’d been sentenced under today’s laws, nearly all of them would have already served their time.

“I’ve made clear to them, that reentering society is going to require responsibility on their part, and hard work, and smarter choices.

“I believe that at its heart, America is a nation of second chances, and I believe these folks deserve their second chance.”


On Sunday, this newspaper published an op-ed written by Scott Reeder -- with whom I usually agree. In it, he sounded a good deal like President Obama.

“Growing up ... in Galesburg, I would look out my bedroom window at night and see ... the prison lights. I wondered why folks were locked up there. Many were there for drug crimes and other non-violent offenses. When it comes to drugs, wealthy and middle-class folks end up in rehab and low-income ones end up doing time. ...

“Prisons are taking a devastating toll on our state’s inner cities.”


On Monday, the lead editorial in this newspaper from the Seattle Times tells us it’s “Time to overhaul America’s criminal-justice system.”

“President Obama has seized on the righteous issue of mass incarceration ....
“Since the start of the war on drugs ... the population in state and federal prisons has exploded more than 500 percent.

“The lifetime likelihood for a white male to go to prison is 1 in 17; for black men, it is 1 in 3.
“If you’re a low-level drug dealer, or violate your parole, you owe some debt to society... But you don’t owe 20 years. You don’t owe a life sentence.”

The penalties in Illinois are higher for controlled substances than they are for cannabis.
They are also higher for delivery than they are for possession. Due to word limits, I am setting out only the lowest and highest penalties (not intermediate ones).

                                                  Cannabis Possession and Delivery

Possession of more than 30 grams but not more than 500 grams of any substance containing cannabis is a Class 4 felony, punishable by 1 to 3 years.  (three years in Illinois, with good-time credits means nine months). Probation is the statutorily “preferred”  sentence.

Possession of more than 5,000 grams of cannabis is a Class 1 felony punishable by four to 15 years.  (Probation preferred disposition).

Delivery of more than 10 but not more than 30 grams of cannabis is a class four felony, punishable by one to three years. (Probation preferred disposition)

Delivery of 5,000 grams of cannabis or more is a Class X felony, punishable by six to 30 years.  (Class X felonies carry no good-time credits; probation not possible).

                                                 Cocaine Possession and Delivery

Possession of more than 15 but not more than 100 grams of any substance containing cocaine carries 4 to 15 years. (Probation preferred disposition)

Possession of 900 grams or more of any substance containing cocaine carries 10 to 50 years. (No probation)

Delivery of 1 gram or more but less than 15 grams of any substance containing cocaine carries 4 to 15 years. (Probation preferred disposition if less than 5 grams. No probation, if more)

Delivery of 900 grams or more of a substance containing cocaine carries 15 to 60 years. (No probation possible)


Thirty grams is roughly 1 oz., 500 grams is roughly 1 lbs. and 5,000 grams is roughly 10 lbs.


In the years I was on the criminal bench, I don’t ever recall sending a true first- offender to prison for a Class 4 felony possession of cannabis. They got probation.


And generally, if they had no other record, they got more probation if the violated the first probation by getting caught with more cannabis. We realized that it cost about $30,000 a year to send a convicted criminal to prison.

But often, the first-time cannabis offender had a prior record of other crimes. And it is not honest to call a guy with two prior burglary convictions a first-time offender simply because this is his first conviction for possession of cannabis.

Similarly, when a guy on probation for cannabis possession got re-arrested and shipped to prison for pistol-whipping a rival drug dealer on a street corner, it is at best a half-truth to say he was  imprisoned for a non-violent drug offense.

It is asserted that “Prisons are taking a devastating toll on our state’s inner cities.” I would suggest that drug trafficking and the related violence is taken an even greater toll. The Chicago gangs are fighting and killing people over who controls the drug traffic. A lawyer friend of mine, now a judge, once told me that when people get “hooked on crack, it becomes their God.” Delivery of a drug of that sort is a non-violent crime in name only. Is it worse to destroy a person by selling him crack cocaine than it is to shoot him? Cocaine destroys not only the user, but the lives of spouses and children.

It is said that, the “lifetime likelihood for a white male to go to prison is 1 in 17; for a black male, it is 1 in 3.” But if 1 in 3 black males (or 1 in 17 white males) are going to prison, doesn’t that at least mean that 1 in 3 black men (or 1 in 17 white men) have committed a crime that a judge -- white or black -- deems proportionate with incarceration? 

And while drug treatment was an option for the “rich,” it was also available for the indigent.

The president says he believes that his 46 criminals serving 20 years to life “deserve their second chance.” To do what? Live good lives, or resume their lives of crime? And how does someone get 20 years or life for a first-time non-violent drug offense? How much “death” do you have to “deal” to get “life?”

And if it costs 80 billion to incarcerate, what will it cost the public in property and destroyed lives if we empty the prisons of the so-called non-violent drug offenders? Chicago is the poster child.

Posted: Friday, July 31, 2015 11:00 pm

By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2015

John Donald O'Shea