90 Miles From Tyranny

Sunday, August 21, 2016

Ask Bill....

WaPo: Over Half of Clinton Foundation Donors ‘Ineligible’ to Donate Under Foreign Cash Ban

Over half of the Clinton Foundation’s donors would be ineligible to donate money to the foundation under new guidelines that would bar foreign and corporate donations if Hillary Clinton is elected president, according to a new analysis by The Washington Post.

The Post’s analysis found that “53 percent of donors who gave $1 million or more to the charity are corporations or foreign citizens, groups or governments.”

Some of the major donors on The Post’s list include “the governments of Saudi Arabia and Australia, the British bank Barclays, and major U.S. companies such as Coca-Cola and ExxonMobil.”

Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large and author of Clinton Cash Peter Schweizer notes that Hillary Clinton has “yet to release the names of the 1,100 foreign Clinton Foundation donors that both Bloomberg and the Washington Post confirm remain secret.”

Yet, as Clinton Cash details, foreign donor and former head of Russia’s Uranium One Ian Telfer gave a total of $2.35 million to the foundation while Hillary Clinton was...

The GatewayPundit.com founder, conservative activist and investigative reporter Jim Hoft and libertarian columnist Kristin Tate joined Steve Malzberg on Newsmax TV to to take some viewer calls and talk about (President) Donald Trump’s trip to Louisiana to assist the flood victims.

Louisiana flood victims were thrilled to see Donald Trump and Mike Pence visit them in Baton Rouge on Friday.
They greeted Donald Trump like a rock star.

One woman told Donald Trump, “We knew you’d be here!”

Donald Trump took time to help hand out supplies to the flood victims.

Girls With Guns

Donald Trump’s speech last week on the threat of radical Islam included a section about immigration policy that has the usual suspects in a tizzy. This section focused not on terrorism, but rather on what Andy McCarthy calls the “grand jihad,” the importation of Islamist ideology that rejects our constitutional order and open society.

In his trademark manner, Trump departed from the prepared text to Archie Bunker-ize the speech by calling this “extreme vetting,” which is not the phraseology you should use once you’ve won the nomination and are trying to persuade the middle-of-the-road voter in Ohio and Florida. But rather than calling for body-cavity searches, as this label might suggest, he was instead calling for ideological/values screening, with the commonsense goal that “we should only admit into this country those who share our values and respect our people.” He explained:

In addition to screening out all members or sympathizers of terrorist groups, we must also screen out any who have hostile attitudes towards our country or its principles — or who believe that Sharia law should supplant American law. Those who do not believe in our Constitution, or who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.

It takes an Ivy League education to object to using our borders to keep out Jew-haters, gay-killers, and apostate-stoners. And, sure enough, in the Washington Post, Politico, and elsewhere, a passel of experts tells us that this is crazy, illegal, unconstitutional, and various other adjectives.

Questions about the practical implementation of such a proposal are legitimate, if overblown. Trump obviously didn’t go into detail about the specific bureaucratic means of trying to screen out enemies of our constitutional order, but there are a number of ways to go about it. The first thing to keep in mind is that Trump’s speech referred to immigrants, not visitors, who are much more numerous. As I wrote in December, if a tourist from Saudi Arabia or business traveler from Pakistan think it’s good to behead blasphemers, that doesn’t really matter to us because they’re just passing through and not joining our society. But people being granted permanent residence — or even long-term “temporary” status, such as foreign students or H-1B workers — are joining our society, and we have a responsibility to keep them out if they reject our ...

With 2,463 voters counted, Donald Trump now leads Hillary Clinton nationally 44.2% to 43.6%, according to the daily USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times “Daybreak” poll.

Good for Trump, but not great overall.

He’s just barely coming out on top with a few months to go over a woman who has been a disaster at every political position she’s held.

Hillary failed as a senator and as secretary of state, but for some reason she could still potentially wind up being the 45th president of the United States.

(44th really, since Grover Cleveland was 22nd and 24th.)

From Breitbart:

Donald Trump leads Hillary Clinton in the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times “Daybreak” poll for the first time since Aug. 3 — the last day he had an edge on the former secretary of state.

Although the race remains too close to call, Trump is roughly half a point in front of Clinton, 44.2 percent to 43.6 percent.

ABC and NBC's evening newscasts on Thursday barely mentioned the Clinton Foundation's announcement that it would stop accepting foreign and corporate donations if Hillary Clinton is elected president. ABC's World News Tonight set aside 25 seconds of air time to the news at the end of a full report on the Donald Trump campaign preparing for the billionaire's first presidential debate with Hillary Clinton. NBC Nightly News devoted 26 seconds to the story immediately before a minute and half-long segment on the Clinton campaign blasting "conspiracy theories" about the Democrat's health.

CBS Evening News didn't cover the story until Friday. However, unlike its competitors at ABC and NBC, the program aired a full report on the Clinton Foundation's move that lasted one minute and 42 seconds. [video below]