For kicks I registered for a Hillary Clinton event and her autoresponder greeted me with a Hillary Clinton site extolling her position on important issues. On every one, her actions and words belie the ostensible goodness. To wit:
If you have a responsible comment about Hillary Clinton that you'd like to share with the Stewart campaign, please do that here
The Resistance co-founder Mark Stewart replies to Hillary Clinton's published stances. (Some have been excluded).
Campaign finance reform
Our democracy should work for everyone, not just the wealthy and well-connected.
This is the closest I will come to criticizing candidate Clinton and not her ideas. And I'll do it with two questions: 1) can you explain why the majority of your private non-political meetings are with multi-millionaires? Can you explain why the Clinton Foundation wrangles $100,000 - $500,000 to pay you or your husband for a one- hour speech! NO entity gives $100,000 without expecting political influence in return.
Your reliance on big donors is why you won’t come close to abiding by the Federal Election Campaign guidelines. Your reliance on big donors is why you have promised your supporters to spend at least $1,000,000,000, well more than Mitt Romney did.
Campus sexual assault
It’s not enough to condemn campus sexual assault. We need to stop campus sexual assault.
As for Campus assaults, it’s progressives like you who buy into fake stories of rape. You don’t condemn the New York Times when they pillory those who are wrongly accused at Duke and then at University of Virginia. Your exaggerations of sexual assault HURT women who are really assaulted.
Climate change and energy
Making America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century.
This sounds innocuous. But any thoughtful politician knows that “clean” comes at the expense of more important things, like speed, jobs, consumerism, and freedom. You take money from zero-growth radicals like Tom Steyer who protect insects above humans. You promote environmental regulations that keep workers from being hired. And your desired regulation of oil, shale, nuclear, and natural gas propels us to mine more energy in the DIRTIEST area: coal extraction.
The New College Compact: Costs won’t be a barrier, debt won’t hold you back.
So you expect everyone else to pay for youngsters’ college! That smacks of elitism. Young adults who choose not to get a degree are somehow less worthy than those who spend their time researching term papers and enjoying airy philosophical discussions. Then, when they can’t land “professional” jobs after college, progressives like you want to forgive their debts for their bad choices. Debt forgiveness and tuitions don’t come from the tooth fairy; they come from working people, for whom progressives have disdain.
Criminal justice reform
Our criminal justice system is out of balance.
Yes it is. In part it’s because of harsh sale-of-drug laws that you and your husband propelled in the 1990s. In part it’s because of “get-tough-on-crime” and “three strikes” sentencing for minor offenses that you and your husband liked because it made you look politically palatable.
Your husband could have pardoned everyone serving sentences on trumped up minor charges. Instead, he pardoned campaign contributors, people influenced by your brother Hugh, people connected to your brother Tony, and FALN terrorists. These terrorists were supported by some Hispanic Americans in New York; the Clinton pardons came conveniently when you were starting your Senate campaign there. The Senate condemned these FALN pardons 95-2.
Criminal Justice reform should include putting thieves in prison AND forcing restitution. But thus far, you and your husband have avoided the penitentiary, and the White House furniture you stole has not been returned.
Criminal Justice should include proper punishment for murderers. But where voters in states feel the death penalty is proper you and your progressive ilk thwart them. Murderers win, and our whole society is made less safe in the process.
We must continue to expand opportunities for all Americans.
Private business expands opportunities for disabled people faster than government. But Mrs. Clinton either doesn’t understand private business or she does understand and hates private business. Private businesses open opportunities because they gain from using handicapped peoples’ abilities. Disabled people have more to gain financially from private employment than from a Big Government handout. AND they gain far more dignity. You and your progressives instead let disabled people revel in their dis-abilities. “Poor you, we have to get Big Government help for you”, is the progressive mindset. Even worse, progressives prod some people into the “disabled” category. They classify almost any distemper as a “mental illness” and any minor physical impairment as a “physical disability”. So suddenly these people who could be working just as productively get to stay home and get a check from Big Government. It doesn’t help their career, and it leaves them tied to Government for life, or perhaps until GDA (my apocryphal term for “Government Dependents Anonymous”) helps them out of their rot.
Most disgustingly, it makes the rest of us feel like suckers. When eminently capable adults are on golf courses (at discounted rates) while collecting a disability paycheck, most of us feel violated.
The ADA has almost certainly HURT the cause of disabled Americans. They become tougher to hire, because ADA makes them almost impossible to fire. It’s another well-meaning, but half-baked progressive legislation.
Early childhood education
Every child deserves the chance to live up to his or her God-given potential.
Yes, but your Big Government pre-schools will stifle that potential. They already stifle kids in K-12; please don’t inflict Big Government schools on our pre-K children. Home-schooled children do remarkably better than publicly-schooled children. Early childhood education programs have not shown to be even helpful. But even if they are helpful, individual families should have the choice to help their children MORE by not having government programs foisted on them before age 5.
“Early Childhood Education” is another progressive pull at our hearts. Progressives use the emotion of “who wouldn’t want to help little children” to suck more money away from us and to rob more families of their freedoms. Parents help children better than government programs.
The defining economic challenge of our time is raising incomes for hard-working Americans.
Hillary and progressives think Big Government is the way to raise incomes. Big Government REMOVES income from Americans. And progressive (a.k.a. socialist) Big Government takes money MOST from the hard-working set. Big Government takes the hard-working Americans’ money and gives some to Americans who don’t want to work. It gives itself some of that money (in the form of bloated government bureaucracies) and it wastes the rest.
The best way to raise incomes is for the government to butt-out. Less regulation and less taxation impels businesses to pay more and invest more.
Yes, many Americans have been grateful at one time or another for an unemployment benefit or a disability check. But put it into this perspective: for one who’s been working 6 years or more, even a full year of full pay gets you less than what you were forced to pay in. If you have the 15.2% that is extracted for federal insurance over 6 years, you build up a full year’s net salary. (It’s more than a year’s net salary if you pay income taxes, since your net is lower). If you are not good at saving, then you could put a percentage of that into a private insurance plan that would pay you just as much for your disability and you’d keep the rest.
Gun violence prevention
It is past time we act on gun violence.
Agreed. So stop disarming the people who can best act against gun violence: citizens with GUNS. They need not even use their guns. The threat that the lady walking alone might be carrying a pistol keeps evil-doers away from her. The threat that a few school administrators might have access to shotguns just might deter even psychotic people. Even they don’t like dying early. In this century (through August 2015) all USA school shootings have been in “gun-free zones”. The evil-doer might get away with shooting a student or two; an armed citizen keeps him from taking out three or more.
Progressive proposals to disarm us are based on the fallacy that 300,000,000 weapons will just disappear. The more permissive proposals require more registration, as if criminals intent on mayhem will daintily register their guns. Even if registration were airtight, background checks thorough and pervasive, and mental health screening done to perfection, psychotic people will still be able to murder. The Oklahoma City bombing was done by two who had no mental health condition, using a bomb made from diesel fuel and fertilizer. Urea Nitrate, easily acquired and stored, was set off to bomb the World Trade Center in 1993. And ammonium nitrate is what is behind simple IEDs that take out soldiers and trucks. Reducing gun possession will not reduce mayhem.
Affordable health care is a basic human right.
What jacks up the price of health care is Big Government. When you cover people’s visits, they no longer need to be watchful consumers of their health care dollar. So NO government health care system is as affordable as the Free Market.
Obamacare is particularly bad. It removes doctor choice; it reduces consumer choice in plans, and it’s a sop to big insurance companies.
More pressing than affordability is SPEED. Almost anyone with cancer will pay more to be treated NOW rather than 3 months from now. More pressing than affordability is QUALITY. Most people will trade a few hundred dollars for quality health care. More important than affordability is CHOICE; when I have paid into a system, I want to get the choice of treatment. ACA takes away many of my choices. Some life-and-death choices are now under the auspices of “Death Panels”. (Defined as “others can decide treatments for you”, death panels are present in HMOs too. But most of us prefer an HMO to have this control rather than the government. HMOs whose penny-pinching decisions cause patients to become sicker eventually get rooted out and will lose subscribers. Government death panels that pinch pennies are harder to expose, and there are no “go out of business penalties” for their malfeasance.
Obamacare doesn’t even save people money! Middle-income premiums have gone up under Obamacare. The only people who’ve save money are a few low income people. And once their health condition deteriorates, the ACA’s solvency is in jeopardy. All those pre-existing conditions” that are now getting covered by ACA will have to be covered SOMEHOW. That will be the end of ACA, with millions of Americans having been ripped off in the process.
America needs comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship.
Fine. But that “pathway to citizenship” should take the illegals back to their home country. And then they stand in line behind every would-be immigrant who is attempting to play by the rules. Progressives’ immigration reform rewards illegality, reduces wages, and keeps Americans from getting the best jobs (As I’ve said since May, when I visited Baltimore, “Black JOBS matter”). Illegal immigration pressures police departments, hospitals and schools. Worse still, it dilutes our language and threatens to dilute a great culture.
We get to choose who enters the country to stay. We should deport all illegals, or nearly all. A few stand-up illegals, who have been here 15 years, stayed out of prison, learned basic English, and possess three good references might be permitted to stay without heading home. Our plan is a pathway that puts them on the road to not just legality, but citizenship. In 5 – 7 years they ought to be taking the test to become a full-fledged American.
Progressives like Hillary want to give illegals in-state college tuition, free health care, and subsidized schooling. It’s perverse. We’ll be damned if we’re giving tuition benefits to illegals while native American’s are being financially shut out.
I have to stop now because this is so revolting.
Contra Jeb Bush (and indirectly, Hillary Clinton)
I have never voted for a Bush. The political Bushes are all good men, but none has been a great public servant.
Blame it potentially upon their reliance on consultants, though that too is a flaw. (The Stewart for Liberty campaign has no political consultants.).
George H.W. Bush was the best of the Bush public servants. He volunteered for Navy service in WWII, and has had a drive to improve America ever since. He led a very effective coalition to stop Saddam Hussein's advances in 1990, and he helped integrate the newly freed nations of Eastern Europe effectively while the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact disintegrated. Though his domestic record does not nearly measure up, he's a good leader, and if he has the energy, I would welcome him into my Veterans' Affairs team.
My first ever vote was as an 18 year old. I was a young Republican then, and I eagerly wanted to participate in the Connecticut Republican primary, to cast a vote against what seemed like a stodgy Senatorial Candidate, one Prescott Bush, Jr. So my first ever vote was cast against Prescott Bush, Bush 41's brother and Bush 43 and Jeb's uncle. That vote was a mistake. The man I helped propel to the U.S. Senate later became one of the worst governor's in Connecticut's history.
I did not vote to re-elect Vice-President Bush in 1984. Though Reagan-Bush was the right choice for America, there was too much talk of a landslide becoming a mandate for deficit spending. I heeded Walter Mondale's truth-telling that deficits matter, and made a principled vote of Mondale-Ferraro.
I could not stomach Mike Dukakis in 1988, but candidate George H.W. Bush could not convince me that he would be a great president. I did my first ever write-in vote, opting for Dukakis' vanquished Democrat opponent, Bruce Babbitt. In addition to being a good environmentalist and "cool" Westerner, Mr. Babbitt most impressed me by being politically incorrect: when all eight Democrat candidates were asked for their favorite drink, Babbitt told the truth that his was "Tecate, a Mexican beer", while the others gave politically-correct milque-toast answers.
Though George H.W. Bush deserved to be re-elected based on foreign affairs in 1992, his domestic performance was disappointing. And at the time, domestic issues had become more important than foreign ones. The best voice for getting our domestic house in order came from Ross Perot, and I proudly voted for him over Bush and the trenchant, keen, sometimes-insightful but lying, draft-dodging, womanizing Bill Clinton.
In 1996 the best candidate of my lifetime earned my vote with just one book. That was libertarian Harry Browne. No Bush was on the ballot this time. Unfortunately for this republic, Bob Dole was. Dole had many Bush-like qualities -- good man and loyal serviceman, but not riveted on reforming the bloated domestic Big Government system. Had he let his wife, the dynamic Elizabeth Dole, replace him and run with Jack Kemp, I might have voted for Kemp-Dole.
In 2000 a Bush was back, in the form of formidable fund-raiser George W. Bush. Voting for Harry Browne once again was a no-brainer, even though this was to be a close election (remember Bush v. Gore was so close it was "decided" by the Supreme Court).
Voting on principle when no candidate is truly evil is the right move. (Abandoning principle to vote for "the lesser of two evils" means you just voted for evil). Ralph Nader voters were as right as Harry Browne voters. When an election between two unconvincing "big guys" is close, your vote for a third candidate carries more meaning. Eventually, the big parties pay attention to prickly third-party thorns.
The result in 2000 was ostensibly pleasing. I personally admired George W. Bush's decorum and his deference to conservative principles. George W. Bush entered in 2001 with a conservative majority in Congress. But he and his consultants used that majority horribly. Bush proved to be the worst domestic president of my lifetime. (Yes, worse than Obama, who is doing what the electorate asked very effectively). Mr. Bush squandered a great opportunity domestically. He used the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to needlessly curtail liberties at home.
Thus 2004 was another Bush rejection on my ballot. I couldn't stomach John Kerry either, and no libertarian captured my fancy. 2004 was the only presidential election in which I did not vote.
No Bush appeared on my 2008 or 2012 ballot. My votes were for Sarah Palin (write-in), and Gary Johnson respectively.
Should one "Jeb Bush" appear on my 2016 ballot, I regret that it will be another good man who is too steeped in Big Government to effect a pro-liberty America. Jeb's competence within the current system is an albatross. His prodigious fundraising is a sign that he is more interested in what big donors want than what America needs. Jeb's campaign is thus similar to Mrs. Clinton's same-old, corporate cronyism. Thus, Jeb cannot earn my vote.
I happen to like Rand Paul, and if the next president could not be me, a non-temperamental Rand would right now have my vote. But not if he chooses Bush for VP.
There is a silver lining for the Bush family. In a Stewart presidency, I would potentially return a Bush to the White House. A still-single president has the opportunity to have a telegenic, well-spoken White House Hostess, a.k.a. "First Lady" when the president is a bachelor). Educator Jenna Bush Hager, who deserves an administration role helping DC children (a Federal responsibility), is Jeb's niece and Laura and George W. Bush's daughter. Mrs. Hager is on my possibles list for First Lady. It's a post that will largely be selected with the input of the American people, in Reality TV fashion. Executive producer will be either Mark Burnett, or that equally great entertainment executive, Donald Trump.
Yes, I am serious about all names and roles above. Mr. Trump has been a great candidate and politics need more entertainment. If more American brains are directed to politics, and more people pay attention beyond campaigns, we'll have a much better democracy.
The other Bush offer I can guarantee is to Former First Lady Laura Bush. She exhibited perfect decorum in her eight years in DC, she is my top choice to co-direct, along with Selwa Roosevelt, the White House office of Protocol.
So Jeb, if your family ties are really that strong, know that your voting for Mark Stewart helps get at least three Bushes back in DC: your father, your sister-in-law, and your niece.
Finally Jeb, here's what gets YOU to DC: spend a year without consultants; turn off the donor spigot. I have neither consultants nor big donors and am doing fine. Jeb, show the world that you can, if sheared from the "traditional" political influences that continue to be your guideposts, break free and be a driven-for-liberty public servant. Show the world that you are not like Mrs. Clinton. With all your donors, consultants, and compromises, you currently look like the Republican mirror-image of Hillary. Donors and political beneficiaries aside, the rest of us would like to see you improve.
Consider taking a sustained stand for liberty. If you do, you can be another Bush in my administration (we'll call you a "walk-on", but at that point NOT a second-stringer). My route may have more appeal. I'm certainly having more fun.
Copyright © Stewart For Liberty. All rights reserved.