RUTHFULLY YOURS

As Bill Clinton entered the final year of his presidency, his aides put together a legacy-building trip to South Asia—the first visit to the region by a U.S. president since Jimmy Carter’s in 1978. Early drafts of the itinerary featured a notable exclusion: The president would visit India, an emerging ally, but had no plans to stop in neighboring Pakistan.

There were good reasons for this. Pervez Musharraf had seized power there in a military coup six months earlier. His regime was regarded as tolerant of Islamic radicals, perhaps even complicit in their attacks, and unhelpful on nuclear talks with India. Whatever the potential benefits to regional stability, a visit would be seen as legitimizing a troublemaker. Clinton had the support of many in the foreign policy establishment and his decision was popular among liberals in his party. In an editorial published February 18, 2000, the New York Times noted, “Pakistan has been lobbying hard in Washington”; the paper urged Clinton to stand firm, absent a return to civilian rule in the country and “concrete progress” on nukes and terror.

Four days later, Hillary Clinton weighed in. At a gathering in a private home on Staten Island, Clinton said she hoped her husband would be able to find time to visit Pakistan on his trip. That she spoke up on a matter of public controversy was interesting; where she did it was noteworthy.

Clinton was the guest of honor at a $1,000-per-plate fundraiser hosted by a group of prominent Pakistani doctors in New York, who acknowledged holding the dinner as part of that lobbying effort. The immediate beneficiary? Hillary Clinton, candidate for U.S. Senate. Organizers were told they’d need to raise at least $50,000 for her to show up. They did. The secondary beneficiary? Pakistan. Two weeks after Clinton told her hosts that she hoped her husband would do what they wanted him to do, the White House announced that Bill Clinton would, indeed, include Pakistan on his trip to South Asia.

Win, win, and win.

The White House naturally insisted that Hillary Clinton’s views had no bearing on her husband’s decision to change his itinerary. And a subsequent New York Times article about the curious sequence of events found “no evidence” she had prevailed upon the president to alter his plans. But that same article, published under the headline “Donating to the First Lady, Hoping the President Notices,” noted the “unique aspect” of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy: “While her husband still occupies the White House, people may seek to influence his policies by making donations to her Senate campaign.”

Straight ahead is Eisenhower. My eleven-year-old grandson tells me the rounded, domed peak mimics the late President’s bald head. I am impressed with George’s cranial knowledge of past Presidents. We are sitting on the veranda of the Mt. Washington Hotel looking south and east toward the Presidential Range.

The hotel, now renovated and owned by the Omni Group, was the scene, in the summer of 1944, of the Bretton Woods Conference that set new rules for the post-War international monetary system that created the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and assured stable currencies, with the U.S. Dollar exchangeable into gold at $35.00 per ounce and with other currencies pegged to it. The system worked, at least for twenty-seven years, until in 1971 the Nixon Administration, coping with rising inflation and a run on the metal, ended gold convertibility.

In July of 1944 the Second World War had nine months to run. By the time of the Conference the Allies had landed at Normandy. The Soviet Army was moving west toward the Elbe. American, British and Canadian troops were pushing east toward the Rhine. Paris was yet to be liberated. Tens of thousands more would die, but ultimate victory seemed clear. Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, in the summer of 1944, were committed to avoiding what a lack of planning had unleashed on Europe in the years following the Armistice ending the First World War twenty-six years earlier. Conference delegates were watched over by the inspiring and magisterial peaks of Washington, Adams and Jefferson.

From our view on the veranda we look out at a number of summits – Pierce, Eisenhower, Franklin, Monroe, Washington, Reagan[1], Jefferson, Adams and Madison. Franklin was named for Benjamin Franklin, who while never President, nevertheless served a critical role in the founding of our government. There is a Mt. Jackson, but that is named for Charles Thomas Jackson, a New Hampshire geologist, not Andrew Jackson. There is also a Mt. Lincoln, but that is in Franconia Notch, not the “Presidential Range.”

The White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) was established in 1918. While we typically associate Theodore Roosevelt with conservation efforts, it was President Benjamin Harrison who, in 1891, signed the bill creating the National Forest System. At 750,852 acres, the WMNF seems large, but relative to the 190 million acres of National Forest owned by the federal government it is small. Geologists estimate that the White Mountains, which are part of the Appalachian Range, were formed about 100 million years ago. Even to a white-haired grandfather of ten that seems a long time ago. However, the Barberton Greenstone Belt in South Africa and the Hamersley Range in Australia date back three to five billion years.

For what it is worth: Nothing is ever certain, and much could go wrong, but my money remains on a Trump victory. Why?

1) It feels a whole lot like Reagan in ’80 and Newt in ’94.

Reagan was disliked by the establishment (who liked Baker or Bush), viewed with suspicion by professional conservatives (they liked Phil Crane, not a divorced, former Democrat, big-spending governor), and regarded with condescension by the media and the Left (who saw him as stupid and as a dangerous cowboy). Those camps could not fathom the breadth and depth of his popular momentum.

Ditto the GOP’s taking the House in ’94 — I was on CNN five weeks prior to that election and produced outright guffaws and rolled eyes from everyone when I said that the GOP would win not only the Senate but also the House. The signs were all there, but because the idea seemed so preposterous, many analysts couldn’t see them.

More recently, Matt Bevin was left for dead by most of the smart money in his race for Kentucky governor, and Brexit was “sure” not to pass. Trump is an extension of that zeitgeist for many — a long-awaited reclaiming of control of their lives, their country, their self-identity.

2) Who are you going to believe, polls or your lying eyes?

I started asking people in the spring whom they were voting for. A surprisingly large percentage of not-supposed-to-be-a-Trump-supporter types turned out to be exactly that. That includes rich and highly educated people, women, blacks, Hispanics, and Muslims. A bunch of anecdotes, but interesting.

Everyone keeps saying this election is about Trump. But I have come to believe it really is about his supporters, who to a person are deeply versed in all his flaws and faults and support him regardless. For them, this is about one or more of the following:

deep antipathy for Hillary and all she represents and would do;

disappointment with a broken system they feel has ignored them and in some cases harmed them for years;

a desire to reclaim the country and their own lives and personhood.

They genuinely love and worry about their country, and they want to feel proud again to be an American.

Anthony Weiner sexted busty brunette while his son was in bed with him
By Rebecca Rosenberg and Bruce Golding

This is baby-sitting — Anthony Weiner-style.

While his wife, Huma Abedin, travels the country campaigning for Hillary Clinton, the disgraced ex-congressman has been sexting with a busty brunette out West — and even sent her a lurid crotch shot with his toddler son in the picture, The Post has learned.

The stay-at-home cad shot the revealing photo while discussing massage parlors “near my old apartment” shortly after 3 a.m. on July 31, 2015, a screen shot of the exchange shows.

Weiner was clearly aroused by his conversation with the 40-something divorcee when he abruptly changed the subject.

“Someone just climbed into my bed,” Weiner wrote.

“Really?” she responded.

Weiner then hit “send” on the cringe-inducing image, which shows a bulge in his white, Jockey-brand boxer briefs and his son cuddled up to his left, wrapped in a light-green blanket.

“You do realize you can see you[r] Weiner in that pic??” the woman wrote.

Moments after forwarding the photo, Weiner freaked out over the possibility he had accidentally posted it publicly — just as he did during the infamous episode that forced him to resign from Congress in 2011.

“Ooooooh . . . I was scared. For half a second I thought I posted something. Stop looking at my crotch,” Weiner wrote back.

Controversy arose over the weekend when San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick sparked outrage by remaining seated on the bench during the playing of “The Star-Spangled Banner” at the beginning of Friday night’s loss to the Green Bay Packers. Why did he sit out the national anthem, while the rest of his teammates and coaches stood? Well, it wasn’t because he was conserving energy for the game. Instead, by sitting he was taking a stand against America’s white supremacy.

After the game Kaepernick, the half-black adopted son of white parents (his real father was “out of the picture” before he was even born to a destitute white mother), told NFL.com,

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

Needless to say, this galling explanation went over like a lead balloon with sports fans, who generally like their superstar athletes to display a more patriotic humility and gratitude. This was not the first time he has sat out the anthem this preseason, but the news exploded over the weekend and lit up social media. Commentators and Twitterers pointed out to him that this oppressor nation voted in a black President twice (and would probably vote him in again if not for the 22nd Amendment). They reminded him that this land of opportunity allowed him to rise to his rare, privileged position to the tune of a $114 million contract, not including lucrative endorsements. Kaepernick, it seemed, has a rather unique definition of oppression.

Adding fuel to the rumor fire was word that the quarterback, who grew up Protestant and has a Bible quotation tattoo, may have quietly converted to Islam very recently due to the influence of his girlfriend/possible fiancée Nessa Diab, a radio DJ who is being described as a “Black Lives Matter activist.”

Kaepernick was unfazed by the angry reaction and never gave notice to anyone on the team of his intention:

“This is not something that I am going to run by anybody. I am not looking for approval. I have to stand up for people that are oppressed. … If they take football away, my endorsements from me, I know that I stood up for what is right.”

No word about losing any endorsements yet, but apparently the 49ers aren’t going to relieve him of all that unbearable oppression by letting him go. The 49ers released a statement in which the management basically washed its hands of the controversy:

The national anthem is and always will be a special part of the pre-game ceremony. It is an opportunity to honor our country and reflect on the great liberties we are afforded as its citizens. In respecting such American principles as freedom of religion and freedom of expression, we recognize the right of an individual to choose to participate, or not, in our celebration of the national anthem.

“No one’s tried to quiet me,” Kaepernick said Sunday at his locker,

“and, to be honest, it’s not something I’m going to be quiet about. I’m going to speak the truth when I’m asked about it. This isn’t for look. This isn’t for publicity or anything like that. This is for people that don’t have the voice. And this is for people that are being oppressed and need to have equal opportunities to be successful. To provide for families and not live in poor circumstances.”

Kaepernick intends to press the point every time the anthem is played prior to a game. “When there’s significant change and I feel like that flag represents what it’s supposed to represent, this country is representing people the way that it’s supposed to, I’ll stand.” Meanwhile he’s happy to be a lightning rod for national outrage about his disrespect of the Stars and Stripes:

“I think there’s a lot of consequences that come along with this. There’s a lot of people that don’t want to have this conversation. They’re scared they might lose their job. Or they might not get the endorsements. They might not to be treated the same way. Those are things I’m prepared to handle.”

One of the issues he wants to see addressed before he shows respect is police brutality. “There’s people being murdered unjustly and not being held accountable. People are being given paid leave for killing people. That’s not right. That’s not right by anyone’s standards.” In Kaepernick’s mind, if blacks are killed by (white) cops, it must be because the latter are racist murderers being protected by racist accomplices in The System. It couldn’t possibly be because those blacks might have given the cops reason to suspect their lives were in danger by, say, assaulting the officers or reaching for a weapon.

Contrast Kaepernick’s petulant gesture with the respect shown the flag by American track and field athlete Sam Kendricks, who is also a U.S Army reservist. Kendricks was sprinting down the lane in an attempt at the pole vault in the qualifying round earlier this month when he realized our national anthem was playing. Kendricks stopped on a dime, dropped his pole, and stood at attention. Similarly, Jamaican Usain Bolt, the world’s fastest man, recently interrupted a live television interview to show his respect for “The Star-Spangled Banner” – and he’s not even an American citizen.

Enrollment in Obamacare insurance programs on the state exchanges is less than half of what was predicted by the Congressional Budget Office in 2013.

The CBO projected 24 million people would sign up on the exchanges in 2016. The actual number is 11.1 million. In addition to the lax enrollment numbers, it is estimated that 25% of all counties in America will have only one option for insurance on the exchanges next year.

Obamacare advocates continue to insist that the program is still viable even with reduced enrollment. But experts say they’re whistling past the graveyard.

Washington Post:

“Enrollment is key, first and foremost,” said Sara R. Collins, a vice president at the Commonwealth Fund, a nonpartisan foundation that funds health-care research. “They have to have this critical mass of people so that, by the law of averages, you’re going to get a mix of healthy and less healthy people.”

A big reason the CBO projections were so far off is that the agency overestimated how many people would lose insurance through their employers, which would force them into the exchanges. But there have been challenges getting the uninsured to sign up, too.

The law requires every American to get health coverage or pay a penalty, but the penalty hasn’t been high enough to persuade many Americans to buy into the health plans. Even those who qualify for subsidized premiums sometimes balk at the high deductibles on some plans.

And people who do outreach to the uninsured say the enrollment process itself has been more complex and confusing than Obama’s initial comparison to buying a plane ticket.

“This exchange will allow you to one-stop shop for a health-care plan, compare benefits and prices, and choose a plan that’s best for you and your family,” Obama said in a speech in 2009. “You will have your choice of a number of plans that offer a few different packages, but every plan would offer an affordable, basic package.”

In some markets, a shortfall in enrollment is testing insurers’ ability to balance the medical claims they pay out with income from premiums. In an announcement curtailing its involvement in the exchanges this month, Aetna cited financial losses traced to too many sick people signing up for care and not enough healthy ones.

The health-care law has been a political lightning rod from the beginning, and Republican legislators have used insurance companies’ withdrawals from the exchanges to reignite calls for the law’s repeal.

Kaiser tracks public data on insurer participation in the exchanges to project how many options counties will have, but the numbers are not final. This year, exchanges in about 7 percent of counties had just one insurer. Earlier this month, Aetna announced that it will pull out of 11 of the 15 states where it offers coverage on the health-care exchanges. Humana made a similar decision weeks earlier, planning to exit several states. And last spring, UnitedHealth Group said it would remain in three or fewer exchanges next year.

The University of Iowa’s team mascot, Herky the Hawkeye may be damagung some of the students there. Or so Professor Resmiye Oral seems to think. In a letter to the Athletic Department she voiced her concerns, as the Iowa City Press-Citizen reported:

“I believe incoming students should be met with welcoming, nurturing, calm, accepting and happy messages,” Resmiye Oral, a clinical professor of pediatrics at UI, wrote recently in an email to UI athletic department officials. “And our campus community is doing a great job in that regard when it comes to words. However, Herky’s angry, to say the least, faces conveying an invitation to aggressivity and even violence are not compatible with the verbal messages that we try to convey to and instill in our students and campus community.”

The email was included in a message Oral sent Tuesday morning to other members of the UI Faculty Senate, where she is one of the representatives from the UI Carver College of Medicine.

In a phone interview Tuesday, Oral said she has been concerned for some time with the lack of emotional variety displayed in the images of the university’s long-standing mascot — specifically the Fighting Herky, the “Old School” Flying Herky and the Tigerhawk logo developed by retired Hawkeye coach Hayden Fry.

These students at the 2016 orientation just held do not look terribly traumatized by the “angry, to say the least” Herky standing behind them:

In fairness, the good professor does not want to enforce a blissed out bird on the students:

Her intention, she said, is to bring diversity to how Herky feels, not to eliminate the ambitious, competitive, go-getter Herky.

But what about aggressive and angry?

Perhaps the professor, who received her medical degree in Turkey, is not fully attuned to the ritual combat Americans relish on the gridiron. After all, even a figure as benign as Methodist Bishop John Wesley has been immortalized by the Ohio Wesleyan University Battling Bishops.

Imagine if the president of the United States forced America’s biggest banks to funnel hundreds of millions—and potentially billions—of dollars to the corporations and lobbyists who supported his agenda, all while calling it “Main Street Relief.” The public outcry would rightly be deafening. Yet the Obama administration has used a similar strategy to enrich its political allies, advance leftist pet projects, and protect its legacy—and hardly anyone has noticed.

The administration’s multiyear campaign against the banking industry has quietly steered money to organizations and politicians who are working to ensure liberal policy and political victories at every level of government. The conduit for this funding is the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group, a coalition of federal and state regulators and prosecutors created in 2012 to “identify, investigate, and prosecute instances of wrongdoing” in the residential mortgage-backed securities market. In conjunction with the Justice Department, the RMBS Working Group has reached multibillion-dollar settlements with essentially every major bank in America.

The most recent came in April when the Justice Department announced a $5.1 billion settlement with Goldman Sachs. In February Morgan Stanley agreed to a $3.2 billion settlement. Previous targets were Citigroup ($7 billion), J.P. Morgan Chase ($13 billion), and Bank of America, which in 2014 reached the largest civil settlement in American history at $16.65 billion. Smaller deals with other banks have also been announced.

Combined, the banks must divert well over $11 billion into “consumer relief,” which is supposed to benefit homeowners harmed during the Great Recession. Yet it is unknown how much, if any, of the banks’ settlement money will find its way to individual homeowners. Instead, a substantial portion is allocated to private, nonprofit organizations drawn from a federally approved list. Some groups on the list—Catholic Charities, for instance—are relatively nonpolitical. Others—La Raza, the National Urban League, the National Community Reinvestment Coalition and more—are anything but. CONTINUE AT SITE

These days, George Soros’ connections are getting quite a bit more attention than they did in the 1990s. But by the end of Bill Clinton’s reign Soros had already obtained a very influential position with the Clintons, especially with Hillary.

In her excellent profile of Soros in The New Yorker, on January 23, 1995, Connie Bruck relates how Strobe Talbott, Bill Clinton’s friend, who served as Ambassador-at-Large and Special Adviser on the New Independent States to Secretary of State Warren Christopher, saw Soros. According to Talbott, Soros was “a national resource – indeed, a national treasure.” He described the billionaire as a sort of shadow arm of the State Department. “I would say that it [Soros’ foreign policy] is not identical to the foreign policy of the U.S. government, but it’s compatible with it, “he told The New Yorker. “It’s like working with a friendly, allied, independent entity, if not a government. We try to synchronize our approach to the former Communist countries with Germany, France, Great Britain, and with George Soros.”

When Soros opened his own D.C. office to be close to the action, one of his minions explained that it would serve as “his State Department.” Soros conceded, “Of course what I do could be called meddling because I want to promote an open society.” According to Soros, such an” Open society transcends national sovereignty.” He also proposed “modification of the concept of sovereignty” because “sovereignty is basically somewhat anachronistic.”

Soros wrote memos on every foreign policy and monetary issue imaginable, and these memos were read widely at the very highest echelons of the Clinton White House. Soros has also used the services of the Washington lobbying firm Raffaelli, Spees, Springer & Smith, where he was represented by Clinton hack Terry McAuliffe, who in 2005 became the Democratic National Committee Chairman, and in 2008 chaired Hillary’s presidential campaign (McAuliffe has been Governor of Virginia since 2014). Between his payments to McAuliffe and the hundreds of thousands of dollars he gave to various official Democratic PACs, Soros was clearly able to purchase himself quite a bit of clout in the Democratic Party, and gain the adoration/co-dependency of its members that continues to this day.