Charlie's Books

Charlie's Books
Buon Giorno, Amici!

Our motto ...

Leave the (political) party. Take the cannoli.

"It always seems impossible until it's done." Nelson Mandela

Right now 6 Stella crime novels are available on Kindle for just $.99 ... Eddie's World has been reprinted and is also available from Stark House Press (Gat Books).

Saturday, April 9, 2016

The Democratic Primary takes a turn toward for real …

Bernie should apologize for all those killed at Sandy Hook elementary … It’s an interesting twist on reality and a completely specious argument. The stench on this one is so bad, it hurts to contemplate. First off, we’d have to forget Hillary Clinton’s clinging to Second Amendment rights (guns) during the 2008 presidential race she lost to President Obama. Remember this?

Next, we’d have to ignore all the arms deals she pushed for and later negotiated as Secretary of State. The vast majority of those arms deals happen to coincide with contributions to the Clinton Foundation (i.e., same governments approved for the arms deals were heavy contributors).

Next we’d have to look at the argument itself, the idea that manufacturers should be liable for their products after they are sold legally, but used in some horrific manner. She and her supporters claim that gun manufacturers are the only industry not liable, which is completely false, and that Senator Sanders is in part responsible for what happened at Sandy Hook elementary. The problem, of course, is that should you purchase a gun legally and want to use it at, say, at a shooting range, and it explodes in your face, guess what? The gun manufacturer is liable. And of course Senator Sanders approves of that liability. But the facts of the Sandy Hook case are these: 20-year old, Adam Lanza, used guns his mother bought legally. He was clearly out of his mind, so when he killed his mother first, and then went to the elementary school and killed all those children and teachers there, well, how in the hell is the gun manufacturer responsible for any of that?
I consider myself left of Senator Sanders on a lot of his platform, but not guns. While I agree there should be some common sense gun control as regards background checks, I am not in favor of anything near imposing liability on manufacturers unless they can be found to be liable for targeting areas where gun violence is prevalent for the sake of sales, and/or, they knowingly sell to disreputable gun sellers. Of course if their products are faulty and cause injury and/or death by the person who legally purchased and tried to use it (for something other than murder/a crime), they should be as liable as a car manufacturer who puts out a faulty product, but to suggest that any manufacturer of any product is responsible for what might happen after their product is first wholesaled, then resold, both legally, at least as regards Hillary Clinton’s argument, is nothing short of lowbrow political pandering and outside the scope of reality.
Asking the Senator from Vermont to apologize for the deaths at Sandy Hook was disgraceful politics, something the Clintons are more than famous for. Senator Sanders responded by asking for the former Secretary of State to apologize to all those killed in the Iraq War, and thus put the kybosh on their Sandy Hook attack. It went down much the same way as when Hillary Clinton accused Donald Trump of being a sexist and he immediately pointed to her denigration of the women her husband was accused of sexually assaulting (including the woman who received an $850,000 settlement to keep that particular story from ever getting to court).
Qualified vs. Unqualified … this one is too silly to engage, except the facts of the matter are these: Hillary Clinton has quite the resume, but if we add up what progressives feel, and what the Republicans will point to in a general election, her famous resume is riddled with mistakes she’s made over and over again. So far she’s only admitted to one of those mistakes, the Iraq War, and her bringing up her admission that it was a mistake doesn’t erase the gravity of same. Libya and Syria are also victims of her regime change fetish, and her desire for a no-fly zone over Syria with Russia in the mix is a potential risk for WWIII … except this time nukes are also in the mix.

Jeff Weaver’s Sexist comments … wow, does it get anymore pathetic? Did yous catch her phony cackle when responding to Chris Cuomo. How that was sexist defies logic, but if you fall on the side of the Secretary on this one, count me in as sexist too … me and most of my fellow Berniecrats, and considering how many women are a part of that group … well, the accusation is pretty pathetic.
Weaver said the following: "Don't destroy the Democratic Party to satisfy the secretary's ambitions to become president of the United States," Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver told CNN.
Is it Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton who brings up the fact she can become the first female President of the United States at every opportunity? On that note, we rest our case.
The Artful Smear … well, she’s the one who says “I have a record and it’s been very consistent.” Really? When has it ever been consistent, except to switch her positions over and again?

Senator Sanders points to her record and somehow it’s impugning her? Well, sorry, honey (there’s me being a sexist again), but when you ask us to look at your record and your record stinks, you’re kind of out of luck with that argument.
Slick Willy loses it … look, anyone who still believes the Clintons are on the side of minorities anywhere for anything other than their votes is kidding themselves to a fare thee well. Back in the 2008 race, his attempt to use the race card against Barrack Obama in South Carolina proved to be racist comments trying to persuade white voters to ignore Obama. You’ll even find Chris Matthews going after the Clintons in this video, just proving how corruptible the corporate media remains (since he’s now such a vibrant Hillary supporter, which also happens to coincide with Matthews’ wife running for Democratic office while being an activist in the Clinton campaign).

The former U.S. President, whose wife Hillary battled Obama in the 2008 primary campaign, is said to have remarked of the current president: “A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.” Clinton allegedly made the insensitive remark to Senator Ted Kennedy in 2008, while trying to convince him to endorse Hillary for the Democratic nomination, according to the New Yorker.
Although Clinton is said to have since given his backing to the current U.S. President, his remark is the latest in a series of apparent outbursts against Obama. The ill-advised comment follows claims of another remark attributed to Clinton in 2010, where he is said to have commented: “A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”
And let us NEVER forget what happens when Bill Clinton (or Hillary for that matter), wags a finger at us ...
Add to that his wife’s haunting comment about “superpredators”  made in 1996 in defense of the infamous 1994 crime bill, and what you have is pretty obvious, at least to progressives.
“We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”
Oy vey …

The Media … the Daily News (the paper is owned by billionaire, Mort Zuckerman, a fervent Clinton supporter) interview with Bernie was nothing more than an attempted Clinton Campaign hit job. Much ado about nothing is what it was, but you’d never know that from the corporate controlled media. What they attempted to do with Bernie’s responses, which he quickly cleared up, was absolutely comical. At every opportunity since the war between the two Democratic contenders began in earnest this past week, Sanders has been portrayed as the desperate candidate taking potshots at the virgin-like Secretary of State. Suddenly, a guy who has spent his entire life battling big money interests doesn’t know what he’s doing. Really? Are they serious or just carrying out the wishes of the corporations who own them and Hillary Clinton? Zuckerman is worth $2.4 billion … you think she represents his or our interests?
The answer is more than obvious, but the Daily News attempt to “disqualify” Sanders quickly backfired when the Vermont Senator continued to pound away at the viability of such a damaged/flawed candidate carrying so much excess bad baggage, to include the FBI’s email investigation he continues to ignore, but that will obviously be a major issue come the general election. Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver went further to explain how Bernie could and should be the Democratic nominee, if the Democratic Party wants to retain the White House. Weaver pointed out how Sanders is winning independents by great margins (as high as 70%) over Hillary Clinton. The Democratic base is but 25% of the total electorate. Democrats will need independents. Independents flock to Bernie Sanders because of his trustworthiness and integrity, both of which characteristics are sorely missing when it comes to Hillary Clinton. Somehow the media barely touches on Clinton’s baggage and how it will all be looming over her head during the general election, to include the Clinton fatigue this country clearly feels.

The Panama Papers … well it didn’t take long before Bernie Sanders was proved absolutely right about yet another free trade agreement gone bust that Hillary Clinton strongly supported. The release of the Panama Papers is yet another scandal the Clinton campaign will likely find itself attempting to defend against come the general election; one more black mark on the face of a credibility/trustworthiness/integrity issue.
And here’s Hillary’s take on the same issue:

The “unbroken chain of economic integration” apparently worked for her very wealthy friends and contributors to her campaign.
Oy vey.
But if none of the above is enough to walk away from the disaster Hillary Clinton has been and will continue to be, to include perpetual warfare in the Middle East, take the time to watch this and decide for yourself.