Watch: Bill Clinton Was Asked Why Donald Trump Is Leading, And His Answer May Surprise You

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump is “the most interesting character out there,” former President Bill Clinton said Tuesday night in an appearance on The Late Show.

Clinton was asked by host Stephen Colbert to explain why Trump has been so successful.

“Because he’s a master brander,” Clinton responded. “And he’s the most interesting character out there.”

Clinton noted the difference between Trump and most of the other candidates seeking the Republican presidential nomination.

“He says something that overrides the ideological differences,” Clinton said. “If you look at the first debate, a lot of those guys were competing for who could be the most politically correct on the answers. Trump says, ‘OK, I’ve supported Democrats; I’ve supported Republicans. Yeah, I used to be friends with Bill Clinton – who cares?’”

Clinton gave his version of Trump’s basic message.

“‘I run things, and I build things. And you need somebody who’ll go in there and fix it,’” said Clinton, paraphrasing Trump. “‘And if they don’t let me fix it, I’ll just get them out of the way.’”

“There is a macho appeal to saying ‘I’m just sick of nothing happening. I make things happen. Vote for me,’” Clinton said.

Clinton also denied that he urged Trump to run for the White House.

“No. I get credit for doing a lot of things I didn’t do like that,” he said. “His daughter told my daughter that he had tried to call me, and I didn’t get the message. So I simply called him back. And I don’t know whether he’d ever intended to discuss this with me or not…I think by the time I got him back, he’d forgotten why he called me in the first place…Had a very pleasant conversation with him, and it wasn’t about running for office. So I missed the chance.”

h/t: Time

Watch: Matt Drudge Just Issued An Epic Challenge To Obama And Hillary During Rare Interview

(Relevant portion starts around the 26:00 mark in video.)

Media icon Matt Drudge sat down for a rare radio interview recently with Alex Jones. During the exchange, he issued a challenge to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, who have called for greater gun control measures in the wake of the Oregon campus shooting incident last week.

“Well, because they are all armed themselves. Where they all have that security around them themselves. They don’t have to worry about [security],” said Drudge, who refused to be on camera.

He continued:

I challenge Hillary, take away your Secret Service. Take it away now. Take away your Secret Service; dismiss them. Have no security around you; have no guns around you, Hillary. I dare you. I dare you. Obama, same thing. Drop your guns, Obama.

Take your Secret Service away, Obama. Take it all away. Leave the White House unguarded, Obama. Let everybody know there’s no guns on the White House grounds, Obama. You know what would happen in 30 seconds? Both of those people would no longer be on Planet Earth.

Drudge went on to state that he is more upset with the American people than either Clinton or Obama, who are symptoms and not the disease. “I don’t see how [more gun control] is being taken seriously, except for the sick voter,” he said. “You can’t underestimate the sickness of the American people right now. They’re really sick. I’m more angry at the sick Americans than I am at Obama or Hillary. I’m really angry at the sick Americans.” He added: “I wish Americans [would] get out of the sickness and just become greater.”

The media mogul also challenged Clinton’s physical fitness to be president. “I’m just not so sure it’s not gonna end up with the dreaded brain in the jar in the Oval Office once known as Hillary Clinton, who is hypothyroid–anybody who is 70 years old who is hypothyroid, you do not elect President, ladies and gentlemen. You don’t do it,” he said.  

Drudge clearly still harbors some strong feelings towards both Bill and Hillary Clinton, who he said went after him hard because of his site’s coverage of the Monica Lewinsky scandal in the late 90s:

They’re ugly; they play dirty. They sued me for 30 million dollars last time around–with the approval of the President, announced by the Press Secretary of the White House. A civil action. These people–and they didn’t have the NSA then…Hillary Clinton with the NSA? Good luck if you dissent. Good luck if you dissent. Snowden, I’ll switch places with you. You can come over here and rot in hell, cuz that’s what it’s gonna be.”

The internet newsman also praised those rare media personalities who are willing to stand up to the establishment, including Alex Jones, who he called a “romantic figure.” “And you’re not alone. Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, Levin,” Drudge said. “There’s a lot of people on the airwaves who are as brave. They are brave, and they are living it. I’ve met ‘em all; I’m friends with ‘em all. They are also operating against the grain in an America that needs to go back to that.”

h/t: TheBlaze

Watch: What Bill Clinton Just Blamed Hillary’s Email Scandal On Has Many Furious

Hillary Clinton’s evolution from being an admired to mistrusted figure is not her fault said former President Bill Clinton on Sunday. Instead of Hillary taking the blame for her tarnished reputation due to months of incomplete, contradictory and vacillating statements about her use of a private email server while secretary of state, President Clinton says it is the fault of Republicans and the media who have exaggerated and overblown the situation.

“She said she was sorry that her personal email caused all this confusion,” he said in an interview aired Sunday on CNN.

“You know, at the beginning of the year, she was the most admired person in public life,” he said. “What happened? The presidential campaign happened. And the nature of the coverage shifted from issue-based to political.”

“I have never seen so much expended on so little,” the former president said. “The other party doesn’t want to run against her. And if they do, they’d like her as mangled up as possible.”

Hillary Clinton has insisted that she used the server for personal emails, although work-related emails were found on it since the FBI began their investigation. The full contents of those emails are likely to become public, which could further damage her reputation if her use of the private server did, in fact break national security rules. Hillary Clinton also contradicted security experts when she said that there was never classified information on the server.

To the former president, however, the issue is more about persecution than prosecution.

“I think that there are lots of people who wanted there to be a race for different reasons,” Bill Clinton said. “And they thought the only way they could make it a race was a full-scale frontal assault on her. And so this email thing became the biggest story in the world.”

Bill Clinton likened the email controversy to questions over the Whitewater land deal that he faced as president. Hillary Clinton made similar comparisons over the weekend.

“It is like a drip, drip, drip. And that’s why I said, there’s only so much that I can control,” she said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I can’t predict to you what the Republicans will come up with, what kind of, you know, charges or claims they might make.”

“I have been involved from the receiving side in a lot of these accusations,” Clinton said. “In fact as you might remember during the 90s there were a bunch of them. All of them turned out to be not true,” she said, referring to controversies like the Whitewater deal.

h/t: Fox News

Do you support an investigation into Hillary’s “private” emails which could blow the Benghazi investigation wide open? Send an email to Rep. Trey Gowdy telling him what you think.

button (2)

The Economics Of Hillary Clinton

In a recent Labor Day speech to union workers in Illinois, Hillary Clinton declared that if she is elected president of the United States, she would make sure that “some employers go to jail for wage theft and all the other abuses they engage in.” Her incendiary comments were obvious “red meat” for the audience, but it also helped to clarify her own economic views and how she would govern if elected.

Even though Clinton is somewhat mired down in a scandal involving her email servers used while she was at Foggy Bottoms, it seems that she will survive it — as she and her husband have survived every other scandal that has defined their political careers — and be the official Democratic Party nominee. Given the current state of US politics and given the fact that there doesn’t seem to be a Republican challenger who can stand up to her star power, at least from this current vantage point, it seems Clinton will slide into the office for where she has been “destined” since 1992.

Given that there is a very good chance Clinton will march into the White House in January 2017, we should scrutinize her economic beliefs and her proposed economic policies, as we may well have to be living them in less than two years. Not surprising for people interested in economics of liberty (or, better put, the economics of prosperity), Hillary’s policies will disappoint and disappoint greatly.

If one combines that Clinton line with other things she has said about economic policy, as well as what is written on her website about what she calls “the economy of tomorrow,” a picture emerges that does not bring confidence to anyone who understands the role freedom plays in a market economy. Like Bernie Sanders, whose policies and viewpoints I already have covered, Clinton takes a hardcore statist approach to economic policies.

When she was First Lady, Clinton spoke of “channeling Eleanor Roosevelt.” In the current campaign, at least what she declares on her website and in her stump speeches, she also channels Eleanor’s husband, Franklin. Although Clinton claims that her proposals are part of “the economy of tomorrow,” the hard reality is that they essentially are the economy of the New Deal, and the part of the New Deal that created so much damage that a Congress dominated by Roosevelt’s own party repealed much of it. Like her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, Clinton is trying to revive a second New Deal.

While Franklin Roosevelt placed his policies under the umbrella of the “Four Freedoms,” Clinton has characterized her proposals under the aegis of the “Four Fights” in which she promises to “fight” for this and “fight” for that. She especially claims to be fond of the American middle class, so we should see how her plans advance middle-class prospects.

Actions vs. Rhetoric

Before examining Hillary Clinton’s economic proposals, however, I remind readers that this is not another screed to satisfy the Hillary-phobia Republicans and what they have expressed in the past two decades. This opinion piece does one thing: scrutinize her economic ideas, and allow readers to make their own decisions about her candidacy.

We also need to separate Clinton’s rhetoric from her own actions, and especially the economics of her current life, for there are no greater champions for what is derisively called “crony capitalism” than Clinton and her husband, and perhaps no two people in current public life have benefited from this economic hybrid more than the Clintons. Hillary Clinton will champion the middle class in her rhetoric, but the dynamics and the history of crony capitalism tell us that the middle class and the poor suffer the most from such an arrangement of political economy.

The Crony-Capitalist Clintons

(To the credit of some on the Left, a couple of Progressive outlets have exposed Clinton’s close ties with the firms that dominate an industry that she denounces in her campaign rhetoric.)

When Bill Clinton left office, he and his wife essentially had a negative net worth, as their legal liabilities well outstripped their personal assets. Thanks to some outside help, they were able to find lodging in the tony Hamptons, which is not exactly a middle-class suburb; and soon afterward, money began to fill their bank accounts. Because Hillary was tied to her US Senate salary, having been elected to office by New York voters in 2000, the couple depended upon Bill making speech after speech and collecting huge fee after fee.

The focal point of the Clintons and crony capitalism is not the huge speaker fees that both Bill and Hillary received (after Hillary left the State Department), however, but the role that the Clinton Foundation has played in turning the Clintons into multi-millionaires. To be blunt, the Clintons essentially ran a protection racket through the foundation that would have made Don Corleone blush.

When she was at State, Hillary would grant a firm some legal or administrative favors, and then the firm would make large contributions to the Clinton Foundation or had Bill make a speech with an accompanying honorarium that could take care of numerous middle class families for a year. For example, there was the case of the Swiss Bank UBS, as noted in a recent posting by The Atlantic:

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs.The Wall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

Not only did UBS pay Bill directly, but it also contributed more than $600,000 to the Clinton Foundation, and this hardly was the only time something like this happened. There are no direct examples of the quid pro quo in which someone might have hard evidence that Hillary sold favors at State, but one cannot help but look suspicious.

The critics of Hillary’s actions correctly note that trading favors for large sums of money and running a populist campaign do not go together. Furthermore, as this article examines her “populist” economic platform, one suspects that competition from Bernie Sanders and the shadow of Elizabeth Warren in the background have had a lot to do with Clinton’s newfound “discovery” that Wall Street has some shady characters (including those who have donated to the Clinton Foundation or paid Bill and/or Hillary a tidy speaker’s fee).

There is no doubt that Clinton, like Sanders and Warren, has a “zero-sum” view of economic activity, and thus believes she is fully-justified in promoting her own versions of economic statism. Furthermore, she and her husband, along with about everyone else in her circle, has done well personally by pushing “protection racket economics,” and has come to see businesses and business owners as bottomless wells from which to draw funds both for herself and for her pet projects.

Clinton, Alinsky, and “New Era” Politics

Unlike her husband, Hillary Clinton was a disciple of Saul Alinksy, the radical Marxist who employed social activism as a means of destroying both private and governmental institutions so that a “new era” could take its place. Like so many other radicals, Alinksy was a master of destruction and knew which buttons to push and how to organize people to demand favors for themselves; but he had absolutely no understanding of how economics works, and, he had no interest in finding out. The entrepreneur, in his view, was a bloodsucker, and eliminating that parasite was foundational to all of his activism.

While Hillary is not as ideological in her economic approaches as are Sanders and Warren (and even Barack Obama with his “you didn’t build that” mentality to entrepreneurship), she is just as destructive. An examination of her economic proposals on the campaign website demonstrates that hard fact. While she does not claim to be an outright socialist like Bernie Sanders (who apparently believes he can turn the entire country into Sweden, or at least Minnesota), nonetheless it is clear that Sanders — and Elizabeth Warren — have greatly influenced her campaign.

Campaigning for a New New Deal

Like Sanders, who wants our future to look a lot like the era of eighty years ago, Clinton’s “Economy of Tomorrow” looks a whole lot like FDR’s economy of 1937, as she channels Bernie Sanders (and maybe Eleanor Roosevelt again) for the newest edition of the New Deal:

  • Build “Infrastructure”: Once again, a Democrat trots out the “infrastructure” line complete with the promise of the massive public works programs that are reminiscent of the old Public Works Administration (PWA) and, of course, the Works Progress Administration (WPA);
  • “Invest” in Research and Education: One is reminded of Bill Clinton’s old stump line, “We’re gonna invest in education and the environment.” That means Hillary looks to increase federal appropriation for government-directed research and federal education programs that are dominated by standardized testing;
  • Raise the Minimum Wage: While not endorsing $15 an hour, Clinton still repeats the old saw that raising the minimum wage magically raises all worker’s pay, suddenly making everyone wealthier;
  • Bring Back the Unions: No Democratic presidential campaign is complete without a call to return to the 1950s, when a vast swath of the US economy was dominated by labor unions. It also was a time when massive strikes and deadly labor-oriented violence ruled the day. Clinton has vowed to do whatever is possible to shore up the generous-but-usually-underfunded union pensions;
  • Further Subsidize Higher Education: A Hillary administration promises to vastly increase student subsidies for college and “forever make college affordable and available.” How she will pay for this vast new entitlement is not on the website;
  • Expand Day Care: This has been standard Democratic presidential fare since Michael Dukakis based his 1988 campaign on day care for working mothers. Enough said;
  • Promote Universal Healthcare: What people were calling HillaryCare in 1994 is now ObamaCare, and Clinton promises to protect and expand it, all while both trying to “slow the growth of overall health care costs and deliver better care to patients”;
  • Expand Social Security Benefits: Increase Social Security payouts and bring more people under the SS umbrella. Again, Clinton does not state how her government will fund this huge new entitlement.

So far, the proposals look to be something akin to New Deal Lite. However, unlike Sanders and former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, who has declared in no uncertain terms that regulations place no hardships whatsoever on small or even large businesses, Clinton at least gives lip service to some of the difficulties small businesses face. Unfortunately, she also continues her party’s attack language on businesses in general, especially larger corporations.

  • “Cut Red Tape for Small Business”: Clinton says she will offer regulatory relief for small business enterprises and entrepreneurs. However, this is puzzling, given her open disdain for private enterprise, including her infamous remarks given earlier this year at a rally in Massachusetts: “Don’t let anybody, don’t let anybody tell you that, ah, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried, that has failed. It has failed rather spectacularly.”
  • Provide Tax Relief for Small Businesses: She is not specific, but claims her administration will lessen tax burdens for small businesses, but not for “big corporations that can afford lawyers and lobbyists.”
  • Tap New Markets: Clinton promises to aid businesses in expanding domestic and overseas markets. She claims to support innovation, yet has brutally attacked the “sharing economy,” which has been a large creator of new wealth;
  • Improve Access to Capital: Clinton promises to bring together the “the best ideas from the private sector and government” to bring about more capital directed toward small business. The problem, of course, is not a lack of “ideas,” but rather the fact that so much capital has been misdirected, thanks to both Federal Reserve System policies and direct governmental interference;
  • Force Investors to Hold onto Stocks and Bonds: Clinton has resurrected the bogus criticism from the 1980s that market participants are myopic and only short-term in investment outlook, while politicians and bureaucrats care more about the long-term future. Commentator George Will even called for a law requiring anyone who purchases stock to hold onto those shares for a minimum of two years. (Economist Robert Higgs has noted that when governments are overtly hostile to private enterprise, business owners become uncertain about the future and are forced into making short-term decisions in order to survive the ordeal.);
  • Expand Employee Benefits and Force Up Minimum Wage: Clinton claims on her website, “When workers feel secure, they are more productive, efficient, and successful,” and proposes to require employers to add family leave and other benefits as well as increasing the minimum wage;
  • Rein in Wall Street: There is rich irony here, as few people have benefited more from Wall Street largess than Clinton and her husband. She defends the Dodd-Frank Act and vows to defend all its particulars, despite the fact that Dodd-Frank actually has favored larger and more politically-connected banks over the smaller community banks that Hillary claims to favor. In other words, she supports the supposed intentions of regulatory measures but quietly favors the results which turn the intentions upside down, all the while feigning outrage at the inevitable outcomes;
  • Promote “Green Energy” at the Expense of Conventional Energy Sources: This is standard fare for many in the political classes who claim that the “clean energy” sector is “creating jobs.” In reality, the new “green jobs” gobble up far more resources per unit of output than do conventional sources of energy and kill employment opportunities elsewhere.

Despite Clinton’s newfound populist rhetoric, her economic agenda reflects her own lifestyle of practicing crony capitalism. Other than her promise to remove “red tape” for small business startups, Clinton’s economic propositions follow the same depressing line that we have seen from Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren: private enterprise extracts wealth from the economy, while the expansion of government power builds wealth and employment opportunities.

If one briefly can summarize Clinton’s policy-making viewpoints, it is this: Hillary Clinton believes that an economy should be a tool of the state and reflect the political interests of Washington. Anything else is called “greed,” or “profits before people.” Private employers and business owners should not seek to be profitable, but rather to be virtuous, with the necessary virtue being decided by Clinton herself.

Hillary Clinton, a beneficiary of the very worst aspects of crony capitalism, has decided after all that she is an economic populist who wants to “share the wealth.” No one is mistaking her for Bernie Sanders or even Huey Long; but, nonetheless, she is a thoroughgoing statist telling voters that the way to improve the economy is to make it more difficult to produce things and force up business costs.

She clearly is not claiming to be a free-enterpriser and stands by her view that state control of economic exchanges will result in more exchanges and improved employment prospects and increased income. What she does not say is that the very economic burdens she promises to lay upon businesses will further erode the prospects of the American middle class she claims to support.

The economics of Hillary Clinton are first and foremost about expanding the power and scope of the US government, and as government gains more control, the more employers and business owners need to be in the good graces of American politicians. To be blunt, Clinton believes that people like herself can continually loot US businesses, with business owners paying their protection money without complain. After all, Hillary knows best; just ask her.

This commentary originally appeared at and is reprinted under a Creative Commons license


The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Hillary Just Rolled Out A Big New Plan. But She Forgot About THIS Damning Fact From Her Past…

On the heels of Hillary Clinton’s big announcement earlier this week calling for a taxpayer funded $350 billion debt-free tuition plan comes the revelation of just how much the candidate has charged universities in speaking fees.

Fox News reports that, since leaving office as secretary of state in February 2013, Clinton has received over $2 million from universities to speak at their campuses.

The price tag for these appearances has been significant. She received $275,000 for her speech at the University of Buffalo in October of 2013. Critics point out that her fee could have covered the tuition of many students for an entire year.

Former three-term New York governor and 2016 presidential contender George Pataki tweeted:

George Pataki Twitter Clinton

The Republican National Committee also seized on the matter, saying Thursday, “Americans deserve a real leader, not someone like Hillary Clinton who will simply call for a tax hike to check a political box after pocketing millions in speaking fees from struggling universities for her own personal benefit.”

Clinton’s response has been that every dollar she earned in college speaking fees went to the Clinton Foundation for philanthropic work. However, that organization has come under scrutiny for the extravagant salaries and expenses racked up by its employees, some of whom are associated with Clinton’s campaign. Breitbart reports that in 2013, only 6 percent of the foundation’s expenses actually went toward helping people in need. 

The University of Buffalo also defended Hillary’s fee in a July 2014 release: “The speaking fee and all other appearance costs are financed entirely through ticket sales, sponsorships and endowments established specifically to support the university’s Distinguished Speakers Series.”

The Clinton Foundation reported a salary range for some of Hillary’s other speaking appearances, including Hamilton University, which paid between $275,001 and $500,000, and Colgate University, which paid between $100,001 and $250,000, both in 2013

The following year, colleges that paid hefty fees to the former secretary of state included the University of California, Los Angeles – $300,000 – and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) – $275,000.

Elias Benjelloun, UNLV’s student body president at the time, told the Washington Post he thought Clinton, as a former public servant, ought to speak for free at the public university.

“The students are outraged about this,” he told the Post before the speech. “When you see reckless spending, it just belittles the sacrifices students are consistently asked to make. I’m not an accountant or economist, so I can’t put a price tag on how much we should be paying her, but I think she should come for free.”

As reported by Western Journalism, Former President George W. Bush gave his first university commencement address since leaving the White House at Southern Methodist University in May for free. SMU is the location of his presidential library and leadership center.

Bush quipped as he began his address: “So I got a call from my landlord, [SMU President] Gerald Turner. Rather than raising the rent or threatening to withhold our security deposit, I was relieved to hear President Turner ask if I believed in free speech. I said yeah. He said, ‘Perfect. Here’s your chance to give one.’”

Also reported by Western Journalism, millennials were shocked to learn just how wealthy Bill and Hillary Clinton are. The couple has owned or leased four mansions in the New York City area alone. Much of their wealth has come through speaking fees which, according to the New York Times, have totaled approximately $125 million since 2001.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth