Former President Jimmy Carter Says, Obama’s Successes on World Stage “Have Been Minimal” … “US’s Influence & Prestige & Respect in the World is probably Lower than it was 6 or 7 Years Ago.” (VIDEO)
JIMMY CARTER SAYS OBAMA HAS HAD MINIMAL SUCCESSES ON THE WORLD STAGE … I GUESS THAT IS A GOOD THING FOR THE WORLD.
Former President Jimmy Carter ripped Barack Obama in a recent interview stating that Obama’s successes on the world stage “have been minimal.” WOW, that says a lot coming from this disaster of a president on the world stage. Not only did Carter say that Obama’s accomplishments were minimal, he also stated that US influence and prestige in the world was lower than it was 6 or 7 years ago. But Carter doesn’t want to be called a racist so he says’ he doesn’t blame Obama for his failures on the world stage. Of course Obama isn’t to blame, why would anyone in the Democrat party hold him accountable for his failures? Um, then who is to blame, GWB? Or would it be Hillary Clinton’s fault? After all, Carter proclaimed John Kerry was “one of the best secretaries of state we’ve ever had.”
After proclaiming John Kerry “one of the best secretaries of state we’ve ever had,” Carter dumped cold water on Obama’s record abroad.
“On the world stage, I think [Obama’s accomplishments] have been minimal,” Carter said. “I think he has done some good things domestically, like health reform and so forth. But on the world stage, just to be objective about it, I can’t think of many nations in the world where we have a better relationship now than when he took over.”
“I would say the U.S.’s influence and prestige and respect in the world is probably lower than it was six or seven years ago,” Carter said.
Former President George W. Bush Has a Greater Favorability Rating Than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama
MISS HIM YET?
According to a recent CNN/ORC poll, former President George W. Bush has a greater favorability rating than both Barack Obama and 2016 Democrat wannabe president Hillary Clinton. GWB has a 52% favorably and 43 unfavorable … Obama has a 49% favorable and 49% unfavorable rating and a job approval of 45% approve, 52% disapprove. George W. Bush even polls better than the presumptive Democrat 2016 presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
The complete poll can be read HERE.
Click on pic to enlarge
President Barack Obama’s job approval numbers are sinking as American attitudes about the nation’s progress have taken a turn for the worse, according to a new CNN/ORC poll.
A majority of the public once again say things in the U.S. are going pretty badly and disapproval of Obama’s job performance has climbed back above 50% as well.
According to the poll, 52% of adults had a favorable impression of George W. Bush, 43% unfavorable. When Bush left office in 2009, only about one-third of Americans said they had a positive opinion of him. This new poll presents a notable shift as Bush’s overall favorability has remained well below 50% for much of his time as a presidential alum.
Overall, 47% say things in the country are going well, 52% that they’re going badly. That’s a reversal from March, when 53% said things were going well, the highest share to say so during Obama’s presidency. The shift comes across partisan and demographic lines, with no one group’s opinions driving the overall change.
Obama’s approval rating has suffered a similar blow.
While it’s dropped since April, going from a near-even 48% approve to 47% disapprove split to a negative-tilting 52% disapprove to 45% approve, the rising disapproval ratings come across party lines, from both men and women, from whites and non-whites.
This is what happens when you have a liberal media that does not punish their own for liberal media bias …
In the wake of the media bias scandal where ABC’s George Stephanopoulos failed to make it known that he had donated $75,000 to the Clinton Foundation and at the same time running cover for the Clinton Foundation amidst its own scandal of taking foreign money as she was Secretary of State, Georgy Porgy decided to apologize for his actions. If you call it an apology. But it was not just that George Stephanopoulos, a former Clinton White House political operative, donated money to the Clinton Foundation, Stephanopoulos acted as the Clinton defender when interviewing Peter Schweitzer on his book Clinton Cash and went after the author claiming that he was bias.
But check out the VIDEO below and the less than sincere apology. Listen to his snarky and elitist tone when he says, “Even though I made them strictly to support work done to stop the spread of AIDS, help children and protect the environment in poor countries, I should have gone the extra mile to avoid even the appearance of a conflict.” In his effort to make an apology he basically says, but look at me, I am great, because even though I made these donations to save the word, no the planet … I should have gone the extra mile. PLEASE GEORGY, SPARE US THE DRAMA. You knew damn well, being a former Clinton operative and a political news correspondent that the Clinton Foundation was nothing more than a slush fund. Would it really have been that difficult to do some research and investigation to find what were the best charities for Aids, helping children or the environment, if you were actually being sincere? After all, you are supposed to be some kind of correspondent for the media, is it that difficult to do a Google search of best charities?
But when you have a news organization like ABC News defending such actions of bias and a lack of transparency to protect their own agenda of liberal bias in the media, what would one expect from an ex-Clintonista but a hollow apology.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, I want to address some news you may have seen about me. Over the last several years, I have made substantial donations to dozens of charities, including the Clinton Global Foundation. Those donations were a matter of public record. But I should have made additional disclosures on-air when we covered the foundation and I now believe directing personal donations to that foundation was a mistake. Even though I made them strictly to support work done to stop the spread of AIDS, help children and protect the environment in poor countries, I should have gone the extra mile to avoid even the appearance of a conflict. I apologize to all of you for failing to do that.
Peter Schweizer, author of the book,“Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” appeared on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. So the Clinton’s want us to believe it is all just one big coincidence. PLEASE!!!
WALLACE: And hello again from Fox News in Washington. Well, it’s the old adage — follow the money. And in the case of Hillary Clinton, who just launched her presidential campaign, following the money has led to some troubling questions. Today, we want to drill down into the controversy with Peter Schweizer, author of the new book, “Clinton Cash,” here for his first live interview. But first, “Special Report” anchor Bret Baier, who’s been leading Fox News reporting on the book, has the highlights — Bret. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
BRET BAIER, SPECIAL REPORT ANCHOR: Chris, the dealings of Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of what “Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer calls the Clinton blur, a mix of money and politics, diplomacy and personal interests all so interconnected that it’s pretty easy to get lost. From lucrative construction deals given to Hillary friends and family after the earthquake in Haiti to $500,000 and $750,000 speeches for Bill Clinton paid for by countries or foreign companies with some action or policy in front of his then-secretary of state wife, to a major uranium mining deal for Clinton friend Frank Giustra, a deal with the country Kazakhstan that is finalized during a Giustra trip with former President Clinton.
JO BECKER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: And then soon after that, Bill Clinton got a huge donation, $31 million from Frank Giustra, to his charitable foundation, followed by a pledge to donate $100 million more. BAIER: The company became Uranium One, and was eventually sold to a Russian company that is essentially controlled by Vladimir Putin. They now also control more than 20 percent of American uranium. Officials with Uranium One and investors who profited from that deal donated more than $140 million to the Clinton Foundation. But millions of dollars of those donations were never disclosed, flying in the face of a deal the Clintons struck with the Obama administration. Again, and all of this does not fit on a bumper sticker, but from the book and various media organizations like The New York Times, The Washington Post and Fox News, connecting some of the dots here, most political watchers will tell you, this is, at best for Hillary Clinton, a serious political issue for her campaign — Chris.
(END VIDEOTAPE) WALLACE: Brett, thank you. Now, let’s bring in the man whose team spent 10 years on the Clinton money trail, Peter Schweizer, author of “Clinton Cash”. And welcome to “Fox News Sunday.”
SCHWEIZER: Thanks for having me, Chris.
WALLACE: Let’s start with the phrase that Bret mentioned you use in the book, the Clinton blur, the mix of private and public, of charity and government action. What’s your point?
SCHWEIZER: The point is basically when former President Clinton travels the world, which he does extensively, he spends time in the developing world, in Europe. When he goes there, he’s usually wearing several hats. When his wife was in public office, he’s obviously the spouse of a very public figure, he’s the head of a charity, he’s also giving speeches and he’s probably there with an entourage that includes foreign businessmen that have matters before the government, in Colombia, or Kazakhstan, or wherever it may be. And the problem is, when you have a mix of public and private, profit-making backed by the government power that your spouse has, I think it creates a very dangerous cocktail as far as conflict of interests is concerned.
WALLACE: Well, you have an interesting point that I want to put up on the screen that seems to demonstrate exactly the point you’re making. Between 2001 and 2012, Bill Clinton made 13 speeches, 13, for which he was paid, $500,000 or more. Eleven of those 13 speeches were at least eight years after he left the presidency while his wife was secretary of state. Peter, what do you think that shows?
SCHWEIZER: Well, I think you can only come to one or two conclusions. Either in January of 2009 when Hillary Clinton becomes secretary of state, former President Clinton has become dramatically more eloquent than he ever was. He’s a very eloquent man.
WALLACE: Because his speaking fees went dramatically up.
SCHWEIZER: Dramatically. I mean, for example, in the uranium deal, there’s a $500,000 speech that he’s paid by an investment banking firm that is tied to Putin. He was paid $500,000. He had only given one speech in Russia before that five years earlier, for which he was paid a third of that. So, the question becomes, why did his speaking fees go up and why did it go up with corporations and with individuals and with people connected to foreign governments who had business before the State Department?
WALLACE: What’s your answer?
SCHWEIZER: My answer is that’s extremely troubling. The fact you find it’s a very extensive pattern. There’s not one or two examples. There are 11 instances and I think when you have one or two examples, it’s a coincidence. When you have this many, to me it’s a trend.
WALLACE: OK, let’s go through a timeline, and it’s complicated. But a timeline of the uranium deal that you — that Bret mentioned and you reported in the book. 2005, Bill Clinton and Canadian millionaire Frank Giustra fly to Kazakhstan. Giustra lands a big uranium mining deal. Giustra gives the Clinton Foundation $31 million and later pledges $100 million more. 2010, a Russian company wants to buy Uranium One, which has taken over Giustra’s company. The new chairman of Uranium One donates $2 million to Clinton foundation, which fails to report that money. In June of 2010, Bill Clinton gets $500,000 for a speech in Moscow. In October, a U.S. government committee approves the sale of Uranium One to the Russian company. Question, is there a connection between always of those millions of dollars that are going to Clinton personally and to the Clinton Foundation and State Department’s approval of this uranium deal?
SCHWEIZER: I believe there is. It’s not just Frank Giustra. I lay out in the book, there are actually nine, nine major donors to the Clinton Foundation who had written multimillion checks that are tied to this deal. The two financial advisers that arrange for the sale of Uranium One to the Russian government, they’re both major Clinton contributors. The chairman of the company is, some of the key shareholders are. The question becomes, when CFIUS approved this transfer in October, what role did Hillary Clinton play?
Silent No More: George W. Bush Rips Barack Obama on Middle East Foreign Policy … Says Obama is Naïve on Iran & Nuclear Deal and is Losing the War against the ISIS
IT IS ABOUT TIME THE COWBOY SAID SOMETHING, GWB RIPS BARACK OBAMA’S DISASTROUS AND NAIVE FOREIGN POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST
At a Republican Jewish Coalition session, held at the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas with owner Sheldon Adelson, former President George W. Bush blasted Barack Obama for his disastrous and naive foreign policy in the Middle East. GWB said that Obama was being naive when it came to Iran and the so-called framework nuclear deal and said that Obama was losing the war against ISIS. Bush further went on to say that Obama was placing the United States in “retreat” around the world. GWB, the cowboy that we have been longing for let loose with the following, “In order to be an effective president, when you say something you have to mean it. You gotta kill em.” Maybe the most reflective comment GWB made while blasting Obama’s vision-less and dangerous foreign policy was when he said of the foolish Iran nuclear deal, “You think the Middle East is chaotic now? Imagine what it looks like for our grandchildren. That’s how Americans should view the deal.”
Hey America, who’s the IDIOT again?
In a closed-door meeting with Jewish Donors Saturday night, former President George W. Bush delivered his harshest public criticisms to date against his successor on foreign policy, saying that President Barack Obama is being naïve about Iran and the pending nuclear deal and losing the war against the Islamic State.
One attendee at the Republican Jewish Coalition session, held at the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas with owner Sheldon Adelson in attendance, transcribed large portions of Bush’s remarks. The former president, who rarely ever criticizes Obama in public, at first remarked that the idea of re-entering the political arena was something he didn’t want to do. He then proceeded to explain why Obama, in his view, was placing the U.S. in “retreat” around the world. He also said Obama was misreading Iran’s intentions while relaxing sanctions on Tehran too easily.
According to the attendee’s transcription, Bush noted that Iran has a new president, Hassan Rouhani. “He’s smooth,” Bush said. “And you’ve got to ask yourself, is there a new policy or did they just change the spokesman?”
Bush said that Obama’s plan to lift sanctions on Iran with a promise that they could snap back in place at any time was not plausible. He also said the deal would be bad for American national security in the long term: “You think the Middle East is chaotic now? Imagine what it looks like for our grandchildren. That’s how Americans should view the deal.”
Bush then went into a detailed criticism of Obama’s policies in fighting the Islamic State and dealing with the chaos in Iraq. On Obama’s decision to withdraw all U.S. troops in Iraq at the end of 2011, he quoted Senator Lindsey Graham calling it a “strategic blunder.” Bush signed an agreement with the Iraqi government to withdraw those troops, but the idea had been to negotiate a new status of forces agreement to keep U.S. forces there past 2011. The Obama administration tried and failed to negotiate such an agreement.
Bush said he views the rise of the Islamic State as al-Qaeda’s “second act” and that they may have changed the name but that murdering innocents is still the favored tactic. He defended his own administration’s handling of terrorism, noting that the terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who confessed to killing Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, was captured on his watch: “Just remember the guy who slit Danny Pearl’s throat is in Gitmo, and now they’re doing it on TV.”
Obama promised to degrade and destroy Islamic State’s forces but then didn’t develop a strategy to complete the mission, Bush said. He said that if you have a military goal and you mean it, “you call in your military and say ‘What’s your plan?’ ” He indirectly touted his own decision to surge troops to Iraq in 2007, by saying, “When the plan wasn’t working in Iraq, we changed.”
“In order to be an effective president … when you say something you have to mean it,” he said. “You gotta kill em.”
Clinton Foundation acknowledges mistakes after hand caught in the cookie jar …
On Sunday, The Clinton Foundation’s acting CEO, Maura Pally admitted to some mistakes in the organization’s listing of donations from foreign governments on its tax forms. Imagine that, after all this time they have admitted mistakes after being caught. Peter Schweizer, the author of “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” appeared this Sunday on ABC’s This Week and on Fox’s Fox News Sunday to discuss the claims in the book of the coincidental Clinton Foundation donations from foreign governments, Bill Clinton’s increased speaking fees while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and made favorable decisions in regards to those nations.
Looks like some one is admitting wrong-doing. It would appear that Hillary Clinton is trying to do damage control ahead of the release of the Clinton Cash book.
The Clinton Foundation’s acting CEO, Maura Pally, on Sunday admitted to some mistakes in the organization’s listing of donations from foreign governments on its tax forms.
In a statement, Pally wrote, “Our total revenue was accurately reported on each year’s form—our error was that government grants were mistakenly combined with other donations. Those same grants have always been properly listed and broken out and available for anyone to see on our audited financial statements, posted on our website.”
The statement comes as Clinton Cash author Peter Schweizer has been delineating claims in his forthcoming book, which he says shows a pattern in which the Clinton Foundation received donations from foreign governments before the U.S., under Clinton’s leadership as Secretary of State, made favorable decisions in regards to those nations. Pally’s statement also acknowledged that those grants were not always properly reported.
“So yes, we made mistakes, as many organizations of our size do, but we are acting quickly to remedy them, and have taken steps to ensure they don’t happen in the future,” the statement says. “We are committed to operating the Foundation responsibly and effectively to continue the life-changing work that this philanthropy is doing every day.”
Transparency, really? If there was ever a word to never describe Bill and Hillary Clinton it would be transparency. Can you say she scrubbed her private server of all emails she illegally used as Secretary of State to do government business.
With scrutiny of the Clinton Foundation’s financial practices threatening to create political problems for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, the organization on Sunday took the unusual step of acknowledging “mistakes,” but insisted that it is committed to transparency regarding its donors and operations around the world.
Nevertheless, the foundation explained for the first time publicly that one of its affiliates — a Canada-based charity that bears Bill Clinton’s name — would continue to keep its donors secret because of restrictions in Canadian law.
Sunday’s blog post also coincided with national television appearances by conservative author Peter Schweizer, whose forthcoming book, “Clinton Cash,” charges that the State Department gave preferential treatment to foundation donors while Clinton was secretary of state and that the foundation violated its own promise to disclose all of its donors.
The Clinton campaign spent much of last week blasting the book as a partisan attack. Still, the Sunday statement was a sign that the growing focus on the $2 billion foundation and its relationship with donors may have begun to rattle Clinton’s team.
- Retired Air Force Col. Timothy Milbrath and former aide to three US Presidents is under investigation for allegedly bilking investors out of millions of dollars
Daily Commentary – Wednesday, April 15, 2015 Download
Robert De Niro Says Hillary Clinton Should Be the Next President Because She is a Woman and Has Paid Her Dues
Who knew the qualification to be president were to be a woman and pay your dues … If it were a lying sack of garbage with no idea what transparency was, Hillary would be #1.
Robert De Niro thinks Hillary Clinton should be the next President of the United States because she is a woman and she has paid her dues. HUH? De Niro says that Hillary has “earned the right to be president and the head of the country at this point”. DOUBLE HUH? Please elaborate Mr. De Niro, exactly what has she done to earn the right to be president, other than being a woman? Maybe Hillary earned the right to be president because of Benghazigate and the death of 4 Americans, including US Ambassador Chris Stevens while she was the Secretary of State? Maybe it was that Russian reset that went so well while she was Secretary of State. How about the Clinton Foundation taking foreign money while she was Secretary of the United States? Does that qualify her? Maybe her lack of transparency and her use of a private email accounts to conduct government business that were stored on her own private server in her home is the qualification that should make her president? That same private server that she claims to have wiped clean. Should some one who conducts them self life Richard Nixon during Watergate really be the next President of the United States?
But as all Hilary Clinton sycophants say, what difference does it make what she does, she has paid her dues. Hey Bob, please stick to acting.
Watch Hillary Clinton Lie About Benghazi-Gate During Capitol Hill Press Conference as Trey Gowdy Owns Her
5:50 minute mark of Video: I Believe in transparency, I believe in taking responsibility. Can one get more than 4 Pinocchio’s for lying?
Our talk eventually veered to his prophetic 2006 Hardball appearance, and whether or not he’ll be endorsing Hillary Clinton for president in 2016.
“Hopefully it will be her, yes,” said De Niro. “I think that she’s paid her dues. There are going to be no surprises, and she has earned the right to be president and the head of the country at this point. It’s that simple. And she’s a woman, which is very important because her take on things may be what we need right now.”
“She’s smart, has run things before, and knows how government works and how to get things done,” added Rosenthal. “She’s watched it from the sidelines, and the frontlines.”
But no one can name any accomplishment that qualifies her to be president, except the fact that she would be the first female president. Wow, we all know how the first black president worked out, don’t we?
Carly Fiorina at CPAC: ‘Mrs. Clinton, please name an accomplishment’.
Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who is actively pondering a run for the GOP’s 2016 presidential nomination, took aim Thursday at Democrats’ likely nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton, saying she didn’t amass any victories while racking up ethics violations during her time as secretary of state.
“Mrs. Clinton, name an accomplishment. And in the meantime, please explain why we should accept that the millions and millions of dollars that have flowed into the Clinton Global Initiative from foreign governments doesn’t represent a conflict of interest,” Mrs. Fiorina said at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
Hillary Clinton Wiped Server Hard Drive Clean … RNC Chairman Priebus Blasted Hillary Clinton, “Even Nixon Didn’t Destroy the Tapes”
GUILTY UNTIL SHE COMES CLEAN … WHAT IS SHE HIDING, HILLARY CLINTON WIPES HER EMAIL SERVER HARD DRIVE CLEAN …
Unbelievable, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), the chairman House Select Committee said in a statement on Friday that “Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server.” The House Select Committee was informed by Hillary Clinton’s lawyer that Clinton no longer had copies of any emails from her four-year tenure as secretary of State. UNREAL. Can you say Nixonian coverup? Hillary Clinton did this while under subpoena from the House Committee to produce emails. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus took the opportunity to blast the former Secretary of State saying, “Even Nixon Didn’t Destroy the Tapes”.
Sorry, this purposeful lack of transparency, over the top secrecy and hiding emails from We the People should exempt her from even being able to run for president. What part about she works for us doesn’t Hillary quite get?
Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus blasted Hillary Clinton on Saturday for wiping her server and permanently deleting all emails.
“Even Nixon didn’t destroy the tapes,” Priebus said in a statement.
Clinton’s lawyer informed the House Select Committee investigating Benghazi on Friday that Clinton no longer had copies of any emails from her four-year tenure as secretary of State, ending in 2013.
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chairman of the committee, said in a statement Friday that “Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server.”
Gowdy, whose committee had subpoenaed the server earlier this month, charged that Clinton apparently decided to delete her emails after Oct. 28, 2014, when the State Department first asked her to turn over public records.
Hat Tip – Michelle Mirror – Peas in a pod
Try doing this as John Q. Public and see what happens to you. What ever happened to a government of, by and for the people?
Artist Nelson Shanks Says He Included a Shadow of a Blue Dress in Former Presidents Bill Clinton’s 2006 Portrait … Metaphor that Represents a Shadow on the Office He Held, or on Hiim
Monica Lewinsk’s blue dress strikes again …
Hmm, seems that the official presidential portrait of for President William Jefferson Clinton has a cryptically image in it. According to the artist, Nelson Shanks, the painting has a shadow at the left hand side of it that literally represents a shadow from a blue dress that I had on a mannequin. OMG, too funny. All these years and no one ever questioned it? The artist stated that the shadow is a metaphor “in that it represents a shadow on the office he held, or on him.” If that’s the case, with regards to a shadow of scandal and a metaphor, then Barack Obama’s official portrait, with the shadow of lies and scandals might look like Spinal Tap’s album cover.
I am no art expert, but who finds this official airport somewhat lacking? Maybe Clinton should have been holding the blue dress, or a cigar in his hand? Remember when this portrait first came out, the uproar was that Clinton was not wearing a wedding ring. Looks like the artist compensated with other things.
An artist who painted a portrait of former President Bill Clinton says there’s more to the piece than one might see at first blush.
Pennsylvania artist Nelson Shanks told the Philadelphia Daily News that he included a shadow of a blue dress in the 2006 portrait, which hangs in the National Portrait Gallery. It’s an apparent reference to the Monica Lewinsky scandal, with Shanks adding that the 42nd president is “probably the most famous liar of all time.”
“If you look at the left-hand side of it,” there’s a mantel in the Oval Office and “I put a shadow coming into the painting and it does two things,” the painter said.
“It actually literally represents a shadow from a blue dress that I had on a mannequin, that I had there while I was painting it, but not when he was there. It is also a bit of a metaphor in that it represents a shadow on the office he held, or on him.”