Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Tuesday, February 25, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 653)

The Clinton Email Server Contained Material Above Top Secret, IG Review Reveals

Hillary-Clinton-Ed-Henry

Hillary Clinton takes questions from Fox News’ Ed Henry in New Hampshire Tuesday amid reports the FBI believes someone tried to wipe the server.

A letter sent on Jan. 14 from Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III contains the smoking gun in the scandal involving Hillary Clinton’s ongoing email scandal. The letter reveals Clinton had material from the U.S. government’s most secretive and highly classified programs, according to a new report from FOX News.

McCullough’s letter outlines the conclusions drawn from a recent review PPD learned of and reported on back in December. But, the recent report claims that review also found specific intelligence known as “special access programs” (SAP). The SAP designation is on a level of classification beyond “top secret.”

“To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community] element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels,” said the IG letter to lawmakers with oversight of the intelligence community and State Department. “According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC element sources.”

As PPD previously reported, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is expanding their investigation into Hillary Clinton to include “public corruption” with the Clinton Foundation during her tenure as secretary of state. The FBI had been previously investigating Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server to conduct official State Department business, but now they have begun to scrutinize whether she inappropriately used her role to benefit the foundation.

In prior reports, PPD’s sources explained there are roughly a thousand emails the FBI has identified as problematic. Two specific emails were deemed top secret classified “at birth,” by the originating agencies, including a satellite image showing the movement of North Korean missiles and a top secret U.S. drone strike. The sources said that the dispute over whether the two emails were classified at the highest level at birth–which is Mrs. Clinton’s political defense–is a “settled matter.” Further, those with knowledge of the investigation who spoke with PPD were quick to point out that a political defense is not a criminal defense.

The agencies that owned and originated the intelligence–the CIA and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, or NGA–reviewed the emails in December to determine how they should be properly stored. The emails reviewed during the investigation by McCullough were marked “top secret” when they hit Clinton’s server, one of them remains “top secret” even to this day.

Fox News also reported that the IG letter was sent to the leadership of the House and Senate intelligence committees and leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and State Department inspector general. The latter is noteworthy, as the State Department continues to challenge the intelligence community’s conclusions. Unfortunately for Mrs. Clinton, the State Department has no authority to change or challenge the classification because the emails and content in question did not originate at their agency.

More from FOX News:

Executive Order 13526 — called “Classified National Security Information” and signed Dec. 29, 2009 — sets out the legal framework for establishing special access programs. The order says the programs can only be authorized by the president, “the Secretaries of State, Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence, or the principal deputy of each.”

The programs are created when “the vulnerability of, or threat to, specific information is exceptional,” and “the number of persons who ordinarily will have access will be reasonably small and commensurate with the objective of providing enhanced protection for the information involved,” it states.

According to court documents, former CIA Director David Petraeus was prosecuted for sharing intelligence from special access programs with his biographer and mistress Paula Broadwell. At the heart of his prosecution was a non-disclosure agreement where Petraeus agreed to protect these closely held government programs, with the understanding “unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention or negligent handling … could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation.” Clinton signed an identical non-disclosure agreement Jan. 22, 2009.

A letter detailing the findings of an

Obama-Ryan-12-9-15-AP

President Barack Obama stands with House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wis. in Emancipation Hall on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, Dec. 9, 2015, during an event to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the 13th amendment that abolished slavery. (Photo: AP)

The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday released their revised budget projections that show the federal deficit ballooning as a result of the Obama-Ryan compromise.

“If current laws generally remained unchanged, the deficit would grow over the next 10 years, and by 2026 it would be considerably larger than its average over the past 50 years,” the CBO projected. “Debt held by the public would also grow significantly from its already high level.”

The CBO report said the deficit will hit $544 billion in fiscal year 2016, which represents a staggering 24% increase over the prior year. It’s also represents a far cry from what the analysts had projected and promised in August, when they told Congress deficits would continue to fall on the margins.

cbo federal budget deficit debate projections 2016-2015

However, when looking the data in a little deeper depth, the numbers are actually more grim, considering base-line budgeting and a number of misleading assumptions. President Obama has long repeated the claim that he kept his campaign promise to cut the federal deficit in half, but that has always been a gimmick. In June 2015, the CBO issued a dire warning that the “outlook for the federal budget has worsened dramatically over the past several years.”

The CBO data make clear that the deficits under President Obama—which he claims to have cut so dramatically—were little more than a budgetary tactic designed to run out the clock on his tenure. Within a few years, largely due to rising health care costs, ObamaCare, and an aging population promised the benefits of Medicare and Social Security, deficits as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) will explode.

And that was before the Obama-Ryan budget dismissed the spending restraints put in place by the Budget Control Act. Now, federal spending will jump by 6% in 2016 to $3.9 trillion, or 21.2% of the country’s entire economic output as measured by gross domestic product (GDP). Meanwhile, the government will collect just $3.4 trillion in taxes, or 18.3% of GDP.

Barring a change in policy direction, those dangerous trends will continue over the next decade. Taxes, or revenues, as some have taken to saying, will will remain about 18% of GDP, while spending will rise from 21% to 23%. With the total U.S. national debate currently just under $19 trillion, the next president will have to decide how to handle the coming debt crisis.

The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday released

Francois Hollande

French television pool shows French President, Francois Hollande making an emergency broadcast Friday evening, Nov. 13, 2015.

When I wrote back in 2012 that France was committing fiscal suicide, I should have guessed that French President François Hollande would get impatient and push for even more statism.

Sure enough, the BBC reports that President Holland has a new plan. The ostensible goal is to reduce unemployment, but the practical effect is to expand the size and scope of government.

President Francois Hollande has set out a €2bn (£1.5bn) job creation plan in an attempt to lift France out of what he called a state of “economic emergency”. Under a two-year scheme, firms with fewer than 250 staff will get subsidies if they take on a young or unemployed person for six months or more. In addition, about 500,000 vocational training schemes will be created.

Needless to say, if subsidies and handouts were the key to job creation, France already would have full employment.

In reality, real jobs are created when employers think that new employees will produce profits. But that’s a difficult hurdle in a country like France.

Though, in the interest of fairness, I should acknowledge that Hollande claims this plan will not involve a net increase in the burden of government spending.

Mr Hollande said money for the plan would come from savings in other areas of public spending. “These €2bn will be financed without any new taxes of any kind,” said President Hollande, who announced the details during an annual speech to business leaders.

Though I suspect that this claim is about as believable as Obama’s laughable assertion that government-run healthcare would lower premiums and allow people to keep their health plans.

But the strangest part of the BBC story involves Hollande’s contortions on labor market policy. See if you can decipher this passage.

The president also addressed the issue of labour market flexibility. “Regarding the rules for hiring and laying off, we need to guarantee stability and predictability to both employers and employees. There is room for simplification,” he said. “The goal is also more security for the company to hire, to adapt its workforce when economic circumstances require, but also more security for the employee in the face of change and mobility”.

I gather Hollande wants people to believe he has some sort of magic wand that will magically give companies flexibility while also guaranteeing workers stability.

Put me in the skeptical column. I would be stunned if France actually liberalized its calcified labor markets. The unions are too powerful and too shortsighted to realize that employers will always be reluctant to hire unless they know they have the ability to fire.

Social-Collapse-TheoremBesides, why would unemployed people, particularly those with low skill levels, want jobs when redistribution programs make idleness comparatively attractive?

Meanwhile, those with high skills will continue to escape the country.

So the bottom line is that France’s slow-motion economic suicide will continue. Hollande’s foolish policies simply mean the day of reckoning will come a bit sooner.

Let’s close with something that’s both revealing and amusing. One of America’s movie stars, Will Smith, had a very interesting wake-up moment on French TV.

[brid video=”25327″ player=”2077″ title=”Will Smith discovers the new hate french tax”]

I wonder what Mr. Smith would say if he knew that some French taxpayers actually have faced tax burdens of more than 100 percent (though Hollande, with his infinite mercy, then decided that the upper limit should be 80 percent).

P.S. My friend Veronique de Rugy (an escapee from France) warns Americans about the dangers of adopting the policies of her former country in this video.

P.P.S. Sadly, American statists have been urging European-type statism in the United States for decades. To see where that leads, check out these cartoons from Michael Ramirez, Glenn Foden, Eric Allie and Chip Bok.

[mybooktable book=”global-tax-revolution-the-rise-of-tax-competition-and-the-battle-to-defend-it” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

French President François Hollande proposed a new

homebuilder-housing-reuters

Homebuilders and construction in the housing market. (PHOTO: REUTERS)

The National Association of Home Builder said its gauge of homebuilder sentiment was unchanged at 60 in January from a downwardly revised level the month prior. The NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index reading came in below the median forecast for 61.

“After eight months hovering in the low 60s, builder sentiment is reflecting that many markets continue to show a gradual improvement, which should bode well for future home sales in the year ahead,” said NAHB Chairman Tom Woods, a home builder from Blue Springs, Mo.

The reading marks the sixth consecutive month that the NAHB/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index came in above 50, the threshold for whether builders see the environment as generally favorable or unfavorable.

The subindex of single-family home sales sentiment fell to 61 from 62, while an index of single-family home sales sentiment for the next six months fell to 65 from 66.

“January’s HMI reading is right in line with our forecast of modest growth for housing,” said NAHB Chief Economist David Crowe. “The economic outlook remains promising, as consumers regain confidence and home values increase, which will help the housing market move forward.”

Still, regarding the three-month moving averages for regional HMI scores, all four regions posted slight declines. The Northeast, Midwest and West each reflected a one-point decline to 49, 57 and 75, respectively, while the South fell two points to 61. The latter is where the vast majority of single-family home construction occurs.

The National Association of Home Builder said

Obama-Supreme-Court-split-ap

President Barack Obama, left, and the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS), right. (Photos: AP/Getty)

The Supreme Court said it will hear President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty after an appeals court last November made permanent an injunction by a lower district court. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled last year against Obama and upheld a Texas judge’s injunction against the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which shields young illegal immigrants from deportation if their parents brought them to the U.S. as children.

The appeals court ruling put the administration’s record on executive amnesty at 0-5 in the courts and was thought to reduce the prospect of implementation of the executive order before Obama leaves office in 2017. Depending on how the case is ruled upon, the injunction could even get kicked back to the Texas federal court, though that is highly unlikely.

The 70-page majority opinion by Judge Jerry Smith, which was joined by Jennifer Walker Elrod, rejected the Obama administration’s arguments that the district judge abused his discretion with a nationwide order, as well as their argument that the states lacked standing to challenge Obama’s executive orders. In fact, while the court majority acknowledged the argument that an adverse ruling would discourage potential beneficiaries of the plan from cooperating with law enforcement authorities or paying taxes, the court held that the president did not have the authority to issue the order and did indeed place an unduly burden on the states.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who began the 26-state lawsuit as the state attorney general, called it a “vindication for the rule of law and the Constitution.” The Justice Department, which asked the high court to hear the lawsuit shortly after the November ruling, argued that the president has prosecutorial discretion. However, this executive power has always been understood to be constitutional only on a case-by-case basis, not with such a wide application.

Prior to the ruling, and despite assurances by top administration officials to the contrary, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services began reallocating significant resources away from a computer system — known as the “Electronic Immigration System” — in order to send letters to all 9,000,000 green card holders urging them to naturalize prior to the 2016 election.

The development puts the issue at the forefront ahead of the 2016 presidential election, something the president’s party was hoping to avoid. While the case is expected to be heard in April, the decision would come down likely sometime in June, just three weeks before the Republican National Convention.

A newly obtained document (viewable on a previous article) written by Leon Rodriguez, the “director and co-chair of the Task Force on New Americans,” details an “integration plan that will advance our nation’s global competitiveness and ensure that the people who live in this country can fully participate in their communities.”

Executive amnesty has also been losing in the court of public opinion, as well. As PPD has previously examined, particularly in the case of immigration, the results get worse when the question is asked more plainly. We have examined and explained the data on this topic in great detail in the past, but most voters still oppose President Obama’s executive order to exempt millions of illegal immigrants from deportation. A solid 59% say Obama does not have that legal power to issue the order, which is up from 52% in February and a new high to date.

Further, only 35% favor the president’s actions, which is little changed from 5 months ago, and only 25% believe the president has the legal authority to grant executive amnesty without the approval of Congress. A nearly identical number of voters (26%) say Obama should take action if Congress doesn’t lay down in front of him on the issue.

The states suing Obama over his unilateral amnesty order now includes Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

The Supreme Court says it will hear

[brid video=”25296″ player=”2077″ title=”Mark Levin Goes Off on Donald Trump Stupid Attacks on Ted Cruz ” Its An Attack on Us ! “”]

Looks like conservative talk radio show host Mark Levin is finished defending Donald Trump now that he and Sen. Ted Cruz are battling over Iowa. In a rant that lasted a little over 9 minutes, Levin said he was “sick and tired of stupid talk” that distracts us from the real issues facing the country, such as debt, judicial activism and the like.

“This is why I’m sick and tired of stupid talk!” Levin said on his program. “This is why I’m sick and tired of stupid issues! I didn’t spend 40 years of my life — 45 to be exact — to reach a point where we actually might take back the White House with somebody who is conservative, whomever that is, to be discussing birther issues! And fake issues!”

Trump has been attempting to cast doubt on whether or not Cruz is eligible to serve as president and, in fact, there is a lawsuit filed in the state of Texas to decide just that. However, Levin, as well as many others, feel that the issue is decided and that the court will never hear the case.

“And whatever candidate tries to draw us into these arguments and these debates that are mindless, that are useless, are not going to save this republic, are not going to affect the debt, the kinds of judges we have, strengthen our military, then I call them out!” he continued. “Whether some people like it or not. It’s that simple.”

The Donald also told CNN’s Jake Tapper during an interview on the State of the Union Sunday that Ted Cruz is nasty and no one likes him. Levin took that as an attack on the base. However, in reality, Trump is right; at least, he’s right on the fact that no one likes Cruz in D.C., which has both a positive and negative impact. Republicans across the spectrum worry that Cruz made too many enemies to get his agenda through the Congress if he is elected.

“The attack on Cruz in many ways is an attack on us,” he said toward the end of his monologue. “That’s the problem. He’s nasty, nasty, nasty, Donald says. Why? Because Mitch McConnell says he’s nasty? Because Bob Dole thinks he’s nasty? Because the ruling elite Republicans think he’s nasty?”

Looks like conservative talk radio show host

anti-free-speech

The assault of our freedom of speech on college campuses and beyond.

Remember when universities used to encourage freedom of academic inquiry and were seen as intellectual and social preparation for the transition into adulthood? I know; that was a long time ago — before the left infected these institutions.

Everyone knows about the leftward slant of most American universities: their monolithic biases; their bent toward politicizing their curricula; and their practice of indoctrinating students. But increasingly the results of leftist community organizing — the toxins of political correctness — are seeping into university disciplinary rules.

This deplorable trend has concerned me for years, but it is particularly disturbing when it is occurring at my alma mater, the University of Missouri.

I’m not talking about Mizzou’s recent racial controversy but reports that the university is now encouraging its students to file a report any time they witness or experience a “bias incident.” It would be one thing if they were talking about true incidents of racial or some other form of discrimination, but it appears it’s much more expansive than that.

Missouri-journalism-professor-Melissa-Click

Melissa Click, a professor at Mizzou’s Department of Communications, was among those who were harassing and blocking reporters during the protests on the University of Missouri campus Monday. She has since resigned. (Photo: Video Screenshot)

According to the university’s online statement, a “bias incident is an act of intolerance which is committed against any person, group or property and which discriminates, stereotypes, harasses or excludes anyone based on” any of some 20 different categories, from race to religion to gender expression, and yes, even physical appearance.

Look out, social fraternities. You better make sure no one overhears your actives talking to pledges.

Does it ever bother you that liberals seem to be preoccupied with these kinds of things — as if they just sit around stewing about how they might be offended?
Do you think it helps society for academic institutions and government to shove these things in our faces all the time and invite us to feel offended at the drop of a hat? Shouldn’t we aspire to colorblindness, not look for slurs at every opportunity?

Is it good for students that institutions of higher learning proactively try to turn them into thin-skinned, paranoid wimps? Isn’t it bad enough that they offer classes largely devoted to convincing students that men hate and exploit women, whites routinely abuse blacks, the rich are evil and exploit the poor, cops are the enemy and Christians are science-averse Neanderthals — as well as other types of poisonous bilge?

I am not discounting actual incidents of racial bias where people are harmed. But I don’t think it’s healthy for our institutions to pressure students to see racial or other types of prejudice at every turn. Why pit people against each other? Why stoke people’s suspicions of each other? Won’t that lead to distrust instead of reduce it?

College students are being groomed for the workforce where they will encounter all kinds of challenges. Should our schools train them not to handle even minor perceived sleights on their own but instead hone their skills as tattletales? I suppose it’s not that surprising, considering that progressives advocate cradle-to-grave dependency in other respects.

The progressive mindset thrives on generating angst between different groups. Along those lines, Katherine Timpf has observed in National Review Online that the university is encouraging not just alleged victims of “bias” to report these incidents but also others who witness them, even if the alleged victim doesn’t feel victimized. The school might as well supply volunteer student thought policemen with uniforms to troll around campus to chill speech.

It appears that this nanny-state administration wants students to report, for example, teasing based on physical appearance. It may not be nice, but does this rise to the level of a disciplinary matter?

Indeed, “name-calling” is listed on the form as an “act of intolerance.” The instructions go so far as to say that “extreme examples of bias incidents — regardless of severity — can be reported using this form.” Regardless of severity? Wow.

There’s another problem with these speech and conduct codes. Those who promulgate and enforce them often have their own biases and generally don’t recognize certain groups as worthy of protection. Do you think, for instance, your typical university administration would consider the dissing of Christianity or conservatism actionable violations of the code?

These types of overzealous regulations trivialize actual incidents of discrimination and harm the very groups they purport to help as well as society as a whole.
Maybe the people obsessing over “intolerance” are projecting their own malcontented worldview and would be better served, and would serve others better, if they would just chill out and back off a little bit. Students aren’t as helpless or as prejudiced as progressives enjoy depicting them.

[mybooktable book=”the-emmaus-code-finding-jesus-in-the-old-testament” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

So-called "bias incidents" on college campuses like

Clinton-Sanders-Dem-Debate-AP

Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., gestures towards Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton during the NBC, YouTube Democratic presidential debate at the Gaillard Center, Sunday, Jan. 17, 2016, in Charleston, S.C. (Photo: AP/Mic Smith)

If you’ve successfully landed on the beaches, but your forces are still taking heavy fire, what do you do? Do you concentrate on trying to hold the line and make further advances or do you sit in a circle and design a better landing craft?

The problem with Bernie Sanders’ health care vision isn’t the vision. His raw outline for a greatly simplified and less expensive health-care system is excellent in theory. The problem is the politics — the reality of which battle-scarred Hillary Clinton clearly has the better grasp.

This was the message Clinton tried to convey in the Sunday Democratic debate. Her most potent point on health-care reform centered on recalling the “public option” fiasco during the fight for the Affordable Care Act.

The public option was to be a government-run health plan competing with the private offerings in the health-care exchanges. It was a no-brainer to keep the insurance companies on a shorter leash. But, as Clinton noted, “even when the Democrats were in charge of the Congress, we couldn’t get the votes for that.”

John E. McDonough, a health policy expert at Harvard, has also been through the health-care wars. As a Massachusetts state legislator, McDonough led an unsuccessful campaign to bring single-payer to his liberal state. In a recent New England Journal of Medicine article, he explained why a similar effort in Sanders’ own state of Vermont failed.

Vermont was the great hope for we fans of single-payer. (I was waving pompoms.) The state is progressive and one footstep from Canada. Gov. Peter Shumlin was totally onboard. He spent four years trying to make a single-payer plan happen. Three major-league studies showed that it was economically feasible.

But even in Vermont, a clear public mandate for single payer never materialized. A rebellion against it almost cost Shumlin the governor’s job.

Asked about this on Sunday, Sanders took a swipe at Shumlin (who has endorsed Clinton).

“Let me just say that you might want to ask the governor of the state of Vermont why he could not do it,” Sanders responded. “I’m not the governor. I’m the senator from the state of Vermont.”

Yes, and as senator from Vermont, Sanders introduced several single-payer bills that went nowhere. The most recent one, the 2013 American Health Security Act, attracted not a single co-sponsor.

The plan Sanders released two hours before the debate remains too sketchy for a reliable independent analysis, according to McDonough. But lack of detail isn’t his biggest concern. It’s opening a new front in the battle to defend ObamaCare.

“Republicans sent a bill to the President’s desk last week that would eliminate health insurance for 22 million Americans by 2018,” McDonough wrote me. “This is not beanbag. It’s the real deal, and we have to focus where it matters the most.”

“Bernie wants to lead us on a distraction tour while Republicans want to kill the progress we have made.”

How far have we come? Thanks to Obamacare, almost 18 million formerly uninsured Americans now have health coverage. A report just out of Georgetown University has the rate of uninsured Hispanic children falling to a historic low.

Insurers can no longer turn down people with pre-existing conditions. And important politically, Obamacare has demonstrated that universal coverage is doable without creating mass unemployment or “exploding” deficits. On the contrary.

Making Obamacare more Medicare-like through incremental steps may not feed the romantic urge to reinvent health-care reform from scratch, but there’s no other road, not in the America of 2016. Finally, let’s not forget that vanguard of reform is still on the beaches and taking fire.

The problem with Bernie Sanders' single-payer vision

GOP-Canddiates-SC-Republican-Debate-AP

Republican presidential candidates (from left) Ohio Gov. John Kasich, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, businessman Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush take the stage before the Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate Thursday in North Charleston, South Carolina. (Photo: AP)

After months of watching all sorts of political polls, we are finally just a few weeks away from actually beginning to see some voting in primary elections. Polls let people vent their emotions. But elections are held to actually accomplish something.

The big question is whether the voters themselves will see elections as very different from polls.

If Republican voters have consistently delivered a message through all the fluctuating polls over the past months, that message is those voters’ anger at the Republican establishment, which has grossly betrayed the promises that got a Republican Congress elected.

Whether the issue has been securing the borders, Obamacare, runaway government spending or innumerable other concerns, Republican candidates have promised to fight the Obama administration’s policies– and then caved when crunch time came for Congress to vote.

The spectacular rise, and persistence, of Republican voter support for Donald Trump in the polls ought to be a wake-up call for the Republican establishment. But smug know-it-alls can be hard to wake up.

Even valid criticisms of Trump can miss the larger point that Republican voters’ turning to such a man is a sign of desperation and a telling indictment of what the Republican establishment has been doing for years– which they show pathetically few signs of changing.

Seldom have the Republicans seemed to have a better chance of winning a presidential election. The Democrats’ front-runner is a former member of an unpopular administration whose record of foreign policy failures as Secretary of State is blatant, whose personal charm is minimal and whose personal integrity is under criminal investigation by the FBI.

Meanwhile, the Republicans have fielded a stronger set of presidential aspirants than they have had in years. Yet it is by no means out of the question that the Republicans will manage to blow this year’s opportunity and lose at the polls this November.

In other times, this might just be the Republicans’ political problem. But these are not other times. After seven disastrous years of Barack Obama, at home and overseas, the United States of America may be approaching a point of no return, especially in a new age of a nuclear Iran with long-range missiles.

The next President of the United States will have monumental problems to untangle. The big question is not which party’s candidate wins the election but whether either party will choose a candidate that is up to the job.

That ultimate question is in the hands of Republicans who will soon begin voting in the primaries.

Their anger may be justified, but anger is not a sufficient reason for choosing a candidate in a desperate time for the future of this nation. And there is such a thing as a point of no return.

Voters need to consider what elections are for. Elections are not held to allow voters to vent their emotions. They are held to choose who shall hold in their hands the fate of hundreds of millions of Americans today and of generations yet unborn.

Too many nations, in desperate times, especially after the established authorities have discredited themselves and forfeited the trust of the people, have turned to some new and charismatic leader, who ended up turning a dire situation into an utter catastrophe.

The history of the 20th century provides all too many examples, whether on a small scale that led to the massacre in Jonestown in 1978 or the earlier succession of totalitarian movements that took power in Russia in 1917, Italy in 1922 and Germany a decade later.

Eric Hoffer’s shrewd insight into the success of charismatic leaders was that the “quality of ideas seems to play a minor role,” What matters, he pointed out, “is the arrogant gesture, the complete disregard of the opinion of others, the singlehanded defiance of the world.”

Is that the emotional release that Republican voters will be seeking when they begin voting in the primaries? If so, Donald Trump will be their man. But if the sobering realities of life and the need for mature and wise leadership in dangerous times is uppermost in their minds, they will have to look elsewhere.
[mybooktable book=”wealth-poverty-and-politics-an-international-perspective” display=”summary” buybutton_shadowbox=”true”]

Thomas Sowell: With a few weeks before

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial