POTUS Wannabe is No Margaret Thatcher

POTUS Wannabe is No Margaret Thatcher

Cara Carleton Sneed of the Austin Montross-Juergens Sneeds is the daughter of Joseph Tyree Sneed III, himself the son of a Texas rancher and landowner. Sneed the Younger earned a degree from Southwestern University in 1941, then served as a Sergeant in the Army Air Corps during World War II.

In the postwar period, Joseph Sneed attended the University of Texas School of Law and became a full professor in 1954. After holding a few teaching positions on the East Coast, he served as Deputy Attorney General in the U.S. Department of Justice. In 1973, he was nominated to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals by President Richard Nixon, and sat on the court until his death in 2008.

The son of a Texas rancher who winds up a college professor on the East Coast, then goes to work for the government for the rest of his life definitely arouses my suspicion. It sounds as though at some point, Sneed the Younger may have become enamored of those novel sociopolitical concepts that were being bandied about at the time in universities and coffee shops by bearded academics and wealthy, spoiled writers from New York.

In any case, Cara Carleton Sneed of the Austin Montross-Juergens Sneeds had the sort of upbringing one might expect considering her background – Bachelor’s from Stanford, Master’s from MIT, and an MBA from the University of Maryland. She held a couple of high-level positions at AT&T, then moved on to Lucent Technologies (Bell Labs), where she ultimately became President of their Consumer Products Sector.

Now, I don’t have a problem with people who come from money. Someone has to come from money in America, or we’re Haiti. The problem I have is with people who believe that their money elevates them to the status of an innately superior being, which is antithetical to the founding principles of this nation.

What’s ironic is that there are wealthy Americans who grew up in poverty, but within a shockingly brief period of time came to believe that their money had elevated them to the status of an innately superior being. This being the case, I can only imagine the degree of elitism inculcated into someone whose family hasn’t wanted for much over the last hundred years.

Cara Carleton Sneed of the Austin Montross-Juergens Sneeds wound up getting married a couple of times while she was busy conquering corporate America. Her second marriage in 1985 was to a man named Frank Fiorina, who may have supplied her with the second most valuable asset she has considering her present career goals (the first being her very conservatively-estimated $100 million net worth).

That second most valuable asset would be her surname. In 2015, “Carly Fiorina” plays a whole hell of a lot better than “Cara Carleton Sneed of the Austin Montross-Juergens Sneeds.” It’s certainly a name more Americans can relate to than one resembling the title of a member of the British Royal Family.

So now Carly Fiorina wants to be President of the United States. Perhaps she’s bored.

One of the chief reasons people supported Mitt Romney in 2012 and why many are supporting Donald Trump at present has to do with their business acumen. Some of the worst problems from which America suffers are the result of profligate spending on the part of progressives in both parties; the presumption is that a savvy business person could reverse it all.

So let’s have a look at Carly Fiorina’s record in business, shall we..?

In 1999, despite a poor managerial history in her previous position at Lucent, Fiorina swept into Hewlett-Packard as the celebrated new CEO who was going to work miracles. For the next six years, Fiorina ran HP into the ground with the style of a spoiled, narcissistic autocrat. From clandestine computer sales to Iran despite international sanctions, to a forced merger with Compaq Computer Corporation that HP shareholders did not want and which resulted in massive layoffs, to her fundamental transformation of HP’s corporate culture into something resembling the court of the Red Queen, Fiorina set the stage to be ranked as one of the worst American CEOs of all time by several prominent business journals.

We know how superficially Americans evaluate candidates for high office. It’s a large part of why Barack Hussein Obama got elected. What really sickens me however, is when conservatives – and well-paid conservative analysts, who really ought to know better – get on the bandwagon for some RINO slob based on one or two favorable sound bites.

Over the last few years, many a conservative has been smacked with the proverbial two-by-four of realization that a preponderance of GOP lawmakers bear far more resemblance to Democrats than their perception of a Republican. And why not? As my WND colleague Mychal Massie pointed out some time ago: They all went to the same schools, studied under the same professors, and got the same degrees. The only differences between them are whether they have a “D” or an “R” after their names, and whether they aggressively advance socialism or make feeble, token overtures toward stultifying its advance.

I would submit that most of the Republican field of presidential candidates – including Carly Fiorina – are cut from that very cloth.

This “Carly Fever” that has sprung up among Republicans due to one good debate showing on the candidate’s part is nothing but shallow cult of personality infatuation. Fiorina’s deportment at Hewlett-Packard was imperious and cavalier; both the company and employees suffered mightily as a result. Despite this, she reaped lavish financial rewards during her tenure there (Fiorina’s severance package alone was valued at $21 million).

In many ways, Carly Fiorina was to HP what Hillary Clinton was to the U.S. State Department.

A lot of voters do indeed yearn for a truly transformational candidate like Ronald Reagan or perhaps an “American Margaret Thatcher” to burst upon the scene as an antidote to the poison of the Obama administration – but Carly Fiorina is no Margaret Thatcher.

Posted by Erik Rush in Columns
Ignorant Voters Poised to Crown Hillary?

Ignorant Voters Poised to Crown Hillary?

There have been some pretty potent reactions in the alternative press to Judge Andrew Napolitano’s WND column of July 1, “Hillary’s secret war.” In it, the judge analyzes a shocking interview with an international arms dealer that centers around the man’s dealings with the State Department under Hillary Clinton, as well as evidence in the same vein that has surfaced through other sources, Clinton’s destruction of emails covering that period and testimony she gave at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee in January of 2013.

Napolitano is one of the first of his stature and background in the law to pull no punches pertaining to the former secretary of state’s criminality. Yet despite his usual unambiguous legal opinions – or judgments, if you will – written and broadcast, here he doesn’t provide any, instead leaving the reader to digest the weighty revelations.

I could almost hear the Judge intone to his readers: You’re smart; you figure it out. What do we typically do with people who commit serial criminal offenses?

Writing for TruthRevolt.org last week, Mark Tapson made a case for arresting and charging Ms. Clinton, as well as expressing an almost passionate yearning that this would take place with all due speed.

Judge Napolitano’s column ends with the following:

“Hillary Clinton lied to Congress, gave arms to terrorists and destroyed her emails. How much longer can she hide the truth? How much longer can her lawlessness go unchallenged and unprosecuted? Does she really think the American voters will overlook her criminal behavior and put her in the White House where she can pardon herself?”

Strong words, and Napolitano certainly echoes my sentiments. The urgency contained in that final paragraph reminded me of an editorial comment I made elsewhere just this past weekend. This one addressed the Obama State Department denying visas to Assyrian Christians who were in imminent danger of persecution from the ISIS terror group several weeks ago, while continuing to allow every potential jihadi who wishes it entry into the United States:

“When will Americans – American Christians in particular – stand up and demand that … Barack Hussein Obama II be dragged from the White House in chains?”

Strong words? I suppose – but certainly in keeping with the opinions I usually express here.

Back to Judge Napolitano’s pointed questions, specifically the last one. Does Hillary Clinton think American voters will overlook her criminal behavior and elect her president? For me, that gave rise to yet another question: Why are she and the president still walking around free, committing crimes and lying their faces off about them on a daily basis?

The answer to that one might very well answer the last question posed by the judge.

Here’s the reasoning: It would be very easy for American voters to overlook Clinton’s criminal behavior if they didn’t know about it in the first place.

Why wouldn’t voters put Hillary Clinton in the White House if her crimes are systematically overlooked by the press and the Republican leadership in the same manner Barack Obama’s identity fraud, lack of a valid birth certificate, forged Selective Service registration, invalid Social Security number, sealed academic records, ties to criminals, terrorists, radicals, and racists, and possible ties to several Chicago murders were systematically overlooked by the press and by Republicans during the 2008 election cycle?

Bereft of such information as discussed in the judge’s column, revealed in the Fox News investigation he references, other evidence gleaned by unbiased news sources and by Congress, American voters would have little more than the Clinton hype machine and shallow cult of personality upon which to base their estimations of her. Add to that an establishment press fawning over her in the same obsequious manner as they fawned over Obama in 2008, and she’s well on her way to the White House.

And wouldn’t it’d be so cool for America to finally have her first woman president?

Within days of the attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, I voiced my concern that as opposed to having botched or nixed a rescue of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and the three other Americans who perished, the White House might actually have orchestrated the event to erase (or at least obscure) evidence of their criminal activities with regard to arming terrorists, which was indeed occurring at the time.

Should this have been the case, the order certainly would not have come from Hillary Clinton. Testimony has been given asserting that agents of the later deposed Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi were participants in the Benghazi attack. Obama himself bulldozed the way for Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood thugs into Cairo. Obama and both Bill and Hillary Clinton have been extremely close with Morsi and the ‘Brotherhood for years – in the case of the Clintons, it’s been decades.

That’s likely one of the reasons Egyptian-born Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s deputy chief of staff at the State Department and current campaign staffer, has been doing her share to stonewall the probe into the Benghazi massacre. Abedin comes from a good, solid Muslim Brotherhood family, and while her attorney insists that she’s been “searching her personal records,” she still hasn’t turned over documents that the House Select Committee on Benghazi claims could clarify questions about the origins of the bogus “anti-Islam YouTube video” memorandum the White House used to explain the motive for the attack.

Perhaps Abedin inadvertently saved her work files on Hillary’s email server …

Last Friday, Tom Fitton, president of the watchdog group Judicial Watch, said that his organization’s independent investigation produced evidence that Hillary Clinton herself was instrumental in crafting the counterfeit Benghazi talking points, as opposed to simply reciting the false narrative.

None of this information, however, is reaching the voters Judge Napolitano referenced. I am certainly not offering this to discredit the Judge’s estimation of this case in any way, but the titanic mound of damning evidence against the president, Ms. Clinton and scores of complicit White House appointees that is so familiar to WND readers and other astute citizens is wholly unknown to the vast majority of Americans who will cast votes in 2016. Think about that.

Like the facts which should have rendered Barack Obama unelectable in 2008, this evidence could very well remain unknown to them, giving Ms. Clinton an excellent shot at the presidency.

In the current radically corrupted political climate, why wouldn’t we expect such a thing to occur?

Originally published at WorldNetDaily


Posted by Erik Rush in Columns