James L. Paris's Blog, page 126

NY Post: Chelsea Clinton Being Positioned to Carry On Clinton Political Dynasty

The Clinton family appears undeterred in its quest to remain a political dynasty.

According to the New York Post, Chelsea Clinton, daughter of Bill and Hillary, is ���being groomed��� to take over New York���s 17th Congressional District seat currently occupied by Democratic Rep. Nita Lowey. Lowey, in the midst of serving her 14th term in Congress, has yet to say that she is retiring, but, at 79 years of age, it is a safe bet that a decision to do just that is not likely too many years away.

Here is what the Post���s unnamed source had to say to them about the likelihood of Chelsea formally entering politics:

���While it is true the Clintons need some time to regroup after Hillary���s crushing loss, they will not give up. Chelsea would be the next extension of the Clinton brand. In the past few years, she has taken a very visible role in the Clinton Foundation and on the campaign trail. While politics isn���t the life Hillary wanted for Chelsea, she chose to go on the campaign trail for her mother and has turned out to be very poised, articulate and comfortable with the visibility.

���There has been a lot of speculation within New York Democratic circles about Lowey���s retirement and Chelsea running for the seat. There is a belief that Chappaqua is a logical place for Chelsea to run, because it would be straightforward for her to raise money and build a powerful base.���

Chappaqua has, of course, been the principal residence of Bill and Hillary for years now. The pair purchased another home in August right next to the one they already own, earmarked for Chelsea and her family. While Chelsea and husband Marc Mezvinsky presently live in Manhattan with their children, a move to Chappaqua, as the Post���s source intimates, would provide her with what amounts to a ready-made foundation of financial and political support on which to begin a campaign for public office.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

 

Study: Republican Pro-Life & Religious Liberty Positions Responsible for Trump Victory

In the days following the election of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States, a great deal of the discussion has centered on the subject of just how he did it, as in, who were, really, the voters that came out for him, and what were their motivations.

One of the latest entries in the competition for ���Group Most Responsible for Handing Victory to Trump��� is the Christian right, by way of a study commissioned by the Family Research Council (FRC). The survey determined that 59 percent of those who voted for Trump did so in large part because of the Republican Party���s ���strong positions on unborn human life and religious liberty.���

In a statement released by FRC President Tony Perkins, he stated flatly it was this platform that served as ���the bridge between Donald Trump and Christian conservatives.���

���It was the party platform that brokered the deal between Trump and Christian conservatives ��� a deal that was sealed in the final debate when Trump vividly described a partial-birth abortion and pledged to appoint pro-life justices," said Perkins. ���The Republican Party platform played a key role in bringing Christian conservatives and Trump together.���

The matter of supporting Trump was, and remains, the subject of a great deal of debate, and even controversy, within the evangelical community. While Trump���s personal behavior clearly made him an uncomfortable choice for many, his public commitments to politically support positions favorable to Christians if elected were too tempting for a lot of the rank and file to resist, particularly given the decidedly unfavorable positions of Hillary Clinton and the Democrats on abortion and religious expression.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

 

What Lies In Your Debt? Jim Recommends...

How To Save Money On Everything

Well, we have all done it - bought a lesser known brand, or even a 'generic' version of a product to save money. I know that I would do this more if I had a way of knowing that I was actually getting an item of similar quality for the money. 'Branding' is a big buzzword today in the marketing industry. Companies spend millions on brand identity, but why should you as a consumer pay more just because a brand is buying ads during the Superbowl?

Take for example the GoPro Hero 4 camera that is going for about $300 on Amazon. What if there was a similar camera from a lesser known brand for just $57? Well, there is, and if you check out OutsmartBrands.com you will find many more such deals. 

OutsmartBrands.com has an impressive and growing list of what they call 'smart alternatives' that provide consumers with a lower cost substitute for a popular brand name product. Take for example the iPad tablet. The comparison below provides the alternative of a Lenovo Tablet ($139) for a savings of 60%.

While I have touched on two examples in this article of technology, the site offers a very wide array of product categories, including everything from bicycles to camping gear to kitchen gadgets.

The key feature to OutsmartBrands.com is the helpful descriptions of the differences between the well known and lesser known brands. Sometimes the more expensive item has deluxe features you will not find in the lower cost alternative (but you might not need these bells and whistles).

After reviewing several of their comparisons, I believe I would have opted for the lower priced item in every case. The reality is, however, that if you have a specific need for certain deluxe features, you might opt, in the end, for the the more popular brand. I think a quick stop over at OutsmartBrands will save most people hundreds of dollars per year (if not thousands). While you might not always select the lower cost alternative, it should always be a consideration before clicking that 'buy now' button.

Helping you make the most of God���s money!

James L. Paris
Editor-In-Chief ChristianMoney.com 
Follow Me on Twitter Twitter.com/jameslparis
Christian Financial Advice
Jim Paris 24 Hour Radio

Your Bad Credit Can Cost You a Lot More Than a Good Loan Rate

Most tend to think of the problems with having poor credit in terms of the higher interest rates charged, or even the inability to be approved at all for a home or auto loan. As you may have heard, many employers nowadays make a review of your credit a standard feature of the screening process, as credit history has come to be seen - fairly or unfairly - as a measure of your personal integrity. This means that your checkered history can not only stand in the way between you and a competitive, money-saving interest rate, or approval to buy a ���big ticket��� item on credit���but it can potentially stop you entirely in your tracks when it comes to meaningful career advancement.

While you might expect that having poor personal credit could be an impediment to getting hired in a finance-related position, credit evaluations of job applicants are being increasingly used by businesses to try to ferret out any hidden land mines that may be plaguing that person who otherwise looks great on a resume and interviews very well. Beyond the financial management implications of having bad credit, many companies have decided that your credit history is a reasonable measure of the level of your personal responsibility. Other companies often see personal problems reflected in bad credit, problems that may be difficult for a new hire to keep from finding their way into his daily work life. The bottom line is that as important as good credit is to accessing key loans���loans needed to buy expensive appliances and furniture, cars, even a home���it is now important, as well, to landing a good job.

On that note, I want to mention what I believe is a straightforward, easy-to-use, comprehensive online membership program designed to help those who are ���credit challenged��� to remedy ALL of their credit-related problems, called What Lies In Your Debt?

Jumping out as perhaps the biggest difference between What Lies In Your Debt? and other programs on credit repair and management is the comprehensiveness of the information and resources.

For starters, there���s a ton of information on how to:

Fix credit reports
Stop collection calls
Stop foreclosure
Stop debt collectors in their tracks
And a LOT more.

It is not simply information, however. Again, this is a comprehensive membership site, complete with:

Weekly webinars and calls
Members forum
Video tutorials
Extensive Downloads
Legal Lounge
There���s even more, however...much more���

You see, this program is not simply about fixing your credit and debt collection troubles, as great as that is. This is not just another credit repair service, as terrific as THAT is. In addition to all of the information provided on debt collection and credit repair, there is also a great deal of information on how to go about receiving financial compensation when creditors and debt collectors break the law in their efforts to collect from you or from the mismanagement of your file. From the program���s directors:

We have over 40 years combined experience with foreclosure, credit card debt, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) violations, Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) violations, Telephone Consumer Practice Act (TCPA) violations, Truth In Lending Act (TILA) violations, and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) violations. We have a proven track record of collecting from the banks and debt collectors and making them PAY for breaking the law!

Still not sure if this is for you? What if there was a risk-free component to joining What Lies In Your Debt?

Well, there is. After signing up, you have 60 days to utilize this veritable treasure trove of information and resources, and, if you decide by that time that it is not for you, you can get all of your money back. How great is that?

To learn more about the What Lies In Your Debt? Click Here.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

Violent Protests Against Democracy, Complete with Flag-Burnings, Will Only Create More Trump Fans

The violent protests in the wake of the election results continue.

The truth is, given the way the world is nowadays, they will likely be a constant companion of his, and the nation, during the term of his presidency.

Things might calm down once people recognize that not only will the sky remain well above our heads, but that a President Trump will govern more from a centrist position than people presently expect. As a matter of fact, I expect Trump will pleasantly surprise, or at least relieve, those who did not vote for him, while angering many who did.

All of that, however, remains to be seen. What does NOT remain to be seen is all of the rioting.

Regardless of one's politics, regardless of which candidate one might have preferred, it is a terrible look, and something that is counterproductive to the objective of prompting a voter with whom you might disagree to reconsider their decision. All this violence does, in the minds of those who voted for Trump, is validate the wisdom of their decision.

One example of the aforementioned terrible look is the burning of American flags, so close to Veterans Day, by privileged college students who, by virtue of their activities, are essentially protesting democracy. And at a school named ���American University,��� of all places.

Because, of course, nothing will get that financially-desperate, blue-collar Trump voter to re-think his or her choice faster than seeing that.

Right.

The simple truth is that not only is this behavior NOT swaying Trump voters from their position���it is creating many more of them.

Donald Trump is not Hitler, just as neither Bush was Hitler, and just as Reagan was not Hitler. If you really want a chance to protest Hitler, however, keep throwing garbage all over the country and democracy like this, because, if you do that long enough, you���ll eventually get him. When enough people grow weary, truly weary, of these antics - the destruction, the fear, the anarchy, the suffocating levels of political correctness - they will go further, and eventually elect that person who finally rights the ship, but at a cost most of us would rather not have to bear.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

Michael Moore: Trump Voters NOT Racist

Like some of my brethren on the right, I don���t dismiss Michael Moore out of hand. While I do not agree with him a whole lot, I do sometimes, because, from time to time, he gets it right���he sees truth when those on HIS side of the spectrum choose not to.

Michael Moore has some populist inclinations, as do I, and, on occasion, those populist inclinations will transcend the ideologies of ���conservative��� and ���liberal,��� and lead to little bits and pieces of common ground.

Moore was on MSNBC���s ���Morning Joe��� on Friday, and took issue with another guest who was insisting that ���deep racial animus��� on the part of Trump voters was the reason for his victory. You might think that Moore would have readily agreed.

He did not. Instead, he said this:

���You have to accept that millions of people who voted for Barack Obama, some of them once, some of them twice, changed their minds this time. They���re not racist. They twice voted for a man whose middle name is Hussein. That���s the America you live in.���

Moore���s overarching point was that it was personal economics, not race, that motivated so many voters this time around. Moore is from Michigan, a traditionally ���blue��� state and one-time industrial powerhouse that Trump won this time around. Moore says that in states like Michigan and Ohio, Trump emerged the victor because the economic realities that have set in over the course of the last eight years for so many middle-class people mean that an elitist-globalist like Clinton was simply no option for them.

Moore alluded, as well, to the fact that Hillary had nothing of value to say to the so-called ���white working-class��� demographic. This is something I have been saying for a long time now. In all the years that Hillary Clinton has been on the national scene, she never once spoke to ME���as in, my demographic (more or less). Not once. She has spoken to women, to minorities (sort of), and to young people. She has befriended the mega-wealthy, she has pandered to the poor. But not once has she truly spoken to the middle-aged, Johnny Lunchbucket, heterosexual white guy. As a matter of fact, not only has she not tried to communicate with me in any meaningful way, she has said and done plenty that clearly suggests I am held in some disdain by her.

Why on earth would you expect the vote of those you���ve been all too happy to marginalize? You won���t get it. It will very likely go to the other candidate.

And, this year, it did.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

Admissions Director of Public University: Conservatives are ���Pieces of Worthless Trash���

The hyperventilating over the election of Donald Trump continues. Honestly, we���re all probably stuck with it, to one degree or another, for the duration of his presidency.

In an exclusive over at MRCTV.com, we learn that one of the senior-most people in charge of determining whether applicants to George Mason University (GMU), a public university in Virginia, gain admission���holds those with conservative values and ideas in very low regard.

Very low regard.

Andrew Bunting, Senior Assistant Director of Admissions at GMU, expressed his strong objection to a President Trump and conservatives by way of his criticism of the National Organization for Marriage���s approval of a Trump presidency. NOM is an advocacy group for traditional marriage, and published a statement the day after the election that read, in part, ���We are confident that our voice and our views will be important in a Trump administration.���

Anyway, on his public Facebook page, Bunting declared that the views of NOM are ���not representative of the key pillars of American society,��� and further said that ���if you agree with them then that is your opinion. Just know that to the rest of us, you are a piece of worthless trash.���

Interestingly, the opinion of this Senior Assistant Director of Admissions at George Mason seems to contradict the views of the school���s president, Angel Cabrera, who made the following statement:

���Let me be clear:

If you are Muslim or Jewish or Christian, you belong at Mason.

If you grew up in Mexico City, Islamabad, or Roanoke, you belong at Mason.

If you are part of the LGBT community, you belong at Mason.

If you are Black or Brown or White, you belong at Mason.

If you voted for Clinton or for Trump or anyone else, you belong at Mason.���

Seems reasonable to me. Hopefully, Bunting will get the memo from his school president.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

Hillary Reportedly Ignored Husband Bill���s Suggestion to Pursue Working-Class Whites

A great piece by Amy Chozik over at the The New York Times highlights the key mistakes made in strategy by Hillary Clinton that ultimately went a long way to costing her the 2016 election.

The article, entitled, ���Hillary Clinton���s Expectations, and Her Ultimate Campaign Missteps,��� points out that while supporters of Mrs. Clinton were only too eager to cast blame for her loss far outside of her campaign - the Comey email re-investigation, for example, is a popular target of theirs - the reality is that much of the blame for her loss can be placed at the feet of Mrs. Clinton���s unwillingness to engage working-class whites in any serious way.

According to Chozik, reaching out to this demographic struck Hillary���s husband Bill as a particularly good idea, but he was unable to help his wife, or her sycophantic campaign stooges, see the light in that regard. When Bill Clinton attempted to convince the campaign that his wife should be doing more to connect with blue-collar whites, he was dismissed, and told that the best move for her to make was to stick with pursuing college-educated suburbanites.

Chozik says that Bill Clinton ���pleaded��� with campaign manager Robby Mook to more vigorously pursue both working-class whites and rural voters. Mook, however, discarded that idea, saying that they were better off solidifying their existing connections to voters of color and younger voters, more generally.

Bill Clinton, hailed as a master campaigner, likely saw the handwriting on the wall; working-class whites are just too large of a demographic to ignore, while Hillary���s support from groups of color, although real, was always going to be more restrained than it was for Barack Obama.

All of this makes sense. For all of her years on the national stage, I never once felt as though Hillary was talking to me. Rather, it always seemed that, as a demographic, I was completely invisible to her.

That���s certainly her decision, and my feelings are not hurt because of it���but if you are trying to win an election for President of the United States, should any meaningfully-sized group be one that you simply right off from the outset?

Two-term president���and husband��� Bill Clinton doesn���t appear to think so.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large

 

Pundit: Trump Won Because of Backlash Against Political Correctness

In the aftermath of what many see as the stunning upset by Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, the exact reasons for why Trump won (or Hillary lost, depending on your perspective) are being very carefully considered.

One pundit over at the libertarian site Reason.com, Robby Soave, has an interesting take: Trump���s victory came about because his voters were interested in repudiating the climate of political correctness that has, for so long now, kept such a stranglehold on speech in the nation that���s supposed to serve as the strongest and best bastion of freedom on earth.

Now, I don���t know how true this is, meaning, I don���t know how much the singular issue of chafing against political correctness was acutely responsible for driving citizens to the polls to vote for Trump. However, the idea that that the repressive thought climate brought about by the growing progressive incursion into society was at least partly responsible for Trump���s victory���is not a tough sell.

While political correctness can mean different things to different people, Soave does a good job (in my opinion) nailing down what we���re usually talking about when we hear the term: ���smug, entitled, elitist, privileged leftists jumping down the throats of ordinary folks who aren't up-to-date on the latest requirements of progressive society.���

Yes, I would say that about sums it up.

I particularly like Soave���s summary paragraph:

���There is a cost to depriving people of the freedom (in both the legal and social senses) to speak their mind. The presidency just went to the guy whose main qualification, according to his supporters, is that he isn't afraid to speak his.���

Like I said, it is difficult to know, with any real accuracy, how much of an influence the PC culture had on the election. It���s fair to suggest, however, that it was something more than nothing, and, in a contest in which the winner and loser were ultimately separated by a relative handful of votes, it is also fair to suggest that it may have well been the difference-maker.

By Robert G. Yetman, Jr. Editor At Large