Although Google’s official birthday has moved around a bit over the years, it is generally accepted that the universe will celebrate the search engine’s sixteenth birthday on September 27th. And I know the perfect gift…
Congressional passage of the USA Freedom Act.
In fact, passage of the bill would be a fantastic birthday present for ALL Americans!
The Senate version of the USA Freedom Act would dramatically reform how the National Security Agency (NSA) is allowed to spy on American citizens and limit the NSA’s ability to strong-arm telephone and technology companies into coughing up large amounts of private, personal data without a court-ordered subpoena.
“The government has grossly overreached with its surveillance practices, and as a result, Americans’ distrust of their own government continues to grow,” U.S. Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nevada), an original cosponsor of the bill, maintains. “The USA Freedom Act is a comprehensive approach that would end bulk data collection practices and help restore Fourth Amendment privacy rights to our nation’s citizens.”
In a floor statement in July, Heller offered a common-sense amendment to the bill that would eliminate bulk collection of phone and email records and require government intelligence agencies to “disclose to the American people roughly how many of them have had their communications collected.” Heller’s amendment would also allow tech companies to “to tell consumers basic information regarding the FISA Court orders they receive and the number of users whose information is turned over.”
This should hardly be controversial stuff; however, all too many post-9/11 Americans have adopted the dangerously misguided and Sovietesque notion that “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.”
In fact, I believe that’s the unofficial motto of the grope-and-grin government apparatchiks who run airport security, keeping air travelers safe from oversized toothpaste tubes and forcing little old ladies in wheelchairs to perform the “TSA Macarena” to distract other passengers waiting to be publicly humiliated for the privilege of flying the friendly skies.
But I digress.
If our government-owned/union-managed public schools still adequately taught our nation’s Founding history, citizens today would immediately recoil at the very notion of government agents being able to search your emails or computer files stored on Google Drive or Drop box without a court order.
When confronted with such a demand, absent probable cause or subpoena, in the name of “national security,” the appropriate citizen response would be to quote Benjamin Franklin, who so rightly and famously proclaimed that “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
What he said.
Anyway, happy birthday, Google! Here’s hoping Congress wraps up the USA Freedom Act and presents it to you and the rest of the country before the month is out.
Folks, I didn’t build up my readership list here at Silver State Confidential by sugarcoating it or blowing smoke up your skirts. I am the Doctor of Harsh Reality. I call ‘em as I sees ‘em and, on occasion, get one wrong.
But the race in Nevada’s 1st Congressional District this year isn’t one of them. The numbers just don’t lie.
Republican challenger Annette Teijeiro is running against my old nemesis, Democrat Rep. Dina Titus. Believe me, NO ONE would enjoy seeing Titus lose to Teijeiro more than I would in November. But it just ain’t gonna happen.
Obama carried this district 66-32% in 2012.
Titus crushed Republican Chris Edwards in this district 64-31% two years ago.
According to the Secretary of State’s website, there are 122,996 registered Democrats in this district.
There are 55,302 registered Republicans. That’s more than a 2-1 advantage.
Titus has the power of incumbency. Titus has the voter registration. Titus has the money. Titus has the experience. Titus has the endorsements. Titus has the name ID. Titus has the political operation. Titus has the media. Titus has the unions.
Titus has it in November. Period.
Lower turnout by Democrats won’t change the outcome. Teijeiro being Hispanic won’t change the outcome. 41,628 registered non-partisans, most of whom lean Democrat, won’t change the outcome. That’s no reflection on Teijeiro; it’s just reality.
Now, if you nevertheless want to volunteer to work on Annette’s campaign or donate money to her, have at it. Tactically speaking for conservatives; however, I think your time and money would be FAR better spent helping to re-elect Republican Rep. Joe Heck.
But that’s just me.
I raise this issue today because some crackpot named Randy Rose – who is in serious denial and stopped taking his medications over the weekend – decided to go toe-to-toe with me over it. Here’s his first shot across the bow, sent via email yesterday morning…
“Stop bashing Republican candidates especially in CD1. You are the reason Republicans lose against your lover Dina Titus.”
Um, I didn’t “bash” Teijeiro. Didn’t say a single negative thing about her. Only ventured an observation about the reality of the CD1 race. But according to Rose…
“That causes Republicans to not vote. That is your Fault and you should be ashamed. The only way you can prove you are a Conservative, is to tell people to vote for Dr. Annette Tiereijo.”
Well, um, if Republicans choose not to vote, that’s, um, their fault…not mine. But OK: Vote for Dr. Annette Teijeiro!
Well, apparently not. Because this kook then went on to post the following on CraigsList (why on CraigsList, I have no idea) under the headline “Chuck Muth Loves Dina Titus”
“Chuck Muth is up to his old tricks again, He is bashing Republicans who run against his lover Dina Titus. Last time it was because Chris Edwards did not sign his tax pledge. Turns out that was not the reason. Chuck Muth drools all over Dina Titus so they must be lovers. Vote for Annette Teijeiro because she can beat Dina Titus but don’t tell Chuck because he always votes for Dina Titus. This proves that Chuck Muth is not a Conservative, but a RINO Progressive who always votes Democrat.”
Uh-oh. Rose is onto me! Yes, I am secretly a liberal mole embedded in the conservative movement for the sole purpose of undermining Republicans who can’t win or vote for higher taxes or…well, something.
You know, I think I’ve had a change of heart!
If a deep thinker such as Randy Rose believes Annette Teijeiro can beat Dina Titus in November…well, that’s good enough for me!
Please, everybody…vote for Teijeiro.
Volunteer to work on her campaign a minimum of 80 hours a week for the next two months.
And by all means, take out a second mortgage and sell all your worldly possessions and donate every last dime of it to Teijeiro’s campaign.
We’re gonna win! We’re gonna win! We’re gonna win! We’re…
This Las Vegas Review-Journal headline that came into my email box yesterday afternoon caught my attention: “Nevada Hispanic group endorses Teijeiro over Titus.”
“An influential Hispanic group on Saturday announced it endorsed Republican Dr. Annette Teijeiro over U.S. Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev., delivering a blow to the incumbent in the 1st Congressional District,” wrote reporter Laura Myers (who Ralston now despises because Myers referred to him as a “blogger” in a Laxalt story earlier in the week).
I guess it really isn’t too much of a surprise that that Hispanics in Politics endorsed the Hispanic candidate over an old, lily-white candidate – I mean, that’s the way race politics is played.
But with a huge voter registration advantage in the district, the HIP endorsement is anything but a “blow” to Titus’ campaign. Teijeiro has no chance in this district unless Titus gets indicted for something.
And even then.
But that wasn’t the real story in the story. Indeed, once you got past the Teijeiro/Titus non-story in the opening paragraph, you learned of what should have been the lead in the story. Get this…
In Nevada’s 3rd congressional district race – pitting white Republican Rep. Joe Heck against white liberal Democrat Erin Bilbray-Kohn – the Hispanic members of Hispanics in Politics voted to endorse Heck.
A reasonable and responsible decision since Heck, as a member of the majority party in Congress, has been vocal in advocating for reasonable and responsible immigration reform that includes tougher border enforcement with no amnesty.
Nevertheless, we learned in the story that Fernando Romero – a Hispanic race hustler and president of the organization – unilaterally overrode the endorsement vote of his membership!
“We cannot see why we should endorse a man that does not support the wants and the needs of the Hispanic community,” Romero declared, equating “amnesty” with “wants and needs.”
“We’ll be endorsing Erin Bilbray.”
You are NOT reading this wrong.
The members of Hispanics in Politics voted to endorse Heck. But Romero and his “We Know Better” board told their members to pound sand. They’re giving Bilbray-Kohn the nod no matter what his members “want and need” because…well, I guess because Bilbray-Kohn is a liberal Democrat and that’s what Harry Reid wants.
I have to admit, I didn’t pay any attention to this year’s Little League World Series until the Las Vegas team made it to the championship game yesterday afternoon.
I tried to find it on my iPhone while sitting on the beach here in San Diego without luck. So I did the next best thing: I found the Little League World Series twitter feed and just kept refreshing it to get scores and updates.
Which got my blood boiling!
Tweet after tweet after tweet kept coming in from people rooting for the Chicago team. Why? Not because they were from Chicago. But because every kid on the team was black!
That’s right. The liberal race hustlers in America even ruined a little league baseball game by making it a black/white issue. Sickening and shameful.
So here’s my question…
If it was okay to root for the Chicago team simply because every kid on the team was black, does that mean it was okay to root AGAINST the Chicago team simply because every kid on the team was black?
What? If you did that you’d be a racist? Really? You mean there’s a double standard on race in this country? Who knew?
And since I’m on a shameful kick this morning…
I’m not called Nevada’s #1 irritator of liberals for nothing!
First, as we all know, Jon Ralston, Nevada’s #2 liberal blogger is a…liberal.
And in yesterday’s Silver State Confidential I laid a little smackdown on the prima dona after he hand-carried Democrat attorney general candidate Ross Miller’s water this week in the form of a leaked document showing brutally critical raw notes from a two-year-old performance evaluation of Adam Laxalt, Miller’s Republican opponent.
Now, here’s the thing…
When Ralston broke his story on Twitter – ‘cause no newspaper in Nevada carries his columns any longer – I learned of it from someone else who forwarded it to me because I stopped “following” Ralston on Twitter about two months ago. I mean, let’s face it, the guy is entirely predictable, a tool of the left and the GOP establishment (but I repeat myself) and, frankly, boring.
But he does like to use fancy multi-syllable words to try and impress people with his intellect. And it’s worked on some liberal inside-the-beltway media types in Washington, DC who think Jon is a god.
Alas, many of his media colleagues here in Nevada who actually know him think he’s a jerk. But for professional reasons, they aren’t able to say so publicly.
But back to the story…
Yesterday afternoon, after giving Ralston that e-wedgie in Silver State Confidential, I checked in on his Twitter feed to see if the twit had read it. And sure enough, it appeared so. Here’s the tweet the twit published…
“Have not employed the wonderful BLOCK option enough, have let my OCD get best of me and engaged. Time for new motto: Ignore the Trolls.”
Could I have irritated the liberal laughingstock so much that he “blocked” little ol’ me from “following” him even though I stopped “following” him two months ago?
When I tried to again “Follow” Jon just to see if it was me he wrote about, sure enough this message popped up…
“You have been blocked from following this account at the request of the user.”
I am SO honored!
I’ve now been “blocked” by two liberals: Nevada’s #2 liberal blogger and the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, Mark Hutchison, whose water Ralston carried the GOP primary race against Sue Lowden.
Speaking of which…
Has anyone seen the strong statement of continued support that Hutchison has issued for his embattled fellow Republican candidate? ‘Cause if such a statement has been issued, I didn’t get it.
And while we’re at it, where’s the “We’re 100% behind Adam Laxalt” press release from Republican Senate Majority Leader “Moderate Mike” Roberson and Republican Assembly Minority Leader Pat Hickey. Their silence is deafening.
But nowhere near as deafening as the silence coming out of the governor’s office!
Indeed, Gov. Brian Sandoval is the party’s supposed titular head and is, indeed, running in November on the top of the GOP’s ticket. The Laxalt brouhaha broke last Wednesday night. It’s now Sunday morning. And all we’ve heard from the guv about his fellow Republican and attorney general running mate is crickets.
And it’s not like he’s completely disengaged in Nevada for some reason. Indeed, after the Las Vegas team lost in yesterday’s final game of the Little League World Series (more on that below), the governor tweeted, “We love you Mountain Ridge!”
So, um, where’s the “We love you Adam Laxalt!” tweet, Governor?
Something tells me Lt. Laxalt felt far more secure in a foxhole in Iraq than he does right now with Sandoval, Hutchison, Roberson and Hickey watching his back on Nevada’s political battlefield!
Speaking of which…
As the family and I are on vacation in San Diego at Campland on the Bay (that’s Gia to the right grillin’ up some burgers!), work is not exactly on my daily agenda – though I do have some meetings here scheduled for next week.
However, exposing the ever-pretentious Jon Ralston – Nevada’s #2 liberal blogger and unofficial spokesman for the Nevada Democrat Party – for the diva he is isn’t work.
It’s a calling.
Credit where credit is due: Ralston did get the scoop on Republican attorney general candidate Adam Laxalt’s performance review from his former law firm from two years ago. It was a good “get” and gave his acolytes something to drop to their “we’re not worthy” knees for (he writes ending a sentence with a preposition).
But Ralston’s well-known and deeply-ingrained insecurities began popping up almost immediately after others began reporting on the story he broke.
Laura Myers of the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported on the Laxalt story shortly after by the Perfumed Prince of Electronic Print (‘cause no real newspaper in Nevada publishes his screeds any longer) broke it on his blog (‘cause no real newspaper in Nevada publishes his screeds any longer). To which Ralston snottily tweeted…
As in, “Look at me, look at me! I broke the story and everyone else is sucking hind teat!”
And so it began…
Ralston’s ruffled feathers again showed up Thursday morning after he slithered out of bed and read the daily newspaper.
“(Las Vegas Sun) story is interesting,” Ralston tapped out on his Twitter account (‘cause no real newspaper in Nevada publishes his screeds any longer). “No byline. And the Sun ‘obtained an image of Laxalt’s review.’ Explain,” he demanded of political editor Ryan Frank.
“Byline,” for those of you not in the newspaper biz, is the name of the person who wrote the story. In this case the byline for this particular story was simply “Sun Staff.”
And this shows just how uber-sensitive the prickly hyper-liberal blogger (‘cause no real newspaper in Nevada publishes his screeds any longer) is. The very next sentence in the story reads…
“The document was first reported by Jon Ralston.”
So the Sun gave Ralston full credit for breaking the story. But Ralston was still peeved that it didn’t give him, in his own legendary mind, ENOUGH credit.
Apparently, reporting that he first reported about the document without reporting what was obvious to everyone else – that the Sun obtained the image of the document from Ralston’s blog (‘cause no real newspaper in Nevada publishes his screeds any longer) – constituted some kind of ethical lapse on the part of the newspaper.
Pettiness, thy name is Ralston.
“Sure. I wrote it,” Frank replied on Twitter. “I typically use my byline when I do original reporting. In this case, I followed some guy with a political blog,” referring to the blog where Ralston broke the story.
“Ha,” Ralston replied. “Got it. Thanks for responding.”
A little later, Ralston burped up new outrage directed at RJ’s Myers…
“’Newspaper’ via [Laura Myers] taking on job of damage control for [Adam Laxalt]. Story of bad evaluations on 3B.”
You see, Ralston thinks it’s cute and clever to put the word “newspaper” in quotation marks when referring to the RJ – where he used to work before burning that bridge – to infer that it’s not a “real” newspaper because of its generally conservative editorial content.
It’s kinda like referring to Ralston as a “journalist.” But back to the story…
Later in the afternoon, Myers scooped Ralston by publishing a statement from Laxalt’s former law firm which defended Laxalt and undermined the leaked document Ralston originally disclosed. In response, Ralston tweeted (‘cause no real newspaper in Nevada publishes his screeds any longer)…
“Oh, ‘newspaper.’ [Laura Myers] has no docs that have favorable comments re [Adam Laxalt]. She regurgitated firm release w/o context.”
Which is super-hypocritical since Ralston’s own scoop consisted of a document of unfavorable comments about Laxalt which were spoon-fed to him by a Laxalt opponent which Ralston blogged about (‘cause no real newspaper in Nevada publishes his screeds any longer) without context.
Shortly thereafter, Ralston sniped…
“[Adam Laxalt] news release appears in ‘newspaper’ as ‘news.’”
This poor guy just can’t help himself. Unless the mighty Jon Ralston breaks the news, it ain’t news…especially if it’s favorable to a conservative candidate. What an egomaniac.
The next day, the Ely Times published an interview it had conducted with Laxalt before the evaluation kerfuffle erupted. The interview didn’t mention the evaluation kerfuffle because it obviously was conducted before the evaluation kerfuffle erupted. To which Ralston tweeted (‘cause no real newspaper in Nevada publishes his screeds any longer)…
“Meanwhile, in Ely, they are charmingly out of touch with what’s going on.”
Yes, unless you’re writing about Ralston’s partisan stink bomb, you are “out of touch.” You see, in Jon Ralston’s magnificently mashable mind it’s ALWAYS about Jon Ralston.
Later in the day Myers again scooped Ralston by publishing a story about Laxalt’s “rave performance reviews” from when he served in Iraq as a judge advocate general (JAG) lawyer. Myers’ story included this snippet…
“Laxalt, who is running for attorney general, released the fitness report and counseling records to counter critical notes leaked from a private law firm, Lewis Roca, where he worked starting in 2011. He was given a harsh job review in fiscal year 2011-12, according to the notes from four attorneys at the firm. His legal skills were called sloppy and inadequate. And he was described as ‘a train wreck’ who needed further training to meet basic legal standards.
“The leak of the notes by Jon Ralston, a blogger and TV host of ‘Ralston Reports,’ damaged both Laxalt’s reputation and his campaign in the Nov. 4 election against Secretary of State Ross Miller, a Democrat and former Clark County prosecutor.”
And that sent Ralston over the edge and into e-rage!
“So now actual firm evaluations are ‘raw notes’ and I am a — wait for it – ‘blogger,’” the liberal blogger (‘cause no real newspaper in Nevada publishes his screeds any longer) tweeted (‘cause no real newspaper in Nevada publishes his screeds any longer) with a heavy dose of righteous indignation after reading Myers’ story.
To which some liberal tweeting under the name of “WigglyBiggly” inquired of Ralston…
“Cheap shot by [Laura Myers]?”
“Of course,” replied the perpetually perturbed liberal blogger (‘cause no real newspaper in Nevada publishes his screeds any longer). “Also inaccurate, as is ‘raw notes.’ Her three stories have been printing Laxalt news releases.”
Um, duh. News releases don’t become non-news just because they are favorable to a candidate St. Jon opposes and are broken by a real reporter. Indeed, information in defense of Laxalt is every bit news as Ralston’s report on the raw notes (and, um, that’s exactly what they are) he published on Wednesday.
For all his “success,” Jon Ralston is such a small, petty fellow who doesn’t take criticism very well. The fact is he hasn’t been a “journalist” for many, many years. He’s a liberal political advocate.
Oh, and a blogger with a Twitter account.
And that’s exactly what he is. And that’s all he is. Ralston no longer has a “newspaper” column because nobody in Nevada will publish the Prickly Purveyor of Pap. As such, our legend-in-his-own-mind not only regularly lashes out at conservative activists who expose his partisan bias, but real journalists such as Laura Myers who write for real newspapers.
Back to Campland on the Bay, where I fully intend to beat my two lovely daughters - Jenna (left) & Kristen (right) - and make out like a bandit at this afternoon’s Candy Bar Bingo tournament!
Enjoy your misery, Jonny Boy.
On Wednesday afternoon, Jon Ralston – Nevada’s #2 liberal blogger and unofficial communications director for the Nevada Democrat Party – dropped a stink bomb on Republican attorney general candidate Adam Laxalt by publishing brutally negative internal review notations relating to a two-year-old confidential performance evaluation by Laxalt’s former law firm.
The material in the notes is an opposition researcher’s dream. The negative radio and television ads, not to mention voter contact mailers, write themselves.
The memo absolutely has the potential to do to Laxalt’s campaign what the “chickens for checkups” brouhaha did to Sue Lowden’s U.S. senate campaign in 2010 if Laxalt’s team doesn’t quickly stop the hemorrhaging.
Unfortunately, the campaign’s immediate response was pretty much limited to questioning the authenticity of the document and suggesting that it was unlawfully obtained. But as Joe Gaylord – my “professor” some 20 years ago at the Campaign Management College in Washington, DC – is wont to say, “The only law not broken in a political campaign is Murphy’s Law.”
Some observations as the sun rose here at Campland on the Bay in San Diego…
1.) It was hilariously comical to watch Ralston joyously reveling in a passage in the review that criticized Laxalt’s writing skills.
If it’s “‘typing’ skills that are the problem,” wrote reviewing attorney Joice Bass, “there is Spell Check for that. But, time and again, he (Laxalt) has chosen not to use this technological function.”
What’s funny about this is the fact that Ralston himself is the “King of Typos” who has yet to master the technological function of spell-check for his own blog.
Although I stopped posting regularly some time ago because it was so time-consuming to keep up with all of Ralston’s boo-boos, you can still see what I mean by going to www.RalstonRetorts.com.
2.) An official statement from Laxalt’s former law firm on Thursday acknowledges a serious “security breach” (lawsuit coming to a theater near you?) in having these “confidential documents” released to the public, and asserts that the opinions expressed in those two-year-old internal reviews “do not represent the current view of Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP about Adam.”
Fine and dandy. But, um, that won’t stop the political bleeding. The firm’s “current view” is irrelevant. The damage is done. Anything less than identifying the leaker and quickly firing them in a very public manner will suffice. And even that might not be enough.
3.) The Laxalt campaign’s response to the Lewis Roca Rothgerber LLP statement was not well thought out and actually buttressed one of the biggest criticisms of Laxalt in the two-year-old review; that Laxalt thought far more highly of his own abilities than those who reviewed him.
Laxalt’s prepared response devoted five full paragraphs to boasting about Laxalt’s experience, performance and accomplishments.
Strategically, not a smart move…as any good direct response marketer will tell you. Instead, Laxalt should have had OTHER PEOPLE testify to his experience, performance and accomplishments.
Every candidate for public office claims to be the greatest thing since sliced bread. But because so many politicians lie through their teeth almost every time they open their mouths (hello, Michael Roberson!), the public no longer takes at face value anything that any politician says, especially about themselves.
Third-party testimonials are much more powerful…and believable.
4.) Forget where’s Waldo; where’s Sandoval?
Last March, after Laxalt filed to run for attorney general, his fellow Republican and top-of-the-ticket candidate, Gov. Brian Sandoval, said, “I’m honored to endorse Adam Laxalt’s campaign for Attorney General. I look forward to working with him as Nevada’s next Attorney General.”
That was then. This is now.
Now, unless I missed a memo somewhere, Sandoval has yet to issue a statement reaffirming his unqualified support for his embattled GOP attorney general candidate in response to the performance review kerfuffle. Instead Sandoval appears to have run from Laxalt like a scalded dog and may well be holed up in Dick Cheney’s secret, undisclosed bunker.
When the going gets tough, Sandoval gets going.
With “friends” like that in the foxhole with you…
“In a piece of campaign literature,” writes Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Steve Sebelius, “state Senate District 9 candidate Becky Harris declares she’s ‘not your typical Republican.’ In fact, her stances on education funding, certain taxes, and other issues sound downright Democratic.”
In other words, while she may not be your typical conservative Republican, she’s absolutely your typical moderate establishment Republican; what you might call a “Sandoval Republican.”
In a 30-minute interview with Sebelius, Harris declared that she might support Michael Bloomberg’s gun control petition now being circulated to require background checks for private gun sales, demurring, “I don’t know that I don’t support the petition.”
Oh, come on. Of course she does.
Harris was a Democrat until just a couple years ago and appears to have switched parties out of pure political calculation, not some change in philosophical heart. Indeed, Sebelius writes that “Harris said she’s not philosophically opposed to requiring background checks for all gun sales.”
Harris also divulged in the interview that if elected she intends to screw the state’s mining industry to the wall!
“Harris said she will vote for Senate Joint Resolution 15, which will appear on the November ballots as Question 2, a measure to repeal a constitutional cap on taxation of the net proceeds of minerals in Nevada. That would allow the Legislature to pass a new mining tax at its next session,” reported Sebelius. “And why? Harris says in her flier that ‘…our schools are underfunded and overcrowded,’ and that she wants to reduce class size, pay teachers more and expand reading programs.”
Spoken like a true Democrat.
Harris went on to declare that electing her “as a moderate Republican would be a fantastic thing because I can do great things for everybody.”
Fantastic things? Like constrict gun rights and raise taxes to spend ever more money on our failed public education system. What’s so “fantastic” about that?
The only thing worse than voting for a gun-grabbing, tax-hiking, big-spending Democrat is voting for a gun-grabbing, tax-hiking, big-spending Republican. Such Republicans, as my friend Grover Norquist of American for Tax Reform is wont to say, ruin the brand.
Indeed. Better the real Democrat than a fake Republican. In the Senate District 9 race, I think I’m going to urge conservatives to boycott voting for either candidate. No sense in aiding and abetting a fraud.
Laura Myers of the Las Vegas Review-Journal has the poop on Madame Hillary’s upcoming six-figure speech at UNLV, and the former First Lady and Secretary of State loves to be pampered like a queen.
“Hillary Rodham Clinton likes to travel in style,” Myers writes. “She insists on staying in the ‘presidential suite’ of luxury hotels that she chooses anywhere in the world, including Las Vegas. She usually requires those who pay her six-figure fees for speeches to also provide a private jet for transportation – only a $39 million, 16-passenger Gulfstream G450 or larger will do.
“And she doesn’t travel alone, relying on an entourage of a couple of ‘travel aides,’ and a couple of advance staffers who check out her speech site in the days leading up to her appearance, much like a White House trip, according to her contract and supporting documents concerning her Oct. 13 speech at a University of Nevada, Las Vegas Foundation fundraiser.”
Interestingly, while her hubby, Bill Clinton, spoke at UNLV two years ago and pocketed a cool $250,000, his wife, performing the exact same job, will “only” be paid $225,000.
So much for equal pay for equal work!
Madame Clinton also insists that she “be the only person on the stage during her remarks,” “will remain at the event no longer than 90 minutes” and “will pose for no more than 50 photos with no more than 100 people.”
She also “won’t allow any press coverage or video- or audio-taping of her speech. The only record allowed will be made by a stenographer whose transcription will be given only to Clinton. The stenographer’s $1,250 bill, however, will go to the UNLV Foundation.”
Looks like Hillary is trying to out-diva Barbra Streisand!
In case you missed it – and you might have because the media doesn’t make anywhere near as big a deal out of thousands getting laid off in the private sector as it does if a dozen government workers get pink slips – Cisco, the world’s largest networking equipment maker, announced last week that it was laying off 6,000 employees.
And it might be Barack Obama’s fault!
Our friend Durk Pearson – an MIT graduate “with a triple major in physics, biology, and psychology” who “assisted with equipment design and experiments for NASA’s Space Shuttle” (source: Wikipedia) writes that “Cisco (internet routers and firewalls) has lost so much international business due to the disclosure that its products have National Security Agency backdoors.”
“Backdoors” are put into various hardware and software products to allow the NSA to spy on Americans. The House passed an amendment back in June, 293-123, to stop funding to the NSA for the purpose of building “backdoors” into tech products.
Nevertheless, the world has spoken about Obama’s spy program…and 6,000 of Cisco’s workers are apparently paying the price.