#BlackLivesMatter : The Democratic Party is hazardous to the lives of black Americans!

From The Pirate’s Cove:

Very Liberal And Democratic Party Run Baltimore Ties 43 Year Old Murder Record
By William Teach | August 1, 2015 – 7:10 am

Things are going swimmingly in yet another Democratic Party run city, and firing the chief of police has really helped, and #BlackLivesMatter or something:

(AP) Baltimore reached a grim milestone on Friday, three months after riots erupted in response to the death of Freddie Gray in police custody: With 45 homicides in July, the city has seen more bloodshed in a single month than it has in 43 years.

Police reported three deaths — two men shot Thursday and one on Friday. The men died at local hospitals.

With their deaths, this year’s homicides reached 189, far outpacing the 119 killings by July’s end in 2014. Nonfatal shootings have soared to 366, compared to 200 by the same date last year. July’s total was the worst since the city recorded 45 killings in August 1972, according to The Baltimore Sun.

Last year, Baltimore recorded 208 homicides. Of those, 189 where Blacks, and mostly men. The numbers aren’t out for 2015, but, again, the vast majority of homicide victims in Democratic Party run Baltimore are Blacks, and mostly men. The Baltimore Sun also reminds us that the city had 275,000 more residents in 1972 than it does now. I suspect the city’s population will drop even more by the end of this year, as residents of all colors get the heck out.

There’s more at the link. But the homicide rate among black Americans brings up even more devastation among blacks. In 2014, the Guttmacher Institute stated that:1

Non-Hispanic white women account for 36% of abortions, non-Hispanic black women for 30%, Hispanic women for 25% and women of other races for 9%.

From a pro-life site, Operation Rescue:

  • Blacks comprise only 13% of the population of America but account for 37% of all abortions.
  • Black women are five times more likely to abort than white women.
  • 69% of pregnancies among Blacks are unintended, while that number is 54% among Hispanics and 40% of pregnancies among Whites.
  • Planned Parenthood, the largest seller of abortions in the United States, has located 80% of its abortion clinics in minority neighborhoods, disproportionally targeting minorities for abortion.

Our large urban areas are run almost exclusively by the Democratic Party, and it is among Democrats that the support for abortion is strongest. And black Americans give 90% and more of their votes to Democratic candidates.

Yet, when you look at the numbers, it’s difficult to conclude anything other than the Democrats are hazardous to the health of black Americans. The Democrats support policies which disproportionally reduce the black population even before birth, and the Democrats have enabled an urban culture which puts the lives of black Americans disproportionately at risk, and the Democrats have supported policies which, 69 years after Brown v Board of Education, and 51 years after the Civil Rights Act, have still left black Americans disproportionally poor.

Oh, to be sure, the Democrats talk a great game! The Democrats tell us, almost constantly, how much they care for black Americans and the plight of the black community, but the actual results the Democrats and their policies have produced don’t match their talk in the slightest.

A lot of conservatives point out the fact that the Democrats were the party of slavery, that it was the Democrats who were the Southern resisters, and that the Republican Part arose from the opposition to slavery. That’s historically true enough, but none of those people are alive today, and that’s the reason I’ve never pointed it out previously. Rather, what I see is a Democratic Party which helps to keep black Americans enslaved today! The Democratic Party of today supports a welfare system on which a disproportionate number of black citizens rely, but it is also a welfare system which ensnares and traps blacks in poverty.

Objectively, it’s difficult to see how the Democratic Party is anything but harmful to black Americans. They are like the pushers, who promise their constituents less expensive drugs, all the while keeping them addicted.

  1. The Guttmacher Institute is a very pro-abortion organization. I cited them solely to point out that the statistics aren’t just from some evil reich-wing organization.

Defunding Planned Parenthood

Since everybody is now required to have health insurance, and all health insurance plans are required to provide contraception at no cost to the patient, why does Planned Parenthood need federal subsidies? It would seem to me that the only part of their business which would not be covered by insurance is abortion, and the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funds from being used for abortion.

The truth is simple: money is fungible, and Planned Parenthood just moves money around to make it look like no taxpayer dollars are funding the abortion business.

The President will veto the defunding measure, and the Republicans don’t have enough votes to override it, but the Republicans can simply refuse to appropriate any money for Planned Parenthood in the FY2016 budget, leaving the President with the choice of vetoing a huge appropriations bill, or letting Planned Parenthood support itself.

My new Scott Walker T-Shirt

The Editor in his Scot Walker T-Shirt

The Editor in his Scott Walker T-Shirt

My Scott Walker t-shirt came in the mail last Wednesday. If you support Governor Walker’s presidential campaign, you can order the t-shirt at the link above.1

One of the reasons that I support Governor Walker is his support for returning governing functions, and taxation, to the parts of government most appropriate to the functions being performed:

As a county executive, and then as governor, I’ve seen firsthand that the most efficient services are those that stay closest to the individual they are designed to serve. Most of us know we could do a better job deciding how to spend that money than bureaucrats in Washington. In our visits to New Hampshire over the last few months, that’s a sentiment we’ve heard over and over. People are hungry for leaders who will reclaim power from Washington and put it back in the hands of the people, and that begins with letting Americans keep more of the money they earn. . . .

Of course, in order to provide safety and security for our families, we have to fund our government. But is there anyone in America who thinks the federal government uses our money as responsibly and effectively as it should?

Congress just passed a three-month, stop-gap federal highway spending bill, to avoid the cut-off of funds which would have occurred yesterday, and President Obama signed it on Friday. But this begs an obvious question: why should this be federal spending at all?

Though it is difficult to accurately measure, federal law requires that at least 92% of taxes for the Highway Trust Fund be spent in the state in which the money was collected.2 It would be simpler, and less expensive as well, to reduce the federal excise tax on gasoline by 92%, giving the states the room to raise their gasoline taxes to replace that money. This would vastly reduce an entire layer of bureaucracy, as there would be far fewer federal employees required to monitor compliance reports from the states, and fewer state employees needed to fill out federal compliance forms. Bureaucrats do not pour the first yard of concrete, nor produce the first ton of asphalt; paper shufflers may be necessary to some extent, but they do not pave a single mile of our streets and highways.

Nor can it (reasonably) be held that a congressman from Montana really knows what the road construction and maintenance needs in Pennsylvania happen to be. We have the strange and inefficient situation of officials from the Virginia Department of Transportation having to put together applications for federal funds to work on highways in Virginia; wouldn’t it be more efficient for the highway officials in Richmond to go to the Virginia General Assembly with their needs?

Of course, that does happen, in every state, and state legislatures have to take decisions on what can and cannot be funded. If the states had more of those funds at their disposal, and less going to Washington, the people who are closer to the problems, and who are closer and more responsible to the voters, would be the ones taking those decisions.

Governor Walker noted that six of the top ten wealthiest counties in America, according to median income, are located around Washington, DC. That speaks to the fact that our federal government is bloated and overpaid. Most of the problems in New Mexico and Ohio and Illinois need to be solved by the people and state governments in New Mexico and Ohio and Illinois, and not by the federal government — which doesn’t seem to be doing all that good a job of it anyway.

We need, we have needed for along time now, a President who doesn’t try to concentrate power in Washington, but one who understands that the states and localities are the proper places for most of the functions of government to be performed; Scott Walker would be that kind of President!

  1. While this site accepts advertising, this article is not a paid advertisement for Governor Walker’s campaign.
  2. The taxes raised include the excise tax on gasoline, the federal excise tax on diesel and special fuels, taxes on truck and trailer sales, truck tires, and heavy vehicle usage fees.

From Around the Blogroll

From Truthout:

The US Should Eliminate Its Nuclear Arsenal – Not “Modernize” It
Saturday, 01 August 2015 00:00 | By David Krieger, Truthout | Op-Ed

There are still approximately 16,000 nuclear weapons in the arsenals of nine countries today, with more than 90 percent of these in the possession of the United States and Russia. Some 1,800 nuclear weapons remain on hair-trigger alert, ready to be fired within moments of an order to do so. Most of these weapons are many times more powerful than those that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan.

On the 70th anniversary of the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it is past time for the United States to change course. Rather than pursue current plans to spend $1 trillion on modernizing its nuclear arsenal, the United States should lead the world in negotiations to achieve the phased, verifiable, irreversible and transparent elimination of nuclear weapons. This would make the world safer.

On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, killing some 90,000 people immediately and another 55,000 by the end of 1945. Three days later, the United States dropped another atomic bomb on Nagasaki, killing some 40,000 people immediately and another 35,000 by the end of 1945.

In between these two bombings, on August 8, 1945, the United States signed the charter creating the Nuremberg tribunal to hold Axis leaders to account for crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Under well-established international humanitarian law – the law of warfare – war crimes include using weapons that do not distinguish between civilians and combatants or that cause unnecessary suffering. Because nuclear weapons kill indiscriminately and cause unnecessary suffering by radiation poisoning (among other grotesque consequences), the United States was itself in the act of committing war crimes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki while agreeing to hold its defeated opponents in World War II to account for their war crimes.

Those who doubt this conclusion should consider this hypothetical situation: During World War II, Germany creates two atomic bombs and uses them on British cities, killing tens of thousands of civilians. Under such circumstances, can you imagine the Nazi leaders who ordered these attacks not being held accountable at Nuremberg for these bombings of civilian targets?

Sure they’d have been “held accountable,” by which we mean hanged. They already were. But let’s face facts: war crimes are the excuses used by the winners to hang the losers, and had the Allies lost, ‘twould have been Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill and a whole bunch of military officers who would have been executed, though der Führer probably wouldn’t have bothered with holding war crimes trials.

There’s more of that drivel at he original, and most of the commenters agree, holding that it is the United States which is evil, evil, evil. The sad part is that such people are allowed to vote. Only a leftist could be silly enough to think that if every nation eliminated its nuclear weapons, but the knowledge of how to build one still existed, that no nation would see it as in its interests to then become the world’s only nuclear power, and start building bombs. These are almost certainly the same people who think that if we pass gun control laws, criminals will turn in their guns.

And now, on to the Blogroll!

Rule 5 Blogging: The IDF again!

It’s the weekend and time, once again, for THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL’S version of Rule 5 Blogging. Robert Stacy McCain described Rule 5 as putting pictures of pretty women somewhat déshabillé, but, on this site, our Rule 5 Blogging doesn’t put up pictures of Megan Fox in her summer clothes, but women, in full military gear, serving their countries in the armed forces. The terribly sexist authors on this site celebrate strong women, women who can take care of themselves and take care of others, women who have been willing to put their lives on the line in some not-so-friendly places, women who truly do have the “We can do it!” attitude. This week, the Israeli Defence Force again! Click on any photo to embiggen.

Continue reading ‘Rule 5 Blogging: The IDF again!’ »

Comment rescue: Gerald A on Patterico

I really, really wish that I had thought of this myself. From Gerald A, in a comment on Patterico’s Pontifications:

A classical socialist of decades ago would not be trying to destroy the coal industry to take one example. They might actually be better in some ways than Democrats. The enviro nuttiness of the Democrats is really at odds with traditional socialism.

That is exactly right. Karl Marx saw socialism/communism as a mass movement of the workers, and the workers would be the last people who would kill the jobs of their comrades to try, try! to get half a degree of cooling in the next century.

Today’s socialists, or at least the “intellectual” elites, aren’t really working class,1 but the well-to-do, who can afford doubled electric bills, and get to go to the wine-and-brie parties; they are not only well-to-do, but they grew up well off, have no fornicating idea what it’s like to live paycheck-to-paycheck, and no idea just what the policies they favor would do to the people they claim to want to help.

Mr A’s comment came on a thread noting that Debbi Whatshername Schultz, the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, when asked by Chris Matthews, “What is the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?” and was thoroughly stumped.

“Uh,” Wasserman-Schultz responded.

“I used to think there was a big difference,” Matthews said. “What do you think?”

“The difference between—the real question is what’s the difference between being a Democrat and being a Republican,” Wasserman-Schultz said.

Matthews didn’t let her off easily.

“Yeah but what’s the big difference between being a Democrat and being a socialist?” Matthews said. “You’re the chairwoman of the Democratic Party. Tell me the difference between you and a socialist.”

“The relevant debate that we’ll be having over the course of this campaign is what’s the difference between being a Democrat and being a Republican,” Wasserman-Schultz repeated.

And here’s the video:

That the lovely Mrs Wasserman-Schultz was stumped is hardly surprising; she’s not exactly the intellectual beacon of the Democratic Party. But her being stumped begs the question: just how much difference is there between today’s national Democratic Party,2 and socialism?

It could be said that a Democrat is a socialist who wants to win an election, though Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) proved that, at least in that far-left state, he could win running as an independent. That Mr Sanders is now running for the Democratic presidential nomination would seem to indicate that he doesn’t see an appreciable difference between being a Democrat and a socialist.

  1. Once again, I’ll state my opinion that everyone who works for a living is working class, whether he is a laborer or a bank president, but the intellectual snobs who think that they are better than the rest of us don’t see themselves as working class.
  2. I used the adjective “national” to note the differences between Democrats at the federal level, and those in the state parties in more conservative areas.

Prior Restraint

From Donald Douglas:

Los Angeles Superior Court Issues Restraining Order Barring Release of New Planned Parenthood Videos

At the Sacramento Bee, “Court bars anti-abortion group from releasing new videos” (via Weasel Zippers):

LOS ANGELES – A temporary restraining order has been issued preventing an anti-abortion group from releasing any video of leaders of a California company that provides fetal tissue to researchers. The group is the same one that previously released three covertly shot videos of a Planned Parenthood leader discussing the sale of aborted fetuses for research.

The Los Angeles Superior Court order issued Tuesday prohibits the Center for Medical Progress from releasing any video of three high-ranking StemExpress officials taken at a restaurant in May. It appears to be the first legal action prohibiting the release of a video from the organization.

The Center for Medical Progress has released three surreptitiously recorded videos to date that have riled anti-abortion activists. The Senate is expected to vote before its August recess on a Republican effort to bar federal aid to Planned Parenthood in the aftermath of the videos’ release.

In a statement Wednesday, center leader David Daleiden said StemExpress was using “meritless litigation” to cover up an “illegal baby parts trade.”

More at the original.

Now, how is this not prior restraint? The Center for Medical Progress ought to ignore the court order and publish the videos anyway.

Abortion is a stinking, stinking business, and all of the foulness and filth of the practitioners should be exposed for all to see.

You don’t have to hide when you are doing the right thing

From Life News, via Donald Douglas:

Planned Parenthood Threatens TV Stations Demanding They Censor Shocking Undercover Videos
By Sarah Zagorski | July 28, 2015 | 5:12PM Washington, DC

+The latest video released by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) shows a Planned Parenthood technician sorting through “tissue” collected after a first trimester abortion. As LifeNews previously reported, this is CMP’s third undercover video showing the abortion company negotiating the sale of aborted babies’ body parts with actors posing as buyers from a human biologics company.

The footage features Dr. Savita Ginde, who is the medical director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains (PPRM). Currently, PPRM is one of the largest and wealthiest Planned Parenthood affiliates and operates abortion facilities in Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Nevada. Dr. Ginde tells the actors that she wants to charge per “tissue sample” because that will bring in the most money. She said, “I think the per-item [pricing] works a little better, just because we can see how much we can get out of it.”

However, now the abortion giant is trying to stop news stations from airing the recent footage because it supposedly violates patient privacy. In a letter to TV stations in Minnesota, South Dakota and North Dakota, they attacked CMP by calling them an “extreme activist organization whose sole mission is to prevent women from accessing health care and to destroy Planned Parenthood.”

Well, yes, that’s right: CMP is trying to destroy Planned Parenthood, but they wouldn’t be if Planned Parenthood was just about contraception and health care, and not an abortion provider.

Planned Parenthood President and Chief Executive Officer Cecile Richards, a very pretty woman with a very ugly soul.

Interestingly, their allegations sound very similar to what Planned Parenthood’s CEO and President, Cecile Richards, said on her first public interview with ABC News after the first two videos were released. She too tried to link CMP with “militant abortion activists” and called their investigations a “three-year, well-funded effort by the most militant wing of the anti-abortion movement in this country to try to entrap doctors, and, of course, highly-doctored videos.”

Unfortunately, for Planned Parenthood, editing only goes so far and CMP released the full, unedited videos with their clips. The truth is Planned Parenthood doesn’t want the truth to come out about their abortion business and will do whatever they have to in order to stop it.

There’s more at the link, including direct quotes from the letter Planned Parenthood sent to news stations.

Planned Parenthood “doctors” and staff.

If a house is infested with roaches, when you walk into a room and turn on the light, all of the roaches scurry for cover . . . and that is exactly what Planned Parenthood is doing, running and trying to hide in the dark corners.

Let’s tell the truth here: if what Planned Parenthood was doing was all fine and acceptable and above board, Cecile Richards wouldn’t care about the covertly filmed videos, not that they’d ever have been released, because they wouldn’t be news. You don’t have to hide when you’re doing the right thing.

Abortion is a very ugly business, and the abortionists have to keep as much of what they do as possible kept quiet, kept hidden away, kept secret. They are counting on a certain squeamishness among the American people to keep them from looking too closely, which is why groups like the Center for Medical Progress perform such a valuable service; they are the ones who turn on the lights, so we can all see the cockroaches running for cover.

Bad news on home ownership

From ZeroHedge:

US Middle Class Stays Dead: Homeownership Drops To 48 Year Low; Median Asking Rent Soars To All Time High
Tyler Durden's picture

Three months ago, just as the last Census Homeownership and residential vacancy report hit, Gallup released its latest survey which confirmed just how dead the American Dream has become for tens if not hundreds of millions of Americans.

According to the poll, the number of Americans who did not currently own a home and say they do not think they will buy a home in “the foreseeable future,” had risen by one third to 41%, vs. “only” 31% two years ago. Non-homeowners’ expectations of buying a house in the next year or five years were unchanged, suggesting little change in the short-term housing market.

As Gallup wryly puts it, “what may have been a longer-term goal for many may now not be a goal at all, and this could have an effect on the longer-term housing market.”

Earlier today, the US Census released its latest homeownership data, which confirmed that for what is left of America’s middle class, owning a home has become virtually impossible, with the homeownership rate plunging from the lowest level since 1986, or 63.7%, to just 63.4% the lowest reading since the first quarter of 1967.

Three months ago, when compiling this data we said that “at this rate, by the end of the 2015 and certainly by the end of Obama’s second term, the US homeownership rate will drop to the lowest in modern US history.” That moment, as shown on the chart below, came far sooner than ever we had expected. The only question is whether the lowest homeownership print on record reported in 1965 and standing at 62.9% will be taken out in the next 2 quarters or in early 2016.

There is no surprise why this is happening. As Bloomberg notes, the biggest culprit is wage growth which “hasn’t kept up with surging home prices. The average household income in June was 4 percent below a record high set in early 2008, even as unemployment dropped to its pre-recession rate, according to Sentier Research LLC.”

“We’re still suffering the effects of the housing collapse and the financial crisis,” said Mark Vitner, senior economist with Wells Fargo Securities in Charlotte, North Carolina. “We may have another percentage point to go before we see a bottom” in the homeownership rate, he said.

Yes, it is safe assume that the imminent lowest homeownership print in US history may be the “bottom.”

Still, the ongoing death of the middle class is not bad news to everyone: landlords, of which private equity firm Blackstone recently became the biggest in the US, are reaping unseen profits courtesy of runaway inflation in at least one item: rent.1

Because as homeownership falls, demand for rental housing is booming. The vacancy rate for rented homes in the U.S. fell to 6.8% in the first quarter from 7.5% a year earlier. It was the lowest first-quarter rate since 1986.

And the punchline, which should come as no surprise to anyone: the median monthly asking rent just rose to a record $803 across the US. Words, however do not do the relentless increase in rent justice, so here is something far better.

There’s more depressing news at the original.

Home ownership has traditionally been the the most important investment Americans could make, and it was just as much of a working-class as a middle-class investment.2 The home was something which the working family bought, and paid for, frequently over thirty years, but was then something the family owned, free and clear, in the owners’ later working and retirement years. More, as inflation moved slowly ahead, the principle and interest parts of the mortgage payment remain constant, thus reducing the homeowners’ payments, in real terms, as the years passed.34

But something bad happened. As homes were being considered more an more of an investment, too many people took out too many second, and even third, mortgages, borrowing against their equity, to buy consumer goods, thus adding on payments which ate away at any advantage gained when inflation lowered the real value of the first mortgage payment. Add to that the too-easy money of the first decade of this century, which allowed too many people who really shouldn’t be mortgage-worthy to get mortgages, and while home ownership rates soared, bad loans multiplied, crashing the entire market.

To me, the problem is two-fold. First, we have seen a marked tendency to larger, more expensive homes; my common phrase is that people used to have six kids in a 1,500 ft² home, and now everybody thinks they need a 3,500 ft² home to bring up one child. Not only do people want larger, more luxurious homes, as networks like HGTV push, but builders learned along time ago that profit margins were higher in building fewer, larger houses. This is pricing the entry-level home buyer out of the market, and leaving people who already have “starter” homes afraid that they cannot upgrade, because they fear not being able to sell their current homes. Second, not only will renters not see the real value of their housing payments gradually declining, but too many people will retire while still having mortgage or rent payments to make.5

Eventually, this will lead to some serious economic disruptions in our economy, as people will be reaching retirement age without any real prospect of being able to live on their Social Security benefits and 401(k) savings; having to pay rent, or still having several years of mortgage payments to make will impoverish many senior citizens.

  1. Full disclosure: the Editor of The First Street Journal is a landlord. We are renting out only one property, our retirement home in Kentucky, because we do not want the house to just sit vacant until we retire. Our actual income from the property is small, but we are still landlords.
  2. As I have said before, I consider everyone who works for a living to be working class, whether he is a laborer or a bank president. I am taking this distinction here not because it is one in my mind, but because my definition is not that widely shared.
  3. This is not true of adjustable-rate mortgages, something I consider to be a truly stupid thing to take out, unless the buyer is planning on selling the home within the first two years.
  4. The taxes and insurance parts of the payment do tend to increase as time passes.
  5. We do not have a mortgage on our retirement home; we paid cash for the property.

Democrisy! Hillary Clinton uses fuel hogging private jet to go to and from her climate change proposals presentation

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — or at least her campaign staff — tweeted:

William Teach mocked her:

Woman Who Made Massive Fossil Fueled Travel An Accomplishment Really Worried About Climate Change
By William Teach July 27, 2015 – 7:59 am

The question here is, is Hillary Clinton serious about “climate change”, or is she just pandering to the unhinged Lefty base? While she has included Hotcoldwetdry in negotiations and pronouncements previously, she has never seemed very passionate about the issue. During her time at State, it seemed more of a box check and an extension of Obama’s beliefs:

(Bloomberg) Hillary Clinton on Sunday set two “bold national goals” to combat climate change, promising that if she’s elected president, she would set the United States on a path toward producing enough clean renewable to power every home in America within a decade.

She would also initiate a process that would bring the total number of solar panels installed nationwide to more than half a billion before the end of her first term, her campaign said in a fact sheet released Sunday as it also posted a video in which Clinton lays out her ambitions.

“We cannot wait any longer” to act on climate change, the Democratic front-runner says in the video. “It’s time we stand for a healthier climate, stand for cleaner air, for science, for innovation, for our children, for reality, for the future.”

Say, I wonder how many solar panels are on her homes? I’m betting she won’t answer. Right now, though, she has gone all in on this patronizing push

There’s more at the link, but the answer to Mr Teach’s question about whether Mrs Clinton is actually serious about “climate change” comes from the Daily Mail:

EXCLUSIVE: Video shows Hillary Clinton boarding private jet just hours after launching global-warming push – and she’s using a FRENCH aircraft that burns 347 gallons of fuel every hour!

  • Distinctive French-built Dassault Falcon 900B airplane was spotted in Des Moines, Iowa Monday afternoon, with Hillary Clinton climbing the stairs
  • An aide held a giant umbrella over her head so her hair didn’t get wet 
  • The 19-seater jet whooshed Clinton from Iowa to New Hampshire with the ink still drying on her presidential campagn’s climate change agenda
  • Plane burns 347 gallons of fuel per hour and costs $5,850 per hour to rent
  • Its itineraries are secret because the owner has asked the Federal Aviation Administration to withhold flight plans from the public


Just hours after Hillary Clinton unveiled her presidential campaign’s push to solve global warming through an aggressive carbon-cutting plan, she sauntered up the steps of a 19-seat private jet in Des Moines, Iowa.

The aircraft, a Dassault model Falcon 900B, burns 347 gallons of fuel per hour. And like all Dassault business jets, Hillary’s ride was made in France.

The Trump-esque transportation costs $5,850 per hour to rent, according to the website of Executive Fliteways, the company that owns it.

CARBON MONSTER: The Dassault Falcon 900B business jet burns 347 gallons of jet fuel per hour, and was Hillary Clinton’s ride of choice on Monday (seen entering the jet in her light blue pantsuit)

On Monday the Democratic presidential front-runner announced the details of her initiative to tackle climate change, calling it ‘one of the most urgent threats of our time.

But shortly afterward, a videographer working with the conservative America Rising PAC spotted her at the private air terminal in Des Moines.

Fifteen seconds of video shot just after 12:00 noon, local time, shows Clinton walking up the plane’s stairs while an aide hodls a giant black umbrella over her head to shield her from falling rain.

‘Despite her campaign’s best efforts to rebrand her as a down-to-earth fighter for “everyday Americans,” Hillary Clinton’s jet-setting ways are just further confirmation that she’s out of touch with the American people,’ the group’s communications driector Jeff Bechdel told DailyMail.com.

‘It’s that kind of hypocrisy that makes the majority of voters say Clinton is not honest or trustworthy.’

There’s more at the link, but you can bet your last shilling that good American newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post won’t have a word about his kind of thing.

There are really only two explanations for this:

  1. Either Hillary Clinton thinks that climate change is nothing but hogwash, but she’ll use it in her campaign to keep the left on board; or
  2. Mrs Clinton believes that climate change is something real, but that the elites are simply too far above everybody else to be concerned with having to conserve themselves.

In either case, she’s nothing but a liar. Of course, we’ve known that all along.