Showing posts with label Clinton Foundation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clinton Foundation. Show all posts

Thursday, October 11, 2018

Clinton’s Speaking Tour Sucks $5.4 million from Democratic Party Election Campaigns

 

Will Clinton tour prove the hypocrisy of MeToo movement in the process?

The army of Democratic apologists who refuse to let go of the checkered Clinton legacy say the thirteen-city tour of President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is an opportunity to share their life experiences with the nation, as if we do not already know about their life experiences.




They also claim the Clintons are waiting until after the midterm election so as not to interfere with the Democratic campaigns desperately in need of money for the upcoming election.

How big of them.  Of course, they did not tell us the tickets were going on sale immediately for all thirteen events spread out over the next six months.  Nor did they tell us the real price of tickets.



The talks, titled "An Evening with President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton," will focus on "stories and inspiring anecdotes that shaped their historic careers in public service, while also discussing issues of the day and looking toward the future," according to the tour's organizer, Live Nation.  The first event is slated for Nov. 18 in Las Vegas.



Live Nation is the promoter behind Michelle Obama's book tour for her new memoir, "Becoming," and has handled tours for the likes of BeyoncĂ©, Taylor Swift (hummm any coincidence?) and Bruno Mars.  While they did say the tickets would cost between $200 and $700, they forgot to mention the resale arrangement and promotion fees that would drive the prices into the stratosphere.

So, I checked with the ticket selling groups about the event planned for Washington, D.C. and here is what I found.  Yes, there are some $200, seat still available, even though the tickets just went on sale, but virtually all the expensive seats have been pre-sold.  The cost of the floor, orchestra and other prime locations, well it ran as high as $4,233 per seat.



Now if we take the past history of the Clinton’s and speaking, it has been documented that Bill and Hillary earned $153 million for 729 speaking engagements between 2001 and 2015, note she served as Secretary of State between 2009 and 2013 before launching her presidential run.

Once upon a time it was illegal to rake in millions of dollars in speaking fees while being a government employee.  On average, they each earned about $210,000 per engagement, meaning they would get $420,000 if both appeared together.  Not bad for about sixty minutes work.



Since preferred seating for the new tour has already sold out of most prime seats and boxes, and the real cost is not $700 but $4,233 so far, the tour could easily generate around $5.4 million dollars for the Clintons.

Too bad for some Democratic candidates facing close elections and needing a last shot of money for media campaigns, $5.4 million in potential Democratic contributions has already been snatched by the Clintons.  Since they also closed their Foundation before the federal auditors could expose the billions of dollars in questionable expenditures, the new fees will go straight into their pockets.


As if their sordid experience with horrendous speaking fees were not enough, their in-your-face presence on the speaking trail will collide with the midterm and beginning of the primary campaign for president in 2020.  Did she forget she announced she was running for president January 20, 2007, almost two years before the last election?

Then there is the question of how is the MeToo movement going to react to the tour since they have been the poster group for the Democratic party recently in the Kavanaugh hearings.  You see, MeToo formed in response to the Harvey Weinstein sexual escapades and not only was he one of the biggest Democratic party fundraising heroes, but thirty-eight years ago he helped Bill Clinton pay off millions of dollars of legal fees and payoffs to the numerous female victims of then President Clinton.



In a number of those legendary acts of misogyny, which is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls, Hillary attempted, as First Lady, to discredit and destroy the credibility of victims of sexual abuse. Misogyny can manifest in numerous ways, including social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility, androcentrism, patriarchy, male privilege, belittling of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification.
 

Not sure how many of those describe his two-year affair with Monica Lewinsky.  After Bill lied about the affair, Lewinsky stated that between November 1995 and March 1997, she had nine sexual encounters in the White House Oval Office with then-President Bill Clinton.  According to her testimony, these involved fellatio (oral sex), and other sexual acts, but not sexual intercourse.  She was a White House intern at the time.


Ironically, when the true story of Weinstein came out, and the MeToo movement was formed to help female victims of sexual abuse, Hillary actually tried to take credit for starting the new movement, a rather bold statement considering her decades long friendship with Weinstein and her previous attempts to discredit the victims of the infidelity of her husband.


If MeToo chooses to ignore protesting the Clinton’s on tour, best friends of Harvey Weinstein for decades, after their high-profile protests against Weinstein and Kavanaugh among others, they will demonstrate a level of hypocrisy unbecoming to their cause and show they are not interested in helping all victims, and are willing to help cover up those of preferred Democratic party leaders.



Finally, perhaps all those Democratic candidates desperately in need of financial assistance before the midterm election in November, will finally start to understand how they have been played for decades by the Democratic party leadership and begin seeking truth for themselves.

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

The Politics of Hypocrisy in the American Election - What happened to the Gatekeepers of Truth?

.
First Published May 8, 2009

The Politics of Hypocrisy in the American Election

Obamaville - April 23 - The Clinton Legacy - Public Service or Public Con Job - and who is being conned?



With Bill and Hillary Clinton continuing to soar in popularity in the minds of some Democrats, although not in the eyes of liberal and progressive Democratic institutions like The New York Times, Newsweek, and The Washington Post, the stunning article today in The New York Times raises more questions.


The newspaper disclosure about the manipulation of hundreds of millions of foreign dollars in the Clinton Foundation while she was Secretary of State probably explains better than any other explanation why Hillary erased tens of thousands of emails from her personal server covering that period.


Of course, Clinton apologists say it was just the Clintons being the Clinton's and they are just targets of a Right Wing conspiracy.  However, no one would label the Times or Post right wing radicals.


Bill Clinton is almost certainly the most popular person in American politics. A new NBC-Wall Street Journal poll showed that 56 percent of people have a positive view of the former president while just 26 percent hold a negative one.  It makes him more popular than his wife; 44 percent of Americans have a positive view of Hillary Clinton while 36 percent have a negative one.


Most Clinton fans point to the lead Hillary holds in the choice to be Democrat nominee for president, a number that wavers around 60%.  Running against Joe Biden who has not said he is in the race, nor campaigned, he sits at about 10% of the Democrat votes, Clinton has already lost 40% of the Democrats with no opposition.


People may be tired of the Clinton love of walking the tightrope when it comes to federal laws and regulations.  Bill Clinton spent over $7 million on legal fees to avoid impeachment and settlements for lawsuits against him by women.


Of course, he smoked pot but did not inhale and had oral sex with an intern but did not actually have sex, so one must adjust to the Clinton definitions.


We are yet to open the book on the changes Clinton made in the twilight of his presidency, which may have directly led to the collapse of our economy.


In addition, there is Goldman Sachs and their relationship with both Clintons in bailing out his legal expenses.  They also arranged for $500,000 speaker fees, and channeled tens of millions of foreign, and somewhat illegal dollars, into the Clinton Foundation of which she was a director, even while Secretary of State.



Did I mention their relationship to former Goldman Sachs executive Rahm Emanuel, Clinton's chief fundraiser, and Obama's Chief of Staff?


You get the idea, if Hillary runs unopposed as it now looks she may spend far more money defending herself against the acts of her husband, their family foundation, the $200 plus million dollars in their bank accounts, and their very strange relationship with the richest people throughout the world, some from countries whose money is banned.


Just what transpired to lift the Clinton couple from being broke according to Hillary in 2000 when Bill left office millions of dollars of debt from legal fees and lawsuit settlements, to being worth up to $200 million along with the assets of the Clinton Foundation 14 years later.


Most disappointing if I were a Democrat is how they continually sucker in the progressive wing of the party with promises of helping the little people, as they rocket up the ladder of former politicians who got rich manipulating the power of government.


Not only are they the classic politicians who have run Washington for far too long, but they show  no signs of stopping their efforts to convert public service to personal gain.


Ironically, Obama seemed to have been wary of the wily Clinton clan.  The White House said when he made Hillary Secretary of State she signed an agreement to publicly report all Clinton Foundation sources of money, and she was subject to preserving a permanent email record of all her dealings as Secretary.  Both promises seem to have been broken.


This might raise the question did the Clinton's tell Obama they would support him in the elections if she became secretary of State?  It could be the appointment was a bribe or a payoff but not being a right wing Republican I have no grounds to pursue such an abuse of power.


Hillary's biggest fear should be not having an opponent and having to spend the next 15 months before the general election explaining the Clinton actions over the past two decades.
.

Thursday, October 27, 2016

Hillary Clinton collapsing in polls as Liberal Media hit panic button - Oops, maybe the election is not over yet! Her House of Cards comes down!

.


News Media Scrambles to explain away Hillary collapse in Polls - ABC caught in Middle with faulty sampling data 

The Washington Post ABC News tracking poll shows Hillary Clinton collapse from a twelve-point lead to six points in just three days.  This astonishing collapse in her lead does not even reflect the devastating news about the Obamacare financial fiasco, or the never-ending stream of damaging emails released by Wiki Leaks, which detail how the Clinton organization made a non-profit foundation into a multi-million dollar slush fund for the family.


The tracking poll, under ABC news anchor and political director George Stephanopoulos, deviated from three other tracking polls by twelve points just three days ago when all the liberal news networks declared the race was over and Hillary was the winner.

Stephanopoulos, you might remember, is a former United States Democratic Party political adviser who served as a Communications Director for the Bill Clinton 1992 Presidential Campaign and worked for President Clinton with Rahm Emanuel, Clinton fundraiser and Obama Chief of Staff.  George subsequently became Clinton's White House Communications Director, then Senior Adviser for Policy and Strategy before departing in December 1996.


Did I mention George Stephanopoulos also contributed several thousand dollars to the Clinton Foundation, after he joined ABC News, which seems to be a conflict of interest for a news anchor of a major television network?


The Hillary Clinton campaign adopted the news media strategy of saying the presidential race is over, thus allowing Clinton to reduce the number of campaign events, to attend a concert by British pop singer Adele, and redirect her efforts to getting house and senate candidates elected.  Over-confidence by the nominee seemed to be dominate in the past few weeks.


What in the world, is a British endorsement going to do in the American presidential campaign?  Last time a politician tried to influence an election in another country, like when President Obama went to the United Kingdom and told the voters to vote against withdrawing from the European Union or there would be a world economic collapse, the British voters ignored him and voted to leave the EU, and there has been no economic collapse.


Now Hillary attends a concert of Adele, gets an endorsement, and considers it a campaign event.  About the only contribution Adele can make to the American election is to remind Hillary how to handle being sick and cancelling concert appearances, which she does often.


As for the polls, when word leaked out that the polls were purposefully over-sampling Democrats, not even the Washington Post could stand the heat.  Three days ago, the poll reflected a nine percent over-sample; today the same poll reduced the Democrat over-sample to seven percent.  There was no mention of this poll manipulation in reports today of the huge collapse in Clinton support by ABC or George.

The ABC poll remains six to seven points different from all three other tracking polls due to the continued over-sample of Democrats.  In truth, there is a dead heat in the race and it is far too close to call, very different from the networks and newspapers claiming last week, the race was over, and projecting a Hillary landslide.


So does this constitute "rigging" the election as Trump claimed?  The voters will be the judge on Election Day.  Enjoy the next week of liberal national media types choking over the real status and all of a sudden trying to explain Trump might have a shot after all.

Saturday, October 08, 2016

What the National News Media Failed to Tell You about the Election, Hurricane, and Haiti

.

Long ago when I worked for the federal government I learned that often the foreign press tells a much different story than the American news media when it comes to politics in America.  So I began checking the foreign news on a daily basis and compared it to the USA news media coverage.

Not only is the difference remarkable, our Constitution and the guarantee of individual freedom and freedom of the press has no real impact in determining the truth.


In over fifty years of monitoring the media, however, there has never been such a dramatic breakdown in telling the truth as this year.  The good news is the public is highly skeptical of both candidates and parties so few believe the news media version either.

In the past media outlets tended to be ideologically linked to a political party or a political philosophy and often both.  This year you can throw out history because the lines of demarcation between the warring parties has been blurred, compromised, twisted and turned.

Perhaps Bush had to endorse Clinton

Forget truth, it does not stand a chance.  At the same time polarization has achieved such a miserable level that the difference between political parties is even blurred as both are addicted to massive corporate funds.

Once upon a time networks sought and told the truth.  Sadly, that day is far behind us.  More truth comes from illegally hacked emails than from politician's mouths.  More truth comes from the downtrodden and often forgotten than from the powerful special interests who rule America.


In the interest of passing on truth to you, the following links, most to foreign media outlets, will give you another side of the campaign our media media fail to identify.  Yes the world is watching, and the first thing they notice is the institutional bias, deception, and manipulation of the news.

Hurricane Matthew and Haiti Coverage



The Independent UK
Hurricane Matthew: In Haiti the death toll stands at 877 but the US media does not seem to care

Al Jazeera News

Horrors left by Hurricane Matthew become clear in Haiti



Haiti and Clinton Foundation

Telesur News of Latin America

Hillary Clinton Already Has Destructive Legacy in Latin America



Politico News
The Clintons’ Haiti Screw-Up, As Told By Hillary’s Emails


Huffington Post
The Clintons’ Haiti Screw-Up, As Told By Hillary’s Email

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/crossover-dreams/the-clinton-bush-haiti-fu_b_778503.html?



National Review
How the Clinton Foundation Got Rich off Poor Haitians


Democratic Underground
The Clinton-Bush Fund has closed up shop in Haiti

Hacked Email Story


BBC World News

Hillary Clinton's Wall St speeches published by Wikileaks

.