The Washington Post reported last week that foreign sources, including governments, made up a third of those who have given the foundation more than $1 million over time. The Post found that the foundation, begun by former president Bill Clinton, has raised nearly $2 billion since its creation in 2001.
Foreign governments and individuals are prohibited from giving money to U.S. political candidates, to prevent outside influence over national leaders. But the foundation has given donors a way to potentially gain favor with the Clintons outside the traditional political limits.
Of all the idiotic wars that the dangerously inept American politicians propagandize the public into accepting, the latest ISIS conflict is the most Orwellian and terrifying. Not only was the emergence of ISIS the direct consequence of the chaos left over by the Iraq war — which in itself was based on lies and inaccurate information — but the primary funders of the latest existential terrorist threat du jour are America’s Persian Gulf allies.
That approach, which Mrs. Clinton called “economic statecraft,” emerged in discussions with Robert Hormats, a former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. investment banker who has worked in Democratic and Republican administrations and became an undersecretary of state. “One of the very first items was, how do we strengthen the role of the State Department in economic policy?” he says.
Early in Mrs. Clinton’s tenure, according to Mr. Hormats, Microsoft’s then Chief Research Officer Craig Mundie asked the State Department to send a ranking official to a fourth annual meeting of U.S. software executives and Chinese government officials about piracy and Internet freedom. Mr. Hormats joined the December 2009 meeting in Beijing.
Mr. Hormats says there was no relation between Microsoft’s donations and the State Department’s participation in the China conference.
Before every overseas trip, says Mr. Hormats, the former undersecretary of state, he helped prepare a list of U.S. corporate interests for Mrs. Clinton to advocate while abroad.
If you can’t beat em, mock em. That’s essentially my motto going into the imperial spectacle known as the 2016 American Presidential election. With another Bush and another Clinton likely on the ballot, there’s basically only one candidate running, and I plan on proving this in no uncertain terms over the next couple of years.
As Hilary Clinton starts to ponder the curtains she wants to hang in the Oval Office, there is only one person who can realistically stand in her way: Rand Paul.
Readers of this site will be well aware that I spend very little time focusing on Presidential politics. There are many reasons for this, but more than anything else, I believe there are two key components to genuine cultural change, and none of them have to do with electing a savior. These are:
1) Knowledge – Ignorance is not bliss. Particularly when it comes to the advance or decline of a civilization. Thomas Jefferson said it best:
Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.
I am trying to do my own little part in that regard here at Liberty Blitzkrieg.
2) Internal Change – It is much easier to complain about others and the world at large than it is to improve oneself. I’m as guilty of this as anyone, but I am cognizant that you can’t change the outside world unless you have changed what’s inside. Gandhi said it best:
We but mirror the world. All the tendencies present in the outer world are to be found in the world of our body. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change. As a man changes his own nature, so does the attitude of the world change towards him. This is the divine mystery supreme. A wonderful thing it is and the source of our happiness. We need not wait to see what others do.
We canelect all the saviors we want to positions of power, but unless we are able to master the above, nothing will permanently evolve in the right direction, and we will be cursed into repeating the same painful cycle over and over again. Crash and burn.
All that said,I don’t think Presidential politics, or politics in general, have to be as horribly corrupt as they are today. I do think it is possible to elect courageous statesmen as opposed to power hungry, money grubbing frontmen and women.
As a consequence of my spending so much time reading about the world around me, I think I have a reasonable grasp of the potential contenders for the 2016 Presidential election from both of the tired and corrupt main parties. For all the chatter about Elizabeth Warren, I think Hilary Clinton is an absolute lock for the Democratic nomination. In fact, just yesterday the Huffington Post published an article detailing how the Democrat establishment had already made its move to cleverly neuter Warren by giving her more power within the Senate. For example:
Throughout Senate history, individual members have often steered away from leadership positions, worried that the horse-trading and consensus-gathering that leadership involves would neuter their power. But the Senate has been evolving in recent years into a much more leadership-driven institution, in which individual senators and even chairmen have less power than they once did compared to caucus leadership. Today, decisions that would have been made in side negotiations, in committee or on the floor are instead made by leadership.
It’s those meetings that Warren will now be a part of. At the same time, she will diminish her ability to maintain that inside position if she criticizes the party from the outside. That dilemma, however, has been with her every step of her career, as she has moved closer to the center of power.
We’ll see how this turns out, but it looks to me that the Democrats are giving her a sense of importance so she “plays ball.” Particularly when it comes to 2016.
On the Republican side, there isn’t a single candidate I would even consider supporting other than Rand Paul. Besides him, everyone else is either a neo-con establishment crony (Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney), or an intellectually challenged up and comer pandering basely to the lowest common denominator.
I am not considering Rand because I think he will “save America” or because his father is Ron Paul. I am considering Rand because I agree with him on enough positions that are important to me. Don’t take it from me though. Read the following article from H. A. Goodman, titled: I’m a Liberal Democrat. I’m Voting for Rand Paul in 2016. Here Is Why. Here are some excerpts:
Rand Paul is my candidate in 2016, even though the Tea Party would consider me Joseph Stalin’s love child. I’m for immigration reform and believe that illegal immigrants benefit this country. I’ve written many articles criticizing Tea Party paranoia. I’m against demagoguery from people like Paul Ryan who unfairly target inner city citizens and I’m for the federal legalization of gay marriage and marijuana. I think Ted Cruz is a buffoon and that we should listen to Stephen Hawking over Senator “Green Eggs and Ham” on climate change. Finally, I’ve also written two novels about the evils of religious fundamentalism and political demagoguery.
On all these possible points of contention with Rand Paul, the reality is that he isn’t Ted Cruz or Lou Dobbs on these matters. Sen. Paul is a self-described “moderate” on immigration, much to the dismay of Tea Party Republicans. Paul’s recent Bill Maher interview shows he’s open to cleaner energy alternatives. Most importantly, Paul doesn’t abide by the right-wing rhetoric blaming poor people for their predicament, or claiming God wants people to do this or that. Congress at the end of the day has the power of the purse, so if President Rand Paul scares you on economic matters, simply remember that only Congress can repeal or alter government programs and decide on budgets.
I’ve never voted for a Republican in my life, but in 2016, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul will be my choice for president. On issues that affect the long-term survival of this country; grandiose concerns like perpetual war that could send generations of Americans fighting and dying in the Middle East, domestic spying that could eventually lead to a police state, and numerous other topics, Rand Paul has shown that he bucks both the Republican and Democratic penchant for succumbing to public opinion, an overreaction to the terror threat, and a gross indifference to an egregious assault on our rights as citizens.
Yes, I’ll have to concede some of my beliefs and roll the dice as to whether or not he’ll flip-flop on issues, but Hillary Clinton and President Obama have changed their views on everything from gay marriage to marijuana legalization and Iraq, so I’m taking an educated gamble with Sen. Paul. Hillary Clinton alone has gone back and forth on enough issues to make the former Secretary of State a human version of Pong, so I’m not too worried about voting for Paul. Below are ten reasons this Democrat is voting for Rand Paul in 2016 and if my liberal membership card is revoked, I’ll live with that; I’m not an ideologue like Sean Hannity, I’m an American.
1. Rand Paul will be more cautious with waging war than Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush. Sen. Paul has called Obama’s ISIS war illegal and isn’t against defending American interests through military intervention, but stresses the importance of Congress making these decisions. Hillary Clinton, in contrast, thinks we should have armed the Syrian rebel groups several years ago. Try naming even one of the Syrian rebel groups and explaining their differences with ISIS. Furthermore,The Week states that “Clinton’s instincts appear to be far more hawkish than Barack Obama’s.” Imagine a more hawkish Obama and you’ll get the next President Clinton. Also, famed neocon Robert Kagan is one of Clinton’s advisers and states in The New York Times, “I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy.” That should tell you how liberal Clinton will be on matters of perpetual war in the Middle East.
2. The Los Angeles Times has referred to Paul as “one of the foremost critics of the government’s domestic spying program.” In early 2014, Sen. Paul filed a lawsuit against the NSA over domestic spying. Neither Hillary Clinton, Jeb Bush, nor any other candidate in 2016 has made this a top priority in their campaign. Sen. Paul has also voted against PATRIOT Act Extension bills, voted for an amendment that prohibits detention of U.S. citizens without trial (which of course didn’t pass the Senate), and his voting record protects American citizens from politicians paranoid over terrorism. Sen. Paul was vehemently against the NDAA Indefinite Detention Bill that passed in 2013, because, “This bill takes away that right and says that if someone thinks you’re dangerous, we will hold you without a trial. It’s an abomination.”
3. Rand Paul has teamed up with liberal Democratic Sen. Cory Booker to reform the criminal justice system. Their bill would improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans who’ve been adversely affected by non-violent criminal sentences. Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush don’t care about reforming the criminal justice system, and if they do, it’s on the bottom of their to do lists, far behind cozying up to Wall Street and increasing America’s military presence in the Middle East.
4. POLITICO states Hillary Clinton is “Wall Street Republicans’ dark secret” in 2016. I don’t see Clinton as being any more liberal than Paul on Wall Street or banking, although perhaps she’d be more willing to save failed corporations than the Kentucky Senator. Also, Paul is one of the few Republicans who’s addressed the GOP’s love affair with corporations, stating that, “We cannot be the party of fat cats, rich people, and Wall Street…corporate welfare should once and for all be ended.”
5. Sen. Paul thinks Edward Snowden was treated unfairly as a whistleblower and should have only spent “a few years” in prison. No other candidate in 2016 would dare take that position. The Wall Street Journal criticizedPaul’s position on the Snowden matter, and their criticism actually makes me like Rand Paul in 2016 even more. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is “puzzled” why Snowden would want to leave the U.S. and feels he might have helped terrorists with his disclosures.
6. Rand Paul publicized the issue of a possible government drone strike, on American soil, against American citizens. No, I’m not making this up. I don’t want to get blown up eating a burrito at Chipotle because I visited Egypt to see the pyramids and happened to sit in a café frequented by a terrorist. In 2013, Rand Paul asked Eric Holder whether or not American citizens could be targeted by drones on American soil. Jon Stewart has a great segment about this. Eric Holder actually answered that theoretically, yes, drone strikes to kill Americans on U.S. soil could be viewed as legal, depending on the circumstance. If this doesn’t frighten you, then vote for Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush, since neither one cares about this matter. Issues like drone strikes on American soil, against Americans, is why I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. This sort of thing is being discussed today in plain sight, yet only Rand Paul and a few others have shown outrage over the potential of our government to possibly target its own citizens. If it’s not an ISIL beheading video, nobody seems to care nowadays.
7. Rand Paul could bring back an era in American politics when conservatives and liberals socialized with one another. This alone would solve some of the gridlock in Washington. Paul has worked with 7 leading Democratson a number of issues; working on everything from judicial reform, NSA surveillance, the limits of presidential authority to launch strikes in Iraq, and other issues. Imagine Ted Cruz reaching out to Nancy Pelosi, or Mitch McConnell having lunch with Hillary Clinton. Rand Paul, on the other hand, has worked to emulate this picture.
8. Rand Paul will not gut the economic safety nets of this country in the manner espoused by Paul Ryan and others. He doesn’t want to dismantleSocial Security. I do disagree with his view of the SNAP Program and certain other issues. However, Paul has stated, “I’m for a social safety net, but it should be minimized to helping those who can’t help themselves.” I don’t ever recall Ted Cruz or Paul Ryan making that type of statement and mainstream Republicans do everything in their power to promote the view that safety nets equate to communism or socialism.
9. Neoconservatives hate Rand Paul. They like Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush a lot more, and The Weekly Standard, National Review, and others have voiced their reservations about a Rand Paul presidency. If neocons disagree with you, then you must be doing something right.
10. Rand Paul could be the answer to our philosophical conundrum as a nation. We’re stuck with a GOP who thinks the globe is one giant Stratego board game with God helping roll the dice, a Democratic Party more focused on defending Obamacare than stopping endless wars or protecting civil liberties, and a populace that cares more about beheading videos than the erosion of rights or the welfare of our warriors. Is Paul the answer? I’m not certain. But compared to Hillary and Jeb Bush, I’ll take the man who stated, “I do blame the Iraq War on the chaos that is in the Middle East.”
What is so interesting to me about the above list, is that although I would strongly disagree with Mr. Goodman on many issues, I concur with his assessment of the importance of the above. NSA spying, aggressive and unconstitutional foreign policy, reforming the criminal justice system and drone strikes. These aren’t side issues to me. They are core issues. He didn’t even mention Audit the Fed, which Rand sponsored in the Senate and would almost surely continue to push for.
These issues cut cross meaningless labels of “liberal,” “conservative,” “progressive” and “libertarian.” These are human issues. Issues of civil liberties and decency (read:#StandwithRand: The Filibuster that United Libertarian and Progressive Activists). They are issues on which Rand Paul is on the right side of history and Hilary Clinton clearly on the wrong. That’s precisely why I think the GOP establishment will do everything in its power to prevent him from getting the nomination. Why you ask?
. A less hillbilly version of George W. Bush. I strongly believe that the GOP establishment would rather have Hilary Clinton in power than Rand Paul. I dare them to prove me wrong.
Rand recently appeared on Bill Maher’s show. At the end, Bill said:
I think it’s only a good thing for America, when I’m not sure who I’m gonna vote for next time.
Think about that for a minute. Unless he makes some spectacular flip-flops, Rand Paul would get all the libertarian votes, all the GOP votes (they’d vote for Satan to keep Hilary out of office), and a lot more genuine liberal/progressive votes than you might think.
He is the only candidate who can beat Hilary. That’s why Rand Paul is Hilary Clinton’s worst nightmare.
One attribute I like most about Glenn Greenwald is that he never pulls punches. One of his most prescient and cutting political lines came earlier this year when he made some observations on the upcoming 2016 Presidential election, in which two status quo, corrupt, bloodthirsty con-artists will compete for the Oval Office. While we don’t yet know which crony the GOP will put up, Hillary is pretty much a foregone conclusion for the Democrats. Greenwald observed:
Hillary is banal, corrupted, drained of vibrancy and passion. I mean, she’s been around forever, the Clinton circle. She’s a fucking hawk and like a neocon, practically. She’s surrounded by all these sleazy money types who are just corrupting everything everywhere. But she’s going to be the first female president, and women in America are going to be completely invested in her candidacy. Opposition to her is going to be depicted as misogynistic, like opposition to Obama has been depicted as racist. It’s going to be this completely symbolic messaging that’s going to overshadow the fact that she’ll do nothing but continue everything in pursuit of her own power. They’ll probably have a gay person after Hillary who’s just going to do the same thing.
Well Greenwald is back, and this time he outlines exactly who’s excited about Hillary’s forthcoming run for the Presidency. Here are some excerpts from the Intercept:
It’s easy to strike a pose of cynicism when contemplating Hillary Clinton’s inevitable (and terribly imminent) presidential campaign. As a drearily soulless, principle-free, power-hungry veteran of DC’s game of thrones, she’s about as banal of an American politician as it gets. One of the few unique aspects to her, perhaps the only one, is how the genuinely inspiring gender milestone of her election will (following the Obama model) be exploited to obscure her primary role as guardian of the status quo.
But one shouldn’t be so jaded. There is genuine and intense excitement over the prospect of (another) Clinton presidency. Many significant American factions regard her elevation to the Oval Office as an opportunity for rejuvenation, as a stirring symbol of hope and change, as the vehicle for vital policy advances. Those increasingly inspired factions include:
Wall Street
Down on Wall Street they don’t believe (Clinton’s populist rhetoric) for a minute. While the finance industry does genuinely hate Warren, the big bankers love Clinton, and by and large they badly want her to be president. Many of the rich and powerful in the financial industry—among them, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, Morgan Stanley CEO James Gorman, Tom Nides, a powerful vice chairman at Morgan Stanley, and the heads of JPMorganChase and Bank of America—consider Clinton a pragmatic problem-solver not prone to populist rhetoric. To them, she’s someone who gets the idea that we all benefit if Wall Street and American business thrive. What about her forays into fiery rhetoric? They dismiss it quickly as political maneuvers. None of them think she really means her populism.
The Israel Lobby
Let’s be clear. When it comes to Israel, there is no Bill Clinton 2.0. The former president is probably unique among presidents for the depth of his feeling for Israel and his willingness to put aside his own frustrations with certain aspects of Israel’s behavior, such as settlements. But this accommodation applies to Hillary too. Both Bill and Hillary are so enamored with the idea of Israel and its unique history that they are prone to make certain allowances for the reality of Israel’s behavior, such as the continuing construction of settlements.
Interventionists (i.e., war zealots)
“I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy,” Mr. Kagan said, adding that the next step after Mr. Obama’s more realist approach “could theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table” if elected president. “If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue,” he added, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else.”
Like what, the “Mook Mafia” platform? (you’ll catch that reference later on).
Old school neocons
After nearly a decade in the political wilderness, the neoconservative movement is back. . . . Even as they castigate Mr. Obama, the neocons may be preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver’s seat of American foreign policy. . . .
Other neocons have followed [Robert] Kagan’s careful centrism and respect for Mrs. Clinton. Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted in The New Republic this year that “it is clear that in administration councils she was a principled voice for a strong stand on controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or the intervention in Libya.”
It’s easy to imagine Mrs. Clinton’s making room for the neocons in her administration. No one could charge her with being weak on national security with the likes of Robert Kagan on board. . . . Far from ending, then, the neocon odyssey is about to continue. In 1972, Robert L. Bartley, the editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal and a man who championed the early neocon stalwarts, shrewdly diagnosed the movement as representing “something of a swing group between the two major parties.” Despite the partisan battles of the early 2000s, it is remarkable how very little has changed.
There’s quite a bit more to the post, which I suggest reading in full.
If for some strange reason that isn’t enough to get you jazzed up for oligarch-coddler Hilary Clinton’s campaign, perhaps some insight into the people who might run her presidential bid will change your mind. They refer to themselves as the “Mook Mafia,” and it’s basically a couple of power thirsty adolescents. Some of their emails were leaked to ABC News:
For the past five years, a prominent Democratic operative who is a leading contender to manage a Hillary Clinton presidential campaign has maintained a private email listserv for friends and associates that carries a provocative name: the “Mook Mafia.”
The listserv, which one member said reaches more than 150 fellow campaign veterans, has been a means for Robby Mook and a close friend Marlon Marshall to stay connected with many of the operatives who would likely populate a Democratic presidential campaign in 2016. Mook and Marshall have both been mentioned as possible Hillary Clinton campaign managers.
“I know many of you are out there on campaigns, crushing it mafia style,” Marshall wrote. “We unfortunately didn’t do a call this year, but Robby and I wanted to start a chain to acknowledge many in our great family who have been out there busting their tails for all that is right in the world.
“We also wanted you to know that this years reunion will actually be held early next year, January or February, and likely in New York for a weekend. Apologies for the late notice and for not sending anything out on a reunion. Please believe there will be one. The planning committee has just been a tad busy!”
The email was signed “MM,” with Marshall adding a hashtag: #mafia4life.
In the more substantive messages, though, Marshall emerges as the more aggressive of the duo. Writing in January 2010 to urge fellow “mafia” members to work hard on behalf of Massachusetts Senate candidate Martha Coakley, Marshall offered “an overall big thank you to everyone on this list who continues to fight the good fight.”
“F U Republicans. Mafia till I die,” he wrote. “If you have just a few minutes, hop on that activate and punish those voters!” (“Activate” is an apparent reference to a software program allowing volunteers to contact targeted voters by phone from anywhere in the country.)
The following year, in confirming news that he would be taking a new job that would include a move to Chicago, Marshall offered special thanks to Mook.
“First, the mafia never separates, it just continues to grow and expand and move into other states in order to destroy Republicans,” he wrote. “A special thanks to none other than the namesake himself, Deacon Robby Mook. Without him, there would be no mafia and I for sure know I would not have learned as much as I have in this business and have this opportunity.”
Mook responded by announcing “mandatory” attendance at a goodbye party for Marshall at a Capitol Hill bar.
“It’s true: Marlon Marshall is leaving our fold. Today is the day the grownassman [sic] grows up and leaves for America’s Second City. I know this prodical [sic] son will return to the mafia manger soon enough to smite Republicans mafia-style,” Mook wrote.
You can’t make this stuff up. I don’t know about you, but…
Rand Paul Heads To Guatemala To Conduct Charity Eye Surgeries
ANTIGUA, Guatemala — Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is visiting Guatemala to perform pro bono eye surgeries, a trip his political advisers are saying is strictly charity work but offers an important platform for the Kentucky Republican at the epicenter of the border crisis.
“It is an honor for me to be able to use my skills as an ophthalmologist to give back to the community,” Paul told Breitbart News. “I am thrilled to join a team of ophthalmologists in Guatemala to perform life changing and sight-restoring surgeries.”
While many details of the trip are temporarily withheld for security reasons, Paul’s trip is being run by the Moran Eye Center from the University of Utah. It’s funded by charity—no taxpayer dollars will be used for Paul’s mission. Spokesman Sergio Gor told Breitbart News he’ll be meeting with several patients of his from who can now see after Paul performed surgery on them when they were younger.
The team of doctors is expected to perform around 300 surgeries, Gor said, over the course of several days in Guatemala.
While Paul isn’t pushing a political angle, thousands of unaccompanied children are currently traveling illegally from Guatemala to the U.S., and the nation has hosted several key delegations of American lawmakers in recent weeks.
The pro bono work also gives Paul a chance to offer an apolitical perspective of himself to voters headed into what’s expected to be a brutal battle for the GOP nomination in 2016.
Paul’s trip allows him to say he supports private charity that isn’t funded by the government, and that he wants to help the people in Central America who are legitimately struggling. But he doesn’t want to do so through encouraging U.S. government intervention, or illegal immigration to the U.S.
But Paul’s team is adamant the trip is apolitical. When Paul’s hometown paper, the Lexington Herald-Leader, asked him what the political ramifications were for the trip, Paul replied that he “doesn’t know.”
“It’s just something I kind of miss in my life, and I want to be able to give back,” Paul told the local paper.
The circumstances make it a key political opportunity.
“They won’t see him attached to just the ideological or partisan policy debates that take place in Washington,” veteran GOP consultant Kevin Madden told the Kentucky newspaper. “He can step out of that and let people see him through a different lens, that of a doctor helping people.”
While the vast majority of Guatemala’s population suffers from harsh economic conditions, there is a sliver at the top in Guatemala—the “one percent,” or the elites—who are doing more than fine. The disparity between the rich and the poor in this country goes back centuries.
“This unequal pattern dates back to the colonial era when the Spanish crown granted large extensions of land to colonizers,” the World Bank wrote.
The income disparity here seems more up-and-down and all over the place when it comes from one person to another than the geography of the nation. In between Guatemala’s two coasts are mountains, valleys, volcanoes and ruins, and laced throughout the peaks and hollows is what appears to the naked eye as a developed nation.
While landing at Guatemala City international airport, one can’t help but notice the hundreds, maybe thousands, of residences for inner city families below as the plane gets lower and lower—row upon row of rusted tin roofs lining dusty dirt roads, conditions Americans wouldn’t let happen on U.S. soil. But drive around the nation’s capital city for a while, and you’ll find luxurious casinos, Chuck E. Cheese pizza parlors with video games for kids, brand new McDonald’s and Burger King locations shinier than American counterparts, Shell gas stations, booming supermarkets, big box electronic stores, and billboards pushing the cutting edge of culture—so sharp that if the language weren’t in Spanish, Guatemala City would feel a lot like Los Angeles, California.
Paul raised tens of thousands of dollars through various donors, including real estate magnate Donald Trump, to help cover the Moran Eye Center’s trip costs.
“It’s a great opportunity for us to bring attention to the global burden of blindness, because I don’t think people really realize how much of it is out there and how much of it is preventable and curable,” Michael Yei, the Moran Eye Center’s outreach manager, told the Lexington Herald-Leader.
For Hillary Clinton, Nothing Less Than A Gulfstream G450 Will Do
Posted By Chuck Ross On 11:37 PM 08/16/2014 In |
Wherever Hillary Clinton is going, she needs at least a Gulfstream G450 to get there.
The once nearly “dead broke” former First Lady now makes steep demands when she gives speeches to corporations, groups and universities, according to emails between Clinton’s agent and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, where Clinton will earn $225,000 for a 90-minute speech in October.
The school received a bit of a break from the $300,000 Clinton requested during initial negotiations, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which obtained the emails that were sent last year.
The correspondence showed that Clinton normally requires “round-trip transportation on a chartered private jet.”
Specifically, the former Secretary of State must fly on a “Gulfstream G450 or larger jet,” according to the emails.
Clinton has come under fire for pocketing those huge fees and living a luxurious lifestyle while also downplaying her and husband Bill’s enormous wealth. Besides telling ABC’s Diane Sawyer that she and Bill were nearly “dead broke” after leaving the White House in 2001, Clinton said that the couple are unlike the “truly well off.”(RELATED: Hillary Says She And Bill Were ‘Dead Broke’ After White House)
The Clinton’s are estimated to be worth between $100 million and $200 million.
In her contract, Clinton stipulated that she will have final approval on any moderator used during a Q & A session. She would also have final say-so on any advertisements used at the event and in the event program booklet.
Clinton also required $1,250 for a stenographer to transcribe her speech. No videographers would be allowed and the event is closed to the press, unless approved by Clinton at a later date.
Clinton agreed to pose for up to 50 pictures with 100 people, not including the 20 people she would be allowed to invite to the event.
According to the emails obtained by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, UNLV Foundation officials and staffers were critical of Clinton’s demands. One official called them “meddling” after the agency edited a description in the event program in order to “dumb it down.”
The Clinton team’s required oversight of the materials the Foundation wanted to publish on its website led a web designer to complain that the agency had it “assbackwards in my mind.”
Clinton typically requires funding for “round-trip business class travel for two advance staffers.”
She stipulates that her staff be allowed to select hotel accommodations.
In whatever hotel they choose, the former Secretary of State must be put up in a presidential suite, a fitting room given the likelihood that Clinton will run for president herself in 2016.
Up to three adjoining rooms must be provided for Clinton’s travel aides and an additional two rooms for advance staff, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported.
On top of that, Clinton’s lead travel aide must be provided a $500 stipend to cover out-of-pocket costs.
Why so glum Hillary? You look like you need three weeks in Wildwood. Some chocolate covered bacon, fudge, funnel cake, zeppolis, a tattoo or two, and a few nights at the Shamrock will do wonders.
I can save the Clintons $95,000. They can rent my condo for three weeks for $5,000. They get the added bonus of living next to their FSA Section 8 constituents and 2016 supporters. I’m sure Hillary in a bikini would fit in real well on the Wildwood beach. Bill should be able to find some tattooed 16 year old to smoke his pole. It’s a win win for the Clintons. They know how to reach me.
If being “dead broke” means dropping $100k on a 3-week rental in the Hamptons, then I’d like to be dead broke too.
In case you aren’t aware of what I’m referring to, recall that:
Clinton told ABC’s Diane Sawyer in a June interview, “We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt.” The former first lady cited legal fees that she and her husband had to pay during his White House tenure.
Of course, this is total nonsense. The only true part about that statement is they were indeed “dead broke” compared to the oligarch level of wealth they have attained since. After all, delivering speeches to very wealthy, bailed out financial criminals pays extraordinarily well.
So what’s a dead broke couple to do? Spend six figures on a Hamptons rental naturally. From the Daily News:
Former President Bill Clinton and ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are slated to arrive in the Hamptons hamlet of Amagansett Thursday, where they’re renting a palatial home owned by private art collector Andre Nasser and his wife Lois.
The political power couple will reportedly pay a total $100,000 for the three-week stay.
That’s quite a chunk of change but pales in comparison to the $200,000 they dropped on a Sagaponack hideaway last year.
The Clintons are likely to run into a string of celebrities during their stay. Their other next-door neighbor will be their close friend, Hollywood movie mogul Harvey Weinstein.
If you’re a member of the ruling elite, you should probably just shut the fuck up and enjoy your life of luxury and privilege. Once you open your mouth and try to act like one of the peasants, the hypocrisy overwhelms your bullshit. Not only did Chelsea inherit Hillary’s good looks, she inherited her ability to put her foot in her mouth.
Boring, vacuous first daughter’s purchases speak louder than her words.
ByCelina Durgin
Chelsea Clinton doesn’t care about money as sincerely as her parents struggle to make ends meet.
In the latest Clinton money quote, the career first daughter pronounced in a Fast Companyinterview that she has “tried really hard to care about things that were very different from my parents. I was curious if I could care about [money] on some fundamental level, and I couldn’t. That wasn’t the metric of success that I wanted in my life.”
How indifferent is she to the lure of filthy lucre? Clinton is currently pulling down $600,000 per year for the kind of no-show job you probably thought had disappeared with the demise of the American mafia. She is officially employed as an on-air correspondent for NBC News even though she hasn’t appeared on NBC for the past four months. Clips of Clinton’s work for the Peacock Network are hard to find online, and one of the few accessible segments — her interview with the GEICO gecko — reveals that NBC’s coaching failed to improve her affectless voice, lazy delivery and absolute lack of charm, charisma or talent. According to Berkeley inequality specialist and Thomas Piketty collaborator Emmanuel Saez, an annual salary of $394,000 qualifies one to be part of the “One Percent” of wealthiest Americans.
According to Associated Press, NBC wanted to avoid an apparent conflict of interest as Clinton busies herself with outside work for her parents’ foundation. Would that all journalists could pocket $50,000 each month merely for not actively souring their employers’ good name.
Clinton is so unconcerned with money that she shelled out $10.3 million of the worthless stuff just last spring to buy a swanky pad near Manhattan’s Flatiron Building. Her 2010 wedding to Marc Mezvinsky cost an estimated $3.3 million.
Chelsea Clinton’s 5,000-square-foot apartment overlooking Madison Square Park features four bedrooms, five-and-a-half baths, oak floors, Italian marble bathrooms, a temperature-controlled storage room, and access to a key-locked elevator, the New York Daily News reported. Yankees slugger Alex Rodriguez had been considering the residence before Clinton and Mezvinsky nabbed it.
And how does someone who doesn’t care about money spend twice as much on a wedding as the average American earns in a lifetime? You start with not one but two dresses by acclaimed designer Vera Wang, who attended the wedding. CBS News estimates the cost of the laser-cut organza-skirted gown she wore down the aisle to be $24,900. The price of the second Vera Wang dress, a Grecian-inspired gown for the reception, is unknown.
A trendy gardenia bouquet is a must-have for brides unconcerned with money. Six gardenias usually go for $85, and $500 is a pittance for a chic bunch of gardenias and white roses that will harmonize an understated ivory look. If you are consistent in choosing best-of-the-best designer flowers, it’s likely the total wedding flower bill will reach $500,000. To finish off the accessories, choose $250,000 worth of jewelry, consisting of diamond drop earrings and a small diamond bracelet.
Next, you call La Tulipe Desserts in Mount Kisco, New York and drop $10,000 on a 500-pound, four-foot Presidential Cake, complete with 1,000 edible sugar flowers. La Tulipe’s prices start at twelve dollars per slice, and the whole thing is gluten-free, to ensure that you’ll be paying all that money for a cake that doesn’t even taste good.
Dinner was also gluten-free, vegan, and—including hors d’oeuvres, the first course, and the entrée—around $125,000 for the 500 guests. This is in addition to a $250,000 rehearsal dinner at the historic Beekman Arms and Delameter Inn. If the $30,000 estimate for alcohol is correct, Clinton spent more on wine, cocktails, and champagne than the average American spends on the entire wedding. The couple saved on tents, however, which only cost Clinton about one year’s NBC salary. The New York Daily Newsbudgeted tents at $600,000. These weren’t your standard tents, however. They were fitted with glass walls, flooring, and climate control.
Maybe the groom’s family pitched in. Like his bride, Mezvinsky is the spawn of a political power couple — two former members of Congress — who can’t be bothered to worry about money: convicted felon Edward Mezvinsky and serial schnorrer Marjorie Margolies Mezvinsky.
But does Clinton care about money fundamentally? You don’t need to care about it fundamentally when you can spend it superfluously.
As Hilary Clinton starts to ponder the curtains she wants to hang in the Oval Office, there is only one person who can realistically stand in her way: Rand Paul.
One attribute I like most about Glenn Greenwald is that he never pulls punches. One of his most prescient and cutting political lines came earlier this year when he made some observations on the upcoming 2016 Presidential election, in which two status quo, corrupt, bloodthirsty con-artists will compete for the Oval Office. While we don’t yet know which crony the GOP will put up, Hillary is pretty much a foregone conclusion for the Democrats. Greenwald observed:
