CLINTON CHARITY FOUNDATION HAS
ONLY (begrudgingly) HANDED OUT $9
MILLION TO VARIOUS CHARITIES, THEY
PURCHASED CHELSEA CLINTON A $12
MILLION DOLLAR NEW YORK CITY
CONDO.
Hill$$$
& Bill$$$ Clinton and the Art of Looting Charities… first declare yourself
a foundation. LOL!!!
The
former president of the United States agreed to accept a lifetime achievement
award at the June 2014 event after Ms. Nemcova offered a $500,000 contribution
to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The donation, made late
last year after the foundation sent the charity an invoice, amounted to almost
a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds — enough to build 10 preschools in
Indonesia.
HILLARY CLINTON: A
dedicated disciple of
OBAMANOMICS – Why else would his banksters invest so
much in her???
OBAMANOMICS – Why else would his banksters invest so
much in her???
“That her candidacy is announced without calling for
any particular policies underscores the fact that the election is not about the
American people deciding the course of policy, but rather the vetting of candidates
to serve the interest of the financial oligarchy.”
LIKE EVA AND JUAN PERON, THE MONEY JUST KEEPS
ROLLING IN!
Clinton Foundation reveals up to $26 million in
additional payments
Clinton Foundation reveals up to $26
million in additional payments
By
Rosalind S.
Helderman and Tom Hamburger
May 21 at 9:53 PM
The Clinton Foundation reported Thursday
that it has received as much as $26.4 million in previously undisclosed
payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other
groups. THE OTHER “GROUPS” ARE THE MUSLIM DICTATORS WHOSE BORDERS HILLARY HAS
VOWED TO PROTECT AS WELL AS OBAMA!
The disclosure came as the foundation faced questions over
whether it fully complied with a 2008 ethics agreement to reveal its donors and
whether any of its funding sources present conflicts of interest for Hillary
Rodham Clinton as she begins her presidential campaign.
The money was paid as fees for speeches by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. Foundation officials said the funds were tallied internally as “revenue” rather than donations, which is why they had not been included in the public listings of its contributors published as part of the 2008 agreement.
According to the new information, the Clintons have delivered 97 speeches to benefit the charity since 2002. Colleges and universities sponsored more than two dozen of these speeches, along with U.S. and overseas corporations and at least one foreign government, Thailand.
The payments were disclosed late Thursday on the organization’s Web site, with speech payments listed in ranges rather than specific amounts. In total, the payments ranged between $12 million and $26.4 million.
The paid appearances included speeches by former president Bill Clinton to the Nigerian ThisDay newspaper group for at least $500,000 and to the
The money was paid as fees for speeches by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. Foundation officials said the funds were tallied internally as “revenue” rather than donations, which is why they had not been included in the public listings of its contributors published as part of the 2008 agreement.
According to the new information, the Clintons have delivered 97 speeches to benefit the charity since 2002. Colleges and universities sponsored more than two dozen of these speeches, along with U.S. and overseas corporations and at least one foreign government, Thailand.
The payments were disclosed late Thursday on the organization’s Web site, with speech payments listed in ranges rather than specific amounts. In total, the payments ranged between $12 million and $26.4 million.
The paid appearances included speeches by former president Bill Clinton to the Nigerian ThisDay newspaper group for at least $500,000 and to the
The money was paid as fees for speeches by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. Foundation officials said the funds were tallied internally as “revenue” rather than donations, which is why they had not been included in the public listings of its contributors published as part of the 2008 agreement.
According to the new information, the Clintons have delivered 97 speeches to benefit the charity since 2002. Colleges and universities sponsored more than two dozen of these speeches, along with U.S. and overseas corporations and at least one foreign government, Thailand.
The payments were disclosed late Thursday on the organization’s Web site, with speech payments listed in ranges rather than specific amounts. In total, the payments ranged between $12 million and $26.4 million.
The paid appearances included speeches by former president Bill Clinton to the Nigerian ThisDay newspaper group for at least $500,000 and to the
The foundation, which has raised
$2 billion since Bill Clinton left the White House, has emerged as a
political headache for Hillary Clinton amid recent controversies over
donations. The foundation, along with the Clintons’ paid speaking careers, have
provided additional avenues for foreign governments and other interests to gain
entrĂ©e to one of America’s most prominent political families. Some Republicans
have charged that Hillary Clinton, during her tenure as secretary of state, was
in a position to reward foundation donors.
Thursday’s disclosure is one of a number of instances in recent weeks in which the foundation has acknowledged that it received funding from sources not disclosed on its Web site.
The ethics agreement was reached between the foundation and the Obama administration to provide additional transparency and avoid potential conflicts of interest with Hillary Clinton’s appointment as secretary of state.
The agreement placed restrictions on foreign government donations, for instance, but the foundation revealed in February that it had violated the limits at one point by taking $500,000 from Algeria.
Thursday’s release regarding speaking fees follows earlier disclosures showing how the lecture circuit has also made the Clintons personally wealthy.
Last week, Hillary Clinton disclosed that she and her husband made around $25 million since January 2014 from speeches; Bill Clinton also was paid more than $104 million from 2001 through 2012 by delivering speeches.
The Clintons reported that income on federally required personal financial disclosure forms filed by Hillary Clinton as a senator, secretary of state and now a declared presidential candidate.
But the new disclosure indicates that the former president has also spent considerable time speaking on the foundation’s behalf — 73 times since 2002.
Hillary Clinton has delivered 15 such speeches, including one address to Goldman Sachs and another to JPMorgan Chase. Chelsea Clinton, who has
taken on an increasingly active role at the foundation, has collected fees for the charity from nine organizations.
The foundation did not provide dates for the speaking engagements.
Vincent
Salamone, a spokesman for the Office of Government Ethics, said this week that
speeches delivered by public officials or their spouses acting as an “agent” of
a charitable group in which the payment is made directly to the organization
need not be disclosed in financial filings of public officials.
Brian
Fallon, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, said that analysis explains why
the Clintons did not disclose the speeches while Hillary Clinton was a senator
and then secretary of state.
While the Clinton Foundation has annually disclosed its donors since 2008, the foundation said Thursday that organizations that paid for Clinton speeches have not before been included in those lists because they were paying for a service and not making a tax-deductible donation.
Craig
Minassian, a spokesman for the foundation, said the new release came as part of
the foundation’s continuing commitment to transparency. Nonprofit groups are
not required by law to release any information about their funders.
“In
addition to the more than 300,000 donors who are all listed on our web site,
posting these speeches is just another example of how our disclosure policies
go above and beyond what’s required of charities,” he said in a statement.
“Like other global charities, the
Clinton Foundation receives support from
“Like other global charities, the Clinton Foundation receives support from individuals and organizations across all sectors of society, backgrounds and ideologies because they know our programs are improving the lives of millions of people around the world,” he also said.
A
foundation official indicated the speech dollars have been disclosed as revenue
in annual tax filings to the IRS. The official indicated that the foundation
will now update the public speech list four times a year, much as it has said
it will do with other donors now that Clinton’s campaign has launched.
The Clintons have indicated that they donate significant personal funds to the foundation each year. The foundation official said that the couple have not considered speech revenue to be part of their personal charitable giving, and Fallon said they have never taken a deduction on their taxes for the fees.
There
was one entity clearly associated with a foreign government that provided
speaking fees, of $250,000 to $500,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton: The energy
ministry in Thailand.
The
U.S. Islamic World Forum also provided $250,000 to $500,000 to the foundation
for a speech by Bill Clinton, according to the new disclosure. The event was
organized in part by the Brookings Institution with support from
the government of Qatar.
In addition, the list is studded with overseas corporations and foundations.
They
included the South Korean energy and chemicals conglomerate Hanwha, which paid
$500,000 to $1,000,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton.
China
Real Estate Development Corp. paid the foundation between $250,000 and $500,000
for a speech by the former president. The Qatar First Investment Bank, now
known as the Qatar First Bank, paid fees in a similar range. The bank is
described by Persian Gulf financial press as specializing in high-net-worth
clients.
The Telmex Foundation, founded by
Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, provided between $250,000 and $500,000 for a
speech by Hillary Clinton.
The
new data shows that a number of public education institutions paid the
foundation for speeches by Bill, Hillary or Chelsea Clinton.
Those speeches drew backlash on some campuses, as
universities paid hundreds of thousands to the Clinton
charity at
a time of rising tuitions and slashed university budgets.
After the academic sponsors, financial services and
health-industry-related firms heavily populated the list of domestic sponsors.
Rosalind Helderman is a political
enterprise and investigations reporter for the Washington Post.
Tom Hamburger covers the
intersection of money and politics for The Washington Post.
“There is, of course, no acknowledgment that Clinton was part
of an administration that oversaw and continues to oversee the greatest
transfer of wealth from the bottom to “those at the top” in US history.”
Just like EVA and JUAN PERON, the money just keeps rolling in!
BILLARY and HILLARY CLINTON - SELLING OUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND
GETTING RICH DOING IT!
Another
possible explanation is that the Clintons don't believe voters will really care
that much. The renting of the Lincoln Bedroom to people who gave $5.4 million to the Democratic National Committee in 1995 and 1996 did no
lasting damage to Bill's approval ratings. Neither did the 1996 fundraising
scandal involving illegal foreign donations, which the Los Angeles Times
reported on just before the president easily won a second term.
HILLARY CLINTON: GLOBAL LOOTER LIKE A THIRD-WORLD DICTATOR IN
THE MAKING!
“Schweizer: Clinton Donors, Relatives Got Rich Off Haiti
Contracts, US Taxpayers”
“Clinton Cash” author
Peter Schweizer reported on the US taxpayer money and contracts in Haiti
profited Clinton Foundation donors and Clinton relatives.”
Clinton Foundation Put On Watch List Of Suspicious
‘Charities’
“This
decision wasn’t made because of the Clinton Foundation’s remarkably lucrative
sideline as a uranium superstore for Russian strongmen, but because its
finances are opaque and dishonest, and because such a tiny amount of the money
it rakes in actually goes to charitable endeavors. “The Clinton family’s
mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but
spent just $9 million on direct aid,” notes the New York Post. “The
group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries
and bonuses, WITH THE FATTEST PAYOUTS GOING TO FAMILY FRIENDS.”
JUDICIAL WATCH:
STATE DEPT. DOCS REVEAL CONCERN ABOUT BILL CLINTON’S
ACTIVITIES WITH SAUDI DICTATORS
Hillary Clinton bellies with the 9-11 invading Saudi
dictatorship like Obama. She’s collected her bribes for pushing the Bush-Saudi
wars against Iraq and Obama smells the dirty Saudis loot coming for his
presidential libaray!
HOW TO BUY HILLARY
CLINTON:
From selling overnights at the White House,
she’s become a global influence peddler.
From selling overnights at the White House,
she’s become a global influence peddler.
“Hillary Clinton takes a course of action that benefits
those donors, in many cases, I think, outlined in the book, she is reversing
course on policy prescriptions.”
“Schweizer said he had found “a pattern of behavior…the
proof is, you look at a series of actions in which money flows to the Clintons,
either through speaking fees or Clinton Foundation donors.”
Another
possible explanation is that the Clintons don't believe voters will really care
that much. The renting of the Lincoln Bedroom to people who gave $5.4 million to the Democratic National Committee in 1995 and 1996 did no
lasting damage to Bill's approval ratings. Neither did the 1996 fundraising
scandal involving illegal foreign donations, which the Los Angeles Times
reported on just before the president easily won a second term.
HILLARY
RED CHINA
“I smell bribes!” the
first words Hillary spoke in Chinese!
The stunning revelation is just one of many in the
new book, Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and
Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.
THE GLOBAL CRIME WAVE
of HILLARY and BILLARY… the Bonnie and Clyde of Corrupt Democrat Politics – The
bankster-funded politics for the 1% , open borders, no LEGAL need apply and
amnesty for 40 million looting Mexicans.
Another
possible explanation is that the Clintons don't believe voters will really care
that much. The renting of the Lincoln Bedroom to people who gave $5.4 million to the Democratic National Committee in 1995 and 1996 did no
lasting damage to Bill's approval ratings. Neither did the 1996 fundraising
scandal involving illegal foreign donations, which the Los Angeles Times
reported on just before the president easily won a second term.
Published on The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com)
House of the Stacked Deck of Cards
The privilege of being Hillary Clinton
Noemie Emery
May 25, 2015, Vol. 20, No. 35
"The deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top,” Hillary Clinton has warned us, and she ought to know. Having been “at the top,” or close enough to it, since 1976, when her husband was elected attorney general of Arkansas at age 30—not the biggest job ever, but one with a whole lot of power to play with—she has leveraged every ounce that it held to bring to them ever and ever more money and power, until at this moment, 14 years after leaving the White House, she and Bill sit on a mile-high mountain of both. Their wealth is immense and their power unlimited, at least in their party. The very few viable national candidates left after the two midterm wipeouts that decimated Democratic ranks in the reign of Obama are so afraid to risk the Clintons’ wrath that she is cruising unopposed to the nomination for the first time since no one knows when. How did two penniless kids living in roughly 1,000 square feet in Fayetteville, Arkansas, reach such heights? Let us look back and see.
Our story begins as boy wonder Bill Clinton wins his first election and moves with bride Hillary to the state capital and into a new way of life. Biographers Sally Bedell Smith (For Love of Politics) and Carl Bernstein (A Woman in Charge) seem to agree it was then and there that three things converged: For the first time, Bill was in a position to do things for people; the state was in the middle of a get-rich-quick boomlet; and Hillary, thinking now about starting a family, realized that, given Bill’s disposition and fairly low salary, the family fortunes would be in her hands.
“It was Hillary who decided she wanted to be financially secure, and took the steps to accomplish that,” family friend Betsey Wright told Bernstein. “She had come a long way from her rejection of ‘our prevailing acquisitive corporate life’ that she condemned in her Wellesley commencement address.” Rationalizing shady deals apparently came naturally in “an easy atmosphere of conflicts of interest” in which “everyone does it” was the rule.
“It was a culture in which the moral architecture was weak, and in which everyone assumed that ‘fixing’ was a requirement for getting things done,” as Smith tells us.
The Clintons’ connections helped them enrich themselves in the go-go 1980s, a period they were to denounce as the “greed decade.” . . . In that atmosphere, Bill and Hillary developed a sense of entitlement, an expectation that others would take care of them. They became accustomed to borrowing from banks operated by political friends and accepting favors from individuals and corporations, such as the free use of private airplanes.
By the same sort of happy coincidence that saw a Chicago hospital create a $300,000-per-year job for Michelle Obama when her husband emerged as a comer, Little Rock’s venerable Rose Law Firm hired Hillary Clinton in 1976 after Bill was elected attorney general and made her its first female partner when he became governor. This was the start of a cascade of good tidings that would quickly come her way. On top of her $110,000 Rose salary, Hillary cleared $64,000 yearly for sitting on corporate boards, including those of Wal-Mart and TCBY Enterprises, whose chairman explained her presence on the board as “making sure he was in good grace with the people in power.” The favor of other people with similar motives enabled the couple to live very well. According to Smith, Hillary “put $2,104 into a cellular-phone franchise operated by a policy adviser to the governor and walked away with a profit of $46,000.” But her most notorious coup was her $1,000 investment in cattle futures that in less than a year returned an astounding hundred-fold profit of $100,000, this windfall coming just as Bill was first taking office as governor in 1979.
Forced to try to explain this in 1994, when her past was coming under increased scrutiny, Hillary at first said she had done the trading herself, after her father had taught her to read the stock pages. But she eventually admitted that most of her trades had been made by Jim Blair, a counsel to Tyson Foods, the Arkansas-based conglomerate, and a hot-shot commodities trader, with the assistance of local broker and former Tyson executive Robert (Red) Bone, who seemed to have shielded her from damaging margin calls and thrown other favors her way.
The exceptional profits didn’t pass anyone’s smell test. The New York Times, which broke the commodities-trading story, concluded that “at every turn of their financial life . . . [the Clintons] were receiving financial favors from individuals who had something to gain from having friends in high places” and had trouble seeing the difference between the public interest and their own. But money wasn’t the only thing the Clintons tried to get the stacked deck to yield them. Sometimes it was power, too.
Many times before, people have run for public office from positions of privilege, having been rich and/or connected, having been famous as athletes or actors, as millionaires funding themselves, or as celebrities whose names were already on everyone’s lips. But no one before Hillary had launched their political career from the White House as first lady, able to enlist the prestige, perks, and glitz that surround that position. From the moment she decided to run for the Senate (late 1998, by most estimations) she drew attention and money away from the sitting vice president, whose presidential campaign was relatively neglected by a husband who, probably out of guilt and loyalty justly mingled with gratitude, turned all his attention her way.
“Hillary continued to vie with Gore for attention and money and to benefit enormously from Bill’s advice as well from her First Lady perch, while Gore essentially left the White House,” Smith tells us, noting that Bill showered his wife with praise, attention, and fundraising efforts, showcasing her in 1999 at 20 feel-good events at the executive mansion, featuring children, the elderly, and Medal of Freedom Award winners, compared to just one for Gore. Hitting up rich donors who would normally have given heavily to the vice president, she began competing with Gore for contributions, sometimes even making her personal pitches for money at his fundraising events. Talking to Hillary “all the time, every day,” Bill gave her advice on how to talk about issues, made plugs for her while campaigning for others, extravagantly talked up her virtues and talents, and urged people at fundraisers for other Democrats to also send something to Hillary. (“A lot of you have given to Hillary,” he would say. “If you haven’t, I hope you will.”)
The Democratic convention in 2000 at which Gore was nominated also turned into an extravaganza for Hillary, with a packed schedule of events before Gore arrived, “siphoning off Democratic money and further angering” Gore. Even her husband’s impeachment seemed to work for Hillary and against the vice president, casting her as the brave little woman seeking a new start in life after a great disappointment, while Gore had the more delicate job of trying to run on the Bill Clinton record while disassociating himself from the president’s sins. Hillary was given an 18-minute speech at the convention, and after that her campaign against a hapless Rick Lazio was practically an afterthought. On election night the Clintons watched from their suite in New York as Hillary won by 12 points while Gore, declared the winner at 8 p.m., was then declared the loser at 2 a.m., and at dawn headed into the Florida recount, which he would lose over a month later by a few hundred votes. If the White House epitomizes what it means to be “at the top,” never had the cards been stacked more in favor of anyone than they were for Hillary Clinton when she had a Senate seat in a state that she never had lived in more or less placed in her hands.
With an ex-president licensed to coin money and a former first lady in the Senate planning her own eventual run for president, the Clintons were in a unique position to leverage their power—past (Bill), present, and future (Hillary). Former presidents had in various ways cashed in before, but by that time they were no longer able to do people very meaningful favors. A donation to Bill, on the other hand, could mean favors from Hillary, in the job she was holding (senator, then secretary of state), and even as president sometime down the line. As the New York Times has noted, four days after Hillary was mentioned to head Barack Obama’s State Department, TD Bank (Canada’s largest) hired Bill to give speeches for a fee of $1.8 million. It must have been just a coincidence, like all the others she had enjoyed since their Little Rock days, that Secretary of State Clinton would be ideally placed to push for the approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, in which the bank held a large block of shares.
As the New York Post’s Kyle Smith noted, in a piece on Peter Schweizer’s new book Clinton Cash, “Eleven of the 13 highest-paid speeches [Bill] ever gave took place while . . . Hillary headed the State Department.” Other ex-presidents had nostalgia to sell, which quickly lost value. Bill had “access to a family member who was secretary of state and perhaps a future president. That’s why his fees actually went up over time, and not down.” The Clinton machine is best explained as a wondrous contraption designed to funnel cash to Bill Clinton, with a million or two tossed now and then in the way of the needy, along with a supply of fascinating new friends, ready to fly him to beautiful islands, in the pursuit of women and song.
And what did Hillary hope to get from all this, beyond a share in the family fortunes? Much the same thing that she got when she lived in the White House as first lady during the years that she ran for the Senate, namely a series of glamorous feel-good occasions meant to showcase her as a species of royalty, altruistic, benevolent, and above it all. As Kenneth Vogel explained in Politico, this summer was supposed to be a four-month display of Hillary mania, with “a splashy Clinton Global Initiative conference in Marrakesh . . . followed by a lavish reception and conference in Athens in June, and . . . a September extravaganza in Manhattan, featuring an appearance by Elton John.” Alas, the release of Schweizer’s Clinton Cash and related reports in the New York Times and the Washington Post caused the Athens event to be canceled, with the family foundation “scrambling to address concerns about its budgeting, fundraising, and donor vetting, while being buffeted by a raging political storm.”
That storm may have been augmented by the revelation last summer that Chelsea Clinton, hired by NBC News along with Jenna Bush Hager as a part-time contributor, had not only not distinguished herself as a TV reporter, but had pulled down a yearly salary of $600,000 while having done practically nothing. It came to something over $26,000 for every minute she had been on the air. “Chelsea Clinton Leaving Her Unbelievably Cushy Fake Job at NBC” ran the New York headline. The magazine added that “she will no longer pretend to be a reporter,” calling her “one of the most boring people of her era” and her salary “insane.” A tipster told the New York Post that the disclosure (by Politico) of Chelsea’s salary had been “catastrophic for NBC, because not one of the other correspondents, not even Jenna Bush Hager, is in on that sort of money.” The NBC insider added that George W. Bush’s daughter—who is “extremely well-liked on Today, and [who] scored a sit-down with President Obama and reported on the Sochi Olympics—is rumored to be among those who expressed their dismay at Chelsea’s huge salary for apparently very little work.” (Laura Bush, of course, isn’t running for president and has no future favors to give to the network.) Nonetheless, seemingly heedless of her own family’s fortunes, Hillary continues to rail against income disparity as a crisis, and the unfair advantages given the already powerful as a national shame and a sin.
Nobody knows about stacked decks better than Hillary Clinton, who found the deck stacked slightly in her favor 40 years ago and has spent her whole political life stacking it further, to the benefit of herself and her husband and their daughter and Hillary’s brothers, all of whom have managed to make out like bandits, the latter two with no talents to speak of besides being related to her. The Democrats may want to run on inequality, but they should look for some other candidate to do it, and not someone who has made inequality, when it heavily tilts in her direction, her singular calling and life’s achievement.
Noemie Emery is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard and a columnist for the Washington Examiner.
YOU THOUGHT OBAMA INVITED OBAMANOMICS and
started the assault on the American middle-class?
NOPE!
“By the time of Bill Clinton’s election in 1992, the
Democratic Party had completely repudiated its association with the reforms of
the New Deal and Great Society periods. Clinton gutted welfare programs to
provide an ample supply of cheap labor for the rich (WHICH NOW MEANS OPEN
BORDERS AND NO E-VERIFY!), including a growing layer of black capitalists, and
passed the 1994 Federal Crime Bill, with its notorious “three strikes”
provision that has helped create the largest prison population in the world.”
Another
possible explanation is that the Clintons don't believe voters will really care
that much. The renting
of the Lincoln Bedroom to people who gave $5.4 million to the Democratic
National Committee in 1995 and 1996 did no lasting damage to Bill's approval
ratings. Neither did the 1996 fundraising scandal involving illegal foreign
donations, which the Los Angeles Times reported on just before the president
easily won a second term.
THE UNLEASHING OF WALL STREET’S BIGGEST
MONSTERS and the ASSAULT ON the
AMERICAN MIDDLE-CLASS STARTED WITH BILL CLINTON.
AMERICAN MIDDLE-CLASS STARTED WITH BILL CLINTON.
You think Hillary’s any different? Obama’s
crony banksters don’t!!!
By the time of Bill Clinton’s election in 1992, the
Democratic Party had completely repudiated its association with the reforms of
the New Deal and Great Society periods. Clinton gutted welfare programs to
provide an ample supply of cheap labor for the rich, including a growing layer
of black capitalists, and passed the 1994 Federal Crime Bill, with its
notorious “three strikes” provision that has helped create the largest prison
population in the world.
Hillary
Clinton’s promise to illegals: 49 more
Mexifornias.
The
staggering cost of Mexico’s looting of
America
America
Expect even more executive power grabs from Hillary | WashingtonExaminer.com
APPARENTLY MEXICO'S LOOTING IN OUR OPEN
BORDERS IS NOT BIG ENOUGH FOR LA RAZA HILLARY!
Obama expanded his power domestically far more than any other president in memory. His executive action on immigration is a good example of legislating from the bureaucracy by implementing policies directly contrary to existing law and anything Congress would be willing to do.
The server scandal is a metaphor for the old Hillary — opaque, controlling, paranoid, ruthless and power-hungry. It's proof that she hasn't changed.
Now we have Candidate Clinton promising even more aggressive executive immigration amnesty than Obama. Not only has Hillary vowed to defend Obama's executive immigration actions, she said "if Congress continues to refuse to act, as president I would do everything possible under the law to go even further." She added, "That is just the beginning …"
ROBERT RECTOR: Importing poverty…. WE
ALSO IMPORT ALL THEIR CRIMINALS
JUDICIAL WATCH: 165,000 MEX
CRIMINALS ON THE LOSE.
IT’S ALL PART OF OBAMA’S CATCH, RELEASE, LOOT AND VOTE DEM PROGRAM!
BORDERS, NO E-VERIFY, NO ENFORCEMENT and NO LEGAL NEED APPLY!
GOP: OBAMA’S AMNESTY HANDOUT WILL COST THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS BILLIONS!
It's official: 'Clinton Cash' the No. 1 bestseller | WashingtonExaminer.com
APPARENTLY MEXICO'S LOOTING IN OUR OPEN
BORDERS IS NOT BIG ENOUGH FOR LA RAZA HILLARY!
Obama expanded his power domestically far more than any other president in memory. His executive action on immigration is a good example of legislating from the bureaucracy by implementing policies directly contrary to existing law and anything Congress would be willing to do.
The server scandal is a metaphor for the old Hillary — opaque, controlling, paranoid, ruthless and power-hungry. It's proof that she hasn't changed.
Now we have Candidate Clinton promising even more aggressive executive immigration amnesty than Obama. Not only has Hillary vowed to defend Obama's executive immigration actions, she said "if Congress continues to refuse to act, as president I would do everything possible under the law to go even further." She added, "That is just the beginning …" WILLIAM A. JACOBSON – Washington Examiner
No comments:
Post a Comment