Saturday, July 18, 2015

The Super-Rich Give Generously to the Clinton Phony Charity

“At this point, Clinton is the choice of most
multimillionaires to be the next occupant of the
White House. A recent CNBC poll of 750
millionaires found 53 percent support for Clinton
in a contest with Republican Jeb Bush, 14 points
better than Obama’s showing in the 2012 election
with the same group.”


The shady, shabby and sordid political lives of Hillary and Billary – America’s premiere white-collar criminals.




Donors to Foundation

‘Bundlers’ include media billionaires Haim Saban and Fred Eychaner and Esprit founder Susie Tompkins Buell



By  Rebecca Ballhaus

Updated July 17, 2015 11:23 a.m. ET

Hillary Clinton has turned to a familiar source to find supporters willing to raise more than $100,000 each for her presidential campaign: major donors to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.


THE CLINTON FOUNDATION HANDS OUT $9 MILLION TO CHARITIES… about 6cents for every bribe buck they huckster!


images of Chelsea’s $11 million dollar condo

REALITY CHECK ON HILL$$$ and BILL$$$ and Miss One Percent  Chelsea... living the good life from the sweet bribes of Wall Street's biggest criminal corporations and global Muslim dictatorships.

 Hill$$$ & Bill$$$ Clinton and the Art of Looting Charities… first declare yourself a charitable 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 has declared bankster looting will see even greater rewards from her administration!                             
“In reality, the settlement falls far short of holding JPMorgan accountable for its fraudulent sale of mortgage-backed assets, which netted the bank tens of billions of dollars in profits while exacerbating the sub-prime mortgage crash that led to over ten million foreclosures in the US and a global economic downturn that thrust many millions more into unemployment and poverty.”
"These are countries with policies that are horrific towards women's rights, and I think it's unconscionable that Hillary Clinton is accepting donations from them," Paul said, noting instances of women raped, given lashes and stoned to death in those countries.” RAND PAUL
Under Clinton's leadership, the State
Department approved $165 billion worth of
commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose
governments have given money to the Clinton
Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis
of State Department and foundation data.
The Saudis and Gulf Arabs, cash-fat on the $110-a-barrel oil they sell U.S. consumers, will pick up the tab for the Tomahawk missiles. Has it come to this — U.S. soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen as the mercenaries of sheiks, sultans and emirs, Hessians of the New World Order, hired out to do the big-time killing for Saudi and Sunni royals?
American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking engagements.
In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation publishes only a rough range of individual contributors’ donations, making a more precise accounting impossible.
IBTimes’ review of the Clintons’ annual financial disclosures also revealed that 13 companies lobbying the State Department paid Bill Clinton $2.5 million in speaking fees while Hillary Clinton headed the agency.
HILLARY’S DIRTY BIG SECRETS: She’s amassed closets full!
CLINTONOMICS for the super-rich.
The central aim of Clinton’s speech was to reassure the American
financial oligarchy that, despite her occasional lukewarm
denunciations of corporate criminality and social inequality, she is
a right-wing, pro-business defender of Wall Street.
The speech makes clear that a Clinton presidency will pursue the same pro-Wall Street policies of the Obama administration, seeking to expand the fortunes of the super-rich at the expense of the great majority of society, while invoking “fairness” and “equality” as window dressing.
Hillary bellies up to Obama’s banksters – She reeks of the smell of BRIBES and BAILOUTS
Hillary and Obama’s crony criminal banksters…. their looting has just begun!
Hillary Clinton has vowed to take the banksters to new heights of looting!
“President Bill Clinton repealed the law in 1999. Glass-Steagall has long been popular with liberals, who argue the repeal was part of the deregulation they say led to the 2008 financial collapse.”
Clinton herself is far more likely to be on speaking terms with hedge-fund managers or Silicon Valley billionaires than with the “typical American worker.” After a recent campaign fundraiser at the home of John Chambers, the founding billionaire of Cisco Systems, she pronounced herself interested in his proposal to cut the corporate tax rate for overseas earnings so that Cisco and other corporations holding more than $1.5 trillion in profits in foreign bank accounts might repatriate the money and use it in the United States. “It doesn’t do our economy any good to have this money parked somewhere else in the world,” Clinton told the Wall Street Journal.
“The answer: Any tool that increases Washington's involvement in big business — here and abroad — creates opportunities for politicians to demand tribute from corporate and government coffers and increase political control over business. Ex-Im is a goldmine for a transactional politician like Hillary.” --- TIMOTHY P. CARNEY, Washington Examiner
Goldman Sachs is part of this story, too. In the summer of
2011, Goldman Sachs hired a K Street firm to lobby the State
Department on Ex-Im. That fall, Ex-Im approved a $75.8
million loan to a state-owned Chinese bank so it could buy
private jets from Hawker Beechcraft, a jetmaker owned
largely by Goldman at the time. Secretary Clinton at that time
praised her deputy, former Goldman vice president Robert
Hormats, for "coordinating with the Export-Import Bank," on
international trade and development issues.
Income inequality grows FOUR TIMES FASTER under Obama than Bush.
 “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.”
“Calling income and wealth inequality the "great moral issue of our time," Sanders laid out a sweeping, almost unimaginably expensive program to transfer wealth from the richest Americans to the poor and middle class. A $1 trillion public works program to create "13 million good-paying jobs." A $15-an-hour federal minimum wage. "Pay equity" for women. Paid sick leave and vacation for everyone. Higher taxes on the wealthy. Free tuition at all public colleges and universities. A Medicare-for-all single-payer health care system. Expanded Social Security benefits. Universal pre-K.” WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“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.”

The US presidency for sale

The US presidency for sale

20 July 2015
The 2016 US presidential election will be the most expensive in history, costing an estimated $10 billion, when all spending by candidates, the Democratic and Republican parties, super PACs and other corporate lobbies and trade unions is tabulated.

The vast sums being raised and spent by the Democratic and

Republican candidates make a mockery of the claims that the

United States is a democracy in which the people rule. It is

big money that rules, dominating the entire process of

selecting the candidates of the only two officially recognized

parties and effectively determining the outcome of the vote

on November 8, 2016.

Of the $390 million raised so far, $300 million has gone to the 15 announced candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, while $90 million has gone to four Democrats—$71.5 million of that to the Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton. The disparity is misleading: once the primary contest is over, and a Republican is selected to face Clinton, there will be billions spent on each side in the general election campaign.

The role of big money in the presidential campaign has become so obvious that even the corporate-controlled media can’t cover it up any longer. The Washington Post, for example, published a report July 16 whose headline left little to the imagination: “2016 fundraising shows power tilting to groups backed by wealthy elite.” The article noted that “independent” expenditures by so-called super PACs—political action committees loosely linked to the candidates—would for the first time exceed the spending by the candidates and their official campaign committees.

On the Republican side, the pace has been set by Jeb Bush,

brother of former president George W. Bush and son of

former president  George H.W. Bush. His campaign and two

associated super PACs raised $119 million during the second

quarter of 2015, the largest amount ever raised for a

presidential candidate so early in the campaign.

Nearly all this money came from well-heeled donors: Bush himself gave more money to his own campaign ($399,720) than all of his small donors combined ($368,023). Besides the billionaires and multi-millionaires who gave up to $1 million apiece to the super PAC (the limit set by the Bush campaign), Bush raked in cash from lobbyists representing finance, oil, wholesale, real estate and a raft of other industries.

Super PACs are the offspring of the Supreme Court’s 2010

Citizens United decision and subsequent court actions, which

effectively removed any limit on what billionaires and

corporations can give to political action committees

(donations to candidates themselves are still limited to


Super PACs first played a significant role in 2012, mainly in the Republican primary campaign, where billionaires Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess kept Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum in the field against Mitt Romney, himself a hedge fund boss and near-billionaire.

What is happening in 2016 is a further quantitative leap. Super PACs account for $230 million in funding for Republican candidates, compared to $65 million raised by the candidates themselves.
Every significant Republican candidate has a billionaire (or in the case of Donald Trump, is a billionaire), except Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, whose occasional objections to US military adventures overseas have cut him off from such funding, causing his campaign prospects to fade rapidly.

Super PAC funding has made Jeb Bush the frontrunner, while also boosting Senator Ted Cruz ($53 million) and Senator Marco Rubio ($44 million) to the status of serious contenders. Another top Republican hopeful, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, raked in $20 million for his super PAC before declaring his candidacy July 13.

Super PACs will sustain at least another half dozen Republican candidates. Three billionaires are funding former Texas Governor Rick Perry, with $16 million of the $17 million he has raised. Ohio Governor John Kasich, who is to announce next week, has $11.5 million, and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie $10 million. Even Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, a latecomer to the campaign, is backed by $9 million in super PAC money. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee and former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina also have enough big-money donors to run campaigns.

On the Democratic side, the same essential

reality prevails, albeit masked by the pretense

that the Democratic Party is the party of

working people, and the populist rhetoric of

some of the Democratic challengers to former

secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

Clinton’s fundraising has the same profile as the Republican candidates, with the difference that, not expecting a serious primary contest, Clinton’s strategists asked big money donors to hold their fire until the general election campaign. Most Democratic billionaires, like Warren Buffett, currency speculator George Soros, and investment banker Tom Steyer, are waiting until next year.
But Clinton has already raked in smaller amounts—essentially down payments—from media billionaires Haim Saban and Fred Eychaner, hedge fund operator Marc Lasny, J.B. Pritzer of the Hyatt family fortune, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, and numerous other Hollywood, Silicon Valley and Wall Street moguls.

Last week Clinton posted on her campaign web site the names of 122 “bundlers” who raised at least $100,000 for her campaign in the second quarter. These included corporate lobbyists for Dow Chemical, Microsoft, Exxon, PepsiCo, Verizon and MasterCard, among many, many others. The identity of one “bundler”

is telling: Steven Rattner, the

investment banker who headed

Obama’s auto task force that imposed

50 percent pay cuts on newly hired


Clinton’s main challenger, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, has no super PAC but raised $15.2 million anyway, mainly over the Internet. He actually raised more money than Clinton from small donors, those who gave less than $200. This shows that Sanders is performing his assigned function: using anti-billionaire rhetoric (which includes refusing to have a super PAC), to attract those disaffected by the right-wing policies of the Obama administration, and bringing them back into the orbit of the Democratic Party.

This entire process has nothing whatsoever to

do with democracy. It shows how the US

financial aristocracy manipulates public

opinion, seeking to preserve the illusion of

popular choice in the presidential election

behind the most transparent of fig leaves. In

the meantime, the billionaires will put the

candidates through their paces, selecting the

individual they will install in the White House

to do their bidding.

Patrick Martin

No comments: