Obama gets a $600,000 payday for a single speech in Colombia
President Obama is off to Colombia, a country he disdained mightily during his time as president, now to collect a $600,000 honorarium for a single speech to a marketing group called EXMA.
It's weird stuff, given that Obama was so contemptuous of Colombia over the first five years of his presidency. He denied the country a free trade pact while communist hellholes such as Nicaragua, and economic rivals such as Peru got them easily. Colombia's trade minister at the time, Luis Plata, told me the arrangement like this was basically the same as sanctions. He did eventually sign on to free trade with Colombia, dropping the miasma of nonsense from U.S. unions that union organizers were being killed. When I went to Colombia myself in 2008, I learned from the Colombian union organizers themselves that workers were being killed all right ... because they favored free trade, and the AFL-CIO was hypocritically touting their deaths as reason not to allow it.
Obama eventually signed the trade measure, but not without a significant delay. U.S. unions groused quietly.
At this early date, it's unknown if the big payout was quid pro quo for services rendered, but the amount spent - and from a country where the per capita income is only $6,300, sets off a red flag. Speeches for giant paydays are pretty de rigeur for presidents coming to collect on favors given these days. President George Bush, Sr. who made a lucrative speech in Japan several years ago, pretty well put the game into the forefront. Obama has already collected gargantuan paydays for other speeches, so he's certainly not shunning the practice.
There are other things that don't quite ring right: EXMA, actually, is a pretty obscure group for this kind of cash to be coming from, and a look at its web site suggests some very generic themes of interest to marketers coming up at this conference, nothing very cutting edge. Maybe that's fine. But then there's the detail that the conference has attracted only four sponsors, with battered CNN being the only well-known one. Could the money for Obama be coming from somewhere else? One wonders.
Here's the last thing and it's a doozy: These kinds of payouts are pretty common in Colombia.
Here's a report from Politico, citing the investigative writing of Peter Schweizer in his book, "Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Help Make Bill and Hillary Rich," about how cash just rolled into the Clinton Foundation ahead of the passage of the free trade pact
According to Schweizer’s account, “the story began, as it often does, with a lucrative speech.”In June 2005, Gold Service International, a South American business group, paid Bill Clinton $800,000 to deliver four speeches in South America. Gold Service was pushing for the free trade agreement, which would help boost Colombian exports to the United States, and Clinton was supportive of the policy.Clinton traveled to South America on Giustra’s private jet to deliver his speeches, according to Schweizer. At the same time, the former president was trying to arrange a meeting between Giustra and then-Colombian President Álvaro Uribe to help Giustra expand his business interests there. He arranged the meeting in the fall of 2005, at a philanthropic event he held in Colombia.In January 2007, Pacific Rubiales, a company in which Giustra was involved, signed a pipeline deal with the state-owned energy company in Colombia. A month after the deal was signed, Giustra and Uribe visited the Clintons’ home in Chappaqua, New York, according to the book.While this was taking place, Democrats continued to oppose the free trade agreement. But Colombia continued to court the Clintons, whom it saw as the best advocates for its cause, Schweizer writes.
Well, now some money is rolling to Obama. It's pretty natural to wonder what the real story is. Nobody makes a speech that good.
VIDEO:
THE
FRAUDULENT CLINTON FOUNDATION EXPOSED.
PAY-TO-PLAY
FROM THE FIRST DAY!
Is it a signal
that she's back in the game because she's selling her president-ability to the
world's global billionaire crowd and laying the groundwork for more
funds? There are all kinds of ways for foreign billionaires to get
money to the U.S. without consequences, after all. What's more, it's
pretty much the biggest base of support she has, which is at least one reason
why she lost the 2016 election.
*
“The couple parlayed lives supposedly spent in “public
service”
into admission into the upper stratosphere of American wealth, with incomes in the top 0.1 percent bracket. The source of this vast wealth was a political
machine that might well be dubbed “Clinton, Inc.” This consists essentially of
a seedy money-laundering operation to ensure big business support for the
Clintons’ political ambitions as well as their personal fortunes.
into admission into the upper stratosphere of American wealth, with incomes in the top 0.1 percent bracket. The source of this vast wealth was a political
machine that might well be dubbed “Clinton, Inc.” This consists essentially of
a seedy money-laundering operation to ensure big business support for the
Clintons’ political ambitions as well as their personal fortunes.
*
The basic components
of the operation are lavishly paid speeches to Wall Street and Fortune 500
audiences, corporate campaign contributions, and donations to the ostensibly
philanthropic Clinton Foundation.”
*
"But what the
Clintons do is criminal because they do it wholly at the expense of the
American people. And they feel thoroughly entitled to do it: gain power, use it
to enrich themselves and their friends. They are amoral, immoral, and venal.
Hillary has no core beliefs beyond power and money. That should be clear to
every person on the planet by now." ---- Patricia McCarthy -
AMERICANTHINKER.com
THE OBAMA – CLINTON RUSSIA CONNECTION
*
WITH THESE
TRAITORS, JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY!
*
How President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton aided
Russia’s quest for global nuclear dominance.
///
THE
SHADY POLITICS OF HILLARY CLINTON and her PAY-TO-PLAY MAFIA
The left cared nothing about that bit of
collusion.
Hillary and her campaign aides have long been involved
with Russia for reasons of personal gain. Clinton herself got $145 million in
donations to the Clinton Foundation for allowing Russia to take over twenty
percent of all uranium production in the U.S. Her campaign chairman, John Podesta, is reaping the
financial benefits of being on the board of a Russian company, Joule, which he did not disclose. PATRICIA McCARTHY
Had Hillary been elected, the Clinton
Foundation would be raking in even more millions than it did before. She
would be happily selling access, favors and our remaining freedoms out from
under us. PATRICIA McCARTHY
THE
PHONY CLINTON FOUNDATION CHARITY slush fund
*
*
“There
is no controlling Bill Clinton. He does whatever he wants
and runs up incredible expenses with foundation funds,” states a separate
interview memo attached to the submission.
“Bill
Clinton mixes and matches his personal business with that of the foundation.
Many people within the foundation have tried to caution him about this but he
does not listen, and there really is no talking to him,” the memo added.
HILLARY CLINTON: Serving
the super-rich and filling her bottomless pockets as she does!
*
"And this being
Hillary, with her stated presidential ambitions still remaining, it's also a
distinct possibility that donations to the Clinton Foundation are still being
sought, especially since they have dropped to nearly nothing now that Clinton
has no influence to sell. With Hillary, it's always about
money. Her stint as secretary of state was completely about pay to play, after all." MONICA
SHOWALTER – AMERICAN THINKER
Is it a signal that she's
back in the game because she's selling her president-ability to the world's
global billionaire crowd and laying the groundwork for more
funds? There are all kinds of ways for foreign billionaires to get
money to the U.S. without consequences, after all. What's more, it's
pretty much the biggest base of support she has, which is at least one reason
why she lost the 2016 election.
No comments:
Post a Comment