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

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Hillary Clinton's Blood Money

Crouching Bernie, Hidden Hillary by Jaeil Cho
www.jaeilchoart.bigcartel.com



Hillary Clinton's Blood Money
by Cindy A. Matthews

In the first Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton asserted that Bernie Sanders wasn't tough enough on guns and claimed she was an "enemy" of the National Rifle Association (NRA). Sanders correctly replied that he'd received failing marks from the NRA and was no friend of theirs. Bernie Sanders was rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record, while Hillary Clinton has flip-flopped on the topic of gun control as this video demonstrates:

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/33906-focus-hillary-clinton-should-apologize-to-bernie-sanders

After recent mass murder events in California, Georgia and Colorado, Senator Sanders spoke from Capitol Hill about these recent tragedies and gun safety legislation that should be passed. The following short video gives a good overview of his gun control proposals:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4564606/sanders-calls-common-sense-gun-safety-legislation
 
Bernie Sanders proposes ten ways to eliminate gun violence in America, including expanding background checks, renewing the assault weapons ban, closing the "terror gap" and insuring mental health treatment for those who need it when they need it. (To read more about his proposals, please click on this link or click on the "Bernie Sanders on Gun Control" page link listed on the sidebar.)

Mrs. Clinton has been fairly quiet since the latest shooting in San Bernardino. She issued the standard Twitter statement like most political candidates do, but she's not made any particular big fuss over the recent massacres or denounced the NRA and demanded more stringent gun control laws. Why is that? She claims she isn't a friend of the NRA--and they probably agree with her-- but could Hillary Clinton's silence indicate guilt over her family's foundation taking money from other countries and groups which have killed indiscriminately?
The following links and article quotes show a worrisome pattern of behavior. They indicate that the former secretary of state has readily accepted large sums of money from foreign powers and others with blood on their hands.
…the Clinton Foundation failed to report tens of millions in foreign donations in their tax documents, a revelation that has forced the organization to re-file at least five years' worth of returns. … Some of those many undisclosed donations (which violated Hillary's transparency pledge) were related to a troubling transaction in which (a) the Russian government obtained the rights to a large chunk of US uranium interests, (b) investors and magnates connected to the deal profited handsomely, (c) the Clinton Foundation (and the Clinton themselves) pocketed millions, and (d) Hillary's State Department signed off on the whole thing -- before "repeatedly breaking" promises to mitigate national security concerns.
Particularly troublesome is that the Clinton Foundation--a charitable organization created by Hillary and Bill Clinton--isn't always forthcoming as to the names of their supporters.
Trump states that Clinton Foundation not very open about who actually does give it money. Trump has also repeatedly criticized Clinton for the lack of public transparency on her charitable foundation’s dealings.
“If this was a Republican sitting right there, this would absolutely be considered illegal,” Trump said in April of the organization’s activities...
During Mrs. Clinton's time as secretary of state, several Middle Eastern countries with abysmal human rights records were very generous supporters to the Clinton Foundation--and rewarded in turn with lucrative arms deals.
The Qataris denied the Guardian report, while the Clintons said that philanthropy shouldn’t sit in judgment on its benefactors. That’s probably what they hope voters will think about politics too, but the problem for the Clintons is that all of these corrupt relationships cross traditional liberal constituencies. It’s tough to be pro-LGBT if you’re enabling regimes that throw gays off of rooftops, and it’s tough to be pro-worker when you’re shaking hands with people who are killing them by the dozen to build sports stadiums as monuments to their rule.
In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Saudi Arabia had contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, and just two months before the jet deal was finalized, Boeing donated $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to an International Business Times investigation released Tuesday.
The Saudi transaction is just one example of nations and companies that had donated to the Clinton Foundation seeing an increase in arms deals while Hillary Clinton oversaw the State Department.


If you're hoping against hope that foreign governments and big corporations donating large sums to the Clinton Foundation can't possible influence Mrs. Clinton's decisions while  in office, this Washington Post article will put that hope to rest:
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.

Hillary Clinton also claims that she is an "enemy" of Big Pharma and the Health Insurance Industry, and yet health insurance and drug companies have been some of her biggest financial supporters. Who's to say her "enemy" the NRA and related gun lobbyists aren't donating to her campaign or to the Clinton Foundation as well? As previous article links demonstrate, the Clinton Foundation isn't always forthcoming about the name of their donors and their accounting practices.
In 2008, Clinton was among the three biggest recipients of campaign cash from pharmaceutical-related companies, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics... The center reports that Clinton also raised more than $1.2 million from the insurance industry -- which includes health insurers.
On top of those campaign contributions, the Clintons and their family foundation have benefited from their ties to the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.
In 2011, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) -- the primary trade association representing drug companies -- paid Bill Clinton $200,000 for a speech, as the organization was lobbying the Hillary Clinton-led State Department. Last year, the Drug Chemical and Associated Technologies Association, a trade group whose members include major pharmaceutical companies, paid her a $250,000 speaking fee.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/14/hillary-takes-millions-in-campaign-cash-from-enemies
Since her first bid for Senate in 2000, Clinton has accepted nearly $1 million from drug and health companies and more than $2.7 million from the insurance field and its related sectors, according to an analysis of public records from the Center for Responsive Politics. 
More recently, the Clinton Foundation has also benefited from these groups’ donations. Donors and grantors who have given between $1 million and $5 million include Pfizer, the Procter & Gamble Co., Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina and Humana Inc.
A handful of the Fortune 100 corporations were missing lobbying disclosures from one or more years of Clinton's tenure, suggesting more may have lobbied the agency during that time. The Clinton Foundation did not return a request for comment.
How do we know the NRA or other gun lobbyists weren't among these corporations? We don't. We must take Hillary and Bill Clinton's word for it. We can trust them, right?  It's not like the Clintons have made millions from their foundation and their lobbying efforts, right? Oh, yes, they have... They have made millions. Hundreds of millions of dollars.

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/31474-hillary-clinton-s-wall-street-address
 ...While Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, her 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…
Those nations include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar, each of which “gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents.”
Further, American defense contractors like Boeing and Lockheed who sold those arms and their delivery systems also shelled out heavily to the $2 billion Clinton Foundation and the Clinton family. According to Sirota, “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.”
 
Is it any wonder Hillary Clinton never spoke out against Citizens United until after she'd received large sums of money for her Super PACs? The Clintons' support of Big Business over the best interests of ordinary Americans has been well documented. She may pretend to be a "progressive" and attempt to imitate Bernie Sanders' positions on the issues, but her actions prove otherwise. Further evidence of her pro-Big Business/pro-Wall Street agenda can be found in these articles:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33869-hillary-clinton-s-ghosts-a-legacy-of-pushing-the-democratic-party-to-the-right

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/33875-clinton-super-pac-donor-is-former-goldman-exec-and-foreclosure-crisis-profiteer
 

How "progressive" of you, Mrs. Clinton!

 
So much money--so many lives lost or permanently harmed by wars in the Middle East and elsewhere. So much money--so many lives cut short because health care isn't a universal right in the US and pharmaceutical companies are free to charge astronomical prices. Remember Martin Shkreli's recent 5000% price hike of an AIDS drug? We'd likely see more of this abhorrent activity in a Hillary Clinton administration.
Donations for arms deals... Donations for legislation favoring the billionaires over the working poor... All this "blood money" has touched the hands of Bill and Hillary Clinton through their Clinton Foundation.
To quote Sen. Richard Lugar, a ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee while Hillary was secretary of state: “The Clinton Foundation exists as a temptation for any foreign entity or government that believes it could curry favor through a donation."  Sen. John Kerry, current secretary of state and the committee's chairman at the time, called Lugar's concerns over the Clinton Foundation a "legitimate question." (Read more at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html)

Hillary Clinton accuses Bernie Sanders of not being tough enough on gun control?  It's laughable when you consider how much money she's taken from cold-blooded killers.

Vote for a candidate you can trust to put ordinary Americans' health, safety--our very lives--before pleasing billionaires and instead of lining his own pockets with immoral multi-million dollar "donations" from foreign governments and Wall Street to a family-owned foundation with questionable accounting practices. Vote Bernie Sanders.


(Special thanks to Denise Silva, Scott Galindez and A.J. Matthews for providing links, video and memes.) 

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Why Bernie Will Win – Part 4: The Big Difference


Why Bernie Will Win – Part 4: The Big Difference
by Joe Brunoli
a.k.a. EuroYankee


This post is a very easy one to write, because it is, in effect, a simple question: Will Hillary Clinton represent the interests of the working people of America?

What do millionaires talk about?
Hillary is a woman who has “served” as first lady of Arkansas, then first lady of the U.S., then as a senator, and then as Secretary of State. Her professional life has, for all intents and purposes, been a purely political one. And yet, through her connections, her contacts and her skill in manipulating the system, she has managed to parlay this political career into a fortune worth up to $55,000,000 according to USA Today.

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, has been a “real” political animal. During the same period that Hillary was amassing her fortune through an establishment political career, Bernie served as a city mayor, a congressman and a senator, all the while running on his famous Democratic Socialist platform. The result? According to the same USA Today article, Bernie has a net worth of just $330,000.

Bernie flies economy class when he travels.
So, here is the question: How is it that two candidates, who many claim have the same priorities and the same goals, could both dedicate their lives to politics, to “fighting for the working families” —and yet one ends up with a net worth of $55 million, and the other ends up with a net worth of just $330,000?

I think this is a big part of the reason that people do not like the Clintons. They are a political family. They have been making their living in political “service” to their state of Arkansas and then their country for virtually all of their adult lives, and yet they have managed to amass an incredible fortune while supposedly “serving” the public.

No one begrudged the Roosevelts their wealth, nor the Kennedys theirs.  Even Mitt Romney was generally considered to have “earned” his fortune. And Donald Trump has become famous almost solely for his success as a businessman. In other words, they “earned” their money the American way—in business.

But the Clintons? They are simply “America’s Political Family.” They have never done anything else. They travel in the same circles as the Trumps and the Bushes. Indeed, it is now widely known that the Clintons went to Trump’s last wedding, and Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, is best friends with Chelsea Clinton.

And this brings us to what I term the Big Difference. 

Bernie Sanders is a true believer. He is motivated by a genuine desire to help people, to speak truth to power, and as he says so often in his speeches, he wants to use his political position to “take on the billionaire class.”

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has used her political positions and connections to become  part of that billionaire class.

That is, I think, why people in the U.S. don’t like her. She literally embodies all that is wrong with the corrupt and money-driven political system that is running America today.

She is, in essence, the poster-girl for why Bernie’s political revolution is needed, and that fact will come out over the course of the campaign. It has to.

Bio: Joe Brunoli, , a.k.a. The EuroYankee, is a US ex-pat with dual US-EU citizenship. Originally from Connecticut, Joe currently splits his time between his ancestral residence on Lake Como, Italy and his apartment in Barcelona, Spain. He travels Europe extensively for his work and tries to find time to comment on trends, attitudes, politics and points of interest - especially as they may affect or regard the US. 




 Letting "Our Side" Down

You know what really irks me about the recent Democratic candidates' forum? Rachel Maddow showed each candidate a photo from their early (supposedly) political years and had them describe it and asked what they learned from that experience. It's how Maddow handled each candidate that gets to me.

Martin O'Malley: Maddow showed a photo of him as a young man working on Gary Hart's presidential campaign. He said he learned a lot about campaigning and politics from that early experience.


Bernie Sanders: Maddow showed a photo of Bernie at age 21 leading a sit-in to desegregate student housing at the University of Chicago. Bernie said he learned a lot about forming coalitions and how to lead others to take a stand on moral issues that affect us all as Americans.


Hillary Clinton: Maddow showed a photo of Bill and Hillary getting married. Yeah, nothing to do with Hillary's political growth or holding an office or leading others--but a photo of her on her wedding day. They talked about her then-fashionable spiral hair perm and how Bill's hair was now all white.

Maddow didn't press Clinton to say anything about her early years being politically active (as Hillary Clinton supported Republican Barry Goldwater for president in the 1960s). No, they talked about Hillary's hairstyle. Why didn't Maddow show a photo of Hillary Clinton campaigning for Goldwater? What would Hillary have said she learned from that experience? It's better to switch parties?

The overall message I took away from the Democratic candidates' forum was this: If you are a female politician, it's all about your hairstyle and nothing substantive like forming coalitions and leadership. So, MSNBC (Maddow's network) is saying that Clinton is "ahead" in the polls because she has a great hairstyle and can talk eloquently around in circles without answering questions fully, if at all. 

(Really, who all was in on this "secret conversation" in 1996 that made Hillary Clinton say she was against gay marriage then? Are there any "witnesses" to this "secret conversation" and if so, why was Hillary allowed in a conversation with her husband's advisors at the time? She wasn't a senator then, only the first lady, so how did she get the clearance? Does that mean as "first husband" he'll be telling her what to do? Isn't that essentially giving Bill Clinton a third term?)

Rachel Maddow and Hillary Clinton have made women in politics look shallow, who must rely on their looks and marriage connections to get ahead, and aren't to be pressed hard to fully answer questions in a straightforward manner. Talk about reverse discrimination! Thanks for letting "our side" down, ladies!

Bernie Sanders has many intelligent and capable women currently working on his campaign. I know we will see many strong women working in his administration, women who can answer questions without talking in circles. Women who will make good role models for our daughters and granddaughters.


                                                                          * * *
"Bernie" from Econia

Want to learn about democracy in a "hands-on-smartphone" way? Check out a free open-source mobile game in development called "Econia" at  
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1527063733/econia

What is Econia?
Our democracy is being sold to the highest bidder, and we’re too busy tapping on our phones to do anything about it. We want to help change that, but we can’t do it without you!

We’re making a game that will appeal to today’s casual audience, and help them explore the roots and causes of our democracy’s systemic corruption.

At first glance Econia is a simple tap-game, but there’s a lot more going on under the surface. Understanding supply and demand, the power of marketing, and using money to tip the system in your favor will be keys to success.

Players start as a farmer in a small frontier town, tapping on crops and struggling to survive. As the town grows into a metropolis, players will collect and sell food, hire other Econians to work their farm, help discover advances in agriculture and industry, and participate in the town’s democracy.

As the player grows he will discover how easy it is under the current system to use his wealth to bend the government in his favor.

And all with super-cute graphics!
  
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1527063733/econia