Why Glenn Beck Says Hillary Will Be The Next President

So Glenn Beck (with whom I have more than a few disagreements) is now saying that Hillary Clinton will be the next president because she will invoke the Clinton years and a golden time of peace and prosperity a Bill and Hil version of Morning in America.

 

And Beck thinks that any GOP candidate is going to be hard pressed to counter that.

He may have something there, but if this is Hillary's argument, it's easily shot down in a way that reveals Bill Clinton's real legacy.

Peace and prosperity? Are we talking about the ignoring of mounting Islamist terrorism after the first World Trade Center bombing? The fiasco with North Korea? The phony dot.com prosperity which created a huge stock bubble that collapsed and left a large recession for incoming President George W. Bush? NAFTA,which cost thousands of American jobs? That kind of peace and prosperity? Bring it, Mrs. Clinton.

Rush Limbaugh has another cogent argument from the past to fling back at Mrs. Clinton if she tries painting the Clinton years with fake colors.

Of course, if the GOP nominates another cautious RINO  afraid to go on the attack and counter Hillary Clinton's nonsense...

#HillaryLies - Why Her Outrageous Speaking Fees Don't 'Go To Charity'

 

Hillary Rodham Clinton is cursed, in a way. In spite of  her media minions shielding her at every opportunity, in spite of the huge, well-funded machine at her beck and call, she remains her own worse enemy.

First there was that ludicrous interview with Diane Sawyer where Mrs. Clinton attempted to 'identify' with the masses, bemoaning how broke she and Mr. Bill were when they left the White House. That nonsense was so palpable even the Washington Post couldn't resist debunking it.

Then, there was the controversy over her outrageous speaking fees when she's hired by universities run by politically connected and sympathetic administrators. That money normally comes from the pockets of broke students trying to make ends meet, deal with hikes in fees and tuition and looking forward to struggling to pay off heavy student loan balances and fighting for that first unpaid internship.

 

At the University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV), for instance, Students facing a steep tuition hike have announced that they will protest a an October appearance by Ms. Clinton if she doesn't return the $225,000 she's raking in back to the university.

Hillary's reply? As she told ABC's Ann Compton, the huge fees she's pocketed all go to charity. Yes...they go to the Clinton Foundation.

Now, foundations are interesting creatures. As Jane Fonda shows us , if the foundation has 501(c) status (and the Clinton Foundation certainly does), they can be used as a place to park income so it isn't taxed and can be used for various 'expenses'..or even invested, tax free. Why else do you think that most of the super-wealthy in America like the Clintons have such foundations?

Another thing about foundations that's interesting is that according to the IRS rules, they're allowed to pay salaries and 'administrative costs' (pretty much anything you can think of) with any portion of the donor money, something that has attracted a lot of prominent politicians. Ex-president Jimmy Carter's Peace Foundation, for example provides a very nice income for him courtesy of his anti-Israel Arab friends. Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is another prime example of how 'foundations' , 'libraries' and 'centers' can be used as cash cows by their 'owners'.

And here's the kicker about Hillary's 'charitable donation'. Anything the wealthy 'donor' to such a foundation donates likewise becomes a deduction against whatever taxes they might owe the IRS. So if Hillary Rodham Clinton actually did 'donate' all that money to the Clinton Foundation, she got paid two ways..first by reducing her taxable income significantly to lower her taxes and second by acquiring a huge deduction to leverage against the taxes on her other income. And since her husband 'owns' the Clinton Foundation, the money stayed in the family.

Both The New York Times, of all people, and The New York Post had some disturbing things to say about where the huge sums of money the Clinton Foundation collects were spent...and the Clinton Foundation's infrequent audits.

The Clinton Foundation's mission statement ought to be a tipoff:

"We convene businesses, governments, NGOs, and individuals to improve global health and wellness, increase opportunity for women and girls, reduce childhood obesity, create economic opportunity and growth, and help communities address the effects of climate change."

Or as I would translate it, 'We actively pursue fundraising from governments, private enterprise and our well connected friends for various nebulous causes. Yeah, we got a few good things going on, a few programs we can point to, some conferences and some meetings so we have the slideshow as a marketing tool, but essentially, our real object is fundraising and covering our substantial expenses.'

Don't be surprised if some those 'expenses' end up being in kind, cash contributions to Hillary's 2026 campaign that not only evade McCain-Feingold but allow 'donors to get a nice tax deduction to a 501 C in the bargain. It's a dodge, just like the huge $14 million advance Democrat donor-owned Simon & Schuster ponied up for Hillary's failed book. Hillary will pocket the cash and Sumner Redstone and his friends will recoup it courtesy of the U.S. taxpayers after they deduct it as a loss against their other income.

"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop

"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan

#HillaryLies - And An Attempt To Make Her Look Good Reveals It!

It's an odd thing, but sometimes your friends can do you a lot more harm trying to make you look good than your enemies can.

There's a story in the New York Post, one of what appears to be several excerpts from a new book entitled "Blood Feud: The Clintons Vs. The Obamas" by Edward Klein, a 'journalist' with a thoroughly justified reputation for, shall we say, stretching the truth more than a little.

According to him, Mrs. Clinton "bristled at the Benghazi deception", by which he means she knew that this was a well planned terrorist assault by an al-Qaeda affiliate and argued with President Obama that his story about Benghazi being the result of a protest over an anti-Islam video wasn't credible.

According to Klein, the president refused to listen and demanded that she put out a State Department press release as soon as possible pushing the 'it was the video' narrative.

Hillary then called Bill Clinton and they discussed the matter:

After her conversation with the president, Hillary called Bill Clinton, who was at his penthouse apartment in the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, and told him what Obama wanted her to do.

“I’m sick about it,” she said, according to the legal adviser, who was filled in on the conversation.

“That story won’t hold up,” Bill said. “I know,” Hillary said. “I told the president that.” “It’s an impossible story,” Bill said. “I can’t believe the president is claiming it wasn’t terrorism. Then again, maybe I can. It looks like Obama isn’t going to allow anyone to say that terrorism has occurred on his watch.”


The two discussed various options, including her resigning as Secretary of State:

If her resignation hurt Obama’s chances of winning re-election, her fellow Democrats would never forgive her. Hillary was already thinking of running for president in 2016, and her political future, as well as Obama’s, hung in the balance.

Obama had put Hillary in a corner, and she and Bill didn’t see a way out. And so, shortly after 10 o’clock on the night of September 11, she released an official statement that blamed the Benghazi attack on an “inflammatory (video) posted on the Internet.”

The Benghazi Deception was in full swing.


There are two possibilities here...and neither of them cast Lady Macbeth in anything like a good light.

If Klein is telling the truth, then what we have here is a politician so consumed with ambition that she was willing to openly lie to the American people, and even to the families of the deceased not for any good of the country but simply for her own personal political ambition and to satisfy an obscene lust for power.

That should disqualify her from even being considered for any position of office or of public trust.

And if Klein is lying just to peddle a few books? Certainly possible. But if that's what going on here, then it just means that Secretary Clinton was an active and willing partner in the deception, a scenario I personally think is much more likely than the one Klein is selling.

Needless to say, if she was a willing partner and enabler of the Benghazi coverup, that the same thing applies..we have a foully corrupt, scheming politico who should never be considered for any position of office or public trust.

Odd that this book and this excerpt were apparently disseminated to try and exonerate Hillary,make her look honorable. It does just the opposite either way you look at it.

As always, #HillaryLies. It's simply whom she is.

Hillary's Book Bombs - But It's A Great Undercover Campaign Contribution At Our Expense

Hillary Clinton's latest ghost written memoir, "Hard Choices" received a huge amount of attention in the press and sparked a well publicized book tour, but that apparently isn't translating into the sales Simon & Schuster were expecting based on the $14 million  dollar advance they gave her:

In an email this evening, a veteran publishing source calls the latest Hillary Clinton book, 'Hard Choices', a memoir of her State Department years, a "bomb." The source is referring to the early but underwhelming sales figures.

"Between us, they are nervous at S&S [Simon & Schuster]," says the source, who gave permission for his email to be published. "Sales were well below expectations and the media was a disaster."

According to this source, a Simon & Schuster insider, "They sold 60,000 hard covers first week and 24,000 ebooks." The publishing house was "hoping and praying for 150,000 print first week."

"The 60k represents a less than 10% sell thru based on what they shipped," says the source.

It's been reported that one million copies of Clinton's book were shipped weeks before the June 10 publication date. "They will be lucky to sell 150,000 total lifetime," the source writes in the email.

'Nervous at Simom & Schuster?' I doubt that.

Since I know a bit about how book publishing works, I can tell you that an old line, established publishing house like S & S doesn't make huge mistakes with advances like this. They research this stuff carefully and have a marketing analysis done by experienced hands before they get out the checkbook. For example, Mrs. Clinton's last ghost written memoir, 'Living History' which chronicled her White House years (for which, by the way, she never credited her ghost writer Barbara Feinman and even tried to renege on part of Ms. Feinman's $120,000 fee) only received an $8 million dollar advance and made a profit, but not an overwhelming one.And that sold double what 'Hard Choices' did in its first week.

Not only that, but S & S went to the trouble and expense of printing over one million copies and shipping them before all the retail orders or even the preorders online were even in.

Major publishers simply don't make mistakes like that, or they turn into former publishers.

So let's look at how this works in the real world, shall we? Let's say S & S makes a gross profit on the retail sales of this piece of self-serving package of horse manure of between $3 and $4 million. After they deduct the costs of the advance, advertising, shipping, printing and all the other associated costs, what they end up with is a loss for tax purposes of perhaps $12 million plus..that's fully tax deductible against their other profits.

Meanwhile Mrs. Clinton still has her $14 million advance thanks to Simon & Schuster's unprecedented 'miscalculation'....and a nice campaign contribution that skirts campaign finance laws completely, while S&S is almost completely reimbursed by the American taxpayer, that is, you and me.

That plus the $6 billion that mysteriously went missing and is unaccounted for from the State Department's budget while she was Secretary of State would make a nice start for a 2016 run.

 

What difference does it make, right?


Oh, and who owns Simon & Schuster? CBS, who are in turn owned by Viacom. Just a coincidence of course, but Viacom's Chairman of the Board is Sumner Redstone, a self-described 'liberal Democrat' and a major Democrat donor as are most of the members of Viacom's board....along with Phillipe Dauman, by far the biggest individual shareholder, with over 1,350,000 shares.

Just a coincidence. Of course.

#HillaryLies: "We Left The White House Dead Broke"

Here's prospective Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in an interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer:

"We came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt. We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages, for houses, for Chelsea's education. You know, it was not easy."

Yes, they were struggling all right. Here's House #1, a mere cottage the Clintons managed to scrape together a purchase price $1.7 million for in Chappaqua, New York in 1999. That house, purchased while they were 'struggling' was acquired by the Clintons to establish residency for Hillary just before her senate run. And of course, people who are broke run for senate all the time, especially in states like New York where campaign costs are higher than normal.

 

Just a year later, the struggling couple managed somehow to buy House# 2, a mere shack in Washington D.C. they purchased for the pittance of $2.85 million:



Oh, but what about the debt?



Above, courtesy of Open Secrets via The Washington Post, here are Junior Senator Mrs. Clinton's annual disclosures of how much she and her husband earned, owned, and owed from 2000-2004.

I suppose next she'll be telling us they were on food stamps.

And Chelsea's education? Oh, the choices a financially struggling couple has to make! Let's see, the pricy Sidwell Friends private school, a BA at Stanford (at an every man's price at $36,000 per year in tuition and fees when Chelsea attended, books and supplies not included, with room and board about $11,000 per year extra, so probably close to a mere $200K for her BA alone) plus post graduate studies at Oxford and Columbia.I'd say the whole thing cost in the neighborhood of $500,000 minimum, and while Chelsea is reportedly bright, I have a feeling that she didn't exactly qualify for needs based financial aid.

So where did all this money come from?

Although she backed off fairly quickly, Diane Sawyer touched on some of it when she brought up Mrs. Clinton's $200,000 per shot speaking fees and the fact that the ex-president has made over $100 million for his speeches. And of course, there were the lucrative book deals put together by Clinton groupies in the publishing industry - a $15 million advance to the ex-president for "My Lie Life" and a mere $8 million for Hillary's 2003 book "Living History." But that's only part of the story.

Like some other ex-presidents Mr. Bill understood the part in the Bible about casting your bead upon the waters in a very real and personal sense...if you do favors for certain people while you're in office, they will reward you handsomely once you're out.

Both Mr. Bill and Hillary were regulars on what I'll call the Desert Oasis express, raking in handsome speaking and 'consulting' fees and honorariums from the Saudis and the other GCE countries. For instance, the ex-president received close to half a million dollars alone as a 'consultant' to the Emir of Dubai back when President Bush was trying to turn the security of our ports over to one of the Emir's companies. And then there's the Clinton Foundation, a real tax free cash cow for Mr. Bill that receives 6 and 7 figure funding from the Sultan of Brunei, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar among others.

The Saudis put up an estimated $10 million towards the Clinton Presidential Library, and Bill and Hill were always welcome to give speeches or 'consult' at handsome fees.Not only that, but Mr. Bill has received, to date, over $16 million in pensions and benefits from the federal government since leaving office. That includes $944,000 in fiscal year 2014, including office and staff expenses.Even without the Lincoln Bedroom to sell, describing the Clintons as 'struggling' reveals a contempt for the American people who footed the bill that is as revealing as it is ignoble.

But the Big Mac of Clinton financing was his association with the Emir of Dubai, through his well connected pal Ron Burkie. Starting in 2002, Mr. Bill was an 'adviser' to Burkie's Yuicaipa Companies (read 'lobbyist for hire to influence congress and others on Yucaipa's behalf'), one of the three owners of the foreign fund's general partnership, along with Burkle and the Emir's Dubai Investment Group (YGP) Ltd. , a partnership the former president paid zero dcollars to buy into. Mr. Bill pocketed $12 million alone from the Emir's companies as he cashed in his share to loan money to Hillary's floundering presidntial campaign, and received another estimated $20 million buyout from Yucaipa as well in 2009.

The Clintons entered the White House in 1992 with a net worth of $672,000. Today, Mr. Bill alone,not counting Mrs. Clinton's share of the swag is worth $54 million, making him our richest ex-president.

They came to Washington to do good, and ended up doing very, very well for themselves at the expense of the American people.

And Mrs. Clinton? Well, #Hillarylies, just like always.But as she would say, "What difference does it make?"