Sunday, August 21, 2016

"Pay to play" sounds reasonable to me, said Guido "The Snake" Gambino

Back on June 9th I wrote here about why I won't vote for Hillary Clinton.  It isn't because she isn't smart, or isn't qualified...she is on both counts.  She's been in and around government almost her entire adult life.  After all these years she no doubt has a star-studded black book of important contacts.  She's likely shaken down many of them, too.  (Something not exclusive to Hillary.)

Politics is a sleazy business...big shock, I know!  Politicians (of both parties) know how to write laws that make themselves look pure as the driven snow, but not too many layers deep into the regulations they write, if you know what to look for, you'll find all the necessary loopholes that give them a free hand to do pretty much whatever they want.  The very people who decide by the laws they write what is legal or illegal will quite naturally declare whatever they do to be legal.  It's the proverbial "license to steal".

With Hillary's "pay to play" relationship with the Clinton Foundation now front page news, let me share again what I wrote more than two months ago:

"So why won't I vote for her [Hillary]?  It's all about trust, or lack there of.  For starts, it's hard for me to separate the activities of the Clinton Foundation run by her husband and daughter and her duties as a Senator or Secretary of State.  There is no clear demarcation."

"Under federal law, foreign governments seeking to buy American-made arms [among many other things] are barred from making campaign contributions, a prohibition aimed at preventing foreign interests from using cash to influence national security policy.  But nothing prevents them from contributing to a "philanthropic foundation" controlled by policymakers.  (A tidy little loophole, wouldn't you say?)"

"Consider this:  In 2011 while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, the State Department approved a $29 billion dollar sale of American-built fighter planes to Saudi Arabia, despite the pleas of many that a deal that large would upset the delicate balance of power in the region.  The deal was even considered a "top priority" for Ms. Clinton personally.  Is it just a coincidence that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed $10 million dollars to the Clinton Foundation, and Boeing contributed $900,000 just months before the sale was given official approval?"
"In fact, in just three years (2011-2013) under Hillary Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion dollars worth of arms sales to 20 nations who had given contributions to the Clinton Foundation.  This number is over twice as much as was approved by the State Department in the same time frame during the last term of George W. Bush."

"And....Hillary Clinton switched from opposing an American free trade agreement with Colombia to supporting it after a Canadian energy and mining magnate with interests in that South American country contributed to the Clinton Foundation." 

"In fact, 13 companies lobbying the State Department paid Bill Clinton $2.5 million in speaking fees while Hillary Clinton headed the agency." 


I know some will say, "But the Clinton Foundation does many good things with the billions of dollars they control."   That's true, but the legitimate companies set up by organized crime to launder the money from their illegal activities no doubt provide some welcome community services, too.  Just because they sponsor the neighborhood Little League baseball team doesn't make their drug operations any less illegal.  I wouldn't vote for Guido Gambino for President just because he supported the local SPCA, even though I'm an ardent supporter of the SPCA.

I'm not a venomous partisan political person.  I'm not pro- or anti- either party.  I just call 'em as I see 'em.  And not only does Hillary's relationship with the Clinton Foundation look bad, it smells bad, too.  I just can't trust that whatever decisions she makes will always be in the country's best interest vs the best interest of the family business.



  1. I would never have considered it possible, but I am starting to believe the Clinton's have dirt on many high ranking media and political kingpins and are blackmailing them into favorable reporting and coverups. As corrupt as reporters might be I can think of no other reason why they would run from and not dig into obvious headliner grabbing scams, corruption and crimes not the least being rape, theft,insider trading and talk, and about tax loopholes, they contributed millions to get a personal tax deduction and the contributions were 98% to themselves. It is all in the news, but never a headline. The corruption and biased coverage (or non-coverage) boggles the thinking mind. Perhaps Hillary will explain all in a non-scripted question and answer opportunity which is scheduled for...?? Probably Never.

  2. Nice scrutiny. Looking forward to your analysis of Trump's business dealings and contradictions.

    1. Not to worry Bill. He fairs equally bad. I'm not choosing sides. As I said I'm not pro- or anti- anyone.

  3. I'll always choose competence over bluster. Hillary is certainly flawed but she'd be a better president than Trump.

    1. It's looking like Hillary will win with or without my vote, so I'll probably vote Libertarian just to keep the dirt off me.

  4. I have almost come to expect this sort of thing from all politicians at the highest levels. But the Obamas have not really had a record like the Clintons, have they?

    It has to be possible to do it without this sort of nonsense.

    Which is encouraging. Because otherwise, when we choose someone else over an experienced candidate with lots of dirt, we have to accept that we're just catching the new guy pre-dirt, before he's had the chance to get sleazy.

    I don't know who I am voting for yet. But although I did not vote for him, I am really starting to appreciate the Obamas.

    1. As I said, it's a sleazy business. Out of desperation I'll probably vote Libertarian. I have issues with some of what they propose, but at least I'm not aware of them (Johnson and Weld) being as crooked at either of our established parties.