Quantcast

Categorized | News

Corruption; “What Difference Does It Make Now?” By Michael Giere

“The controversy and conflicting stories concerning her time on the Watergate Committee foreshadowed her entire public life.”

By Michael Giere

This has been a remarkable election season for many reasons. Chief among them is that Hillary Rodham Clinton, her core beliefs, background, policy proposals and scandals have received so little serious attention outside of a handful of conservative news outlets.

She is excused from real scrutiny, even as a deluge of new emails, leaks, and prosecutorial activity sweeps over the most openly corrupt politician in some time, and that’s saying something.

One reason for the lack of serious scrutiny is that Donald Trump takes a lot of oxygen out of the system. Give him that.

The other reason, and more importantly, is that the main line media we now know as hard fact, not supposition, (thank you WikiLeaks!) is even more corrupt than many of us already believed it to be – literally trading talking points among themselves, taking direction from the Clinton campaign, and clearing stories with the Clinton campaign in advance. It is amazing.

The media protects “their” candidate with silence, both on her absolute corruption and lack of accomplishment, and on the thin gruel her campaign offers in policy.

Her gender alone seems to the only rationale for high office the media or her supporters can present, and, of course, as with everything else in her life, ‘she had nothing to do with it!’ 

The double standard employed by the media is staggering, even by the low bar of recent elections. For Donald Trump, the major media feasts on his political unorthodoxy and flamboyance, and yet have largely ignored the increasing substance of his campaign. His recent speeches and policy offerings on taxes, foreign policy, trade and ISIS have been generally excellent and backed up with detailed specifics, all available on his website.

Some, this writer included, have been writing about Mrs. Clinton for many years. It is not as though there are any secrets, it is just that the average citizen has to dig to get passed the media blackout to get at them.

Mrs. Clinton has always made bedmates with both radicalism, scandal and public corruption.

Her thesis at Wellesley College was on the one time communist turned uber-radical, and friend, Saul Alinsky, followed by an internship with a law firm anchored by two well know communists. Her years of education culminating at Yale with a law degree, left her a radical, but willing keep on the path of incrementalism while always pushing hard to the far left.

She ended up on the House Judiciary Committee’s Watergate investigation in 1974, at 27 years of age, and Hillary Rodham’s first public career was marked by a still unsettled controversy. But that her brief career on the committee was controversial at all, speaks to the real Hillary. “[She was] an “unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality,” according to Jerry Zeifman, the committee’s Chief Counsel at the time.

The controversy and conflicting stories concerning her time on the Watergate Committee foreshadowed her entire public life.

There has been very little in that public life not marred by sordid maneuvering, lying, conniving and a homing pigeon’s instinct for the easy money. All done with an attitude of privilege, an unholy disregard for anyone but herself, and, according to officers in the Arkansas State Police, members of the Secret Service, and others that know her well, a level of vulgarity in her personal life that would make a drunken sailor blush.

Hillary Rodham left the Watergate Committee and headed to Arkansas to rendezvous with her future husband, Bill Clinton. Commodity futures scams, Whitewater and a dozen other financial scandals marked their collective time in Arkansas politics; not to mention sex escapades concerning both of them, and, of course, alleged sex crimes by Bill, all stacked up like cord-wood.

Only one thing changed when the Clinton’s moved to Washington; they became worse. The financial shenanigans and the sexual adventures of Bill, at least, grew in scope and brazenness. Those years are well documented, but, again, not well known.

The Clinton Foundation was the perfect capstone for the Clinton era in national office. It was a tax exempt foundation that gave cover to a wide variety of benefits for the Clinton’s personally, and allowed both Bill and Hillary to maintain key relationships all across the globe. During her years as the junior New York Senator and then as a candidate for president in 2008, and finally as Secretary of State, the Bill and Hillary team learned how to fine tune the Foundation, which has raised over $2 billion dollars, into a massive pay-to-play scheme that vacuumed in cash from across the world, including from the world’s worst actors and authoritarian states.

Setting the world on fire will be the lasting historical testament for Secretary Clinton’s term at State, and the incredible, dazzling and shameless email scandal using private servers, may yet define her legal standing.

The corrupt Attorney General and the corrupt FBI Director’s testimony stand as their own indictments; the law was broken – dismissed as something mere citizens must obey – and there is little doubt that the nation’s secrets and the byways and highways of statecraft are in the hands of whomever employed a decent hacker.

The debacle at Benghazi, the Russian uranium deal, the Jamaican gold, and literally dozens of other sordid, horror stories follow Hillary Clinton around like the stench of rotten eggs.

In a way, it is fitting that the email and Clinton Foundation scandals that are bubbling at the surface like a toxic waste dump, are hounding Mrs. Clinton into the fall election cycle. It will give the American people the opportunity to express a judgement on the sewer that has become Washington – the Washington of both parties; interested only in themselves, their personal power and connections, and their personal aggrandizement.

That Mr. Trump is this protagonist in this drama is a bizarre twist of real life. His uncanny knack of taking the complex to the simple, to arouse the passion of the forgotten working family in country, and his dedication to “America First,” stands at the barricades of the assault on the America that our “ruling class,” as exemplified by Hillary Clinton, simply no longer care about, other than a vehicle to their own enrichment.

About Tom White

Tom is a US Navy Veteran, owns an Insurance Agency and is currently an IT Manager for a Virginia Distributor. He has been published in American Thinker, currently writes for the Richmond Examiner as well as Virginia Right! Blog.Tom lives in Hanover County, Va and is involved in politics at every level and is a Recovering Republican who has finally had enough of the War on Conservatives in progress with the Leadership of the GOP on a National Level.

2 Responses to “Corruption; “What Difference Does It Make Now?” By Michael Giere”

  1. lawrence wood says:

    It’s always and in some ways continues to be a puzzlement to me how so much of the national print and electronic media press have ended up as really little more then effective extensions of the Democratic political Party. This originally somewhat covert set of activities which noticeably began to accelerate in the 1960’s and throughout the Vietnam conflict and the college campus radicalization movements of the period, today has matured into a full blown and unabashed overt set of left wing political justifications and truth dissembling activities who proudly display their complete lack of objective reporting and realistic news analysis each and every day.

    I agree with Mr. Giere that the trend has worsened with the Clinton’s returning to the political beltway (within the last decade) as well as the transition of reporting from an older retiring generation of media and print journalists to those more aligned with the post 60’s radicalization of the US higher educational system. Donald Trump as well has a unique skill to get under these individual’s skin and ridicule their lies and misrepresentations sending them into fits of apoplexy. Yet it still doesn’t seem to me to totally support the reality that these mass communication corporations are “presumably” operating within the context of today’s existing US business models of profit and loss which scream to anyone taking even a cursory look at their financial statements that there appears to be little hope for long term survival let alone any expansion or growth of their mass communication services.

    What is really transpiring here with these organization’s P&L statements demonstrating vast amounts of value equity cash shed over the last decade in particular and the yearly quarter after quarter negative losses that continue to pile up with their continuing operations? How are they still even operating under these business model conditions and WHY based on any rational business argument? That is when I came to my personal epiphany that I had to STOP regarding them within the context of the 20th century US business news model and look at them for what they really have mutated into the surreptitiously camouflaged political action committees (PAC) that they have become.

    The legal concept of PAC was created in 2002 in pursuit of campaign finance reform in the United States. At the federal level, an organization becomes a PAC when it receives or spends more than $2,600 for the purpose of influencing a federal election, according to the Federal Election Campaign Act. At the state level, an organization becomes a PAC according to the state’s individual election laws. National based multi-candidate PACs were contribution restricted to $5,000 per candidate or candidate committee for each primary or general election respectively, $15,000 to a political party or $5,000 to other PACs per year. The grey area and one that has caused the most contention, legal challenge and federal intervention was the rule that PAC’s may make unlimited expenditures “independent” of a candidate or political party.

    In 2010 the Supreme Court overturned sections of the Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (the McCain-Feingold Act) that had prohibited corporate and union political independent expenditures in political campaigns making it legal for these corporations and unions to now spend from their general treasuries to finance “independent expenditures” related to campaigns, but did not alter the prohibition on direct corporate or union contributions to federal campaigns. If the 2002 ruling was opaque regarding corporate and national non political party associations direct spending in “independent” campaigns this ruling was downright murky. Sorry for the digression but to understand my opinion regarding these media entities today you need to grasp the base facts of modern 21st century campaign finance.

    What to do, what to do, if you are an old or new money multi billionaire, entrenched liberal leaning, big money contributor or more accurately described influencer, of the US political scene given 2010 rulings and you don’t wish to be constrained by the FEC and Supreme Court rulings regarding your cash influence into the political process and the globalists agenda it often represents? If you already own or can acquire controlling interest in a mass media communication entity like the Ochs-Sulzberger family trust (The New York Times), Amazon’s multi billionaire founder Jeff Bezos (The Washington Post) or the Murdock family (Fox News and affiliates) to select just a few, you just convert the media business asset into an unregulated, unconstrained PAC vehicle for funneling money into your political causes free and clear of the pesky FEC and other outside regulators. It’s a win for you and your left wing political associates but a loss for campaign finance regulation and accountability to the base American voter. That these assets do and may well continue to lose cash – SO WHAT! Cash expended for political lobbying and large cash campaign donors don’t measure these type of expenditures on a profit and loss scale but rather in the accomplishment of influence investments acquired and peddled.

    It’s time to redraw the FEC and judiciary boundaries on what is a “news organization” in the United States and what is effectively a PAC whose unlimited expenditures and media generated content are directly targeted to specific candidates (this cycle Hillary Clinton) or political party (Democratic). This trend needs to be restricted but expect the screams and cries from these media poseurs regarding “freedom of the press” the VERY last concept and agenda they represent. I’m open to other explanations but for now until I see a more logical one presented I will take the expected taunts of conspiracy theorist from the left and go with this one.

  2. Mr Green Jeans
    Twitter:
    says:

    “Broken Arrow, Repeat Broken Arrow”

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    CommentLuv badge

    Tom White Says:

    Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

    Check out NewsMax!

    Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

    No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
    * = required field

    Submit a Blog Post!

    Submit a Blog Post for our 'Boots on the Ground' feature

    Click Here for Instructions on How to Submit a Post

    Google Ad

    Google Ad

    Follow Us Anywhere!

    Google Ad

    Archives

    Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
    %d bloggers like this: