Kim Strassel, you are stealing my lines. I have been calling the Obamas “grifters” here and on The Teri O’Brien Show for years.
Perhaps that’s a tad unfair because as I pointed out in my book, The ABC’s of Barack Obama: Understanding God’s Greatest Gift to America, the Obamas are just trying to enjoy their well-deserved reparations. From the book:
R is for “Reparations”
Don’t you think that when someone has been treated as less than human, had
everything he has worked for stolen from him and has otherwise been horribly abused, that person has earned restitution? It’s obvious that he has. What if a person was forced to work as a slave, picking cotton in the hot sun, under the threat of the lash, or even death? Once that person was rescued, he would deserve a huge repayment, wouldn’t he? Of course he would! Unfortunately, we can’t fnd that one abused guy, and even if we could he would be at least 160 years old, and he’d be way too feeble to enjoy any of the cool stuff all that cash could buy. Let’s face it. He’d be lucky to be aware that he was being carried around in a bucket at this point. No worries, though. Just take that same logic and apply it not to just one abused guy, but to all the people who suffered under the yoke of slavery in racist Amerika.
I can hear you saying, “Ter, how can we do that? Those people are all at least 160 years old! Dead even!” Actually, I can’t literally “hear” you because you’re only thinking that while reading this book, but I know if I were there, that’s what you’d say. OK. I’ve got an answer for that. Since we can’t award huge cash payments to the actual slaves to make up for the unspeakable suffering they endured, let’s give lots of stuff to their great-great-great-great grandkids and their kids and grandkids. That’s the idea of reparations. We’ve got to make it up to these people somehow. That civil war thing and all those people who were maimed, lost limbs and were even killed to end slavery, well, that was just a start. A good start, but just a start. Unfortunately, there are some people around who don’t see the inherent fairness of reparations. They say ignorant things like “Should Michael Jordan or Oprah Winfrey, who have more money than most small nations, get payments from ordinary Americans who are struggling to afford a frozen pizza and a movie from the Red Box on Saturday night?” Or “Show me someone who was actually a slave, and I’ll consider paying him reparations.” I’ve already explained that last one. It’s not possible, but that doesn’t mean that reparations aren’t just simple fairness. It’s beyond argument. I know that’s true because Barack and Michelle, unwilling to wait for the slow-witted members of the population who can’t see the obvious to catch on, have already started a reparations program. Barack wisely understands that reparations have to start somewhere, and he decided to grab the bull by the horns to do something for the descendants of slaves. Well, actually, so far it benefts only four descendantsof slaves; that is, Michelle, Sasha, Malia and Mother Robinson.
Just so. But back to the Clintons, and Ms. Strassel’s excellent opinion piece:
In an election season that has been full of surprises, let’s hope the electorate understands that there is at least one thing of which it can be certain: A Hillary Clinton presidency will be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law.
This isn’t a guess. It is spelled out, in black and white, in the latest bombshell revelation from WikiLeaks. It comes in the form of a memo written in 2011 by longtime Clinton errand boy Doug Band, who for years worked simultaneously at the Clinton Foundation and at the head of his lucrative consulting business, Teneo.
It is astonishingly detailed proof that the Clintons do not draw any lines between their “charitable” work, their political activity, their government jobs or (and most important) their personal enrichment. Every other American is expected to keep these pursuits separate, as required by tax law, anticorruption law and campaign-finance law. For the Clintons, it is all one and the same—the rules be damned.
The memo came near the end of a 2011 review by law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett into Clinton Foundation practices. Chelsea Clinton had grown concerned about the audacious mixing of public and private, and the review was designed to ensure that the foundation didn’t lose its charitable tax status. Mr. Band, Teneo boss and epicenter of what he calls “ Bill Clinton, Inc.,” clearly felt under assault and was eager to brag up the ways in which his business had concurrently benefited the foundation, Clinton political causes and the Clinton bank account. The memoed result is a remarkably candid look at the sleazy inner workings of the Clinton grifters-in-chief.
The cross-pollination is flagrant, and Mr. Band gives example after example of how it works. He and his partner Declan Kelly (a Hillary Clinton fundraiser whom Mrs. Clinton rewarded by making him the State Department’s special envoy to Northern Ireland) buttered up their clients with special visits to Bill’s home and tête-à-tête golf rounds with the former president. They then “cultivated” these marks ( Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, UBS) for foundation dollars, and then again for high-dollar Bill Clinton speeches and other business payouts.
Teneo’s incestuous behavior also included Mrs. Clinton’s State Department. The Band memo boasts that Mr. Kelly (while he was Mrs. Clinton’s State envoy) introduced the then-head of UBS Wealth Management, Bob McCann, to Bill Clinton at an American Ireland Fund event in 2009. “Mr. Kelly subsequently asked Mr. Mccann [sic] to support the Foundation, which he did . . . Mr. Kelly also encouraged Mr. Mccann [sic] to invite President Clinton to give several paid speeches, which he has done,” reads Mr. Band’s memo. UBS ultimately paid Bill $2 million.
The whole thing is worth reading.
As I have said for months on The Teri O’Brien Show, this latest stunning Clinton scandal, one of many, with its influence peddling, pay-to-play and unabashed pursuit of personal enrichment, makes Watergate look like a children’s party. If you agree, please share this post.
Julian Assange, who I do not consider a hero, given that some his past activities may have endangered American national security, has said that he is saving the best for last. With 11 days until Election Day, what do you think he is holding back?