I was a little surprised when I saw even the Los Angeles Times editorial condemn the rank hypocrisy of labor unions:
Editorial L.A. labor leaders’ hypocrisy on minimum wage hike
By The Times Editorial Board
▼ Los Angeles labor leaders fought for a minimum wage hike; now they want to be exempt from it
▼ L.A. County Federation of Labor is being hypocritical in its stance on raising the minimum wage
May 29, 2015, 5:00 AM
No, employers with a unionized workforce should not be allowed to pay less than Los Angeles’ proposed minimum wage. It’s stunning that after leading the fight for a $15 citywide minimum wage and vehemently opposing efforts to exempt restaurant workers, nonprofits and small businesses from the full wage hike, the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor is now lobbying for an exemption for employers with union contracts. That’s right — labor leaders are advocating that an employer should have the right to pay union members less than the minimum wage.
This is hypocrisy at its worst, and it plays into the cynical view that the federation is more interested in unionizing companies and boosting its rolls of dues-paying members than in helping poor workers. Such an exemption would create an incentive for companies to allow unions in — but rather than helping workers, it would undermine the purpose of the minimum wage ordinance, which is to set a new, higher pay floor in order to help lift the greatest number of low-wage Angelenos out of poverty.
Mind you, it was also rank hypocrisy at its WORST when the same damn cockroach labor unions fought like the rabid roaches that they are to get ObamaCare passed – and then demanded that they be exempted from the law they forced everybody else to bow down before and obey.
Because to be a Democrat is to be a fascist who says, “What is good for me to force on thee should not apply to me.”
And of course there has never been in all of human history a politician who exemplified that spirit of elitist liberal entitlement than Hillary Clinton. Which is why hypocrite Democrats love her so much.
Here’s another one: Same newspaper, same day, revealing how liberals are HYPOCRITES without shame, without honor, without virtue, without decency, without integrity. As you read the following LA Times article listen to my voice in your head screaming, “JUST HOW THE HELL IS IT THAT THESE LIBERAL DEMOCRAT HOLLYWOOD COCKROACHES WHO DEMAND HIGHER TAXES ON EVERYBODY ELSE ARE CHASING TAX BREAKS RIGHT OUT OF THE DAMN STATE???
Realize before I show the article below that Warner Bros. and pretty much all the other big Hollywood entities are LIBERALS who donated heavily to Obama:
Other media companies have contributed more significantly to Mr. Obama, including Time Warner, owner of CNN and the magazine publishing house Time Inc. The company, which is based in New York and also owns Warner Brothers and HBO, has contributed $191,834 to Mr. Obama in the 2012 election cycle, compared with $10,750 to Mr. Romney
Which is to say, having done the math, that Warner Bros. is 1,692.84 percent more Obama-liberal than it is Romney-Republican. And virtually every single media outlet today is a whore of liberal ideology, pumping their propaganda into the mindless heads of pathologically depraved cows who gobble it up like pigs shoving their faces into their feeding trough. I mean, when I was a child, I used to spit into fish ponds and watch in amazement as the goldfish swarmed to be the first to dine on my loogie. But only now do I realize that I was receiving an object lesson in how liberals teach and how liberals learn.
Liberals are Nazis who say, “What is good for me to force on thee does not apply to me.
Now watch how real liberals act when it’s THEIR money rather than somebody else’s money:
Big movies in short supply in California, FilmL.A. says
By Richard Verrier
▼ Only two big-budget movies released in 2014 were filmed in California
▼ Few big movies have filmed in California because they were excluded from the state’s financial incentives
May 28, 2015, 5:59 PM
The big movie hitting theaters this weekend is “San Andreas,” depicting the destruction of California from a massive earthquake.
The Warner Bros. movie was filmed mainly in Australia, of course.
Such is the reality that California faces in an industry where tax credits and other financial inducements increasingly drive where movies are filmed around the world.
Fresh evidence of that emerged Thursday in a feature film study from FilmL.A. Inc., the nonprofit group that handles film permits for the city and county.
The second annual report found that only 22 of 106 films released by the major studios in 2014 were actually filmed in California. The rest of the movies were shot in New York, Britain, Canada, Georgia, Louisiana, Australia and a dozen other states and countries.
Only two films with budgets above $100 million were filmed primarily in California: Marvel’s “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” and Paramount’s “Interstellar.” Even those films spent considerable time and money in other locations that offer tax credits and rebates to lure filmmakers.
The exodus of big movies from California has been happening for years. When local film production peaked in 1997, 64% of the top 25 movies at the box office were filmed in California, compared with 16% last year.
“We’ve waited so long to truly get involved in the competition that we’ve allowed some major production centers to be created around the world,” said Paul Audley, president of FilmL.A.
The report notes that several high-profile movies set in California have filmed elsewhere, including Warner Bros.’ “Godzilla,” which was shot mainly in Vancouver, Canada; 20th Century Fox’s “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,” which was filmed in Louisiana; and Disney’s “Million Dollar Arm,” which was shot mainly in Georgia.
As for “San Andreas,” the movie filmed some scenes in Los Angeles and San Francisco but most of the two-month shoot took place at Village Roadshow’s Studio on the Gold Coast in Queensland, Australia.
The $110-million movie, from Warner Bros.’ New Line Cinema unit, received a portion of a $20-million film fund specifically designed to attract foreign productions.
Warner’s decision was not surprising.
Few big movies have filmed in California because they were excluded from the state’s financial incentives.
That’s about to change. To stop the exodus of production, state lawmakers last year approved an expansion of the film and TV tax credit program. The new program triples annual funding to $330 million a year and for the first time allows big budget films to apply for the incentives.
Studios will apply for feature film tax credits under the new program in July.
“The new program should result in us getting several of the large features back in California,” Audley said.
While the same Democrats who are giving tax credits to hypocrite liberal moviemakers impose sky-high taxes on all the other businesses and people they’re crushing and oppressing right out of the state.
If you are not truly and astonishingly STUPID, you understand that low taxes are the key to healthy businesses. The problem with these liberals isn’t that they’re dumb, it is that they are utterly depraved moral hypocrites who because they are the human equivalent of cockroaches are ONLY capable of caring about THEMSELVES and to hell with everybody else.
Now, elitist jet-setting liberals right out of The Who’s song “Eminence Front” DO understand that the overwhelming majority of Democrats are just rank-and-goose-stepping-Nazi-file STUPID as well as depraved. They are little more than dumb farm-animal-cattle who are so easily lied to and manipulated and duped and led by the nose by lies that it is beyond amazing. But yeah, stupid Democrat: “it’s an eminence front.” And “it’s a put on.” That’s what liberalism is, that’s what the Democrat Party represents: an eminence front, a bright-shining lie.
Let’s force ObamaCare. And exempt ourselves. Let’s force higher wages. And exempt ourselves. Let’s force higher taxes. And exempt ourselves. And anybody who thinks liberals give one flying DAMN about the poor are poor – in the sense of completely lacking in either rational or moral-capacity – deluded fools.
If you have any insight whatsoever into the shriveled cockroach psyche of Hillary Clinton, you shouldn’t be one bit surprised that this corruptocrat who wants to be empress got her parasitic little fangs into $100,000 of probably the biggest and worst scandal ever to hit the sports universe:
WASHINGTON — The embattled Clinton Foundation can add a new name to its long list of donors under scrutiny — the scandal-tarred world soccer federation.
FIFA donated as much as $100,000 to the charity headed by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton, foundation records revealed, with no further details available.
On Wednesday, US authorities indicted 14 soccer officials.
FBI agents arrested the officials meeting in Switzerland, as the head of the Justice Department described a conspiracy of bribery and corruption in the selection of World Cup host countries and sponsors.
The Clinton Foundation, already under fire for accepting multimillion-dollar contributions from nations including Saudi Arabia, disclosed only the range of the contribution — from $50,001 to $100,000.
Meanwhile, as we speak, on this very day’s headlines, even the New York Times is calling what the Clintons did “distasteful”:
An Award for Bill Clinton Came With $500,000 for His Foundation
By DEBORAH SONTAGMAY 29, 2015
To commemorate the 10th anniversary of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, Petra Nemcova, a Czech model who survived the disaster by clinging to a palm tree, decided to pull out all the stops for the annual fund-raiser of her school-building charity, the Happy Hearts Fund.
She booked Cipriani 42nd Street, which greeted guests with Bellini cocktails on silver trays. She flew in Sheryl Crow with her band and crew for a 20-minute set. She special-ordered heart-shaped floral centerpieces, heart-shaped chocolate parfaits, heart-shaped tiramisù and, because orange is the charity’s color, an orange carpet rather than a red one. She imported a Swiss auctioneer and handed out orange rulers to serve as auction paddles, playfully threatening to use hers to spank the highest bidder for an Ibiza vacation.
The gala cost $363,413. But the real splurge? Bill Clinton.
The former president of the United States agreed to accept a lifetime achievement award at the June 2014 event after Ms. Nemcova offered a $500,000 contribution to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The donation, made late last year after the foundation sent the charity an invoice, amounted to almost a quarter of the evening’s net proceeds — enough to build 10 preschools in Indonesia.
Model Invites Bill Clinton to Her Gala
In this August 2013 letter, the model Petra Nemcova rewrote an earlier invitation asking Bill Clinton to accept a lifetime achievement award from Ms. Nemcova’s Happy Hearts Fund charity.
OPEN Document: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/30/us/politics/model-invites-bill-clinton-to-her-gala.html
Happy Hearts’ former executive director believes the transaction was a “quid pro quo,” which rerouted donations intended for a small charity with the concrete mission of rebuilding schools after natural disasters to a large foundation with a broader agenda and a budget 100 times bigger.
“The Clinton Foundation had rejected the Happy Hearts Fund invitation more than once, until there was a thinly veiled solicitation and then the offer of an honorarium,” said the former executive director, Sue Veres Royal, who held that position at the time of the gala and was dismissed a few weeks later amid conflicts over the gala and other issues.
Press officers for Ms. Nemcova and for the Clinton Foundation said on Thursday that the foundation had not solicited the donation and that the money would be used for projects in Haiti, as yet undetermined.
The Happy Hearts Fund and the Clinton Foundation “have a shared goal of providing meaningful help to Haiti,” the school charity’s spokeswoman said. “We believe that we can create the most impactful change by working together.”
Never publicly disclosed, the episode provides a window into the way the Clinton Foundation relies on the Clintons’ prestige to amass donors large and small, offering the prospect, as described in the foundation’s annual report, of lucrative global connections and participation in a worldwide mission to “unlock human potential” through “the power of creative collaboration.”
Similarly, Ms. Nemcova, like other celebrity philanthropists, uses her fame to promote her charity — which has financed more than 110 schools, mostly kindergartens — just as she uses Happy Hearts to position herself as a model-humanitarian.
“This is primarily a small but telling example of the way the Clintons operate,” said Doug White, who directs the master’s program in fund-raising management at Columbia University. “The model has responsibility; she paid a high price for a feel-good moment with Bill Clinton. But he was riding the back of this small charity for what? A half-million bucks? I find it — what would be the word? — distasteful.”
In her letter of invitation to Mr. Clinton, Ms. Nemcova, then chairwoman of her charity’s board, said she wanted to show her appreciation for his “inspirational leadership” after disasters.
“My gratitude to you is so strong that should you accept, we will schedule our event commemorating the 10th anniversary around your schedule,” she wrote, speaking of their shared dedication to the survivors of both the tsunami and the 2010 earthquake in Haiti.
When the tsunami struck in December 2004, Ms. Nemcova, who had been featured on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue the previous year, was vacationing in Thailand with her boyfriend, a fashion photographer named Simon Atlee. They were swept from their beach cottage and separated in the turbulent waters; Mr. Atlee died.
Ms. Nemcova, her pelvis shattered, held fast to a tree for hours until she was rescued, listening impotently to the cries of children, she has said, which later motivated her to found her child-centric charity.
Happy Hearts rebuilt two schools in Thailand while Mr. Clinton was the United Nations’ envoy for tsunami relief and reconstruction. Most of the charity’s rebuilding has been in Indonesia after the earthquakes of 2006 and 2009.
After the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, Ms. Nemcova turned her attention to that small island nation, where both Mr. Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton, as secretary of state, played outsize roles in the earthquake relief effort and the more problem-filled reconstruction. The country had attracted other celebrity benefactors, too, notably the actor Sean Penn, an ex-boyfriend of Ms. Nemcova’s who had created his own relief organization and forged a relationship with Mr. Clinton.
In the fall of 2011, many players in Haiti’s rebuilding effort, including Ms. Nemcova, attended the Clinton Global Initiative’s membership meeting in Manhattan. Members, who must be invited, pay $20,000 in annual dues, largely for the yearly gatherings, where charity founders and entrepreneurs get to network with world leaders, corporate executives and wealthy donors.
Clinton Foundation Bills Small Charity for Big Donation
Six months after Bill Clinton accepted a lifetime achievement award at the Happy Hearts Fund gala in June 2014, the Clinton Foundation sent this invoice to the charity, run by the model Petra Nemcova. It sought to collect a $500,000 donation.
OPEN Document: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/05/30/us/politics/clinton-foundation-bills-small-charity-for-big-donation.html
At the meeting, Ms. Nemcova signed a memorandum of understanding with the president of the Inter-American Development Bank to finance schools in Haiti. The development bank has also donated to the Clinton Foundation — just over $1 million — and it partnered with Mrs. Clinton’s State Department after the earthquake to create an industrial park in northern Haiti.
Almost four years after Happy Hearts and the development bank made their commitment, they have yet to complete a single school, partly because of problems finding suitable land. Five schools are under construction.
Happy Hearts collaborated more expeditiously in Haiti with the Digicel Foundation, whose founder, the Irish billionaire Denis O’Brien, is a multimillion-dollar supporter of the Clinton Foundation and whose parent telecommunications company benefited from grants from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department.
Digicel also made a commitment at the 2011 meeting to build schools; the commitment was a formality, though, as Digicel had already taken the lead in Haiti in that realm. It has built 150 schools there over the last seven years; Happy Heart has built seven, six of them joint or side-by-side ventures with Digicel.
One of those schools, operated by the Haitian group Prodev, was featured in the Clinton Foundation’s most recent annual report as “built through a Clinton Global Initiative Commitment to Action.” The Clinton Foundation’s sole direct contribution to the school was a grant for an Earth Day celebration and tree-planting activity.
In late 2011, Ms. Nemcova dedicated her charity’s annual fund-raiser to Haiti, awarding the lifetime achievement honor to Mr. Penn, whom the Haitian government had named an ambassador at large, and giving a speaking platform to Laurent Lamothe, Haiti’s foreign minister.
The next year, Ms. Nemcova, too, became an ambassador at large for Haiti. And by 2013, she was practically living there, having become romantically involved with Mr. Lamothe, by then prime minister. (Mr. Lamothe, no longer prime minister, is now a presidential candidate in Haiti, and the couple have split up.)
Through the years, Ms. Nemcova, 35, has blended her personal and philanthropic lives; her sister replaced Ms. Veres Royal as executive director of Happy Hearts. She has also mingled her celebrity and charity work, both in ways that benefited the charity and in ways that benefited her personally.
In 2011, when she appeared as a contestant on ABC’s “Dancing With the Stars,” her survival story and charity received ample, positive attention. She brought on Clinique and Chopard as sponsors of the charity, but also accepted personal fees to model their products.
“Ms. Nemcova has a long career as a model in fashion industry for 16 years and has longstanding relationships with many brands,” her charity’s spokeswoman said. “Happy Hearts Fund is grateful for Chopard’s and Clinique’s support.”
At the 2014 gala, Chopard, a Swiss jeweler that was dedicating partial proceeds from a heart-shaped bracelet to the charity, set up lighted showcases in the cocktail area, Ms. Veres Royal said.
“They were peddling exorbitant jewelry at a gala that was supposed to focus on children who have lost their belongings, homes, and often friends and family members,” she said. “It was inappropriate and tacky. Too many people at that event were looking after their own interests first.”
Happy Hearts Fund first asked Mr. Clinton to be its honoree in 2011. Trying again in 2013, Ms. Nemcova sent her first formal letter of invitation in July, asking Mr. Clinton to be the primary award recipient at a Happy Hearts gala on Nov. 4, 2013, celebrating Indonesia.
Mr. Clinton’s scheduler replied with a cordial rejection — “Regrettably, he is committed to another event out of town that same evening” — in an email copied to Frank Giustra, the Canadian mining financier who is one of the Clinton Foundation’s largest donors and also a supporter of Ms. Nemcova.
Haitians protested outside the Happy Hearts Fund gala, which Mr. Clinton attended after Ms. Nemcova pledged $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Her charity has worked with the Clinton Foundation on projects in Haiti. Credit Tony Savino/Corbis
Ms. Nemcova subsequently met with officers at the Clinton Foundation, Ms. Veres Royal said. Afterward, she said, “Petra called me and said we have to include an honorarium for him — that they don’t look at these things unless money is offered, and it has to be $500,000.”
The invitation letter was revised and sent again at the end of August. It moved the gala to 2014, offered to work around Mr. Clinton’s availability, dropped the focus on Indonesia and shifted it to Haiti, and proposed the donation.
“Understanding the need and commitment to ‘rebuilding better,’ Happy Hearts Fund would like to also share the proceeds of the event with the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, committing at least $500,000 in partnership on a joint educational project in Haiti, of your selection,” Ms. Nemcova wrote, ending with her customary signoff, “Lots of Love, Light and Laughter.”
When charities select an honoree for their fund-raising events, they generally expect that the award recipient will help them raise money by attracting new donors. But the Happy Hearts Fund raised less money at the gala featuring Mr. Clinton than it did at its previous one.
Further, it is extremely rare for honorees, or their foundations, to be paid from a gala’s proceeds, charity experts said — as it is for the proceeds to be diverted to a different cause.
And while the original invitation letter spoke of a joint educational project, the Clinton Foundation said Thursday that Happy Hearts had agreed that the money could be “split 50/50” between the foundation’s education programs and its economic development and agriculture programs in Haiti.
In the charity gala world, it is considered unacceptable to spend more than a third of gross proceeds on costs, and better to spend considerably less. If the donation to the Clinton Foundation were counted as a cost, Happy Hearts would have spent 34 percent of its announced $2.5 million in proceeds on its gala.
Its actual expenses — while they might seem extravagant to outsiders, with the total cost of the Cipriani facility alone at almost $300 a head — were in line with what other charities spend on such events.
In the end, the Happy Hearts Fund’s gala was a star-studded event, with celebrities including Naomi Watts and John Legend and the models Karlie Kloss and Coco Rocha in attendance. The Haitian president, Michel Martelly, a former musician who was Ms. Nemcova’s boyfriend’s boss at the time, was a second honoree, and he performed a couple of numbers with Wyclef Jean.
At the start of the evening, school bells rang and, as the master program dictated, “Petra dressed as schoolteacher” appeared, wearing glasses.
“Good evening, class,” said the message on the screen behind her. She later changed into a sheer red lace gown donated by the designer Naeem Khan, with diamond and ruby jewelry by Chopard.
A video by the Happy Hearts Fund framed the moment she presented the award to Mr. Clinton like this: “Ten years ago, two people were deeply impacted by the 2004 tsunami. They met this year again to inspire …”
“Petra did not have to devote 10 years of her life to building these schools,” Mr. Clinton told the crowd. “But what she has done is a symbol of what I think we all have to do.”
Outside Cipriani, about 100 protesters, mostly Haitian-Americans expressing frustration with the earthquake reconstruction effort, stood behind barricades holding protest signs.
“Clinton, where is the money?” they chanted. “In whose pockets?”
Bill Clinton’s speaking fee would have built ten pre-schools in disaster-torn Indonesia. Not that Slick Willy gives a damn about poor kids.
Here’s another story, fresh just today, detailing the PATTERN of Hillary Clinton using the State Department as her own personal money-machine:
State Department spending followed foreign Clinton Foundation donors
By Sarah Westwood | May 29, 2015 | 12:01 am
Countries and companies that donated to the Clinton Foundation or paid Bill Clinton heavy fees for speeches saw an increase in State Department activity while Hillary Clinton served as secretary of state.
The presidential candidate’s supporters have dismissed as conspiracy theories allegations that she and her husband traded political favors for contributions to their foundation or for lucrative speaking engagements.
A Washington Examiner analysis of Clinton Foundation donors suggests the State Department ramped up its diplomatic activity, foreign assistance and/or investment in countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation and hosted Bill Clinton for high-profile speeches.
For example, months after Bill Clinton delivered a speech in Riyadh for a price of $300,000, State Department funding for projects and activities in Saudi Arabia spiked.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has also donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, donor records show.
State Department funding for its diplomatic operations and projects in the country jumped from more than $18 million in 2011 to $67.75 million in 2012, the year after Bill Clinton delivered his speech at the Saudi Investment Authority, according to USASpending.gov.
Much of that appears to have gone toward the construction of new State Department buildings in the country.
The agency poured $177.9 million into building a new embassy in Norway in 2011 over the apparent objections of diplomatic officials in Oslo.
Norway’s government has donated between $10 million and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation.
A leaked diplomatic cable sent to Clinton in July 2009 shows plans for the embassy project, which predated Clinton’s tenure as secretary, had been pushed from 2011 to 2020 to free up funding for embassies in key countries.
“We understand the arguments for first building NEC’s [new embassy complexes] where terrorist threats are higher,” the cable said of the delayed embassy plans in Norway.
The cable mentions “Pat Kennedy,” the undersecretary for management and a close Clinton aide, among the State Department officials who had helped to further the project.
Kennedy’s name also surfaced in Benghazi-related emails published by the State Department last week.
Despite the misgivings by agency officials in 2009, the State Department awarded the contract for the Norwegian embassy to Walsh Construction Group on September 27, 2011. It was the construction company’s first overseas embassy project.
Norway teamed up with an arm of the Clinton Foundation in September 2012 for an ambitious health care project funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development, which is part of the State Department.
USAID, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, the Children’s Investment Fund, the U.K. and Sweden supported the development of a type of contraceptive produced by Bayer that was widely distributed in poor nations.
All but Sweden and USAID itself were Clinton Foundation donors.
“The US Agency for International Development (USAID) is proud to have funded the development of this life-saving product,” then-USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah said at the time.
The same year USAID announced its plan to purchase 27 million contraceptive devices from Bayer, which donated between $20,000 and $50,000 to the Clinton Foundation, the pharmaceutical company hired lobbyists with DLA Piper (itself a foundation donor) to lobby the State Department on “federal procurement issues,” according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Bayer did not return a request for comment.
USAID and the State Department appear to have tapped Clinton-connected companies regularly for well intentioned projects around the world.
One month before Hillary Clinton left office, her agency launched an effort to expand the electronic banking sector in Afghanistan.
Citi, the Ford Foundation, Visa, Omidyar Network, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were each involved in the USAID-backed initiative. All five donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation.
Hillary Clinton kicked off a taxpayer-funded effort to bring health information to pregnant women around the world through their phones in 2011 with the help of two foundation donors — Johnson & Johnson and the United Nations Foundation.
The “Mobile Alliance for Maternal Action” initiative won an award for its innovation in 2012 after being judged by an independent panel that included additional donors to the Clinton Foundation.
The Clinton Health Access Initiative was brought into a State Department health project called the President’s Malaria Initiative alongside two of its major donors.
While the malaria initiative began in the Bush administration, it consumed millions while Hillary Clinton was at the State Department.
Irish Aid, Ireland’s development agency, and the British version of USAID — both foundation donors of between $1 million and $5 million — also shared in the U.S.-backed project in Uganda.
Ireland saw a substantial increase in the money USAID and the State Department spent on operations and projects there while Hillary Clinton was in office.
She even made Ireland the site of her final official trip as secretary of state when she traveled there to receive an award from one of her family foundation’s top donors.
The State Department increased its spending in Ireland from $1.65 million in 2009 to $2.96 million in 2010 and $7.48 million in 2011.
USAID also upped its support of Ireland, taking its funding from nothing in 2008 — the oldest year for which data is available — to $29.87 million the year Clinton came into office.
After the Kingdom of Bahrain donated heavily to the Clinton Foundation, the State Department stepped up its activities in the Middle Eastern nation.
The agency’s contracts, grants, loans and investments in Bahrain climbed from $6.8 million the year before Clinton came to the State Department, to $7.1 million in 2009, to $8.9 million in 2011 and peaked at $11 million during Clinton’s final year in office.
Bahrain also enjoyed nearly $2 million from USAID in 2010, bringing its total State Department funding that year to more than $10 million.
To put that figure in perspective, the State Department spent just $1.9 million on its operations in Trinidad & Tobago, the country whose GDP was closest to Bahrain’s, in 2010. The agency spent just $1.3 million on its operations in Mauritius, the country whose population was closest to Bahrain’s, that same year.
United Arab Emirates and Jamaica, two other countries whose governments donated directly to the Clinton Foundation, also saw the State Department’s funding rise during Clinton’s tenure.
USAID’s support of its operations and other projects in Jamaica crept from $2.8 million the year before Clinton took office to $15.8 million in 2011.
State Department spending in the United Arab Emirates rose from $11.57 million in 2008 to $16.79 million in 2012, peaking in 2010 at $21.18 million.
The Clinton Foundation did not return a request for comment about the nature of its direct work with the State Department while Clinton ran the agency.
The Clintons are so damn cynical it is beyond unreal. They are the posters of official government corruption on planet earth today. And Obama tolerated it for the simple reason that it is the heart and soul of the Democrat Party to be corrupt and to cynically exploit the giant government they keep making more giant to enrich themselves and their cronies who support their ideology and their own palm-greasing.
Here’s another story fresh off the headlines of today appearing on Yahoo News’ feed today:
The latest Clinton shoe: Bill’s shell corporation
By Post Editorial Board
May 27, 2015 | 8:22pm
Just two days after President Obama confirmed that Hillary Clinton would be his secretary of state, Bill Clinton set up a shell corporation to “channel” his payments for unspecified consulting work.
Another day, another revelation about the Clintons’ tangled financial web. (Kudos to Robert Wargas of Pajamas Media for pinning down the date Bill set up his dodge.)
With WJC LLC set up as a limited-liability company with no assets and no employees, there was no need to report any of the cash that passed through it — not on Hillary’s personal disclosure statements then, not on her campaign forms now.
This perfectly legal mechanism provides certain tax advantages — notwithstanding the Clintons’ repeated claims that the rich “aren’t paying their fair share of taxes.”
But we’d guess it was the non-disclosure feature that appealed most.
No doubt the Clintons giggled all the way to the bank about their no-funny-business promises to President Obama and his team.
And now Hillary preaches the virtues of “transparency.”
Like everything else about the once “dirt poor” Clintons (now comfortable in the ranks of the 1 percent) the LLC raises huge questions. Questions like those Democrats raised in 2012 about Mitt Romney’s finances.
As the Associated Press (which first reported the existence of the LLC) notes, almost nothing about the exact nature and financial worth of Bill Clinton’s business interests, other than his ultra-lucrative speechmaking, is a matter of public record.
The Clinton camp insists it’s all nothing to worry about, that everything has been disclosed. Then again, that’s what they said before ’fessing up to $26 million in foreign donations they’d “overlooked.”
Hillary Clinton cites Eleanor Roosevelt as her inspiration. Sure seems her real idol is Imelda Marcos — because there’s always another shoe waiting to drop.
There are so many examples of Clinton “Pay-to-Play” that it is absolutely unreal. The level of crony-capitalist dishonesty is rabid. But being a Democrat means either being so depraved and hypocritical you don’t care are so pathologically stupid and ignorant you don’t know.
No one – NO ONE – who is not a rank, abject hypocrite without so much as a scintilla of honesty or integrity or even shame would EVER vote for this crony-capitalist political whore.
The problem is that to be a Democrat is to be a hypocrite. So no problem.