America in the Balance

HILLARY COMPLAINING ABOUT A FUND-RAISING VIOLATION AND BILL COMPLAINING ABOUT MEDIA COVERAGE? GIVE ME A BREAK!

by

Ken Eliasberg

I know that you’ve heard this before, but it’s true—I did not want to get into Hillary (and/or Bill) until after the primaries when she will have become the Democratic Party’s designated candidate (as I am certain that she will be). However, I find it almost impossible to overlook their impossibly unbelievable behavior. How silly of me; why should any one find anything the Clintons say or do unbelievable? But her most recent complaint over Obama’s alleged fund-raising indiscretion and Bill’s complaint about unfair media coverage boggles the mind.

Let me make a couple of points perfectly clear right up front “(1) no one, nor any combination or cumulation of “ones,” has been more guilty (and egregiously guilty, at that) of fund-raising violations than the Clintons, and, while I intend to go into them later in some detail, it is worth taking a preliminary peek at some of the highlights, if only to give context to her complaint about poor old Barak’s allegedly bad behavior; and (2) regarding Bill’s media-coverage-of-Hillary complaint, were the media being even close to objective, there’s no way that she would be a viable candidate—she is ruthlessly ambitious, fundamentally dishonest, lacking even a scintilla of judgment, and, all in all, probably the most unscrupulous, conscienceless person to ever run for office—and these are her good qualities. Her fatally bad quality is that neither by character nor competence, temperament nor talent is she qualified to lead—anything, let alone this great country of ours, and, were she not married to Bill Clinton (who, for some reason, despite being an impeached dirt bag, has retained a significant measure of personal popularity), we would probably not even know her name, let alone be considering her for such an incredibly important position. Practically every scandal that surfaced during the Clinton years could be traced to Hillary and her incredibly bad judgment. She has distinguished herself not in the manner in which she has led but rather in the manner in which she has misled. Indeed, if the press made even the slightest effort to be fair, Hillary would not be on anyone’s list of possible candidates.

Let’s take a look at each of these charges—first Barak’s questionable fund-raising efforts. Hillary has argued that he may have used “pac” money; who cares—such a violation when contrasted with that of her own behavior would be like a minnow up against a whale. The absolutely amazing thing here is that she would have the chutzpah to even allude to fund-raising (campaign or other) let alone put it in issue.

Going back to the Clinton’s days in Arkansas, they were running Chinese money into their political campaigns via Charlie Trie and the Riadys. In Bill’s 1996 campaign against Bob Dole, the Clintons probably committed more fund-raising violations in one year than all other parties have cumulatively committed—EVER!!In addition, in my opinion, they committed treason by utilizing funds from the Army of the People’s Republic of China (in return for permitting missile technology to be transferred to China, thereby moving their missile program ahead about 25 years—to the point where they would be able to hit cities in the U.S. with nuclear tipped missiles)—how’s that for a lalapalooza of a fund-raising violation? Well over 70 people either took the 5th Amendment, fled the country, or went to jail for this bit of financial legerdemain.

Then there was Mrs. Clinton’s Senatorial campaign efforts where she managed to get almost the entire vote of the Hassidic community in New Square, a New York community, as well as favorable consideration among New York City’s Puerto Rican community by having her husband pardon criminal elements from both communities. Then we have her representative, David Rosen, being indicted for fund-raising violations (he skated); the $2,000,000.00 Peter Paul episode now wending its way through the courts; the Hsu episode (which I briefly looked at recently in these pages—and with respect to which Mrs. Clinton once again feigned ignorance); the recent Chinese waiter incident in which Mrs. Clinton raised some $380,000.00 from a group of Chinese waiters in New York’s Chinatown; then there were the White House coffees, teas, sleep-overs, the bon voyage pardons that Bill granted as he left the White House, etc., etc. And the list of fund-raising violations goes on and on. Indeed, as noted, so dirty are the Clintons in this regard, that it is truly amazing that she would even raise a fund-raising question with respect to any other candidate.

In raising this matter, is she foolish, or, more likely, so secure in the knowledge that her Democratic opponents lack the courage to take her on and/or that the Mainstream Media (MSM) will once again just paper things over? If Barak doesn’t hammer her over this, then he lacks the intestinal fortitude to be president.

As to Bill’s assertion that the media is not being fair to his wife—there goes that marital gallantry stuff again—this is so ridiculous as to be really crazy-making. The Media has leaned so far over backwards with respect to Hillary’s campaign that they have damn near broken their backs. They are either raving about her brilliance with respect to some action that hardly warrants attention or going out of their way to paper over one of her screw-ups. Indeed, in Bill’s case, if the media had been objective, he would have been thrown out of office (although, as previously noted, I was quite content with his impeachment). The Media has been one of his greatest assets, all too ready to cover over his other greatest asset—his ability and constant willingness to lie (without a doubt our most morally bankrupt President).

Bill’s specific complaint was that, according to a recent study of a think tank, only “one percent of the press coverage was devoted to their [the candidate’s] record in public life.” I submit that, in Hillary’s case, such coverage would be a blessing; the more you learn of Hillary, not only do you learn how vicious she is, but, more to the point, how pathetically unqualified she is. Bill’s specific point of reference here is to Hillary’s record in Congress, i.e. her capacity to be collegial. I urge readers to check her record in the Senate; her voting record reveals that she is a left-wing ideologue (surprise, surprise)—it will also reveal that she has not led at all, that she has sponsored no bill of any great moment, and that, at best, she has merely pursued the customary collegiality expected of a good little Senator. Her pre-Senate record is more than merely undistinguished; it is somewhere between unexceptional and reprehensible.