Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

Clinton Quest for Wealth, Power and Fame Continues

EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico and retired corporate government relations executive whose life experience includes having served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.

Click on image above to read article at Family Security Matters.

Click on image above to read article at Family Security Matters.

In an Oct. 21, 2008, column (“Massive Fundraising Misdeeds Prove Obama is Bought, but Who Owns Him?“), we disclosed what should have become the nation’s largest ever campaign finance scandal.

Just days earlier, Obama had boasted that his fundraising base had increased by 1 million people, from 1.5 million to 2.5 million, in the five-month period between May and October 2008, and that the total amount raised approached $600 million. This represented a significant increase from his May 31, 2008, report when he claimed that one-fourth of his $265 million, or $66.26 million, came from those contributing $2,000, or more… some 33,200 people.

If we can assume that, as of October 2008, 25 percent of his contributions still came from individuals giving $2,000 to $2,300, that major contributor base would have grown from 33,200 to 65,200 people in a time span of just five months.

While it is true that Obama is the kind of guy who could read Bill Clinton’s golf scorecard off a teleprompter and make it sound convincing, simple arithmetic should have told him that 75 percent of his October total, or $450 million, could not be contributed by 2.44 million people in “$5, $10, $20, whatever you can afford,” as Obama assured us. Each of those 2.44 million people would have had to contribute, on average, $185 to create a pool of $450 million, and that simply does not happen. It has never happened before in American politics and it did not happen in 2008.

So what was the truth of the matter? In our July 25, 2008, column, and again in our Oct. 21,
2008, column, we pointed out that UBS Americas, headed by Robert Wolf… along with George
Soros, one of Obama’s top two money men… had been accused of highly unethical and illegal
banking practices in six months of hearings by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations. According to an article in The Nation, UBS Americas, a subsidiary of UBS, of
Zurich, Switzerland, had advised wealthy Americans, including many of our most unwholesome
characters, how to shelter funds from the IRS, as well as from prosecutors, creditors, business
associates, family members, and each other.

In a Statement of Facts in the criminal trial of former UBS executive Bradley Birkenfeld, it was alleged that UBS took extraordinary steps to help American clients manage their Swiss accounts without alerting federal authorities. For example, UBS advised American clients to avoid detection by using Swiss credit cards to withdraw funds, to destroy all existing off-shore banking records, and to misrepresent the receipt of funds from their Swiss accounts as loans from the Swiss bank. According to The Nation, UBS established an elaborate training program which taught bank employees how to avoid surveillance by U.S. Customs and law enforcement, falsify visas, encrypt communications, and secretly move money into and out of the country… ”

It was the perfect instrument for funneling illegal campaign contributions into the coffers of an unscrupulous American politician. Putting two and two together, I suggested that a very wealthy individual, a cartel, or an Islamic terrorist group, wishing to influence the outcome of a U.S. presidential election, could transfer unlimited sums of money through this device. A U.S. recipient, such as the Obama campaign, could have received tens of thousands of illegal foreign contributions via Swiss credit card transfers, with names, addresses, etc. of bogus contributors… “borrowed” from the campaign’s list of $10 and $20 contributors… being entered by teams of staffers working in a “boiler room” setting. The owners of the Swiss accounts would receive periodic statements indicating: a) debits of varying amounts, up to $2,300 each, and b) offsetting credits provided by the cartel, or by the wealthy, but unnamed, “international financier.”

For most of the super wealthy, especially those attempting to hide income and assets from U.S. authorities, an unexplained debit and credit of $2,300, or less, would not even raise an eyebrow. They would assume that a bank employee had simply made a data entry mistake, followed by an immediate correction. They would have no way of knowing that a sum of money had actually been withdrawn from their account and contributed to the Obama campaign, with a like amount deposited in the account by an illegal foreign source… the entire transaction facilitated by a high-ranking bank employee.  So who would ever know the source of such contributions?

In an Oct. 20, 2008, article in Newsmax, writer Kenneth Timmerman provided details from Federal Election Commission records that gave substantial weight to my theory. In studying Obama’s FEC filings, Newsmax found more than 2,000 donors who had given substantially more than their $4,600 limit ($2,300 in the primaries and $2,300 in the General Election). The law requires that such excess contributions must be returned to the donor within 60 days. However, many of the donors contacted by Newsmax said that they had not made those large contributions to Obama. They had not been contacted by the Obama campaign, nor had they received refunds.

What Newsmax reported one day earlier in studying Obama’s FEC filings were some 66,383 highly suspicious contributions, from 37,265 donors, in which contributions were not rounded to even dollar amounts. For example, Newsmax reported that an insurance agent from Burr Ridge, Ill., gave a total of $8,724.26. He gave in odd amounts such as $188.67, $1,542.06, $876.09, $388.67, $282.20, $195.66, $118.15, and one of $2,300.

A self-employed caregiver in Los Angeles made 36 separate contributions totaling $7,051.12.  Thirteen of her contributions were later refunded. However, in an odd coincidence those 13 refunds, in amounts such as $233.88 and $201.44, came to an even $2,300, the maximum amount allowable in any one election.

One contributor interviewed by Newsmax, a retired schoolteacher from Rockledge, Fla., gave a reported $13,800… $9,200 over his limit. However, the contributor did not remember giving that much money to Obama, nor has anyone from the campaign ever contacted him about a refund.

Of the 66,383 contributions in odd amounts, 44,410 were in unrounded amounts of less than $100, 15,269 contributions were in unrounded amounts of between $101 and $999, and 704 contributions were in odd amounts greater than $1,000. Lest anyone suggest that those 37,265 donors either emptied their piggy banks or emptied their pockets and purses periodically and just sent it all to Obama, pennies and all, allow me to suggest something a bit more Machiavellian.

Those 66,383 contributions were the proceeds of foreign currency conversions, smuggled into the country in foreign credit card receipts, and converted to U.S. dollars.

According to Newsmax, the Obama campaign finance reports contained some 370,500 unique names… a far cry from the 2.5 million contributor base claimed by the campaign. Of course, when your money is coming in large chunks from offshore accounts, such as hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time from the Middle East and from third-world African countries, then laundered though UBS accounts in Zurich, it takes a bit of creativity to put authentic-sounding names on all of it for the FEC records.

Hillary's Boilermaker by David Donar at http://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com.

(Circa 2008) Hillary’s Boilermaker by David Donar at http://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com.

But now there is new evidence that UBS continues to be a Democrat Party playpen. The Wall Street Journal reported July 30 that, in early 2009, shortly after being sworn in as U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton flew to Geneva where she met with the Swiss foreign minister. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the status of an IRS lawsuit against UBS in which the IRS was attempting to obtain the identities of Americans with secret Swiss bank accounts… under normal circumstances, a matter that would be negotiated by the U.S. Treasury Department.

The Swiss foreign minister insisted that, if the IRS case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank could face prosecution on both sides of the Atlantic, either facing criminal charges in US courts, or in Swiss courts for violating Swiss bank secrecy laws.

According to the Journal report, a few months after the meeting, Clinton reported a tentative settlement. As part of the deal, UBS agreed to give up information on 4,450 American account holders, out of a total of more than 52,000 accounts containing an estimated $18 billion in untaxed cash. This amounted to roughly 8.6 percent of the total number of accounts sought by the IRS. But what is so unusual about the Clinton-negotiated settlement is that:

A. In the wake of the negotiations, total UBS contributions to the Clinton Foundation increased from less than $60,000 through 2008, to a cumulative total of $600,000 by the end of 2014;

B. UBS joined the Clinton Foundation in creating a pilot entrepreneurship program in which the bank agreed to provide some $32 million in business loan guarantees;

C. UBS agreed to underwrite a $100,000 charity golf tournament; and

D. UBS agreed to pay Bill Clinton a $1.5 million honorarium, the largest since he left the White House, “to participate in a series of question-and-answer sessions with UBS Wealth Management Chief Executive Bob McCann.”

As might be expected, the Journal reported they could find “no evidence” of a direct link between Hillary Clinton’s involvement in the case and the bank’s donations to the Clinton Foundation, nor to its hiring of her husband for a $1.5 million series of informal chats with a bank executive.

Just as the Obama campaign was able to cover its tracks in 2008 when the UBS Bank appeared to be complicit in helping the campaign smuggle many millions of dollars in illegal contributions into the country, it appears as if the Clintons have been milking the same Swiss Bank in their unending quest for wealth, power, and fame.  And the beat goes on… and on, and on.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.

Paul Hollrah Analyzes Upcoming GOP Presidential Debates

EDITOR’S NOTE: Below is a guest post by Paul R. Hollrah, a resident of Oklahoma who writes from the perspective of a veteran conservative politico and retired corporate government relations executive whose life experience includes having served two terms as a member of the Electoral College. Even if you disagree with him, this piece will make you think long and hard.

Editorial cartoon courtesy David Donar at http://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com.

Editorial cartoon courtesy David Donar at http://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com.

The Republican National Committee plans to conduct at least nine debates in the 2015-16 presidential primary season, the first of which will be held at the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland Aug. 6, 2015. The debate will be co-sponsored by Fox News and Facebook and moderated by Fox News Channel anchors, Bret Baier, Megyn Kelly and Chris Wallace. And although the RNC is determined to hold far fewer debates than the twenty held during the 2012 primary season, the party has left the door open to the possibility of up to three additional debates if the need arises.

In a July 28 column, Kristol Clear Straw Poll #5, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol expresses what a great many people have been thinking, which is that the GOP debate format agreed to by Fox News and the RNC falls far short of the ideal.

Fox News has announced that, in order to avoid having as many as 16 candidates on the stage at one time, each vying for their share of face-time before the a national TV audience, they will limit the number of candidates to ten. Those candidates will be the top ten candidates taken from an average of the five most recent national polls… the polls to be selected by Fox.

According to one analysis of five recent national polls, Jeb Bush, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump and Scott Walker are almost certain to be selected, while the two remaining slots will be filled by either Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Rick Perry or Rick Santorum. Carly Fiorina, George Pataki and Lindsey Graham, each polling at roughly one percent, are apparently out of the running for the first debate.

Kristol has issued a fervent plea to Fox News and the RNC. He asks that they please abandon the “poorly-conceived ten-person, one-main-stage format” while there is still time. He argues that there simply will not be a “statistically significant difference between the 8th through 10th place finishers and the 11th through 13th places.” I would argue that there is insufficient reason to arbitrarily exclude any six of the 16 candidates. Kristol suggests that, out of fairness, the sponsors change the format to two eight-person debates, to be held on successive nights, or, in the alternative, two five-person debates and one six-person debate on three successive nights.

In order to demonstrate how the single ten-person debate would deny primary voters the opportunity to discover what some of the best, most capable, but lesser known candidates have to offer, I have developed a rating system which, as objectively as possible, points to some significant strengths and weaknesses in the candidates that the casual observer might overlook.

The rating system I have developed utilizes six separate factors: eligibility, personal appeal, experience, directness, the Trump factor and position on the issues, each scored on a scale of one to ten. (The “Trump Factor” being a measure of the extent to which each candidate has either adhered to or ignored Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment, re: the Trump candidacy.)

A quick analysis of the sixteen candidates produces the following results:

Click on image above to read article that explains the red "0" next to four candidates' names.

Click on image above to read article that explains the red “0” next to four candidates’ names.

Using the above analytical format, the participants in the August 6th debate would be, in order of ranking: 1) Carly Fiorina, 2) Mike Huckabee, 3) Scott Walker, 4) Donald Trump, 5) Ben Carson, 6) John Kasich, 7) Chris Christie, 8) Rand Paul, 9) Marco Rubio and 10) Rick Perry. Those watching the debate on TV would be, in order: 11) George Pataki, 12) Lindsey Graham, 13) Ted Cruz, 14) Rick Santorum, 15) Bobby Jindal and 16) Jeb Bush. Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore has just announced and cannot be properly evaluated.

What is most interesting about the admittedly subjective analysis is that former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, who regularly polls at 2% or less because she lacks name recognition, comes out tied for first place with Mike Huckabee, each winning 56 out of a possible 60 points, while Jeb Bush, the darling of the mainstream media and establishment Republicans, comes in dead last. Bush comes in last because: 1) he is not an appealing candidate, 2) he was one of the first to openly criticize Donald Trump and 3) he has a history of pandering to liberal special interests.

To date, only three of the sixteen candidates have distinguished themselves from the others. Carly Fiorina and Mike Huckabee have unabashedly taken the fight to Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, while Donald Trump has created a firestorm with his straight-from-the-shoulder characterization of many of the illegal aliens streaming across our southern border.

What is clear is that the same not-dry-behind-the-ears incompetents who’ve managed Republican presidential campaigns since Reagan left the White House are still hanging around Washington, just waiting to see how many more presidential campaigns they can screw up. In the past two weeks they have blindly led at least seven or eight of the establishment candidates to deal with the Trump campaign in the most counterproductive way, saying some really dumb things about a totally fearless man who can always be counted upon to deliver more punishment than he receives… proving once again that it’s not always a good idea to poke at a hornets’ nest.

The Washington inside-the-Beltway political consultants are unaccustomed to honesty and forthrightness in campaign rhetoric and Donald Trump, a breath of fresh air, is now conducting a graduate seminar for them. As a case in point, two young female guests on The O’Reilly Factor on Monday evening, July 27… young women who were not alive when Ronald Reagan was president, but who now market themselves as knowledgeable campaign strategists… were both asked how the other candidates should react to Trump’s surge in the polls. True to their training, both provided the only answer they knew. They said, “It’s time for them to go on the attack. They need to go negative.” That is precisely what Trump’s opponents should not do.

What GOP establishment candidates totally ignore is the fact that Americans, in general, and conservatives and Republicans in particular, have been yearning for nearly thirty years for a presidential candidate with the courage to “tell it like it is.” They’ve longed for a conservative willing to take on the mainstream media, bare-knuckled, a leader with enough “rough edges” on him/her to scare the crap out of liberals and Democrats, both inside and outside the mainstream media. For now, at least, Donald Trump looks like a man who fits that description, although if his approach to campaigning has had any impact at all on more conventional Republicans, the GOP debates may yet uncover another contender or two.

In the meantime, while the establishment candidates are busy attacking one of their own, Mike Huckabee and Carly Fiorina are out there doing “the Lord’s work,” exposing Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the frauds they are. But if Trump’s method and message fails to teach the establishment a few powerful lessons, then it looks as if some of us old “graybeards,” veterans of the Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan campaigns, will be forced to come out of retirement to show them how it’s done.

SEE ALSO: Off-The-Radar Presidential Candidates Placed in Spotlight and Joe Biden Misses Opportunity for Another ‘Big F—in Deal’.

For links to other articles of interest as well as photos and commentary, join me on Facebook and Twitter.  Please show your support by buying my books and encouraging your friends and loved ones to do the same.  To learn how to order signed copies, click here. Thanks in advance!

Click on image above to order Bob's books.

Click on image above to order Bob’s books.