dMay 11, 2015

Christian Patriots:

(NaturalNews) If you’re “Ready for Hillary” in 2016, you might as well just admit that you’re ready for more evil because nearly every top donor to Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea’s Clinton Foundation, which is driving Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency, is a multinational corporation or other organization pushing for more centralized control over food, medicine, energy and/or finance.

A brief look at the top donors to the Clinton Foundation reveals that a Hillary Clinton presidency will focus on spreading more genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) and crop chemicals into places like Africa; pushing more junk food on the masses; perpetuating the privately-owned Federal Reserve’s fiat currency Ponzi scheme; and signing more people up for a lifetime of sick care with pharmaceuticals and vaccines.

In other words, it’ll be a whole lot more of the same under Hillary, just like it’s been under Obama and just like it was under Bush Junior, Bush Senior, and many other former presidents. Take a look at the donor list and see for yourself which industries will presumably be given priority treatment from a Hillary presidency based on the large cash sums they’re contributing to see Hillary Clinton occupy the White House.

The number one donor to the Clinton Foundation, as you’ll notice, is the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, an organization whose stated goal it is to see every child in the world vaccinated with live viruses and heavy metals. The Gates Foundation is also driving to push native agriculture out of Africa with its “Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa,” a corporate ploy to force biotechnology on the people of Africa.

A couple spots down on the list is Goldman Sachs, the infamous central banking group that holds even more power over the corrupt financial system than the private Federal Reserve. Dave Hodges from The Common Sense Show describes Goldman Sachs as “the epitome of the word ‘evil,’” noting that this evil organization is actively working to implode the global economy in order to reorganize it under a centralized world system.

Other top Clinton Foundation donors include junk food purveyor Coca-Cola, mom-and-pop shop killer Walmart, chemical giant Dow, Big Pharma kingpin Pfizer, and the world’s most evil corporation, Monsanto.

Clinton Foundation so corrupt that even its evil donors are second-guessing campaign contributions

You might be thinking to yourself, “Wait, aren’t these the types of organizations that typically donate to Republicans?” Yes, but they also donate to Democrats because Republicans and Democrats are essentially two sides of the same coin. Regardless of what party the U.S. president belongs to, corporations and central banking cartels are the real winners of every election, and this couldn’t be more true with a possible Hillary presidency.

Interestingly, as evil as many of the Clinton Foundation’s donors are, even they are having second thoughts about supporting Hillary. A recent report by Politico explains how the $2 billion organization is losing some donors who are concerned about how the Clintons are using the foundation’s money.

“One major donor who contributed at least $500,000 to the foundation last year said a 2015 donation is less likely because of revelations about sloppy record-keeping and huge payments for travel and administrative costs,” wrote Kenneth P. Vogel for Politico.

“At least three other major donors also are re-evaluating whether to continue giving large donations to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, according to people familiar with its fundraising.”


Written by Ethan A. Huff
Learn more: Natural News

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.


April 24, 2015

The Canada Free Press

By Andrew G. Benjamin 

Comment by Jim Campbell

“When the door is finally slammed shut on their political history, the Clinton’s will likely be a synonym for corruption, lies, scandal and murder.

We will show you ‘The difference it makes.’  It’s over for Hill and Bill, say no more.”

The Canada Free Press

By Andrew G. Benjamin 

 April 24, 2015

Hillary Clinton’s campaign releases rebuttal to stories about her corruption and greed: “There isn’t a shred of evidence.”

That’s true.
Not a shred.
A mountain.

A $140 million mountain that landed at the Clinton Foundation, courtesy of Vladimir Putin, who may have also sent a bouquet of roses with the money transfers.

Team Hill adds: “It’s a RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY financed by the Koch Brothers!”

Sure it is.

Questions keep arising about the largest deposit-only ATM machine in the world: The Clinton Foundation.

Just as the Clinton Foundation is refiling its taxes for the last five years, we hear that Hillary Clinton expects to raise an unheard record $2.5 billion for her presidential run. With these new stories hitting the headlines daily, the left is circling the wagons around Hillary. What you’ll read next is about the woman the progressive left presents to the American people as its viable presidential candidate, the person that represents the political left’s values.

Several sources reveal allegations about the Clintons self-enriching through the sale of political favors at the expense of America’s national security. These recall earlier stories now confirmed: the Clintons selling of missile secrets to the Chinese. Behind these curtain calls are other chapters that raise the curtain to reveal how the largest North American uranium refiners’ executives “charitably” and brazenly funneled money to the Clintons and their cohorts.

This group of American and Canadian investors and executives first built, and then sold off to (whom Mitt Romney correctly identified during the presidential debates, America’s primary nuclear-armed enemy), the Russians, the largest and most productive North American uranium mining enterprise.

The New York Times’ headline:

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company

More at The Canada Free Press

Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.


dApril 14, 2015

Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.

Like virtually every endeavor the Clinton’s orchestrate, fraud and deceit is involved.

Chelsea Clinton paid up to $75K for speeches.

The former First Daughter has never run for office, held a public policy job or done philanthropic work outside her family business. But that hasn’t stopped the speaking fees from rolling in.

Exactly what would thing young woman have to say that would be worthy of such a speakers fee?  How about nothing.

It seems as the election nears it would be a good idea begin a dialogue with your  liberal friends, particularly those who label themselves as feminists and explain to them if elected how Hillary would continue Obama’s downward spiral into turning the United States of America into just another “Has been Banana Republic.”


***Warning: This of course will be like teaching a pig to sing, irritating the pig while you get frustrated in the process***

Charities aren’t required to publicly identify their donors, and their disclosure is spotty. Few disclose more than their top donors and most list only a dollar threshold that the donation exceeds. Others disclose nothing.




On its website, the Clinton Foundation goes further, providing a list of more than 282,000 donors, itemized in dollar ranges, such as $10,001-$25,000. Like most charities, the Clinton group does not say which individual donors are related to which companies, countries or institutions, so it would be a vexing job to determine the full extent of the interests they represent.

Will we ever know how the Clinton Foundation spent it’s money?

In an attempt to “Follow the money,” a search found this under so-called “Clinton Tax Returns”  clearly unsubstantiated information provided by their Chief Financial Officer, Andrew Kessel.

Jewish World News

Greg GordonBy Greg Gordon

Published April 14, 2015

Since 2001, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates gave as much as $40 million to the Clinton Foundation. In contrast, six similar non-governmental global charities collected no money from those same four Middle Eastern countries; the International Committee of the Red Cross was given $6.82 million. Since 2001, these global foundations have raised a staggering $40 billion to $50 billion to fund their humanitarian work.

The existence of foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation has been well-documented in the media. What hasn’t been revealed, however, is the disparity in donations by these four nations, all of which have been criticized by the State Department over the years for a spate of issues ranging from the mistreatment of women to stoking ethnic discord in the flammable Middle East.

Moreover, the level of Arab support for the Clinton Foundation, which occurred during the time Hillary Clinton was a U.S. senator, was seeking the Democratic nomination for president against Barack Obama and was serving as secretary of state, fuels questions about the reasons for the donations. Were they solely to support the foundation’s causes, or were they designed to curry favor with the ex-president and with a potential future president?

“The fundamental issue here is that you’ve got foreign businesses and foreign governments giving money to the Clinton Foundation partly because of the foundation’s work, but also because of the access to the upper echelons of power in America,” said Lawrence Jacobs, a professor at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs and a prize-winning author of numerous books on politics.

“I think the people who know something about politics understand the wink and a nod that’s going on here: Give to Bill and become a friend of Hillary. … There’s kind of a political shakedown going on here.”

Entire article below.

Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton, said that “it’s simply wrong to assert or even suggest” that donations to the foundation have influenced her foreign policy positions.

Former President Bill Clinton has defended his organization’s receipt of foreign donations as doing “a lot more good than harm.”

Hillary Clinton’s quest for the Democratic presidential nomination, which just months ago seemed like a walk in the park, is under siege from many quarters. Republicans in Congress are investigating her use of a private email server to conduct State Department business and the subsequent “unilateral” destruction of her emails. Even some Democrats are now urging the party to find another candidate over Clinton.

Clinton Foundation spokesman Craig Minassian said: “Like many global charities, the Clinton Foundation receives support from individuals, private sector organizations, non-governmental organizations and governments around the world because our programs are improving the lives of people around the world. Among the more than 300,000 contributors to the Clinton Foundation are countries that have also given billions of dollars in humanitarian aid and support to other charities.”

To be sure, wealthy Arab nations have given billions of dollars to United Nations and World Health Organization programs to aid victims of poverty, wars and calamities from earthquakes to deadly epidemics. According to the United Nations’ Financial Tracking Service, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have donated more than $5 billion to humanitarian causes, including tens of millions of dollars to Middle East chapters of the Red Crescent Society, since 2001.

With a few exceptions, most notably foundations run by ex-presidents, the other four Arab governments gave far less money to eight of the largest Western charities doing work similar work to that of the Clinton Foundation, whose expanded agenda now includes fighting AIDS in Africa, climate change and obesity, as well as rebuilding earthquake-ravaged Haiti. One huge foundation that aggressively secures pledges from governments worldwide, the Geneva-based Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, has received $62 million from Saudi Arabia and $3.5 million from the United Arab Emirates since 2001.

The U.S. Embassies of the four Middle Eastern countries declined to respond to inquiries from McClatchy.

Charities aren’t required to publicly identify their donors, and their disclosure is spotty. Few disclose more than their top donors and most list only a dollar threshold that the donation exceeds. Others disclose nothing.

On its website, the Clinton Foundation goes further, providing a list of more than 282,000 donors, itemized in dollar ranges, such as $10,001-$25,000. Like most charities, the Clinton group does not say which individual donors are related to which companies, countries or institutions, so it would be a vexing job to determine the full extent of the interests they represent.

The foundation says that Saudi Arabia has donated $10 million to $25 million between 2001 and 2014, while Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates each gave $1 million to $5 million. In addition, former longtime UAE President Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, the driving force behind his country’s formation, and Nasser Al-Rashid, an adviser to the Saudi royal family, each has donated $1 million to $5 million.

Nonetheless, a McClatchy review of available annual reports and contacts with several charities showed that:

  • The contributions from the four Arab countries — between $15 million and $40 million — to the Clinton Foundation was much as five times what they donated to the much larger International Committee for the Red Cross between 2004 and 2013.
  • The Washington-based Habitat for Humanity and England-based Save the Children International and Oxfam International reported no donations from the Persian Gulf governments, according to financial reports and spokespersons for the charities.
  • Washington state-based World Vision International, the Georgia-based Task Force for Global Health and Virginia-based Project Hope have not sought nor received donations from Middle Eastern nations, according to their spokespersons.
  • An eighth charity, Paris-based Doctors Without Borders, whose physicians have put their lives in peril to treat Ebola victims in West Africa, has raised $9.2 billion since 2003 but didn’t list any of the Middle Eastern countries among its top donors during that span.

Some charities have strict vetting processes. Oxfam International, for example, puts all donations through an “ethical screening process,” including an assessment of “whether acceptance of a donation might pose a risk to the independence of our voice and action,” said Andrew Barton, the organization’s associate director for international income development.

Clinton Foundation spokesman Minassian said the family organization “has strong donor integrity and transparency practices that go well beyond what is required of U.S. charities.”

“Should Secretary Clinton decide to run for office, we will continue to ensure the foundation’s policies and practices regarding support from international partners are appropriate, just as we did when she served as secretary of state,” he said.

However, no such precautions were in place during Hillary Clinton’s first run for the presidency in the first five months of 2008. A Clinton Foundation official who was not authorized to speak on the record said that Oman donated to one of its major programs, the Clinton Global Initiative, during that period but did not disclose the amount.

When a former president is involved, donations from the Arab countries seem to flow more freely.

Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait each gave more than $1 million to help launch the Bush Center, honoring former President George W. Bush, at Southern Methodist University in Dallas and are its only foreign donors, said Hannah Abney, a center spokeswoman. The names of all three nations are etched in a wall at the center.

The Carter Center honoring former President Jimmy Carter, who brokered a historic peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, listed Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the sultan of Oman as each donating more than $1 million by 1999, the earliest annual report posted on its website. Each of those nations has since donated hundreds of thousands of dollars more.

In defending his foundation’s receipt of foreign donation during a March 7 event at the University of Miami, former President Clinton pointed to money accepted from the United Arab Emirates.

“Do we agree with everything they do? No. But they’re helping us fight ISIS,” he said, using an acronym for the Islamic State group.

“Do I agree with all of the foreign policy of Saudi Arabia?” he said. “No. … You’ve got to decide when you do this work whether it will do more good than harm if someone helps you from another country.”

It’s unclear how much Hillary Clinton was informed about the foundation’s donors before 2013, when the foundation was reconstituted as the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, adding hers and the Clintons’ daughter to its name. However, she could have found out with a couple of clicks of a computer mouse on the foundation’s website.

Before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Obama’s transition team and the foundation agreed to limit potential conflicts of interest by prohibiting foreign governments from donating “materially” more money than they did in previous years.

The Washington Post reported recently that, among seven countries that donated during those years, was a new donor, Algeria, whose $500,000 contribution put the foundation in violation of the agreement. Algeria was lobbying the State Department at the time amid rising concerns that its government had engaged in human rights abuses, including restricting women’s rights.

Minassian said that Algeria’s embassy in Washington sent an unsolicited check to the Clinton Foundation Haiti Relief Fund days after the island nation was rocked by an earthquake on Jan. 12, 2010. While the money was distributed as “direct aid to Haiti,” he said, “the State Department should have been informed once the foundation became more aware of Algeria’s contribution.”


Disclaimer: This article was not written by Lorra B.



March 10, 2015

The U.K Guardian/ H/T We The People:

Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.

This will not be covered by U.S. journalists. But, we will.

If it is the desire of the Clinton’s to act like members of the Russian Mob and by any indication their money laundering operations and receipt of illegal foreign donations appear that they do, perhaps they should move to St. Petersburg  or Moscow.

They would be far happier surrounding themselves with those having similar beliefs and the vast majority of Freedom loving Americans would not shed a tear on their departure.

  • Leaked files reveal identities of wealthy donors with accounts in Geneva
  • Donors gave as much as $81m to Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation
  • Hillary Clinton expected to make inequality a key issue of any 2016 campaign
Bill Clinton, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and Chelsea Clinton speak during a student conference for the Clinton Global Initiative University in March 2014. Photograph: Matt York/AP

The U.K Guardian

The charitable foundation run by Hillary Clinton and her family has received as much as $81m from wealthy international donors who were clients of HSBC’s controversial Swiss bank.

Leaked files from HSBC’s Swiss banking division reveal the identities of seven donors to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation with accounts in Geneva.

They include Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining magnate and one of the foundation’s biggest financial backers, and Richard Caring, the British retail magnate who, the bank’s internal records show, used his tax-free Geneva account to transfer $1m into the New York-based foundation.

Hillary Clinton has expressed concern over growing economic inequality in the US and is expected to make the issue a cornerstone of her widely anticipated presidential campaign in 2016. However, political observers are increasingly asking whether the former secretary of state’s focus on wealth inequality sits uncomfortably with the close relationships she and her husband have nurtured with some of the world’s richest individuals.


Giustra’s Swiss HSBC account, created in 2002, contained up to $10m in the 2006-2007 period. Lawyers for the mining magnate said that he held the account for investment purposes, and that it was in compliance with Canadian laws that required disclosure of foreign assets.

Caring was legitimately permitted to keep his assets offshore by a hereditary quirk of UK tax law, under which he is registered as “non-domiciled”, courtesy of his Italian-American father. The HSBC records suggest Caring’s $1m donation was paid in return for former president Bill Clinton’s attendance at a lavish costume charity ball organized by Caring in St Petersburg, Russia.

Entire article below.

Another Clinton foundation donor who had a HSBC account in the tax haven is Jeffrey Epstein, the hedge fund manager and convicted sex offender who once flew the former president on his private jet for charity events in Africa.

The identities of Clinton supporters who banked with HSBC in Geneva are contained in internal bank data leaked by a HSBC computer expert turned whistleblower, Hervé Falciani.

The leaked files have now been obtained through an international collaboration of news outlets, including the Guardian, the French daily Le Monde, CBS’s 60 Minutes and the Washington-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists.

It is not unlawful for US or other non-Swiss citizens to hold accounts in Geneva and there is no evidence any of the Clinton donors with Geneva accounts evaded tax. However, Switzerland’s secretive banking laws have for years made it a destination for the super-rich.

$1m transfer

Under US charity law, the non-profit, which was founded by the former president in 2001 as the the William J Clinton Foundation, is not required to disclose the identity of its donors.

However, in late 2008, amid concern over potential conflicts of interest for Hillary Clinton, who was on course to become President Barack Obama’s secretary of state, the foundation launched a public database of its donors along with a rough estimate of the sums they have given.

It reveals seven foundation benefactors linked to HSBC bank accounts in Geneva, who have donated, in total, as much as $81m.

In a statement, the nonprofit, which was renamed the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation in 2013, said its commitment to donor transparency goes significantly beyond what is required by US law.

“We are a philanthropy through and through, and we take pride in our programs, our efficiency, and our transparency, and we rely on donors to help fund our work, including support of enterprise partnerships in South America that are creating jobs; efforts to improve access to early childhood education in the US; and development programs for small-holder farmers in Africa,” said Craig Minassian, chief communications officer for the Clinton Foundation.

“The Clinton Foundation has strong donor integrity and transparency practices that go well beyond what is required of US charities, including the full disclosure of all of our donors. The contributions of these donors are helping improve the lives of millions of people across the world.”

Minassian did not comment specifically on the foundation’s receipt of $1m from Caring in in December 2005, a donation made in return for Bill Clinton’s attendance, the previous month, at the lavish charity ball in Russia.

Caring arranged for 18th century Russian costumes, borrowed from the Hermitage Museum, to be tailor-fitted for each guest at the event at Catherine the Great’s Winter Palace. Photographs from the event in November 2005 show Bill Clinton, dressed as a Russian general, partying with other VIP guests such as Elizabeth Hurley. Entertainment was provided by Tina Turner and Elton John.

Caring guaranteed funds were raised for the British children’s charity NSPCC and also, courtesy of his personal transfer from the HSBC account in Geneva, the Clinton foundation.

HSBC notes on Caring’s accounts contain an instruction to “transfer [$1m] to Bill Clinton’s Foundation as a contribution following his involvement in the Charity Function [Caring] organised at the end of November”.

Global elites

It is not against US law or charity regulation to accept donations from non-US citizens, or from overseas accounts, but the Swiss ties of some high-profile donors arguably contradict stances taken by the Clintons and others on the broad issue of taxation of the rich.

“One of the issues that I have been preaching about around the world is collecting taxes in an equitable manner, especially from the elites in every country,” Hillary Clinton told audience of the Clinton Global Initiative in 2012, when she was still secretary of state. “It is a fact that around the world, the elites of every country are making money. There are rich people everywhere. And yet they do not contribute to the growth of their own countries. They don’t invest in public schools, in public hospitals, in other kinds of development internally.”

She added: “And so it means – for leaders – telling powerful people things they don’t want to hear.”

A spokesperson for Hillary Clinton declined to comment about her family foundation’s receipt of money from donors with accounts in Geneva.

It is unclear whether the foundation has ever questioned the offshore status of supporters, although foundation officials stress they thoroughly vet contributors regardless of where the donation originated from.

Giustra, the Canadian billionaire who made his fortune funding mining operations, is one of the foundation’s most generous supporters.

The total sum donated by Giustra is unknown but could be significantly more than the minimum $50m the foundation indicates comes from his foundations, including the Vancouver-based Radcliffe Foundation.

He is on the record as having donated $31.1m to the foundation in 2007 and, later that year, pledged a $100m commitment to tackling poverty in conjunction with the Clinton foundation. Giustra’s generosity has earned him unique access to Bill Clinton, making him one of an elite handful of philanthropists who have accompanied the former president for overseas charity events.

Another is Epstein, the wealthy financier who was jailed for 13 months in 2008 for soliciting sex with underage girls. The HSBC files show Epstein connected to several Geneva accounts, one of which was in his own name and contained $3.5m.

He gave $25,000 to the Clinton charity in July 2006, the year after he was arrested following a complaint he sexually abused a 14-year-old teenager in Florida, according to tax disclosures from Epstein’s New York-based nonprofit, the COUQ Foundation.

Epstein, who reportedly keeps much of his wealth in the US Virgin Islands, where he owns a private island, did not respond to multiple requests for comment about his HSBC Geneva accounts.

More at We The People:

Hillary’s Corruption Just Exposed BIG TIME, Brother Got MASSIVE Contract

dMarch 6, 2015

Mad World News:

In a bombshell report, a massive scandal about Hillary Clinton and her brother was revealed, involving her work at the State Department and the company he worked for at the time.

The Clintons have long been known for their crooked ways, and questions are often asked about their sudden, and unexpected, gains in wealth over the years. However, according to Breitbart, a new book due to be released answers a lot of those questions, and it outlines a massive gold mining scandal where Hillary used her position at the State Department to get her brother’s tiny North Carolina mining company a contract in Haiti.

Clinton CashThe Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich delved deep into how the Clintons were able to amass a net worth of over $100 million in personal wealth, researched the shady happenings with their beloved Clinton Foundation, and explained how Clinton used her time at the State Department to benefit foreign donors, governments, and companies to get donations for her upcoming campaign.

Tony Rodham, Hillary’s brother, sat on the board of the self-described mining company VCS Mining, who in 2012 was awarded an extremely rare “gold explotation permit” in Haiti, which was one of only two issued in the past 50 years. The same company also had on its board Bill Clinton’s co-chair of the Interim Haiti Recovery Commission (IHRC), the former Prime Minister of Haiti Jean-Max Bellerive. Isn’t that convenient? It gets better, just wait for it.

Hillary’s Corruption Just Exposed BIG TIME, Brother Got Massive Contract

Bill Clinton in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, after the 2010 earthquake (Image credit: The Guardian)

The gold exploitation permit for the project in Morne Bossa is such a great deal that those within the Haitian Senate were outraged at the rate to be paid for royalties, just 2.5 percent, which is at least half of the going rate, according to mining experts. To make the deal even sweeter, the fledgling company was given the rights to renew their project for up to the next 25 years.

More at Mad World News:


dMarch 4, 2015

We The People:

Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist, Oath Keeper and Patriot.

Seriously, if foreign countries and entities want Hillary Clinton to be the next U.S. President shouldn’t that be the final nail in the coffin of the chronic liar and serial perjurer?  Hillary is bringing an entire new meaning to the phrase, “Know your Enemies.”

It makes perfect sense when one considers the knowledge level of those voting in United States Elections.

Trie-Chung-HuangRemember,  Johnny Chung: contributor and colleague; many visits to Clinton White House and Oval Office with mainland Chinese associates; several illegal campaign contributions, money laundering, tax fraud, and bank fraud guilty pleas (“Democrat Fund-Raiser Pleads Guilty” March 17, 1998).

Chung, has told federal investigators that the chief of China’s military intelligence funneled $300,000 through him to back President Clinton’s 1996 campaign

Among the many, many reasons why Americans hate and distrust the mainstream media, we’ve got the amazing spectacle of a major story directly impacting a likely presidential candidate — Hillary Clinton — completely blacked out in favor of obsessive coverage for llamas on the loose.

To mix animal metaphors, many liberal-media critics smell a rat every time the airwaves are filled with obsession over a frivolous story.  NewsBusters clocked six minutes on the story of llamas running loose in Arizona, but only 32 seconds of coverage on one of the major networks (CBS) for the incredible tale of Hillary Clinton’s foundation raking in foreign and corporate cash both during and after her tenure as Secretary of State.


This is the same media that squeezed a solid week of shrieking, hysterical news coverage out of Rudy Giuliani, who isn’t even running for anything, expressing doubts about the depth of Barack Obama’s love for America.  Even the casual news consumer realized the intensity of this coverage had little to do with its news-worthiness.  

It was, in part, a cynical attempt to use Giuliani’s remarks as a hydraulic piston to hammer the Republicans who probablyare running for president, beginning with — but by no means limited to — Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, but mostly it was a sustained wail of anguish and outrage from media elites, who identify so strongly with their beloved Barack Obama that they took Giuliani’s s remarks as a personal slight against them.

There’s no question about the depth of Hillary Clinton’s love for money.  As the Clinton Foundation story gets deeper, it’s increasingly difficult for the mainstream press to justify ignoring it.  They’ll be even more reluctant to ask her about it, the way hordes of them followed Walker around and interrogated him about what he thinks Barack Obama is thinking.  Hillary Clinton doesn’t get asked about anything.

The media allows her to remain invisible for as long as she likes, and since her public appearances tend to become gaffe avalanches, she stays invisible quite a bit.  It would be a certain sign that the media favoritism her nascent candidacy depends on was evaporating if they actually asked her about the Clinton Foundation stories.

The story we’ve been hearing so little about from the press came in two stages.  First, the Wall Street Journal dished on the Clinton Foundation quietly dropping its “self-imposed ban on collecting funds from foreign governments” and collecting a rapidly increasing amount of foreign money.  Second, the Washington Post discovered that “self-imposed ban” wasn’t exactly imposed with rigorous discipline to begin with:

The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.

Most of the contributions were possible because of exceptions written into the foundation’s 2008 agreement, which included limits on foreign-government donations.

The agreement, reached before Clinton’s nomination amid concerns that countries could use foundation donations to gain favor with a Clinton-led State Department, allowed governments that had previously donated money to continue making contributions at similar levels.

The new disclosures, provided in response to questions from The Washington Post, make clear that the 2008 agreement did not prohibit foreign countries with interests before the U.S. government from giving money to the charity closely linked to the secretary of state.

In one instance, foundation officials acknowledged they should have sought approval in 2010 from the State Department ethics office, as required by the agreement for new government donors, before accepting a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government.

The money was given to assist with earthquake relief in Haiti, the foundation said. At the time, Algeria, which has sought a closer relationship with Washington, was spending heavily to lobby the State Department on human rights issues.

More at We The People: