June 17, 2013
June 12, 2013
Stephanie Hanes: Little girls or little women? The Disney princess effect
Fred Weir: In tweak to US, Russia would 'consider' asylum for Snowden
June 10, 2013
The Kosher Gourmet by Anjali Prasertong: A tart filling so good it might not make it to the crust
June 5, 2013
John Rosemond: Mom, Dad: Talk More and listen less
Egypt court sentences 43 pro-democracy workers to prison
June 3, 2013
Molly Hennessy-Fiske: Military judge to consider letting Fort Hood shooting defendant represent himself
May 29, 2013
Andrew Connelly and Helene Bienvenu: The Little Synagogue that Refused to Die
May 24, 2013
Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Weinreb: When I didn't so 'humbly disagree'
May 22, 2013
They launched the 'Arab Spring' but now yearn for the good old days of a strongman
May 20, 2013
Richard A. Serrano: Is Meir Kahane's assassin now a changed man?
Genetic copies of living people from embryos no longer science fiction
Jewz in the Newz by Nate Bloom :
The Kosher Gourmet by Cathy Pollak:
Jews Inducted into Rock Hall of Fame; Anton Yelchin co-stars in New "Trek" film; Kutcher (but not Kunis) visits Israel; Jewish TV Star Praises Jewish Rap Star
WARNING: This WALNUT CAKE WITH PRALINE FROSTING, perfect for afternoon coffee, is addicting
Jewish World Review
March 2, 2007
/ 2 Adar, 5767
Clintons' Hypocrisy Catching Up
The Clintons have always behaved like the rules that governed everyone else didn't apply to them. And they've largely gotten away with it but perhaps Hillary Clinton's quest for the White House will finally bring this to an end. Two stories in recent days suggest the mainstream media are uncomfortable with ignoring the Clintons' hypocrisy, especially when it comes to money.
Until Bill and Hillary left the White House in January 2001, they were hardly what you'd call rich. They had never owned a home until they purchased one in late 1999 so that Hillary could have a permanent address in the state she hoped to represent in the U.S. Senate. Their friends' and political allies' efforts to enhance their financial status when the two occupied the Arkansas governor's mansion had ended badly in investigations into land deals and mysterious commodities windfalls.
These investigations, along with those into Bill's infamous peccadilloes and the Republicans' impeachment efforts, left the Clintons with huge legal bills. But they quickly made up for it by amassing a small fortune over the next six years. And that has provoked some concern among the media.
Over the last several days, The Washington Post has put two stories on its front page that reflect this uneasiness. The first focused on Bill Clinton's lucrative speaking engagements, which the Post noted in its headline garnered nearly $40 million since 2001. The second story revealed that, despite Senate ethics rules requiring her to do so, Hillary Clinton failed to disclose the amount of money she and Bill had sheltered from taxes through a family charity they set up when they left the White House (though she amended her disclosures after the story appeared).
The Post did important investigative reporting on both these stories, which should quell some conservatives' fears that the mainstream media is somehow in cahoots with the Clintons in their efforts to move back to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
The revelations about her failure to report the tax shelter caused Sen. Clinton some embarrassment at a time when her presidential campaign surely did not need that kind of attention. More importantly, the story about Bill's speaking engagements hinted at some unsavory links between the former president's hefty fees and his wife's own presidential aspirations.
"Many of Bill Clinton's six-figure speeches have been made to companies whose employees and political action committees have been among Hillary Clinton's top backers in her Senate campaigns," note John Solomon and Matthew Mosk. For example, the Post reporters discovered that Goldman Sachs paid Bill $650,000 for four speeches in the last few years, while its employees and PAC have given Hillary $270,000 since 2000.
Citigroup also made large contributions to the Clintons' efforts by paying Bill $250,000 for a speech in France in 2004 and committing $5.5 million toward his Global Initiative aimed at helping the poor in other countries start their own small businesses, while its employees and PAC gave more than $320,000 to Hillary's campaigns.
If this isn't buying influence, what is? Bill Clinton may give one heck of a speech and his charitable efforts may be commendable, but does anyone really believe that his benefactors aren't prompted to give largely because they want to buy access and influence with Hillary? And what better way than to fatten the couple's bank account, boost the ever-insecure former president's ego, and help the missus reach the pinnacle of American politics?
Maybe Bill and Hillary thought no one would notice this influence-buying. More likely, they believed they'd be given a pass, since it was being done in the noble cause of furthering their liberal policy agenda.
Like some 16th-century Antinomians who believed that they were anointed by G-d and could therefore ignore the moral laws that applied to the rest of mankind, the Clintons seem to think that they can do whatever they want in pursuit of some greater good. But the more ambitious and greedy they become, the less likely they'll get away with it.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Linda Chavez is President of the Center for Equal Opportunity. Her latest book is "Betrayal: How Union Bosses Shake Down Their Members and Corrupt American Politics". (Click HERE to purchase. Sales help fund JWR.)
Linda Chavez Archives
© 2006, Creators Syndicate
Richard Z. Chesnoff
Frank J. Gaffney
Victor Davis Hanson
A. Barton Hinkle
Judge A. Napolitano
Cokie & Steve Roberts
Debra J. Saunders
J. D. Crowe
David Ray Skinner
Ask Doctor K