The Clinton Standard: Third World Corruption

It is most likely liberal philosophy that is causing our political leaders -- excepting Donald Trump -- to refuse to defend the country against literal Islam. The refusal of our government to see the plain truth of the matter -- that we are under attack -- beggars understanding.

 

But this flight from reality and from past American practice raises another possibility: are our leaders, or an important number of them, being bought off by our enemies? In the past, this would have been an absurd question, a calumny. But not today given practice in office that is -- apparently -- accepted as the new normal by the political elite.

Look at one example: Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. Bill and Hillary Clinton have released their joint tax returns from 2001 to 2014. “Gross Income” is the top line on a return: income before any adjustments. Table 1 shows the gross income for Bill and Hillary Clinton by year from 2001 to 2014:

Table I

Bill and Hillary Clinton

Gross Income (before taxes)

Personal, not Foundation

(in $ millions)

 

 

 

 

2001

$ 16.2

 

 

2002

$   9.6

 

 

2003

$   8.0

 

 

2004

$ 20.3

 

 

2005

$ 18.1

 

 

2006

$ 16.1

 

 

2007

$ 21.2

 

 

2008

$   5.6

 

 

2009

$ 10.2

 

 

2010

$ 13.2

 

 

2011

$ 14.9

 

 

2012

$ 20.0

 

 

2013

$ 27.1

Total as

SecState

$  85.4

2014

$ 28.3

Total Overall

$213.0

 

 

The shaded area is the period during which Hillary was Secretary of State: 2009 -- 2013. During this period, she and her husband took in $85.4 million, let’s call it $85 million, in gross income. Quite a haul! Just so there is no confusion, this is the personal income of Bill and Hillary. It is unrelated to Clinton Foundation finances, which are a different topic.

 

As can be seen from Table 1, this was not out of line with the income enjoyed by the Secretary and her husband for the period shown, i.e., both before and after her tenure as Secretary of State. But the practice heretofore in the Republic has been that people put their private wealth in a blind trust upon entering public office, thus removing their private affairs from the public trust on which they are embarking.  Never, prior to Hillary’s tenure, had it been acceptable to continue to earn outside income while in public office.

 

Of course, there is a cut-out with the Clintons of which we are all aware. Hillary didn’t accept the checks; they were paid to Bill for speeches he gave. This is a transparent dodge and represents a fairly recent method of corruption: the spouse industry. Any person in high office could arrange for his or her spouse to undertake some activity -- say painting -- which could then allegedly be so highly valued by petitioners to that office that there was a constant demand for them at very high prices. Or more obviously, the wife of the Senate Majority Leader could serve as a top lobbyist earning millions of dollars while her husband runs the Senate. As a famous poet has said, “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way [that] wind blows.”

 

We have never before seen Clinton levels of corruption in the history of the country. And it is very dangerous, well beyond the details of this particular episode. Because it brings third-world corruption into our system of government. Why is a large segment of the world, the third world, so poor? Because the ruling elites in those countries accumulate power and then sell that power to the highest bidder.

 

This theft from the commonweal prevents the starved private sector from accumulating the capital necessary for high-wage employment. Result? Devastating poverty at the bottom and lack of social cohesion at the top.

 

This is the state-of-play the Clintons are bringing to America. This is a historic turning point, not a unique episode, not a detail, not a minor event. It is a cataclysm.

 

How are the hearings for the next Secretary of State going to go (no matter who is president)?

 

Mr./Ms. nominee, how much do you and your spouse expect to make out of being Secretary of State? Secretary Clinton made $85 million. What are your ambitions in this regard?”

 

This is not an extreme example, a ridiculous example, it is a question that needs to be asked so that we in the country know where we stand. So that, for instance, troops who are ordered to take the hill understand the provenance of the policy they are carrying out.

 

Also, now that, apparently, the activities of the Clintons are considered acceptable and thus are a precedent, what about the other cabinet offices? How much do we expect the Secretary of Defense and spouse to clear during his/her tenure? In many ways, that would be an even more valuable office to petitioners than SecState. And so on through the cabinet.

 

And why exclude the presidency itself? Presumably the Clintons expect to continue their dog-and-pony routine if Hillary gets the top job. Think what that would be worth. Ten times the SecState? We’ll find out.

 

Let’s return to the question that opened this piece: what is going on in Washington? Nobody in power in Washington has called or is calling Hillary on her accumulation of wealth while in office. What does that tell you? Forget politics. Is nobody in office in Washington scandalized by the highest administrative official in the government selling the office? Is this because it has become a standard practice in other offices as well, including elective ones?

 

The end state:

 

·      acquire power;

·      sell it;

·      make a fortune.

 

Pretty cool. The only problem is that it ruins the country. It abrogates the trust the public must have that its high officials are acting in its interest. If those officials come to see that trust as a con, then the future of the country is in peril.

 

Adam Smith observed, “There is a lot of ruin in a nation.” So we don’t see it yet. But by the time we do see it, when, as one example, the military ceases to have belief in a mission because the officials assigning the mission have manifestly divided loyalties, the country will be in mortal danger.

 

What is going on in Washington? Has it accepted the “Clinton standard” for sale of high public office?

It is most likely liberal philosophy that is causing our political leaders -- excepting Donald Trump -- to refuse to defend the country against literal Islam. The refusal of our government to see the plain truth of the matter -- that we are under attack -- beggars understanding.

 

But this flight from reality and from past American practice raises another possibility: are our leaders, or an important number of them, being bought off by our enemies? In the past, this would have been an absurd question, a calumny. But not today given practice in office that is -- apparently -- accepted as the new normal by the political elite.

Look at one example: Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State. Bill and Hillary Clinton have released their joint tax returns from 2001 to 2014. “Gross Income” is the top line on a return: income before any adjustments. Table 1 shows the gross income for Bill and Hillary Clinton by year from 2001 to 2014:

Table I

Bill and Hillary Clinton

Gross Income (before taxes)

Personal, not Foundation

(in $ millions)

 

 

 

 

2001

$ 16.2

 

 

2002

$   9.6

 

 

2003

$   8.0

 

 

2004

$ 20.3

 

 

2005

$ 18.1

 

 

2006

$ 16.1

 

 

2007

$ 21.2

 

 

2008

$   5.6

 

 

2009

$ 10.2

 

 

2010

$ 13.2

 

 

2011

$ 14.9

 

 

2012

$ 20.0

 

 

2013

$ 27.1

Total as

SecState

$  85.4

2014

$ 28.3

Total Overall

$213.0

 

 

The shaded area is the period during which Hillary was Secretary of State: 2009 -- 2013. During this period, she and her husband took in $85.4 million, let’s call it $85 million, in gross income. Quite a haul! Just so there is no confusion, this is the personal income of Bill and Hillary. It is unrelated to Clinton Foundation finances, which are a different topic.

 

As can be seen from Table 1, this was not out of line with the income enjoyed by the Secretary and her husband for the period shown, i.e., both before and after her tenure as Secretary of State. But the practice heretofore in the Republic has been that people put their private wealth in a blind trust upon entering public office, thus removing their private affairs from the public trust on which they are embarking.  Never, prior to Hillary’s tenure, had it been acceptable to continue to earn outside income while in public office.

 

Of course, there is a cut-out with the Clintons of which we are all aware. Hillary didn’t accept the checks; they were paid to Bill for speeches he gave. This is a transparent dodge and represents a fairly recent method of corruption: the spouse industry. Any person in high office could arrange for his or her spouse to undertake some activity -- say painting -- which could then allegedly be so highly valued by petitioners to that office that there was a constant demand for them at very high prices. Or more obviously, the wife of the Senate Majority Leader could serve as a top lobbyist earning millions of dollars while her husband runs the Senate. As a famous poet has said, “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way [that] wind blows.”

 

We have never before seen Clinton levels of corruption in the history of the country. And it is very dangerous, well beyond the details of this particular episode. Because it brings third-world corruption into our system of government. Why is a large segment of the world, the third world, so poor? Because the ruling elites in those countries accumulate power and then sell that power to the highest bidder.

 

This theft from the commonweal prevents the starved private sector from accumulating the capital necessary for high-wage employment. Result? Devastating poverty at the bottom and lack of social cohesion at the top.

 

This is the state-of-play the Clintons are bringing to America. This is a historic turning point, not a unique episode, not a detail, not a minor event. It is a cataclysm.

 

How are the hearings for the next Secretary of State going to go (no matter who is president)?

 

Mr./Ms. nominee, how much do you and your spouse expect to make out of being Secretary of State? Secretary Clinton made $85 million. What are your ambitions in this regard?”

 

This is not an extreme example, a ridiculous example, it is a question that needs to be asked so that we in the country know where we stand. So that, for instance, troops who are ordered to take the hill understand the provenance of the policy they are carrying out.

 

Also, now that, apparently, the activities of the Clintons are considered acceptable and thus are a precedent, what about the other cabinet offices? How much do we expect the Secretary of Defense and spouse to clear during his/her tenure? In many ways, that would be an even more valuable office to petitioners than SecState. And so on through the cabinet.

 

And why exclude the presidency itself? Presumably the Clintons expect to continue their dog-and-pony routine if Hillary gets the top job. Think what that would be worth. Ten times the SecState? We’ll find out.

 

Let’s return to the question that opened this piece: what is going on in Washington? Nobody in power in Washington has called or is calling Hillary on her accumulation of wealth while in office. What does that tell you? Forget politics. Is nobody in office in Washington scandalized by the highest administrative official in the government selling the office? Is this because it has become a standard practice in other offices as well, including elective ones?

 

The end state:

 

·      acquire power;

·      sell it;

·      make a fortune.

 

Pretty cool. The only problem is that it ruins the country. It abrogates the trust the public must have that its high officials are acting in its interest. If those officials come to see that trust as a con, then the future of the country is in peril.

 

Adam Smith observed, “There is a lot of ruin in a nation.” So we don’t see it yet. But by the time we do see it, when, as one example, the military ceases to have belief in a mission because the officials assigning the mission have manifestly divided loyalties, the country will be in mortal danger.

 

What is going on in Washington? Has it accepted the “Clinton standard” for sale of high public office?