The Ecology of the Clintons

A scientist recently discovered a parasite and named it after Barack Obama, Baracktrema obamai. But considering the level of exploitation of their host they have accomplished, that honor should have gone to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Parasite  [par-uh-sahyt] noun

1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

Parasites sap their hosts (that’s us in the case of the Clintons) of energy and resources. Has there ever been a couple that have exploited their government service to gratify themselves as much and in as many various ways as have the Clintons?

The obsessive need to capitalize on their positions of power has a long history. The hacking of Colin Powell’s email revealed in a very stark way of what the general thinks motivates the Clintons:

…a 70-year old person (sic) with a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational, with a husband still dicking bimbos at home.

Thank you, Colin Powell, for your public service!

Bill Clinton’s dalliances are well-known. At each and every turn he seems to have abused his power and position to exploit women while the sham of a marriage provided cover.  During his governorship there was Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones (sexually harassed by Governor Clinton while she worked for the Arkansas government) and no doubt a parade of other women (Juanita Broaddrick for one has spoken up). Last but certainly not least was the most famous intern in history, Monice Lewinsky (or as Bill Clinton contemptuously called her “that woman”).  After Bill was finished with them, he moved on the next victim, as would a parasite.

Such a pattern was not restricted to merely satiating Bill. The pattern was also apparent during such scandals as Whitewater, when James and Susan McDougal kept quiet about what had transpired in this land scam involving the Clintons and went to jail for their loyalty to Bill. He left them to languish there (James died in prison while Susan kept her silence for years until President Clinton pardoned her in the last hours of his presidency).

At each and every turn Hillary rushed to Bill’s defense. Why would she serve as an accomplice to such predatory and parasitic behavior?  She enjoyed being the First Lady of Arkansas and then the United States, and clearly those roles as a stepping stone to her own political career. After all, she never wanted to stay at home and bake cookies or be like Tammy Wynette (amazing her disrespect for such large number of women has not prevented so many women rallying to her campaign).

Far more enjoyable and enriching to use her role as First Lady of Arkansas to serve on the board of WalMart and “earn” spectacular if not near mathematically impossible returns “speculating” on commodities supposedly by merely reading the Wall Street Journal (what a bargain) rather than through trades with someone eager to curry favor with the Governor. The fix was in, as it so often has been for the Clintons. They used their “government service” and titles to enrich themselves.

Bill and Hillary Clinton may not have had an ideal marriage but their partnership has been mutually profitable, albeit at the expense of the public.  After Bill left the presidency he did something unprecedented for a former president by establishing a “charitable” foundation that doubled as a campaign organization for Hillary Clinton while she served as Secretary of State. Employment rolls for the Clinton Foundation had “scads” of political operatives with nary a notice of concern from an IRS too busy stalking conservative activist groups. Donors, including foreigners legally barred from donating to candidates, could and did give millions to Bill personally (his speaking fees spiked and other assorted deals, including an “honorary chancellorship” of a for-profit school chain that gave him millions, came his way “coincidentally” after Hillary became Secretary of State (a post that allowed her to reciprocate such generosity to the Clinton family fortune with taxpayer dollars).

Ms. “It Takes a Village” and her husband created a Potemkin village to run a de facto campaign for her quest for the presidency. They even had the gall to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize their foundation as well as the infamous private server -- parasites on taxpayers.

 The Clintons used this “charity” for their own selfish purposes.  One charity watchdog described the Clinton Foundation as a “slush fund”:

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

So the so-called beneficiaries of the charity were all but poster people similar to the scams one might see on late night television. If the history of the Clinton Foundation’s stagecraft in Haiti is any example of the “good works” of the foundation, there are many people who could have been helped but were instead used and discarded.

What happened in Haiti? Dinesh D’ Souza writes in, “How the Clinton Foundation Got Rich off Poor Haitians”:

In January 2015 a group of Haitians surrounded the New York offices of the Clinton Foundation. They chanted slogans, accusing Bill and Hillary Clinton of having robbed them of “billions of dollars.” Two months later, the Haitians were at it again, accusing the Clintons of duplicity, malfeasance, and theft. And in May 2015, they were back, this time outside New York’s Cipriani, where Bill Clinton received an award and collected a $500,000 check for his foundation. “Clinton, where’s the money?” the Haitian signs read. “In whose pockets?” Said Dhoud Andre of the Commission Against Dictatorship, “We are telling the world of the crimes that Bill and Hillary Clinton are responsible for in Haiti.”

Hillary Clinton’s State Department as well as the Clinton Foundation channeled aid dollars to Haiti after the devastating earthquake in 2010 but who benefited?

The Haitian protesters noticed an interesting pattern involving the Clintons and the designation of how aid funds were used. They observed that a number of companies that received contracts in Haiti happened to be entities that made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. The Haitian contracts appeared less tailored to the needs of Haiti than to the needs of the companies that were performing the services. In sum, Haitian deals appeared to be a quid pro quo for filling the coffers of the Clintons.

The Haitians may not have benefited but the Friends of Bill did -- and that included Hillary Clinton’s brother, Hugh Rodham, who has a recurring walk on role in the scandal plagued “Bill and Hillary Clinton Show” .

And of course, as we know from books such as Clinton Cash and various exposes and leaked emails (the ones that were not obliterated after the existence of her private server was disclosed) that Hillary Clinton used her position as Secretary of State to enrich her family.  Pay to play payola politics was raised to a science by the ever clever Clintons. Liberals demonize (and rightly so) government officials who use the revolving door to make millions as lobbyists. The counties around Washington, D.C. have the highest per capita income of any group of counties in America. The lifestyle of such parasites on the public can be quite luxurious indeed -- as it has been for the Clintons. As Jeremy Carl wrote in “American Grifters: The Shameless Corruption of Bill and Hillary”:

The Clintons, who are always quick to play 1 percent–vs.–99 percent politics, personally took in almost $140 million in income over the past eight years, during which time Hillary Clinton was either secretary of state or the shadow Democratic-party nominee for 2016 or both. Those numbers got even larger once Hillary exited the State Department and got on the gravy train full-time. In 2014 the Clintons “earned” $28 million in income. Both Bill and Hillary have limited-liability corporations (ZFS Holdings and WJC LLC) that receive their speaking and consulting fees. The existence of both was not disclosed until 2015. Even the 10 percent of that money that the Clintons have given to charity in recent years was almost exclusively given to the Clinton Family Foundation, where it can burnish the Clinton brand.

Where is the criticism from the liberals when it comes to the same behavior from the Clintons? Crickets.

The parasitical behavior extended to speaking tours. While Hillary Clinton has repeatedly decried the high costs of public education, she had zero compunction about demanding diva-like treatment and outlandish speaking fees when appearing on college campuses. She preyed on colleges eager for a headline act -- even at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even Colin Powell complained that Hillary Clinton’s greed was killing college gigs for him since she was vacuuming up the speaking fees all by herself.

The Clintons have been parasites for years, relying on the public to keep voting them into office and into power. Power they have ceaselessly used to shamelessly enrich themselves to a degree unheard of in American political history. (Boss Tweed was an amateur by comparison.) They have used offices occupied by true public servants such as FDR, Thomas Jefferson and George C. Marshall not to serve the public but to bid out their services to the wealthy and powerful elites of the world. They have turned their self-proclaimed “work for the people” into favor factories that have lifted them into centimillionaires, the one percent of the one-percent. They fastened onto their elected and appointed roles and road them to riches.

Are there any more parasitical creatures in the wild awaiting to be discovered and named?

A scientist recently discovered a parasite and named it after Barack Obama, Baracktrema obamai. But considering the level of exploitation of their host they have accomplished, that honor should have gone to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Parasite  [par-uh-sahyt] noun

1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

Parasites sap their hosts (that’s us in the case of the Clintons) of energy and resources. Has there ever been a couple that have exploited their government service to gratify themselves as much and in as many various ways as have the Clintons?

The obsessive need to capitalize on their positions of power has a long history. The hacking of Colin Powell’s email revealed in a very stark way of what the general thinks motivates the Clintons:

…a 70-year old person (sic) with a long track record, unbridled ambition, greedy, not transformational, with a husband still dicking bimbos at home.

Thank you, Colin Powell, for your public service!

Bill Clinton’s dalliances are well-known. At each and every turn he seems to have abused his power and position to exploit women while the sham of a marriage provided cover.  During his governorship there was Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones (sexually harassed by Governor Clinton while she worked for the Arkansas government) and no doubt a parade of other women (Juanita Broaddrick for one has spoken up). Last but certainly not least was the most famous intern in history, Monice Lewinsky (or as Bill Clinton contemptuously called her “that woman”).  After Bill was finished with them, he moved on the next victim, as would a parasite.

Such a pattern was not restricted to merely satiating Bill. The pattern was also apparent during such scandals as Whitewater, when James and Susan McDougal kept quiet about what had transpired in this land scam involving the Clintons and went to jail for their loyalty to Bill. He left them to languish there (James died in prison while Susan kept her silence for years until President Clinton pardoned her in the last hours of his presidency).

At each and every turn Hillary rushed to Bill’s defense. Why would she serve as an accomplice to such predatory and parasitic behavior?  She enjoyed being the First Lady of Arkansas and then the United States, and clearly those roles as a stepping stone to her own political career. After all, she never wanted to stay at home and bake cookies or be like Tammy Wynette (amazing her disrespect for such large number of women has not prevented so many women rallying to her campaign).

Far more enjoyable and enriching to use her role as First Lady of Arkansas to serve on the board of WalMart and “earn” spectacular if not near mathematically impossible returns “speculating” on commodities supposedly by merely reading the Wall Street Journal (what a bargain) rather than through trades with someone eager to curry favor with the Governor. The fix was in, as it so often has been for the Clintons. They used their “government service” and titles to enrich themselves.

Bill and Hillary Clinton may not have had an ideal marriage but their partnership has been mutually profitable, albeit at the expense of the public.  After Bill left the presidency he did something unprecedented for a former president by establishing a “charitable” foundation that doubled as a campaign organization for Hillary Clinton while she served as Secretary of State. Employment rolls for the Clinton Foundation had “scads” of political operatives with nary a notice of concern from an IRS too busy stalking conservative activist groups. Donors, including foreigners legally barred from donating to candidates, could and did give millions to Bill personally (his speaking fees spiked and other assorted deals, including an “honorary chancellorship” of a for-profit school chain that gave him millions, came his way “coincidentally” after Hillary became Secretary of State (a post that allowed her to reciprocate such generosity to the Clinton family fortune with taxpayer dollars).

Ms. “It Takes a Village” and her husband created a Potemkin village to run a de facto campaign for her quest for the presidency. They even had the gall to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize their foundation as well as the infamous private server -- parasites on taxpayers.

 The Clintons used this “charity” for their own selfish purposes.  One charity watchdog described the Clinton Foundation as a “slush fund”:

The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

So the so-called beneficiaries of the charity were all but poster people similar to the scams one might see on late night television. If the history of the Clinton Foundation’s stagecraft in Haiti is any example of the “good works” of the foundation, there are many people who could have been helped but were instead used and discarded.

What happened in Haiti? Dinesh D’ Souza writes in, “How the Clinton Foundation Got Rich off Poor Haitians”:

In January 2015 a group of Haitians surrounded the New York offices of the Clinton Foundation. They chanted slogans, accusing Bill and Hillary Clinton of having robbed them of “billions of dollars.” Two months later, the Haitians were at it again, accusing the Clintons of duplicity, malfeasance, and theft. And in May 2015, they were back, this time outside New York’s Cipriani, where Bill Clinton received an award and collected a $500,000 check for his foundation. “Clinton, where’s the money?” the Haitian signs read. “In whose pockets?” Said Dhoud Andre of the Commission Against Dictatorship, “We are telling the world of the crimes that Bill and Hillary Clinton are responsible for in Haiti.”

Hillary Clinton’s State Department as well as the Clinton Foundation channeled aid dollars to Haiti after the devastating earthquake in 2010 but who benefited?

The Haitian protesters noticed an interesting pattern involving the Clintons and the designation of how aid funds were used. They observed that a number of companies that received contracts in Haiti happened to be entities that made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. The Haitian contracts appeared less tailored to the needs of Haiti than to the needs of the companies that were performing the services. In sum, Haitian deals appeared to be a quid pro quo for filling the coffers of the Clintons.

The Haitians may not have benefited but the Friends of Bill did -- and that included Hillary Clinton’s brother, Hugh Rodham, who has a recurring walk on role in the scandal plagued “Bill and Hillary Clinton Show” .

And of course, as we know from books such as Clinton Cash and various exposes and leaked emails (the ones that were not obliterated after the existence of her private server was disclosed) that Hillary Clinton used her position as Secretary of State to enrich her family.  Pay to play payola politics was raised to a science by the ever clever Clintons. Liberals demonize (and rightly so) government officials who use the revolving door to make millions as lobbyists. The counties around Washington, D.C. have the highest per capita income of any group of counties in America. The lifestyle of such parasites on the public can be quite luxurious indeed -- as it has been for the Clintons. As Jeremy Carl wrote in “American Grifters: The Shameless Corruption of Bill and Hillary”:

The Clintons, who are always quick to play 1 percent–vs.–99 percent politics, personally took in almost $140 million in income over the past eight years, during which time Hillary Clinton was either secretary of state or the shadow Democratic-party nominee for 2016 or both. Those numbers got even larger once Hillary exited the State Department and got on the gravy train full-time. In 2014 the Clintons “earned” $28 million in income. Both Bill and Hillary have limited-liability corporations (ZFS Holdings and WJC LLC) that receive their speaking and consulting fees. The existence of both was not disclosed until 2015. Even the 10 percent of that money that the Clintons have given to charity in recent years was almost exclusively given to the Clinton Family Foundation, where it can burnish the Clinton brand.

Where is the criticism from the liberals when it comes to the same behavior from the Clintons? Crickets.

The parasitical behavior extended to speaking tours. While Hillary Clinton has repeatedly decried the high costs of public education, she had zero compunction about demanding diva-like treatment and outlandish speaking fees when appearing on college campuses. She preyed on colleges eager for a headline act -- even at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even Colin Powell complained that Hillary Clinton’s greed was killing college gigs for him since she was vacuuming up the speaking fees all by herself.

The Clintons have been parasites for years, relying on the public to keep voting them into office and into power. Power they have ceaselessly used to shamelessly enrich themselves to a degree unheard of in American political history. (Boss Tweed was an amateur by comparison.) They have used offices occupied by true public servants such as FDR, Thomas Jefferson and George C. Marshall not to serve the public but to bid out their services to the wealthy and powerful elites of the world. They have turned their self-proclaimed “work for the people” into favor factories that have lifted them into centimillionaires, the one percent of the one-percent. They fastened onto their elected and appointed roles and road them to riches.

Are there any more parasitical creatures in the wild awaiting to be discovered and named?