Behind the Headlines
Two-Cents Worth
Video of the Week
News Blurbs

Short Takes

Plain Talk

The Ryter Report


Bible Questions

Internet Articles (2012)
Internet Articles (2011)
Internet Articles (2010)
Internet Articles (2009)
Internet Articles (2008)
Internet Articles (2007)
Internet Articles (2006)
Internet Articles (2005)
Internet Articles (2004)

Internet Articles (2003)
Internet Articles (2002)
Internet Articles (2001)

From The Mailbag

Order Books





Openings at $75K to $500K+

Pinnaclemicro 3 Million Computer Products

Startlogic Windows Hosting

Adobe  Design Premium¨ CS5

Get Your FREE Coffeemaker Today!

Corel Store


More "Synthetic Hillary" money scandals.

If you can judge a book by its covers, you can judge the integrity of a politician by the illegal money she takes—and the illegal ways she spends it, flaunting campaign laws she believes royalty can ignore. Synthetic Hillary is in the limelight again. Like Teflon Bill, the brown stuff does not seem to stick to Synthetic Hillary. (It must be a Clinton trait—or perhaps there's simply a missing "moral ethics gene" in the rank and file feminists, homosexuals, lesbians, communists, antiwar ecoalarmists and generational welfare groupies with outstretched hands to the Mecca of entitlements who threw their support behind Beijing Bill in 1992 and 1996 and Hsu Hillary in 2000 and 2006.)

Before covering the latest Clinton money scandal its important—just one more time—to stress than when you hold over a hundred White House bribefests (called "Coffees") for Chinese nationals and their bagmen between 1995 and 1996, its hard for the Clintons to pretend they didn't happen and dismiss them as nothing more than "rightwing conspiracies" designed to make them look bad. Particularly when, in at least one of those "Coffees," Bill Clinton and then Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Don Fowler, were present in the White House Map Room on June 18, 1996 when Chinese agent and bagman John Huang pitched a group of Thai businessmen tied to Beijing (who cannot legally donate money to any US political campaign) for contributions. (The events which transpired can be found in the Thompson Congressional Hearing Report.) If your name is Clinton, you can feign surprise when you get caught. And you can pretend you didn't know the money was a bribe from a foreign government and give the money back. But the facts, thanks to former Senator Fred Thompson [R-TN], are in the public domain even if his colleagues on the left—many of whom were also taking Chinese money from 1986 to 1996—were afraid to open Pandora's Box and let the yuan fall where they may. (The last time I checked, accepting bribes from an enemy nation for access to the highest portals of government was called treason—even though to Bill and Hillary it was simply business as usual.) When this incident was made public on May 16, 1998 during the sentencing of Chinese bagman Johnny Chung, US District Court Judge Manuel Real made this comment to Fowler and DNC Finance Chairman Richard Sullivan: "...If Mr. Fowler and Mr. Sullivan didn't know what was going on, I think they are the dumbest politicians I've ever seen."

Synthetic Hillary, who is a completely artificial person manufactured wholly in her own "Land of Oz" mind to appeal to the widest range of gene-deficient voters based on the latest polls, began her campaign for the White House by declaring that the myriad of Clinton scandals—Whitewatergate, Travelgate, Filegate, Chinagate and Whatevergate—were off limits because [a] they were ancient history and [b] they had already been thoroughly vetted by the media and found to have no merit. Excuse me?

Twice within in the past month, Hillary Clinton's been caught dipping her fingers in the foreign money streams. One Chinese. One Indian. (And we aren't talking Chippewa or Cherokee here—we're talking India.) Hillary's been selling your jobs to India. (For those of you with damaged brain cells who favor Hillary and would have contributed to her presidential campaign if your job hadn't out-sourced to India, think of the money Hillary received from Sant Singh Chatwal for your job as your personal contribution to her election.)

In criminal trials, prosecutors try to enter the bad conduct of the accused to the jury as evidence of the criminal character of the person on trial. The defense tries to keep that evidence out in an attempt to make the defendant look like he or she is an innocent person who was wrongfully accused. The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Baltimore Sun have "ruled" that Whitewatergate, Travelgate, Filegate, and Chinagate have no bearing on Hillary's run for the Rose Garden because, they chime in unison, those scandals—which they insist were largely fabricated and/or exaggerated by the vast right wing conspiracy (a phrase Hillary coined)—were thoroughly investigated and found to lack merit because evidence of wrongdoing by the President and First Lady simply did not exist. Not even the House Impeachment Investigation Committee, they remind us, could find enough evidence of wrongdoing to impeach the President for anything more than a semen-stained blue dress.

Hillary has already been caught in Chinagate II and Indiagate I. Her feigned horror to "discover" that the bundled Hsu contributions came from straw donors is rather trite based on her participation in Chinagate. How much more pertinent could taking illegal campaign contributions be? Allowing political candidates who knowingly accept illegal donations escape punishment by giving it back is pretty much like letting a bank robber escape justice if he returns the money he stole at the point of a gun.

Why do the American people persist in electing to public office people who have shown, time and again, that they lack the moral integrity we have historically expected in our leaders? Is it because their ethics align with those of the politicians they elect? Or, is it that we no longer expect our national leaders to be honest and ethical? Or, do the voters think the only way they will get their public handout at the expense of the rest of us is if they elect crooked politicians? There simply is no other logical explanation.

In the Election of 2004 antiwar activists like socialist financier George Soros and Progressive Insurance's Peter Lewis financed the start-up of several anti-Bush advocacy groups to exploit of the Section 527 loophole in the campaign finance reform laws. The best-funded 527 was a PAC called America Coming Together [ACT]. Unknown at the time, ACT was secretly controlled—or, at minimum, greatly influenced—by the Clintons. Funding ACT was George Soros with a few Lewis millions thrown in. The four key players in ACT were also players in Hillary Clinton's Senate races. Steve Rosenthal, a former Associate Deputy Clinton Labor Secretary (and a former Democratic National Committee Deputy Political Director and also a former political director of the AFL-CIO) was the public voice of ACT even though the real boss of ACT was Hillary Clinton aide Harold Ickes, Jr. The other two Clinton officials are JoDee Winterhoff, the former political director for ACT who currently runs Hillary Clinton's political operations in Iowa and Minyon Moore, a former ACT official who now works as the liaison between Hillary and Dewey Square Group, Clinton's consultants..

During the 2004 campaign Rosenthal bragged that ACT had over $100 million to defeat Bush. In reality, ACT received $103.5 million in soft money from antiwar liberals like George Soros and $33.5 million in hard money from grassroots donors. ACT spent $137 million in 2004. The group had 45 thousand paid "canvassers" working out of 86 field offices in the 17 battleground States.

Though its Motor Voter campaign, ACT got voter registration cards for multiple hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, scores of ex-convicts who cannot, by law, legally vote, thousands of 16- and 17-year olds with Drivers' Ed drivers licenses—together with a myriad of household pets who received the right to vote in federal elections—and, of course, the Daley Dead who haven't missed an election since 1960. ACT did not succeed in defeating Bush and placing antiwar activist John Kerry in the White House in 2004. After ACT shut down in 2005, MoveOn.org used their techniques to successfully seize control of the House of Representatives and the US Senate in 2006.

Like ACT, MoveOn.org manipulated the Motor-Voter laws to illegally register people in all of the battleground States who were legally ineligible, for a variety of reasons, to vote. Using the Motor Voter laws—and absentee ballots to avoid the embarrassing questions that would naturally be raised when a 15- or 16- year old shows up at the voting precinct without ID to verify they are at least 18-years of age—MoveOn.org successfully impacted the results of several House and Senate races. MoveOn's efforts would likely not have succeeded as well as they did without the help of the conservative far right which sat out the Midterm Election in 2006 to protest Bush's failure to seal the nation's borders and deport illegal aliens from the country. As a result, liberals once again determine the pedigree not only of all federal judges, but every Administration official whose job description requires the advise and consent of the Senate.

The long and the short of it is that the mechanism orchestrated by ACT in 2004 and used by MoveOn.org in 2006 to give control of Congress back to the far left were Clinton strategies developed specifically to find the voters needed to put Hillary in the White House in 2008.

All of the honest in-house polls confirmed what the Clintons already knew—Hillary, who has the highest negative ratings of any candidate in the 2008 race, is the most polarizing politician in recent memory. Forty-four percent of the potential 2008 voters believe Clinton is a cold, calculating, mean-spirited woman. Her electability quotient is well below 50%. Her core strength lies solely within the far left which represents less than 35% of the Democrats. While polls taken of likely Democratic voters show that roughly 44% would vote for her, when you look at the whole spectrum of voters on both sides, Hillary—without help from her friends at MoveOn.org—will only pull between 35% to 39% of the national vote.

The last president elected with 39% of the vote was Abraham Lincoln. And his election caused a civil war. For Hillary to win in 2008, she needs a strong third party candidate—someone like Congressman Ron Paul [R-TX]—to drain conservative votes just like Teddy Roosevelt did in 1912. Roosevelt gave Woodrow Wilson what he couldn't win on his own—the presidency. In a two-man race, the polls in 1912 said William Howard Taft would easily win reelection by a 55% to 45% margin. When the votes were counted, Wilson took 41.9% of the votes. Taft took 23.2%. The spoiler, Roosevelt, took 27.5%, splitting the GOP vote almost squarely down the middle. With Wilson, America got the 16th and 17th Amendments and the Federal Reserve System that either Taft or Roosevelt would have vetoed. With Hillary, America will get a budget-busting government mandated healthcare system, a legislative ban on firearms, and a GPS-monitored internal passport. All of these were things Hillary tried, but failed, to enact in her unofficial capacity as co-president during the Clinton years.

But what will likely kill Clinton's presidential bid is not the fact that she can't constitutionally run for the office, or that she has less appeal than cold mutton at a cattleman's barbecue, but the revelations of Chinagate-type fund raising and now, of the misuse of $70 million of ACT money by former Clinton Administration officials who not only headed ACT but were also advisers to the Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign. When the Washington Times reported on Sept. 27 the size of the fine that was levied against ACT by the FEC on Aug. 29, ACT's attorney, Laurence Gold told the paper that the fine—$775 thousand—marked "...the conclusion of three years of politically-motivated charges by the Republican Party and ill-conceived allegations by self-styled campaign reform groups."

The $775 thousand fine was the third largest fine in the history of the FEC. ACT used $70 million in soft money to fund political ads which either advocated electing John Kerry or defeating George W. Bush. The expenditures were then camouflaged to appear that the money had been spent on voter contact, voter registration and get-out-and-vote activities in the 17 battleground States and not advocacy advertising. Under federal law, advocacy advertising for or against a candidate must be paid for with hard money—money that comes from grassroots individual donors.

During the Election of 1996 the Clinton-Gore Campaign laundered big donor soft money through the DNC, trading it—dollar for dollar—with hard money contributions the DNC. (Another break politicians gave themselves over any challenger for their job.) The Clintons—urged to do so by Dick Morris on Christmas Eve, 1994—kicked off their reelection campaign a full year early after private polls commissioned by Morris showed the Clintons losing to Senator Bob Dole by a margin of 16 points. Morris engineered the early-bird strategy of bombarding the public with pro-Clinton, anti-GOP ads, focusing on the evils of Newt Gingrich with ads suggesting the Contract With America benefited the rich and impoverished the working class.

The strategy, Morris told Clinton at the White House on Christmas Eve, would take hundreds of millions of dollars—more money than had ever been raised by any politician in the United States. Unwittingly, Morris set into motion the biggest and most illegal campaign finance scheme in the history of the world. And, through it, Bill and Hillary Clinton mastered the art of laundering soft money through the DNC—whether dollars, dinars, rials, riyals, yen, yuan, or rubles or rupees—into what appeared to be stars-and-stripes waving, American working class legal hard money. The Clintons "deposited" both legal and illegal soft money contributions in their "account" with the DNC, and received hard money withdrawals that could be used to attack Dole, Gingrich and the GOP.

Hillary adopted the Morris strategy by kicking off her 2008 campaign a full year early in an attempt to overwhelm potential Democratic challengers who might appeal to working class Democratic voters more than she—and to drain the coffers of those challengers so that when the race begins in earnest Hillary would be the "last man standing"—or, at least, the only one with enough money to finish the race. Nothing Hillary Clinton is doing is new or unique or—from what close observers can see—completely above board. Everything is pure circa 1996 Bill Clinton—right down to the Chinese bundlers and straw donors. All that's missing so far is Al Gore's Buddhist monastery "outreach." But then, it's still early. The 2008 campaign doesn't officially begin for a couple of months yet.

But, its easy to see why the liberal media—and Hillary Clinton—wants the "Clinton-gates" declared off limits. It's not fair to discuss Hillary's upcoming 2008 campaign strategies in past tense. Once again, you have my two cents worth on this issue.



Just Say No
Copyright © 2009 Jon Christian Ryter.
All rights reserved