“A politician who dies poor is…”

Posted On April 30, 2015 0 Comment

Who said “A politician who dies poor is a poor politician” Hillary Clinton or the former Mayor of Mexico City – Carlos Hank — who started as a 20-dollar-a-month school teacher and died a billionaire?
Hank said it; he lived it. When he was the unelected Mexico City Mayor, one of the world’s largest cities, a percentage of every dollar/peso that changed hands between private citizens and government in the Federal District of Mexico in legitimate fees or mordidas (mor-deed-ahs, bribes) was delivered in cash to Hank’s office every day.
His Swiss, Panamanian and Lichtenstein bank accounts were gorged every day by electronic transfers from Hank-owned Mexico City banks.
The former one room school house teacher did well; he did better than former Presidents of Mexico, the quintessentially corrupt pigs at the public trough.
Hillary Clinton told us she and President Bill Clinton left the White House “broke and in debt.” She was mightily ridiculed for that statement. When did President Clinton negotiate a multi-million dollar book deal? Certainly he didn’t wait until 12:01 p.m. on the 20th of January 2001 to make his deal, did he?
Once that contract was in hand, besides any advance, the Clinton’s could borrow using the contract as collateral. Oops, they did just that. They financed two homes, one in New York and another in Washington, D.C., at the very time she says they were broke. These were not distant Xburbs tract homes.
Now, back to a “poor politician” becoming rich. We didn’t need a book titled “Clinton Cash” to inform us that former President Clinton was knocking down an average $150,000 a speech before Hillary became Secretary of State. Between 2001 and 2009 when Hillary came Secretary of State former President Clinton made two speeches overseas which paid him $500,000 per.
After Hillary was sworn in as Secretary of State, Bill Clinton was paid $500,000 OR MORE for 11 speeches by foreign parties.
One specific Clinton speech for the Swedish telecom company “Erickson,” was in Hong Kong. He was paid $750,000 for it. Problem?
Erickson was selling telecom equipment to Iran. That was prohibited by international and American sanctions on Iran, the largest state sponsor of terrorism. American law mandated Erickson be punished for trading with the enemy.
When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton published a list of companies violating sanctions on Iran, Erickson was not listed. Is there a connection between the absence of Erickson from the naughty list and the $750,000 paid Bill Clinton? There is one: As the Clinton’s are New York residents, any income earned by one spouse is income for both. Thus, Hillary technically was paid, per New York law, by Erickson. Is that kosher?
A second problem involves a Russian bank that paid Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech in Moscow. The bank was promoting stock in a uranium extraction company that owned 20% of America’s uranium reserves. The uranium extraction company — UraniumOne — bought U.S. uranium reserves when it was a Canadian company. Then in three different transactions while Hillary was Secretary of State, a Russian company owned by the Russian government (read Vladimir Putin) bought control of the Canadian company and its American uranium production.
The stink from these transactions is this: U.S. Government approval was necessary and Secretary of State had veto power over the transactions; she didn’t veto the deals though as Senator Clinton she preached against foreigners owning American vital assets.
Nine different officers and shareholders of the Canadian UraniumOne company – all of whom became richer when Russia bought control of it – donated millions of unreported dollars to the Clinton Foundation. Add these unreported donations to the $500,000 paid Bill Clinton for a speech in Moscow and one can paraphrase a Shakespearean view: “Something is rotten in the State of (Clinton?).
So, is “A politician who dies poor is a poor politician” adequate to describe the Clinton situation?
Better, considering Hillary and Bill Clinton have been in the national eye since the 1992 presidential campaign, is something I wrote in a final exam Bluebook essay in my Mexican Government and Politics class at San Diego State five decades ago; to wit:
Thousands of cowboy-hat wearing Mexican Indian farmers sweltered in the July heat listening to a gaggle of politicians speechify in Spanish, a second language to Los Indios. They cheered a young firebrand fresh out of law school who berated establishment politicians for stealing the people’s money and that he would end corruption and theft and bring them honest government.
Politely listening was the local cacique (kah-see-keh, Chief) of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (the PRI) that never lost elections. He stepped up to the microphone and said, “This is a nice educated man with a bright future, but for now, who would you rather steal your money, me or someone you don’t know?”
We have heard from the author of “Clinton Cash,” and New York Times, Washington Post and New Yorker reporters — we are waiting for Hillary to clarify how she and her husband became so rich without selling out the United States of America.