By Nima Nayeri
Harry S. Truman once stated, “You can’t get rich in politics unless you’re a crook.” The Clintons entered the White House in 1993 with a net worth of less than $1 million. Today, according to Forbes, they are said to be worth upwards of approximately $100 million. This is a family who has never picked one crop, made one widget or produced anything of value for society. Their political accomplishments consist of cronyism, pandering for votes, corruption, perjury, and endless socio-political scandals. In recent years, our federal government (much like the U.N.) has become a tool for wealthy war mongers to gain political power over the world’s most capable military and economy in order to play chess-like war games with sovereign nations (especially the Middle East and parts of Africa).
Although some may argue that Hillary Clinton has garnered success in her various roles over the past three decades, crony capitalism has indeed been the back bone of Hillary Clinton's long political career. Through cronyism, her range of influence has spread much further than the FBI, State Department, DOJ (Department of Justice), Congress, and even the White House. For years, the Clintons have presumably used the Clinton Foundation as a front to finance their own interests.
The adverse effects of tolerance towards corruption through cronyism are often distinguished at a later date. An ideal example of this would be Madam Secretary’s decision to appoint a Chicago securities trader by the name of Rajiv Fernando, who had no qualification in the field, to the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB). According to ABC News, as a board official, Fernando was privileged with a top secret security clearance and granted access to highly sensitive information. Mr. Fernando’s lack of political experience was a partial cause of the public criticism Mrs. Clinton received during this controversy, but the panel's consistent record of having experienced chairmen such as high ranking national security experts, top level foreign policy advisers, retired generals, and the former chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) had such significance that not even the main stream media (MSM) could turn a blind eye. Government officials believed that Mr. Fernando was an off-beat selection for the panel. Jamie Manini, a State Department official stated, "We must protect the Secretary's and Undersecretary’s name, as well as the integrity of the board. I think it's important to get down to the bottom of this before there's any response."
Cynicism aroused when the public heard of Mr. Fernando’s contribution of $1.5 million to the Clinton Foundation and both of Mrs. Clinton's White House bids. Although Mr. Fernando was at the center of skepticism by the public and politicians across the aisle, the administration praised Fernando's work ethics and transparency by releasing the following statement regarding Mr. Fernando: “One of the hardest-working members, he was doing all the reading, he was studying, he was asking questions. I think he would have ended up being a good member of the board."
According to Syracuse.com, in 2004, as a democratic senator, Hillary Clinton assisted builder Robert J. Congel in procuring an estimated $703.6 million in tax-exempt bonds in order to finance a shopping mall in Syracuse, NY. Coincidentally, less than a month later he donated upwards of $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
Then, in 2006, prior to the housing market crash of 2008, Hillary Clinton and a number of fellow democratic senators fought tirelessly to block the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, a legislation that was co-sponsored by senator John McCain (R-AZ), which would have tightened regulations on the struggling government-sponsored mortgage company.
In addition, Clinton's email scandal roused anger among many. Hillary Clinton has spent eight years as first lady, eight years in the senate and four years as Secretary of State for a total of 30 years as a political figure. Yet, she claims that it was beyond her ability to understand the concept of classification. There are two sides to this controversy. One is that the former senator and Secretary of State genuinely lacked basic knowledge of classification; in such circumstances, she should be dubbed unfit for any political position she seeks. On the flip side, she intentionally transferred emails containing classified information through a private server, and such negligent actions are a matter of national security. Even though some may argue that Clinton's email scandal was simply the result of a careless mistake, her case does not fall under extenuating circumstances. It was disregard of federal law. Therefore, she should not only have been disqualified from the election, but she should have been charged with treason.
As mentioned in USA Today, according to the 2009 Federal Records Act, Madam Secretary's use of private servers and mishandling of government documents was highly prohibited. Until this point, any violations of this act have been enforced to the fullest. In 2015, the FBI and the State Department insisted on bringing felony charges against Gen. David Petraeus for the negligent use of classified documents. Specifically, mishandling classified information by using a Gmail account instead of his official government email, very much like Hillary Clinton's scandal. This case has been used as a political tool for her opponent, President-Elect Donald Trump, and this may have been the reason for her defeat on election day. The significance of her scandal lies within the political bias and hypocrisy coming from both departments. The State Department and FBI’s premature decision to not bring criminal charges against Hillary Clinton demonstrates a double standard set for “we the people." It is now transparent that the law does not apply to the Clintons.
Furthermore, for decades, immoral politicians like the Clintons have been deliberately misleading the American people through the MSM by professing false information and doomed economic policies that destroy jobs rather than create them. Concepts that have been debunked by economists such as Milton Friedman and heavily opposed by the conscience-conservatives of our era. A prime example of this would be the left's call for a higher minimum wage, which in fact does not solve financial problems; it simply forces the problem onto the silent majority.
President Bill Clinton once stated, “People who work for the minimum wage often don't get a chance to see the White House. They don't have time to come, even for the public tours. They work hard every day…They're in every town and every city in our country. They're of every racial and ethnic and religious group. They have in common the minimum wage. And they need a raise, and as you saw, they deserve a raise." The economic limitations professed by Mr. Clinton is a classic case of politicians pandering for votes. Such policies satisfy enough voters for democrats to win office, but they do not solve any financial conflicts.
This method of manipulation has been practiced for centuries, but the most relevant case of pandering can be observed with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Contrary to popular belief, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s stance on civil rights was probably more so about winning office and spreading the progressive agenda rather than doing what was morally right. In reality, the republican-passed (more republicans voted to pass the act than democrats, according to sources such as CNN) Civil Rights Act of 1964 was merely a watered down model of President Eisenhower’s Civil Rights Act of 1957. Mr. Johnson was considered to be many things, but he most certainly was not a progressive.
President Clinton also once proclaimed, “If you [raise the minimum wage] in a phased way, it always creates jobs. Why? Because people who make the minimum wage or near it are struggling to get by. They spend every penny they make, they turn it over in the economy, they create jobs, they create opportunity, and they take better care of their children. It’s just the right thing to do, but it’s also very good economics.” What Clinton fails to notice is the fine line between what is virtue versus what is economically logical, and neither applies to his concept. By increasing the minimum wage to $15, the country could potentially boost labor costs by 150% for small businesses that are struggling in the first place. This would not only bankrupt many small businesses (which would lead to a spur in unemployment) and favor major corporations, but it would force product costs to rise in order to stay in business, paving the way for major corporations to buy out all competition.
Deregulation of businesses, eliminating the national minimum wage, and replacing all federal/state taxes with a flat 15% purchase tax are the only economically logical methods of creating jobs and a healthy economy. Mass deregulation would allow for true capitalism and a more competitive market. Eliminating the minimum wage would allow businesses to hire more employees, which would lead to mass production, lower consumer prices, and bigger profit margins. More revenue will lead to higher wages and better working facilities, and replacing all federal/state taxes with a $15 flat consumer tax would ensure immense decrease in tax evasion, place more money in our economy, and ensure growth in employment. As the legendary economist and political theorist Murray Rothbard once said, "Remember that the minimum wage law provides no jobs; it only outlaws them; and outlawed jobs are the inevitable result."
Bill Clinton is the champion of major corporations and the corrupt federal government. To think that he has the general population's best interest in mind is obdurate. He once stated, “The new rage is to say that the government is the cause of all our problems, and if only we had no government, we'd have no problems. I can tell you, that contradicts evidence, history, and common sense.” His claim that it “contradicts history” is deceitful; furthermore, it goes against the elements that the founding fathers fought to institute in the land of the free.
For the past 30 years, both Hillary and Bill Clinton have manipulated the law in their favor. They have taken bribes for political favors, formed a bipartisan coterie with incumbent parties, participated in extortion and pandered to lobbyists. They live a self-centered, lavish life style, in which their only struggles are with the law. Although the Clintons are still supported by many democrats, the big take-away is that they are immoral; they care about nothing except their own financial and political interests. They patronize anyone who has opposed their views or posed a threat to their scandalous agenda. The Clintons should be remembered as the most corrupt political power couple in modern history.