Followup On Money

by bicyclemark 0 Comments

Next week I will move beyond the US elections, but so long as the big media does such a poor job of looking behind the show, I feel the need to bring forward whatever information I feel is of importance.

Some months back my internet colleague Chris Weagel recommended a media source to me, by the name of consortium news.  I’ve subscribed to that site, and have indeed found useful information that is not available in the mainstream.

The latest eye-opening article went over Hillary Clinton’s income, on the heels of her 5 million dollar loan to her own campaign.  Some people may not be surprised or remotely uncomfortable about the numbers, but I want to lay it out anyway.

According to author and journalist Nat Parry, Hillary’s income breaks down like this:

  • Senate salary of $169,300 a year.
  • From her memoir Living History, 9.9 million$
  • $10.2 million for giving 57 speeches in 2006

And then there is husband Bill’s money coming from such places as:

  • $20 million via business relationship with Yucaipa Cos., the investment firm of his longtime supporter, billionaire Ron Burkle, which has connections to the ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum.  – according to the Wall St. Journal
  • Helped Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra in securing a lucrative uranium deal with the repressive government of Kazakhstan in 2005, shortly before Giustra made an unreported $31.3 million donation to Clinton’s foundation. – according to the New York Times.

This is just a taste, read the full post for details as well as links to the sources.

Seeing these numbers just makes me do a double-take, as sometimes I forget how very wealthy politicans in the United States can be; especially if they’ve lived in the white house.

Law & Order in the Whitehouse – Criminal Intent

by bicyclemark

The discussion surrounding what or who has caused the United States to head in the direction it is going, is neverending and often yields little agreement. Someone always starts by saying W. Bush is the problem and once he’s replaced with a democrat things will improve. Others argue that it isn’t one person, but in fact a whole group of people running the country, who’s values and worldviews are steering it in such a way. Then of course there are those who say its the regular people who actually like what is going on and applaud all the government’s decisions over the past 6 years.

Those are only a few of the arguements I most frequently hear in the comments of this blog and elsewhere. And while I sometimes feel there is an excessive focus on Bush and his cronies, when I read about some of the administration’s actions and attempts at changing national and international law, it becomes very clear that no matter who’s fault it is, the current government in the whitehouse stands head and shoulders above any previous administration when it comes to criminal intent and attempting to ignore or abuse law.

The latest action that prompts this post was last week’s revealing that the Bush administration is trying to amend the war crimes act in order to “prevent prosecutions of US personnel for humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees in the war on terror. “ A familiar theme from the past years, the idea that US military and other secret personel who are involved in torture, they should be given a free pass and a garuntee that they will never be held accountable for having committed what is a crime according to the war crimes act of the US, not to mention international law.

I’m sure it sounds like old news. No big deal, some will say. Amazing how if they just keep doing it, changing laws or kidnapping and torturing will both become common practices that cause every newsreader in America to yawn and turn the page.

Just in case you’re somehow still unconvinced that the government and the military should have the protected right to not be subject to the war crimes act, maybe you’d like to read the Amnesty Report.

And whatever you believe to be the cause of the terrible state of affairs in the US, surely the current squatters in the white house have some significant role in it all.