NO THANKS. I voted for him twice BUT NEVER in the primary. I was seriously tempted to sit out the elections as I never trusted him. Now w access to internet facts, my dislike of him is way stronger;
Here's just a couple reasons why:
SELLING OUT OF INTERNATIONAL ELECTIONS FOR PROFIT:
After Mining Deal, Financier Donated to Clinton
By JO BECKER and DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Published: January 31, 2008
Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan. Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world. And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.
Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton.
-snip
"Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent."
"Mr. Nazarbayev walked away from the table with a propaganda coup, after Mr. Clinton expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy."
-snip
Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra’s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges.
LINK:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.htmlSELLING OUT MIDDLE CLASS JOBS TO CHINA:
Clinton to renew Normal Trade Relations with China
June 2, 1999
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 2) -- President Bill Clinton will notify Congress Thursday that he is renewing China's most-favored-nation (MFN) trading status -- now known as Normal Trade Relations (NTR) -- for another year, CNN has confirmed.
MFN/NTR status offers low tariffs and treats countries as normal trading partners.
The formal notification, required by the Thursday deadline, is expected to trigger a major debate in the House and Senate due to allegations of Chinese espionage against the U.S. and other recent diplomatic tensions, including charges China tried to influence the 1996 presidential election with illegal campaign contributions.
One of the first speak out against Clinton decision, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-California), derided the president for making the decision near the 10th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.
-snip
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/02/china.mfn/Clinton Proposes Renewing China's Most-Favored Trade Status
Congressional reaction mixed amidst larger China policy issues
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 3) -- President Bill Clinton on Wednesday proposed renewing most-favored-nation (MFN) trade status for China, saying it was "clearly in our nation's interest" as he urged Congress to support the request.
-snip
House Speaker Newt Gingrich welcomed Clinton's recommendation for renewing MFN status for China, and vowed to work in a bipartisan manner to ensure that China receives it from Congress.
Gingrich, joined by Reps. Bill Archer (R-Texas) and Philip Crane (R-Ill.), made his comments in a letter to Clinton.
-snip
House Democratic leader Richard Gephardt issued a statement Wednesday opposing Clinton's plan to extend China's trading status for another year.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/03/china.trade/BACKING MEDIA CONSOLIDATION (TELECOM ACT OF '96):
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study tells the story of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and its aftermath. In many ways,
the Telecom Act failed to serve the public and did not deliver on its promise of more competition,
more diversity, lower prices, more jobs and a booming economy.
Instead, the public got more media concentration, less diversity, and higher prices.
Over 10 years, the legislation was supposed to save consumers $550 billion, including $333 billion in
lower long-distance rates, $32 billion in lower local phone rates, and $78 billion in lower cable bills.
But cable rates have surged by about 50 percent, and local phone rates went up more than 20 percent.
Industries supporting the new legislation predicted it would add 1.5 million jobs and boost the economy
by $2 trillion. By 2003, however, telecommunications’ companies’ market value had fallen by about
$2 trillion, and they had shed half a million jobs.
And study after study has documented that profit-driven media conglomerates are investing less in news
and information, and that local news in particular is failing to provide viewers with the information they
need to participate in their democracy
Why did this happen? In some cases, industries agreed to the terms of the Act and then went to court
to block them. By leaving regulatory discretion to the Federal Communications Commission, the Act
gave the FCC the power to issue rules that often sabotaged the intent of Congress. Control of the House
passed from Democrats to Republicans, more sympathetic to corporate arguments for deregulation.
And while corporate special interests all had a seat at the table when this bill was being negotiated, the
public did not. Nor were average citizens even aware of this legislation’s great impact on how they
got their entertainment and information, and whether it would foster or discourage diversity of
viewpoints and a marketplace of ideas, crucial to democratic discourse.
Now, as Congress once again takes up major legislation to change telecommunications policy, and as it
revisits the Telecom Act, major industries have had nearly a decade to reinforce their relationships with
lawmakers and the Administration through political donations and lobbying:
• Since 1997, just eight of the country’s largest and most powerful media and telecommunications
companies, their corporate parents, and three of their trade groups, have spent more than $400 million
on political contributions and lobbying in Washington, according to a Common Cause analysis of
federal records.
• Verizon Communications, SBC Communications Inc., AOL Time Warner, General Electric Co./NBC,
News Corp./Fox, Viacom Inc./CBS, Comcast Corp., Walt Disney Co./ABC, and the National
Association of Broadcasters, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, and the United
States Telecom Association together gave nearly $45 million in federal political donations since 1997.
Of that total, $17.8 million went to Democrats and $26.9 million went to Republicans.
• These eight companies and three trade associations also spent more than $358 million on lobbying
in Washington, since 1998, when lobbying expenditures were first required to be disclosed.
All this investment once again gives radio and television broadcasters, telephone companies, long-distance
providers, cable systems and Internet companies a huge advantage over average citizens.
While these corporations have different, and sometimes opposing views on individual provisions of a new
Telecom Act, their overriding desire is for less federal regulation. A new Telecommunications Act could
be written “in a matter of months, not years,” and be a “very short bill,” focused on an almost complete
deregulation of the telecommunications industry, said F. Duane Ackerman, chairman and CEO
of BellSouth Corporation. “The basic issue before the Congress is simple,” Ackerman said.
“Can competition do a better job than traditional utility regulation?”
http://www.commoncause.org/atf/cf/%7BFB3C17E2-CDD1-4DF6-92BE-BD4429893665%7D/FALLOUT_FROM_THE_TELECOMM_ACT_5-9-05.PDFBANKING DE-REGULATION:
How the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act became law -
On Oct. 21, with the House-Senate conference committee deadlocked after marathon negotiations, the main sticking point is partisan bickering over the bill's effect on the Community Reinvestment Act, which sets rules for lending to poor communities. Sandy Weill calls President Clinton in the evening to try to break the deadlock after Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, warned Citigroup lobbyist Roger Levy that Weill has to get White House moving on the bill or he would shut down the House-Senate conference. Serious negotiations resume, and a deal is announced at 2:45 a.m. on Oct. 22. President Bill Clinton signed this bill into law on November 12, 1999.
Bill Clinton -
So we know that the topic of that late night phone call between Bill Clinton and Sandy Weill, the man whose career began in the subprime mortgage business, was the Community Reinvestment Act. We know that Phil Gramm, who was the one most strongly pushing for gutting CRA (Leach actually supported it) threatened to torpedo the legislation if the White House did not reach an agreement.
So why did Clinton go along? His writings are silent on the subject. He seemingly held the trump card with the threat to veto any legislation that did not meet his approval. And why is it Sandy Weill who makes the phone call to Clinton? At this point not enough evidence is available to finally connect the dots, but whatever it is, it cannot possibly benefit Bill Clinton. The reason for the silence may be that for the Clintons the repeal of Glass-Steagall may prove far more embarrassing in the long run than Monica Lewinsky.
-snip
http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/story/pilgrim/2008/09/19/the_players_in_paving_the_way_to_the_wall_st_meltdownA chronology tracing the life of the Glass-Steagall Act, from its passage in 1933 to its death throes in the 1990s, and how Citigroup's Sandy Weill dealt the coup de grâce.
On April 6, 1998, Weill and Reed announce a $70 billion stock swap merging Travelers (which owned the investment house Salomon Smith Barney) and Citicorp (the parent of Citibank), to create Citigroup Inc., the world's largest financial services company, in what was the biggest corporate merger in history.
The transaction would have to work around regulations in the Glass-Steagall and Bank Holding Company acts governing the industry, which were implemented precisely to prevent this type of company: a combination of insurance underwriting, securities underwriting, and commecial banking. The merger effectively gives regulators and lawmakers three options: end these restrictions, scuttle the deal, or force the merged company to cut back on its consumer offerings by divesting any business that fails to comply with the law.
-snip
Citicorp and Travelers quietly lobby banking regulators and government officials for their support. In late March and early April, Weill makes three heads-up calls to Washington: to Fed Chairman Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, and President Clinton. On April 5, the day before the announcement, Weill and Reed make a ceremonial call on Clinton to brief him on the upcoming announcement.
-snip
Weill and Reed have to act quickly for both business and political reasons. Fears that the necessary regulatory changes would not happen in time had caused the share prices of both companies to fall. The House Republican leadership indicates that it wants to enact the measure in the current session of Congress. While the Clinton administration generally supported Glass-Steagall "modernization," but there are concerns that mid-term elections in the fall could bring in Democrats less sympathetic to changing the laws.
-snip
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.htmlHELPING OUT BCCI FINANCIER JACKSON STEPHENS EVEN WHEN IT WAS BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT:
WTI failed part of its test burn in 1993, releasing four times more mercury than allowed. Children at the elementary school were tested for mercury in their urine prior to WTI operation and again six months after the facility started burning as part of a state health study. In the first test, 69 percent of the children tested negative; the follow-up test found that nearly the same number tested positive.
U.S. EPA's own risk assessment of the facility found at least 27 possible accident scenarios that could threaten the lives of the children in the nearby elementary school.
Despite these and other problems, the U.S. EPA issued WTI a full commercial operating license in 1997. The agency has also allowed the facility to nearly double the types of wastes it can burn.
When Clinton became president, he appointed Carol Browner head of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Ms. Browner then sent a small cadre of scientists to court in Cleveland, Ohio, to serve as expert witnesses on behalf of Waste Technologies, Inc. (WTI).
Because a memo to Ms. Browner from one of her staff was leaked to Greenpeace (a plaintiff in the lawsuit trying to shut down WTI), Ms. Browner's staff were forced to admit under oath that after Ms. Browner took office on January 20th, EPA conducted a secret risk assessment on the WTI incinerator.
-snip
http://www.progressohio.org/page/community/post/jasonbourne/C3Z4Ask Hillary About This Tonight. I Dare You.
by Zwoof
Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:40:46 AM PST
Several days ago I posted a diary about the WTI and Von Roll Toxic Waste Incinerator. Because I posted it the same day as the South Carolina Primary, several Kossacks have asked me to repost.
Instead of duplicating the diary, I have added some new developments, and data.
While I was writing the original piece on the history of this foul project, a new ruling from the Ohio EPAallowed this incinerator, located 1,100 feet from an elementary school, to accept even more hazardous waste (anthrax, radioactive waste, infectious medical waste and mixed hazardous waste from Hurricane Katrina) than the original permit that was shrouded in corruption and approved by the Clinton Administration
Clinton and Al Gore promised the residents of East Liverpool, Ohio that they would not allow this incinerator originally approved by Bush '41 to operate. However, a Clinton EPA appointee, recommended by his classmate Hillary Clinton, approved the permit.
This is a tangled tale of corporatism, broken promises and an environmental disaster waiting to happen.
-SNIP
Jackson Stephens raised at least $100,000 for Bill Clinton's first Presidential campaign (Source: Seattle Times, November 6, 1993)
Stephens "extended a $3.5 million line of credit to
campaign through the Worthen Bank, which is partly owned by the Stephens family. The Clinton campaign deposited up to $55 million in federal election funds in this bank." (Source: The Nation)
-snip
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/31/21045/9822/688/446786
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
