LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: Chelsea Clinton's dubious 'earnings' She made big bucks in chemicals and TV, courtesy of nepotism, not skill
Source:
Washington Times
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jan 8, 2020
Author: Tammy Bruce
Post Date: 2020-01-08 09:05:57 by IbJensen
Keywords: None
Views: 28369
Comments: 162
With all the talk about Hunter Biden these days, one might get the impression that he is the only child of a politician to benefit from his parents’ position and the last name they inherited. Before Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, got his strange but lucrative deal to sit on the board of energy company Burisma Holdings in Ukraine to the tune of $50,000 a month, there was Chelsea Clinton, the only child of former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She was similarly rewarded with jobs and board positions that had absolutely no relationship with that young woman’s interests, life, education or any perceived expertise. All of this has racked up to what the New York Post reported back in 2015 was an estimated net worth of $15 million for the then-34-year-old. More recently, Barron’s, the finance newspaper, revealed that Chelsea Clinton has now reaped $9 million from a corporate board position. In 2011, while her mother was still secretary of state, she was appointed to IAC/Interactive, an Internet investment company. She receives an annual $50,000 retainer and $250,000 worth of restricted IAC stock units, according to Barron’s. Ironically, and something the Clintons would be loathed to admit, they like most other American families benefitted from President Donald Trump’s leadership and correlating economic renaissance. The Hill reported, “IAC stock has risen 89%, 50% and 36% in 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively, a far steeper rise in the broader stock market Consequently, Chelsea Clinton reported in December of last year her holdings ballooned to $8.95 million. In 2017, Chelsea Clinton was also named to travel site Expedia’s Board of Directors. Because she’s a … business genius? A travel genius? An investment prodigy? The Hill
Poster Comment: The Clintons are racketeers and murderers. The pile of dead bodies they leave behind them in their unhindered quest for illegal riches should be enough to lock the three of them away for 50 years. Incidentally, Chelsea is absolutely ghastly looking and watching her speak is like a Disney cartoon come to life. Her comments are always vacuously stupid.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 13.
#1. To: IbJensen (#0)
Families look after their children. I see nothing wrong with that, as long as it is not illegal. Companies giving Chelsea Clinton board roles to have access to her famous and powerful parents is not illegal. So what's the issue, then, jealousy?
Are you out of your mind asking me a question like that? I recall thinking you were an asshole after reading some of your blurbs, but that comment puts you in the asshole category. That, of course, puts you in bed with the Democrat-Communist Party which you might enjoy.
Vic is a hardcore Catholic. They are always more sympathetic to monarchy, the very lifeblood of nepotism vs. meritocracy. Part and parcel of Catholic dogma over the centuries. The only surprise would be if he wasn't. And, yes, if he could advance his daughter's prospects by underhanded behavior or influence peddling, he would do it in a heartbeat and have no qualms about it. You might as well act shocked that your dog gobbled up a piece of steak that fell on the floor during a meal. They might feign some guilt but they don't feel any in that circumstance.
No reason to drag Catholicism into the mix. I just think it's natural for family to love family, and the grouse - for example - that "Trump got all of his money from his daddy!", as if that delegitimizes him, delegitimizes the commentator who raises the point, as far as I am concerned. So what? That's what family is SUPPOSED to do: take care of their own, pass the knowledge, experience and wealth down through the ages. Support each generation so they get further. The people who kick their kids out at 18 and tell them they are on their own are the real cocksuckers, as far as I am concerned. Anything they build will die with them, and their children will start adulthood at a crippling disadvantage. Would I resort to DISHONEST methods to advance my daughter in her sport? Say, poisoning the opponents? Of course not. And that's not "Catholic" either. I want her to win on her own merits. But I will certainly, and do certainly, use my money to make sure she gets the best training, has the best equipment, and gets to travel to all of the important tournaments. Others of lesser means cannot necessarily do that. I don't look down on them, but I'm not going to hold back on what I can do for mine just because somebody else cannot do the same. And I think that any normal right-thinking person does the same. Which is WHY I think that broad social welfare needs to be done through government policies. It is not natural to give away enough of what we have to actually make a difference and pull everybody up out of poverty. We want to help, and will, but not to the extent that it cuts into what we want to do for ourselves and our own children. It works against our proper instincts. Having the state do it moves the burden off of individuals, who simply won't do enough, and put it in the hands of a structure that can extract what is necessary from an unwilling population to make sure that the bottom are not left in abject wretchedness. I don't support socialism, because that takes TOO MUCH, seeks to pull the top down and the bottom up, so they are equal in resources. That is intolerable (not the dream of equality, but the forcible creation of it). No. It is well that those at the bottom be lifted out of MISERY and placed in a position where they have adequate (not luxurious) housing, adequate heating, adequate health care, healthful food, and where their children have good educations, so they can rise out of the poverty by their own efforts, being properly equipped. That's expensive, but proper. BEYOND that, where the Communists and Socialists want to go, is NOT proper. Beyond that, I want the remaining of my resources for myself, MY family, MY causes (or lack thereof). My Catholicism means that I cannot be so selfish that I ignore the plight of the bottom, and want ADEQUATE coverage of them, and GOOD education for their children. But it stops there. After that, God gave ME a family to look after, and that's MY job. Accumulating resources to have independence at the end of career, and so that my daughter can enjoy greater independence and opportunity early: this is normal and right - what ELSE are we supposed to be doing with our talents. Breaking the opponents' knees, a la Tonya Harding? No. That's wrong. Nepotism - favoring one's own - is giving a leg up, it's not breaking somebody else's knees. That's why I don't mind it. Of course, if a child or a colleague is a wastrel, one does not press that person upward to fail. One recalibrates. Most people aren't wastels, and most jobs are such that it hardly matters who is in it. Why, then, not my own? I suppose there are people who really believe it's a virtue to treat family the same as everybody else, and who toss their kids out at age 18 and tell them they are on their own. And people like that praise each other, I guess. If it's "Catholic" to not be like that, then it's one more example where Catholicism is a good thing. And no, I have no problem with the royal families of the world. To stay royal, they have to please their people, and they do tend to hold their countries together.
Vic you said you supported a global welfare system where we give our tax dollars to foreigners. You said that and were quite dogmatic about it. That is what commie socialists think.
I think that we are all cousins, literally blood relatives, through Adam and Eve, and Noah and Na'amah. As such we have a certain responsibility to every human being on earth, that they not live in misery, squalor and die young for preventable reasons. My comments above, about adequate (not luxurious) housing, health care, nutritious food and a decent education for children (so they can rise and be productive) is a human minimum that humanity owes to all of its members, irrespective of their ability, or the ability of their parents, to pay. Where they can't pay, at the moment, it needs to be extended as welfare, with the education such that they can find work in whatever field and eventually pay it forward. If you want to call that Socialism, or Communism, or whatever, you can. I call it "Christianity", because it's what Christ demanded of us: feed the hungry, house the homeless, heal the sick - that's full on Jesus, and everybody who is a Christian knows that already. There is certainly more than enough money in the world to do THAT, and still have a vibrant capitalist economy - indeed a MORE vibrant one, because of all of the new construction, education, and jobs. The poorest parts of the world lack sufficient wealth to get this done, so the wealthier parts of the world need to fund it, yes. As before, I do not speak of people living in luxury. One must be rich to do that. I speak only of the basic needs of all mankind. Jesus commanded us to look to those. I agree with him, and I find it puzzling when self- described "Christians" don't.
Here's how global welfare works out in reality...consider the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti. From Wiki Oddly enough, after 10 years!, the people are still living in tents. Missionaries are reporting that the situation is dire. The mainstream news confirms... Wonder where the $54 million went? Chlesea again? These two molech worshipers represent the very best of a global welfare system. Nepotism? Hell yeah, funnel some money to the Bush kids, too.
There are no replies to Comment # 13. End Trace Mode for Comment # 13.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
So what's the issue, then, jealousy?
#5. To: IbJensen, Vicomte13 (#2)
(Edited)
I recall thinking you were an asshole after reading some of your blurbs, but that comment puts you in the asshole category. That, of course, puts you in bed with the Democrat-Communist Party which you might enjoy.
#6. To: Tooconservative (#5)
The only surprise would be if he wasn't. And, yes, if he could advance his daughter's prospects by underhanded behavior or influence peddling, he would do it in a heartbeat and have no qualms about it. You might as well act shocked that your dog gobbled up a piece of steak that fell on the floor during a meal. They might feign some guilt but they don't feel any in that circumstance.
#7. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
I don't support socialism, because that takes TOO MUCH,
#8. To: A K A Stone (#7)
Vic you said you supported a global welfare system where we give our tax dollars to foreigners. You said that and were quite dogmatic about it. That is what commie socialists think.
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#8)
The poorest parts of the world lack sufficient wealth to get this done, so the wealthier parts of the world need to fund it, yes.
The Clinton Bush Haiti fund raised $54.4 million from more than 2,000,000 individuals, businesses, and organizations. It dispersed funds to more than 50 organizations through grants, loans, and equity investments. As of December 2012, the Fund estimated that its programs sustained or created 7,350 jobs, trained 20,050 individuals, and had an additional positive impact on the conditions of more than 311,000 Haitians.
Replies to Comment # 13.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]