Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Horgad who wrote (433266)	7/9/2018 2:50:58 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

excellent article Joni Mitchell comes to mind jonimitchell.com Are we looking down at clouds or up? snopes: "Haiti’s relationship with the United States and Europe can most charitably be described as complicated. Haiti’s earliest days were characterized by oppression and opposition: the country (once the French colony of St. Domingue) was born from a successful slave insurgency and declared its independence in 1804. This beginning characterized an often-antagonistic relationship between countries that profited handsomely from African slavery (such as the United States) and Haiti. Foremost among fears about Haiti was that slaves would learn successful uprisings were possible." What has changed? US elites fearing Haitians would be successful in actually demanding and getting a $5/day minimum wage. Can't happen.

To: Horgad who wrote (433266)	7/9/2018 3:07:08 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Can't say I'm sorry.... Then again, I'm sure we'll see similar from Trump, the pussy grabber in chief investors.com Editorials Is The Clinton Foundation Doomed? Reprints 11/21/2016 Clinton Scandal: Is the Clinton Foundation, after being rocked by a series of scandals, going down for the count? Reports suggest that may be the case, as donations to the once-popular "charity" plummet. It's unlikely anyone was as disappointed as Bill Clinton at the defeat of Hillary Clinton for the presidency. Her election would have ensured that the scandals now swirling around the Clinton Family Foundation would have disappeared with nary a peep. Now, Congress is likely to look into accusations that the Clinton Foundation, far from being a charity, was in fact a giant scam to make the Clintons rich and to help finance Chelsea Clinton's lifestyle and political ambitions. As we noted back in August, the FBI and a handful of U.S. attorneys have been conducting a joint investigation into the Clinton Foundation for possible financial crimes and influence peddling. Even so, few thought that much would happen, since everyone knew it was a given that Hillary would win the presidency and immediately quash any investigation. We now know that high-level Justice Department officials tried to halt all of the investigations into the foundation last summer, but the FBI defied the order and continued looking into the matter. This was not some kind of desperate campaign stunt by Hillary's foes: The signs of corruption have been in evidence for years, but were largely ignored by the Clinton-besotted Big Media. But while the Big Media failed to do their job, others began digging. In a devastating 2015 book, " Clinton Cash," Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute, detailed how decisions by the State Department under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seemed to systematically benefit organizations and individuals that gave millions to the Clinton Foundation and paid former President Bill Clinton millions to give speeches. The appearance of a pay-for-play system and even outright graft during Hillary's six years at State couldn't be ignored. While all this was happening, formerly eager contributors began having second thoughts about giving to the Clintons. After Hillary left the Clinton Foundation in April 2015 to run her campaign, nervous contributors began shutting their wallets. In 2014, Clinton Foundation filings show, contributions plunged 37% to $108 million, down from $172 million in 2014. And the fat fees the Clintons got for speeches appear to be sharply off as well: That income plunged from $3.6 million to just $357,500. "A lot of questions have been raised, and I think donors are understandably cautious about getting involved with this deeply troubled charity," Charles Ortel, a Wall Street analyst told the Daily Caller, which has stepped in to do much of the reporting the mainstream media refuse to do. Will the decline continue? It's hard to say. Now that Hillary is no longer going to be the president, the Clintons' namesake family foundation has clearly hit the rocks. Donald Trump vowed to appoint a special prosecutor to look into the pay-for-play allegations directed at the foundation, but has since backpedaled a bit. Even so, the signs aren't good for the Clintons. Take as but one example the government of tiny but oil-rich Norway, which has one of the world's largest sovereign investment funds. It will next year slash its giving to the Clintons by nearly 90% off the peak gift of $25 million last year. No doubt, others are also sharply reducing their gifts to the Clintons — and will continue to do so in the coming years — now that Hillary won't have an even bigger office from which to solicit "donations." Without political clout to sell, the troubled Clinton Foundation has little if anything to offer.