October 1, 2007

Winning The Ponzi Endorsement

Hillary Clinton seems to attract all the right money from all the wrong people. Right on the heels of Norman Hsu, the New York Post reports that another Ponzi-scheme operator has pumped almost $30,000 in contributions to her campaign (via Michelle Malkin):

A purported pyramid-scheme operator who was run out of Arkansas when Bill Clinton was governor has reinvented himself as the head of an upstate group accused of being a "cult" - and his devotees have pumped thousands into Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential run.

Executives and top associates of the Albany-based NXIVM group - along with their family members - donated $29,900 to Clinton's presidential campaign, according to federal records.

On March 14 and April 13, records show, more than a dozen contributions poured into Clinton's coffers from NXIVM, an executive and group-awareness training organization led by Brooklyn-born Keith Raniere, 47. ...

In his previous incarnation, the Svengali-like Raniere ran a $30 million multilevel marketing business that imploded after federal agencies and regulators in 23 states alleged it was an illegal pyramid scheme.

Among the donors were Seagrams heiresses Clare and Sara Bronfman, whose father called NXIVM a "cult". If so, their idol appears to be Hillary Clinton. She's certainly the beneficiary. It's the second Ponzi scheme operator shown to be handling the bundling for the Clinton campaign, further demonstrating their failure to vet their contributors or their complete disinterest in doing so.

While some media operators are inexplicably focusing on Hillary's annoying laugh, others have performed more meaningful journalism on Hillary's bid for the presidency and the shell-game con men funding it. A focus on meaningful information on the leading Democratic candidate for the nomination and the sources of her funding would be appreciated.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/tabhacht.cgi/14036

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Winning The Ponzi Endorsement:

» With Hillary and Bill Clinton, It's Always Groundhog Day from QT Monster's Place
You are not going to believe this, but Hillary Clinton, who we recently found out, got (and had to return) $850,000 from corrupt Norman Hsu has taken money from another Ponzi-schemer, Keith Raniere (insert sarc tag here). Surprise, surprise, another un... [Read More]

Comments (15)

Posted by docjim505 | October 1, 2007 10:03 AM

Cap'n Ed: While some media operators are inexplicably focusing on Hillary's annoying laugh, others have performed more meaningful journalism on Hillary's bid for the presidency and the shell-game con men funding it.

Sad to say, the Hilldabeast's "annoying laugh" will probably do more to scotch her bid to become president (the horror... the horror...) than a thousand stories about Ponzi schemes and bundlers. I hate to say this about my fellow Americans, but most of them aren't very interested in deep stories. Consider Howard Dean's fatal "scream", or George McGovern's crying, or Gerald Ford's trick knee, or Dan Quayle and "potato", or the efforts FDR made to hide his paralysis. Little things, even silly things, can mean a lot in politics.

It's much the same with the Hilldabeast. I'd wager that the average American doesn't understand or care much about Hsu, bundlers, donations, and the like, and even if they do, they shrug it off because there's a great deal of truth in the old cliche that "everybody does it."

However, the Hilldabeast's cackle is so irritating that I think people WILL be influenced by that to her detriment. Is it smart? No, of course not. But politics isn't about logic as much as it is about packaging and visceral reactions. The Hilldabeast comes across to many people as a scheming, manipulative, selfish, bullying, malevolent, grasping, shrewish, carpetbagging, pandering, phony hag, and her laugh (shudder) merely reinforces that image.

(I wonder if somebody could get her on tape cackling, "I'll get you, my pretty! And your little dog, too!" Margaret Hamilton, look out! Honestly, if this whole politician gig doesn't work out, the Hilldabeast would be boffo in Hollywood or on Broadway as the Wicked Witch.)

Posted by unclesmrgol | October 1, 2007 11:01 AM

Seagram's. Teddy Kennedy. Does anyone think there's a connection here?

Posted by SouthernRoots | October 1, 2007 12:46 PM

unclesmrgol - only if you add water.....

Posted by John | October 1, 2007 12:48 PM

Mark my words. All this daughter of Satan stuff of which the laugh furore is just the latest example will do her no harm at all. In fact many could, and are, interpreting it as anti women. Just absorb the full flavor of Docjim, it's a deeply misogynistic comic book image of her which redounds to the discredit of fat old white men rather than her. I rather had this feeling when Russert was very obviously going after her last week. Sorry to say a lot of folks here just don't get it. We should also be careful about this fund raising stuff since we are hardly lily white. One of Romney's fundraising bundlers is under indictment for something or other and no doubt some others will come out of the woodwork

Posted by brooklyn - hnav | October 1, 2007 12:56 PM

No wonder why she is CACKLING so much...

This is the same family, the Clintons, who pardoned FLAN TERRORISTS in hopes for finding votes.

Some partisans and those who are not paying attention, began to demonstrate a yearning for the negligent facade of the 90's.

They foolishly view the problems of today, missing the context of how the malfeasance of the past shaped our current existence.

The Clintons gave concerning Gov. Loan Guarantees to Enron...

They ignored-enabled the growing threat of Militant Radical Militancy, including appeasing the likes of the killer named Arafat.

Hillary and Bill even lied about the Genocide in Rwanda.

The MSM has tried to diminish the ugly, and many aren't aware of just how corrupt-misguided the Clinton experience truly was for our Country.

Ginsberg is not the only lasting problem from the Clinton incompetence, and we simply cannot afford to allow that folly again.

Hillary wants to take things away from us...

Posted by swabjockey05 | October 1, 2007 1:22 PM

Brooklyn, You're so right. I would seriously consider "staying home" (not mailing my Military absentee ballot...they don't get counted anyways...).

But having that foul Beast on the Dhimmi ticket will FORCE me to vote. YES I'll even vote for your Repub who is the "lesser of two evils". I can't help thinking there's some conspiracy (of Rovian proportions) at play…

I'll actually vote for the gun-grabbing Rudy if it means keeping the mangy, corrupt Clintonistas out of the WH.

Posted by quickjustice | October 1, 2007 1:41 PM

Actually, I'd like to know which of the Presidential candidates (and all the others, for that matter) are being bought and paid for NOW, and not after the election. Let the chips fall where they may. If Romney or other Republicans go down for taking dirty money, so be it.

I generally opposed campaign finance "reform" on grounds that people ought to be able to give as much as they can afford, as individuals, to their favorite candidates. That said, I would have kept the corporations, labor unions, and foreigners out of it, while encouraging individuals to give as much as they wanted, with full, real-time disclosure of all contributions online.

Posted by docjim505 | October 1, 2007 3:47 PM

John,

I am NOT "old"!

Posted by j | October 1, 2007 5:19 PM

Remember - voting is usually the lesser of two - rarely will any of us agree with more than 70% of a given candidate's position. It took me far to long to realize that my voting was for the the one who would do the least damage.

Presently, my Congressman is that rare exception - I vote for him. Otherwise, I vote pretty much for the candidate that has the least negatives.

Finally - being a one-issue person is not the way to vote. We all must look at the bigger picture.

Posted by JM Hanes | October 1, 2007 8:33 PM

"A focus on meaningful information on the leading Democratic candidate for the nomination and the sources of her funding would be appreciated."

It's going to take a lot more than that. As John noted above, neither party has a lock on dubious donors alone. It won't matter who is funding Hillary unless she is actually tied to those questionable donors in some additional way. For example, I think that the most important part of the Hsu story is the most recent revelation that Hillary appears to have been working "closely" with Hsu to funnel money to her selected list of candidates. That's the part that makes it difficult for her to distance herself from his Ponzi scheme scandals by claiming he wasn't crossing her radar and suggests some political quid pro quo's which have a whiff of corruption about them, regardless of the technical legalities. That's precisely the angle that's NOT getting much traction in the press so far.

Posted by Niccolo | October 2, 2007 2:46 AM

J -

I disagree that single issues can't be pivotal on voting decisions.

Specifically: 1st, 2nd, 9th and 10th Amendment positions. In order of importance:

2nd Amendment: Without the ability to enforce the sovereignty of the people, we're in a snare, and we have no means to extricate ourselves by force if that should ever become necessary.

1st Amendment: Without the ability to freely communicate amongst ourselves, we're back in the world of the samizdat.

9th and 10th Amendment: Without primacy of the states and the people (mostly lost already at this point), the fedgov is free to run amok, which it mostly is right now, and the wagon and team needs a bunch of reining in, 'cause the cliff is comin' right up.

Absent a right attitude on these issues, a candidate for any national office is pretty much worse than useless. We can do with the status quo on the 9th and 10th, but without the 2nd and 1st, we're dead meat. We're State Socialist serfs.

Forever.

Posted by docjim505 | October 2, 2007 10:14 AM

Niccolo: 2nd Amendment: Without the ability to enforce the sovereignty of the people, we're in a snare, and we have no means to extricate ourselves by force if that should ever become necessary.

The recent events in Burma have underscored to me the absolutely vital necessity for the Second Amendment. The protesters in Burma have apparently been shot down like dogs in the street, unable to do anything in their own defense AGAINST THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT but wave signs and perhaps throw rocks.

We've been very fortunate in America in that we've seldom had to defend ourselves against our own government. Many other people around the world have not been so lucky. While there is no doubt that the security we've enjoyed is due both to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers embodied in our Constitution and the general respect for the law that is common among Americans, nevertheless it is prudent to always be suspicious of the government and it's intentions... and be ready and able to "alter and abolish it" if need be.

Posted by Proorplop | October 2, 2007 2:11 PM

Продвижение, оптимизация сайтов.
Реклама по: форумам, доскам объявлений, сайтам знакомств.

Контакты:
ICQ: 393-513
e-mail: bary_m@mail.ru

Posted by lgattruth | October 2, 2007 3:22 PM

Great stuff!

Thanks for reporting on this.

More info on this controversial group at this database - The Rick A. Ross Institute for the Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Movements

Posted by Proorplop | October 4, 2007 7:07 PM

Продвижение, оптимизация сайтов.
Реклама по: форумам, доскам объявлений, сайтам знакомств.

Контакты:
ICQ: 393-513
e-mail: bary_m@mail.ru

Post a comment