Patterico's Pontifications

3/16/2015

Chinese Firm with Close Ties to Chinese Government Has Given Millions to Clinton Foundation

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:43 am



How about that:

A CBS News investigation has found that at least one foreign company with close ties to its government has been giving generously to the foundation run by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.

Since its founding, the Clinton Foundation has invested millions each year for work in fighting AIDS and empowering women, but its recent uptick in donations from foreign governments has been raising questions about the potential influence on Hillary Clinton, as she gets ready to run for president.

The foundation has raised at least $42 million from foreign governments – and according to an analysis by CBS News – at least $170 million from foreign entities and individuals.

One donor – Rilin Enterprises- pledged $2 million in 2013 to the Clinton Foundation’s endowment. The company is a privately-held Chinese construction and trade conglomerate and run by billionaire Wang Wenliang, who is also a delegate to the Chinese parliament. Public records show the firm has spent $1.4 million since 2012, lobbying Congress and the State Department. The firm owns a strategic port along the border with North Korea and was also one of the contractors that built the Chinese embassy in Washington.

Campaign finance laws prevent foreign contributions to candidates in federal elections. But foreigners who wish to influence potential presidents can always get away with sending giant contributions to an entity like the Clinton Foundation. The CBS News story says the foundation has raised around $42 million from foreign sources.

I’m tired of the Clintons finding cute loopholes to do little end runs around every rule in the book, aren’t you?

Let’s just pass an explicit law that says the rules don’t apply to the Clintons and be done with it.

68 Responses to “Chinese Firm with Close Ties to Chinese Government Has Given Millions to Clinton Foundation”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. I wonder how much those same Chinese contributors and their friends funneled to Barack Obama’s campaigns when he turned off the anti-fraud ZIP code verification procedures on his internet credit card operations? I’m guessing that it’s an eight-figure sum, but I wouldn’t be too surprised if it got into nine.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  3. ohnoes

    we can’t let a thriving free enterprise country like China influence our statist centrally-planned economic policies

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  4. Campaign finance control works like gun control: the criminals just don’t care about your stupid laws.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  5. I am not sure this qualifies as a loophole…I suspect no one simply gave a thought to the idea of private family foundations. And where do you draw the line, timewise?, in relation to declaring candidacy? It is, putatively, a charitable foundation, and Mr. Wang, unlike the Obama donors Beldar postulates, is not directly financing an election campaign. He is buying influence. So when and where do you put up the bar that says no more donations to a private foundation?

    What this does show once again that basic ethics and the concept of avoiding the appearance of impropriety are completely lacking in the Clintons.

    kishnevi (9c4b9c)

  6. In the meantime, James Carville admitted that he “suspects” that Hillary Clinton used a private server to keep her emails out of the hands of Republicans in Congress. Gee, I wonder why.

    You think that perhaps Mr Carville knows the Clintons a little bit too well?

    The suspicious Dana (f6a568)

  7. Of course it is a loophole. In DemTalk, anything that evades State control is a loophole.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  8. A “putative charitable foundation” partially run by the United States’ Secretary of State, and collecting foreign donations because of course there are no charitable foundations in their own countries? Kishnevi, please.

    elissa (46681f)

  9. Hillary could come back from China with suitcases full of money traceable to forced organ donations from slave laborers and most Democrats would vote for her anyway.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  10. Why wouldn’t a “Chinese Firm with Close Ties to Chinese Government” (as if there’s any other kind of major corporation in what remains very much communist-ruled China) give millions to the the Clinton Foundation?

    The PLA funneled millions to the Clinton/Gore campaigns back in the ’90s. And it was money well spent because in return Clinton lifted trade restrictions on dual-use technologies, which allowed the PLA to rapidly upgrade it’s command and control capabilities as it acquired US broad band technology as well as its missile guidance systems.

    I believe Dr. William Perry, Clinton’s second SecDef, personally profited very handsomely from the transactions.

    Steve57 (d68bce)

  11. The Chinese own the Clintons – bought and paid for. Remember it was under Clinton that Loral and its left-wing CEO, Bernard L. Schwartz sent missile guidance systems to them.

    Zoltan (a0abf7)

  12. Elissa, refer to the second paragraph for the nub of tge problem.

    kishnevi (adea75)

  13. What’s so very troubling is the Democrats are even considering running such a flawed and damaged candidate as Hillary.

    tonynoboloney (7ad0b7)

  14. “Campaign finance laws prevent foreign contributions to candidates in federal elections. But foreigners who wish to influence potential presidents can always get away with sending giant contributions to an entity like the Clinton Foundation. The CBS News story says the foundation has raised around $42 million from foreign sources.”

    – Patterico

    What’s wrong with foreigners trying to influence presidential elections? It’s a global economy, and y’all are (ostensibly) striving for a global free market – Foreign Business is going to be affected by presidential economic policy along with American Business. So why shouldn’t Foreign Business be able to speak its mind in our presidential elections, the way American Business does?

    Or do we arbitrarily subvert our notion of “speech” when it comes to foreigners? While simultaneously maintaining that the Bill of Rights grants nothing, but reiterates a set of natural rights belonging to all human beings?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  15. “Ah, but can you PROVE quid pro quo?”
    “No, but what ever happened to ‘the appearance of impropriety’, anyway?”

    Hilly is toast. She’ll get the feministas and the crazy lefties, but nobody sane wants a replay of the Clinton years, with Mr. Bill as the supportive wife. It’s just too ugly to contemplate.

    mojo (a3d457)

  16. The Founders warned a republic like ours is especially susceptible to the influence and corruption of foreign powers, which is why the Constitution has an Emoluments Clause.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  17. At #4, Kevin M nailed it.

    htom (4ca1fa)

  18. 5. I am not sure this qualifies as a loophole…I suspect no one simply gave a thought to the idea of private family foundations.

    You’d be wrong. The DoJ and the SEC have given a great deal of thought to private family foundations as they’re a common means of laundering bribes to foreign public officials.

    http://www.policymed.com/2012/10/us-foreign-corrupt-practices-act-pfizer-settlement-future-implications-and-recommendations.html

    Which is why, when US companies give lesser amounts of payola to such “charitable” foundations they run afoul of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

    http://www.sec.gov/News/PressRelease/Detail/PressRelease/1365171487116#.VQcQQZyEv80

    And where do you draw the line, timewise?, in relation to declaring candidacy? It is, putatively, a charitable foundation, and Mr. Wang, unlike the Obama donors Beldar postulates, is not directly financing an election campaign. He is buying influence. So when and where do you put up the bar that says no more donations to a private foundation?

    What this does show once again that basic ethics and the concept of avoiding the appearance of impropriety are completely lacking in the Clintons.
    kishnevi (9c4b9c) — 3/16/2015 @ 8:41 am

    If you read through the DoJ’s and SEC’s pages, they don’t draw a line when it comes to the value of the “quid” and how much time between the bribe and the “pro quo.”

    It’s important to note that former VA governor Robert McDonnell is about to spend a couple of years at Club Fed even though the feds never proved that McDonnell actually did anything to benefit the business interests of the man lavishing his wife and daughters with gifts of significant value.

    The DoJ/SEC guidance is suitably vague because the recognize that “bribes can come in many shapes and sizes.” But the role of the First Lady, and the rest of the First Family, is to launder the bribes in most parts of the world.

    That would include Hillaryland. And that’s precisely what was going on. Only 15% of the money that came in went to an actual charitable cause. The other 85% went to salaries and “other expenses.” So the main goal of the organization was to sustain itself. It is the Clinton political machine between campaigns. The icing on the cake was that it also maintained the Clintons’ lavish lifestyle.

    And the only thing the Clinton’s had to trade was access. That is explicitly why CBS paid a stupid amount of money to Chelsea to basically do nothing for their news division except be a conduit to mom and dad. When NBC news executives weren’t lying about how “inspiring” the talentless, experienceless hack’s few minutes of air time was, they admitted they paid $600k for access.

    Which is why everyone who pays the Clintons pays the Clintons.

    Steve57 (d68bce)

  19. Mr M wrote:

    Hillary could come back from China with suitcases full of money traceable to forced organ donations from slave laborers and most Democrats would vote for her anyway.

    Absotively, posilutely right.

    The Dana who can recognize the truth when he sees it (f6a568)

  20. 14. What’s wrong with foreigners trying to influence presidential elections? It’s a global economy, and y’all are (ostensibly) striving for a global free market – Foreign Business is going to be affected by presidential economic policy along with American Business. So why shouldn’t Foreign Business be able to speak its mind in our presidential elections, the way American Business does?

    Or do we arbitrarily subvert our notion of “speech” when it comes to foreigners? While simultaneously maintaining that the Bill of Rights grants nothing, but reiterates a set of natural rights belonging to all human beings?
    Leviticus (f9a067) — 3/16/2015 @ 10:08 am

    Shorter Leviticus:

    “What’s wrong with pay to play?”

    Thanks for giving us that insight to your system of ethics.

    Here’s the answer. What’s wrong with it is it violates US bribery laws as well as the emoluments clause of the Constitution. US citizens are supposed to determine US policy. Consequently foreign entities are barred from buying the policies they desire.

    Steve57 (d68bce)

  21. mojo wrote:

    Hilly is toast. She’ll get the feministas and the crazy lefties, but nobody sane wants a replay of the Clinton years, with Mr. Bill as the supportive wife. It’s just too ugly to contemplate.

    And you think that a majority of the voters are sane because . . . ?

    A majority of the voters twice elected Barack Hussein Obama, and a majority of the voters twice elected William Jefferson Clinton; President Clinton left office with a very high public approval rate.

    If Mrs Clinton is nominated, and approaches election day without dropping dead from a heart attack, she will win, because Americans are too fornicating stupid not to vote for her.

    The worried Dana (f6a568)

  22. ==So why shouldn’t Foreign Business be able to speak its mind in our presidential elections, the way American Business does?==

    Foreign entities speaking their mind openly Leviticus is different than what’s being discussed here. No one questioned Putin’s or Bibi’s opinion letters published in the NYT or Washington Post for example. A few million shady foreign dollars sneaking in behind the scenes and used to fund campaigns, ads and future favors, is a different matter entirely as far as the founders and most of us are concerned.

    But I suppose the same people who think there is no reason for a sovereign nation to have borders would also have no problem with the American presidency being sold to the highest foreign bidder.

    elissa (46681f)

  23. So why shouldn’t Foreign Business be able to speak its mind in our presidential elections, the way American Business does?

    Why shouldn’t US businesses be able to speak their mind by contributing to foreign political campaigns?

    Oh, here’s why. It violates the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

    How long have you been if favor of corrupt practices, Leviticus?

    Steve57 (d68bce)

  24. During WWII, the Axis POWs held on US soil argued that the conditions of their incarceration violated their Constitutional rights. The SCOTUS laughed that contention out of court, noting among other things that if these POWs had Constitutional rights then their 2nd Amendment rights had been violated when US forces disarmed them.

    Foreign companies don’t have any 1st Amendment rights, so consequently their 1st Amendment rights can not be violated because they are barred from contributing to US officials and candidates for office.

    What’s next, Leviticus? Are we violating their rights when we don’t let the foreign employees of foreign corporations that have business before the USG vote in our elections as well?

    Steve57 (d68bce)

  25. Just in case anyone thinks I’m just tossing around gratuitous insults when I asked Leviticus how long he’s been in favor of corrupt practices, I am going to emphasize that I am using the word corrupt in a very precise way.

    adj.
    3. Containing errors or alterations, especially ones that prevent proper understanding or use: a corrupt translation; a corrupt computer file.

    verb

    4. a. a. To alter from original or proper form: “Strangers named them the Chippewa, which was corrupted to Ojibway” (Paul Theroux).

    The preamble of the Constitution is essentially a mission statement. It lays out what the purpose of the document as whole.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    The Constitution is an act of the people of the United States, not some other people. It exists solely for the benefit of the people of the United States, not to extend benefits to any other people. And we didn’t ordain and establish this Constitution for Chinese government fronts.

    What Leviticus advocates corrupts the document.

    Steve57 (d68bce)

  26. DRJ–

    A fun Constitutional argument: Does that clause serve as an addition condition on qualifications for office? Could a court bar someone who had violated it from standing for election, as they might bar a person under the required age?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  27. Is an emolument (i.e. a tip) from foreign power that is given after one’s exit from service banned under that clause? Did the Ready for Hillary Clinton Foundation take these tips during her service a Secretary of State? Was the conflict of interest blatant or only obvious?

    It would be interesting if someone would sue to keep her off some ballots, based on having grossly violated the Emoluments Clause.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  28. Or do we arbitrarily subvert our notion of “speech” when it comes to foreigners? While simultaneously maintaining that the Bill of Rights grants nothing, but reiterates a set of natural rights belonging to all human beings?

    Heh! The philosophical corners Wookies paint themselves in, eh Leviticus? But I doubt our host is one; or most of the commenters here; and the Clintons definitely are not. Now if we were talking Paul Ron or Paul Rand ….

    nk (dbc370)

  29. BTW, just because half a dozen half-senile black robes said money=speech in Citizens United, you don’t have to take their word for it.

    nk (dbc370)

  30. Mr 57 wrote:

    Foreign companies don’t have any 1st Amendment rights, so consequently their 1st Amendment rights can not be violated because they are barred from contributing to US officials and candidates for office.

    Nowhere in the text of the First Amendment does it specify that freedom of speech is restricted to American citizens; the First Amendment states that Congress shall pass no law in the prohibited areas. To hold that the First Amendment allows restricting certain people from those rights is to say, inter alia, that the left are right when they claim that corporations have no free speech rights; at that point, you are simply arguing which groups can have their free speech rights taken away.

    The Third Book of Moses has a point: if we allow Americans the freedom to say, or print, what they wish about anything within our jurisdiction, then we must also allow foreigners the same rights, within our jurisdiction, because our Constitution takes no distinctions between people in the First Amendment.

    If the government of China wishes to advertise in favor of Hillary Clinton, I say: let them! It will then be up to the GOP to point out that the ads in support of Mrs Clinton were paid for by China.

    The First Amendment absolutist Dana (f6a568)

  31. It doesn’t really matter if “half a dozen half-senile black robes said money=speech.” That’s beside the point. The issue is who has the right to freedom of speech. The 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments recognized and preserve specific rights “of the people.” The 9th Amendment states that just because the Bill of Rights enumerate certain specific rights “of the people” that doesn’t mean “the people” don’t have other rights. And the 10th Amendment states that powers not delegated to the government of the United States (or prohibited to the individual states) are reserved to the states or “the people.”

    So the relevant question is, who are “the people.” Leviticus insists these the people are all people, everywhere. Which is absurd. What powers does the Constitution reserve to “the people” of China?

    The entire Constitution exists to establish and preserve a system of self-government. Leviticus insists on interpreting the words “the people” in an incoherent way that nullifies the possibility of self-government.

    The only coherent reading of the document as a whole is that “the people” in the Bill of Rights are “the people” in the Preamble of the Constitution. The people of the United States.” Not some other people not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.

    Steve57 (d68bce)

  32. Our Windy City barrister wrote:

    BTW, just because half a dozen half-senile black robes said money=speech in Citizens United, you don’t have to take their word for it.

    Actually, that goes back to Buckley v Valeo, but actually you do have to take their word for it, because that is how the law is applied.

    Citizens United is about as clear a case as there ever could be: a company engaged in their rights under freedom of the press. It wasn’t about a cash contribution at all.

    The First Amendment absolutist Dana (f6a568)

  33. We will all soon be calling her Madame Ovaries just to put a nuanced touch on it.

    The Dems (and with that I include the MSM) couldn’t give a rodents posterior about any Clinton corruption and enough independents will find some other numskull reason to vote her into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

    in_awe (7c859a)

  34. Mr 57 wrote:

    The 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments recognized and preserve specific rights “of the people.”

    Not quite: the only place in which the First Amendment mentions the people is the right of the people to assemble peacefully to petition the government. As far as the freedom of speech, the press and religion are concerned, it states that Congress shall make no law abridging those freedoms. It does not state, in any way, that those rights are restricted to people or persons. Given that the press are plural entities, corporations or companies, and some were so even in the 18th century, it’s clear that there was no implied restriction of those rights to individuals.

    The First Amendment absolutist Dana (f6a568)

  35. The Constitution is an act of the people of the United States, not some other people. It exists solely for the benefit of the people of the United States, not to extend benefits to any other people.

    Steve57 (d68bce) — 3/16/2015 @ 11:29 am

    Someone hasn’t been paying attention to the immigration situation since say 2009…

    in_awe (7c859a)

  36. Drag a million dollars thru the Clinton Foundation, there’s no telling who you can buy.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  37. If that were so, Delaware would have the most Representatives in Congress. Its corporation registry would contain more Congressional districts than California.

    nk who knows when a chain is being yanked (dbc370)

  38. “The issue is who has the right to freedom of speech.”

    – Steve57

    Hey, we agree! Awesome! That’s why I threw in this “While simultaneously maintaining that the Bill of Rights grants nothing, but reiterates a set of natural rights belonging to all human beings?” thing.

    You may or may not be one of the people here who argue that the Bill of Rights grants nothing, because our rights preexist the government that would “grant” them. If you are not one of those people (i.e. if you believe that our rights are granted by our government) then you need not grapple with the dilemma of reconciling such “natural rights” with an arbitrary restriction based on national origin.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  39. But then would you need to grapple with the arbitrary restriction based on the number of chromosomes?

    nk who knows when a chain is being yanked (dbc370)

  40. “Hey, we agree! Awesome!”

    Strike that, your Honor. Poorly phrased.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  41. Foreign citizens who are legally living in the United States have no constitutional right to spend or contribute money in connection with U.S. elections for any government office, the Supreme Court reaffirmed in a one-sentence order this week. Without elaboration or any noted dissents, the Supreme Court upheld the lower-court decision of Bluman v. FEC that it is constitutional for Congress to bar foreign citizens legally living in the United States from monetarily participating in the campaign process. In so doing, the Supreme Court made clear that Citizens United v. FEC,1 the Court’s controversial opinion from January 2010, does not extend beyond United States citizens (including corporations).2

    In Bluman v. FEC, Ben Bluman, a Canadian lawyer working in New York, and Anaseth Steiman, a Canadian-Israeli dual citizen doing a medical residency in New York, challenged the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (the “BCRA”)3, which expanded the prohibition on foreign nationals’4 financial influence on U.S. elections by banning foreign nationals from making express-advocacy expenditures (often called independent expenditures) or campaign contributions to political parties, candidates, or PACs. Before a three-judge panel of the District Court for the District of Columbia, Bluman and Steiman argued that foreign citizens lawfully residing in the United States have a First Amendment right to contribute to candidates and political parties and to make express-advocacy expenditures.

    The D.C. District Court disagreed. Relying on Supreme Court precedent denying foreign citizens certain rights and privileges enjoyed by U.S. citizens (including voting, serving as jurors, working as police or probation officers, or working as public school teachers), the court concluded that “[i]t is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government.” 5 For this reason, the court found that “the United States has a compelling interest for purposes of First Amendment analysis in limiting participation of foreign citizens in activities of American democratic self-government, and in thereby preventing foreign influence over the U.S. political process.” 6 The District Court then concluded that political contributions and express-advocacy expenditures, including donations to outside groups that in turn make express-advocacy donations or campaign contributions, constitute a part of the overall process of democratic self-government because these campaign activities seek to influence how voters will cast their ballots in elections.7 For this reason, the District Court found that the BCRA was not unconstitutional, even under a strict scrutiny analysis, and dismissed the case.

    What dilemma are you talking about other than the one in your imagination, Leviticus?

    Sincerely Steve57 aka Steve ” “actually you do have to take their word for it, because that is how the law is applied”” 57,

    Steve57 (d68bce)

  42. The nk who knows when a chain is being yanked gets it.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  43. 38. …then you need not grapple with the dilemma of reconciling such “natural rights” with an arbitrary restriction based on national origin.
    Leviticus (f9a067) — 3/16/2015 @ 12:47 pm

    I need not grapple with it because a) the Constitution doesn’t present any such dilemma because b) the restrictions based upon citizenship are not arbitrary.

    As the courts have recognized time after time after time again.

    Your imagineering of the law, while I’m sure it keeps you entertained, is in no way convincing, Leviticus.

    Steve57 (d68bce)

  44. As Steve57’s block quote appears to acknowledge, the Supreme Court seems to think that the Bill of Rights grants rights to certain people, rather than acknowledging rights possessed by all people. This is a foundational premise that lends itself to one set of conclusions. Other foundational premises lend themselves to other sets of conclusions.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  45. I wish our “constitutional scholar” preezy who insists we’re bitter-clinging xenophobes if we think we have the right to distinguish between citizens and non-citizens in any way was just yanking my chain.

    You may be yanking my chain, Leviticus, but the arguments you’re making moved of the pages of The Onion to Crapitol Hill about 10 years ago.

    Steve57 (d68bce)

  46. What dilemma are you talking about other than the one in your imagination, Leviticus?

    Sincerely Steve57 aka Steve ” “actually you do have to take their word for it, because that is how the law is applied”” 57,

    Steve57 (d68bce) — 3/16/2015 @ 12:53 pm

    Better call Saul, Leviticus…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  47. 45. As Steve57′s block quote appears to acknowledge, the Supreme Court seems to think that the Bill of Rights grants rights to certain people, rather than acknowledging rights possessed by all people. This is a foundational premise that lends itself to one set of conclusions. Other foundational premises lend themselves to other sets of conclusions.
    Leviticus (f9a067) — 3/16/2015 @ 12:59 pm

    And there is no conflict among those foundational principles which reserve certain rights to citizens, while extending other rights to non-citizens who have obligations because the they are subject to the laws of the United States.

    Steve57 (d68bce)

  48. “Foreign entities speaking their mind openly Leviticus is different than what’s being discussed here. No one questioned Putin’s or Bibi’s opinion letters published in the NYT or Washington Post for example. A few million shady foreign dollars sneaking in behind the scenes and used to fund campaigns, ads and future favors, is a different matter entirely as far as the founders and most of us are concerned.”

    – elissa

    If you remove the word “foreign” from that comment (and the references to foreigners), you have basically described the boilerplate liberal argument for campaign finance restrictions. That’s what I’m getting at, here.

    1) Is the contribution of money in American elections speech?
    2) Is speech a natural right?
    3) Do all people have the same natural rights?
    .: Can all people contribute money to American elections?

    If one wants the answer to the last question to be “no,” then it seems that one would need to answer “no” to one of the three preceding questions.

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  49. someone should put a chain on that damn camel

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  50. Remember when Democrats would shout “Halliburton!” at Dick Cheney over a base support services contract signed in the Clinton administration ? Good times …

    SPQR (26eac3)

  51. ==
    1) Is the contribution of money a candidate’s campaign speech in American elections speech?
    2) Is speech a natural right?
    3) Do all people have the same natural rights?
    .: Can all people contribute money to give campaign speeches in American elections?

    If one wants the answer to the last question to be “no,” then it seems that one would need to answer “no” to one of the three preceding questions.==

    If you can imagineer a dilemma that doesn’t exist when the Constitution bars non-citizens from engaging in political speech as campaign contributors, then you can just as easily imagineer a dilemma when the Constitution bars non-citizens from engaging in political speech as candidates.

    But only if you pretend the Constitution doesn’t exist for a purpose. The purpose stated in the Preamble. That requires willful blindness, Leviticus.

    Steve57 (d68bce)

  52. if willfully blind people each feel a different part of the camel, then disagreement will follow as surely as day follows night

    the palm has not the means of covering the whole of the beast

    oh my goodness

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  53. So… which of those questions are you answering “No” again?

    Leviticus (f9a067)

  54. It depends on whose palm you’re talking about, Mr. feets.

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1Kgb076Rk-c/VMvVNMrWfgI/AAAAAAABSEg/TNCHSrSxUYM/s1600/funny-animals-145-25.jpg

    In parts of the world where racing/beauty contestant camels wear spandex tights and women wear the niqab, don’t jump to any hasty conclusions about the palm having the means to cover the whole of the beast.

    You don’t know where that palm has been.

    Steve57 (d68bce)

  55. Remember when Democrats would shout “Halliburton!” at Dick Cheney over a base support services contract signed in the Clinton administration ? Good times …

    SPQR (26eac3) — 3/16/2015 @ 1:15 pm

    Oh, yes!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  56. someone should put a chain on that damn camel

    happyfeet (a037ad) — 3/16/2015 @ 1:10 pm

    Camels are filthy animals… even that damn Joe Camel. He’s cool, but filthy.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  57. 50. someone should put a chain on that damn camel

    happyfeet (a037ad) — 3/16/2015 @ 1:10 pm

    Camels in chains. You just described somebody’s fantasy, no doubt.

    Steve57 (d68bce)

  58. how ’bout a chain-smoking camel in chains?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  59. “Chain-smoking chain-gang camels?”

    I don’t want to see the movie poster.

    My eyes! My eyes!

    http://ayay.co.uk/backgrounds/b_movie_posters/women_in_prison/CHAIN-GANG-WOMEN.jpg

    Steve57 (d68bce)

  60. ==If you remove the word “foreign” from that comment (and the references to foreigners), you have basically described the boilerplate liberal argument for campaign finance restrictions. ==

    Heh, and if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle. (HT JD)

    elissa (46681f)

  61. And then she could contribute money to American political campaigns, because she would be an uncle instead of an aunt. Got it.

    Leviticus (f9a067)


  62. Heh, and if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle. (HT JD)

    elissa (46681f) — 3/16/2015 @ 2:07 pm

    I didn’t know you had an Uncle Hillary.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  63. I try not to divulge too much personally identifiable information online, Colonel.

    elissa (46681f)

  64. If you lie with dogs you will get fleas.

    mg (31009b)

  65. camels, too

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  66. 65. If you lie with dogs you will get fleas.

    mg (31009b) — 3/16/2015 @ 2:36 pm

    66. camels, too

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 3/16/2015 @ 2:37 pm

    If you’re lucky, fleas are all you’ll get.

    I’ve seen the FLIR videos. Where the Islamists are many, the women are few and locked up, and the livestock is nervous.

    Steve57 (d68bce)

  67. Let’s just pass an explicit law that says the rules don’t apply to the Clintons and be done with it.

    And the people who will admire that law should also be forbidden from that day forward for ever accusing a politician or political organization (particularly of the right) of receiving undue influence from outside corporate or private interests.

    IOW, the situation will be analogous to a big pro-environmentalist blowhard (eg, Al Gore) bemoaning C02 and then forcing through the enactment of money-grubbing anti-carbon laws, but also from that point forward being disallowed from driving around in big cars, traveling all over the place in big private jets, and owning huge mansions and pursuing energy-gobbling R&R that are just the opposite of self-restraint and self-sacrifice.

    Mark (c160ec)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3449 secs.