Trump and Megan become pals.

 

  By Florida Bill  
                                  
                                  Suggesting that their feuding was now behind them, Megyn Kelly and Donald Trump came together on prime time Television in a special show hosted by Kelly. 
                                 I am not sure whether any hatchets were really buried by the irascible Trump and the strident Kelly, but, heck, they were on the tube together, smiling and affable.  I suspect, however, that the accommodation was arranged, promoted and pushed by the Fox News bosses and the advisers to the egotistical Trump.
                                On camera, there was no apology by Trump for lashing into Kelly for months on the social media airways calling her a  "bimbo and crazy" and incompetent, and not a very nice person.  Kelly was courteous and reserved, but made it clear to "The Donald" that she deemed her questioning of him was "fair" and that he was asked to explain why he had called some women, "pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals" and whether that was appropriate for a man running for the highest office in the USA. 
                                 As I see it, they did not like each other when the show began, and I do not think that anything much has changed.  Pundits' idea that it was all lovey-dovey is just a lot of baloney.
                                 The feud and obvious dislike for each other began last August during a Republican debate when Kelly asked Trump to explain why he had referred to some women with those barn yard names.  He never answered that question during the debate or at any time since.  However he was so provoked with anger that he began his nine-month long attack on Kelly using twitter and face book with the obvious design of destroying her as a creditable person and reporter.  Kelly, who was a practicing attorney before joining the media, took it in stride, and actually seemed to enjoy it as she garnered lots of attention from her bosses at Fox News and watched her popularity increase.  She even was a guest on the Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Fallon late night shows, and had her photograph on the covers of Variety and Vogue magazines. 
                                    Until Kelly tore into Trump for his labeling of some women with those unflattering monikers, Kelly was just a good-looking talking head with her own Fox News show, "The Kelly File," taking her cues and curtsying to the Fox News Bosses. Now she is overshadowing a good many of her peers at Fox News, including Big Dog Bill O'Reilly who has a bit of green in his eyes. 

                                     Over the past 10 months, Trump has been victorious in most primary elections and caucuses and is the Republican nominee in next November's presidential election. He promises to replace an inept President and "Make America Great Again," and that message is resonating with Americans. Although he has looked a bit peevish and vengeful in his spat with Kelly, it never dented his popularity as a GOP candidate. 
                                     At the so-called "make-up session" Kelly renewed the delicate subject of Trump's name calling, and Trump said that the question that had been asked him on the debate stage was "unfair."   It was not a question--it was a statement, Trump said, and he acknowledged that it angered him, and so he hit back hard, using the social media, which he said was a modern day way of fighting back.  "I am a counter puncher," he explained. 
                                      Any regrets, Kelly asked him.  Trump said "Yes, absolutely, but I am not going to discuss them (here)."  He said that he might have done things differently, but he added that Kelly had probably been called worse names than "bimbo" which he had tweeted and re-tweeted.   Did you make mistakes, Kelly asked.  Trump was firm in not admitting any mistakes, but in Kelly's reference to his insulting POW Sen. John McCain and GOP contender Carly Fiorina said "...I guess that I could have done without it....I wish I didn't do it," adding that "it is not healthy to look back." 
                                       Trump also noted in response to a question  that "If I do not win, I will consider the entire campaign a waste of time, money and energy.  
                                        All in all, it was a TV meeting which attracted millions of viewers and brought in lots of money for Fox News.  But the raw fact is that Trump never promised to end his tweeting of insults at Kelly, and never apologized for his peevish behavior.  Kelly never found out why Trump had pinned those barn yard names on some women.  All in all--status quo.
                                         If Trump becomes the country's 45th president, it is doubtful that Kelly will be asked to serve as his press secretary.  With Trump, however,  you just never know.                                               
                                                                     XXX


                                                             

Bathroom Dilemma

             By Florida Bill                   
 
                                      If you think that we, in America, have transgender issues, you're so right. But we are not alone in that regard, and haven't been for a very long time. Scandinavia, for example, has been intrigued with a specific question of gender for centuries. 
                            In 1632, at the age of 4, Christina ascended to the throne of Sweden as the only heir of her father, King Gustav II, who died in battle.  Initially, as a baby, Christina was thought to be a boy, but later it was announced that the royal child was a girl.  But growing up she was very much a tomboy and took to wearing male clothes.   She received a princely education with high marks in fencing, horsemanship, archery and hunting. She assumed the mantle of queen at 16 years old and ruled until she was 22 when she abdicated.  She did so after declining to ever marry.  She left, adopting the name of Count Dohna and settled in Rome where she assumed the  persona of a man.  Believed to have the affliction of 
hirsutism, she had a beard and was considered an able swordsman.  
                            The Count was scholarly and brilliant and spoke several languages, but had always been a curiosity to her subjects and others in terms of her gender.  She led an active life, living in Rome, where she became a close friend of Pope Alexander VII and of the philosopher, Rene Descartes.  Christina died in 1689 at the age of 62, but her life and persona remained a mystery as to her true sex and whether she might have been an hermaphrodite. 
                            Questions about Christina did not stop with her death.  They continued for nearly 300 years and in 1965, her remains were exhumed from her burial vault in the Vatican and examined by  archaeologists who reported that the physical remains, judged anatomically, were that of a woman.  However, questions of what kind of internal sex organs she possessed could not be ascertained as a result of the passage of time, and so the story of her actual sex has been left forever to speculation.   

                                      Obviously, the question of gender and sexual identity intrigues society. Here in America, President Obama has turned his focus on the growing concern of fair treatment for these young men and women who are born as one sex, and now identify as the other.  Some have had reassignment surgery and others have not.  But Obama has created a firestorm by taking his executive action and decreeing that those who fit the T in LGBT shall be allowed to use the bathroom of the sex with which they identify.  At least 11 states are opposing his mandate and have filed lawsuits to end his plan.  Sounds like Obama is going too far with his executive pen.
                       Under the Obama directive, the federal government will decide who whizzes and showers in which bathroom inside the nation's 100,000 K-12 schools; and if the school objects to the edict of Obama, federal funds will be withheld, and individuals and entities could face lawsuits for violation of civil rights.  
                         Democratic nominee for President, Hillary Clinton has said that she supports Obama's directive to open up chosen bathrooms to people who claim to be transgender.  Republican nominee Donald Trump has said that the issue should be left to individual states to resolve, and that the inept Obama should quit trying to transform America into a liberal bastion of political correctness.
                        Some months ago, Gov. Pat McCrory of North Carolina signed into law a requirement that transgender individuals, students for the most part, were to use the bathroom of the sex which they were born with, and which was recorded on their birth certificates.  This drew screams of bigotry and racism from the LGBT element of society, which demanded that individuals responding to the call of nature should use the bathroom of the sex they identify with.  In other words, opponents of the law feel that individuals who have transitioned from one sex to another, with or without reassignment surgery, should make the decision as to their sex and then use the bathroom of their choice--no matter how they look or dress.
                    In response,  Attorney General Loretta Lynch, always loyal to her chief, announced that denying transgender persons the proper bathroom facility, (and locker room) would be considered sexual discrimination in accord with the 1964 civil rights law.  After Lynch laid the ground work, President Obama had his Department of Education issue a directive to schools to let the transgender person decide on his or her bathroom. Schools which do not comply are likely to lose federal assistance.   
                      If you call yourself a male, whatever be your plumbing package, you head for the men's john.  If you decide that you are a lady, you are entitled to use the woman's washroom. If the washroom is also a shower room, as in high school gyms, and if an individual with male equipment steps into a woman's shower---well, this could--and should--cause some major consternation. If there is resistance by school authorities, Atty Gen. Loretta Lynch will sue and seek monetary damages.                                                                               "Putting boys in girls' locker rooms and showers is crazy," said Joy Pullman in The Federalist. com.  "I would move to Australia, quit my job and do about anything to keep my daughter from having to shower next to a naked penis-bodied being," she wrote.
                                "Obama is destroying the traditional American public school... acting in his typical imperial fashion," noted David French in National Review.com. 
                                    Curt Schilling, a former major league pitching star, got fired from his job at the liberal-minded ESPN as a commentator when he took exception to the liberal Obama law.  Using the social media, Schilling tweeted that the men's bathroom was designed for individuals with a penis.  To say otherwise is "pathetic"  but unfortunately, if you object, you are nothing but "a narrow minded, judgmental unloving, racist bigot..."
                               But, while decency and privacy are big enough issues, they aren't the only problem. There is the question of safety, at least for girls and even women. No, there doesn't seem to be much fear that a transgender person is going to attack someone of the sex he identifies with while taking care of business in the bathroom of his or her choice.
                          But this bathroom free-for-all policy also gives your garden-variety pervert, with no transgender issues at all, the perfect opening. He can announce that he considers himself a woman, and bingo, he can stroll without risk of obstruction into the ladies room at parks, sporting events, schools, malls, rest areas and any other public place where females of any age could then be at risk. Are bathroom bouncers going to become a fact of life?
                      Did Obama really think this thing through? 


                                                 
                                         
     



I                                                          

Waving Good Bye to Bernie

    By Florida Bill                                           

                                               With Bernie Sanders cutting his staff, you'd think it is time to bid farewell to the eccentric senator and his "pipe dream" of becoming the 45th President of the United States.   But not so fast. It seems that Sanders has a secondary agenda, which is to keep his message in the national spotlight, and he seemingly plans to run with it as long as he can.                                                        
                                               Even with support from millions of young men and women who dreamed of free education and the elimination of past school debts, not to mention free health care, it's appears to be over for the crusty Vermont senator.  There appears to be nothing left of his call for a "political revolution" in America and a dumping of capitalism in favor of socialism.
                                Some Sanders fans have suggested that he should be considered as Hillary Clinton's vice presidential running mate, but I doubt that scenario is in the realm of possibility.  Clinton has plenty of problems of her own without linking up with a true blue socialist, with a history as an antiwar pacifist who filed for status as a  conscientious objector during the Vietnam war era. 
                              More than $180 million dollars have been contributed to the Sanders vision of becoming President, and a great many citizens have marked their ballots for him in primary elections. He bettered Hillary Clinton in 21 of them.  With only the California primary on June 7 still ahead of him, he is mathematically and officially precluded from ever securing sufficient delegates to become the Democratic party nominee in the presidential election scheduled for November 8.                           
                            Even though he is totally out of contention, Sanders has avowed that he will remain in the race through the convention in July, and "until the last ballot is cast."  But he knows, as do his faithful followers, that it is over. 
                           But why drop out now and turn off the spotlight? This is the biggest platform Sanders has ever had for his message. Has anybody but Vermont ever paid any attention at all to his socialist theories of government? Has he ever made prime time TV with his theory that the tiny socialist nation of Denmark should be a model for America to emulate? He has been railing against Wall Street and calling for free stuff for 29 years in Congress, as both a Representive and a Senator, and no one has cared, other than the constituency that keeps reelecting him.
                         It seems he is loathe to throw away his present  audience, even if he isn't going to ever sit in the Oval Office.  And even though the attention is starting to taper off now, you can still find him ranting and raving on the nightly news a few times a week. 
                            So what happens if Clinton is indicted?  With her ego, she might persist in continuing as a candidate claiming her innocence and her ultimate exoneration from all wrong doing.  But that would not be a very convincing campaign cry: "Vote for me,  I'm not guilty!"
                          Would Sanders then rise to the top and become the Democratic candidate? Doubtful, for sure.  More probably, delegates would huddle and name a candidate they felt could win, like Vice President Joe Biden.  No matter how you cut it, Sanders is done and will never be President of the United States.
                         The 74-year-old Sanders never really had a chance of securing the Democratic party nomination.  The nomination for the Democratic standard bearer belongs to Hillary Clinton. She has the money, the "super-delegates," and years of political groundwork behind her.  This is true despite her wooden and phony persona and her record of lies and deceitfulness in public life.  Added to that, over the past several months, she has been the  subject of an intense FBI investigation into her mishandling of classified emails; and whether, as Secretary of State from 2008 to 2012,  she gave sweetheart treatment to entities and individuals who made donations to the Hillary, Bill and Chelsea Foundation. Quite a resume, but the fact remains, she has it in the bag. 
                             We can at least thank Sanders for calling attention to the duplicity of Clinton who, prior to announcing her candidacy last August, had in 27 months been paid $21.6 million for delivering 92 speeches.  A good number were delivered to Wall Street big money people, for which she was paid handsomely for mere 20 minute speeches.  Goldman Sachs for example, paid Mrs. Clinton nearly $700,000 for three speeches, and Sanders has demanded that she release the texts of these speeches. 
                          "When banks and Wall street pay out that kind of money, they expect something in return," Sanders has charged.  "So what did Clinton promise them; let's see what she had to say."  Clinton, however,  has declined to make public any of her speeches.  
                         Sanders, who describes himself as a "Democratic Socialist"  is actually not a Democrat.  He is an "Independent," the only such senator without affiliation with any political party.  He adopted the mantle of the Democratic party for the singular  reason of promoting his candidacy.  He has been consistent in his endorsement of socialism over capitalism for his three decades in Congress--even honeymooning in the Soviet Union in 1988 with his new bride, Jane.  His philosophy has been the same since college days at the University of Chicago when he was an anti-war activist and a pacifist and sought status with his draft board as a conscientious objector.                                
                                 His run to become the nominee of the Democratic party began in April of last year when he announced and outlined his programs of largess with free college tuition and health care for all Americans  He called for the country to disarm itself of its nuclear arsenal and to open its gates to 65,000 refugees from Syria.  He repeatedly castigated the greedy billionaires in America who take everything and give back nothing.                                                       Many in both the Democratic and the Republican parties have characterized Sanders' dream of making America into a fountain of freebies for everyone, modeled after socialistic Denmark, as "looney" and way over the top. They have cringed at the idea of him being America's commander-in-chief. His programs, costing trillions of dollars, would likely bankrupt the United States. 
                                Logic tells us that the 74-year-old Sanders really ought to call it a day. But he apparently enjoys being the         raspy-voiced motorman on a trolley that is going nowhere. And as long as he still has a bell to clang and money from his fans, it is likely Sanders will keep chugging along.  

                                                xxx
              
                                                       
                 









T

Big Dog O'Reilly

         

  By Florida Bill 

                                 Like millions of others, I spend a lot of time in front of the television set listening to newscasters and reporters. Some are "rip and read" experts and others kind of wing it with their astute takes on news developments--locally, nationally and at every other spot on Planet Earth.  They are the pundits and, yes, they have all the answers. 

                                 I virtually never tune into the network news reports, electing for the most part to listen to cable programs such as Fox News with Bill O'Reilly, and on occasion to hear CNN and the German born, deep- thinking Wolf Blitzer. 

                                 The bearded Blitzer waxes serious over political problems, with a decided liberal bend, but it is the Big Dog, who knows a pinhead when he sees or hears one, whom I find most interesting. The 66-year-old O'Reilly  has been around TV stations as a reporter and commentator for more than three decades, and he has developed a wide-screen ego which has few equals in the media.  His crisp shirts and perfectly angled cravats fit nicely into what he has pronounced as his "no spin" zone show, broadcast in prime time, five days a week. 

                                  "The O'Reilly Factor" leads all competitors in popularity and viewership.  And O'Reilly, by now a multi-  millionaire as a television host and personality, is the author of more than a dozen books, many of them best sellers including a series of tomes dealing with the "killings" of Lincoln, Kennedy Reagan and Jesus. Reportedly, he is generous to charitable causes, and occasionally, with some humility,  makes mention in his dialogue of the good deeds and donations he is responsible for. 

                          But I have my own take of him as an interviewer.  He stinks, plain and simple, because so-called interviewees are rarely interviewed; they are merely pawns to give O'Reilly a chance to sound off and if he has to talk over them, he will. He is a bulldog, who seems to never have heard of shutting up and listening and then responding.  In truth, I like much of what he says, but his style and constant efforts at self-aggrandizement are over the top. 
                               O'Reilly opens his nightly show with his "Talking Points," which may last several minutes or more. With emotion, he comments on the news of the day, the political horizon, and on whatever may be dominating the headlines. Often times, he denounces Obama for his ineptitude and decisions which are leading the nation onto chaos and bankruptcy.  I think that his analyses  are generally pretty good, often delivered with fierce emotion. And the show moves into different segments with guests who, by and large, feed into his enormous ego.  

                                "How did I do?" or "What say you?" asks O'Reilly of guests, concerning his editorial comments. Often his guests are women on opposite sides of the political landscape; other times they are contributors who are employed by Fox News, as is O'Reilly. 
                                Generally, there is some nit picking of what he has commented upon, but overall he is congratulated for his sharp dissecting of the problems of the day. It seems pretty obvious that the guests, who seem pleased to be recognized on television, are restrained in finding real fault with O'Reilly's opinions, and the segment ends with the host getting a pat on the back.  Any really tough and unexpected slam at O'Reilly, which is rare, but does happen, probably has the effect of excluding that person from future invitations to appear on the "Factor."                                                                                    Occasionally there is a guest who wants to take off the gloves and duke it out with the egotistical host.  O'Reilly engages his guest with a question designed to reduce him to ashes, and then interrupts the guest as he is sputtering along, and then supplies the appropriate answer.  If the guest insists on contradicting O'Reilly, he is again interrupted and eventually just gives up in frustration.  I have to say, O'Reilly is a master in exerting control.  Asking the question and then interrupting to provide the answer is a technique usually seen in court with defense lawyers asking leading questions.  In the middle of such heated conversations, O'Reilly typically interrupts yet again to say, "You can have the last word."   But the guest better be super quick or he is cut off.  Often he is just too rattled to say anything worthwhile, or make a dent in anything O'Reilly has said. O'Reilly then thanks the guest for a "lively debate."  The Big Dog generally appears satisfied that he has prevailed in any difference of opinion with a guest and later on in the show or in  future "Factors," O'Reilly reminds his audience of the interview and how he did a good job and smoked out the truth.                                         Donald Trump has been a frequent guest on the "Factor."  Of late, O''Reilly is trying to get Trump to explain how and when he will begin acting presidential in his role as the Republican nominee. Very important, counsels O'Reilly, as there are a lot of citizens sitting on the fence or rooting for Hillary Clinton. Trump seems to like O'Reilly and takes his criticism with good nature. However, he  pretty much ignores his political advice and simply reiterates that he will "Make America Great Again."  But in the scramble, it's pretty clear O'Reilly will be voting for Trump over Hillary Clinton. 

                              Among frequent guests is Kimberly Guilfoyle, an attorney and Fox News contributor and a regular on the Fox News show, "Five."  She is on hand to provide a legal analysis to some current question in the news. She is pleasant,  but certainly not particularly insightful;  she is very attractive, as are all the female pundits on The Factor, but presumably they are all there because of their legal backgrounds.  Apparently there are no unattractive experts in the Fox universe. Nonetheless, they are all given short shrift when they disagree with O'Reilly.
                              Others brought on as pundits are liberal Democrats  Geraldo Rivera and Juan Williams.  They opine about the good things which Democrats have achieved, but if they get carried away on the extraordinary skill of President Obama, O'Reilly takes over as spin master and brings that discussion to a halt.  In this case, the host has the last word.
                               I have only noticed one guest whom O'Reilly never tries to bully.  That guest is Dr. Charles Krauthammer a widely known and respected newspaper columnist, and a Fox News contributor with a distinct conservative viewpoint. When Krauthammer is invited to give his opinion on O'Reilly talking points, or on his interview with a high profile personality, Krauthammer calls it as he sees it.   "Any holes in what I have said?" O'Reilly might ask. Krauthammer, trained and licensed as a psychiatrist,  before becoming a journalist and commentator, is direct in his answer.  "Holes? Yes there were plenty of them in your remarks," he might answer thoughtfully. And then the doctor  enumerates O'Reilly's errors in his logic and conclusions.  With courtesy, he may even suggest that O'Reilly rethink his editorial.  O'Reilly may not agree, but Dr. Krauthammer has O'Reilly's respect, and is not one to be forcefully muted by the Big Dog. 

                            O'Reilly is conservative in his political positions, yet he maintains that he is independent and down the middle.  At one time, he was a registered Republican, but currently is a member of an organization of independents in New York. He actively tries to bring on high profile Democrats as his guests, but most, like Hillary Clinton, have refused, disinterested in the "no spin" zone where O'Reilly does all the spinning.   President Obama has been a guest and was given a first-hand introduction to the O'Reilly way of asking questions, and I doubt that he will be back. Some Republicans like Senate president, Mitch McConnell, have been elusive in making "Factor" appearances.

                            O'Reilly informs his viewers that he is a Catholic and hails from New York, and is proud of his Irish heritage.   He was married, but is now divorced, and is the father of two children whose custody he sought in court proceedings, but was denied.  
                            At the close of the hour-long "Factor" which is taped in  late afternoons, viewer letters are displayed on the screen, and it is interesting and fun as O'Reilly responds with wit and charm.  Writers are sometimes critical of some aspect of his interviews or of his comments, but for sure he never acknowledges any shortcoming in his statements or behavior. Usually, the scrivener is advised that his criticism is unwarranted and wide of the mark.  Letters  praising O'Reilly are plentiful and in these cases, O'Reilly always thanks the writer for the complimentary words.  

.

                                                                          XXX

Being Conservative Can Cost You

   By Florida Bill 

                                 A few days ago, one of the great pitchers in the Grand Old Game was given his walking papers.   The cashiering order was delivered by the ESPN Sports Network to Monday Night Baseball analyst Curt Schilling who had sided publicly with conservatives on the raging bathroom controversy in North Carolina    
                                 It is pretty well known that ESPN swings far to the left and that conservative positions and philosophy are apparently deemed anathema, almost criminal by management.  
                                 In response to Schilling's comments posted on the social airways,  ESPN and its contingency of liberal loons, issued a fiery  statement: "ESPN is an inclusive company.  Curt Schilling has been advised that his conduct was unacceptable and his employment with ESPN has been terminated."
                                It was not his analyzing on ESPN  time which rankled his bosses.  It was his posting on the social media of his endorsement of the North Carolina bathroom policy requiring transgendered individuals to use the male or female facility which corresponds to his or her gender at birth.               
                                Schilling's reaction to his firing was  that he believed ESPN to be "biased against conservatives."   "It was apparent to me early on," he explained in an interview, "that if you wanted to go off topic as a sports person,  you had to go off topic left or you were going to get in trouble."  
                                The LGBT community and liberals throughout the country have been outraged at the insensitivity of the bathroom law and have denounced it for its bigotry.  However, reasonable persons such as the retired baseball pitcher point to the nonsensical objection to the law, which is sending members of the LBGT community into a frenzy.
                   Schilling, an ESPN analyst since 2010, was an outstanding right hander for five major league teams over a 20-year career.  He won 246 games and lost 146, along with many awards.  He is a member of the elite 3,000 strike-out club, and in the four years between 2001 and 2004, he won 74 games, only losing 28. Predictably he will become a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame.
                    Schilling has been a strong conservative and fairly prolific in his writings.  He has been a critic of Hillary Clinton for her mishandling of classified emails and says that she ought to be buried under a jail.   
                   Schilling's firing by ESPN was prompted by his sharing of a cartoon on the social media which depicted an overweight man entering a washroom, dressed in woman's clothing, and wearing a silly-looking wig. Partially covering his chest was a holey tee shirt  exposing womens' breasts.  Below the cartoon was a comment:  "Let him into the restroom with your daughter or else you're a narrow-minded, judgmental,  unloving, racist bigot who needs to die."
                         To that,  Schilling added his own observation: "A man is a man no matter what they call themselves.  I don't care what they are, or who they sleep with. The men's room was designed for the penis, women's not so much.  Now you need laws telling us differently?  Pathetic."  With that, ESPN said, "You're out."
                          The 50-year-old Schilling is not one to back away from a  controversy, and generally he elects to plow in, head first. The transgender comments were actually the second time he has been targeted by his liberal sports network. 
                           Last August, he opened up on Face Book and condemned "radical Islam" for the evil murderers which they are.  As punishment, ESPN promptly demoted Schilling from Sunday baseball to the less popular Monday night baseball, castigating him for being offensive and disrespectful to Muslims. 
                          In last summer's tweets,  Schilling noted that radicals in the religion comprise about 5 to 10 per cent of its members; and that there are an estimated 1.6 billion followers of Islam.  He paralleled that with the fact that 7 per cent of the 65 million citizens of Germany had been members of the Nazi party.  And in reference to the Nazis, Schilling noted, "How'd that go?"  ESPN upbraided Schilling for offending Muslims and as a punishment, reassigned him.                              
                          Not one to go underground, Schilling also has noted that ESPN has employed as  sports announcers a number of dedicated left-wing racists who have a free hand when it comes to denouncing conservatives on the airways.   But Schilling apparently sees no reason to refrain from speaking out against the radical arm of Islam and the dangers it poses to the USA and to the world.   Good for him. 




                     
                                    xxx
   
                         

                                 

Madame Hillary Speaks

               




  By Florida Bill

                                             Hillary Clinton is really kind of an enigma, and I am curious as to how she made so much money as a speaker.  She had been a First Lady in Washington and in Arkansas and for six years was a United States Senator from New York.  From 2008 to 2012 she was President Obama's Secretary of State. 

                              Impressive credentials.  But, even with all of that glitter, she is just not a very likeable person, according to countless books and articles written about her and her family.  Reportedly, she is demanding, harsh  and condescending to persons assigned and hired to do her bidding.   During private anger snits, she uses language peppered with the "F" word, and on one occasion, as an angry young law student, she accosted a Democratic lawyer at a senate hearing and said  "you "Mother f----r" you sold out," because he displeased her.  Polls consistently report that she is considered to be untrustworthy and a liar in the judgment of 60 per cent of Americans, both men and women. 

                               With all that baggage, and so many recorded incidents of her prevarications and of her deceitful comments on the Benghazi siege in which four Americans,  including an ambassador, were killed,  she continues on a determined path to become the 45th President, and the country's first woman to hold the office.  At present, it appears that she is certain to secure the Democratic nomination for the election next November 8. 

                               But for 27 months following her four years of service as Secretary of State, she was a traveling orator, and delivered a total of 92 speeches.  Incredibly, she was paid $21.6 million, and, amazingly, a talk lasted a mere 20 minutes.  What was her appeal and how come she was commanding speaking fees averaging $225,000, sometimes a good deal more?  Asked by CNN why she charges so much, Clinton replied, "It's what they offered." 
                               By and large, honorariums were paid to Clinton from for-profit banks and companies.  Speaker Clinton charged her highest fee of $400,000 to the charitable Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago and her regular $225,000 fee to the American Jewish University.  To some, Clinton (and her husband) were gouging the charities. "There are only a handful of charitable organizations to whom Mrs.Clinton spoke, wrote Lori Marcus, a correspondent for Jewish Press.  The sad truth, she said,  is that the hundreds of thousands which had been donated to the charities to support Jewish causes went "right into the pockets of the Clintons."   

                               Recently, a woman remarked to me: "Who, for heavens sake, would pay a quarter of a million dollars to hear Hillary Clinton, who, if truth be known, no one can stand?"   I thought, that is true.  Mrs. Clinton has no reputation as a spell-binding orator whose words can grip an audience with emotion and elicit wild applause.  But somehow, she became a multi millionaire in just a few days.  What about this magical golden throat?                                                Mrs. Clinton's husband was America's 42d President, and Mrs. Clinton left her office as a New York senator in 2008 to run for President against Barack Obama.  Many favored her to win, but in the closing months, Obama proved too popular and she then conceded, and subsequently joined his cabinet.  It was always speculated that she would run again for the office, and she laid her ground work for the campaign by delivering speeches.  

                               She spoke before a variety of organizations including the big banks on Wall street and before rich brokerage houses.  In three speeches before Goldman Sachs, she was paid nearly $700,000 and it has always been presumed that Wall Street bigwigs were currying her favor and that they could expect a helping hand when she was in the oval office.

                               It was amid the speculation that she would be a candidate for President, and with a good chance of winning, that speaker invitations came fast and furious. Very likely, there were more than she could handle, but there was caution and strict protocol to be observed if Mrs. Clinton agreed to speak. In fact, the contract designed by Clinton appeared to give her the status of royalty, of a woman who wore a crown and to whom subjects should bow, and of course they did and the greenbacks rolled in.
                                Ninety two speeches in about 75 days is a busy schedule.  Her usual fee was $225,000 per, but there were exceptions, according to detailed research conducted by Dr. Robert W. Gehl a professor of communications in Utah,who examined her speaking days and the royal protocol which she insisted on.
                                Her reguar fee was $225,000, but often she charged $300,000 and more.  But she had real energy when it came to fees.  On April 11 of 2014, for example, she was hosted by the California Medical association (via satellite) and paid an honorarium of $100,000.  It was on the short side, but no worry there. On the day before, April 10, she spoke twice-- earning $225,000 from the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries in Las Vegas, and $265,000 from "Lets Talk Entertainment" in San Jose. 

                        The contractual agreement for a speech, with half of the fee in front, provided that Mrs. Clinton would be provided round trip travel in a private jet with hotel accommodations, food and all incidentals.  The accommodations called for a "presidential suite" and up to three adjoining or contiguous single rooms for travel aides and an additional two rooms for advance staff.               

                         The full session with the elite Mrs. Clinton would consume a total of 90 minutes, and the press would not be permitted to attend. The actual golden speech itself would consume only 20 minutes.  The first 30 minutes were a "meet and greet" session with picture taking, followed by the quick speech. The remaining 40 minutes would be devoted to a Q and A session, but there would be no free wheeling and embarrassing questions as all inquiries would be communicated to the secretary by a moderator or introducer who had been pre-screened and approved by Madame.   

                          There was a single stenographer to be assigned  and paid a flat $1,250 by the host.  A transcript was to be made for the speaker, but was not to be shared.  

                           Many of her talks were made to Wall Street banks and New York millionaires, but despite current requests in debates and on today's campaign trail, Clinton has declined to make the texts of the talks available for perusal.  Her opponent for the Democratic nomination, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, and others have soundly criticized Mrs. Clinton for her steadfast refusal to reveal the contents of her speeches to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street enterprises, suggesting  she is too friendly with the millionaires and may have promised them special future nods.  Sanders has charged that Wall Street bigwigs view her as an investment in their continued power in America. 

                          Perhaps the only other speaker who has captured such memorable speaking fees has been her husband, former President William Clinton.  Since leaving office in 2001, the ex-President has delivered several hundred speeches throughout the world and has garnered fees totaling well over 130 million dollars. Together, this husband and wife team with their golden throats have become remarkably rich, and memories of them being "dead broke after Bill left the White House" have faded with the rainbow. 
                          And let's not leave out the fact that their skill at making lucrative speaking engagements seems to have been inherited by their only daughter, Chelsea Clinton, 36. She now occasionally hits the podium as well and reportedly receives honoraria as high as $75,000, for a 10 minute speech (and Clinton perks.)  As they say, the apple does not fall far from the tree.
                      Who knew there could be such profit in the aftermath of a holding a political office?  No doubt some of those Wall Street bigwigs who pay those fees look forward to a good return on their investments. 

                                      xxx