Get PJ Media on your Apple

Entitled

Her Highness Hillary and our leftist overlords.

by
Tom Blumer

Bio

August 25, 2014 - 11:16 pm
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page

hillary_birthday_cake_frame_8-25-14-1

 

Recently uncovered information about what former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton demands from those to whom she deigns to speak tells us all we need to know about how “progressive” leaders and wannabes really view the rest of us. From President Obama on down, it’s clear that it’s not as their equals.

To be graced with her presence, Mrs. Clinton expects to be treated like a rock star, and arguably even better. In doing so, she has effectively appropriated the three-letter abbreviation “HHH,” once the exclusive property of 1968 presidential candidate and selflessly driven Democrat Hubert Horatio Humphrey, for herself — as Her Highness Hillary.

Public records obtained by the Las Vegas Review-Journal show that our 21st century HHH extraordinarily obligates those who run the events at which she delivers a contractually limited 90-minute address.

On the financial side, the events must, among other things, provide round-trip private jet transportation on “a Gulfstream 450 or larger jet.” The going rate for the use of a G450 is over $6,000 — per hour. She also requires “a presidential suite” for herself and three to five additional rooms for her staff. Mrs. Clinton has quite an entourage, including an advance team of two to scout the event site, as well as several travel aides. Naturally, she demands expensive room, board and perks for all of them. All of these expenses, and more, are over and above Her Highness’s $300,000 standard speaking fee, which was marked down to a rock-bottom $225K for the UNLV Foundation.

HHH’s controls over the proceedings, as described by the Review-Journal, are particularly galling. They include:

  • Final approval of all moderators or introducers.
  • Being “the only person on the stage during her remarks.”
  • No more than 50 photos with no more than 100 people.
  • No press coverage or taping of her speech.
  • No physical record of what she said, except for a transcript to be given to her — prepared by a stenographer the event must hire and pay.

The UNLV Foundation’s defense for its expenditure and cave-ins on conditions is that Mrs. Clinton’s appearance is a money-making venture, with donors paying up to $20,000 for a table. The obvious question thus becomes what these donors, an apparent who’s who of Vegas business and politics, believe they’re getting for their substantial “investment” that they wouldn’t receive by simply cutting checks to the foundation to further its mission. Sadly, the answer appears to be the “opportunity” to get barely more than a fleeting glimpse of someone who somewhere, someday, might grant them a favor or cut them a break. What a racket.

By their actions, modern progressive leaders, despite all of their pieties about protecting the middle class and defending the downtrodden, betray a belief system which in their minds entitles them to live the high life at someone else’s expense.

It hasn’t always been that way, as a rundown of post-Depression Democratic Party presidents will demonstrate.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was rich, and flaunted his wealth, but it was inherited. His status as a polio survivor “served the purpose of humanizing him for the masses.” Harry Truman “was so poor upon his return to Missouri that he had to move into his mother-in-law’s house.” John F. Kennedy also relied on inherited wealth, and vacationed at his own place; it was during the “Camelot” presidency that the first hints of the press’s and public’s fascination with the trappings of presidential power became evident. Lyndon Baines Johnson and Jimmy Carter deferred that urge during their time in office. LBJ usually vacationed at his ranch. Carter, for all of his considerable faults, including how he “faked carrying his own luggage” when in public view on trips, mostly imitated Johnson, and for the most part hasn’t cynically capitalized on his fame since he left the White House.

Top Rated Comments   
Ain't nuthin' new about money-grubbing "heroes of the people."
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Carter ... for the most part hasn’t cynically capitalized on his fame since he left the White House"

Not necessarily for monetary gain -- I don't know -- but he's arguably been the most damaging ex-President since Teddy Roosevelt, undermining the policies of sitting Presidents and cozying up to tyrannical dictators.
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
This woman is unelectable, and she knows it. So she's just using her name and the prospect of running as a means for raising speaking fees and getting preferential treatment.

She went to high school with Alinsky, you know. She invited him to speak at her college, and she wrote her thesis on him. She is far more radical left than Bill ever was.

For all his personal failings, Bill Clinton was at least a somewhat effective executive. He knew how to make a deal with the opposition. Hillary lacks that ability.

She couldn't even beat Obama for the nomination. That just shows how toxic the Clinton name is to Democrats, as the Bush name is toxic to Republicans. Hillary has as much chance on winning the nomination as Jebb does, which is none.

But she can still profit off of speaking fees from stupid Democrat doners and their allies in the academy.
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (30)
All Comments   (30)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Welll, as the saying goes, "Every country has the government it deserves." (Joseph de Maistre) Do we deserve another round of Clintonian rule? Quite possibly! The Clintons realized that most of the U.S. doesn't give a tinkers cuss anymore about background, qualificaiton and governing skill. All most of us care about is that worthless intangivle called "celebrity." The Clintons have spent the last decade both building their bank accounts and creating an aura of "celebrity" around their lives. They have shamelessly schmoozed the "prestige" media of New York and the East Coast and now receive the same gushing coverage normally reserved for a Kardashian or a Beyonce. That was the entire purpose of the move to New York. You don't get on the cover of Vogue or Vanity Fair by living in Little Rock. Their reading of the Great American Public is that being famous is more important than being qualified. Given the state of the nation it's not a bad bet.
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
I suspect America is about to cease to be a nation and become a land of loose "countries" again. Libtardation has reached end-game.
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
What is astonishing is that there are fools who pay for this woman's performance! By the by, she will never be POTUS. Mrs. Clinton is way too old and her shape shifting political image is a boring.
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
I truly hope you are right but I'm not counting on it. The pundits all thought Reagan was too old but he got elected anyway (for which I am very glad).

I remember talking to a black guy in 1992 when Jesse Jackson was angling to get the Democratic nomination. I asked if Jackson had any chance. He looked at me like I was insane ;-) He said he couldn't imagine America electing a black President for at least another 50 years. Obama was elected just 16 years after that prediction....

3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, he's not really black leader is he is? He's a white liberal in almost all ways. Imagine if a member of the current black leaders in the Left or Right was elected -- it would be very, very different than our current Narcissist-in-chief. Ol' Barry was never a black leader, he was the white liberals' get-out-of-racism card.
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
>>> These are not the kind of people our Founders had in mind when they designed a system they hoped would hold greedy, self-righteous hypocrites and their grifters in check. <<<

Ah, the notion of the Founders is so quaint. The way our Constitution has been treated (shredded) showed the progressives/liberals had moved way beyond that.

>>> If we let such people control it much longer, that system will soon exist in name only. <<<<

Currently the system has been existing in name only already. The past 60(?) years showed more and more elitists exactly that Americans clamor a royal court and we their dutiful subjects.
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
Why not elect a unity formula Hillary + Jeb and have them promise to keep Moochelle as Secretary of State? That would unite the country for sure (against them!)
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
If she even gets the nomination, this country is in far more trouble than I can imagine.
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Carter ... for the most part hasn’t cynically capitalized on his fame since he left the White House"

Not necessarily for monetary gain -- I don't know -- but he's arguably been the most damaging ex-President since Teddy Roosevelt, undermining the policies of sitting Presidents and cozying up to tyrannical dictators.
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
Seems to me that undermining the policies of Wilson would be considered a plus....
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
Or very easy to do, at the least.
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
Of course he loves fundraisers. He gets to keep every penny donated directly to him.

Why someone hasn't investigated this is beyond me. He's going to leave the White House rich beyond his wildest dreams.
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
Absolutely. He will not settle for Clintonian chump change--$100M?, hah!--only $1B+ will do. Otherwise he would never "work" so hard at all those fundraisers to help Dhimmicrats that he loathes anyway.
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
In the end, as it is with all things Clinton, it is always about the money.

The Clintons are modern daly robber barons without the morals of Jay Gould, or J. P. Morgan.
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
But Gould and Morgan developed products and services that people actually wanted to buy. The Clintons sell influence and hope to sell "rents", government favors.
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
I recently re-watched MGM's Marie Antionette (1938) starring Norma Shearer as The Queen. I was struck by the similarities between the court of Louis XVI and the current crowd in The WH, especially their in-your-face disregard for even a pretense of modesty or appropriately dignified behavior. Louis' court performed only for themselves, in a bubble of isolated privilege and extravagance, and their amusement was lubricated by a bevy of effeminate fops who flitted about gossiping and inciting petty flare-ups. It seems all too familiar to today's WH-watchers. Will the same fate that ended the French monarchy bring them down? Or will HHH inherit the crown?
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
QUOTE: "Will the same fate that ended the French monarchy bring them down? Or will HHH inherit the crown?"

Please, don't tease me!
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
lets hope that she ends up a french revolutionary basket case.
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
The allegory is about right; the history less so. Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette were both concerned about the well-being of their people and began the process of trying to improve their conditions. They were ineffective -- Louis was weak in character and the queen was mostly a figurehead. Their hearts were in the right places, though, and the manners of court and extravagance were rather thrust upon them.
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
I and the film agree with you. The Royals were depicted with understanding and a great deal of sympathy - Hollywood in those days wasn't apparently infected with the disease of revisionist history we have today - but the court was peopled with superficial, nasty, greedy hangers-on of no value to anyone but themselves.
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
This woman is unelectable, and she knows it. So she's just using her name and the prospect of running as a means for raising speaking fees and getting preferential treatment.

She went to high school with Alinsky, you know. She invited him to speak at her college, and she wrote her thesis on him. She is far more radical left than Bill ever was.

For all his personal failings, Bill Clinton was at least a somewhat effective executive. He knew how to make a deal with the opposition. Hillary lacks that ability.

She couldn't even beat Obama for the nomination. That just shows how toxic the Clinton name is to Democrats, as the Bush name is toxic to Republicans. Hillary has as much chance on winning the nomination as Jebb does, which is none.

But she can still profit off of speaking fees from stupid Democrat doners and their allies in the academy.
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
Hillary did not go to high school with Alinsky. He was in his 50's when she was in high school, for heaven's sake!
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
Unelectable?

After Obama's re-election, I became convinced we reached the tipping point. People who vote for a living now outnumber those that work for a living.

All she needs to do is promise to pay their mortgage, their gas, and their kid's college and enough will line up and vote for her. Doesn't matter how many times they heard it and "became disillussioned" when the promises never materialized.

Our electorate is dominated by voters who would rather vote away their responsibilities in exchange for a lottery ticket toward social services.
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
There's no such thing as unelectable in the scape-goat era.
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
She's one of a new breed: A money-grubbing "Alinskyite."
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
Ain't nuthin' new about money-grubbing "heroes of the people."
3 weeks ago
3 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All