Image 01 Image 03

Crying Koch vs. Hillary’s Foreign Sugar Daddies

Crying Koch vs. Hillary’s Foreign Sugar Daddies

Who’s really trying to “buy America?”

The over-vilification of the Democrats’ favorite boogeymen may have cost them the Senate last year. Turns out that crying “Koch” is not what voters want to hear. Who knew? Oh that’s right, everyone who was not Harry Reid.

Who can forget Harry Reid’s exceptional case of Koch Derangement Syndrome?

Among the many missteps in Democratic strategy, the perpetual whining about the Koch brothers was listed as a contributing factor to the Democrats’ subpar performance in last year’s midterm elections.

S.A. Miller of the Washington Times reports:

Democratic officials are second-guessing the party’s obsession with attacking the Koch brothers, saying it bears some of the blame for last year’s devastating election losses as the focus on the conservative billionaires diluted a party message already struggling for clarity.

Doubts about the relentless attacks on the Koch brothers surfaced as the Democratic National Committee held its annual meeting Thursday in Washington, where state party officials from across the country mulled what went wrong in 2014.

Led by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrats repeatedly shifted attention during the 2014 election cycle to Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch, who spent more than $100 million supporting conservative candidates through their various political organizations, most notably Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Partners Action Fund.

Mr. Reid, Nevada Democrat, accused them of “trying to buy America” and cited the brothers by name hundreds of times in speeches on the Senate floor. Democratic campaigns, meanwhile, begged supporters for donations to combat the Kochs’ money.

But some Democratic officials at the DNC meeting said the message doesn’t resonate with voters.

“It raises money for sure. But is it good to motivate a voter? No,” said a state party executive director who said he didn’t want to publicly criticize the national party leaders.

Democrats love to holler about “getting money out of politics” unless the money in politics is going to oh, say, Barack Obama, or even Hillary Clinton.

Clinton, who may as well answer to ‘Mrs. Wall Street’ given her donor base, is drawing ire (and rightfully so) after it was revealed she’s accepting money from foreign governments. Foreign governments like Saudi Arabia.

The irony is almost too delicious: The Democrats fronting the would-be First Woman President, bankrolled by the most anti-woman country on the face of the planet. Insert bellyaching about dependency on foreign oil, a few W. era “blood for oil” protestors, and this might be the best political hubris cocktail ever.

But back to the whole money in politics thing. Crying ‘Koch’ backfired for the Democrats in 2014, so should Republicans ignore Hillary’s foreign sugar daddies to avoid the same fate?

Heck no.

There’s a clear distinction between American entrepreneurs donating their money to politicians, would-be politicians, and political causes, and accepting financing from foreign governments. The most obvious being the exceptional conflict of interest that could occur if Madame President Clinton is indebted to those whose are ready to cash in their favors in exchange for what would undoubtedly result in domestic harm.

Bret Baier’s panel discussed the issue last night:

If acting like those pesky Koch brothers were trying to “buy America” raked in the dough for Democrats, just imagine the Republican and grassroots response to emails truthfully stating that Saudi Arabia is trying to “buy America” via Candidate Clinton.

Clinton’s road to the White House just got a little steeper.

Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“No controlling legal authority…”

I seem to recall some billions and billions and billions of dollars going “poof” during her State Dept. stewardship, too.

Could it be some of those are coming home….


to roost?

    jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | February 21, 2015 at 1:32 pm

    Right. That money is coming home to roost. Like the $5 to $10 million donated to the Clinton Foundation by the Dutch National Lottery, because they just knew in their bones Hillary would one day become president, and legalize foreign investment in gambling by executive fiat.

    It all verified in my new book: “Konservative Kool Aid Konjecture.” You inspired the title, with your redundant ‘K’ spelling of your favorite State.

      Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | February 21, 2015 at 1:54 pm

      Wow! I REALLY LOVE the fact that I can get to SOOOOoooo easily!

      That just makes my DAY, cupcake. Or should I say “KupKake”?

      And…to add the butter KREAM frosting…my “Kuhlifornia” gag is a riff on Ahhhnuld, The Govern-a-tor.

      Ya moron!

      Did billions of dollars disappear from State funds on Ol’ Walleye’s watch, nimrod?

      Yes or no, please.

      Also, should be chip in and BUY you a sense of humor?

        jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | February 21, 2015 at 2:19 pm

        Yeah, the money’s gone, and Hillary through devious means took it all, and invested it offshore in Keystone XL related stock. This was in conjunction with the half a million dollars the Clinton Foundation received from the Canadian Trade & Development department, which supports the pipeline; and when Hillary’s president despite any Obama veto she of course will approve the project. I guess ‘ole fish eyes’ is more of a shark then a guppy to have swiped all that money and reinvest it at great profit. And when the dust settles after Hillary’s presidency the Clintons will be multi-billionaires, and they’ll be donating to future presidential foundations to keep the cash flowing.

      Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | February 21, 2015 at 2:02 pm


      What does this tell us about your “critical thinkings” WRT the Clintons…???

      1. 5 to TEN millions? No more precision that that?

      2. WHY WOULD the Dutch National Lottery put ANY money in the Clintonian slush fund?

      See, those very assertions make those of us who CAN think critically wanna go “Hmmm…?” But not you. And WHO is drinking…er, quaffing…Kool Aid?

      Cheers, ya moron!

        jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | February 21, 2015 at 2:25 pm

        The foundation’s donation list is public record, ding-dong. It was published at Obama’s instance as a prerequisite to her becoming Sec. of State. Get off your lazy butt and google it. You’ll see the donation amounts are listed in ranges: I don’t know why they did it that way, but that’s how they’re listed. Also the donators were notified before their names were published, and offered the opportunity to have the donations refunded, if they didn’t want the public to know who they were. Apparently, no one took advantage of that offer.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 21, 2015 at 2:45 pm

        “You’ll see the donation amounts are listed in ranges: I don’t know why they did it that way, but that’s how they’re listed.”

        AND you are totally incurious about it. But we CAN say for certain that it was not for “transparency”, was it? You seem to have trouble with the whole concept of numbers. X and 2X are really QUITE different.

        “Also the donators were notified before their names were published, and offered the opportunity to have the donations refunded, if they didn’t want the public to know who they were. Apparently, no one took advantage of that offer.”

        Really? Where is that “apparent”? In the Clintons’ disclosures?

        Wow. You will suck up anything any of these Collectivist liar tell you, huh?

Leftist Dems railed on the Kochs brothers because they themselves have something to hide. Democrats have a Soros problem.

Soros backs or starts 100’s (?) of leftist groups, mostly 527’s, “earning him the nickname ‘Godfather of the Left'”. Media Matters issue pure propaganda in my opinion, which networks sometimes regurgitate as “news”. Koch brothers are successful and patriotic Americans, while Soros undermines America from France, where he was convicted for insider trading.

The Koch brothers employ 100,000 workers, 60,000 in the US. George Soros is a hedge fund trader famous for “breaking” The Bank of England, and pocketing a billion on the deal.

He is reviled abroad for his shady efforts to foment revolution and collapse currencies. His foundations have been accused of shielding spies and breaking currency laws, …

As distasteful as the pay-for-influence system is, the ideological objectives and uses of that influence should be of even greater concern. Should we fear those who support the ideals that made America great, or the one who seeks to destroy and fundamentally transform the country?

    Midwest Rhino in reply to Midwest Rhino. | February 21, 2015 at 12:34 pm

    maybe he lives in New York now …

    Soros was a big investors in Petrobas, which seemed to benefit when Obama declared his moratoriums on our Gulf drilling and froze new leases, but at the same time our Export Import Bank loaned $2 billion to Brazil to support their deep water drilling, probably less safe than our own. That was when Obama in Brazil told them with a big grin “we want to be your biggest customer”. Thanks Obama.

    We need to keep the international “players” our of our elections.

      Don’t know if you’ve or been following the massive scandal at Petrobras that broke recently.
      At the time Soros invested in the co., a group of us speculated on the insider trading because it appeared to be just before the massive 2.5 billion they got from Obama.

    Media Matters and several others including Centre for American Progress are all Soros financed.
    Wasn’t Hilary involved in Media Matters at one stage?

Isn’t there a statute that states candidates can’t raise funds from overseas sources? Seems like I read that somewhere. But, then again, that has never applied to the Clintons or any other DemocRAT candidate in the last 60 years

You know, Kemberlee, if the truth can set you free, it explains why you’re a prisoner of your own distortions and omissions.

It’s an out and out distortion to write that ‘she’s accepting money from foreign governments.’ The donations go to the foundation, not to H. Clinton. If you’re suggesting she’s using some of that money for her own self-aggrandizement, prove it with documentation and statistics. Do you have any, aside from your own self-perpetuating rumors?

If it’s true, and the donors don’t like it they can stop donating in the future. Or they can sue for misappropriation.

And it’s an omission of pertinent facts on your part in failing to mention the Clinton foundation received foreign donations not only from Muslim countries, but also from DASTARDLY nations like Australia, and Canada, and Norway, and Italy, and Germany (once Nazi dominated!!!).

Are those ‘bankrolling’ nations discriminating against women, or are they places where women not only vote but hold many of the highest offices in their respective countries? Did those nations donate to the foundations in expectation Hillary would become president some day, and use her office to benefit them?

By negatively exaggerating one set of foreign donators and ignoring the other, many of them NATO allies, you fail as an objective commentator, but succeed as a propagandist. Is that your intention?

    Valerie in reply to jayjerome66. | February 21, 2015 at 2:02 pm


    Ragspierre in reply to jayjerome66. | February 21, 2015 at 7:41 pm

    Let’s fisk your comments just a bit…

    1. the point of the piece was not to say the Clintons ARE dirty. The point of the piece was to juxtapose the Koch brothers’ giving to the giving by foreign powers, organizations, and individuals, and interested contractors, to the Clintons’ “fund”.

    2. contra you reductiones ad absurdum and straw men (above), I never said Hiliary took money…even indirectly…that came from State. I suggest it is worth exploring. I don’t just suck at that nipple…or whatever…as do you. I can, do, and will think critically.

    3. it seems quite well-founded to look with jaundice at the conduct of people like the Clintons, who are not known for their verity or integrity. They are infamous for the contrary, in fact.

    4. in conclusion, therefore, it seems you are the propagandist here…as you have been before…since you are not playing the role of a dissenting voice, but that of a partisan and trollish defender of the Clintons.

      jayjerome66 in reply to Ragspierre. | February 21, 2015 at 9:40 pm

      You think as critically as a Sharia judge in a trial against atheists.
      Thanks for the ‘troll’ accusation; I get that frequently from the liberal sites too. You’re both the same like that – when you’re arguments are criticized you deamonize those who point out the flaws.
      I’m not a Clinton supporter,. If the election was held tomorrow and she was running against Bush, based on their previous stands and policies, I’d support Jeb, but if anyone right of Bush runs, I probably wouldn’t vote for either.

      As I’ve stated numerous times, I think the PC .Left And the Self Rightious Right are tearing this country apart. You both are screwing up the nation.

Harry Reid did too much Koch snortin’ on the Senate floor, and it put the democrats in the minority and Nevada has turn Republican, this is Harry’s Last Hoorah