Is Hillary the Pied Piper, the Artful Dodger, or both? UPDATED 9:25pm MST 2-6-16

So, Hillary's supporters are now proclaiming that Bernie's misogynistic because she called him out about the "artful smears" he uses to shine a light on her relationship with Wall Street investment banks.

Ben Bernanke has reportedly earned fees ranging from $200,000 to $400,000. Al Gore reportedly received $175,000 per speech. Rudy Giuliani disclosed while running for president that he’d received $270,000 for a speech, and continued giving speeches after declaring his presidency. Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair reportedly asked for £330,000 (about $475,000) for a 20 minute speech last year. And not to be outdone, Donald Trump is said to have taken in $1.5 million per speech. [Ed. there's PLENTY more to disqualify Trump from the presidency than exploring the issue of speaking fees. Neither Bernanke nor Gore, nor Guiliani nor Blair are currently running for that or any elected office.]

Is anyone asking these men how they could “possibly fetch” such a sum? They were paid what the market will bear, and no one questioned it.

The reality is that prominent people, with unique perspectives, are paid quite well to inspire and inform audiences of all kinds, and are rarely questioned about it, let alone are forced to promise that they’ve “never changed a vote” after receiving such fees, as Hillary did in Thursday’s debate.

Hillary confronted Bernie Sanders about insinuations that she was influenced by speaking fees: “If you’ve got something to say, say it.”

Is the magnitude of Hillary's speaking fees really the issue? Not at all. The content of them, IS at issue.

Who owns Hillary Clinton? Well, who BUYS Hillary's favors? From Amazon.com,

In 2000, Bill and Hillary Clinton owed millions of dollars in legal debt. Since then, they’ve earned over $130 million. Where did the money come from? Most people assume that the Clintons amassed their wealth through lucrative book deals and high-six figure fees for speaking gigs. Now, Peter Schweizer shows who is really behind those enormous payments.

In his New York Times bestselling books Extortion and Throw Them All Out, Schweizer detailed patterns of official corruption in Washington that led to congressional resignations and new ethics laws. In Clinton Cash, he follows the Clinton money trail, revealing the connection between their personal fortune, their “close personal friends,” the Clinton Foundation, foreign nations, and some of the highest ranks of government.

Schweizer reveals the Clinton’s troubling dealings in Kazakhstan, Colombia, Haiti, and other places at the “wild west” fringe of the global economy. In this blockbuster exposé, Schweizer merely presents the troubling facts he’s uncovered. Meticulously researched and scrupulously sourced, filled with headline-making revelations, Clinton Cash raises serious questions of judgment, of possible indebtedness to an array of foreign interests, and ultimately, of fitness for high public office.

From the New York Times, on Schweizer' book, a couple of weeks before it hit the bookshelves,

The book, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return.

“We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,” Mr. Schweizer writes.

From BillMoyers.com (and the New York Times),

While the traditional narrative is that politicians are corrupted by wealthy interests, Schweizer says we may be getting it wrong.

He says some politicians are involved in a type of “legal extortion” to get their hands on cash, with terms like the “tollbooth” and “milker bills” describing some of these practices. Whatever you call it, it doesn’t sound like the type of democracy we’d ideally like to have.

If she has nothing to hide, why is she trying so hard to dodge the issue?

Is Hillary really the Artful Dodger of Dickens infamy?

Or... is she simply trying to get people to vote for her without critically evaluating her relationship with Wall Street?

Many are familiar with the story of the Pied Piper of Hamelin. Few realise however, that the story is based on real events, which evolved over the years into a fairy tale made to scare children.

For those unfamiliar with the tale, it is set in 1284 in the town of Hamelin, Lower Saxony, Germany. This town was facing a rat infestation, and a piper, dressed in a coat of many coloured, bright cloth, appeared. This piper promised to get rid of the rats in return for a payment, to which the townspeople agreed too. Although the piper got rid of the rats by leading them away with his music, the people of Hamelin reneged on their promise. The furious piper left, vowing revenge. On the 26 th of July of that same year, the piper returned and led the children away, never to be seen again, just as he did the rats. Nevertheless, one or three children were left behind, depending on which version is being told. One of these children was lame, and could not keep up, another was deaf and could not hear the music, while the third one was blind and could not see where he was going.

On Thursday, during the debate, Hillary dared Bernie, or anyone, to demonstrate that she had ever changed a vote because of a donation. Shortly thereafter this video of an interview Elizabeth Warren gave to Bill Moyers resurfaced.




Hillary essentially calls for voters to,

...so step in line, hey come on babe, follow me I'm the Pied Piper, follow me and I'll show you where it's at. Come on babe, can't you see, I'm the Pied Piper, trust in me, I'm the Pied Piper, and I'll show you where it's at...

So, as you can see, there's no need for critical review of her claims of "artful smears."

Demand Hillary #ReleaseTheTranscripts

UPDATE          UPDATE           UPDATE          UPDATE

By the way, in case Hillary's supporters happen to wander in and read this post without their heads exploding, it's important to note that a recent survey conducted by the Behavioral Research Center of Arizona suggests Hillary's not likely to get away with her evasiveness regarding her relationship with Wall Street. Of course, the survey doesn't target Hillary and doesn't mention her. But it DOES provide some very poignant insight.