Somebody’s trying to keep Hillary from getting the nomination. It’s not the Republicans, because the media ignores any Republican allegations of Democrat wrongdoings. My guess it that it’s Obama because his team already has a track record of investigating Hillary and dropping the research to the media. The fear is that Hillary is unelectable.
Here are bits of today’s story from the LA Times, whose reporters normally can’t investigate themselves out of a paper bag, especially when it comes to Democrats. The story is titled An unlikely treasure-trove of donors for Clinton.
NEW YORK— Something remarkable happened at 44 Henry St., a grimy Chinatown tenement with peeling walls. It also happened nearby at a dimly lighted apartment building with trash bins clustered by the front door.
And again not too far away, at 88 E. Broadway beneath the Manhattan bridge, where vendors chatter in Mandarin and Fujianese as they hawk rubber sandals and bargain-basement clothes.
All three locations, along with scores of others scattered throughout some of the poorest Chinese neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn and the Bronx, have been swept by an extraordinary impulse to shower money on one particular presidential candidate — Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton’s campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown.
Now, here’s the real rub, and the part where criminality comes in:
Clinton has enlisted the aid of Chinese neighborhood associations, especially those representing recent immigrants from Fujian province. The organizations, at least one of which is a descendant of Chinatown criminal enterprises that engaged in gambling and human trafficking, exert enormous influence over immigrants. The associations help them with everything from protection against crime to obtaining green cards.
Many of Clinton’s Chinatown donors said they had contributed because leaders in neighborhood associations told them to. In some cases, donors said they felt pressure to give.
“Not that being dead or non-existent is any barrier to them voting for Clinton. In fact, the dead, the senile, the non-existent, and the felons are some of the Democrats’ most dependable voters. Many of them vote multiple times.”
So, Hillary has talked criminal enterprises into pressuring recent immigrants to donate to Hillary, often against their will. My experience is that most Chinese immigrants tend to lean towards conservatism because they came to America for freedom.
So what are the Chinese immigrants going to get in return, besides the right for each of them to vote 400 times for Hillary in the 2008 elections?
The other piece of the strategy involves holding out hope that, if Clinton becomes president, she will move quickly to reunite families and help illegal residents move toward citizenship. As New York’s junior senator, Clinton has expressed support for immigrants and greater family reunification. She is also benefiting from Chinese donors’ naive notions of what she could do in the White House.
Oops, there’s more trouble. Some of the Chinese “donors” apparently don’t exist at all. Not that being dead or non-existent is any barrier to them voting for Clinton. In fact, the dead, the senile, the non-existent, and the felons are some of the Democrats’ most dependable voters. Many of them vote multiple times.
The Times examined the cases of more than 150 donors who provided checks to Clinton after fundraising events geared to the Chinese community. One-third of those donors could not be found using property, telephone or business records. Most have not registered to vote, according to public records.
And several dozen were described in financial reports as holding jobs — including dishwasher, server or chef — that would normally make it difficult to donate amounts ranging from $500 to the legal maximum of $2,300 per election.
Of 74 residents of New York’s Chinatown, Flushing, the Bronx or Brooklyn that The Times called or visited, only 24 could be reached for comment.
Many said they gave to Clinton because they were instructed to do so by local association leaders. Some said they wanted help on immigration concerns. And several spoke of the pride they felt by being associated with a powerful figure such as Clinton.
Another shocker is that the LA Times actually investigated some of the donors. It’s probably the first time the reporters have done any real investigation since high school, which is another clue that the story was prompted by a Democrat rather than a Republican. Investigating Democrats is something that just isn’t done in the mainstream media.
A man named Liang Zheng was listed as having contributed $1,000. The address given was a large apartment building on East 194th Street in the Bronx, but no one by that name could be located there.
Census figures for 2000 show the median family income for the area was less than $21,000. About 45% of the population was living below the poverty line, more than double the city average.
In the busy heart of East Broadway, beneath the Manhattan Bridge, is a building that is listed as the home of Sang Cheung Lee, also reported to have given $1,000. Trash was piled in the dimly lighted entrance hall. Neighbors said they knew of no one with Lee’s name there; they knocked on one another’s doors in a futile effort to find him.
Salespeople at a store on Canal Street were similarly baffled when asked about Shih Kan Chang, listed as working there and having given $1,000. The store sells purses, jewelry and novelty Buddha statues. Employees said they had not heard of Chang.
Another listed donor, Yi Min Liu, said he did not make the $1,000 contribution in April that was reported in his name. He said he attended a banquet for Clinton but did not give her money.
How much do you want to bet that these non-existent voters will happily vote for Clinton in the election?
Some Democrat, likely Obama, is very fearful that Clinton will win the nomination. Some of the fear is due to Hillary’s high negatives — 49% in a recent poll said that they would never vote for Hillary. Considering that when Bill Clinton got his “mandate” to be president, he garnered only 43% of the popular vote in 1992 and 49% of the vote in 1996. A third-party green candidate could easily give the election to the Republicans.
Pigs really do fly. And sometimes the mainstream media actually investigates a Democrat’s wrongdoings.