Champions of the "I Hate Rich People" Crowd and the utterly FALSE narrative driving Americ

The New York Times can't get enough of Hillary and the progressive socialists, no surprize there I'm sure. Now the focus seems to be casting her as the "original populist" over Elizabeth Fauxahontas Warren with her class warfare campaign of "wealth inequities". This persisant fantesy the progressives want you to believe that the "rich" are greedy mean bastards who should be punished through coercion and taxation, their wealth redistubuted by government programs to the disadvantaged, to whom it "rightfully" belongs.

CLAREMONT, N.H. — In her first week as a 2016 presidential candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton seemed to channel another high-profile Democrat. “The deck is stacked in their favor,” Mrs. Clinton said of the wealthy and powerful. “My job is to reshuffle the cards.”

The line echoed a phrase that helped make Senator Elizabeth Warren the populist icon of her party. “The game is rigged,” Ms. Warren often says. “Rigged to work for those who have money and power.”

Before that there was Mrs. Clinton’s tribute toMs. Warren in Time magazine. “She never hesitates to hold powerful people’s feet to the fire,” Mrs. Clinton wrote in the issue honoring the top 100 influential people.

For anyone who wondered what kind of economic message Mrs. Clinton would deliver in her campaign, the first few days made it clear: She is embracing the ideas trumpeted by Ms. Warren and the populist movement — that the wealthy have been benefiting disproportionately from the economy, while the middle class and the poor have been left behind. And the policies Mrs. Clinton is advancing, like paid sick leave for employees and an increase in the minimum wage, align with that emphasis.

But now, the former secretary of state must convince voters that she is the right messenger for the cause of inequality, not simply seizing on it out of political expedience.

Nothing stings her inner circle more than the suggestion that their candidate is late to these issues. Mrs. Clinton was the original Elizabeth Warren, her advisers say, a populist fighter who for decades has been an advocate for families and children; only now have the party and primary voters caught up.

So Hillary zips from Keene to Claremont to Concord New Hampshire in the "Scooby Van" at speeds up to 92 MPH (posted speed limits are 65 MPH by the way) peddling this and other socialist distortions to her hand picked sycophants and plants pretending to be "everyday Americans". So important is her message that local speed limits apparently don't apply to her or her entourage. But is Hillary "dead broke" and a "people's champion" or is she the very thing she pretends to abhor and fight, a member of the top 1% of society? Let's take a look shall we? The answer it seems is pretty ellusive, there are estimates all over the map, some claiming she and Bill are worth $100 million, others somewhat lower, it depends very much on who you read and whom you trust in media. As The Washington Post details in an article from July 2014, it is very difficult for the public to know anything solid, and we obviously can't count on Hillary or Bill themselves to let us know.

Ever since Hillary Clinton drew attention to her finances by claiming her family was "dead broke" when they left the White House, speculation has focused on a seemingly simple question: Exactly how rich are the Clintons?

The answer, at least for the time being, is that there's no way for the public to know.

The couple's wealth since Bill Clinton's presidency ended in early 2001 has been generated largely from paid speeches, lucrative book deals and successful investments.

Some of that wealth has been detailed over the years in the financial disclosure forms Hillary Clinton was required to file as a senator and as secretary of state, as well as in tax returns she released as part of her 2008 presidential run. These forms record income from both Clintons jointly.

But loose federal disclosure rules, requiring that officials report the value of their holdings using only wide ranges, leave much room for interpretation. And while Hillary Clinton's past tax returns offer more data points than exist for most other potential presidential candidates, the information is incomplete - and out of date.

In 2010, then-Secretary Clinton's financial disclosures revealed a net worth totaling between roughly $10 and $50 million. In 2012, the last year for which she disclosed finances, Clinton's net worth was estimated to be between $5 million and $25 million.

The much anticipated Peter Schweizer book due out in May "Clinton Cash :The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich" may shed some light on the subject. From The New York Post:

Hillary Rodham Clinton used her clout as secretary of state to do favors for foreign donors who gave millions to her family foundation — and who paid millions more to her husband, Bill, in speaking fees, a new book charges.

Records show that of the $105 million the former president raked in from speeches over 12 years, about half came during his wife’s four-year tenure at the State Department.

The claims in “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” come just a week after she launched her presidential campaign.

They raise questions about shady foreign money flowing into the Clinton Foundation — and what actions Hillary took in her official capacity in exchange for the cash.

“During Hillary’s years of public service, the Clintons have conducted or facilitated hundreds of large transactions,” writes author Peter Schweizer, according to The New York Times, which first reported the story.

“Some of these transactions have put millions in their own pockets.”

Schweizer — a former speech-writing consultant for President George W. Bush — said he found a clear “pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable US policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds.”

The masses buy this palaver as though it came from the Holy Bible, unable to distinguish the speaker from themselves and their "inferior" station in life and the hypocrisy of those like Hillary and Fauxahantas who peddle the gospel of envy and greed.

Yes, they want you to ignore their own wealth, while inspiring fear, jealousy and anger at the wealth of others, and promise to appropriate it for the sake and in the name of "justice". Or have I been eating paint chips again? Related: Some of my thoughts on Hillary and Elizabeth while writing for Western Free Press: