A Strategic Partnership http://www.ChinagateTheMovie.com/


Big Source of Clinton's Cash is an Unlikely Address in California

DALY CITY, Calif. -- One of the biggest sources of political donations to
Hillary Rodham Clinton is a tiny, lime-green bungalow that lies under the
flight path from San Francisco International Airport.

Six members of the Paw family, each listing the house at 41 Shelbourne Ave.
as their residence, have donated a combined $45,000 to the Democratic
senator from New York since 2005, for her presidential campaign, her Senate
re-election last year and her political action committee. In all, the six
Paws have donated a total of $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005,
election records show. Their donations closely follow contributions made by
a wealthy New York businessman.

See Donation record via WSJ here
http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...etro_sort.html

It isn't obvious how the Paw family is able to afford such political
largess. Records show they own a gift shop and live in a 1,280-square-foot
house that they recently refinanced for $270,000. William Paw, the
64-year-old head of the household, is a mail carrier with the U.S. Postal
Service who earns about $49,000 a year, according to a union representative.
Alice Paw, also 64, is a homemaker. The couple's grown children have jobs
ranging from account manager at a software company to "attendance liaison"
at a local public high school. One is listed on campaign records as an
executive at a mutual fund.
Source:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1188...s_us_whats_new
s

So far what we have is a family of limited means donating an extraordinary
amount of money (considering their income) to Hillary Clinton and in smaller
part to other Democrats, that lives in a house that was once listed as Mr.
Hsu's home address, which makes that connection very obvious.

http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blog...linton-paw-fam
ily-and-norman.html

Now lets take a look at Norman Hsu.

Norman Hsu's love of Clinton on display
http://www.latimes.com/business/inve...834069.story?c
oll=la-headlines-business-invest

Hey Hillary, what's that big mark on your ear? It looks like $950,000 for a
school that your favorite Chinese fundraiser, Norman Hsu, just happens to
have been a board member of.

And in the case of the New School in Greenwich Village, it turned out to
have some national resonance: Norman Hsu, a major Democratic donor active in
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign and a New School
trustee, was found to be a fugitive who had skipped out after a felony theft
conviction in California 15 years ago.

Here's the bill, S.1710.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquer...07&dbname=110&
It's the Labor/HHS/Education spending bill that's being debated in the
Senate right now. Do a search on "Clinton" a whole bunch of times (she has
quite a few line items in this bill, $500k here, $250k there, $1.5 million
over there) and you'll eventually land at this earmark.

New York Times
September 20, 2007

Norman Hsu, an apparel-industry executive and a major donor to Democratic
candidates and causes, confessed to FBI agents last week that he had
pressured investors in what he now admits were phony business deals to
contribute to Democratic political campaigns, prosecutors said in an
indictment that was unsealed today.

The complaint, filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, accused Mr. Hsu
of bilking at least $60 million from hundreds of investors in a nationwide
Ponzi scheme, and using some of that money to illegally reimburse at least
two people who made a total of $60,000 in campaign donations at his request.

While the complaint did not specify which candidates received the illegal or
coerced contributions, federal authorities confirmed that one of them was
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Her presidential campaign has said it
intends to return $850,000 to more than 200 people whose donations were
bundled by Mr. Hsu.
....
The indictment said that while in Colorado, Mr. Hsu reached out to FBI
agents on three occasions and asked to speak to them without his lawyers
present. He is said to have told the agents that his business deals involved
no real investments but were in fact fraudulent, and "admitted that he made
implied threats to his investors to pressure them to contribute to political
candidates he supported."

Working through two shell companies, Components Ltd. and Next Components
Ltd., Mr. Hsu persuaded numerous investors from across country to give him
money ostensibly to help secure short-term loans for various companies doing
business in the apparel industry, the government said.

The Ponzi scheme had been not intended to generate political contributions
even though several investors were bullied into making donations, David A.
Cardona, the special agent in charge of the F.B.I.'s New York office, said
at a news conference today. Rather, Mr. Cardona said, it was the cachet
derived from Mr. Hsu's political activities that gave his investment schemes
a certain allure.

Those schemes, the complaint said, focused on several aspects of the apparel
trade, from helping obtain letters of credits for wholly imaginary
manufacturers to financing the importation of "high-end" Chinese clothing
that did not exist. As in all Ponzi schemes, the government said, Mr. Hsu
paid interest to the first wave of investors with principle invested by
secondary waves and used this purported success to lure more investors.

The experience of Joel Rosenman - a New York investor referred to in the
complaint only as "Victim 1" but whose identity was confirmed by several
lawyers involved in the case - was presented in the indictment as indicative
of the scheme as a whole. Mr. Rosenman's interactions with Mr. Hsu were also
laid out in a civil suit filed Friday in New York County Superior Court.

Mr. Rosenman was introduced to Mr. Hsu by a mutual friend in 2003 and made
an initial investment of $50,000 with Mr. Hsu. In return, he received a
check for $57,000 postdated for four and a half months later. The indictment
said that when Mr. Rosenman successfully cashed the check, it helped him
develop trust in Mr. Hsu, who claimed to have lined up clothing deals with
big-name companies like Nordstrom, L.L. Bean and Hugo Boss.

By 2007, Mr. Rosenman had created an investment fund, Source Financing
Investors, with friends and relatives that funneled more than $40 million
into Mr. Hsu's hands. In August, however, when reports about Mr. Hsu's
shadowy past began to surface, Mr. Rosenman confronted Mr. Hsu, who assured
him his investments were not in danger, the government said. But earlier
this month, Mr. Rosenman went to cash a check in the amount of $1,031,300
that Mr. Hsu had given him and, according to the complaint, the bank refused
to accept it. The civil suit filed by Source Financing Investors said that
$40.2 million of its money is missing.

Ronald Minkoff, a lawyer representing Source Financing Investors, said he
has asked campaigns that received contributions from Mr. Hsu and his network
of investors not to dispose of the money.

"We are asking them to hold that money in escrow," Mr. Minkoff said. "We are
trying to find what we can find."

Crime Stats:

- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine
who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment,
fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses)
refused to be interviewed: 122

Forgetful Clinton "friends":

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before
Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.

Hillary Clinton 250.
Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697

Folks, this is a the prefect example of the old adage, if it walks like a
duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, chances are, it is, indeed,
a duck.

Follow all the links above and ask yourself one final question.

Will Americans vote for a person that has such close associations with fraud
and crime and fugitives?