Seriously?! Clinton Foundation suddenly finds $26 million in undisclosed donations

May 22, 2015

Writer

Just when you think it couldn’t get worse, it does. No, this isn’t about Benghazi or secret, private e-mails being used to conduct government business - although those are pretty bad too. No, the latest scandal plaguing Hillary Clinton involves her personal charity, the Clinton Foundation. Turns out the Clinton Foundation failed to disclose about $26 million. There’s no way that money came from any sketchy sources, right? Buck Sexton has the story and reaction.

Below is a rough transcript of this segment:

Up to $26 million. That's a lot of money, isn't it? That's pretty much in any context except for government spending. They can spend $26 million for toilet seats on the Pentagon. $26 million is generally speaking a lot of money. That's the kind of number you would think, well, could they really fail to disclose -- could someone just lose $26 million in the couch cushions. I mean, maybe some Saudi royals. But for normal folks. Could 26 million just sort of get lost in the shuffle? No. But for the Clintons apparently -- or the Clinton Foundation, about 26 million bucks, that sort of gets -- no one knows where it is. That's the latest on the information that we're getting about the Clinton Foundation. What they're telling us here that they may have failed to disclose, I don't know, you know, call it a couple of handfuls of cash. I'll go about with 20 to 25 million, maybe 26. Just whoopsie. Never said anything about it. Of course, this is not an isolated incident. They've had to readjust their tax returns. How many charities do you know of, by the way, that say, well, we'll just have to redo our tax returns for a while. How many charities do you know of where that's actually happened recently?

How many charities do you know where there's so many people who seem really intent really serious about making sure that nobody knows that they're giving to the charity? I know there are anonymous donations to some charities. But usually when corporations and major international entities of some kind or another give money to feed the children, promote women's education, stop the spread of malaria, whatever, usually they're really excited about people knowing about this or at least know the PR value of such that they want individuals to know about this. They want people to know that they had given this money. With the Clinton Foundation though, it always like, well, we don't want people to really know about this. We don't people to actually have to go down a list and see all the names.

There's a bunch of things in the latest revelation that I find interesting and a bunch of things that are worthy of a few minutes of our time. There's not much that's new in dealing with Clintons. In the sense, if there's such a thing as corruption, then the Clintons are corrupt. But, somehow, we won't hear very much from the Clintonistas about that. Right? They'll just try to talk about everything else, which is understandable to some degree.

But there's one thing I came across here in this piece in the Washington Post. Who is paying Chelsea Clinton for speeches, by the way? This doesn't not necessarily get thrown in and lumped in with the rest of this. But what are you paying Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of the Clintons, who, I don't know, could be a lovely human being, don't know, but I don't think she really should be giving speeches to major corporations or individuals or organizations, about what exactly? I mean, if it's about how to be successful and get ahead. Well, I suppose the best advice she could give, be really, really lucky and be born really rich and powerful. But they're paying her. Which also feels like another means of buying Clinton influence. Right?

That's what that's about. $600,000 for what was apparently ten minutes of work at MSNBC. That also has to be on the same side as a lot of these other Clinton arrangements. These sort of special Clinton details. Right?

That's something else that should be added in there. But if we'll be fair about this, there's nothing that can really compare to Mr. Bill because he really loves to give speeches. He just wants to hold the world close into his chest. Close into his bosom. I mean, he said bosom, didn't he? Get a little close in there, a little snuggle. It will cost you like half a million dollars. But a Clinton snuggle is the best kind of snuggle. It's getting creepy, I know. But the point is that people pay this guy way too much money for a speech. It's not just for the speech. It's for the access and the influence that comes with writing the check. We all know that, and more of this has come out.

The Clinton Foundation is starting to look like the charity equivalent of Slimer from Ghostbusters. Just trying to get as much money and bring in as much cash as it possibly can. With Slimer, it's hotdogs. With the Clinton Foundation, it's just donations. That's what's going on here. They cannot get enough. $26 million, they've said, over the last year or two?

There's never enough for them. There's one entity that donated -- or, paid a speaking fee of $250,000 to $500,000. I also love the ranges. Because they don't know how much they got paid. Anyway, was the energy minister of Thailand. Okay. If your wife is Secretary of State, you can have a foreign government entity pay you up to half a million dollars to show up and be like, hey, I like energy. Not as much as I like ladies, but I like energy.

I mean, half a million dollars for this. You must be joking. You can't be taking this seriously. But people seem to be taking this seriously for whatever reason. Or believe it. They want to believe it. The Clintons have become Santa Claus for Democrats. It's just too painful to think that this is not what they've been told it is. Half a million dollars -- up to half a million dollars from energy ministry in the Thailand.

South Korean energy and chemicals conglomerate Hanwha paid 500,000 to a million dollars for a speech by Clinton. Wow. Well done, South Korean energy conglomerate. I wonder if Hillary will be more favorably disposed towards something that may benefit you in the trade or foreign relations sector in the future. I'm guessing they're putting a yes up there on that one.

A China real estate development corporation paid the foundation from 250 to $500,000 for a speech by Bill Clinton.

Qatar First Investment Bank paid for a speech of around the same cost at around the same time.

The Telmex Foundation, founded by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim provided between 250 and $500,000 for a speech by Hillary Clinton. Hmm.

Massive telecommunications conglomerate in Mexico owned by Carlos Slim and also, I believe, was a major owner of the New York Times, they're going to give money to Hillary. This is a really smart business proposition for people all around the world. Right?

If you're a major conglomerate, international corporation, 250K to buy off the Secretary of State. And it might even just be insurance. There might not be a specific quid pro quo. But, by the way, that's not the standard for corruption. Go talk to Senator Menendez. Go talk to indicted, convicted, and facing prison time Virginia governor Bob McDonnell about quid pro quo corruption, meaning you have to get something in exchange for something in order for it to be real, criminal corruption. That's not the standard.

The standard is looking unseemly. As I said, the Clintons are the global Slimer of looking unseemly when it comes to corruption. More money. More money. Shovel it in all the time. They raise $102 billion. They give out an average of 10 percent to actual charities. They're middlemen. They say, I want to help the starving children of the world. So you say, okay, here's a bunch of food. So they eat most of it and throw an apple core at the people that need it and we're supposed to applaud them and say, oh, well done, Clintons, you're fabulous. This is preposterous. It's a giant slush fund. It's a branding exercise. It's a means for them to fund their lifestyle.

Do you think the Clintons have paid for very much in the way of travel since starting this foundation. They get to fly all over the world in private jets. Do you think they pay for their meals? Or do you think the foundation picks that up? Do you think they can hire whoever they want, whatever cronies they want and pay them with money that they've been able to gather with tax protection, of course. Right?

This is money that people get a tax exemption for. So they can just pay off their buddies. Their giant jobs program. They're almost like a government in exile. They get to fly all over the world and talk about how wonderful they are and raise all this money.

Oh, she made $25 million since January of 2014. Bill Clinton has been paid more than 104 million from 2001 to 2012. Despite all this, Hillary is just a cuddly grandma who wants to sit with you at the dinner table and be your friend. She cares about how hard it is for you to pay your bills. She is a private jet progressive my friend, she doesn't care about you and your bills. She doesn't even know how bills get paid really. I'm sure she could figure it out with a check. But this whole online bill pay thing, that's probably skipped past her because she hasn't had to pay her own bills in a few decades. She certainly hasn't had to pump her own gas. But now she's a populist. Now she's a fighter for the middle class. The richest 1 percent are getting way too much of the benefit. They're terrible. Except for me, I'm awesome. This is the promise she makes you. This is what she tells you.

You know, Bob McDonnell should have just said, 2007 -- remember this is the disgraced, indicted -- they wanted almost a decade in prison for this guy. It was like $150,000 in gifts. I mean, the Clintons, for them, that's like a fancy meal with all their cronies and the people who are buying them off. 150K -- nothing. That's the bar bill for Bill after a few fun nights out there in Davos. It's expensive, man. Those cocktails. The ladies in Davos. They know how to party.

So what Bob McDonnell should have done was that his wife was a world class artist or something. Then all the people who happened to get influence -- wanted to buy influence with Governor McDonnell. If you wanted to be corrupt Clinton style and get away with it. Usually this would be overpayment fraud and you would be investigated. But, I mean, the Clintons would get away with this. Because they've been overpaid for speeches very obviously. Bill Clinton got paid more for speeches the further away from the presidency he got because his wife was Secretary of State. It's very obvious. There's an increase in his speaking fees. That doesn't happen. He's not more relevant the further away from the presidency he gets. And, by the way, this whole notion of cashing in, how much have you seen W. walking around passing the hat? No. You don't have to cash in. The presidency should be the height of your service, of your career, of your life. There shouldn't be some afterwards. Let's make this a giant ATM machine. Let's let it ride. Let's have fun. No, that's not how this is supposed to go. Public service is not supposed to be a springboard to vast riches. But Governor McDonnell, he should have said his wife was a world class artist. Anybody who wanted to get some influence with the governor could have just paid, you know, 100, 200, let's call it a half a mil for whatever parent she throws together in the backyard. What? She's an amazing artist. It's the free market, man. People are allowed to buy her paintings. How is that different of Bill -- do you think the speech is worth a million dollars? Of course, you don't. It's ridiculous.

But this is the problem. The Clintons are so corrupt, that they overwhelm us with how slimy and gross they are. As I said, just like when we're dealing with Slime, we're all standing in the hallway saying, leave us alone. You're so gross.

Breaking point: Will America stand up to the mob?

Jeff J Mitchell / Staff | Getty Images

The mob rises where men of courage fall silent. The lesson from Portland, Chicago, and other blue cities is simple: Appeasing radicals doesn’t buy peace — it only rents humiliation.

Parts of America, like Portland and Chicago, now resemble occupied territory. Progressive city governments have surrendered control to street militias, leaving citizens, journalists, and even federal officers to face violent anarchists without protection.

Take Portland, where Antifa has terrorized the city for more than 100 consecutive nights. Federal officers trying to keep order face nightly assaults while local officials do nothing. Independent journalists, such as Nick Sortor, have even been arrested for documenting the chaos. Sortor and Blaze News reporter Julio Rosas later testified at the White House about Antifa’s violence — testimony that corporate media outlets buried.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened.

Chicago offers the same grim picture. Federal agents have been stalked, ambushed, and denied backup from local police while under siege from mobs. Calls for help went unanswered, putting lives in danger. This is more than disorder; it is open defiance of federal authority and a violation of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

A history of violence

For years, the legacy media and left-wing think tanks have portrayed Antifa as “decentralized” and “leaderless.” The opposite is true. Antifa is organized, disciplined, and well-funded. Groups like Rose City Antifa in Oregon, the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club in Texas, and Jane’s Revenge operate as coordinated street militias. Legal fronts such as the National Lawyers Guild provide protection, while crowdfunding networks and international supporters funnel money directly to the movement.

The claim that Antifa lacks structure is a convenient myth — one that’s cost Americans dearly.

History reminds us what happens when mobs go unchecked. The French Revolution, Weimar Germany, Mao’s Red Guards — every one began with chaos on the streets. But it wasn’t random. Today’s radicals follow the same playbook: Exploit disorder, intimidate opponents, and seize moral power while the state looks away.

Dismember the dragon

The Trump administration’s decision to designate Antifa a domestic terrorist organization was long overdue. The label finally acknowledged what citizens already knew: Antifa functions as a militant enterprise, recruiting and radicalizing youth for coordinated violence nationwide.

But naming the threat isn’t enough. The movement’s financiers, organizers, and enablers must also face justice. Every dollar that funds Antifa’s destruction should be traced, seized, and exposed.

AFP Contributor / Contributor | Getty Images

This fight transcends party lines. It’s not about left versus right; it’s about civilization versus anarchy. When politicians and judges excuse or ignore mob violence, they imperil the republic itself. Americans must reject silence and cowardice while street militias operate with impunity.

Antifa is organized, funded, and emboldened. The violence in Portland and Chicago is deliberate, not spontaneous. If America fails to confront it decisively, the price won’t just be broken cities — it will be the erosion of the republic itself.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Colorado counselor fights back after faith declared “illegal”

Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images

The state is effectively silencing professionals who dare speak truths about gender and sexuality, redefining faith-guided speech as illegal.

This week, free speech is once again on the line before the U.S. Supreme Court. At stake is whether Americans still have the right to talk about faith, morality, and truth in their private practice without the government’s permission.

The case comes out of Colorado, where lawmakers in 2019 passed a ban on what they call “conversion therapy.” The law prohibits licensed counselors from trying to change a minor’s gender identity or sexual orientation, including their behaviors or gender expression. The law specifically targets Christian counselors who serve clients attempting to overcome gender dysphoria and not fall prey to the transgender ideology.

The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The law does include one convenient exception. Counselors are free to “assist” a person who wants to transition genders but not someone who wants to affirm their biological sex. In other words, you can help a child move in one direction — one that is in line with the state’s progressive ideology — but not the other.

Think about that for a moment. The state is saying that a counselor can’t even discuss changing behavior with a client. Isn’t that the whole point of counseling?

One‑sided freedom

Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado Springs, has been one of the victims of this blatant attack on the First Amendment. Chiles has dedicated her practice to helping clients dealing with addiction, trauma, sexuality struggles, and gender dysphoria. She’s also a Christian who serves patients seeking guidance rooted in biblical teaching.

Before 2019, she could counsel minors according to her faith. She could talk about biblical morality, identity, and the path to wholeness. When the state outlawed that speech, she stopped. She followed the law — and then she sued.

Her case, Chiles v. Salazar, is now before the Supreme Court. Justices heard oral arguments on Tuesday. The question: Is counseling a form of speech or merely a government‑regulated service?

If the court rules the wrong way, it won’t just silence therapists. It could muzzle pastors, teachers, parents — anyone who believes in truth grounded in something higher than the state.

Censored belief

I believe marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God. I believe that family — mother, father, child — is central to His design for humanity.

I believe that men and women are created in God’s image, with divine purpose and eternal worth. Gender isn’t an accessory; it’s part of who we are.

I believe the command to “be fruitful and multiply” still stands, that the power to create life is sacred, and that it belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.

And I believe that when we abandon these principles — when we treat sex as recreation, when we dissolve families, when we forget our vows — society fractures.

Are those statements controversial now? Maybe. But if this case goes against Chiles, those statements and others could soon be illegal to say aloud in public.

Faith on trial

In Colorado today, a counselor cannot sit down with a 15‑year‑old who’s struggling with gender identity and say, “You were made in God’s image, and He does not make mistakes.” That is now considered hate speech.

That’s the “freedom” the modern left is offering — freedom to affirm, but never to question. Freedom to comply, but never to dissent. The same movement that claims to champion tolerance now demands silence from anyone who disagrees. The root of this case isn’t about therapy. It’s about erasing a worldview.

The real test

No matter what happens at the Supreme Court, we cannot stop speaking the truth. These beliefs aren’t political slogans. For me, they are the product of years of wrestling, searching, and learning through pain and grace what actually leads to peace. For us, they are the fundamental principles that lead to a flourishing life. We cannot balk at standing for truth.

Maybe that’s why God allows these moments — moments when believers are pushed to the wall. They force us to ask hard questions: What is true? What is worth standing for? What is worth dying for — and living for?

If we answer those questions honestly, we’ll find not just truth, but freedom.

The state doesn’t grant real freedom — and it certainly isn’t defined by Colorado legislators. Real freedom comes from God. And the day we forget that, the First Amendment will mean nothing at all.

This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

Glenn Beck joins Megyn Kelly LIVE — One night ONLY in Fort Worth!

Get ready for sparks to fly. For the first time in years, Glenn will come face-to-face with Megyn Kelly — and this time, he’s the one in the hot seat. On October 25, 2025, at Dickies Arena in Fort Worth, Texas, Glenn joins Megyn on her “Megyn Kelly Live Tour” for a no-holds-barred conversation that promises laughs, surprises, and maybe even a few uncomfortable questions.

What will happen when two of America’s sharpest voices collide under the spotlight? Will Glenn finally reveal the major announcement he’s been teasing on the radio for weeks? You’ll have to be there to find out.

This promises to be more than just an interview — it’s a live showdown packed with wit, honesty, and the kind of energy you can only feel if you are in the room. Tickets are selling fast, so don’t miss your chance to see Glenn like you’ve never seen him before.

Get your tickets NOW at www.MegynKelly.com before they’re gone!

What our response to Israel reveals about us

JOSEPH PREZIOSO / Contributor | Getty Images

I have been honored to receive the Defender of Israel Award from Prime Minister Netanyahu.

The Jerusalem Post recently named me one of the strongest Christian voices in support of Israel.

And yet, my support is not blind loyalty. It’s not a rubber stamp for any government or policy. I support Israel because I believe it is my duty — first as a Christian, but even if I weren’t a believer, I would still support her as a man of reason, morality, and common sense.

Because faith isn’t required to understand this: Israel’s existence is not just about one nation’s survival — it is about the survival of Western civilization itself.

It is a lone beacon of shared values in the Middle East. It is a bulwark standing against radical Islam — the same evil that seeks to dismantle our own nation from within.

And my support is not rooted in politics. It is rooted in something simpler and older than politics: a people’s moral and historical right to their homeland, and their right to live in peace.

Israel has that right — and the right to defend herself against those who openly, repeatedly vow her destruction.

Let’s make it personal: if someone told me again and again that they wanted to kill me and my entire family — and then acted on that threat — would I not defend myself? Wouldn’t you? If Hamas were Canada, and we were Israel, and they did to us what Hamas has done to them, there wouldn’t be a single building left standing north of our border. That’s not a question of morality.

That’s just the truth. All people — every people — have a God-given right to protect themselves. And Israel is doing exactly that.

My support for Israel’s right to finish the fight against Hamas comes after eighty years of rejected peace offers and failed two-state solutions. Hamas has never hidden its mission — the eradication of Israel. That’s not a political disagreement.

That’s not a land dispute. That is an annihilationist ideology. And while I do not believe this is America’s war to fight, I do believe — with every fiber of my being — that it is Israel’s right, and moral duty, to defend her people.

Criticism of military tactics is fair. That’s not antisemitism. But denying Israel’s right to exist, or excusing — even celebrating — the barbarity of Hamas? That’s something far darker.

We saw it on October 7th — the face of evil itself. Women and children slaughtered. Babies burned alive. Innocent people raped and dragged through the streets. And now, to see our own fellow citizens march in defense of that evil… that is nothing short of a moral collapse.

If the chants in our streets were, “Hamas, return the hostages — Israel, stop the bombing,” we could have a conversation.

But that’s not what we hear.

What we hear is open sympathy for genocidal hatred. And that is a chasm — not just from decency, but from humanity itself. And here lies the danger: that same hatred is taking root here — in Dearborn, in London, in Paris — not as horror, but as heroism. If we are not vigilant, the enemy Israel faces today will be the enemy the free world faces tomorrow.

This isn’t about politics. It’s about truth. It’s about the courage to call evil by its name and to say “Never again” — and mean it.

And you don’t have to open a Bible to understand this. But if you do — if you are a believer — then this issue cuts even deeper. Because the question becomes: what did God promise, and does He keep His word?

He told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” He promised to make Abraham the father of many nations and to give him “the whole land of Canaan.” And though Abraham had other sons, God reaffirmed that promise through Isaac. And then again through Isaac’s son, Jacob — Israel — saying: “The land I gave to Abraham and Isaac I give to you and to your descendants after you.”

That’s an everlasting promise.

And from those descendants came a child — born in Bethlehem — who claimed to be the Savior of the world. Jesus never rejected His title as “son of David,” the great King of Israel.

He said plainly that He came “for the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” And when He returns, Scripture says He will return as “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” And where do you think He will go? Back to His homeland — Israel.

Tamir Kalifa / Stringer | Getty Images

And what will He find when He gets there? His brothers — or his brothers’ enemies? Will the roads where He once walked be preserved? Or will they lie in rubble, as Gaza does today? If what He finds looks like the aftermath of October 7th, then tell me — what will be my defense as a Christian?

Some Christians argue that God’s promises to Israel have been transferred exclusively to the Church. I don’t believe that. But even if you do, then ask yourself this: if we’ve inherited the promises, do we not also inherit the land? Can we claim the birthright and then, like Esau, treat it as worthless when the world tries to steal it?

So, when terrorists come to slaughter Israelis simply for living in the land promised to Abraham, will we stand by? Or will we step forward — into the line of fire — and say,

“Take me instead”?

Because this is not just about Israel’s right to exist.

It’s about whether we still know the difference between good and evil.

It’s about whether we still have the courage to stand where God stands.

And if we cannot — if we will not — then maybe the question isn’t whether Israel will survive. Maybe the question is whether we will.

Glenn's Show Prep