University of Missouri Chooses Chelsea Clinton To Open New Women Hall of Fame With A Ten-Minute Speech Costing $65,000

I have long admitted that, as an academic dweeb, I have long been confused by events after the eighteenth century. However, this story has me entirely perplexed. The University of Missouri at Kansas City has opened a women’s Hall of Fame and was looking for a female leader to open the event. Their choice among the millions of women in this country from generals to jurists to CEOs to governors to journalists to writers? Chelsea Clinton. Not only that, but the university paid $65,000 for Chelsea Clinton to speak only ten minutes under highly abridged appearance restrictions set by her handlers (in addition to other restrictions from a brief period for photos and water specifications).

The money goes to the Clinton Foundation, though critics have charged that the Foundation has served as a surrogate campaign platform for the Clintons (with the hiring of controversial politicos like Sidney Blumenthal) and have funded luxury travel for the Clintons.

The university actually started with Chelsea as the primary goal, but initially was told that she would not do the speech. They then tried for Hillary Clinton but was told that she would cost $275,000. They then considered “other” women besides Chelsea. That list was impressive, including obvious choices like feminist icon Gloria Steinem ($30,000) and journalists Cokie Roberts ($40,000), Tina Brown ($50,000) and Lesley Stahl ($50,000). You know, women who have made huge contributions not just to their gender but to the country. And they were substantially cheaper. What did Missouri decided? Pay more to get Chelsea for a ten-minute speech to tell people about what it is to be a female leader.

200px-University_of_Missouri_seal_bw.svgFor a university to engage in such low-grade celebrity shopping is a disgrace not just to this new hall and the University of Missouri but the academic as a whole. There are literally thousands of women who inspire both men and women with their lives and accomplishments. The University of Missouri reduced the history of female struggle to a cheap photo op with the daughter of a famous couple. They might as well have gone with a Kardashian and left it at that.

Mary Kay McPhee, UMKC Starr Education Committee chair, was thrilled by the choice and the opening ceremony even as many scratched their heads at the choice of Chelsea Clinton.

Of course UMKC is not alone. NBC was subject to withering criticism from journalists around the country for hiring Chelsea Clinton with a lucrative contract to do feel-good stories. The hire was criticized as something pushed by Clinton supporters inside the network; alienating real journalists, and producing dreadful television pieces.

Universities are supposed to be places of substance and intellectual honesty. While UMKC is not the first to take celebrity appeal over substance, this is not some Friday night concert or sports celebration. This is supposed to be a new university component honoring women who struggled and made real contributions to this world. UMKC reduced that moment to a ten-minute celebrity photo op.

Source: Washington Post

242 thoughts on “University of Missouri Chooses Chelsea Clinton To Open New Women Hall of Fame With A Ten-Minute Speech Costing $65,000”

  1. Like mother, like daughter. Yikes, another Clinton, perish the thought!!

    Nick S–no lies like the WH. They learned how well to lie from the Clinton’s.

  2. Okay then, you got me. I don’t know what I would have done without all of your brilliance. Thanks

    1. Electoral College

      This is just a sophisticated method of vote rigging and does not always refectory the popular vote.

      It is and example of “Democracy Americana”.

      Do ‘the be fooled by this.

      Chelsea Clinton can explain it to you.

      Until you can get these elementary issues untangled from well-meaning but totally confused thinking, you are in no position whatsoever to lecture the world on freedom or democracy.

      Because you haven’t got either….. yet…..

      But – Hope springs Eternal.

      1. ninianpeckitt – you come from a country that had ‘rotten boroughs’ and you are going to lecture me (someone who has taught Civics) how the Electoral College works?

    2. Martin Luther King Jn hit the nail on the head

      “Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men”

      An General Macarthur said
      ” It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear”.

      And I am saying:

      “Don’t let the inelected turn the USA in to the ISIS of the “Free World”

  3. “This aspect of the Declaration of Independence receives scant attention from scholars and citizens, yet it must be understood. The theory of government elaborated in that text presupposes the existence of citizens who know how to govern themselves and are willing to assert their rights. The American character is the unstated premise of the argument, without which the theory, though still true, doesn’t work in practice.”

    For your educational enjoyment ninianpeckitt.

  4. “So I’m not knocking America. I just don’t want you to lose what democracy you do have, to unelected powerful commercial forces which manipulate your system – and many of you can’t see it – or don’t want to see it.”

    You better hope we don’t lose our freedoms because you will need us again once the caliphate is finished gobbling up your empire.

    1. To Olly:

      But you HAVE lost your freedoms.

      The worrying thing is that you currently lack the insight to see it – even though I have prepared the best turkey, stuffed it with infomation, cooked the reasoned argument to perfection, and served you the best drumstick in the hope that you will gobble it down with relish and wash it all down with an ice cold “Bud”.

      What do you do? You eat it with the fork in the wrong hand, belch up fowl gades and then throw up on the tablecloth of reason.

      But there again the Truth is always hard to swallow…..

      Enjoy the celebrations tomorrow 😄 and thank the Lord you were never ruled by Tony Blair.

    2. To Olly:

      “It is fairly easy to declare rights and proclaim liberties. Countless armchair intellectuals have done so from the comfort of their offices. These rights, however, are not self-executing. God may have granted them to us, but we are expected to defend them”.

      The author must have read my blog. I have been making this argument continually amid your interupptions.

      This is decidedly a British way of thinking although it took a long time to develop. Amercia entered the race to democracy a bit later than other competitors and as a fresher contestant has a great chance of catching up if not overtaking the competition.

      So read it again and again and proclaim it from the rooftops because powerful forces will take this away from you given half the chance.

      It may be happening already

  5. “Despite British recognition in 1783 of the independence of the United States,”

    How British of you to recognize your own defeat. And how incompetent of your Parliament to be so slow in repealing an Act that had no recognized authority for over 177 years. Of course the British arrogance to believe they can pass an Act declaring colonial dependence is really quite laughable. It reminds me of Eddie Izzard’s comedy routine where he says, “but do you have a flag?” as if parchment and flags have any power over the human heart.

    This really is quite entertaining.

    1. Olly;

      It may be amusing but they did it and it was repealed in 1964.

      I think there are similarities in principle with US Acts passed that the Confederate States rejected. That had consequences that were not so amusing.

    2. Olly – flags have a great importance in war. Loosing your flag is a permanent badge of dishonor.

  6. “You really are deluded much more than I would have thought possible. I guess your roots are not British?”

    What, if he was deluded only as much as you thought possible then his roots would hail from Great Britain? Got it.

    Anyway, the colonies flourished when England’s heavy-hand was not involved. Between 1607 and 1763, Great Britain maintained a predominantly hands-off approach with the American colonies. This unwritten policy of salutary neglect left many parliament restrictions on the colonies unenforced. Well, other than the loosely enforced Navigation Act which was designed to protect Great Britain’s trade interests in the Americas; the British maintained very little governance over the colonies. Each of the original 13 independent colonies had a governor (appointed by the British Crown) to oversee defense and trade policies. And other than that, the day-to-day administration of government was directed by democratically-elected assemblies.

    The intent was to allow the new colonies room to flourish and thus expand the power of the British Empire. The unintended consequence however was that the Americans grew comfortable with self-rule. They realized they neither needed nor wanted the long arm of the British Empire dictating life in the American colonies.

    Brilliant! You establish a colony, leave it alone and realize oops, they don’t need us after all so we better get them back in line. That sounds just like some creep ex-boyfriend that got dumped and can’t stand his ex is better off without him. And then when you try to get physical with her you get your a$$ kicked by her and all her friends that know just what a creep loser your really are.

    So you would have beat Germany (twice) on your own?

    1. Hand Off Approach


      Despite British recognition in 1783 of the independence of the United States, the Declaratory Act remained in force for the British Empire’s remaining colonies in the western hemisphere. The Act was not repealed until 1964.

      My understanding is the Act was passed in response to the Colonists levying taxes on locals who were strictly speaking “British Subjects” as far as Parliament was concerned and that this was illegal on the eyes of Parliament.

      So an Act for the better securing the dependency of his Majesty’s dominions in America upon the Parliament was passed:

      “WHEREAS several of the houses of representatives in his Majesty’s colonies and plantations in America, have of late, against law, claimed to themselves, or to the general assemblies of the same, the sole and exclusive right of imposing duties and taxes upon his Majesty’s subjects in the said colonies and plantations; and have, in pursuance of such claim, passed certain votes, resolutions, and orders, derogatory to the legislative authority of parliament, and inconsistent with the dependency of the said colonies and plantations upon the crown of Great Britain: … be it declared …,

      That the said colonies and plantations in America have been, are, and of right ought to be. subordinate unto, and dependent upon the imperial crown and parliament of Great Britain; and that the King’s majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons of Great Britain, in parliament assembled, had, hash, and of right ought to have, full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind the colonies and people of America, subjects of the crown of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever.

      The Declaration of Independence Constitution and Bill of Rights are intimately linked in concept and that is why I have grouped together these issues of American Ideology.

      So that’s what happened. Under the law of the time the American Taxation was unlawful as far as Parliament was concerned.

      The whole situation was engineered and as I said before and said again it was really about money and Power.

      The rest is really Spin.

      But amongst all of this there was the seed for freedom. And that was a good thing. But it didn’t happen in 1776 more like 1976.

      That’s what I’m saying that’s how democracy comes about. It doesn’t happen because you introduce it. Democracy doesn’t work like that. It takes time.

      Just look at what happened in the Arab Spring if you refuse to believe me….

      Anyway its the 4th of July tomorrow.


  7. SQUEEKY……thanks for the Terry Thomas/ Milton Berle clip. As a huge fan of Terry Thomas and Sid James, I recommend the movie TOO MANY CROOKS.
    It’s hilarious and available (for free )online.

  8. “The absurdity lies not in my statements but in the truths they describe.”

    That, coming from someone that had no idea he was quoting the self-evident truths in the Declaration of Independence and attributing them to the Constitution is really quite absurd. Your lack of attention to detail is quite remarkable and you didn’t even have the sense of humility to acknowledge such a glaring error. I do appreciate you bringing much needed attention to our historic documents and for that I wish you good luck and have a happy 4th of July!

  9. Blacks fought for the Confederacy?

    Give me a break. Many less than one hundred and that’s being generous. The Confederacy had LAWS preventing blacks from serving as fighting men – servants? – no problem. Finally, desperate, they allowed them to carry arms in March of 1865 – at the end of the war. As we all remember, the war was over in April, 1865.

    Where do these people read history?

  10. “For the umpteenth time, the Preamble is neither a statement of substantive law nor an outline of constitutional limitations.”

    Mike Appleton,
    Doesn’t this connect the DoI to the Constitution? It seems to provide context for all that follows. Your comment seems to imply it has no value whatsoever and I don’t believe the framers would have included it for nothing.

  11. “Karen doesn’t care if anyone else has health insurance, as long as her class of people have cheap health insurance. She whines about it every time health insurance comes up. I’d suggest getting rid of her horse/ horses first. They’re not cheap to keep.”

    Is it OK to make health care unaffordable for the middle class ? Do you support a 1100% increase in deductible for yourself too? Is your solution to outlaw all horse ownership for anyone but the rich? Just put them all down? What about big dogs? They eat a lot. Heck, Canadian and Mexican horse slaughter houses are booming in this bad economy. While we’re at it, all pets are a luxury. I wonder what the mandatory CA drought restrictions will do to pet ownerships and hobby farms in general.

    Love to hear the Left snear how the middle class shouldn’t complain when Liberal policies knock some of them into poverty or make it even harder than ever to climb out of poverty.

    It is unethical to remove affordable health care from one group to give it to another. That is not a moral solution. Otherwise I could take your home and give it to someone homeless to solve the housing crisis.

  12. “The issue is that the rights of a single individual can override the rights of the majority of individuals.”

    That is an absurd statement; at least if one believes in a ‘just’ government. In a nation founded on the principles of inalienable rights there is no justification to “override” another’s rights. This is how a republican form of government, respecting the natural rights of others, protects the minority. We are a republican form of government and we use the democratic process of voting to communicate our will through our elected representatives. That will DOES NOT legitimately trump the right no matter how large the majority. Unfortunately, those we elect no longer respect and honor their oath of office. They pander to the electorate to build a majority and they fulfill their will without considering the right. We have become a democracy that rules by majority and we are barely hanging on to those inalienable rights.

    Listen NP, anyone that actually understands the relationship between our Declaration of Independence and Constitution would never quote the self-evident truths in the former as if it were the latter. You seem to respect Lincoln so here is a very inspirational quote from him:

    “All this is not the result of accident. It has a philosophical cause. Without the Constitution and the Union, we could not have attained the result; but even these, are not the primary cause of our great prosperity. There is something back of these, entwining itself more closely about the human heart. That something, is the principle of “Liberty to all” — the principle that clears the path for all — gives hope to all — and, by consequence, enterprize, and industry to all.

    The expression of that principle, in our Declaration of Independence, was most happy, and fortunate. Without this, as well as with it, we could have declared our independence of Great Britain; but without it, we could not, I think, have secured our free government, and consequent prosperity. No oppressed, people will fight, and endure, as our fathers did, without the promise of something better, than a mere change of masters.

    The assertion of that principle, at that time, was the word, “fitly spoken” which has proved an “apple of gold” to us. The Union, and the Constitution, are the picture of silver, subsequently framed around it. The picture was made, not to conceal, or destroy the apple; but to adorn, and preserve it. The picture was made for the apple — not the apple for the picture.

    So let us act, that neither picture, or apple shall ever be blurred, or bruised or broken.
    That we may so act, we must study, and understand the points of danger.”

    1. To Olly;

      The absurdity lies not in my statements but in the truths they describe.

      The ability to open your eyes and your mind is required to address the clouded thinking created by years of nostalgic patriotism.

      All countries are like this and the United States is no exception.

      There is no evidence to refute this argument and I have listed references to support my argument.

      It isn’t about what I do or do not understand. It’s about why Americans think the way they do and the difficulties it generates in the attempts to create a democracy.

      It maybe takes an alien to point out these dicrepancies; when you are deeply absorbed in a concept it becomes impossible to think laterally in ways that may criticise the conception or inderstanding of the focal issue.

      In short the Americans think that the birth of the country was based on Freedom and the rest of the World knows for sure that that isn’t true. Not only that, it isn’t remotely true.

      Now I don’t expect you to accept my arguments but I do expect more proof that I am wrong than I don’t understand things.

      All I have heard is fumbling arguments and no responses to my allegations about freedom of women, blacks etc.

      I have to affirm that in no way is this freedom by any standards.

      And you know it.

      1. ninianpeckitt – the system we started with actually was a great improvement over the system we had been under.

        1. Paul Schulte:

          “System is better than that we we were under”

          So you would have beaten the French on your own would you?

          The Colonial Commercial Success was because of Britain who set up the English Speaking Colonies. There would have been no English Settlement without Britain.

          You really are deluded much more than I would have thought possible. I guess your roots are not British? That might explain it.

          1. ninianpeckitt – there wouldn’t be a United States if there wasn’t a Great Britain to get away from. And the French incursions in the Ohio Valley were part of the Seven Year’s War which is part of the Second Hundred Year’s War. Great Britain will end up with Canada and Florida at the end of the war. As colonials, we did not prosper from this war.

            1. To Paul Schulte:

              Yoy are right. The Colony wouldn’t have existed if the British hadn’t created it.

              And it’s a jolly good job it happened.

              Hitler had been beaten by the Russians by the end of 1942 and they would have defeated Nazi Germany in the end without any help from the West.

              But American entry into the war in 1941 saved the whole of Europe from becoming a Russian Satellite and for that we are all thankful.

              So I’m not knocking America. I just don’t want you to lose what democracy you do have, to unelected powerful commercial forces which manipulate your system – and many of you can’t see it – or don’t want to see it.

              Maybe you should think about this a little tomorrow during your celebrations?

              I hope you all “Have a Nice Day”

              1. ninianpeckitt – what you have failed to realize is that to stay in politics, politicians still have to get enough votes to win. Now in Arizona, we have more people listed as Independents as either Republicans or Democrats. So, that means that RINOs, like John McCain, have to depend on votes outside their party to win.

  13. @Ninian

    First, can I just call you “ninny” from now on??? It is an American term of endearment, and much easier to type than “ninian” which half the time I have to erase because it comes out “niniam”.

    Second, I done told you about all that blacklisting and HUAC stuff!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  14. @MikeA

    Hmmm. Silly me! I thought the Preamble was where all the penumbras were located. And other things, like “equal dignity” which don’t seem to appear in the body of The Constitution. Darn! Back to looking for them!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  15. For the umpteenth time, the Preamble is neither a statement of substantive law nor an outline of constitutional limitations.

  16. ninianpeckitt et al.,

    1789 – Individual Freedom and Free Enterprise.

    1848 – Communism – Control of the Means of Production – Redistribution of Wealth.


    If the American Founders had meant for central planning, governmental control of industry

    and redistribution of wealth,

    “”there would have been no need for Marx to introduce Communism.””

    When you decide to read the Preamble correctly and accept its force as the essential American Context,

    you’ll understand why the radically DIFFERENT Communist Manifesto was published, 72 years later.

    You can’t do any control of industry, any control of free enterprise or redistribution of wealth in any form in


    You can petition your representative or a judge in a court or conduct an orphanage or charity in the private

    sector as free enterprise. There is Justice, Tranquility, law and order but you can’t take away freedom and

    the first step of freedom is discrimination. Freedom of Thought, Speech, Assembly, Press – you may not like

    it, but you can’t take away any freedom of thought.

    That’s America.

    Freedom. Adapt to and live with the consequences of Freedom.

    1. Forgotwhoiam

      Senator McCarthy would take issue with some of these things especially freedom of thought.

      The American Planners were not the People. They were rich businessmen.

      You can control free enterprise. Fraud is illegal, bribery is illegal, theft is illegal, breaking patents is illegal, breaking copyright law is illegal – and the running(governing) of America by an unelected body or bribing/blackmailing politicians is illegal or of it isn’t it should be.

      The ideals you claim are admirable but many are not happening in reality.

      I am asking you not to believe the rhetoric and ensure that what you advocate becomes a reality.

  17. forgotwhoiam,
    Based on comments provided by several on this blog, the use of the word “can’t” proves itself false time and again. As a result they argue because government can then government should. They use the same misguided argument against inalienable rights. Because they “can” be wrongfully alienated that necessarily makes them alienable and dispensable by government.

    I’m at a loss to explain why anyone would ever argue against their own rights. At least when Otis voluntarily locks himself up in Mayberry’s jail he is free to leave whenever he wants.

    1. To Olly:

      You still haven’t grasped the concept _ so I will try one last time before turning in this evening.

      The issue is that the rights of a single individual can override the rights of the majority of individuals. And the mechanism to achieve this is through the courts rather than the ballot box.

      I am saying that whilst in a Republic that might be “right”, but in a democracy that is “wrong”.

      America uses both systems, it seems to me, and that is the source of your problems because minority opinion can prevail.

      I really can’t explain it in any other way but I will sleep on it in anticipation of your response.

Comments are closed.