Tag: anonymous donations

Little White Lies, Bald-Faced Lies, and Hillary: “I’m For Huge Campaign-Finance Reform”…Except in the Clinton Foundation

On By kingsjesterIn PoliticsLeave a comment

untitled (19)There is a very logical reason that the Main Stream Media, in cooperation with the Democrat Party, is scheduling the Democrat President Primary Candidate Debates late on Weekend Nights:

Familiarity breeds contempt.

Late last night, hidden in the abyss of Sunday Television Programming at 9:00 p.m. Center, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bernie Sanders, And Martin O’Malley (Who!), , took the stage in South Carolina for another Democrat Presidential Democrat Candidate Debate.

…which, once again, ended early.

Even politicians can blatantly lie for just so long, I suppose.

For example…

SANDERS: “We need someone with the guts to stand up the private insurance companies and all of their money, and the pharmaceutical industry. That’s what this debate should be about.” 

CLINTON: “Well, as someone who, as someone who has a little bit of experience standing up to the health-insurance industry, that spent — you know, many, many millions of dollars attacking me and probably will so again because of what I believe we can do, building on the Affordable Care Act — I think it’s important to point out that there are a lot of reasons we have the health-care system we have today. I know how much money influences the political decision-making. That’s why I’m for huge campaign-finance reform. However, we started a system that had private health insurance. And even during the Affordable Care Act debate, there was an opportunity to vote for what was called the public option. In other words, people could buy-in to Medicare, and when the Democrats were in charge of the Congress, we couldn’t get the votes for that. So, what I’m saying is really simple, this has been the fight of the Democratic Party for decades. We have the Affordable Care Act. Let’s make it work. Let’s take the models that states are doing. We now have driven costs down to the lowest they’ve been in 50 years. Now we’ve got to get individual costs down. That’s what I’m planning to do.”

Liar, liar…pantsuit on fire!

On April 18, 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that

The board of the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation has decided to continue accepting donations from foreign governments, primarily from six countries, even though Hillary Clinton is running for president, a summary of the new policy to be released Thursday shows.

The rules would permit donations from Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and the U.K.—countries that support or have supported Clinton Foundation programs on health, poverty and climate change, according to the summary.

That means other nations would be prohibited from making large donations to the foundation. But those governments would be allowed to participate in the Clinton Global Initiative, a subsidiary of the foundation where companies, nonprofit groups and government officials work on solutions to global problems.

Ministers from any government would be allowed to attend meetings and appear on panels at the group’s meetings and their governments would be allowed to pay attendance fees of $20,000.

The new policy, which was designed to address growing concern that the donations would present a conflict of interest for a Hillary Clinton presidency, all but ensures that Mrs. Clinton’s links to the charity will be a feature of the emerging presidential campaign.

Just how dishonest is Hillary Rodham Clinton? She wouldn’t lie about her own family would she?

…I mean, besides Bubba.

Is Michael Moore barred from all buffets in the Continental United States?

On April 23, 2015, I wrote a blog titled, “Foundationgate: There’s Little White Liars, Bold-Faced Lars, Statistical Liars, and Then, There’s the Clintons”.

Here is some pertinent information contained in that blog…

NYMag.com reports that

The qualities of an effective presidency do not seem to transfer onto a post-presidency. Jimmy Carter was an ineffective president who became an exemplary post-president. Bill Clinton appears to be the reverse. All sorts of unproven worst-case-scenario questions float around the web of connections between Bill’s private work, Hillary Clinton’s public role as secretary of State, the Clintons’ quasi-public charity, and Hillary’s noncompliant email system. But the best-case scenario is bad enough: The Clintons have been disorganized and greedy.

The news today about the Clintons all fleshes out, in one way or another, their lack of interest in policing serious conflict-of-interest problems that arise in their overlapping roles:

The New York Times has a report about the State Department’s decision to approve the sale of Uranium mines to a Russian company that donated $2.35 million to the Clinton Global Initiative, and that a Russian investment bank promoting the deal paid Bill $500,000 for a speech in Moscow.The Washington Post reports that Bill Clinton has received $26 million in speaking fees from entities that also donated to the Clinton Global Initiative.The Washington Examiner reports, “Twenty-two of the 37 corporations nominated for a prestigious State Department award — and six of the eight ultimate winners — while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State were also donors to the Clinton family foundation.”And Reuters reports, “Hillary Clinton’s family’s charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.”

The Clinton campaign is batting down the darkest and most conspiratorial interpretation of these stories, and where this all leads remains to be seen. But the most positive interpretation is not exactly good.

When you are a power couple consisting of a former president and a current secretary of State and likely presidential candidate, you have the ability to raise a lot of money for charitable purposes that can do a lot of good. But some of the potential sources of donations will be looking to get something in return for their money other than moral satisfaction or the chance to hobnob with celebrities. Some of them want preferential treatment from the State Department, and others want access to a potential future Clinton administration. To run a private operation where Bill Clinton will deliver a speech for a (huge) fee and a charity that raises money from some of the same clients is a difficult situation to navigate. To overlay that fraught situation onto Hillary’s ongoing and likely future government service makes it all much harder.

And yet the Clintons paid little to no attention to this problem. Nicholas Confessore described their operation as “a sprawling concern, supervised by a rotating board of old Clinton hands, vulnerable to distraction and threatened by conflicts of interest. It ran multimillion-dollar deficits for several years, despite vast amounts of money flowing in.” Indeed, as Ryan Lizzareported in 2012, Bill Clinton seemed to see the nexus between his role and his wife’s as a positive rather than a negative:

Regardless of Bill Clinton’s personal feelings about Obama, it didn’t take him long to see the advantages of an Obama Presidency. More than anyone, he pushed Hillary to take the job of Secretary of State. “President Clinton was a big supporter of the idea,” an intimate of the Clintons told me. “He advocated very strongly for it and arguably was the tie-breaking reason she took the job.” For one thing, having his spouse in that position didn’t hurt his work at the Clinton Global Initiative. He invites foreign leaders to the initiative’s annual meeting, and her prominence in the Administration can be an asset in attracting foreign donors. “Bill Clinton’s been able to continue to be the Bill Clinton we know, in large part because of his relationship with the White House and because his wife is the Secretary of State,” the Clinton associate continued. “It worked out very well for him. That may be a very cynical way to look at it, but that’s a fact. A lot of the stuff he’s doing internationally is aided by his level of access.”

The Obama administration wanted Hillary Clinton to use official government email. She didn’t. The Obama administration alsodemanded that the Clinton Foundation disclose all its donors while she served as Secretary of State. It didn’t comply with that request, either.

The Clintons’ charitable initiatives were a kind of quasi-government run by themselves, which was staffed by their own loyalists and made up the rules as it went along. Their experience running the actual government, with its formal accountability and disclosure, went reasonably well. Their experience running their own privatized mini-state has been a fiasco.

On Jan. 8, 1996, in a still-relevant commentary titled “Blizzard of Lies,” New York Times columnist William Safire described Hillary Clinton as “a congenital liar.”

Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady — a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation — is a congenital liar. Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.

1. Remember the story she told about studying The Wall Street Journal to explain her 10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading? We now know that was a lie told to turn aside accusations that as the Governor’s wife she profited corruptly, her account being run by a lawyer for state poultry interests through a disreputable broker.

She lied for good reason: To admit otherwise would be to confess taking, and paying taxes on, what some think amounted to a $100,000 bribe.

2. The abuse of Presidential power known as Travelgate elicited another series of lies. She induced a White House lawyer to assert flatly to investigators that Mrs. Clinton did not order the firing of White House travel aides, who were then harassed by the F.B.I. and Justice Department to justify patronage replacement by Mrs. Clinton’s cronies.

Now we know, from a memo long concealed from investigators, that there would be “hell to pay” if the furious First Lady’s desires were scorned. The career of the lawyer who transmitted Hillary’s lie to authorities is now in jeopardy. Again, she lied with good reason: to avoid being identified as a vindictive political power player who used the F.B.I. to ruin the lives of people standing in the way of juicy patronage.

3. In the aftermath of the apparent suicide of her former partner and closest confidant, White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster, she ordered the overturn of an agreement to allow the Justice Department to examine the files in the dead man’s office. Her closest friends and aides, under oath, have been blatantly disremembering this likely obstruction of justice, and may have to pay for supporting Hillary’s lie with jail terms.

Again, the lying was not irrational. Investigators believe that damning records from the Rose Law Firm, wrongfully kept in Vincent Foster’s White House office, were spirited out in the dead of night and hidden from the law for two years — in Hillary’s closet, in Web Hubbell’s basement before his felony conviction, in the President’s secretary’s personal files — before some were forced out last week.

Why the White House concealment? For good reason: The records show Hillary Clinton was lying when she denied actively representing a criminal enterprise known as the Madison S.& L., and indicate she may have conspired with Web Hubbell’s father-in-law to make a sham land deal that cost taxpayers $3 million.

Why the belated release of some of the incriminating evidence? Not because it mysteriously turned up in offices previously searched. Certainly not because Hillary Clinton and her new hang-tough White House counsel want to respond fully to lawful subpoenas.

One reason for the Friday-night dribble of evidence from the White House is the discovery by the F.B.I. of copies of some of those records elsewhere. When Clinton witnesses are asked about specific items in “lost” records — which investigators have — the White House “finds” its copy and releases it. By concealing the Madison billing records two days beyond the statute of limitations, Hillary evaded a civil suit by bamboozled bank regulators.

Another reason for recent revelations is the imminent turning of former aides and partners of Hillary against her; they were willing to cover her lying when it advanced their careers, but are inclined to listen to their own lawyers when faced with perjury indictments.

Therefore, ask not “Why didn’t she just come clean at the beginning?” She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.

No wonder the President is fearful of holding a prime-time press conference. Having been separately deposed by the independent counsel at least twice, the President and First Lady would be well advised to retain separate defense counsel.

The late, great William Safire was a prophet.

The revelation contained in today’s blog should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.

Lying comes as naturally to The Former First Lady as breathing in and out.

As I have written, from the time she was fired from the Watergate Investigative Committee to wiping her private e-mail server, Hillary Rodham Clinton has been as crooked as a dog’s hind leg.

Machiavellian in political ambition and armed with a vocabulary that would make the legendary Gong Show Judge, Jaye P. Morgan, blush (look her up, kids), “the Hildebeast” has cut a wide swatch in her path to Political Power.

It should be obvious to Americans by now, that she believes that morality and ethics are for “the little people” (i.e., you and me).

We already have a congenital liar in the White House.

We certainly do not need another one.

Oh…and Ambassador Christopher Stevens remains unavailable for comment.

Until He Comes,

KJ
 

 

 

Majority of Americans Identify Radical Islam as Our Enemy. Why Won’t Obama?

On By kingsjesterIn Politics2 Comments

Say-It-NRD-600We know that ISIL — which emerged out of the chaos of Iraq and Syria — depends on perpetual war to survive. But we also know that they gain adherents because of a poisonous ideology. So part of our job, together, is to work to reject such extremism that infects too many of our young people. Part of that effort must be a continued rejection by Muslims of those who distort Islam to preach intolerance and promote violence, and it must also a rejection by non-Muslims of the ignorance that equates Islam with terror.

This work will take time. There are no easy answers to Syria. And there are no simple answers to the changes that are taking place in much of the Middle East and North Africa. But so many families need help right now; they don’t have time. And that’s why the United States is increasing the number of refugees who we welcome within our borders. That’s why we will continue to be the largest donor of assistance to support those refugees. And today we are launching new efforts to ensure that our people and our businesses, our universities and our NGOs can help as well — because in the faces of suffering families, our nation of immigrants sees ourselves. – President Barack Hussein Obama, Speech to the U.N. General Assembly, 9/27/2015

Thehill.com reports that

The majority of Americans say the country is at war with radical Islamic terrorism, according to a new poll taken in the aftermath of last week’s terrorist attacks in France.

A survey by the conservative-leaning Rasmussen Reports published Friday found that 60 percent of likely voters believe the country is at war, compared with 24 percent who say the U.S. is not at war.

“President Obama, Hillary Clinton and other senior Democrats refuse to say America is at war with ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ for fear of insulting all Muslims, but voters beg to disagree,” the polling agency said.

Majorities from both major parties said the U.S. is engaged in a conflict with radical Islam: 56 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Republicans, as well as 54 percent of independents.


Ninety-two percent of respondents also said they regard radical Islamic terrorism as a “serious” threat to national security, including 73 percent who said the threat is a “very serious” one, which is up from 50 percent inOctober of last year.



American attitudes toward the Islamic faith as a whole also appear to have shifted.

Although a plurality of Americans, 46 percent, still said terrorist groups such as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) do not represent the true Muslim faith, that number is down from 58 percent in February. Thirty-five percent said ISIS does represent the Muslim faith.

ISIS has claimed responsibility for the Paris attack last week in which at least 130 people were killed and hundreds were injured.

 The Rasmussen poll surveyed 1,000 likely voters Nov. 17–18. The margin of error for the poll is 3 percentage points.

So, why doesn’t the President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, identify our enemy?

When Barack Obama, Jr. was 3-years-old, his parents divorced.  Obama only saw his father one time after that.  Dad moved to Kenya and his mother married an Indonesian man, Lolo Soetoro.  From ages six to 10, Barack Obama, Jr., attended a private school for well-off Islamic families in Jakarta.

Obama once said in a New York Times article posted March 3, 2007:

“I was a little Jakarta street kid,” he said in a wide-ranging interview in his office (excerpts are on my blog, http://www.nytimes.com/ontheground). He once got in trouble for making faces during Koran study classes in his elementary school, but a president is less likely to stereotype Muslims as fanatics — and more likely to be aware of their nationalism — if he once studied the Koran with them.

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

On October2. 2008, Rick Moran wrote the following article for americanthinker.org…

Just  how much in donations from foreign countries is pouring into the Obama campaign coffers is a question one FEC auditor would like to have answered. The problem is that evidently, his bosses at the FEC are refusing to move on the charges which would almost certainly require them to ask the Justice Department and the FBI to look into the matter. This would, their reasoning goes, take on the appearance of a “criminal investigation” and would impact the coming election.

The anonymous investigator (who won’t reveal his name for fear of retribution) says that “I can’t get anyone to move. I believe we are looking at a hijacking of our political system that makes the Clinton and Gore fundraising scandals pale in comparison. And no one here wants to touch it.”

The American Spectator’s Washington Prowler writes:

The analyst, who declines to be identified for fear of retribution, says that on four different occasions in the past three months, he sought to open formal investigations into the Obama campaign’s fundraising techniques, but those investigations have been discouraged. “Without formal approval, I can’t get the resources I need, manpower, that kind of thing. This is a huge undertaking.” And the analyst says that he believes that campaign finance violations have occurred.

The Obama campaign has already had to deal with several FEC complaints about fraudulent donors and illegal foreign contributions, and the FEC says it has no record that those complaints have been resolved or closed. As well, the Obama campaign has been cagey at times about the means by which it has made its historic fundraising hauls, which now total almost $500 million for the election cycle. The Hillary Clinton campaign raised questions about the huge amount of e-retail sales the Obama campaign was making for such things as t-shirts and other campaign paraphernalia, and how such sales were being tracked and used for fundraising purposes. While the profits of those items counted against the $2,300 personal donation limit, there have always been lingering questions about the e-retail system.

“The question has always been, if you buy a $25 t-shirt and you go back to that purchaser eight or nine times with email appeals for $200 or $500 donations, and you have people donating like that all the time, at what point does the campaign bother to check if the FEC limit has been exceeded?” says a former Clinton campaign fundraiser. “There are enough of us from the 1992 and 1996 and 2000 races around to know that many of these kinds of violations never get caught until after the election has been won or lost.

Obama was forced to return $33,500 to a pair of Palestinian brothers who bought T-Shirts on the campaign’s website – a clear violation of FEC rules and the law. The campaign claims to have returned the money but the brothers deny they have received a refund. There have also been numerous questions about other donations that appear to come from the Middle East – not surprising given Obama’s connections to Tony Rezko (whose Middle East connections are mindblowing), Nadhmi Auchi, and other wealthy Arabs who might see an Obama presidency in a favorable light.

Then there was the curious case of a supposedly home grown video that was produced by a PR firm in Los Angeles owned by a huge, left wing, French media conglomerate. The money for the film and for the PR firm evidently came from Europeans.

There is little doubt that foreigners are licking their chops at the prospect of an inexperienced, naive, weak American president who will subsume American interests and cater to the whims of the UN while deferring the big questions to the Europeans. This isn’t even taking into account Obama’s strange policy toward Israel (where he says one thing but all his advisors say exactly the opposite) and the belief among Muslims that because he grew up in Indonesia, he will not be as forceful in prosecuting the war on terror.

There are dozens of reasons foreigners are pulling for Obama to win. There is little doubt that money from overseas is pouring into the Obama campaign.

And it is a dead certainty that the FEC won’t do a damn thing about it until after the election.

They never did.

In September of 2010, pewforum.org, published the following…

A substantial and growing number of Americans say that Barack Obama is a Muslim, while the proportion saying he is a Christian has declined. More than a year and a half into his presidency, a plurality of the public says they do not know what religion Obama follows.

A new national survey by the Pew Research Center finds that nearly one-in-five Americans (18%) now say Obama is a Muslim, up from 11% in March 2009. Only about one-third of adults (34%) say Obama is a Christian, down sharply from 48% in 2009. Fully 43% say they do not know what Obama’s religion is. The survey was completed in early August, before Obama’s recent comments about the proposed construction of a mosque near the site of the former World Trade Center.

The view that Obama is a Muslim is more widespread among his political opponents than among his backers. Roughly a third of conservative Republicans (34%) say Obama is a Muslim, as do 30% of those who disapprove of Obama’s job performance. But even among many of his supporters and allies, less than half now say Obama is a Christian. Among Democrats, for instance, 46% say Obama is a Christian, down from 55% in March 2009.

The belief that Obama is a Muslim has increased most sharply among Republicans (up 14 points since 2009), especially conservative Republicans (up 16 points). But the number of independents who say Obama is a Muslim has also increased significantly (up eight points). There has been little change in the number of Democrats who say Obama is a Muslim, but fewer Democrats today say he is a Christian (down nine points since 2009).

When asked how they learned about Obama’s religion in an open-ended question, 60% of those who say Obama is a Muslim cite the media. Among specific media sources, television (at 16%) is mentioned most frequently. About one-in-ten (11%) of those who say Obama is a Muslim say they learned of this through Obama’s own words and behavior.

So, why do Liberals, who, unlike, Obama, having not been educated in Islam, still refuse to admit that America is at WAR with Radical Islam?

On April 20, 2013, in the aftermath of the bombing of the Boston Marathon by two Radical Islamic Brothers, who were “Refugees” from  Chechnya, I wrote

So, why have Liberals, in the MSM, and elsewhere, been so afraid to call Muslim Terrorists, Muslim Terrorists?

Is it because of that heinous practice, known as Political Correctness?

We’ve all been a victim of it. And, it’s not just the Liberals who practice it.

A short time back, a young Libertarian lady, who just happens to be Black, had posted an article in a Facebook Page for Conservatives and Libertarians, featuring Patti Davis, the Liberal (and crazy) daughter of Former President Ronald Reagan. Davis had come out as the moral arbiter of some issue, and I pointed out that she was not fit to be the “moral arbiter” in any situation, as, to torque off her Dad, and make a political statement, she had posed topless for the cover of Playboy in 1994 with a Black guy, standing behind her, cupping her…umm…chest.

Both the young lady and her husband, who happens to be White, jumped on me, like I was some sort of RAAACIIIST, because I stated the obvious.

archiesammyTimes were different, back in ’94. Just as they were different back in the 70s, when Bud Yorkin and Norman Lear created All in the Family, starring the great American actor, Carroll O’Connor. The misadventures of Archie Bunker and his family could not be a hit today. Our tolerant American Liberals (and others) would not allow it. And, the lessons learned from that ground-breaking television series would be lost.

Perhaps, the reticence by the Media to identify the religious/political ideology of the two brothers is something else: loyalty to President Barack Hussein Obama.

They have a lot invested in The Lightbringer. They have campaigned endlessly for him, and the majority of “Broadcast Journalists” share his vision for a Socialist Utopia America. Additionally, the White House has been known to send e-mails and make telephone calls to these bastions of journalistic integrity, when they want something swept under the Oval Office rug.

The fact that these murdering terrorists are Muslims, does not reflect well on our dhimmi President. In fact, it proves that Smart Power! is anything, but.

Additionally, the fact that these two got into our sovereign land in the first place, shows the folly of relaxing our already-porous Immigration Laws (Sorry, Sen. Rubio.).

With the resounding defeat of Obama’s Gun Confiscation Bill, and now, in the aftermath of the New Boston Massacre, the Obama Administration and their Main Stream Media lackeys are bailing, just as fast as they can, in order to save Obama’s sinking Ship of State.

Oh, but, just wait.You ain’t seen nothin’, yet.

Dear Lord, I hate it when I’m right.

Until He Comes,

KJ