Like Us On Facebook

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

'Slavery is over': Hired Ferguson protesters demand pay

 

Protests turned violent after Officer Darren Wilson was not indicted in the shooting death of Michael Brown.

Protests turned violent after Officer Darren Wilson was not indicted in the shooting death of Michael Brown.

“Black Lives Matter” protesters who were apparently hired to cause a ruckus in Ferguson, Missouri, are angry because, they say, they haven’t been paid for their hard work.

So they’ve launched a #CutTheCheck hashtag on Twitter and held a sit-in at the offices of Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment, or MORE – the successor group to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, in Missouri.

The protesters have received as much as $5,000 a month to generate civil unrest in the troubled suburb of St. Louis, according to FrontPage Mag’s Matthew Vadum.

“MORE is the re-branded Missouri branch of ACORN, which filed for bankruptcy in late 2010,” Vadum reported. “MORE and other groups supporting the Black Lives Matter movement have received millions of dollars from billionaire financier George Soros.”

cut_check

cut_check2

The angry agitators held a sit-in outside MORE’s offices on May 14 to demand their money, Weasel Zippers reported. The site posted a video of several black individuals shouting at a white man, who Weasel Zippers identifies as Jeff Ordower, founder of MORE and a longtime leftist activist who previously worked as a union organizer for SEIU in Texas and former Midwest director of ACORN.

Ordower had not responded to a WND request for comment at the time of this report.

cut_check3

MORE_adMORE’s website, OrganizeMO.org, posted a memo on March 30 that announces a “support fund” offering “travel funding for individuals and grassroots groups that are working to advocate for police accountability and Black lives.”

“A fixed sum of $20,000 has been set aside for this initiative,” the memo states. “… Travel funding is available for Individuals ($300), Groups of 3+ ppl ($1000), and Large Collaborations of 6+ ($2000) to take trips that directly help attendees advocate for police accountability and Black lives.”

Upon returning from their trip to Ferguson, MORE says, protesters are required to share their experiences in one of two ways:

  • “Complete a written report explaining the event/trip, experiences, and gains which will be posted online and share [sic] with the broader community.”
  • “Schedule a public report back session to [sic] feedback on the trip and answer questions.”

cut_check4

A group called Millennial Activists United posted a letter insisting MORE should “cut the checks” to the protesters.

“Early in the movement, non-profit organization MORE, formerly known as the St. Louis chapter of ACORN, and local St. Louis organization Organization for Black Struggle created a joint account in which national donors from all over the world have donated over $150,000 to sustain the movement,” the letter states. “Since then, the poor black [sic] of this movement who served as cash generators to bring money into St. Louis have seen little to none of that money.

“Questions have been raised as to how the movement is to sustain when white non-profits are hoarding monies collected of off [sic] black bodies? When we will [sic] hold the industry of black suffering accountable? The people of the community are fed up and the accountability begins here and now.

The statement continued, “We NEED to be thinking about justice for black people. This means white people must renounce their loyalty to the social normalcy that maintains white power and control. If black lives really matter, justice and self-determination for black people would mean the black community would control [its] own political and economic resources. Moving forward, we are building a board of accountability within this movement. We must funnel economic [sic] into this movement through the hands of black people who are fighting with and for black life. More on this board will be discussed as we develop.”

Other online reactions to the protesters’ demands for payment include:

  • “So these really were pro agitators. Some movement. “We shall overcome. After we get paid.”
  • “I’d rather see [people] protesting something they are passionate about (even if their behavior is way off base) than #CutTheCheck=Disgusting.”
  • “Lots of folks doing work & acting on conscience. It’s not fair that a group of 20 get [sic] $50,000 for throwing a tantrum.”

MORE reportedly released the following list of who had been paid from September 2014 through April 22, 2015, amounts and purpose of the payments.

Some payments were listed for the following purposes:

  • Gas
  • Video services for Ferguson
  • Debt repayment for Ferguson
  • Red light camera charges
  • “Supplies for non-indictment”
  • Training supplies
  • Food
  • Bullhorns
  • Catering
  • Art supplies
  • Permits
  • Walkie-talkies
  • T-shirts
  • Van rentals
  • Youth stipends
  • Cell phones for Ferguson
  • Emergency support, and others.

MORE_list

MORE_list2

MORE_list3

'Slavery is over': Hired Ferguson protesters demand pay
-NO AUTHOR-
Tue, 19 May 2015 20:23:24 GMT

Monday, May 18, 2015

Like I Said 2 years ago...Benghazi Gun Running

Re-posted from April 28, 2013
 
 

If you don't think there is ice running through her veins, think again. Hillary Rodham Clinton will do whatever it takes to preserve herself. WHATEVER it takes. In the 90's, when Bill Clinton was President, a documentary came out called The Clinton Chronicles. It was loaded with facts about the Clinton's and their dealings within the drug industry, money laundering, and murder of those who saw or knew too much. The video is below. Although it is long, I highly suggest watching.





Hillary Clinton has always been the one behind Bill pulling the strings. She is an expert puppet master and make no mistake, she will do whatever she has to do to remain on top. However, she also realizes that her own personality would have never catapulted her to the top. Here is where Bill becomes very useful to her. 

During her time as Secretary of State for the 0bama Administration, there were also a number of people who were killed under suspicious circumstances. Andrew Breitbart being only one. The entire Benghazi incident reads like a story straight from the old Clinton days of laundering drug money. My theory is that Ambassador Stevens was running guns to Syria. The 0bama Administration made a deal with the Syrians to release the blind sheik. 

In order for this to happen, the Syrian rebels were supposed to kidnap Stevens and in return, have the blind sheik released. This is why the order to stand down came about when the embassy was under attack. However, 2 very brave Navy Seals refused to follow the order to stand down. They went in and fought, killing several of the rebels before being killed themselves.

The Syrians, feeling as though the 0bama Administration had betrayed them and broke the deal, then dragged Ambassador Stevens through the street, raped him and then killed him. The Administration then scrambled to find a reason to blame the attack on. They settled on a YouTube video making fun of the prophet Muhammad. They stuck with this story for 3 weeks, which bought them time to come up with another strategy.

Now there is a lot of information coming out about Benghazi. We know for a fact that Hillary lied. But, remember that Hillary is about self preservation. She will not go down alone, if she goes down at all. She will throw 0bama under the bus so fast that he won't know what hit him until ALL the wheels have run him over. She is ruthless and she does nothing without having her ass covered at every angle.

She has everything she needs to bury 0bama. Now, when she is the one on the line, she will give him up in a heartbeat. Pressure needs to be put on her. If that pressure is strong enough and consistent enough, 0bama won't stand a chance. He is an idiot on his own. He needs someone behind him pulling the strings. His entire Administration seems to be starting to crumble now that Hillary girl has left. Make no mistake, she was one of his top puppet masters as well.

Jay Z, Beyonce bail out Baltimore rioters

 

JayZBeyonce

Jay Z and Beyonce

Rap star Jay Z has quietly sent thousands of dollars to help bail out protesters from Baltimore’s jail system, a writer who worked with him on his 2010 memoir said.

Dream Hampton, who helped Jay Z author “Decoded,” revealed the rapper’s cash infusions via Twitter. The messages were shortly after deleted but not before the hip-hop magazine Complex picked them up and reported them, Agence France-Presse said.

Among the tweets: “When we needed money for bail for Baltimore protesters, I … hit Jay up, as I had for Ferguson [and he] wired tens of thousands [of dollars].”

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!

She also tweeted Jay Z and his wife, Beyonce, sent a “huge check” to support the “Black Lives Matter” movement that surged through America after the Ferguson police shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown.

Baltimore was the site of much violence after protesters took to the streets to denounce the death of Freddie Gray, a black man who died a few days after being taken into police custody. Six officers have been charged for the incident.

Hampton explained in a written message she deleted the tweets because she thought Jay Z “would be pissed to see I was offering evidence” of his cash donations. The tweets, however, seemed defensive in tone and aimed at explaining to critics that Jay Z and Beyonce, who are worth an estimated $1 billion, were indeed helping the black community.

AFP reported actor Harry Belafonte had previously criticized modern-day stars for turning “their back on social responsibility,” naming Jay Z and Beyonce specifically.

Jay Z, Beyonce bail out Baltimore rioters
Cheryl Chumley
Mon, 18 May 2015 10:43:31 GMT

Sharpton's suing daughter outed as not-so-hurt

 

Sharpton

Dominque Sharpton with her father, Rev. Al Sharpton

Rev. Al Sharpton’s daughter, Dominique Sharpton – who’s suing the city of New York for $5 million for a sprained-ankle claim – may not be as injured as purported.

She’s been outed by Instagram and social media photographs with a seemingly healthy ankle, climbing a mountain in Bali, Indonesia. The photographs come as her suit alleges “she still suffers” from massive ankle pain from a twisting she received from a street crack in Soho a year ago, the New York Post reported.

In “Scam: How the Black Leadership Exploits Black America,” Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson – a true black leader whom many affectionately call “the other Jesse” – shows how the civil rights establishment has made a lucrative career out of keeping racial strife alive in America.

Sharpton posted the photos herself May 16 along with a description: “We hiked UP the mountain, over the clouds … into the SUNRISE.”

And she went on, the New York Post found: “One of the most beautiful sites ever. and YES I ALMOST DIED GETTING UP THERE LOL #Balidays we made it, WHEW.”

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!

Legal experts were quick to pounce.

“It is starting to look like Tawana Brawley is orchestrating the Sharpton trial strategy,” said CNN legal analyst Paul Callan. “It graphically demonstrates bad judgment and good feet. It all adds up to no case.”

Sharpton, 28, said she sprained her ankle at a crosswalk in the city Oct. 2, 2014, the New York Post reported.

Her court documents say: “She still suffers and will continue to suffer for some time physical pain and bodily injuries.”

Fox News also showed a photo of Sharpton at a recent event wearing red high heels.

Sharpton's suing daughter outed as not-so-hurt
Cheryl Chumley
Mon, 18 May 2015 11:00:53 GMT

Obama restricts military-style gear for cops

 

Ferguson

Police wearing militarized gear approach a man in Ferguson, Missouri.

President Obama on Monday is traveling to Camden, New Jersey, to announce new federal rules for police – including bans on certain types of military equipment.

The president’s announcement comes on the heels of the White House creation of a task force to look at policing around the nation and determine recommendations for agencies to better, and more safely, serve their communities.

Obama announced the task force after the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, that began over the police shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown and then spread around the nation via a “Black Lives Matter” and “hands up, don’t shoot” campaign.

In Camden, Obama will first visit with police at their headquarters and then head to a community center to speak with youth and deliver formal remarks, the New York Times reported.

“I’ll highlight steps all cities can take to maintain trust between the brave law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line and the communities they’re sworn to serve and protect,” Obama said in a weekly address over the weekend, the Huffington Post reported.

“Police State USA: How Orwell’s Nightmare Is Becoming Our Reality” chronicles how America has arrived at the point of being a de facto police state, and what led to an out-of-control government that increasingly ignores the Constitution. Order today!

Among the equipment police will no longer get from the federal government are armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft, firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or higher, grenade launchers, bayonets and camouflage uniforms.

The feds are also reportedly looking at ways to recall such equipment that already has been distributed among police.

The federal government will further restrict the use of Humvees, certain types of manned aircraft, drones, some types of firearms and explosives, battering rams, helmets and shields. Beginning this fall, police will need special permission from the city or county governing authorities to obtain this equipment.

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!

The full task force’s report is due to be released Monday. Members of the panel said they came up with the list of banned equipment because “the substantial risk of misusing or overusing these items, which are seen as militaristic in nature, could significantly undermine community trust and may encourage tactics and behaviors that are inconsistent with the premise of civilian law enforcement,” the Associated Press reported.

Another report from the 21st Century Policing task force includes a list of recommendations for police to incorporate to improve relations with community members. The White House said 21 police agencies around the country, including Camden’s, have already agreed to collect certain never-before reported data on police interactions with citizens.

Among the upcoming data collections: The number of stops police enact on citizens, and the number of officer shootings that occur in a given time frame.

“We are without a doubt sitting at a defining moment for American policing,” said Ron Davis, director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services at the Department of Justice, AP reported.

“We have a unique opportunity to redefine our policing in our democracy, to ensure that public safety becomes more than the absence of crime, that it must also include the presence of justice.”

Obama restricts military-style gear for cops
Cheryl Chumley
Mon, 18 May 2015 12:56:32 GMT

Sunday, May 17, 2015

How did $17 million disappear from Clinton Foundation?

 

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton

NEW YORK – Before Hillary Clinton completed her first year as President Obama’s secretary of state, Wall Street analyst and investor Charles Ortel calculates $17 million went missing from Clinton Foundation financial reports.

“The Clinton Foundation and the Obama Administration presented to the public a false narrative, namely that when Hillary became Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation had to guard against conflicts of interest,” Ortel explained in a second report he made available to WND exclusively before publication.

Ortel says the public record appears to confirm that the Clinton Foundation’s various components were reported as one consolidated entity to the IRS, despite the foundation’s claim that appropriate changes were made when Hillary Clinton became secretary of state.

The Clinton Foundation explained that when Hillary joined the Obama Cabinet, the foundation closed the Clinton Health Access Initiative Inc., known also as CHAI, which had been operating as a program of the Clinton Health Foundation. CHAI was then re-opened it as a separate organization responsible for filing its own IRS tax Form 990, which discloses financial information to the public.

The reorganization, Ortel says, was an opportunity for the Clintons to transition from the financial statements of what he calls “Old CHAI,” ending Dec. 31, 2009, into the financials of the ‘New CHAI,’ beginning Jan. 1, 2010.

Analyzing all available financial statements for the Clinton Foundation and CHAI in the transition, including cash flow statements, Ortel has determined that approximately $17 million disappeared from CHAI.

WND reported Thursday Ortel has concluded that while Hillary Clinton was appointed to the board of directors of the Clinton Foundation in 2013, after she had resigned as secretary of state, she is complicit in what he has described as systematic financial fraud warranting a criminal investigation. WND reported Wednesday that Ortel found the Clinton Foundation’s explanation for why it was divided into three, legally separate tax-exempt organizations to be “misleading and false.” As WND reported Tuesday, based on Ortel’s findings, a prominent lawyer and a top government watchdog in the nation’s capital are calling for the Clinton Foundation to be shut down. In his first report, Ortel found what he characterizes as an elaborate system devised by the Clintons to enrich themselves through schemes such as skimming tens of millions of dollars from U.N. levies imposed on airline travelers.

Peter Schweizer’s “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich” is available at the WND Superstore!

Ortel’s detective work required him to examine financial statements not just for the Clinton Foundation and CHAI at the beginning and end of the relevant years, 2009 and 2010, but also to evaluate cash flow statements that document the financial position of the Clinton Foundation and CHAI during each year.

In reality, Ortel alleges, Old CHAI had never been validly constituted as a tax-exempt organization, “even though it was used for years as a leaky conduit where foreign governments, major donors, and the general public directed hundreds of millions towards seemingly worthwhile causes, that instead were diverted and fraudulently mismanaged.”

Ortel further alleges that from July 2002, when the Clinton Foundation formed Old CHAI through March 2010 when New CHAI was formally authorized by the IRS as a tax-exempt organization, “large sums of money went missing – facts that emerge from close review of publicly available filings made by the Clinton Foundation, and theoretically overseen by executives and directors.”

Disappearing funds

Ortel points out that state and federal law put the burden of proof on the Clintons to prove the $17 million was not diverted in a fraud designed to financially benefit the Clintons and their close associates.

In this regard, Ortel’s investigation differs from the Peter Schweizer’s investigation of the Clinton Foundation, reported in his bestselling book “Clinton Cash.” The crime of bribery that Schweizer alleges places the legal burden of proof on the accuser, not on the Clintons. If the Clintons should face a charge of bribery in a criminal proceeding, they would be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

In numerous interviews, Schweizer has admitted that without access to documentation of the Clintons’ thinking and actions related to various foreign contributions to the Clinton Foundation and its subgroups, such as Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails, he lacks proof of a quid pro quo.

Instead of bribery, Ortel is accusing the Clintons of “inurement,” an offense that is defined at law as using a charity for personal financial benefit or for the material financial benefit of close associates, including those managing the charity, working at the charity, or affiliated with the charity in some other way, such as being a member of the charity’s board of directors.

When it comes to inurement allegations, the burden of proof shifts.

State and federal law requires regulators to shut down the organization and typically fire the board of directors. The charity is thrown into receivership once accusers demonstrate a pattern of financial mismanagement that suggests it is being fraudulently operated to commit the crime of inurement.

The financial mismanagement may be as simple as missing important dates for financial information to be officially filed with government authorities or irregularities in audit information.

The disappearance of $17 million, Ortel argues, is reason enough for regulators to shut a foundation down and to throw it into receivership.

He states in his report: “On the specific date between December 31, 2009 and January 1, 2010, approximately $17 million appears to have been diverted out of Old CHAI at a time when New CHAI allegedly had not yet opened a bank account and before New CHAI received its state and federal authorization to operate as a tax-exempt entity, a event that appears to have occurred in March 2010, when New CHAI appears to have received an IRS tax-exempt authorization letter.”

Ortel said it’s only one of the “several instances where I believe we can document that substantial sums of money, measured in the millions and tens of millions of dollars, were diverted.”

“The crime,” he said, “is an untold number of donors in the United States and around the world, typically giving relatively small sums, placed the money they gifted to the Clinton Foundation into the fiduciary care of the Clintons, only to have their charitable donations be diverted from the charitable purpose for which the funds were given.”

He said the pattern in the $17 million that went missing in the transition from the Old CHAI to the New CHAI “seems consistent with the assumption the Clintons were operating the Clinton Foundation and its subgroups in a fraudulent manner in order to mask inurement, the diversion of the funds to the personal benefit of themselves and their associates.”

The IRS defines “inurement” in strict terms: “A section 501(c)(3) organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the creator’s family, shareholders of the organization, other designated individuals, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such private interests. No part of the net earnings of a section 501(c)(3) organization may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. A private shareholder or individual is a person having a personal and private interest in the activities of the organization.”

“[IRS] Regulation 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(1)(ii) states that an organization is not organized or operated exclusively for exempt purposes unless it serves a public rather than a private interest,” reads an IRS memorandum titled “Overview of Inurement/Private Benefit Issues in IRC 501(c)3.”

“The regulation places the burden of proof on the organization to demonstrate that it is not organized or operated for the benefit of private interests such as designated individuals, the creator or his family, shareholders of the organization, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such private interests,” the IRS memo continues. “The statement that an organization must serve a public rather than a private purpose is a basic tenet of the law of charity.”

As WND reported, 2010 was a key year in the history of the Clinton Foundation, as the Clinton Health Access Initiative Inc., the largest single part of the Clinton Foundation, was separated into a new entity when Hillary Clinton was appointed secretary of state.

For purposes of analysis, Ortel termed “Old CHAI” the corporate structure of the Clinton Health Access Initiative, Inc., prior to 2010, and “New CHAI” to refer to the Clinton Health Access Initiative Inc. in the period 2010 through 2013.

Ortel noted that by Aug. 31, 2011, the accounting firm BKD prepared financial statements for New CHAI for 2010 that have been portrayed as independently audited financial information, free from material misstatements and not omitting material facts.

Yet, Ortel noted, the Statement of Financial Position for New CHAI as of Dec. 31, 2010 deliberately omits presentation of the opening Statement of Financial Position as of Jan. 1, 2010.

Ortel further noted that although BKD omitted to create an opening balance sheet for New CHAI, BKD did provide a balance sheet for Dec. 31, 2010, a statement of activities for 2010, and a cash flow statement for 2010. From these available pubic documents, Ortel was able to derive an opening balance sheet for New CHAI as of Jan. 1, 2010.

old-chai-balance-sheet

Ortel concludes, “We were also able to discern that $16.9 million in cash within Old CHAI was removed from its balance sheet as of 31 December 2009, before the opening balance sheet for new CHAI was struck as of 1 January 2010.”

An elaborate criminal scheme?

Focusing on the transition from Old CHAI to New CHAI, Ortel alleges the officers and board of directors ran the Clinton Foundation as “an elaborate criminal scheme” aimed at enriching the Clintons and their close associates, accomplished by failing to file independently audited financial reports as required, filing instead inaccurate, incomplete and intentionally deceptive financial statements.

“Unlike individual taxpayers who stand a small chance of being audited by the IRS after they volunteer information concerning their income and expenses on relevant tax forms, all public charities of the size the Clinton Foundation has been since its original authorization as a tax-exempt organization must procure an independent audit of their financial statements by a competent and empowered firm of accounting professionals who have access to all relevant supporting details and independently confirm material amounts directly with third parties,” Ortel argues in his second report on the Clinton Foundation.

“After this extensive confirmatory work is completed in all relevant domestic and foreign jurisdictions, an independent audit must be attached to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filing, as elements of the IRS Form 990 and supporting schedules call for reconciliation of numerous financial figures with information contained in the independent audit, prepared by certified accounting professionals,” he stresses.

Ortel based his second report on the Clinton Foundation on the understanding that directors, executives and employees for any kind of enterprise bear a public responsibility to ensure in delivering financial reports that reliable control systems are in place and functioning effectively. Otherwise, there is no reasonable assurance reported financial statements are accurate or that the reported measures supposedly used in audits designed to assess performance are valid.

“For activities such as the Clinton Foundation, including the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Health Access Initiative, Inc., having effective internal financial controls in place should have been a top priority, to the board of directors as well as the Clintons themselves,” Ortel wrote.

Instead, his analysis “reveals that the crucial control function required for responsible financial management was neutered, perhaps by devious design.”

Ortel further argued that without effective financial controls in place and responsible operations, the revenues reported by the Clinton Foundation as a whole, as well as its various components, such as CGI and CHAI, are likely to be recorded incorrectly, missed or diverted.

‘Scheme to mask inurement’

In his second report on the financial management of the Clinton Foundation Report, Ortel argued the Clintons used the organization of the Clinton Foundation and its various subcomponent “initiatives” to manipulate financial statements in “audit reviews” to cover up a criminal inurement scheme aimed at adding tens of millions of dollars Bill’s and Hillary’s net worth after they left the White House.

Ortel charges the irregularities, inconsistencies, errors, and other omissions he has documented in operational management and financial reporting of the Clinton Foundations in general and the Clinton Health Access Initiative, Inc., CHAI, in particular, uncovers how the Clintons played “an elaborate shell game,” manipulating the largest constituent element of the Clinton Foundation for personal gain.

Ortel buttressed his conclusion with a detailed analysis of the Clinton Foundation financial regulatory reporting in the years 2009-2011, as Old CHAI morphed into New CHAI.

“Absent effective controls, it should not be surprising the Clinton administration’s financial reporting of direct and indirect program expenditures, fund-raising charges, and overheads have been repeatedly misallocated, misstated, and misreported since inception,” Ortel reports.

He warns law enforcement authorities and the charitable-giving public in the United States and worldwide that the Clintons’ pattern of mismanaging and improperly reporting the Clinton Foundation was conducted since inception “most likely with fraudulent intent, designed almost certainly to result in a systematic pattern of inurement to the personal benefit of the Clintons and their close associates in direct contravention of the core state and federal laws upon which the theory of tax-exempt charitable giving depends.”

Clinton Foundation financial reporting: 2009

In the Clinton Foundation Annual Report for 2009 on page 50, a financial summary shows the Clinton Health Access Initiative, CHAI, was the single largest portion of the charity. Its stated program service expenses of $173.4 million constituted 73.5 percent of total expenses, stated as $235.8 million. The next largest program was the Clinton Global Initiative, with just $13.2 million in stated expenses, or 5.6 percent of total expenses.

Reconstructing combined statements from the information about the Clinton Foundation for 2009 found on the New York State Charities Bureau website, Ortel confirmed that CHAI in 2009 was the single largest program operated by the Clinton Foundation that year.

summary-old-chai

Yet, the financial statements Clinton Foundation created for 2009 apparently did not fully consolidate all entities involved in its activities worldwide.

“Rather than provide a clear and thorough understanding to the public of its financial performance, the Clinton Foundation presented and still presents a muddled view of its financial results during 2009 that never was independently vetted by professional accountants and outside experts,” Ortel wrote.

“Meanwhile, the Clinton Foundation passes off the deceptive work of BKD LLP, a Little Rock-based accounting firm, that itself is ill-equipped to serve its required function, as a legally mandated independent auditor of the Clinton Foundation’s entire, far-flung operations.”

While the 2009 Clinton Foundation financial statements were reviewed by BKD, Ortel argues it is unclear whether the Clinton Foundation officers and board of directors limited BKD’s mandate to performing a review. Nor is it clear how intensively auditors from BKD may have attempted to inform themselves concerning the nature and extent of the Clinton Foundation.

“The BKD audits on the Clinton Foundation website appear to be ‘audit reviews,’ limited to examining financial records provided to BKD by the foundation’s officers and directors,” Ortel explained to WND.

“There is no indication the Clinton Foundation hired an independent auditor to go back to original receipt and expense records and validate the financial statements the officers and the board of directors presented to the charitable-giving public in the United States and around the world as a accurate and complete record of the foundation’s financial record.”

Furthermore, Ortel notes, the Combining Statement of Activities for 2009 and the Combining Statement of Financial Position at 31 December 2009 are referenced in the table of contents to the Financial Report for 2009. But both are omitted from the package of financial information included in the report that the Clinton Foundation website purports to be the complete financial report for the foundation.

“This omission is material, and the question of whether the omission is deliberate deserves close scrutiny by legal authorities and by the general public,” Ortel argues.

Ortel, a frequent guest on television and radio and a contributor to publications such as the Washington Times, began his Wall Street career in 1980 with Dillon, Read, & Co., followed by the Bridgeford Group and the Chart Group.

How did $17 million disappear from Clinton Foundation?
Jerome R. Corsi
Sun, 17 May 2015 18:48:33 GMT

Saturday, May 16, 2015

White mercenaries have Boko Haram on run

 

mercenary

They’re Nigeria’s unlikely saviors – most being white, in their 50s and 60s and combat veterans of the former South African apartheid regime.

But, tainted resumes notwithstanding, they’ve been getting the job done in northern Nigeria, hitting the Islamist terror group Boko Haram hard enough to send the jihadists into retreat, liberating dozens of villages and freeing hundreds of women and girls held as slaves and “bush wives” during a six-year-long reign of terror, reported the London Telegraph.

Boko Haram recently pledged allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS. In recent years, Boko Haram has slaughtered entire villages, burned countless churches and targeted Christians and moderate Muslims for death. It received global attention last year for abducting nearly 300 Nigerian schoolgirls.

The squad of mostly-white bush-warfare experts is employed by Specialized Tasks, Training, Equipment and Protection, a private army run by Colonel Eeben Barlow, a former commander in the South African Defense Force, where he defended the regime against insurrection and fought border wars 30 years ago in neighboring Angola and Namibia.

Barlow’s firm was hired by Nigeria outgoing President Goodluck Jonathan in January, as the failure of his administration to stop Boko Haram or free the kidnapped schoolgirls became major campaign issues ahead of the March election.

As WND has reported, despite first lady Michelle Obama’s much-publicized Twitter campaign to #BringBackOurGirls, President Obama withheld weapons and intelligence support from Nigeria in its fight against the Islamists because Jonathan’s administration stood by the nation’s laws criminalizing homosexual acts and strictly forbidding same-sex marriage.

Jonathan was defeated in the March election by retired Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, who ruled as dictator there from 1983 until 1985, when he was removed through a coup. Buhari’s campaign was run by the political firm founded by key Obama strategist David Axelrod.

Buhari previously vowed to institute Shariah law in the Muslim-dominated parts of the country if elected.

“There are laws on the books of Nigeria, adopted by a sovereign nation through its normal processes, that they consider to be untoward, unacceptable, homophobic, whatever you want to call it, toward people who are lesbians, gays, transgenders, bisexuals and so on,” said Security Policy President Frank Gaffney.

According to the Jonathan campaign, Buhari made a secret agreement with Washington to repeal those laws if he was elected.

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!

But even as his Muslim opponent was bringing in outside help from Washington to win the election, Jonathan was bringing in Barlow’s STTEP team to turn the tide on Boko Haram.

“The campaign gathered good momentum and wrested much of the initiative from the enemy,” Barlow, 62, told a seminar last week at the Royal Danish Defense College. “It was not uncommon for the strike force to be met by thousands of cheering locals once the enemy had been driven from an area.”

He added: “Yes, many of us are no longer 20-year-olds. But with our age has come a knowledge of conflicts and wars in Africa that our younger generation employees have yet to learn, and a steady hand when things get rough.”

“Another Man’s War”: A gun-toting preacher, a rebel army led by a madman ― and entire villages slaughtered just because they were in the way.

It is believed Barlow brought 100 fighters into Nigeria, including black troops who have served in elite South African units and some who once fought against him as communist guerrillas.

Initially Barlow planned only to train a team in Nigeria to free the kidnapped schoolgirls, but ongoing massacres by Boko Haram changed the mission to one of training Nigeria’s army in “unconventional mobile warfare.”

Barlow introduced “relentless pursuit,” a tactic that mimicked Boko Haram’s hit-and-run strikes. Employing jungle trackers to determine the likely escape routes of the terrorists, Barlow helicoptered his strike force to intercept the enemy and cut them off, eventually exhausting them.

“Good trackers can tell the age of a track as well as indicate if the enemy is carrying heavy loads, the types of weapons he has, if the enemy is moving hurriedly, what he is eating, and so forth,” said Barlow said.

Barlow disputes the Nigerian government’s claim that his men have served only as “technical advisers,” noting he had been “given ‘kill blocks’ to the front and flanks of the strike force and could conduct missions in those areas.”

So, why do so many South Africans go to Nigeria to fight, especially given the fact they face prosecution in their home country for doing so?

“Very often it’s a money issue – they haven’t done well and they need to make some,” Jakkie Cilliers, executive director of the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria, told the London Guardian last month. “It’s not ideological, and it’s not the gung-ho image one has from the film ‘Blood Diamond.’ This is the only skill these guys have. Most of them are in their late 50s or early 60s and trying to make a late bit of income before they’re past it. In five years’ time it won’t be an issue.”

Cilliers described the feedback he heard on a recent Afrikaans radio program during which three or four mercenaries phoned in. “They said things like: ‘I’m trying to help my kids. My lifestyle is quite crappy. I’m trying to put the grandkids through school.’”

Tom Wolmarans, an apartheid-era policeman, said: “There’s no work for white people in South Africa. Are they going up for money? Yes, it has a role to play because they must make a living. That’s all they can do; they are trained to do it. Some of them were laid off to early retirement. People with a hell of a lot of experience. Good soldiers.”

Pilot Crause Steyl, 50, flew mercenaries into war zones decades ago. “The South African mercenaries are giving Boko Haram a hiding,” he said. “These guys are in their 50s, but for a pilot or tank driver it doesn’t really matter. There’s going to be no Boko Haram. It boggles the mind that Britain and America promised to help Nigeria but never did.

“But the South African government doesn’t want them to exist. They wish them off the planet. When they come back from Nigeria, it will try to prosecute them and put them in jail. Because the color of these men is white, it makes laws that stop them earning money off shore. How wrong can you be? There is now reverse racism and it’s difficult for white people to get a job.”

White mercenaries have Boko Haram on run
-NO AUTHOR-
Thu, 14 May 2015 02:14:59 GMT

Clinton campaign shuts down parody bumper sticker

 

Official Hillary Clinton for President logo and offending bumbersticker

Official Hillary Clinton for President logo and offending bumpersticker

The operator of a political website that parodies the presidential hopes of Hillary Clinton has just gotten a lesson in realpolitik and what happens when someone crosses the Clintons.

Marinka Peschmann, a freelance journalist and author, has been marketing a number of different buttons and bumper stickers for the “Hillary 2016: Prison or POTUS” campaign on the website Zazzle.com. One of those caught the eye of Clinton-campaign lawyers and is now no longer available.

Clinton’s campaign claimed Peschmann had infringed on the trademark for the official campaign logo.

Peschmann announced the takedown on her website:

Note: Take down! This bumper sticker is no longer available. Hillary for America’s legal department lodged an intellectual property right’s holder trademark complaint against HILLPoP2016′s latest styles. While HILLPoP2016 thinks our H is different (the arrow faces left and is orange for instance), one must pick their battles. HILLPoP2016 respects Zazzle’s decision regarding their terms of service agreement and wishes more corporations would enforce them.

Check out the WND Superstore for everything you never knew (or have forgotten) about Hillary Clinton.

Zazzle explained by email:

Hello Marinka,

Thank you for contacting us!

We would love to offer every design that our users submit, however we must abide by all applicable laws and standards as well as our own content guidelines and copyright policies.

Unfortunately, it appears that your product did not meet Zazzle’s Acceptable Content Guidelines. Specifically, your product contained content which infringes upon the Hillary for America trademark.

Zazzle has been contacted by legal representatives from Hillary for America, and at their request, have removed the product from the Zazzle Marketplace.

We are sorry for any disappointment, but hope you will understand our position in this regard. For future reference, please review Zazzle’s Acceptable Content Guidelines at: http://help.zazzle.com/articles/support/ar143/

If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Thanks for using Zazzle. We look forward to seeing more of your creative designs!

Best Regards,

Mike
Content Management Team
Zazzle Inc.
Case Number: CAS-944371-G4Y1D8

Peschmann is taking it in stride – she has other designs that carry the same message and a working relationship with Zazzle to honor and preserve.

“I had added some new styles to honor the latest Hillary rebranding effort,” Peschmann said on her website.

“Team Hillary apparently was not happy with them and claimed I had infringed on their trademark. Zazzle.com is honoring Hillary for America’s legal representative’s takedown request. They have been very professional with me and a pleasure to deal with.”

Clinton campaign shuts down parody bumper sticker
-NO AUTHOR-
Sat, 16 May 2015 23:21:10 GMT

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Coulter scolds Michelle O: Back off the white guilt

 

MichelleObama

First Lady Michelle Obama

Fox News frequent guest and bestselling author Ann Coulter let loose on Michelle Obama during a recent television appearance, ripping the first lady’s go-to argument of America as a racist nation and saying it’s about time she let go the “slavery” guilt trips.

Coulter and host Sean Hannity first discussed the first lady’s recent commencement address, criticized by many as too heavy on the race guilting.

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!

Obama said, of her husband’s campaigning days: “Folks had all sorts of questions of me, what kind of first lady would I be? … The truth is those same questions would have been posed to any candidates’ spouse. … But as potentially the first African-American first lady, I was also the focus of another set of questions and speculations, conversations sometimes rooted in the fears and misperceptions of others. Was I too loud or too angry or too emasculating?”

Coulter called such talk over-the-top.

“I think she’s just letting out her Reverend Wright now,” referencing the outspoken religious leader the Obamas once counted among their friends. “Last week she was proclaiming museums discriminate against, weren’t welcoming to minorities. What do they have to do, be even freer? What are museums doing?”

Coulter then said such rhetoric only furthers the victimization mindset of many in the black community.

“Who is victimized the most by the predator class in the black community? The blacks, law-abiding blacks don’t like this,” she said.

And one more Coulter comment: “Yes, America does owe black America for slavery, for the Democratic policies of Jim Crow. I think we’ve – we’re making it up now, when you’re getting admitted to Princeton when you can’t read. Is that enough yet?”

Hannity was quick to clarify Coulter only meant “there are different standards” for blacks and white.

“Yes,” Coulter said. “The Great Society programs have destroyed the black community.”

Coulter scolds Michelle O: Back off the white guilt
Cheryl Chumley
Tue, 12 May 2015 10:43:12 GMT

Thursday, April 30, 2015

Hillary partnered with radical Alinsky group

 

Saul Alinsky

Saul Alinsky

The exact nature and extent of Hillary Clinton’s relationship with radical community organizer Saul Alinsky has long been the subject of speculation and intrigue.

The interest has been largely fueled by Clinton’s suppressed and later released 92-page senior thesis for Wellesley College offering an extensive, largely positive critique of Alinsky and his work.

Now WND has found that long after Alinsky’s death in June 1972, a group Clinton co-chaired maintained a working relationship with Alinsky’s main community organizing outfit, the Industrial Areas Foundation, or IAF.

The partnership extended into the 1990s and yielded influence over the education policy of the Bill Clinton presidency, it can now be disclosed.

Founded by Alinsky in 1940 and run by him until his death, the IAF is a national community organizing network established to implement Alinsky’s expansive organizing agenda. After Alinsky’s death, the IAF was taken over by his longtime associate and designated successor, Ed Chambers, who became the group’s executive director.

Dick Morris, a former top political adviser to Bill Clinton both as governor of Arkansas and as president, noted to WND that education reform “is the key issue Hillary Clinton used to propel herself independently to the forefront of Arkansas politics during Bill’s governorship.”

“The revelation of how closely linked her efforts were back in the 80s – and have been since – to an Alinsky radical front group is deeply disturbing and expands our understanding of Hillary’s fundamental radicalism and commitment to the new left of Saul Alinsky,” Morris said.

David Horowitz, whose parents were members of the Communist Party and who himself became a leader in the new left movement of the 1960s and 1970s before rejecting it, said the revelation is significant though not surprising.

“When radicals set out to fundamentally transform a society, the first institution they attack is the educational system which under their influence becomes a system of indoctrination in radical ideas,” he told WND.

IAF partnership

The thread of Clinton’s ties to the IAF runs through the National Center on Education and the Economy, or NCEE, a group that helped Bill Clinton reform the U.S. education system.

In 1988, Clinton joined the board of the NCEE, which specializes in education reform. Until at least 1992, Clinton served as co-chairman of the NCEE’s Implementation Commission, the group tasked with implementing the NCEE’s education agenda.

To forge that agenda, the NCEE worked with several listed “partners,” most notably Alinsky’s IAF.

In 1989, the NCEE formed its Commission on the Skills of the American Workforce, which carried out an extensive analysis and survey of the U.S. education system, interviewing more than 2,000 people and hundreds of government and private agencies.

The NCEE’s commission in June 1990 released an extensive policy paper with specific recommendations on how to reform the national education system, with Hillary Clinton, then a partner in the Rose Law Firm, serving as co-chairman of the group tasked with carrying out the recommendations.

In 1992, the NCEE created an expansive proposal to the New American Schools Development Corporation, a nonprofit that teamed up with government agencies to reform U.S. schools.

Titled “Schools – and Systems – for the 21st Century,” the NCEE’s proposal listed the IAF as a partner.

“The Industrial Areas Foundation, perhaps the most experienced agency in the United States in the arena of community organizing, will help us think through the parent engagement and organizing issues,” it said.

Clinton implemented Alinsky education agenda?

As co-chairman of the NCEE’s commission to implement its agenda, which was formed with IAF input, Hillary Clinton co-authored an extensive article for the U.S. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

The 1992 article was also authored by longtime Clinton adviser Ira Magaziner, who served on the NCEE’s board and currently works for the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

In their piece, Clinton and Magaziner highlighted the NCEE’s recommendations for how to reform America’s school system.

Many of the recommendations mirror some of the IAF’s longtime goals for education policy.

Alinsky’s IAF, for example, stated in a concept paper that “the entire community must be meaningfully involved in the public education system and held accountable for its results.”

As documented by Discover The Networks, one IAF paper on education calls for teachers and childcare workers to play a larger role in the upbringing of minors.

Stated the IAF: “Schools must be prepared to teach parents how to play a supportive role. In some cases this might mean making provision for parenting education. … Increasingly, schools will find it important to employ social workers who can coordinate necessary services and to intervene on behalf of a child in need. … Schools will need to help working families make provision for after-school childcare, and day care for pre-schoolers.”

To that end, Clinton and Magaziner touted their NCEE’s recommendation for a coalition of schools, the federal government and “local leadership to organize and oversee the new training-to-work transition programs and training systems.”

Clinton and Magaziner call for the establishment of a working group of “federal, state and national government leaders, with business, labor and education leaders” to begin discussions on the implementation of their recommendations.

The pair further advocated that states take responsibility for ensuring students meet proposed new education standards.

The IAF called for employers and taxpayers to help pay for new education standards.

Clinton and Magaziner proposed “all employers will invest at least 1 percent of their payroll for the education and training of their workers.”

Bill Clinton’s education reform

The NCEE yielded enormous influence during the Bill Clinton presidency.

The group was founded and is still run by longtime Clinton friend Marc Tucker. When Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas, he brought in Tucker to help oversee restructuring of the state’s educational system.

The NCEE website documents the central role the group played in reforming the education system under Bill Clinton’s two White House terms.

From 1992 to 2000, the website relates, “almost the entire agenda advanced in” the commission’s report, as co-chaired by Hillary Clinton, “was enacted into legislation by the Congress and signed into law by the President (Clinton), including the School-to-Work Act, the National Skill Standards Board, and the Workforce Investment Act.”

Continues the history section of the NCEE’s website: “At the Rose Garden ceremony at which President Clinton signed his signature education legislation, the President departed from his prepared remarks to single out the contribution made by NCEE to the national education reform agenda.”

“Subsequently, many states also enacted policies designed to support the recommendations made in the America’s Choice report,” the website stated.

Clinton and Alinsky

Clinton’s 1969 Wellesley College senior thesis was titled “There Is Only the Fight … : An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.” The thesis received attention when it was released after the Bill Clinton presidency. According to reports, in early 1993, the White House requested that Wellesley keep the thesis confidential and not release any copies.

Clinton was said to have met with Alinsky several times in 1968, when she was writing her thesis. In her most recent memoir, Clinton wrote that she rejected a job offer from Alinsky to instead attend law school.

The Clinton-Alinsky relationship received more media attention last September, when the Washington Free Beacon uncovered direct correspondence between Clinton and Alinsky from the archives of Alinsky’s IAF.

The correspondence dates to the summer of 1971, when the 23-year-old Clinton was living in Berkeley, California, and interning at the law firm Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein.

In a July 8, 1971, letter to Alinsky marked “personal,” Clinton wrote: “Dear Saul, When is that new book [Rules for Radicals] coming out — or has it come and I somehow missed the fulfillment of Revelation?

“I have just had my one-thousandth conversation about Reveille [for Radicals] and need some new material to throw at people,” she wrote, referring to a 1948 Alinsky treatise on community organizing.

Clinton went on to tell Alinsky that she had “survived law school, slightly bruised, with my belief in and zest for organizing intact.”

“The more I’ve seen of places like Yale Law School and the people who haunt them, the more convinced I am that we have the serious business and joy of much work ahead — if the commitment to a free and open society is ever going to mean more than eloquence and frustration,” wrote Clinton.

The Free Beacon’s Alana Goodman notes the letter documents Clinton and Alinsky had kept in touch since she entered Yale and that Alinsky even offered Clinton advice on campus activism.

“If I never thanked you for the encouraging words of last spring in the midst of the Yale-Cambodia madness, I do so now,” wrote Clinton.

Clinton wrote that she missed their regular conversations and asked if Alinsky would be able to meet her the next time he was in California.

“I am living in Berkeley and working in Oakland for the summer and would love to see you,” Clinton wrote. “Let me know if there is any chance of our getting together.”

The Free Beacon reported that Clinton’s letter “reached Alinsky’s office while he was on an extended trip to Southeast Asia, where he was helping train community organizers in the Philippines.”

Alinsky’s secretary, Georgia Harper, sent Clinton the following response, which noted the radical’s fondness of her.

“Since I know [Alinsky’s] feelings about you I took the liberty of opening your letter because I didn’t want something urgent to wait for two weeks,” Harper wrote to Clinton in a July 13, 1971 letter. “And I’m glad I did.”

Harper informed Clinton: “Mr. Alinsky will be in San Francisco, staying at the Hilton Inn at the airport on Monday and Tuesday, July 26 and 27. I know he would like to have you call him so that if there is a chance in his schedule maybe you can get together.”

It was not clear whether Alinsky and Clinton met at that time.

With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott.

Hillary partnered with radical Alinsky group
Aaron Klein
Fri, 01 May 2015 00:45:49 GMT