Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Archive for the ‘Corruption’ Category

Email-Gate: Did Clinton Knowingly Violate Eight Federal Laws?

bill-and-hillary-clinton and hilly

James Madison once said: “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” Clearly, Clinton didn’t get the message.

Despite bearing the name “Clinton” the former Secretary of State achieved her obscure power through a series of debacles that include presidential runs, her time as a U.S. Senator, and the infidelity of her husband, Bill.

However, no matter one’s societal status or last name, especially for Hillary in this case, no American citizen is exempt from the rule of law. Even agency executives who handle classified information are not exempt. With that, even though no indictment has been spurred by the probes into Secretary Clinton’s email fiasco, it is definitively likely that she violated federal secrecy laws.

Clinton claims “Email-gate” it a “vast right wing conspiracy,” not an abuse of power and of her position at the State Department.

Though relentless in her presidential bid, Clinton has opened herself to unwanted attention, and investigation, because of personal mistakes for which she is solely responsible. No “vast right-wing conspiracy” can replace federal law.
James Madison once said: “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” Clearly, Clinton didn’t get the message.

Despite bearing the name “Clinton” the former Secretary of State achieved her obscure power through a series of debacles that include presidential runs, her time as a U.S. Senator, and the infidelity of her husband, Bill.

However, no matter one’s societal status or last name, especially for Hillary in this case, no American citizen is exempt from the rule of law. Even agency executives who handle classified information are not exempt. With that, even though no indictment has been spurred by the probes into Secretary Clinton’s email fiasco, it is definitively likely that she violated federal secrecy laws.

Clinton claims “Email-gate” it a “vast right wing conspiracy,” not an abuse of power and of her position at the State Department.

Though relentless in her presidential bid, Clinton has opened herself to unwanted attention, and investigation, because of personal mistakes for which she is solely responsible. No “vast right-wing conspiracy” can replace federal law.

One such law is 18 United States Code 1924: Did Clinton knowingly and willingly mishandle classified information?

18 U.S.C. 1924 states:

“Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his [or her] office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned…”

The punishment for committing this crime is one year in federal penitentiary and a fine.

Other federal laws she potentially violated range from conspiracy to commit a federal offense to Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in a federal investigation.

Kenneth Bergquist, a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice under Reagan, identified these laws in The Daily Caller. Bergquist indicates that there are 8 laws (including 18 USC 1924) Hillary may have violated, exposing the degrees of these violations, if she’s indicted

The Washington Examiner reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) confirmed that a criminal probe into her personal email server use was acknowledged. Though this observation was reported in October of 2015, the general counsel of the FBI filed a letter in a federal court confirming the existence of the probe to the media via a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch.
James Madison once said: “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” Clearly, Clinton didn’t get the message.

Despite bearing the name “Clinton” the former Secretary of State achieved her obscure power through a series of debacles that include presidential runs, her time as a U.S. Senator, and the infidelity of her husband, Bill.

However, no matter one’s societal status or last name, especially for Hillary in this case, no American citizen is exempt from the rule of law. Even agency executives who handle classified information are not exempt. With that, even though no indictment has been spurred by the probes into Secretary Clinton’s email fiasco, it is definitively likely that she violated federal secrecy laws.

Clinton claims “Email-gate” it a “vast right wing conspiracy,” not an abuse of power and of her position at the State Department.

Though relentless in her presidential bid, Clinton has opened herself to unwanted attention, and investigation, because of personal mistakes for which she is solely responsible. No “vast right-wing conspiracy” can replace federal law.

One such law is 18 United States Code 1924: Did Clinton knowingly and willingly mishandle classified information?

18 U.S.C. 1924 states:

“Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his [or her] office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned…”

The punishment for committing this crime is one year in federal penitentiary and a fine.

Other federal laws she potentially violated range from conspiracy to commit a federal offense to Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in a federal investigation.

Kenneth Bergquist, a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Justice under Reagan, identified these laws in The Daily Caller. Bergquist indicates that there are 8 laws (including 18 USC 1924) Hillary may have violated, exposing the degrees of these violations, if she’s indicted

The Washington Examiner reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) confirmed that a criminal probe into her personal email server use was acknowledged. Though this observation was reported in October of 2015, the general counsel of the FBI filed a letter in a federal court confirming the existence of the probe to the media via a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch.

Twenty-two of the hundreds of emails recently released by the State Department were withheld and deemed “top secret” – so secret that a full redaction is risky.

Yet, Clinton had the audacity to assert that she knew nothing of about any classified information on her private email server.

At the most recent MSNBC Democratic townhall debate, Clinton outright lied by stating, “I never sent or received any classified material.”

Kind of like her husband Bill claiming, “I did not have sex with that woman.”

The official MSNBC transcript reads:

TODD: All right, Madam Secretary, there is an open — there is an open FBI investigation into this matter about how you may have handled classified material. Are you 100 percent confident that nothing is going to come of this FBI investigation?

CLINTON: I am 100 percent confident. This is a security review that was requested. It is being carried out. It will be resolved. But I have to add if there’s going to be a security review about me, there’s going to have to be security reviews about a lot of other people, including Republican office holders, because we’ve got this absurd situation of retroactive classifications…

The woman is playing the media, yes, and despite her education and long history of political scandals, she’s most likely calculated the costs—and risks. Perhaps though she only calculated the costs for her political career, not her personal freedom.

While Clinton may be calculating the costs associated with these crimes and her political future, she reveals her lack of concern for the future safety of America. Through all of this, Clinton has projected herself as a self-righteous, self-interested, want-to-be despot of a leader. If she cared so much about the American people, why has she taken the position she has on “national security” risks?

And if she isn’t lying, as she claims, do Americans really want a leader who doesn’t know what information is classified and whether or not it is on her email server?

The White House is Covering for Hillary Clinton and the FBI is “Super Pissed-Off”!

The FBI has been investigating the scandal surrounding Hillary Clinton’s lawless use of a private email server during her time as Secretary of State. Sadly, much of their work has been roundly abused by the Obama administration and the Democrat Party. Unjustly so. The FBI is not at fault for pursuing an investigation into obviously criminal behavior, but if their investigation uncovers proof of Mrs. Clinton’s malfeasance, then the Democrat Party could lose many of the gains they’ve made during the Obama era. This is something that the President seems dead-set against allowing.

How sold-out is the Obama team to discrediting the investigation against Clinton? They are prepared to sacrifice the sanctity of our system of justice to defend the law-breaking Clinton.

When asked during a recent press conference whether or not Clinton would be indicted, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest had this to say, “That will be a decision made by the Department of Justice and prosecutors over there. What I know that some officials over there have said is that she is not a target of the investigation. So that does not seem to be the direction that it’s trending. But I’m certainly not going to weigh in on a decision or in that process in any way. That is a decision to be made solely by independent prosecutors but again, based on what we know from the Department of Justice, it does not seem to be headed in that direction.”

Anyone who understands the way the justice system in America works knows that this type of statement from the White House is completely out of place, as it undercuts the investigators and the way an investigation must be handled. Fox News’s Catherine Herridge explains. “That statement by Josh Earnest has got the back up of our contacts at the FBI and Justice Department for two reasons… They are SUPER PISSED OFF to use a technical term. Number one, Josh Earnest has absolutely no clearance or visibility in the FBI investigation. Number two, they say it really seems part of a troubling pattern from the White House because the president earlier said he did not see any national security implications to the Clinton emails and then we found out he had never been briefed.”

Make no mistake, fellow citizens. The media has already uncovered more than 1500 different occasions where classified material passed across Hillary Clinton’s private (and unsecure) servers. Based simply on this FACT, she is guilty and disqualified from serving in any elected position (especially President) ever again.

243 emails released Friday were classified at some level, bringing the overall number of classified Clinton emails to 1,583. The State Department also announced Friday that it is withholding in full and into perpetuity 22 emails that contain “Top Secret” information — the highest classification category.

However, none of these facts will deter President Obama or the Democrat Party for fighting tooth and nail to stop justice from taking its course. Why? Because the Democrat Party doesn’t care about justice. The Democrat Party doesn’t care about truth. No, the only thing the Democrat Party cares about, as evidenced by the life and career of Hillary Rodham Clinton, is POWER.

If McDonald’s Goes Under It Will Be Because They Followed Liberals to Disaster

Ronald
I saw a sad but not totally unexpected news item from John Hawkins this morning regarding one of America’s premiere dining outlets… McDonald’s. The House That Ronald Built has fallen on hard times, with some estimates indicating that a significant portion of the franchises are currently insolvent or seriously in the red. The dire warnings from franchise owners are including phrases such as, “these are the final days.” (Yahoo News)

McDonald’s franchisees believe the brand is in a “deep depression” and could be facing its “final days,” according to a new survey.

“We are in the throes of a deep depression, and nothing is changing,” one franchisee wrote in response to the survey by Nomura analyst Mark Kalinowski. “Probably 30% of operators are insolvent.”

Another wrote, “The CEO is sowing the seeds of our demise. We are a quick-serve fast-food restaurant, not a fast casual like Five Guys or Chipotle. The system may be facing its final days.”

More than a dozen franchisees expressed frustration with McDonald’s management, saying that CEO Steve Easterbrook’s turnaround plan — which includes initiatives like all-day breakfast and a shift to digital ordering kiosks — is a distraction from the core issues of McDonald’s, like food quality and customer service.
We’ve talked about this here before and it’s been a regular feature of financial news headlines. McDonalds has been losing money right and left and they’ve been dumping massive resources into a seemingly endless array of marketing gimmicks as they try to turn their fortunes around. None of it seems to be working, and the reason may be that they’re not addressing the core issue which some of the franchisees are bringing up: the chain strayed away from their original core mission and the strength of their brand in response to social pressures of the day.

Let’s face it… McDonald’s was never meant to be a fancy, high end eatery, nor were they a health food store. It was fast food that tasted good and people were willing to tolerate all the negatives that came with that deal if the price was right. It’s true that costs of beef and some of their toppings have been going up, leading to pressure on them to raise prices, but that’s hardly the only cause for their woes. Everyone in that market sector is dealing with the same problems. No… what really killed McDonald’s market position was selling out to liberal pressure groups.

I think the beginning of the end can be traced back to 2002 when they buckled to pressure from health nuts and changed the oil they used to make their french fries, cutting the dreaded trans-fats. They tinkered with the formula again in 2007 but it was never the same. Are any of you old enough to remember the original McDonald’s fries? Those things were like crack in a cardboard cup. I could eat two large orders by myself because They… Were… Awesome. Were they good for you? Obviously not. But that’s not why we bought them. It’s not Ronald McDonald’s responsibility to keep you healthy, it’s yours. When they changed the fries they were just awful and I didn’t order them nearly as often.

Later the restaurant felt even more pressure from the health obsessed wing on the left and began “diversifying” their menu to be less trashy. They were trying to sell apple wedges as an alternate for fries and the menu was stocked with salads. SALADS. At McDonald’s. The only lettuce we needed to see during a visit to the Golden Arches was shredded up on the Big Macs. More changes along those lines followed and their brand loyalty cratered.

The problem with adding lots of options is that more food goes to waste since they have to prepare some of it in advance. Sure, people will always say they love more options, but it’s not always economically viable. The Breakfast All Day idea sounded great to me, but if they’re losing money on it then it’s one option too many. So that was their other major issue… too many options. But to combat the problem, they decided to diversify the menu even further and start offering all manner of specialty sandwiches. Some were good and some… not so much. But yet again they were losing more money by having to stock up and prepare even more items which didn’t fly off the heating tables fast enough. And most of this was done in response to reading too many articles in the New York Times.

McDonald’s could still probably be saved, but I doubt they’re willing to risk the backlash from Michelle Obama’s army if they did it. The company could go back to their old school formula. Trim down the menu for starters. You need a hamburger, cheeseburger, the Quarter Pounder and the Big Mac. Toss in the fish fillet and maybe one chicken sandwich. Put the fatty, lard filled oil back in the fry machine. Keep those molten hot apple pies and maybe a few dessert options. Kick the rest except for some seasonal specialties like the McRib. I’m guessing people would come back and your waste costs would go down hugely. You may get nailed with a minimum wage increase, but all your competitors will face the same thing if you do.

It’s a shame to see McDonald’s floundering, but they really brought it on themselves.

To The Senators Who Voted Against Kate’s Law — Your Hands Are Dyed Red

by Bob Knowles

It’s easy for man to let others die if those who are dying are out of sight. That much we’ve learned from war. Setting aside the morality of particular wars, war is easy to support when you’re not the one fighting. This ethical defect we’ve developed as a species was on full display this week when the Senate voted down Kate’s Law.

Kate’s Law, otherwise known as the “Stop Sanctuary Policies and Protect Americans Act,” would have withheld federal grants from sanctuary cities (cities that refuse to obey federal immigration laws, thus protecting criminal illegal aliens), and mandated a minimum five-year prison sentence for any illegal caught re-entering the United States who had a prior aggregated felony conviction, or two prior illegal re-entry convictions.

This bill was colloquially known as Kate’s Law because San Fransisco resident Kate Steinle was shot and killed in July by Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal alien and seven-time felon who had previously been deported five times.

The bill, which needed 60 votes to move forward, was blocked 54-45. 45 Senators voted against the bill, almost all of whom are Democrats (Lindsey Graham didn’t vote).

Prior to the vote, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) said:

“The standard rhetorical device that so many Democratic Senators use is to say ‘Well, not all immigrants are criminals.’ Well of course they’re not…but this bill doesn’t deal with all immigrants, it deals with one specific subset of immigrants: Criminal illegal aliens. Those who come to this country illegally and also have additional criminal convictions, whether homicide, whether sexual assault, whether kidnapping, or battery, or drunk driving…For every Democratic senator, this vote today is a simple decision: With whom do you stand? Do you stand with the violent, criminal illegal aliens who are being released over and over again?”


It’s been argued–even by conservatives–that such mandatory sentences would burden our already overpopulated prisons, which would be fiscally imprudent. I understand that argument, however, the alternative to imprisonment is deportation. And as we’ve learned from the Kate Steinle killing, deportation doesn’t do very much when we have a porous border.

Democrats and Republicans love to brag about deporting criminal illegals while someone like Francisco Lopez-Sanchez entered into the United States illegally five times. Wow, we’re doing such a great job with those violent criminal illegals! Hey, is that Francisco creeping across the border AGAIN?! You little devil!

Also of note, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) reported that in 2013, ICE released 36,007 “convicted criminal aliens” into the wind. Of the 36,007 criminal aliens, 193 had been convicted of homicide, 426 of sexual assault, 303 of kidnapping, and 1,075 of aggravated assault. This is a severe problem.

The Kate Steinle killing wasn’t some freak thing. We basically don’t have borders, and apparently, we just release many of the criminal illegals we do manage to snag.

To the Democrats–and singular Republican Mark Kirk–who voted against Kate’s Law, I suppose you’ve revealed your priorities. You care more about your agenda, whatever the end goal may be–voters for Democrats, and cheap labor for Republicans–than you do about human life.

I say this because in addition to voting against this law, you continuously obstruct any and every attempt to secure the border unless it’s packaged with “comprehensive” immigration reform legislation (translation: amnesty).

If someone is rushed into the ER with multiple stab wounds, gushing blood, the doctor’s first priority is to stem the blood-flow, not give the exsanguinating patient antibiotics. Similarly, if we don’t first secure the border, dealing with illegals who are already here doesn’t really matter, because we still have a gaping wound.

Regardless of the law itself, and the arguments against it fiscally, or on other grounds, Cruz is correct. The 45 Senators who voted ‘No’ on Kate’s Law, and the Senators who block “border security first” bills again and again–all to advance an agenda–bear the full burden of Kate Steinle’s death, as well as any subsequent deaths at the hands of criminal illegal aliens.

But it’s just so easy to let people die when you aren’t watching them take their final breath, isn’t it?

Read more at http://lastresistance.com/14339/to-the-senators-who-voted-against-kates-law-your-hands-are-dyed-red/#c5dHmcD3wZ2o6myt.99

Planned Parenthood Kept Aborted Babies Alive to Harvest Organs, Ex-Technician says

By Cheryl Wetzstein – The Washington Times – Wednesday, August 19, 2015
In an undercover video released Wednesday, a former technician for a tissue-harvesting company details how an aborted baby was kept alive so that its heart could be harvested at a California Planned Parenthood facility, raising more legal questions about the group’s practices.

Holly O’Donnell, a former blood and tissue procurement technician for the biotech startup StemExpress, also said she was asked to harvest an intact brain from the late-term, male fetus whose heart was still beating after the abortion.
A StemExpress supervisor “gave me the scissors and told me that I had to cut down the middle of the face. And I can’t even describe what that feels like,” said Ms. O’Donnell, who has been featured in earlier videos by the Center for Medical Progress, a pro-life group that previously had released six undercover clips involving Planned Parenthood personnel and practices.

David Daleiden, the video project leader, said the undercover footage and interviews show that fetuses are sometimes delivered “intact and alive” before their organs are harvested.

The federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002 says that when a child is born alive, including having a beating heart, he or she is a legal person and has a right to lifesaving medical care.

California law also prohibits any kind of experimentation on a fetus with a discernible heartbeat, said the Center for Medical Progress, which is calling for the federal government to cease its $500 million a year support to Planned Parenthood and for it to be investigated.

“Today’s video is especially gruesome, and it shows, once again, the barbarity of what takes place at Planned Parenthood clinics across the country,” said Rep. Joseph R. Pitts, Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on health, one of several congressional panels investigating Planned Parenthood.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican and chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said Wednesday that all the videos are “disturbing,” and his committee’s investigation will look into whether “any federal funding supported transactions involving fetal tissue.”

“Top-level employees of Planned Parenthood admit to changing their procedures to harvest intact bodies of unborn children for body-part trafficking,” said Rep. Trent Franks, Arizona Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution and civil justice.

Mr. Franks and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Virginia Republican, also said Wednesday that they have written to 58 Planned Parenthood affiliates. They are seeking 10 years of data about all abortions, late-term abortions, “born-alive” infants, fetal tissue collections and any modifications of abortion techniques to “increase the odds of preserving intact fetal tissue and organs.”

Five states — Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Utah and New Hampshire — already have defunded Planned Parenthood.

A request for comment from Planned Parenthood Federation of America about the new video was not immediately available, but the nonprofit organization has denounced earlier undercover videos as fraudulent and misleading.

“These extremists show a total lack of compassion and dignity for women’s most personal medical decisions,” Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood, said earlier this month after a video release.

Meanwhile, pro-life groups are using the videos to step up their calls for investigations and defunding of Planned Parenthood.

IRS Docs Show How the Renegade Tax Agency Used Donor Lists To Steer Audits

Greetings – the Meister is in Honningsvag, Norway – the Northernmost village in the world. Light rain and 52 degrees.

Judicial Watch has released more blockbuster documents from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that confirm that the IRS used donor lists of tax-exempt organizations to target those donors for audits. The documents also show that IRS officials specifically highlighted how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce may come under “high scrutiny” from the IRS. We forced these records out through a Freedom of Information lawsuit seeking documents about the selection of individuals and organizations for audits, based application information and donor lists submitted by Tea Party and other 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations.

In a letter dated September 28, 2010, then-Democrat Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) informs then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman: “I request that you and your agency survey major 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) organizations …” In reply, in a letter dated February 17, 2011, Shulman writes: “In the work plan of the Exempt Organizations Division, we announced that beginning in FY2011, we are increasing our focus on section 501(c)(4), (5) and (6) organizations.”

Sure enough, in 2010, after receiving Baucus’ letter, the IRS considered the issue of auditing donors to 501(c)(4) organizations, alleging that a 35 percent gift tax would be due on donations in excess of $13,000. The documents show that the IRS wanted to cross-check donor lists from 501(c)(4) organizations against gift tax filings and commence audits against taxpayers based on this information.

A gift tax on contributions to 501(c)(4)s was considered by most to be a dead letter since the IRS had never enforced the rule after the Supreme Court ruled that such taxes violated the First Amendment. The documents show that the IRS had not enforced the gift tax since 1982.

But then, in February 2011, at least five donors of an unnamed organization were audited.

The documents show that Crossroads GPS, associated with Republican Karl Rove, was specifically referenced by IRS officials in the context of applying the gift tax. On April 20, IRS attorney Lorraine Gardner emails a 501(c)(4) donor list to former Branch Chief in the IRS’ Office of the Chief Counsel James Hogan. Later, this information is apparently shared with IRS Estate Gift and Policy Manager Lisa Piehl while Gardner seeks “information about any of the donors.”

One of the most disturbing bits of information pulled from the documents concerns the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which sometimes works to support the free-enterprise system in the face of heavy-handed regulatory policies.

Emails to and from Lorraine Gardner point to a bias against the Chamber. An IRS official (whose name is redacted) emails Gardner on May 13, 2011, a leftist blog post responding to the IRS targeting of political and other activities of 501(c)(4), (5) and (6) organizations: “The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a 501(c)(6) organization and may find itself under high scrutiny. One can only hope.”

The subject line of the email highlights this anti-Chamber of Commerce comment: “we are making headlines notice the end regarding 501(c)(6) applicability enjoy.” This critical comment is forwarded to other IRS officials and shows up attached to another Gardner IRS email chain with the subject line “re: 501(c)(4)” that discusses a pending decision about a tax-exempt entity.

In early May, once the media began reporting on the IRS audits of donors, IRS officials reacted quickly. One official acknowledges the issue “is a biggy” when a reporter from The New York Times contacts the IRS on May 9.

On May 13, 2011, former IRS Director of Legislative Affairs Floyd Williams discusses compliance with “interest” from Capitol Hill: “Not surprisingly, interest on the hill is picking up on this issue … with Majority Leader Reid’s office, has suggested the possibility of a briefing for the Senate Finance Committee staff on general issues related to section 501(c)(4) organizations. I think we should do it as interest is likely to grow as we get closer to elections.”

Later that day, then-Director of the Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner weighs in with an email that confirms that she supported the gift tax audits. Lerner acknowledges that “the courts have said specifically that contributions to 527 political organizations are not subject to the gift tax-nothing that I’m aware of that about contributions to organizations that are not political organizations.” Section 501(c)(4) organizations are not “political organizations.” [Emphasis in original]

Lerner’s involvement and support for the new gift tax contradicts the IRS statement to the media at the time that audits were not part of a “broader effort looking at donations 501(c)(4)’s.” In July 2011, the IRS retreated after a public uproar and soon-to-be Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller directed that “examination resources should not be expended on this issue” and that all audits of taxpayers “relating to the application of gift taxes” to 501(c)(4) organizations “should be closed.”

By the way, we had filed a separate lawsuit for records about targeting of individuals for audit in November 2013. In that litigation, the IRS had refused to search any email systems, including Lerner’s records. A federal court ruled the IRS’ search was sufficient and dismissed the lawsuit earlier this month. So it took another lawsuit to get this new info from the IRS!

These documents that we had to force out of the IRS prove that the agency used donor lists to audit supporters of organizations engaged in First Amendment-protected lawful political speech. And the snarky comments about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the obsession with Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS show that the IRS was targeting critics of the Obama administration.

President Obama continues to lie about his IRS scandal. He told a comedian the other day that “there was not some big conspiracy there.” Obama also said, “Congress had passed a crummy law that didn’t give people guidance in terms of what it was they were trying to do. They did it poorly and stupidly.”

How does he know all this? The Department of Justice and the FBI supposedly are still conducting a criminal investigation.

The Treasury for Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report exposing the scandal made no mention of “crummy laws” passed by Congress. Its audit revealed the IRS had used “inappropriate criteria” to identify potential political cases. “Early in Calendar Year 2010,” TIGTA wrote, “the IRS began using inappropriate criteria to identify organizations applying for tax-exempt status to (e.g., lists of past and future donors).” The illegal IRS reviews continued for more than 18 months and, TIGTA reported, “delayed processing of targeted groups’ applications preparing for the 2012 presidential election.”

And these documents tell the truth – his IRS hated conservatives and was willing to illegally tax and audit citizens to shut down opposition to Barack Obama’s policies and reelection.

Obama’s IRS falsehood the other day contained an admission that few picked up on. He said, “You don’t want all this money pouring through non-for-profits but you also want to make sure that everybody is getting treated fairly.” Who doesn’t “want all this money pouring through non-for-profits”? Barack Obama. There is no law prohibiting money “flowing through non-profits.” But he didn’t like the idea of this money being used against his reelection or his policies. So his IRS targeted these groups and their donors for lawless oppression.

This president and his administration are out of control.

That’s why your JW is working on several fronts where the growing scandal over IRS audits is concerned.

In September 2014, another Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit forced the release of documents detailing that the IRS sought, obtained and maintained the names of donors to Tea Party and other conservative groups. IRS officials acknowledged in these documents that “such information was not needed.” The documents also show that the donor names were being used for a “secret research project.”

Let’s review some of the facts Obama chose to ignore.

The House Ways and Means Committee announced at a May 7, 2014, hearing that, after scores of conservative groups provided donor information “to the IRS, nearly one in ten donors were subject to audit.” In 2011, as many as five donors to the conservative 501(c)(4) organization Freedom’s Watch were audited, according to the Wall Street Journal. Bradley Blakeman, Freedom’s Watch’s former president, also alleges he was “personally targeted” by the IRS.

There’s more.

In February 2014, then-Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) detailed improper IRS targeting of existing conservative groups:

Additionally, we now know that the IRS targeted not only right-leaning applicants, but also right-leaning groups that were already operating as 501(c)(4)s. At Washington, DC’s direction, dozens of groups operating as 501(c)(4)s were flagged for IRS surveillance, including monitoring of the groups’ activities, websites and any other publicly available information. Of these groups, 83 percent were right-leaning. And of the groups the IRS selected for audit, 100 percent were right-leaning.

Maybe President Obama can fool a comedian about the IRS scandal, but he isn’t fooling Judicial Watch as we battle his Justice Department and IRS lawyers successfully in court to hold him accountable for his worse-than-Nixon abuse of the IRS.

Federal Judge Says State Department Must “Answer For” Destruction of Clinton Emails

There is a legal reckoning coming for Hillary Clinton’s notorious email practices and policies. There is too much Judicial Watch legal pressure and too many federal court judges for the Obama administration and the Clinton gang forever to avoid the legal consequences of their email shenanigans. For instance, we are pleased to report that a federal judge has said that the State Department will “have to answer for” any destruction of Hillary Clinton’s email records.

U. S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras made the statement at a July 9, 2015, status conference concerning a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for records about the State Department’s vetting of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s potential conflicts of interest. The transcript of the July 9 court hearing is available here.

Recall that it was only four months ago, on March 2, 2015, that The New York Times reported then-Secretary Clinton used at least one non-“state.gov” email account to conduct official government business during her entire tenure as the secretary of state. It also was reported that Secretary Clinton stored these records on a non-U.S. government server at her home in Chappaqua, New York.

There are nearly 20 federal lawsuits that touch on Mrs. Clinton and her staff’s use of secret email accounts to conduct official government business. In our various FOIA lawsuits, our lawyers have informed attorneys for the Obama administration that Hillary Clinton’s account and any other secret accounts used by State employees should be secured, recovered and searched.

During this particular court hearing, Judicial Watch attorney Chris Fedeli raised the concerns JW had about the preservation of records, especially email records that were not part of the 55,000 records Clinton turned over to the State Department last year. Apparently, Fedeli struck the right note.

In response, Judge Contreras said he was also “concerned” about the preservation of these records:

If documents are destroyed between now and August 17, the government will have to answer for that, and, you know, if they don’t want to do anything out of the ordinary to preserve between now and then, they can make that choice. I will allow them to make that choice, but they will answer for it, if something happens.

After a Justice Department lawyer attempted to assure him that the administration was asking for government records from former State Department employees, Judge Contreras questioned the State Department’s position that it had no legal obligation to take additional steps to obtain other government records in the custody of Mrs. Clinton and other former officials who used her special email system:

[I]t is to state the obvious that this is not an ordinary case, and everyone should be working to make sure that whatever documents exist today remain in existence.

Judge Contreras also voiced concerns regarding the State Department’s refusal to provide any information about the Clinton email issue:

But I am a little bit mystified that the government is not more forthcoming in just answering questions that will help this case proceed on a systematic basis, and on a basis that will allow everyone to get the answers that will eventually help resolve these cases…

This one court hearing shows that Hillary Clinton and her co-conspirators in the State Department will have to account for each and every email on Hillary Clinton’s notorious email system. That’s encouraging. It’s become clear now to the public at large that Hillary Clinton has been telling fairy tales about the missing emails that are beginning to unravel. “Nothing Mrs. Clinton has said so far on the subject is correct,” The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel has charitably observed.

Again, the reckoning is coming.

The court also seemed to reject the Obama administration’s contention that responding to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit in a timely way would derail its compliance with Judge Contreras’ order in another lawsuit (Leopold v. U.S. Department of State, (15-00123)) requiring that the 55,000 pages of Clinton email records be searched and produced under FOIA by January 2016:

My order in Leopold was based on numbers and percentages. To the extent that documents from that universe are produced in this case, they qualify for the numbers in Leopold, don’t they? So that they’re not mutually exclusive from a resource standpoint, are they?

The judge then said his “inclination is to have a search done of the Clinton e-mail database that’s digitized and searchable for this relatively narrow, in my view, relatively narrow request.”

A separate and ongoing Judicial Watch lawsuit forced the disclosure last year of documents that provided a road map for over 200 conflict-of-interest rulings that led to $48 million for the Clinton Foundation and other Clinton-connected entities during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. Previously disclosed documents in this lawsuit, for example, raise questions about funds Clinton accepted from entities linked to Saudi Arabia, China and Iran, among others. Judicial Watch and The Washington Examiner partnered in the first story to break the Clinton conflicts scandal: “State Department approved 215 Bill Clinton speeches, controversial consulting deal, worth $48m; Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff copied on all decisions.”

You can see why the State Department and the Clinton operation have been trying to play a rope-a-dope obstruction game with Judicial Watch, courts and Congress for these emails. But it won’t work.

As I write this, news is breaking that Hillary Clinton is the subject of a criminal referral to the Justice Department by two separate inspectors general for an investigation into her potentially criminal mishandling of hundreds of pages of classified information on her email system. The New York Times broke the story (and may have edited it at the behest of the Clinton campaign), but there is no doubt that there is serious criminal liability for Hillary Clinton. If the Justice Department, the State Department, or the FBI were all above-board, there would have been law enforcement activity many months ago. Now we know that the State Department resisted cooperating with the IG investigations. And we can’t trust the Obama Justice Department. The New York Times tells us that it helping Hillary Clinton’s PR effort, too:

On Thursday night and again Friday morning, the Justice Department referred to the matter as a “criminal referral” but later on Friday dropped the word “criminal.”

At the Obama Justice Department, politics always comes first, so it is imperative that no less than a special counsel be appointed to investigate this matter. Under Justice Department regulations:

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and-(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and (b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.”

This will be a major ethical test for new Attorney General Loretta Lynch. In the meantime, we will continue our pursuit for information and accountability in the courts.

Judicial Watch Client McCann Testifies To Congress on Deadly Sanctuary Policies

If you’d like to see how irrelevant and out of touch the typical D.C. debate about “amnesty” for illegal aliens can be, I suggest you watch this video of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this week. American citizens told of loved ones who were murdered by illegal aliens thanks to lawless state and national “sanctuary policies.” I attended that hearing in person, so I can tell you it that it will make you both upset and angry.

Judicial Watch was at the hearing because it included the testimony of our client Brian McCann, who did his part earlier to jolt the political class back to reality. McCann is a lifelong resident of Chicago. We are representing him in his lawsuit against Cook County Sheriff Thomas J. Dart. The suit challenges the sheriff’s refusal to cooperate with federal immigration officials or honor immigration detainers issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for criminal aliens.

McCann’s written testimony, which is available in full here, brings home the enormous human tragedy attached to illegal immigration and the dangers of open, unsecured borders. Mr. McCann told the committee members about how his brother, William “Denny” McCann, was run over and killed in June 2011 by an unlawfully present criminal alien who had just completed a two-year term of probation for a 2009 DUI conviction. The alien, Saul Chavez, was charged with felony aggravated driving under the influence, but was released by Dart from a Cook County jail in November 2011 despite an ICE immigration detainer. At the time, ICE issued detainers when it learned that criminal aliens are being held by state or local law enforcement officials. The detainers required the criminal aliens be held for an additional 48 hours to enable ICE to take custody of them before they are released. At the time, Cook County jails had released as many as 1,000 criminal aliens sought by ICE in the previous 18 months. We continue this legal fight. Just last month we filed a petition for review with the Illinois Supreme Court.

Denny McCann’s killer is believed to have fled to Mexico. As Brian McCann recounted to the Senate committee:

Denny was crossing Kedzie Avenue on a marked crosswalk four years ago and was violently struck by a drunk driver who dragged Denny under his car for a block in an attempt to flee before Denny died. The family was notified by the Chicago Police and the killer was placed into custody and charged with aggravated DUI causing death. Two days later ICE issued a detainer because the young man was an illegal alien with a prior felony. The family was assured by the Cook County prosecutor that the defendant would not be allowed to post bail and be released. Three months later the Cook County Board passed the ordinance that effectively requires the sheriff to ignore detainers. During the intervening weeks after Denny’s violent death, Cook County President Toni Preckwinkle and former mayoral candidate and Commissioner Jesus Garcia pushed for the ordinance and rammed it through on September 7, 2011. Two months later the killer made bail and absconded to Mexico.

As if Denny McCann’s death was not painful enough for the family, they also had to endure learning that if our government had simply enforced the law, the illegal alien who killed his brother would not be running loose. Here is how Mr. McCann tells it:

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this whole ordeal was that we also learned that this illegal alien was prosecuted for another felony two years earlier and ICE was never notified then. He was removed from probation February 2011 and four months later killed Denny. In short, Denny would be alive today and enjoying the birth of a new granddaughter born two weeks ago if the Cook County criminal justice system that included the county board did its job. I received confirmation that he is indeed in Mexico from the FBI and is currently driving a truck. I had to prevail on my congressman to get the FBI to cooperate with my request for information and action. I have not heard from the Bureau in over six months.

Of course, the Obama administration has run away from any serious enforcement of our immigration laws and no longer routinely issues detainers requiring that local police hold illegal alien criminals:

Because ICE no longer routinely issues detainers we are no longer challenging [Sherriff Thomas] Dart’s refusal to honor them. However, we continue to challenge the Sheriff’s policy of prohibiting and restricting communications and the exchanging of information with ICE officials about a person’s citizenship or immigration status. Now under PEP (Priority Enforcement Program) even if ICE requests that Cook County notify them of the impending release of a deportable criminal alien, Cook County would not comply. I find this unacceptable and will fight this policy in the courts until the end. I remain very concerned that the current immigration enforcement policies seem to encourage jurisdictions like Cook County and San Francisco to continue their noncooperation policies.

The other victims who testified that day also told harrowing stories and demanded action.

President Obama’s response was to threaten to veto any legislation that would withhold federal monies from states or localities that continued sanctuary policies that put the public safety at risk. And a report out of The New York Times confirmed what we’ve been highlight for years – that Obama has stopped deporting almost every illegal alien. The story confirms as many as 87 percent of illegals won’t be subject to deportation under Obama’s unlawful sanctuary/amnesty policies.

As are doing for fine Americans like Brian McCann, Judicial Watch will continue to investigate, litigate and educate. We promise to continue to expose this assault on the rule of law, the public safety, and our nation’s sovereignty.

Until next week…

Court filing suggests courtroom collusion against Arpaio

by Bob Unruh

sheriff-joe-arpaio
A new filing in a legal dispute involving Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Maricopa County, Arizona, is renewing the demand that the judge allow an investigator who was drawn into the case by others’ testimony be allowed to participate.

And it suggests, strongly, that the judge is pursuing his own interests by delaying a decision on the motion to allow Dennis L. Montgomery to intervene.

“By not granting the motions, but instead continuing to sit on them for the court’s apparent strategic reasons, Mr. Montgomery’s rights are being severely harmed, on an ongoing basis. Mr. Montgomery must respectfully be allowed to intervene in this lawsuit in order to protect his property and other interests, which was previously ordered by this court to be handed over to third parties,” a new filing by Montgomery’s attorney states.

“The delay in this lawsuit is creating much more than the appearance that this court is working in concert with the American Civil Liberties Union in order to harm defendant Sheriff Joe Arpaio and intervenor Dennis Montgomery, as well as make good on its commitment, expressed by the court’s wife as confirmed by neutral persons, to ‘destroy’ Sheriff Joseph Arpaio so the sheriff cannot be reelected in 2016.”

The verbal barrage comes from attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, who pointed out that the rancor is so bad in the case that his client, who had provided information at one point to Arpaio and was drawn into the current dispute that way, has filed a suit against the ACLU over their statements against him in the case.

“This case represents a multifaceted and growing conflict of interest not only by the ACLU and its attorneys but as important the equally unethical conduct by the court which must cease immediately,” the motion notes.

It continued, “Even more troubling, this court’s record reflects that the court has previously authorized significant payment of legal fees and costs to the law firm which represented plaintiffs, Covington and Burling LLP, where this court’s brother-in-law, Keith Teel, is a partner, insurance, patent and product-liability litigator. This has further created more than an appearance of bias or prejudice, as well as exacerbated the court’s egregious clear-cut conflict of interest, which this court continues to ignore and instead through its actions and intentional inactions thereby continues to harm Mr. Montgomery.”

WND reported earlier on the bitter fight.

It’s U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow who is hearing a contempt of court case against Arpaio, after earlier ruling that Arpaio’s office needed to stop targeting illegal aliens for contact.

Snow stayed proceedings in the contempt case after two different motions were made for him to remove himself.

What really goes on with the federal government? Read Andrew Napolitano’s warning that “It is Dangerous to be Right when the Government is Wrong.”

At the center of the effort to remove the judge from the contempt case is a statement from a witness, Karen Morris Grissom, who told the sheriff the judge hates him. The witness explained to Arpaio that she was a childhood friend of the judge’s wife.

Mrs. Snow, Grissom said, “told me that her husband hates u and will do anything to get u out of office.”

“This has bothered me since last year when I saw her.”

Lawyers A. Melvin McDonald and Michele Iafrate have been representing Arpaio, and argued in their request for Snow’s recusal, “No doubt, moving for the recusal or disqualification of any sitting judge is a serious matter. Under statute, case law, and judicial canons, the perception of judicial bias and the appearance of impropriety, punctuated by the material witness status of the presiding judge’s spouse, mandate the recusal and disqualification of the Honorable G. Murray Snow.”

Worse, the motion says, the judge started asking questions apparently for his own investigation of the situation in court.

“By his own official inquiry, statements, and questions in open court on the record, one of the investigations into which Judge Snow unexpectedly inquired during recent contempt proceedings concerns his spouse, Sheri Snow,” the new motion explained. “No reasonable person with knowledge of the facts can deny that Judge Snow is now investigating and presiding over issues involving his own family. This alone is sufficient to mandate recusal and disqualification.”

Snow also raised questions about the sheriff’s department’s use of an informant, Montgomery, which, the motion states, violates judicial rules requiring an unbiased judge.

An affidavit from Arpaio explains that the judge’s behavior had been questionable several times throughout the case. At one point, the judge “demanded that I have ‘skin in the game’ and, specifically, that I pay a sanction from my personal funds and not from any fund created to assist me in my legal defense.”

The demand was made even though the sheriff was named as a defendant in his official capacity not as an individual.

Instead of approving the sheriff’s offer to pay $100,000 from his personal funds to a civil rights organization to settle concerns, the judge asked the U.S. attorney to attend the court proceedings to determine “whether sufficient evidence would be present to justify criminal contempt proceedings.”

Montgomery also is involved in a case in Washington in which Klayman asked a federal judge to interview him in secret “about the unconstitutional and illegal surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency that is highly relevant and of crucial important … as he worked closely with these agencies following the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/court-filing-suggests-courtroom-collusion-against-arpaio/#MufWZjMmBdhLBVKY.99

Private Email: Hillary Received Early Advice From A Shady Friend

hillary-clinton-benghazi

by Javier Manjarres

Remember when President Bill Clinton famously and infatically stated that he “did not have sexual relations” with Monica Lewinsky?

Well, the world found out that Bubba lied, as Lewinsky “blew” the whistle on him, and divulged what really happened between the two.

Now his wife, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton may have been caught in a lie of her own.

Are you surprised?

I didn’t think so.

Mrs. Clinton has been saying that she received “unsolicited” advise from her friend and long-time advisor Syndey Blumenthal, a character that the Obama administration believed to be so shady, that in 2009, administration officials kept Blumenthal from working alongside then-Secretary of State Clinton.

Mrs. Clinton has never denied her friendship with Blumenthal, nor has she denied the “unsolicited” advise he gave her, and never did state when the advise began.

The Clintons being the Clintons, disregarded the fact that the Obama administration “was prohibiting” Blumenthal f rom officially advising Clinton at the Department of State.

According to one of Hillary Clinton’s recently released private email(s) from her home server, Blumenthal was advising Clinton on foreign matters as far back as 2009.

In other words, Clinton hid, or just didn’t feel compelled to say exactly when Blumenthal was advising her.

“…In an email dated November 5, 2009, Blumenthal sent Clinton an email titled “Agenda with Merkel,” Blumenthal encouraged Clinton to develop the Transatlantic Economic Council, which he said “now languishes.” Noting that it was German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s major initiative when Germany held the EU Presidency in 2007, Blumenthal advised that “raising Merkel’s project and reinvigorating it would undoubtedly be well received.”

Emails previously released by the State Department and the House committee investigating the 2012 Benghazi attack showed that Blumenthal forwarded intelligence information to then-Secretary Clinton about Libya around the time of the attack that killed four Americans. Clinton then asked that his insight be circulated amongst the staff.

The 2009 email shows that Clinton was receiving advice from the controversial confidant much earlier than had been previously believed.

Additionally, a conversation between Clinton and her Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills on June 22, 2009 shows Clinton’s interest in getting Blumenthal hired. In response to an unrelated matter, Clinton writes to Mills: “Good. What is latest re: Sid Blumenthal.”

In response Mills writes “Will see – he is doing the paperwork.”

The confidant’s role with Clinton became clearer in a June 2009 email. Blumenthal passed an email along to Clinton from then-UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and spoke of her helping him with “Adams” in a meeting with Martin McGuiness of Northern Island. Adams is apparently referring to Gerry Adams.

“Shaun briefed me that Gordon will be meeting with Martin McGuiness together on Wednesday and may want your help with Adams. I said that he and Gordon should let me know before Wednesday and may want your help with Adams. I said that he and Gordon should let me know before Wednesday whether your involvement is essential and what they request.”

Blumenthal gave more of his input before Clinton’s 2009 speech to the Council of Foreign Relations in New York. Blumenthal told Clinton her speech must have “a distinctive and authoritative voice.”

“The speech must be crafted with a sense of real time and cannot be delivered out of sync with it,” he wrote. “Slogans can become shopworm, especially those that lack analytical, historical and descriptive power.”

Blumenthal also gave tips for policy on Afghanistan.

“Hillary: FYI,” the message read. “I found this one of the most sensible and informed brief articles on Afghanistan.” Patrick Cockburn, of the London Independent, is one of the best informed on-the-ground journalists. He was almost always correct on Iraq.”–FOX

You be the judge. Is there more to this?

What was, is, the real reason why the former Secretary of State felt the need to scrub clean her home email server?

Read more at http://shark-tank.com/2015/07/01/private-email-hillary-received-early-advise-from-a-shady-friend/

Eliminating Public Sector Unions Will Eliminate the Power of The Left…

110317_wisconsin_woman_ap_328
“The real lesson of Wisconsin is that the Republican Party is at its strongest and greatest when it acts as a revolutionary liberation movement, breaking apart the power relationships of the Democratic Party that stifle people’s personal, economic and religious lives.

The Democratic Party has made it its mandate to politicize and collectivize the personal. It has done this to militarize every area of life, to transform all human activities into a battlefield and to bring every area of life under the aegis of its power relationships. These power relationships form its infrastructure, fusing together governmental and non-governmental organizations, to form the true ruling class.

These power relationships act as dams, walling up human energy into organizational structures, they create the mandates that provide power and money to the organizations, which are fed throughout the infrastructure to create a massive cage of bureaucrats, activists and think-tanks that set the agenda, which becomes law, and is then enforced by governments at every level.

The base activity of the left is organizational. Organizing a group dams it up. The organizers harvest its energy and use it to power their infrastructure. The purpose of a group is to draw money and power into the organization from outside and inside. Money and power are drawn from the inside through dues and member obedience. Money and power are drawn from the outside through leverage exercised by making demands on behalf of the group.”

Acorn Strikes Again -Ferguson Protesters Were Paid to Cause Havoc

d940d1f6-c3a9-4448-b86d-a1ed522d48a5
At least some of the protesters who looted, rioted, burned buildings and overturned police cars in Ferguson, Missouri, last year were promised payment of up to $5,000 per month to join the protests.

However, when the Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE), the successor group to the now-bankrupt St. Louis branch of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), stiffed the protesters, they launched a sit-in protest at the headquarters of MORE and created a Twitter page to demand their money, the Washington Times reports.

Former U.S. Rep. Allen B. West noted on his website, “Instead of being thankful for getting off the unemployment line for a few weeks and having a little fun protesting, the paid rioters who tore up Ferguson, MO, are protesting again.

“First of all, can you even imagine getting paid $5,000.00 a month for running around holding a sign and burning down an occasional building? That’s around $1,250.00 per week. Try making that at McDonald’s or Starbucks.”

The Kansas City Star estimates that the Ferguson riots, characterized as a spontaneous eruption of anger over the shooting of unarmed black criminal Michael Brown by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, cost the county $4.2 million.

Millennial Activists United (MAU) posted a letter on their website stating, “On May 14, 2015 many individuals and organizations of the protest movement that began in Ferguson, Missouri, organized a sit-in in the office of Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE). The demand was simple: Cut the checks. The protesters say they are unable to pay their bills after taking time to travel to Ferguson.

“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 letter continues.

“There is an insidious strand of racism and white supremacy that exists in this movement. This money is typically in the hands of white people who oversee the types of services that the non-profit provides, while having select token black people to spearhead the conversations within and to the community.”

MORE is funded by liberal billionaire George Soros, the Times notes, through his Open Society Foundations (OSF).

The OSF, the Times states, paid for activists from various protest groups to travel to Ferguson and take part in the demonstrations.

Akiba Solomon of Colorlines stated, “More than 500 of us have traveled from Boston, Chicago, Columbus, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Nashville, Portland, Tucson, Washington, D.C., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, and other cities to support the people of Ferguson and help turn a local moment into a national movement,” the Times noted.

“There’s absolutely no doubt that part of the reason that Ferguson flared up was because protesters were being paid to be there. That makes you wonder how many are being paid in Baltimore? How many more will be paid in the future?” The Right Scoop asked.

Protesters directed much of their anger against MORE director Jeff Ordower, former Missouri head of ACORN and ACORN’s Midwest operations, FrontPage Mag reports.

“The unpaid rent-a-mob operatives complain that MORE stiffed them the same way ACORN did to hired protesters throughout its 40 years of radical left-wing rabble-rousing,” FrontPage Mag reports.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ferguson-Missouri-paid-protesters/2015/05/25/id/646587/#ixzz3cfRt5doa
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN