Charles Krauthammer on the Clinton Foundation

Recently, Charles Krauthammer alluded that he had no doubt some of the 30k emails Hillary deleted from her private e-mail server very likely had references to the Clinton Foundation, which would be illegal and a conflict of interest.

Here is a good, concise summary of how the Clinton Foundation works as a tax free international money laundering scheme. It may eventually prove to be the largest political criminal enterprise in U.S. History.

This is a textbook case on how you hide foreign money sent to you and repackage it to be used for your own purposes. All tax free.

Here's how it works:

1. You create a separate foreign "charity." In this case, the Clintons set it up in Canada.

2.  Foreign oligarchs and governments, then donate to this Canadian charity. In this case, over 1,000 did –“contributing mega millions. I'm sure they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, and expected nothing in return.  (Imagine Putin's buddies waking up one morning and just deciding to send untold millions to a Canadian charity).

3. The Canadian charity then bundles these separate donations and makes a massive donation to the Clinton Foundation.

4. The Clinton Foundation and the cooperating Canadian charity claim Canadian law prohibits the identification of individual donors.

5. The Clinton Foundation then "spends" some of this money for legitimate good works programs.  Unfortunately, experts believe this is on the order of 10%.  Much of the balance goes to enrich the Clintons, pay salaries to untold numbers of hangers on, and fund lavish travel, etc. Again, virtually tax free, which means you and I are subsidizing it.

6. The Clinton Foundation, with access to the world's best accountants, somehow fails to report much of this on their tax filings. They discover these "clerical errors" and begin the process of re-filing 5 years of tax returns.

7. Net result – foreign money goes into the Clinton's pockets tax free and untraceable back to the original donor. This is the textbook definition of money laundering. Oh, by the way, the Canadian "charity" includes as a principal, one Frank Giustra. Google him.  He is the guy who was central to the formation of Uranium One, the Canadian company that somehow acquired massive U.S. Uranium interests and then sold them to an organization controlled by Russia. This transaction required U.S. State Department approval, and guess who was Secretary of State when the approval was granted.

As an aside, imagine how former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell feels. That poor schlep is in jail because he and his wife took $165,000 in gifts and loans for doing minor favors for a guy promoting a vitamin company. Not legal but not exactly putting U.S. Security at risk.

Sarcasm aside, if you're still not persuaded this was a cleverly structured way to get unidentified foreign money to the Clintons, ask yourself this:
Why did these foreign interests funnel money through a Canadian charity? Why not donate directly to the Clinton Foundation? Better yet, why not donate money directly to the people, organizations and countries in need?

This is the essence of money laundering and influence peddling. Now you know why Hillary's destruction of 30,000 e-mails was a risk she was willing to take. Bill and Hillary are devious, unprincipled, dishonest and criminal and they are Slick!

Some things never change

JUST IN CASE Y'ALL FORGOT!

As a 27 year old staff attorney for the house judiciary committee during the Watergate investigation, Hillary Rodham was fired by her supervisor, lifelong democrat Jerry Zeifman. When asked why he fired her, Zeifman said in an interview, "Because she was a liar. She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer, she conspired to violate the constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee, and the rules of confidentiality."
More than 65% of the democrats think that she is still a liar, but most of them still claim that they will vote for her! I will paraphrase a comment made by a well-known journalist after FBI director Comey did not recommend prosecuting Hillary for her "gross negligence" with her emails. He said that it has now been established that Hillary could murder someone in front of eye witnesses, and she would still not be indicted for the crime. It appears that the overwhelming majority of democrats place no value on honesty, integrity, or morality in determining who they will vote for.

 

 

Ignored by the 'liberal' media

It appears that the 'liberal' media have made an unspoken pact with each other to ignore reporting anything that even hints of the following problem. The official U.S. census estimate is that 5.6% of the population in five states, California, Texas, Arizona, Florida and New York is illegal aliens. However, we know that this is a conservative estimate. The population of these states may have up to 11% illegal aliens. Therefore, it is logical to assume that between 5% and 11% of the murders committed in those states should be committed by illegal aliens. However, that is an incorrect assumption. In reality, 38% of the murders in these five states are committed by illegal aliens. In other words, illegal aliens in these states commit 3 to 7 times the rate of murders than the rest of the population. These astounding statistics were compiled by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) using official Department of Justice data on criminal aliens in the nation's correctional system.
You will not hear this problem reported, discussed, or even hinted at in any of the 'liberal' media. It appears that they want to perpetuate the fantasy that illegals are good for our society. If you want to dig up the information, the official state records show similar statistics. For instance, in Texas alone from 2004 to 2008, there was an average of 472 murders committed by illegals every year. So much for the liberal fantasy that illegals make a positive contribution to our society. I will not even address the statistics for rapes, and robberies committed by illegals.
Hillary and Obama apparently think that these elevated crime levels are good for America. They do everything in their power to ensure that the flow of illegals into the U.S. continues unabated. It is crystal clear that they do not have the safety of American citizens as a priority. In many cases, these criminals are released back into the American society after committing felonies with no effort to even try to incarcerate them. With Obama's 'catch and release' program in full swing, there is little effort made to even project a fantasy of protecting the American public from these criminals. By the way, have you heard of Obama issuing pardons for dozens of criminals serving life sentences?

Hillary hipocrisy

Hillary is openly trying to buy votes. If you are going to college now or will be going in the future, then she claims she will have the government pay all of your education costs. You can see her reasoning quite clearly. Hillary's 'vote' is for sale. She and Bill have been in the business of selling their political influence for years. So, she thinks that everyone else also has no scruples. Unfortunately, in the 'me first' thinking of today's American society, she may be able to bribe plenty of voters. The famous John Kennedy quote "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for you country." would probably be flatly rejected by today's society. The commonly accepted ideas today are that the government should pay for your food (food stamps),housing (housing assistance), and medical care (obamacare). This is the total antithesis of the traditional American viewpoint of independence and self-reliance. Free handouts from the government are not free! The government must steal the money from those people who are producing wealth to give the money to people who are not creating wealth. In the process, the government destroys the incentive for anyone to dedicate themselves to the effort to try to create wealth. Also, the handouts destroy the recipients incentive for self-improvement. The recipients become 'addicted' to handouts and subjugate themselves to the demands made by the government as a condition for receiving the handouts. In other words, the recipients become enslaved by the government and locked into a life style of living in near-poverty by the government.
Who does Hillary say will pay for these handouts? She claims that the rich wall street barons will be taxed at whatever tax rate is necessary to pay the bill. However, these same Wall street barons are paying Hillary tens of millions of dollars in donations or bogus speaking fees. Do you think the barons are stupid? Why should they pay the Clintons millions of dollars? It is the standard Clinton 'pay and play' plan. Hillary has no intention of making the Wall street barons foot the bill, and they know it! She may set up some 'free handouts', but the money to pay for the handouts will be provided by borrowing the money. It is standard politics as usual. Some time in the future the debt will become so high that America will finally be bankrupted, but not today. Let someone else pay the bill when it finally comes due.

The truth, finally!

After strenuous denials and transparent excuses attempting to divert attention away from the obvious truth, the Obama administration finally admitted that the 400 million dollar payment to Iran was, in fact, a ransom payment for the release of the American hostages. Now will come the minimization efforts by the administration to ensure that there will be no consequences. It is following the Obama administration's typical process to cover up and/or minimize administration lies. First comes the feigned claim to be concerned about the situation, and the claim that they will 'investigate'. Then comes, the waiting period to allow the public outcry to diminish. If the public outcry stops, then the administration does nothing more. If it doesn't stop, then the administration denies that the event ever occurred. If the denial of the event works, then the administration does nothing more. If it doesn't, then Obama makes public speeches where he mocks the people pursuing the truth, and somehow turns it into a 'political attack by the republicans'. This time however, even the faithful 'democratic public media' joined the outcry, and the pressure became so heavy that Obama was forced to admit the truth. Too bad, the 'democratic media' has not been interested in the truth for most of the Obama administration, but at least they finally have done some real investigative reporting.

Obama can't leave the golf course?

Obama is on vacation again?! I have lost count of how many vacations Obama has taken since he became president, but it seems that he takes a vacation every two or three months. He did think that it was important to campaign for Hillary lately, even giving up some vacation time, but he obviously does not think it is important to do anything regarding the flooding in Louisiana. He is on vacation (again!), but he did take a moment away from golf to give an short insincere speech in which he claimed to have included the Louisiana flood victims in his prayers. Of course, I believe him! It is both disgusting and unbelievable to be confronted with such a blatantly uncaring attitude. The news has reported that Trump has taken time to go to Louisiana, but I have not heard of Hillary doing anything (following Obama's lead, I guess!).

An article by Larry Kudlow a senior contributor at CNBC

Did Hillary Clinton actually propose raising middle-income taxes in a recent speech? The audio suggests she said “we are going to raise taxes on the middle class,” although the prepared remarks indicate she meant “we aren’t.”

Well, these things happen. But the fact remains that Hillary Clinton’s proposals to raise taxes on so-called rich people, rich corporations, Wall Street, investors (capital gains, dividends, and financial transactions), and estates will greatly harm middle-income wage earners who have essentially not had a pay raise since the year 2000.

Donald Trump is set to give a major economic speech in Detroit on Monday. In general terms he will be lowering marginal tax rates on both large and small businesses and on all income classes. He also will propose a hike in the standard deduction for families and special deductions for childcare and the elderly.

All of these polices will help the middle class. Trump’s plan will generate substantial new investment, business formation, jobs, and growth -- and hence higher wages.

Trump is the pro-growth candidate in this race. Hillary Clinton is the anti-growth candidate. Trump wants to expand national income and the economic pie. Clinton wants to redistribute income and shrink the pie.

In past writings I have equated Trump’s tax-reduction plan to the JFK and Ronald Reagan tax cuts, which generated economic booms of roughly 5 percent growth per year. President Obama, by comparison, has raised taxes, spending, and regulations, producing the worst recovery since World War II. And Clinton intends to follow in Obama’s footsteps with a Bernie Sanders-like, left-wing policy mix. She is the Democrats’ anti-JFK. What a pity.

I want to draw on some academic work to validate how Trump is the pro-growth, pro-middle-class candidate.

Let me begin with AEI economists Aparna Mathur and Kevin Hassett. They have written extensively on the adverse effects of high corporate taxes on worker wages. They argue that high taxes drive capital out of the high-tax country, like the U.S., which leads to lower domestic investment. That in turn reduces the productivity of the worker, who will lack the latest advances in technology and machinery. And since there is a tight link between worker productivity and pay, lower wages result.

Mathur and Hassett cite famous University of Chicago economist Arnold Harberger to explain that when taxes are raised on corporations, wages are lowered not only for the workers in those firms, but for all workers in the economy. So, a $1 corporate income tax leads to a $1 loss in wages for a firm’s workers. But that tax could lead to more than a $1 loss overall when we look at all wages for all workers.

President Obama and Mrs. Clinton wrongly believe that the corporate income tax is a tax on the rich. The reality is that rich corporations don’t pay taxes -- workers do.

Another erroneous claim from Obama and Clinton is that the rich don’t pay their fair share. But a new CBO study shows that the so-called rich pay the lion’s share of federal taxes. The CBO reveals that the top 1 percent of households pays an average of 34 percent of income in federal taxes, while the middle 20 percent of households pays only 12.8 percent. This is confirmed by a recent Tax Foundation report.

And taxes for the top 1 percent have been going up. Between 2008 and 2012, the top 1 percent paid an average tax rate of 28.8 percent. But in 2013 that rate spiked to 34 percent as a result of tax increases and the Affordable Care Act. This data is summarized by Mark J. Perry of the University of Michigan and AEI.

It’s also worth noting that the so-called rich haven’t had it so great lately. Recent studies by Manhattan Institute economist Scott Winship and Cato Institute economist Alan Reynolds show that during the Great Recession, the top 1 percent lost 36 percent of its income, while income for the bottom 90 percent was 12 percent lower. As of 2014, the top 1 percent was still poorer by 18 percent than it was in 2007, compared with a 9 percent decline for the bottom 90 percent. Reynolds also notes that middle-incomes fell only 1 percent in the 2007-09 recession, after counting tax cuts and government benefits.

These facts and figures slay a lot of left-wing urban legends. Highly divisive urban legends, I might add.

What matters most for all Americans is economic growth. As Arthur Laffer frequently reminds us: Tax something more, get less of it. Tax something less, get more of it.

Mr. Trump’s big-bang economic speech on Monday will outline policies to tax growth less and restore American prosperity. Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, has nothing but prosperity killers up her sleeve.

Terrorism in America

I think that it is very obvious that the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree that terrorist attacks in America are not a good thing. Just for the PC police, please note that I did not say all Americans feel that way. I do recognize that there are some radicalized individuals in America that are sympathetic to terrorists for some reason. However, the overwhelming majority of Americans would agree that preventing terrorist attacks in America is a good goal. Logically speaking, one of the best means to preventing terrorist attacks is to prevent terrorists from being able to enter America in the first place. If there were no terrorists in America, then it follows that they could not initiate an attack here, right? So how do you prevent terrorists from entering America? It is obvious that the first step is to know who is entering our country! I don’t want to belabor the obvious, but in addition, as a sovereign nation we have the right to deny entrance to our country to anyone. As a matter of fact, we have the requirement to deny entrance to our country to anyone who will try to conduct acts of terrorism here. So it is therefore obvious that we have both the right and the obligation to put rules in place governing who will be denied entrance, and we have the right and the obligation to enforce those rules in order to provide for the safety of our citizens from terrorist attacks. Inherent in this statement is the fact that a person that has not complied with these rules has no right to be in our country. If laws are not enforced, then there is no law, and all that is left is chaos and anarchy.

America has a history of welcoming immigrants into our country.  For the PC police, please note that I said welcoming immigrants. An immigrant is a person who is here legally after complying with our laws. Both Obama and Hillary express a disdain for our immigration laws. Both Obama and Hillary espouse the idea of admitting hundreds of thousands of people into our country without any reasonable verification of their backgrounds. In other words, both Obama and Hillary attach little or no importance to providing safety from terrorism for American citizens. For Obama and Hillary, playing politics has a higher importance than safety for American citizens. If we can’t verify who a person is, why in the world would we want to admit them into our country? If we can’t verify what kind of background a person has, why in the world should we admit them into our country? If we don’t know anything about a person, how can we verify if he or she is a terrorist?

Both Obama and Hillary have made empty claims that they can ‘vet’ these ‘refugees’, but all of our security people tell us that we can’t. Our security people tell us that some of the ‘refugees’ will be terrorists posing as refugees. Obama and Hillary both imply that there is no danger associated with admitting hundreds of thousands of people into our country with either inadequate or non-existent background checks. Do you believe them or do you believe our security experts? Are you willing to bet your life on it?

Look at the European nations. They have admitted large numbers of ‘refugees’ without adequate checks. Look at the results. There have been dozens of terrorist attacks and in Germany alone there were thousands of German women raped. Terrorists and rapists were loosed on the citizens. But Obama and Hillary claim that it will be different in America. Again, are you willing to bet your life on it?

The war on police

Every society has some individuals who have a criminal mind set. The rest of society must be protected from the criminal element. It is the job of the police to enforce our laws. It is the job of the police to protect the rest of society from the criminal element. By definition, criminals do not follow our laws, or respect our laws, or respect our police, and criminals resist all efforts by our police in enforcing our laws. If a police officer encounters resistance from ANYONE while doing his job, that person's resistance is unlawful. To clarify my point, police officers MUST BE ALLOWED to use force in doing their job when they encounter resistance. If the person resisting the officer has no weapon, then the proper force to be used by the police should be to restrain or subdue the person with as little force as is prudent. Everything changes if the person resisting the officer has a weapon. Our police officers have the right to defend themselves when threatened with violence or when attacked. They have the right to defend themselves with the use of deadly force. It is plain stupid to try to say that a police officer has no right to defend himself. It is plain stupid to claim that a police officer has no right to react to the threat of physical harm. In my opinion, if a person threatens a police officer with a weapon, then the police officer should have the right to respond. Hopefully, the police officer is able to respond in a manner which disables the offender rather than with deadly force.
I hear news reports where a black person attacked a police officer and was killed by the officer, and the accusation is routinely made that the killing was racially based. Hogwash! If a person attacks a police officer, the officer has the right to defend himself. I hear news reports that a black person  threatens a police officer with a gun and is subsequently killed. The cry of racial killing is immediately trumpeted. Again, hogwash! Let me be clear about this. If a white person attacks a black police officer and is subsequently killed, there is no outcry, but if a black person is killed, regardless of the situation they scream racist! If anyone attacks or threatens a police officer, the police officer is justified in using force. If makes no difference if the offender is white, black, brown, yellow, green, purple, or orange.
All of that being said, I want to say very clearly that any time a police officer shoots someone, the incident MUST BE investigated fully, regardless of the skin color of the person shot. However, Obama's war on the police whereby he accuses every cop of being a racist whenever a black person is shot before there has been even a preliminary investigation is disgusting. Why is Obama trying to instill a hatred of the police into our black population?

The real american income story

Both Obama and Hillary make glowing claims of economic improvement in the economy during the last 7 and 1/2 years. I would like to walk you through some official statistics that depict a very different story. By the way, Hillary has made it clear that she intends to continue the same economic policies that Obama has pursued.

First of all, everyone knows that the unemployment figures constantly quoted are skewed and present an inaccurate picture of the real employment situation in the U.S. A much better statistic which presents a much more accurate picture of the labor market is the labor participation rate. It is a simple ratio which states what percentage of the American population is employed full-time. Here is the real data for January for each year that Obama has been in power.
Year     
2008      66.2% of population with full time employment
2009      65.7% of population with full time employment
2010      64.8% of population with full time employment
2011      64.2% of population with full time employment
2012      63.7% of population with full time employment
2013      63.6% of population with full time employment
2014      62.9% of population with full time employment
2015      62.7% of population with full time employment
Clearly, every year that Obama has been in office has been a failure based on the above statistics and Hillary is promising more of the same. You can verify these statistics by going to the following URL:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/lns11300000

So, the statistics prove that Obama's economic plan is providing a smaller percentage of people with jobs every year, but the situation is even worse. The income for the people who are still employed in Obama's economy has decreased. In 2008, the median annual income in the U.S. was $57,211. In an almost straight downward spiral the median annual income has decreased to $53,657 in 2014. So, Obama's policies (read that as Hillary's proposed policies) have resulted in a net loss of $3554 in annual median income. This is a net loss of 6.2%, almost 1% per year. You can check these figures at
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/income/us

But wait. It get even better (oops, I mean worse). How much purchasing power does that $53,657 have after you factor in inflation? The dollars in 2008 were worth more than the dollars in 2016. How many dollars today are needed to buy the same amount as $57,211 bought in 2008? The answer is $64,049. You can check this out at http://inflationcalculator.com

So, if you need an income of $64,049 today to equal the income of $57,211 in 2008, how much real purchasing power has been lost in the last 7 and a half years. The real purchasing power of $53,657 is 83.7% of the needed $64,049 required to equal 2008 dollars. The real decrease of the average American's annual income is 16.3% during Obama's time in office, and Hillary sees no problem with this. She must not because she intends to continue the same inferior policies which will certainly produce the same inferior results.

An article by Brian Freeman

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has been severely criticized for her insistence on Fox News Sunday that FBI Director James Comey said her statements on her email scandal were truthful.

The criticism against her is even more significant because it is being spearheaded by The Washington Post, which has made it clear that it prefers her to win the election over Republican nominee Donald Trump.

When Fox News host Chris Wallace noted that Comey said her repeated claims that she never sent or received material marked classified using her personal email server were not true, Clinton said:

"That's not what I heard Director Comey say… [he] said that my answers were truthful and what I've said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails."

The Washington Post gave Clinton four Pinocchios for that statement, its worst ranking for truthfulness in its Fact Checker, saying "Clinton is cherry-picking statements by Comey to preserve her narrative about the unusual setup of a private email server. This allows her to skate past the more disturbing findings of the FBI investigation."

"While Comey did say [to Congress] there was no evidence she lied to the FBI, that is not the same as saying she told the truth to the American public — which was the point of Wallace's question," the Post noted.

The newspaper also ripped Clinton apart for claiming that the information was not classified at the time.

"As for retroactive classification of emails, Comey did say many emails were retroactively classified. But he also said that some emails were classified at the time — and Clinton and her aides should have been aware of that."

There were plenty of other public figures who also took Clinton to task for the statements.
One such example was Sen. Ben Sasse, who posted on his Twitter account a repudiation of Clinton and gave a link to a YouTube posting that shows his address to the Senate in which he posted Clinton's statements alongside those of Comey's to illustrate that she lied about many features of the scandal.