The Clinton Cash-for-Favors Program

CRC Staff | April 24, 2015

cc

Matthew Vadum, editor of the CRC newsletter Foundation Watch, has a hard-hitting, authoritative article at FrontPageMag.com today about the endlessly corrupt Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

Here it is in its entirety:

 

The Clinton Cash-for-Favors Program

By Matthew Vadum

Professional leftists are going berserk over a yet-to-be-released book documenting the breathtaking graft and anticipatory bribes that foreign governments and mega-multinationals gave the Clinton Foundation during Hillary Clinton’s years at the State Department.

This progressive apoplexy is being generated by a bombshell of a book that won’t even hit the bookstands for another 10 days. The opus terrifying left-wingers isClinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, by acclaimed best-selling author Peter Schweizer.

The most disturbing allegation to emerge thus far from the book is that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave her blessing to a financial transaction that handed partial control of America’s strategically important uranium resources to Vladimir Putin’s Russia after investors paid off her husband and gave huge donations to the Clinton Foundation.

“While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves,” the New York Times reports, citing Marin Katusa, chief energy investment strategist for Casey Research.

The newspaper’s report on the shady Canadian company Uranium One, which controls some U.S. uranium facilities, “is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States.” The newspaper acknowledges that “[s]ome of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer … [who] provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.”

(more…)

Labor Watch April 2015: Scab Lists: Unions target workers for campaigns of hate, sometimes violence

CRC Staff | April 21, 2015

Scab Lists
Unions target workers for campaigns of hate, sometimes violence [PDF here]
by Carl F. Horowitz

Summary: Unions have long sought to demonize replacement workers, union members who cross picket lines, and others whom the unions label “scabs.” Sometimes, this takes the form of implied or explicit threats and other efforts to intimidate. Now the Obama administration’s National Labor Relations Board is pressuring employers to give home addresses and other personal information to unions, while the Internet is providing new ways to publicize “scab lists” and make people toe the union line.

In the annals of labor history, few characters are more reviled than the so-called “scab”—the worker who refuses to join a union, or worse, whether or not a member, crosses a picket line during a strike. Unions have long have practiced the dark art of gathering the identities of such persons and exposing them to shame and intimidation among fellow workers. Often, names are compiled on a “scab list.” Over the years, unions have made effective use of the hatred of scabs, to maximize their bargaining advantage. You may have seen this description:

After God had finished the rattlesnake, the toad, and the vampire, he had some awful substance left with which he made a scab. A scab is a two-legged animal with a corkscrew soul, a water brain, a combination backbone of jelly and glue. Where others have hearts, he carries a tumor of rotten principles. When a scab comes down the street, men turn their backs and Angels weep in Heaven, and the Devil shuts the gates of hell to keep him out. No man has a right to scab so long as there is a pool of water to drown his carcass in, or a rope long enough to hang his body with.

(more…)

Global Warming: 25 years of this nonsense

Dr. Steven J. Allen | April 21, 2015

[Continuing our series on deception in politics and public policy.]

Perhaps you’re detected a weariness in my authorial voice when I write about Global Warming theory. There’s a good reason I’m tired. I’ve been writing about this nonsense for more than 25 years.

Imagine my joy when the Obama administration’s NASA and the Obama administration’s NOAA announced recently that, even according to their own (highly questionable) figures, the amount of Global Warming in the past nine years was too small to detect!  The fight over Global Warming theory is finally over, I thought for an instant. It’s like V-J Day in Times Square—time to go kiss a nurse or, if you’d prefer, a sailor.

Alas! Being bureaucrats, the folks at NASA and NOAA covered their (more…)

Hillary’s big little lie

Dr. Steven J. Allen | April 14, 2015

[Continuing our series on deception in politics and public policy.]

Hillary Clinton has now entered the presidential race for 2016.

As the writer of a weekly piece on lying in politics, I say: Thank you, Hillary!

=====

Listing all of Hillary’s lies over the years would require more space than they have here on the Internet, so I’ll focus on one from her famous interview with Matt Lauer on the “Today” show, January 28, 1998. It’s just a teeny little lie, but it’s one of my favorite Hillary lies because I was the reporter who discovered it, and because it turns out now not to be so little after all.

If you lived through the Monica Lewinsky scandal—the frantic effort, organized by the Clintons, to cover up President Clinton’s perjury in a sexual harassment cause—you’re probably sick of all the details. If you’re too young to remember, you may not know much about it. To understand the point of this article, you need to know a few details; I’ll try to make this as painless as possible.

Let’s start with a Politico story that marked the anniversary of when the Lewinsky story broke on the Drudge Report.

Drudge says Newsweek sitting on Lewinsky story, Jan. 17, 1998

By ANDREW GLASS | 1/17/13 4:45 AM EST

On this day in 1998, the Drudge Report carried an item on its website alleging that Newsweek magazine was sitting on a story exposing an affair between President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, a 22-year-old White House intern.

Ten days later, Clinton, with his wife beside him, told reporters: “… I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I’m going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.” . . .

Got that? The original story broke on Saturday, January 17, 1998.

Here’s what happened afterward (more…)

A Donor Can Stand Up: Battling over donor intent at the Atlantic Philanthropies

Matthew Vadum | April 13, 2015

A Donor Can Stand Up: Battling over donor intent at the Atlantic Philanthropies

By Neil Maghami, Foundation Watch, April 2015 (PDF here)

Summary:  Conservatives may not approve of many of the causes that former billionaire Charles Feeney has given money to over the years, but they would agree that he ought to have influence over how his foundation, Atlantic Philanthropies, spends his hard-earned money.  This article tells the story of how the duty-free stores magnate fought back after his foundation’s board of directors cut him out of the decision-making loop.

The story of Charles “Chuck” Feeney and his Atlantic Philanthropies will long remain a fascinating chapter in the history of American philanthropy. A latter-day Horatio Alger born in Elmora, New Jersey, Feeney helped build a billion-dollar global chain of duty free stores, which formed the basis for an enormous personal fortune that he promptly began giving away. Feeney’s belief in “giving while living” led him to transfer his wealth to a vehicle known as the Atlantic Philanthropies (AP), based in Bermuda. Since 1982, AP has made about $6.5 billion in grants everywhere from the U.S. to Vietnam, Cuba, the Republic of Ireland, Australia, and South Africa. For the first 15 years, AP operated anonymously, only publicly revealing its existence—and the generosity of its founder—in 1997. In line with Feeney’s “giving while living” commitment, it will conclude its grant-making in 2016 and close its doors in 2020.

Foundation Watch last looked at Feeney’s amazing personal story in 2011 (see: “The Atlantic Philanthropies: Right—and Wrong—Ways to Give Away Money,” June 2011). At that time, author Martin Morse Wooster noted that in 2007 AP had taken on as its president and CEO Gara LaMarche, a veteran of both George Soros’ Open Society Institute and the ACLU, and that AP demonstrated a growing appetite to fund far-left organizations such as the Huffington Post and Health Care for America Now. (HCAN is an umbrella group of left-wing organizations spanning unions, MoveOn, and the disgraced ACORN network. It received more than $26 million—over half its budget—from AP and is widely credited with being the most effective outside supporter of Obamacare. See “Socialized Medicine Back with a Vengeance,” Organization Trends, March 2009). For AP, a foundation that owed its existence to Feeney, who has made personal donations to the Democratic Party and opposed George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election, LaMarche’s presence at AP’s helm seemed only logical.

(more…)

Philanthropy Notes: April 2015

Matthew Vadum | April 13, 2015

Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley A. Strassel mocked the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, referring to it in a headline as “The Clinton Foundation Super PAC.” With the revelation that foreign governments have been plying the philanthropies with large gifts, “it’s long past time to drop the fiction that the Clinton Foundation has ever been a charity. “ The Clintons “have simply done with the foundation what they did with cattle futures and Whitewater and the Lincoln Bedroom and Johnny Chung – they’ve exploited the system,” Strassel wrote. The Clinton Foundation was profiled in the September 2014 and February 2008 issues of Foundation Watch.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is demanding that the Internal Revenue Service investigate U.S. government funding given to OneVoice (PeaceWorks Network Foundation), a radical anti-Israel group that aimed to drive Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from office in that country’s March 17 parliamentary elections. In a letter to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, Cruz said the Obama administration ought to be focused on Iran, not Israel. “The Islamic Republic of Iran is pursuing the deadliest weapons on the planet, and there can be no doubt that their first target will be Israel, followed by the United States,” Cruz reportedly wrote in the letter. “Yet the Obama administration seems much more interested in regime change in Jerusalem than in Tehran.” The U.S.-based group receiving federal money, OneVoice International, in turn is working with V15, an “independent grassroots movement” in Israel, according to Ha’aretz. OneVoice has hired Obama campaign aides such as Jeremy Bird of political consulting powerhouse 270 Strategies to take on Netanyahu’s Likud Party. Bird was national field director for Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign.

(more…)

Carbon taxes, the brain, and a certain fairy tale

Dr. Steven J. Allen | April 7, 2015

[Continuing our series on deception in politics and public policy.]

This is a story about carbon taxes. First, though, let’s discuss fairy tales and brain structures.

The tale of “The Emperor’s New Clothes” highlights a key element in deception strategy—that of tricking people into believing something or, just as well, acting as if they believe something, by presenting a false idea as “consensus.”

It’s easy to demonstrate this. Stand on a city sidewalk looking up, and watch passers-by look up, trying to see what you’re seeing. To make the effect more powerful, have some friends join your group, one by one every few seconds, all of them looking in the same direction. Don’t be surprised if, after a few minutes, there’s a big group of people straining to see the mysterious object or event. More fun: Have your friends start whispering to each other about that thing they’re supposedly seeing—say, an airplane towing a banner—and some of the observers will start “seeing” the same thing (or, at least, they’ll tell people they see it).

One experiment, show on a recent episode of the TV series “Brain Games,” went like this: A woman is sitting in a waiting room, minding her own business. (more…)

Hush Rush: Once again the intolerant Left works to censor independent voices in the media

CRC Staff | April 1, 2015

Hush Rush:  Once again the intolerant Left works to censor independent voices in the media

By Barbara Joanna Lucas, Organization Trends, April 2015, (PDF here)

Summary:  The Left does not tolerate diversity of opinion.  Taking cues from the George Soros-funded slander shop Media Matters for America, its thuggish activists have been successfully waging a war against talk radio, one of the few sectors of the media that is not dominated by liberals and progressives. They use the Internet to scold and intimidate advertisers while portraying mainstream conservatives as dangerous extremists.   The strategy hasn’t had much impact on the size of talk radio’s audience, but it has scared away many companies that advertise on talk radio shows. The highest-rated radio talker, Rush Limbaugh, can weather the storm, but shows lower on the industry’s totem pole are struggling.  

If you ever ask yourselves why the Left has such a preference for coercion and distaste for personal choice, talk radio might provide a partial explanation.

For the Left, the marketplace of ideas is something they haven’t been very good at for quite some time. After talk radio broke the liberal media monopoly starting with Rush Limbaugh in 1988, the Left has been in a panic.

Many Democrats wanted to restore the Fairness Doctrine, an archaic Federal Communications Commission regulation that mandates “equal time” for any controversial issue discussed on the air. In practice, that led TV and radio stations to muzzle discussion of public affairs. But there was no public support for that. Liberals even attempted to compete in the free market in the early 2000s with Air America—a big flop. But markets, which involve choice instead of compulsory behavior, have never been the Left’s thing anyway.

So now the Left is going back to a tried and true method for them: bullying. And they seem to be having some success at it.

You could call it a “vast left-wing conspiracy,” given that we are talking about a multi-faceted network of progressive organizations collaborating to target one individual, or at least one industry. What might keep it from being called a conspiracy is the fact that there is nothing secretive about it. Many of the participants are publicly giving each other rhetorical high fives.

The George Soros-funded Media Matters for America, the tin-foil hat wearing Daily Kos blog, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) have all piled on in the effort to threaten boycotts against any company that advertises on the Rush Limbaugh Show from noon to 3 p.m. Eastern on Monday through Friday.

Limbaugh is a public figure who makes a good living off providing his opinion and analysis on politics, views millions of Americans agree with. In that sense, anyone who puts themselves in the public eye generally has to take the good with the bad, and Limbaugh can more than hold his own against attacks. But Limbaugh is not even the primary victim of the bullying campaign aimed at him. It’s small businesses that advertise on his show, smeared online, and intimidated by a vicious, dishonest social media campaign.

This campaign is being run by groups and individuals who could easily be described as crackpots for what they have said in the past. Nevertheless, they are claiming the moral authority to demand boycotts over opinions they disagree with. What’s worse is that it seems they may be starting to win.

(more…)

Briefly Noted: April 2015

Matthew Vadum | April 1, 2015

Hypocrisy alert: Although Media Matters for America head David Brock has taken the lead as Hillary Clinton’s foremost defender in the deleted-email scandal, arguing she did nothing illegal, another group he helps to run once attacked another Democrat for his use of private email accounts. The George Soros-funded Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) last year raked New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who may be Clinton’s rival for the Democrats’ presidential nomination, over the coals for using private email. “Government officials who use private email or untraceable text messages to keep their dealings secret from the public that elects them and funds their salaries and whom they claim to represent must be held accountable for their conduct,” said CREW’s then-director Melanie Sloan. ”If Governor Cuomo doesn’t want voters to know what he’s doing, maybe he is doing something he shouldn’t.”

A Boston-based hub of terrorism associated with a top Islamic State propagandist and producer of hostage-beheading videos was welcomed to a recent anti-terrorism conference at the Obama White House. The terrorist-friendly Islamic Society of Boston (ISB), which is a known front for Islamist terrorist groups, operates mosques in and around Boston. Social media guru Ahmad Abousamra, who is now the chief propagandist for the Islamic State, regularly attended ISB’s Cambridge mosque. Americans For Peace and Tolerance warned that ISB “and its political arm, the Muslim American Society, [which are] seen as the go-to groups for civic and law enforcement partnerships, have links to many extremists who are either in jail, in flight from federal authorities, or have been killed during terrorist attacks.”

The radical left-wing National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) has criticized federal Judge Andrew S. Hanen as racist and xenophobic, because he temporarily enjoined the Obama administration from carrying out its planned executive action regularizing the status of illegal aliens. Pablo Alvarado, NDLON’s executive director, called the decision “judicial vigilantism.” By contrast, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said the court ruling was a “major victory for the rule of law” and “a major turning point in the fight to stop Obama’s lawless amnesty.”

(more…)

Cover-ups work

Dr. Steven J. Allen | March 31, 2015

[Continuing our series on deception in politics and public policy.]

William Safire, who once worked for Richard Nixon and became a New York Times columnist, observed that it’s not the crime that does you in; it’s the cover-up. But that’s not really true. The vast majority of the time, cover-ups work. That’s why politicians commit cover-ups.

Hillary Clinton stole tens of thousands of e-mails during her time as secretary of state—diverting them to a server in her house—and destroyed the ones she didn’t want investigators to see. When investigators sought access to her server, to see if any trace might remain of the stolen-and-erased messages, she apparently had the server wiped clean. Gone are any e-mails that might have, say, explained why foreign power-brokers and governments, including major violators of human rights, funneled money to the Clinton machine. Gone are any e-mails that might have explained (more…)