Conservative Happenings

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Loretta Lynch's Justice Department Just Launched a Full-Blown Offensive Against FIFA

May 27, 2015 Loretta Lynch's Justice Department unsealed a 47-count indictment Wednesday morning laden with racketeering, corruption and conspiracy charges against 14 people associated with FIFA, the world soccer association, and international soccer organizations.

It's the latest in a series of high-profile moves from the Justice Department since Lynch became attorney general last month, including its investigations into police misconduct in Baltimore. The indictment was born out of the Eastern District of New York, where Lynch served as U.S. attorney until her confirmation.

According to a Justice Department release, the defendants include high-ranking FIFA officials—including two of the organization's vice presidents—officials from soccer associations "that operate under the FIFA umbrella," and South American and U.S. marketing executives. The indictment comes as FIFA is slated to hold an election Friday for president; it had beenexpected that the current leader, Sepp Blatter, will get a fifth term in office.

(RELATED: John McCain Wants FIFA to Take the World Cup Away From Russia)

In a statement, Lynch said the Justice Department plans to work with other nations to "end corrupt practices" within FIFA and "root out misconduct."

"The indictment alleges corruption that is rampant, systemic, and deep-rooted both abroad and here in the United States," Lynch said in a statement. "It spans at least two generations of soccer officials who, as alleged, have abused their positions of trust to acquire millions of dollars in bribes and kickbacks. And it has profoundly harmed a multitude of victims, from the youth leagues and developing countries that should benefit from the revenue generated by the commercial rights these organizations hold, to the fans at home and throughout the world whose support for the game makes those rights valuable."

The Justice Department's actions against FIFA officials and associates have spanned continents in just the last few hours. In the early morning in Zurich, Swiss law enforcementarrested seven of the defendants "at the request of the United States." And department officials reported that the Miami headquarters of CONCACAF, the organization governing soccer in the Americas, was served with a search warrant Wednesday morning. The president of CONCACAF, Jeffrey Webb, was one of the defendants named in the indictment who was arrested in Zurich Wednesday. His predecessor, Jack Warner, was also named in the indictment. Two corporations and four individual defendants named in the indictment have already pled guilty.

Via: National Journal

[VIDEO] Minimum Wage Increase Trickle Down Effect: Michigan's Big Show

Via: You Tube

[VIDEO] Harf highlight reel: State Dept. spokeswoman leaving post

From suggesting combating ISIS with jobs to dismissing questions about Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's conduct as "rumor," spokeswoman Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has woven a rich tapestry as the voice of the State Department.

But she's moving on.

The department announced late Tuesday that starting June 1, Harf will be moving out of the briefing room and beginning a "new role" as senior adviser for strategic communications to Secretary of State John Kerry. (Ex-Pentagon spokesman John Kirby has already assumed the role of spokesman, while former deputy spokesman Mark Toner is moving into his old job.)

Here's a look back at some of Harf's more memorable moments:

June 3, 2014: In response to questioning by Fox News at the briefing, Harf downplayed criticism of the recently announced trade of five Taliban fighters for Bergdahl.

She downplayed "conflicting reports" and "rumor" when asked about accounts from Bergdahl's platoon-mates that he walked off base.

"There's a lot of rumor and telephone game that's being played here," she said.

After continued questioning, she said: "It happened five years ago."

Bergdahl would later be charged with desertion. Former commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley McChrystal also told Fox News this week it was his initial understanding as well that Bergdahl walked off his base before he disappeared.

Via: Fox News

The Un-Scary Truth About NSA 'Spying'

If the National Security Agency’s bulk data program expires, the coroner should conclude that it was “Death by Bumper Sticker.”

Rarely has a controversial government program been so fiercely debated and so poorly understood. Authorized by soon-to-expire Section 215 of the Patriot Act, it has been brought to the edge of extinction by a couple of simple but inaccurate phrases, including “listening to your phone calls” and “domestic spying.”

You can listen to orations on the NSA program for hours and be outraged by its violation of our liberties, inspired by the glories of the Fourth Amendment and prepared to mount the barricades to stop the NSA in its tracks — and still have no idea what the program actually does.

That’s what the opponents leave out or distort, since their case against the program becomes so much less compelling upon fleeting contact with reality.

The program involves so-called metadata, information about phone calls, but not the content of the calls — things like the numbers called, the time of the call, the duration of the call. The phone companies have all this information, which the NSA acquires from them.

What happens next probably won’t shock you, and it shouldn’t. As Rachel Brand of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board writes, “It is stored in a database that may be searched only by a handful of trained employees, and even they may search it only after a judge has determined that there is evidence connecting a specific phone number to terrorism.”

Via: New York Post

Epic mock-alanche in progress as labor unions who pushed for $15 minimum wage in Los Angeles now want an exemption

For the can’t-make-this-up-if-we-tried-file, the $15-per-hour minimum wage mandate that was just passed by the Los Angeles City Council has a new opponent now that it’s time to draft the specifics of the law — labor unions!

These same labor unions, of course, who pushed for this law in the first place. From the Los Angeles Times:

Labor leaders, who were among the strongest supporters of the citywide minimum wage increase approved last week by the Los Angeles City Council, are advocating last-minute changes to the law that could create an exemption for companies with unionized workforces.

The push to include an exception to the mandated wage increase for companies that let their employees collectively bargain was the latest unexpected detour as the city nears approval of its landmark legislation to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2020.

For much of the past eight months, labor activists have argued against special considerations for business owners, such as restaurateurs, who said they would have trouble complying with the mandated pay increase.

But Rusty Hicks, who heads the county Federation of Labor and helps lead the Raise the Wage coalition, said Tuesday night that companies with workers represented by unions should have leeway to negotiate a wage below that mandated by the law.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

And let the well-deserved mocking begin:

Did Obama Administration Really Accidentally Disobey Judge’s Order on Immigration?

The Justice Department’s latest filings in the immigration lawsuit brought by 26 states in the Southern District of Texas are a little hard to believe—and somewhat comical, in a way.

Back in February, Judge Andrew Hanen issued a preliminary injunction against the implementation of President Obama’s executive orders on immigration. Now, in an attempt to explain why the injunction was violated, Leon Rodriguez, director of the U.S. Customs and Immigration Services, has outlined in an affidavit a long list of instructions and orders he gave to implement Hanen’s order.

The main excuse given for USCIS’s issuing three-year deferrals and Employment Authorization Documents to 2,000 illegal immigrants after the injunction was in place is that its computer system failed. But fear not. Rodriguez is “taking steps, including the modification of USCIS computer systems, to further minimize the potential for human error that could lead to unintended” violations of the injunction “in future DACA cases, regardless of the circumstances.” (There is no indication whether the autonomous computer system that made these errors is named “HAL.”)

Rodriguez does admit that USCIS “should have exercised greater management oversight of the efforts to halt the production and issuance of three-year notices and EADs.” But that’s not really much of an admission—there is no question thaat USCIS violated Judge Hanen’s injunction despite Rodriguez’s self-proclaimed “clear intent to stop the approval or issuance” of these documents. Rodriguez assures the judge that USCIS will get to the bottom of this, his own failure, noting that DHS has asked its inspector general to “investigate the circumstances” of what happened.

Via: CNS News

Tens Of Millions More In Undisclosed $$ For The Clintons

Last Night, The Clinton Foundation Revealed That It Had "Received As Much As $26.4 Million In Previously Undisclosed Payments From Major Corporations, Universities, Foreign Sources And Other Groups." "The Clinton Foundation reported Thursday that it has received as much as $26.4 million in previously undisclosed payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups. The disclosure came as the foundation faced questions over whether it fully complied with a 2008 ethics agreement to reveal its donors and whether any of its funding sources present conflicts of interest for Hillary Rodham Clinton as she begins her presidential campaign." (Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger, "Clinton Foundation Reveals Up To $26 Million In Additional Payments," The Washington Post , 5/21/15)

The Money Was From Speaking Fees, And "Foundation Officials Said The Funds Were Tallied Internally As 'Revenue' Rather Than Donations, Which Is Why They Had Not Been Included In The Public Listings Of Its Contributors Published As Part Of The 2008 Agreement." "The money was paid as fees for speeches by Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton. Foundation officials said the funds were tallied internally as 'revenue' rather than donations, which is why they had not been included in the public listings of its contributors published as part of the 2008 agreement." (Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger, "Clinton Foundation Reveals Up To $26 Million In Additional Payments," The Washington Post , 5/21/15)

The Foundation Said It Had Not Previously Disclosed "Organizations That Paid For Clinton Speeches… Because They Were Paying For A Service And Not Making A Tax-Deductible Donation." "While the Clinton Foundation has annually disclosed its donors since 2008, the foundation said Thursday that organizations that paid for Clinton speeches have not before been included in those lists because they were paying for a service and not making a tax-deductible donation." (Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger, "Clinton Foundation Reveals Up To $26 Million In Additional Payments," The Washington Post , 5/21/15)

"A Foundation Official Indicated The Speech Dollars Have Been Disclosed As Revenue In Annual Tax Filings To The IRS." (Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger, "Clinton Foundation Reveals Up To $26 Million In Additional Payments," The Washington Post , 5/21/15)

Clinton's Personal Financial Disclosure Forms Raised Ethical Questions About "The Completeness Of Her Financial Disclosures"

Clinton Had Delivered 15 Previously Undisclosed Speeches Since January 2014."Hillary Clinton has delivered 15 such speeches, including one address to Goldman Sachs and another to JPMorgan Chase." (Rosalind S. Helderman and Tom Hamburger, "Clinton Foundation Reveals Up To $26 Million In Additional Payments,"The Washington Post , 5/21/15)

Clinton's Decision To Release "Details On Millions Of Dollars In Speaking Fees Sent To The Clinton Foundation Rather Than Her Own Pocket Is An Effort To Quiet An Ethical Debate About The Completeness Of Her Financial Disclosures…" "Hillary Clinton's decision to release this week details on millions of dollars in speaking fees sent to the Clinton Foundation rather than her own pocket is an effort to quiet an ethical debate about the completeness of her financial disclosures at a time when the foundation's finances and fundraising practices are under intense scrutiny." (Josh Gerstein, "Hillary's speech disclosures come under fire," Politico, 5/20/15)

Via: GOP.COM

[VIDEO] Jonathan Gruber Glaringly Absent From NYT Article on Obamacare Wording 'Mistake'

Say my name. ---Walter White aka Heisenberg in Breaking Bad. New York Times writer Robert Pear knows his name but he didn't say it in his article about how four words in the Obamacare law was simply a mistake. Pear quotes a number of people involved in the law's writing process but fails to mention the one who was acknowledged as the architect of Obamacare...until it became politically inconvenient to do so---Jonathan Gruber. And the reason why Gruber's name went unmentioned in the article is because of his claim, recorded for all eternity on video, that only state established health exchanges would be eligible for subsidies. -

.Let us now watch Pear make his case in his Gruber-free zone that it was all just a mistake:

WASHINGTON — They are only four words in a 900-page law: “established by the state.”

But it is in the ambiguity of those four words in the Affordable Care Act that opponents found a path to challenge the law, all the way to the Supreme Court.

How those words became the most contentious part of President Obama’s signature domestic accomplishment has been a mystery. Who wrote them, and why? Were they really intended, as the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell claim, to make the tax subsidies in the law available only in states that established their own health insurance marketplaces, and not in the three dozen states with federal exchanges?

Who wrote them, Pear? You know the name of the most prominent of the writers. Say his name. Saaaaay it!!! Okay, since you won't say his name, let us watch Obamacare Jonathan Gruber himself explain how the subsidies work and who gets them:

What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.

Via: Newsbusters

Bill Clinton's Secret Shell Company Exposed

WASHINGTON (AP) — The newly released financial files on Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton's growing fortune omit a company with no apparent employees or assets that the former president has legally used to provide consulting and other services, but which demonstrates the complexity of the family's finances.

Because the company, WJC, LLC, has no financial assets, Hillary Clinton's campaign was not obligated to report its existence in her recent financial disclosure report, officials with Bill Clinton's private office and the Clinton campaign said. They were responding to questions by The Associated Press, which reviewed corporate documents.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to provide private details of the former president's finances on the record, said the entity was a "pass-through" company designed to channel payments to the former president.

Under federal ethics disclosure rules, declared candidates do not have to report assets worth less than $1,000. But the company's existence demonstrates the complexity of tracking the Clintons' finances as Hillary Clinton ramps up her presidential bid.

While Bill Clinton's lucrative speeches have provided the bulk of the couple's income, earning as much as $50 million during his wife's four-year term as secretary of state in the Obama administration, the former president has also sought to branch out into other business activities in recent years. Little is known about the exact nature and financial worth of Bill Clinton's non-speech business interests.

The identities of several U.S and foreign-based companies and foundations that Bill Clinton worked for have been disclosed in Hillary Clinton's recent financial report as well as in earlier reports during her stint as secretary of state.

Under federal disclosure rules for spouses' earned income, Hillary Clinton was only obligated to identify the source of her spouse's income and confirm that he received more than $1,000. As a result, the precise amounts of Bill Clinton's earned income from consulting have not been disclosed, and it's not known how much was routed through WJC, LLC.

Via: Yahoo! News

Differences Between Left and Right: Part I

Most Americans hold either liberal or conservative positions on most matters. In many instances, however, they would be hard pressed to explain their position or the position they oppose.

But if you can't explain both sides, how do you know you're right?

At the very least, you need to understand both the liberal and conservative positions in order to effectively understand your own.

I grew up in a liberal world -- New York, Jewish and Ivy League graduate school. I was an 8-year-old when President Dwight Eisenhower ran for re-election against the Democratic nominee, Adlai Stevenson. I knew nothing about politics and had little interest in the subject. But I well recall knowing -- knowing, not merely believing -- that Democrats were "for the little guy" and Republicans were "for the rich guys."

I voted Democrat through Jimmy Carter's election in 1976. He was the last Democrat for which I voted.

Obviously, I underwent an intellectual change. And it wasn't easy. Becoming a Republican was emotionally and psychologically like converting to another religion.

In fact, when I first voted Republican I felt as if I had abandoned the Jewish people. To be a Jew meant being a Democrat. It was that simple. It was -- and remains -- that fundamental to many American Jews' identity.

Therefore, it took a lot of thought to undergo this conversion. I had to understand both liberalism and conservatism. Indeed, I have spent a lifetime in a quest to do so.

The fruit of that quest will appear in a series of columns explaining the differences between left and right.

I hope it will benefit conservatives in better understanding why they are conservative, and enable liberals to understand why someone who deeply cares about the "little guy" holds conservative -- or what today are labeled as conservative -- views.

Difference No. 1: Is Man Basically Good?

Via: Real Clear Politics

Like Don Draper, Barack Obama Can Never Go Home

In watching the seventh season of AMC's inspired hit series Mad Men unfold, I found myself thinking of the Obama presidency, also in its seventh season. (No spoilers until article's end).

For those who may not have seen the series, the principal character of Mad Men is a sophisticated and self-possessed creative director for a New York ad agency named Don Draper. In many ways, Draper fits the mold of the American Adam, a highly competent individualist with no fixed past and no set future. This archetype has been a staple of American expression, from Cooper's Natty Bumpo to Fitzgerald's Jay Gatsby to just about every character Clint Eastwood has ever played, some of whom don't even have a name, let alone a history.

Like Gatsby – and, more to the point, like Barack Obama – Draper has invented himself. Viewers learn early in the first season that he is not really who he says he is. He went to Korea as a no-account private from a brutally dysfunctional home and assumed the identity of his lieutenant after a fatal accident that he himself caused. Although usually confident and self-contained, ad exec Draper lives in terror that he will be exposed.

At this stage in his presidency, Barack Obama no longer lives in terror. The fact that he reportedly spent $2 million or so on attorney fees to keep his birth certificate sealed suggests that he once did. I am still not certain what it was that he needed to conceal. As to Obama's grades and test scores, Jimmy Hoffa's body will be unearthed before those are.

Via: American Thinker

Biker Shootout: Libs Going Wacko over Race in Waco

Leftists are upset about what they view as a double standard with respect to the Baltimore/Ferguson affair and the recent Waco gang shootout. They’re right, too—there sure is a double standard.

And, as usual, it’s their own.

Consider, for example, an Associated Presspiece by one Jesse J. Holland titled “Differing perceptions of Waco, Baltimore bothering some.” Holland starts out writing that the “prevailing images of protests in Baltimore and Ferguson, Missouri, over police killings of black men were of police in riot gear, handcuffed protesters, tear gas and mass arrests. The main images of a fatal gun battle between armed bikers and police in Waco, Texas, also showed mass arrests—carried out by nonchalant-looking officers sitting around calm bikers on cellphones.” The idea is that while the black thugs in Baltimore and Ferguson received harsh treatment and coverage, the primarily white thugs in Waco were, relatively speaking, handled with kid gloves.

But pardon my tongue, this brings us to another complaint. Holland cites people who say that while Barack Obama and other politicians called the Baltimore miscreants “thugs,” no such descriptive is applied to the white Waco punks. He mentions in particular radio and TV commentator Roland Martin, who tweeted, “So the mainstream media refuses to talk (hashtag)WacoThugs, huh?” And Martin has a point: While the black Baltimore rioters and looters were called thugs, no white Waco rioters and looters were thus characterized. I wonder, why might that be?

Oh, yeah, that’s right: there are no white rioters and looters in Waco.

Minor details such as this seem to escape the notice of two-brain-cell journalists in search of a story, but a prerequisite for having “police in riot gear” is actually having, you know, a riot. The incident in Waco was an unforeseen event, meaning, the cops had no time to don any kind of special gear.

Perhaps they don’t teach proper analogizing in journalism school, but the Waco biker thugs aren’t analogous to the Baltimore rioter thugs; rather, they’re analogous to the person the latter were rioting over: drug dealer Freddie Gray. And no one went out of his way to call Gray a thug.

Via: Canada Free Press

After Secret Service Seized $115,000, North Carolina Man Continues Fight for ‘Justice’

On the morning of Sept. 25, 2014, Tom Bednar was sitting in the bedroom of the Raleigh, N.C., home he shared with his wife, Marla, and two sons when Marla entered the room crying.

She had just looked at the bank account for their three-decade old business, Marla Enterprises, to find it empty. Now, Capital Bank was requesting close to $18,000 to cover the outstanding checks the couple had written.

After transferring money to straighten out their finances with the bank, the Bednars learned just what had happened with the $115,018.01 they had in their bank account: The United States Secret Service seized the money.

“We got no warning,” Tom Bednar said in an interview with The Daily Signal. “Nothing.”

After months of litigation against the United States government, Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen West moved to dismiss the case earlier this month, meaning the Bednars will get their money back.

However, the government refused to cover the Bednar’s $25,000 in legal fees, which the couple is entitled to under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act. Though the fight to get their $115,000 back is now over, the family is continuing to push to have their expenses covered.

Via: The Daily Signal

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Clinton's Personal Financial Disclosure Forms Raised Ethical Questions About "The Completeness Of Her Financial Disclosures"

Popular Posts