Tag Archives: Breitbart

Big Tech / Silicon Valley now shown to be among the most biased of any USA business sector

Big bias in Silicon Valley


In virtually any given week in 2018, the media would run a negative story about the president, a Democrat would complain about Russia, and/or a tech platform would censor a prominent conservative.

All three are connected. The alternative media, which the public now relies on to debunk the hysteria of the establishment press, has faced a sustained attack by the masters of the universe in Silicon Valley, who have either banned them from their platforms or undercut their traffic with algorithm changes. Meanwhile, the tech titans pour money into the corporate press, propping up the old media elites even as they crush their competition.

Democrats, still determined to cast the President’s election as illegitimate two years after the fact, harp on and on about Russia even as more evidence reveals how minuscule and meaningless Putin’s election “influence operation” really was. Google CEO Sundar Pichai recently told Congress that his company discovered just $4,700 in ad spending from Russia-linked accounts in 2016.

Those same Democrats ridicule conservative complaints of tech censorship as a conspiracy theory, even when leaks from the tech companies themselves prove that it’s happening. “The Good Censor,” an internal Google briefing leaked to me earlier this year admits point-blank that the tech giants “shifted towards censorship” after 2016. It seems Google’s own researchers disagree with the Democrats’ defense of the company. That’s to be expected — Google pays its researchers to tell it the truth. It pays Congressional Democrats for other reasons.

You don’t need leaks to discern Silicon Valley’s bias, though. You can just look at the tech platform’s actions. In the past year alone, we saw the following blacklistings, representing only the most prominent of those to feel Silicon Valley’s wrath.:

  • Islam critic Tommy Robinson was banned by Twitter and PayPal.
  • Conservative activist Laura Loomer was banned by Twitter.
  • Republican consultant R.C. Maxwell was banned by Twitter.
  • Centrist YouTuber Carl Benjamin (a.k.a. “Sargon of Akkad”) was banned by Patreon.
  • Islam critic Robert Spencer was banned by Patreon following pressure by credit card companies.
  • Candace Owens was suspended by Twitter
  • James Woods was suspended for 30 days by Twitter
  • I, Hypocrite, a page that highlights far-left hate speech, was banned by Facebook
  • Avi Yemini, a Jewish-Australian IDF veteran and conservative activist was banned by Facebook
  • Mohammed Tawhidi, an anti-extremist Australian imam was banned by Facebook
  • The Babylon Bee, a conservative satire site, was threatened with suspension by Facebook
  • Conservative activist Terrence K. Williams was suspended by Facebook
  • Gavin McInnes was banned by Twitter and Facebook
  • At the urging of the corporate media, Alex Jones and Infowars were banned by Facebook, Twitter, Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Spotify, Pinterest, and YouTube
  • Over 800 alternative news accounts were banned by Facebook just a few weeks before the midterms
  • An untold number of rank and file conservatives, who do not have the pull to shame the platforms into reinstating their accounts, also were silenced.

The censorship wasn’t contained to just activists, the alternative media, and influencers. Even mainstream politicians felt the heat — Facebook and Google refused to carry campaign ads for Senate candidate Marsha Blackburn, echoing a similar decision by Twitter a year earlier. Facebook also temporarily blocked an anti-communist ad by Republican congressional candidate Elizabeth Heng. Most egregious of all, the social network blocked a midterm ad by President Donald Trump just days before the November elections.

Midway through the year, top Republicans including GOP chairwoman Ronna McDaniel and congressman Matt Gaetz also discovered that their accounts had been suppressed in Twitter’s search results. Axios reporter Jonathan Swan admitted that the revelation made him “rethink” his previously-held belief that tech censorship was just a “conspiracy theory.”

After 2018’s tidal wave of censorship, can anyone still believe that?


[From an article by Allum Bokhari written for BREITBART.COM]


PS.   HAPPY NEW YEAR from NORM ‘n’ AL!  What kind of a year do YOU think 2019 will be?  (We think it will look a lot like the year we’re just leaving, only worse if we’re talking about bias and stupidity.)




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Turns out it wasn’t Russia who was trying to control the election last year, it was SOCIAL MEDIA!

Censorship by social media


Since Donald Trump won the presidential election, liberals have been howling at the moon, or as they plan to do on November 8, 2017, “screaming helplessly at the sky,” consistently accusing social media giants of allowing “fake news” to spread, then screeching about “Russian ads” on social media. But in congressional testimony, we see proof of what many conservatives and Wikileaks accused Twitter and Facebook of during the election cycle: Censoring news and deliberately hiding news not favorable to Hillary Clinton.  Turns out any activity by Russia was so tiny it would not have made even a small ripple in the election pond.

Twitter’s general counsel Sean Edgett testified before U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism on October 31.  The committee’s investigation into possible Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election found that merely four percent of tweets using the hashtag #PodestaEmails (referring to the Wikileaks publications of emails leaked from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta), and only two percent of tweets using the hashtag #DNCLeak (referring to Wikileaks publication of emails leaked from John Podesta) actually came from Russian linked accounts.

What Edgett actually testified shows that while Russia had far less than impressive reach or influence, Twitter itself directly attempted to influence the 2016 election by arbitrarily censoring and hiding information that Twitter users were highly interested in. Why? Because it did not fit Twitter’s agenda and did not favor their candidate of choice.

From his testimony:

We found that slightly under 4% of Tweets containing #PodestaEmails came from accounts with potential links to Russia, and that those Tweets accounted for less than 20% of impressions within the first seven days of posting. Approximately 75% of impressions on the trending topic were views by U.S.-based users. A significant portion of these impressions, however, are attributable to a handful of high-profile accounts, primarily @Wikileaks. At least one heavily-retweeted Tweet came from another potentially Russia-linked account that showed signs of automation.

With respect to #DNCLeak, approximately 23,000 users posted around 140,000 unique Tweets with that hashtag in the relevant period. Of those Tweets, roughly 2% were from potentially Russian-linked accounts. As noted above, our automated systems at the time detected, labeled, and hid just under half (48%) of all the original Tweets with #DNCLeak. Of the total Tweets with the hashtag, 0.84% were hidden and also originated from accounts that met at least one of the criteria for a Russian-linked account. Those Tweets received 0.21% of overall Tweet impressions. We learned that a small number of Tweets from several large accounts were principally responsible for the propagation of this trend. In fact, two of the ten most-viewed Tweets with #DNCLeak were posted by @Wikileaks, an account with millions of followers.

Wikileaks exposed the DNC corruption, showing that the DNC actively worked in favor of the Clinton campaign and actively against the Bernie Sanders campaign to rig the primaries, something which former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, Donna Brazile, confirmed yet again on Thursday, November 2, 2017, as she exposed rampant corruption within both the DNC and the Hillary Clinton camapign.

After Wikileaks published those leaked emails, former head of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was forced to resign her position as the DNC chair.

As evidence by Edgett’s own claim that 75 percent of the impressions on the #PodestaEmails hashtag were viewed by U.S. based users, and the overwhelmingly high percentage of tweets using the #DNCLeak hashtag that were unrelated to accounts that might or might not have been linked to Russia, interest within the U.S. was high in regards to the Wikileaks revelations, hence two of the top ten most-viewed tweets coming directly from the Wikileaks account.  So we have published information that U.S. citizens using Twitter were extremely interested in, and we’re told Twitter “hid” that information (“censored” it) from nearly half of their users.

Now, using liberals’ own logic here, if seeing a tweet that might have come from a Russian is to be considered “meddling” in an election, then hiding nearly half the tweets about a topic U.S. citizens are extremely interested in must also be considered “meddling.”

From Breitbart:

#DNCLeaks was one of the top trending topics on Twitter on July 22 with over 250,000 tweets reportedly made under the hashtag after the WikiLeaks release of more than 19,000 leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee.

Later on in the day, however, the hashtag reportedly disappeared from the trending bar for some 20 minutes, before reappearing under the less popular hashtag “#DNCleak.”

“The change meant that those investigating the new trending hashtag would not see all of the other posts tagged under the previous version, effectively hiding over 250,000 tweets from the public,” the report noted.

None of this came up in Edgett’s testimony Tuesday, which adds further questions to the already egregious partisan censorship that Twitter seems guilty of.

Edgett said that prior to the election, “we also detected and took action on activity relating to hashtags that have since been reported as manifestations of efforts to interfere with the 2016 election,” even though what he calls “interference” was in the majority of cases a simple effort to “influence” the election by providing damning true information about the Hillary Clinton campaign, which is a normal thing during presidential campaigns.

One more note on Twitter’s meddling and their hypocrisy. It is being reported that not only did Twitter welcome Russian ads, they actively sought and pressed Russia Today to ramp up their election related ad buys by offering them 15 percent of their total shares of elections advertising.

ZeroHedge points out that RT Editor-in-Chief Margarita Simonyan virtually smacks Twitter and liberals claiming that “ad buys” are somehow an attempt to influence elections by highlighting that “similar campaigns are conducted by the American media in the Russian segment of Twitter.”

This is forcing us to go a step further and come clean that we also spent money on advertising at airports, in taxis, on billboards, on the Internet, on TV and radio. Even CNN ran our commercials,” Simonyan said. “By the way, similar campaigns are conducted by the American media in the Russian segment of Twitter. It’ll be very interesting to find out how much they spend on it, who they target and for what purpose.”

While Twitter is just admitting to censoring and hiding relevant election related information from their users, Facebook had previously admitted to blocking posts with Wikileaks links and after they were busted publicly for doing so back in July 2016, then claimed it was an “accident.”

While we have wondered many times if someone like former White House Chief Strategist and Breitbart News Executive Chairman Steve Bannon was behind what appears to be a coordinated effort to take down the establishment liberal “elite,” we do note via some direct quotes by Bannon reported on by Newsweek that if he wasn’t behind the initial phase, he is most definitely going after Hollywood now, saying Bannon is “declaring a new phase of war on the entertainment industry.”

“Hollywood isn’t a new battlefront for Breitbart, it’s the original battle,” Bannon told The Hollywood Reporter in an interview published Thursday. “The fact that it’s blowing itself up isn’t a new stage in the culture war, it’s an inevitable one,” he added. “They’ve ignored half the country’s values for far too long and now these Hollywood elitists’ values are publicly on display, and bankrupt.

“These are the same people who disingenuously seized the moral high ground as they attacked our president based on a standard they do not live by,” said Bannon, who helped found Breitbard and returned as executive chairman after departing the administration. “Americans took their country back not only from the permanent political class but also from these phony culture brokers who have waged war against their way of life for decades. Make no mistake, we didn’t start this war, but how Hollywood responds from here will determine whether or not it survives.”

With Barack Obama recently claiming that Breitbart News managed to “shift the entire media narrative in a different direction — in a powerful direction,” during the 2016 election, it is perhaps appropriate that Breitbart has been at the forefront of taking on Hollywood, the MSM, and the Uranium One story (which they first started beating the drum on with the “Clinton Cash” back in 2016), and now spotlighting social media’s direct attempts, via censorship, to actively influence the 2016 president election.

It stretches the imagination to think that the sexual abuse scandals rocking both Hollywood and the MSM, at the same time that the new information is coming out in regards to the Uranium One story, plus the recent exposure of the Democratic funding for the “Trump dossier,” and now social media giants being shown to have meddled in U.S. elections with even some media outlets saying Facebook, Twitter and Google should all be regulated, is just coincidence.

Really?  Not hardly.  The problem with the liberals is that they are not smart enough to stop digging their hole when it’s already more than deep enough to bury them.


[From an article published by ALL NEWS PIPELINE]




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Russian email hack during election was designed to obtain proof that Democrats were trying to cheat in the election, and that Obama’s Attorney General was covering up for the Clintons

New York Times report on Saturday, April 22 claimed that FBI Director James Comey decided to reveal last year that he was re-opening the investigation into Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton because he suspected Attorney General Loretta Lynch was covering up for her — and because an email found by Russian hackers seemed to support those suspicions.

The Times’ investigative report suggests that a U.S. intelligence agency managed to intercept some of what Russian hackers were stealing — and that one document, “described as both a memo and an email, was written by a Democratic operative who expressed confidence that Ms. Lynch would keep the Clinton investigation from going too far.”

According to the Times, Comey feared that Lynch — who had insisted the Clinton probe be referred to as a “matter” and not as an “investigation,” and who suggested the investigation was not criminal when, in fact, it was — would declare the case closed, and then Russian hackers would leak the document to undermine the FBI’s image of independence.

The Times notes: “Mr. Comey’s defenders regard this as one of the untold stories of the Clinton investigation, one they say helps explain his decision-making.” And if a local news reporter in Phoenix had not caught Lynch meeting with former President Bill Clinton, she might have succeeded in sheltering the Clintons even more effectively than she did.


[Originally published online by BREITBART.COM]


NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  We have stated in previous posts that it is remarkable how the Democrats, from the Obama White House down, could so often demonstrate how little regard they had for doing things within the law. The FBI had what it saw as absolute proof that Obama, the Clintons, and many other Democrats were not just willing, but eager and able, to find loopholes to help circumvent US laws. There was further absolute proof that Loretta Lynch, the head of the US Department of Justice, was deeply implicated in Democrat cover-up activities. As you know from the behavior of the Democrats right up to the present, they have not yet decided to change their stripes and become respectable and law-abiding. (Apparently this goal has not even made it onto the Democrats’ action plan early draft document yet…which means we can certainly look forward to more of their lowdown highjinks in weeks and months to come. So the Democrats, just as Obama said while in office, “don’t have a plan yet.”  We already know they have no honor or integrity. What is it the Democrats DO have? They sure look empty from here.)




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis



Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Another “the end always justifies the means” caper by Obama during and following the recent election shows he should be charged with treason

Radio host Mark Levin used his Thursday evening show to outline the known steps taken by President Barack Obama’s administration in its last months to undermine Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and, later, his new administration.

Levin called Obama’s effort “police state” tactics, and suggested that Obama’s actions, rather than conspiracy theories about alleged Russian interference in the presidential election to help Trump, should be the target of congressional investigation.

Drawing on sources including the New York Times and the Washington Post, Levin described the case against Obama so far, based on what is already publicly known. The following is an expanded version of that case, including events that Levin did not mention specifically but are important to the overall timeline.

1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

2. July: Russia joke. Wikileaks releases emails from the Democratic National Committee that show an effort to prevent Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) from winning the presidential nomination. In a press conference, Donald Trump refers to Hillary Clinton’s own missing emails, joking: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing.” That remark becomes the basis for accusations by Clinton and the media that Trump invited further hacking.

3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

 5. January 2017: Buzzfeed/CNN dossier. Buzzfeed releases, and CNN reports, a supposed intelligence “dossier” compiled by a foreign former spy. It purports to show continuous contact between Russia and the Trump campaign, and says that the Russians have compromising information about Trump. None of the allegations can be verified and some are proven false. Several media outlets claim that they had been aware of the dossier for months and that it had been circulating in Washington.

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.

7. January: Times report. The New York Times reports, on the eve of Inauguration Day, that several agencies — the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Treasury Department are monitoring several associates of the Trump campaign suspected of Russian ties. Other news outlets also report the existence of “a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government,” though it is unclear how they found out, since the investigations would have been secret and involved classified information.

8. February: Mike Flynn scandal. Reports emerge that the FBI intercepted a conversation in 2016 between future National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — then a private citizen — and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. The intercept supposedly was part of routine spying on the ambassador, not monitoring of the Trump campaign. The FBI transcripts reportedly show the two discussing Obama’s newly-imposed sanctions on Russia, though Flynn earlier denied discussing them. Sally Yates, whom Trump would later fire as acting Attorney General for insubordination, is involved in the investigation. In the end, Flynn resigns over having misled Vice President Mike Pence (perhaps inadvertently) about the content of the conversation.

9. February: Times claims extensive Russian contacts. The New York Times cites “four current and former American officials” in reporting that the Trump campaign had “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials. The Trump campaign denies the claims — and the Times admits that there is “no evidence” of coordination between the campaign and the Russians. The White House and some congressional Republicans begin to raise questions about illegal intelligence leaks.

10. March: the Washington Post targets Jeff Sessions. The Washington Post reports that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had contact twice with the Russian ambassador during the campaign — once at a Heritage Foundation event and once at a meeting in Sessions’s Senate office. The Post suggests that the two meetings contradict Sessions’s testimony at his confirmation hearings that he had no contacts with the Russians, though in context (not presented by the Post) it was clear he meant in his capacity as a campaign surrogate, and that he was responding to claims in the “dossier” of ongoing contacts. The New York Times, in covering the story, adds that the Obama White House “rushed to preserve” intelligence related to alleged Russian links with the Trump campaign. By “preserve” it really means “disseminate”: officials spread evidence throughout other government agencies “to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators” and perhaps the media as well.

In summary: the Obama administration sought, and eventually obtained, authorization to eavesdrop on the Trump campaign; continued monitoring the Trump team even when no evidence of wrongdoing was found; then relaxed the NSA rules to allow evidence to be shared widely within the government, virtually ensuring that the information, including the conversations of private citizens, would be leaked to the media.


[This article originally published by BREITBART.COM]


NORM ‘n’ AL Note:  We have said it before (along with many others), that Obama has no honor, no integrity, and no sense of right and wrong.  He is morally bankrupt, in other words.  The end always justifies the means, not just for Obama but also for the Clintons and most of the Democrats.  Pretty disgusting when your elected government officials show you over and over again exactly what that looks like in broad daylight, with no attempt to make it look like anything else.




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Immigrant terrorists in the US, Part 2…

The refugees fleeing the Middle East are mostly (72%, or almost three-quarters) men, not the “widows and orphans” that OHNObama has told us to expect.  We also know that a large percentage of these men have a propensity toward terrorizing people not of the Islamic persuasion.


Bleeding-heart leftists are attempting to flood the U.S. with what they describe as “widows and orphans,” but the horrifying things actual refugees (who were already screened and cleared by the U.S. government) were arrested for has liberals scrambling to cover their tracks.

Breitbart reports that at least 12 vetted refugees have been charged with joining terror plots against the U.S., using their refugee status in an attempt to attack American civilians.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has brought before Congress a list of a dozen refugees-turned-jihadist in an effort to halt the U.S.’s import of foreign migrants and refugees into the country.

Although the list doesn’t even include every refugee arrested for terrorist activity, the ones it contains should be evidence enough to cease the flow of migrants over our borders. The list of refugees and their charges are as follows:

Liban Haji Mohamed (Warrant for arrest) — as a Somali native who provided material support to terrorist groups al-Shabaab and al-Qaeda, Mohamed lived in Washington D.C. as a cab driver, but fled to East Africa in 2012 to join al-Shabaab. According to FBI Special Agent Carl Ghattas, Mohamed is an asset to the terrorist group, and could play a key roll in attacks on U.S. soil.

Abdinassir Mohamud Ibrahim (Criminal Complaint Indictment) — This Somali refugee was sentenced to 15 years in a federal prison for providing al-Shabaab with material support. Ibrahim’s family is made up of prominent Somali terrorists, but after falsifying his refugee application, he was able to assist the terror group while remaining int he U.S.

Abdullah Ramo Pazara (Indictment) — This Bosinian entered the U.S. as a refugee in 2013, fled to join ISIS (Daesh) just 11 days after gaining American citizenship. He claims to have participated in a jihad mission in which he slaughtered individuals and took a hostage. He is believed to be dead.

Ramiz Zijad Hodzic (Indictment) — Another Bosnian native, Hodzic entered the U.S. as a refugee and war hero. However, he was soon charged with conspiring to provide material support and resources to ISIS militants. His purchases included U.S. military uniforms, tactical gear, firearm accessories, and other military equipment.

Sedina Unkic Hodzic (Indictment) — The wife of Ramiz Zijad Hodzic, this Bosnian refugee conspired with her husband to privde ISIS resources and support from the comfort of her new American home. She spent much of her time shipping boxes of material to terrorists abroad, and collecting money from jihadists.

Armin Harcevic (Indictment) — Harcevic gained entrance to the U.S. as a Bosian refugee, only to use his status to aid Islamic terrorists abroad. Harcevic collected money and wired it straight to jihadists’ accounts overseas.

Refugees to the US need to be carefully screened...

Nihad Rosic (Indictment) — Another Bosnian refugee, Rosic gained U.S. citizenship, but this didn’t slow his aid to terrorist groups. As a truck driver, Rosic not only punched a woman in the face as she held her child, he also sent funds abroad to jihadists, attempted to join ISIS, and severely beat his then-girlfriend.

Mediha Medy Salkicevic (Indictment) — This Bosnian refugee privded support and resources to overseas terrorists, using her job at a cargo company to deal with items going in and out of Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. Salkicevic also raised funds from third parties and wired them to the accounts of Islamic jihadists.

Jasminka Ramic (Indictment) — Ramic is another Bosnian refugee-turned-jihadist who shamelessly received citizenship before using her new status to send money and resources to Muslim terrorists abroad.

Abdurahman Yasin Daud (Criminal Complaint Indictment) — This Kenyan refugee came to the U.S. as a child, but that didn’t deter him from attempting to provide support to ISIS. After gaining citizenship, Daud tried to get passports, cross into Mexico, and fly to Syria to join the Islamic terrorist group.

Guled Ali Omar (Criminal Complaint Indictment) — Also born in a Kenyan refugee camp and entering the U.S. as a child, Omar turned on his U.S. host, providing material support to ISIS. Omar left the U.S. in 2007 to fight for al-Shabaab, not long before one of his brothers, Mohamed Ali Omar, was convicted of threatening federal agents.

Fazliddin Kurbanov (Indictment and Superseding Indictment) — A native of Uzbekistan, Kurbanov was found guilty of attempting to provide support to a terrorist organization, and possession of an unregistered destructive device. Kurbanov is said to have converted to Christianity, but converted back to Islam after entering the U.S., spurring his motivation for terror.

The Tsarnaev brothers, who killed 3 and injured another 264 in the Boston Marathon bombing, were refugees to the U.S. from the Chechen conflict. Two of the Paris shooters used the Syrian refugee crisis to make their way into France, killing at least 130 and injuring 352. Waad Ramadan Alwan, a refugee to the U.S. from Iraq, was found guilty of conspiring to kill U.S. citizens with explosives, distributing information on the manufacture and use of IEDs, and trying to give material support to al-Qaeda. There are still countless other refugees and migrants who have used their access to the U.S. to breed terror.

Does anyone really think that a change in address somehow magically means a change in ideology?  If terrorists at home come to the US, they will be terrorists here. Does that not make sense to SOMEONE in Washington, DC?


[published by MAD WORLD NEWS]




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis




Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Clinton Foundation will “amend” its tax returns for the last four years, to correct “errors in the report of donations from foreign governments,” according to news reports

America's First Family of CrimeClinton Foundation President Donna Shalala said in a statement that the returns were revised after a voluntary review of the charity’s past tax returns. She added that the corrections were not required by law.

“There is no change in our bottom line numbers: assets, liabilities, and net assets,” Shalala wrote in a statement to the foundation’s supporters that was obtained by Reuters. “There is nothing to suggest that the Foundation intended to conceal the receipt of government grants, which we report on our website.”

The amended Form 990 tax returns were for the years 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. An affiliated charity, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, also amended its returns for 2012 and 2013.

The foundation now reports receiving $20 million in government funds between 2010 and 2013, most of it from foreign governments. The foundation had neglected to state its government funding separately from other funding sources in its original returns.

The foundation also revealed that it raised $177 million in 2014, the year before Hillary Clinton announced her run for the presidency.

Not bad for a humble little charity founded by the “dead broke” Clintons.

“Founded by former president Bill Clinton initially to raise money for a presidential library, the foundation has become a $2 billion charitable behemoth, devoted to combating global poverty, improving health care and promoting education around the world,” the Washington Post describes the operation with a straight face, while somehow forgetting to mention that the amount of money actually directed to those causes by the Clinton Foundation is such a tiny fraction of the cash it harvests that reputable watchdog organizations hesitate to describe it as a “charity” at all.

The same IRS that investigated the living daylights out of grassroots political organizations and kitchen-table pro-life groups is happy to let the Clinton Foundation “amend” its tax returns whenever they get around to it. Tax-exempt applications were not denied, but delayed until after the 2012 election, while the IRS demanded little neighborhood political groups submit their prayer books for review, while the Clinton cash machine gets unlimited do-overs on its tax returns… and we’re expected to believe power was not abused for political purposes in any way. Funny how that works.

The C stands for "corruption."

“It’s a Hillary super PAC that throws in the occasional good deed,” Kimberly Strassel said of the Clinton Foundation in a June piece for the Wall Street Journal. “That much is made obvious by looking at the foundation’s employment rolls. Most charities are staffed by folks who have spent a lifetime in nonprofits, writing grants or doing overseas field work. The Clinton Foundation is staffed by political operatives. It has been basically a parking lot for Clinton campaign workers—a comfy place to draw a big check as they geared up for Hillary’s presidential run.”

It’s not pressure from our titanic government and its army of weaponized auditors that inspired the Clinton Foundation to redo its books. It’s private watchdogs writing books about the Clinton’s shadowy finances, and doing the necessary diligence on all that paperwork everyone else is expected to get right the first time, no matter how high-minded their goals. It’s also interesting that Hillary Clinton’s foundation is reshuffling its papers right after she started taking some heat from her putative Democratic presidential rivals for her love of big Wall Street money.

As the Washington Post relates, Shalala claimed the adjustments were made out of a commitment to “disclosure and thoroughness.” Why wasn’t that commitment in evidence until November 2015? When most people learn about four years of retroactive adjustments to tax returns, their immediate response probably won’t involve swooning over disclosure and thoroughness.

Their immediate response will more likely run along the lines of, “Wow, I didn’t know you could just revise four-year-old tax returns without penalty!” As they say about crazy stunts on TV shows, I wouldn’t recommend you try this at home. It’s not much comfort to hear that what the Clinton Foundation is doing is perfectly legal… not at a moment when Americans are rising up in trans-partisan fury against rules written to benefit the powerful and well-connected, while the Little Guy can be ruined over small mistakes he didn’t know he was making.

Sure, the partisan wings of that movement have very different ideas about which aspects of this system are most unfair, and which beneficiaries are most objectionable, but the Clinton Foundation’s revenue stream is not something Hillary Clinton wants anyone talking about right now.

Update: The Washington Examiner reports that the Clinton Foundation’s amended tax forms include “$8.8 million in government grants that was not previously listed.”  No doubt each and every one of us would enjoy the same “no harm, no foul” treatment from the IRS if we forgot to mention almost nine million dollars in revenue.


[by John Hayward, writing for BREITBART.COM]




As always, posted for your edification and enlightenment by

NORM ‘n’ AL, Minneapolis




Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized