Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
South Park Parodies Colin Kaepernick’s National Anthem Protest
time.com
"Why did I listen to Colin Kaepernick? He’s not even any good"
Quote:
http://time.com/4489554/south-park-colin-kaep...m-protest/
The ASK was 1400 at 1.35, 1700 at 1.36, 500 at 1.37 but the last trade, after close was 25,000 for 1.3863 and didn't take out any of the lower shares ASK shares. We end up with 100 share sell at 1.35 as the final trade. The 25k trade was obviously held by those who can.
They donate 9%, spend the rest up to 80% of the dollars and brag about 'good deeds.' How about 'mini deeds'.
The Rs in the Senate didn't want the so-called amnesty and I give a big FY to talk radio. He had a chance, the Senate was going to be difficult. He lives in Texas and knows it's an issue and wanted to get the legislators to do their job. Negotiate, find a solution and send it back up the chain of command for signature. Doing nothing extended, made the situation worse. If they could have at least started regularizing immigrants back then, wouldn't it have been better than what we have today and what the Shrill wants to do?
We may not have BO or the Shrill around for 8 and 4 years because their communities would have voted for our team.
If Bush's immigration bill had been passed, we wouldn't have this situation. Couldn't get it through Congress. Think about the millions of illegals that would have had to be regularized since that time, gone through the system but no......... We really do have Democrats to thank for this over the decades. The bills have to go through Congress and if we have both Senate and House, unless there is a veto proof majority, nothing will get through any Democrat President. And the reverse is the same.
BO and the Senate Majority with Dirty Harry in charge and only 14 bills get through?.... We know BO and DH were talking big time.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/14/guess-how-many-bills-the-senate-has-actually-voted-on-this-year/
People forget about this and why it is so important to vote, especially for the down ticket. Think about California and for the last 50+ years, they have done nothing about illegal aliens. Why, because California has been run by Democrats the entire time. Probably before I was born - 1951. We get some token R's in the legislature and an occasional Governor, but that's it. 36 years ago I saw my first freeway sign in San Diego with Hispanics depicted on it, running across road and warning the drivers. This is an imbedded system that is going to take serious jack hammering to break apart. And one forget, Clinton has the Colombians 'immigrating' their cocaine when he was governor. His brother managed the operation. I saw the landing strip, carved out in the middle of a mountain. You couldn't see it at all unless you were there.
Works for me. How about a prison's mental ward? And Bill under confined medical observation. The Chelsea Foundation should be stripped from her, unwound and illegal funds returned or those persons prosecuted and the donations go to real causes that obey the law. How about to businesses that legally create jobs for people in the US? The Clinton's have never done that.
That instead of this.........
As part of the penalty: Rosen should buy a major long position of stock and upon sale, donate the principle and profits to the company to pay for their clinical trials.
Let's send Hillary back to shack she came from. Take the Foundation away from them and wave prison pant suits at her.
Absolutely. I think we can lump the Democrat Party along with them.
Weakness invites aggression.
Hey, we know Niall!!! Was supposed to be in a debate here this week but had to cancel.
Pant suit on fire again.
Forgot to change the signature.
Are we surprised? No. Pant suit on fire again.
delete this one. forgot to change signature.
And now the pig socks? What an ass.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/colin-kaepernicks-pig-socks-look-like-big-diss-of-police/ar-AAilke5?li=BBnb7Kz
Notice how less fit the guy is. hmmm, drugs? They should drug test this guy, bust him and void the contract. Bye, bye.
We don't like him here. He can't read defenses and telegraphs the plays. They have to keep two tight ends in to protect him limiting their ability to move the ball. One day, if he ever breaks into a starting line-up, one of his desperation runs will end in tragedy when he loses a knee on the hit. I see management biting the bullet and releasing him. I believe he's using this attention grabbing 'negotiating chip' to try to get more than his guaranteed $61m vs. the full value of the contract. His version of the race card.
NFL execs: Kaepernick is a 'traitor,' hated as much as Rae Carruth
If Colin Kaepernick ends up getting released by the San Francisco 49ers, he may have an incredibly difficult time finding work elsewhere.
Mike Freeman of Bleacher Report spoke with seven anonymous NFL executives, and the consensus among all of them is that their teams would never sign Kaepernick in the wake of his national anthem protest.
“I don’t want him anywhere near my team,” one front office executive said. “He’s a traitor.”
“He has no respect for our country,” another exec told Freeman. “(Expletive) that guy.”
Each of the seven execs said he believes Kaepernick will never play in the NFL again if and when the 49ers cut the 28-year-old. Taking it a step further, one team official told Freeman he believes 90 to 95 percent of NFL front offices have blacklisted Kaepernick. That same exec said he cannot remember this much “collective dislike” for a player since Rae Carruth, who was drafted by the Carolina Panthers in the first round of the 1997 NFL Draft.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Carruth’s story, the former star wide receiver remains in jail after he was convicted of devising a plan to murder his pregnant girlfriend.
That seems a bit harsh. Many people feel Kaepernick’s decision to protest the national anthem is disrespectful, but he certainly doesn’t deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Carruth.
In any event, Kaepernick’s poor performance on the field last season, his injury history and the current controversy surrounding him will likely turn teams off. If the majority of the league feels as strongly as the executives Freeman interviewed — or this former NFL quarterback, for that matter — Kaepernick’s pro football days could be numbered.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/nfl-execs-kaepernick-is-a-traitor-hated-as-much-as-rae-carruth/ar-AAiklKL?li=BBnb7Kz
NFL execs: Kaepernick is a 'traitor,' hated as much as Rae Carruth
If Colin Kaepernick ends up getting released by the San Francisco 49ers, he may have an incredibly difficult time finding work elsewhere.
Mike Freeman of Bleacher Report spoke with seven anonymous NFL executives, and the consensus among all of them is that their teams would never sign Kaepernick in the wake of his national anthem protest.
“I don’t want him anywhere near my team,” one front office executive said. “He’s a traitor.”
“He has no respect for our country,” another exec told Freeman. “(Expletive) that guy.”
Each of the seven execs said he believes Kaepernick will never play in the NFL again if and when the 49ers cut the 28-year-old. Taking it a step further, one team official told Freeman he believes 90 to 95 percent of NFL front offices have blacklisted Kaepernick. That same exec said he cannot remember this much “collective dislike” for a player since Rae Carruth, who was drafted by the Carolina Panthers in the first round of the 1997 NFL Draft.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Carruth’s story, the former star wide receiver remains in jail after he was convicted of devising a plan to murder his pregnant girlfriend.
That seems a bit harsh. Many people feel Kaepernick’s decision to protest the national anthem is disrespectful, but he certainly doesn’t deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Carruth.
In any event, Kaepernick’s poor performance on the field last season, his injury history and the current controversy surrounding him will likely turn teams off. If the majority of the league feels as strongly as the executives Freeman interviewed — or this former NFL quarterback, for that matter — Kaepernick’s pro football days could be numbered.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/nfl-execs-kaepernick-is-a-traitor-hated-as-much-as-rae-carruth/ar-AAiklKL?li=BBnb7Kz
Me too. Ready to ride.
She'll be working under Dr. B but obviously believes this is a big opportunity. But we all know that it's all about performance and she believes this is her best fit. It's up to them to put it together for the best outcome. I believe with their skills, we have improved our situation and larger things are in the near future. We'll see how they do and hopefully come to a significant resurgence in the marketplace in the near future.
Hope you all have your desired shares.
If that doesn't get anyone up, nothing will.......
Pharmacokinetics of sildenafil after single oral doses in healthy male subjects: absolute bioavailability, food effects and dose proportionality
Donald J Nichols, Gary J Muirhead, and Jane A Harness
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874258/
Crocodile tears. Hate when a plan comes together.......
Sleep, sleep, sleep......
Come back after Labor Day when the traders come back from holiday in the Hamptons.
Here's an article that has her on the offensive:
Hillary Clinton KNEW her aides were working with family foundation despite her pledge not to – and she even hosted dinner at her home for the charity when in office
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3757409/Hillary-Clinton-knew-aides-working-family-foundation-despite-pledge-not-to.html
Ethics? We don't have no ethics...... Not for profits?.... We don't have any profits........
That's hilarious. London is about as diverse as any place can be and they aren't just new immigrants, it's been forever. PC on top of existing PC taking over again.....
Her team is out feeding their beast.... I mean base......
Ole' Chelsey is probably hiding bars of gold somewhere to help out.
Saw that. And just the fact Bill/they are saying he won't be involved if she becomes President is pleading guilty.
Entitled Muslims Kicked Off Plane When Passenger Spots What They’re Hiding
Posted on August 24, 2016 by Dom the Conservative
A passenger was waiting for their flight to take off when they noticed the Muslim family next to them acting suspiciously, so they decided to take a closer look at what they were doing. Thankfully, as soon as they saw what they were up to, the passenger immediately contacted the flight crew about the sinister thing they were hiding.
As devout Muslims across the globe are beheading, stabbing, shooting, and bombing unbelievers and declaring their hatred for the West, self-proclaimed moderates are whining about their potential victims being leery that they too might contract a case of Sudden Jihad Syndrome. While even they are at risk of being slaughtered for being apathetic in their faith, they are much more concerned with the “Islamophobic bigots” who rightfully report their suspicious activity.
On an August flight scheduled to fly from London Stanstead Airport to Naples, a cautious passenger discovered just how condemnable it is to suspect that the followers of the world’s most violent religion would ever be up to anything ominous.
Sakina, 24, Ali, 21. and Maryam Dharas, 19, had taken their seats on the easyJet flight when minutes later they were being escorted off the plane. According to the Daily Mail, the Muslim siblings were removed after a fellow passenger alerted the flight crew that the trio had their phones out and was “reading ISIS material” and had the phrase “praise be to God” on their phones in Arabic.
The 3 were promptly asked to leave the plane and were questioned on the tarmac — as if officials actually believed they would admit any ill intentions. After an hour of questioning, authorities allowed the siblings to reboard and the flight took off without incident.
Of course, the trio regurgitated the same rhetoric all Muslims do when accused of seeking to practice the violent fundamentals of their religion. They immediately accused the reporting passenger of racism, bigotry, and misunderstanding Islam.
“A passenger on your flight has claimed that you three are members of ISIS… They saw you with Arabic or praise be to Allah on your phone,” Sakina wrote on Facebook. “Firstly, that’s part of the Qur’an, our religious text, so even if we did have it, it wouldn’t signify that we’re a part of ISIS at all, but regardless, we’ve had nothing on our phone remotely Arabic related this morning. Also, we’re Indian by ethnicity, so we wouldn’t even have Arabic in conversation with anyone. What are my rights? We would only have been allowed back on the plane if there wasn’t a shred of doubt on their part, so someone must be the liar here, in which case, why were those passengers not removed for wasting police time, LYING, making false allegations and racial profiling?”
However, what Sakina cleverly neglects to mention is that the passenger who spotted their phone activity could actually read the foreign text and knew exactly what it said. While Sakina doesn’t even know the ethnicity of the passenger, she seems pretty confident that the person who can read Arabic is undoubtedly of an ethnicity different than her own.
Sakina also didn’t even realize that she exposed her own lie in her assuming Facebook rant. Sakina writes that they didn’t have anything “remotely Arabic” on their phones, however, authorities confirmed that they had an app with a copy of the Quran in Arabic, according to the Express.
What’s even more suspicious is that authorities report that Sakina had not been reading the Quran app at the time, which begs the questions what Arabic material was she viewing? Did she delete evidence from her phone as they were escorted from the plane? If the passenger was mistaken about the material, how did they know what the Arabic text said? Considering that the Quran has 109 verses commanding violence against non-Muslims, it’s reason enough to be concerned with that material alone.
Sakina sports the typical Muslim privilege and entitlement in the West, something she as a woman would not be so bold to flaunt in a Sharia country. Her chastisement dares any non-Muslim to accuse suspicious Islamists of terrorist activity, further instilling fear in Westerners of speaking out about potential threats.
Of course, if a particular demographic is slaughtering people en masse in Western countries just as they do in each one of their own countries, one would think that innocent adherents would be more understanding. However, Sakina seems to believe that her fellow congregants can murder and persecute as much as they like and no one should have any worry, lest they be accused of being bigoted racists.
This is exactly why the West is under attack. Muslims migrate to our countries, perpetrate heinous crime, then berate us into silence when we become fed-up with their violence. Of course, this “tiny minority” would not have much success protecting their extremists if liberals were not backing their perceived plight. Instead of defending that it should not be so easy for Muslims to get away with religious acts of terrorism, we have leftists defending that it should not be so easy for non-Muslims to report them.
http://madworldnews.com/entitled-muslims-kicked-off-plane/
Michelle Malkin puts it into perspective.....
The MSM is the propaganda arm of the same team and is the Dims force to initiate the 'Final Solution' of the Republicans.
Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State
August 23, 2016
WASHINGTON (AP) — More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.
At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
Donors who were granted time with Clinton included an internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran; a Wall Street executive who sought Clinton's help with a visa problem; and Estee Lauder executives who were listed as meeting with Clinton while her department worked with the firm's corporate charity to counter gender-based violence in South Africa.
The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009. But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton. Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she and her top aides had with foundation donors.
The AP's findings represent the first systematic effort to calculate the scope of the intersecting interests of Clinton Foundation donors and people who met personally with Clinton or spoke to her by phone about their needs.
The 154 did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives. Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP's calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties.
Clinton's campaign said the AP analysis was flawed because it did not include in its calculations meetings with foreign diplomats or U.S. government officials, and the meetings AP examined covered only the first half of Clinton's tenure as secretary of state.
"It is outrageous to misrepresent Secretary Clinton's basis for meeting with these individuals," spokesman Brian Fallon said. He called it "a distorted portrayal of how often she crossed paths with individuals connected to charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation."
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump fiercely criticized the links between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, saying his general election opponent had delivered "lie after lie after lie."
"Hillary Clinton is totally unfit to hold public office," he said at a rally Tuesday night in Austin, Texas. "It is impossible to figure out where the Clinton Foundation ends and the State Department begins. It is now abundantly clear that the Clintons set up a business to profit from public office."
Last week, the Clinton Foundation moved to head off ethics concerns about future donations by announcing changes planned if Clinton is elected.
On Monday, Bill Clinton said in a statement that if his wife were to win, he would step down from the foundation's board and stop all fundraising for it. The foundation would also accept donations only from U.S. citizens and what it described as independent philanthropies, while no longer taking gifts from foreign groups, U.S. companies or corporate charities. Clinton said the foundation would no longer hold annual meetings of its international aid program, the Clinton Global Initiative, and it would spin off its foreign-based programs to other charities.
Those planned changes would not affect more than 6,000 donors who have already provided the Clinton charity with more than $2 billion in funding since its creation in 2000.
"There's a lot of potential conflicts and a lot of potential problems," said Douglas White, an expert on nonprofits who previously directed Columbia University's graduate fundraising management program. "The point is, she can't just walk away from these 6,000 donors."
Former senior White House ethics officials said a Clinton administration would have to take careful steps to ensure that past foundation donors would not have the same access as she allowed at the State Department.
"If Secretary Clinton puts the right people in and she's tough about it and has the right procedures in place and sends a message consistent with a strong commitment to ethics, it can be done," said Norman L. Eisen, who was President Barack Obama's top ethics counsel and later worked for Clinton as ambassador to the Czech Republic.
Eisen, now a governance studies fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that at a minimum, Clinton should retain the Obama administration's current ethics commitments and oversight, which include lobbying restrictions and other rules. Richard Painter, a former ethics adviser to President George W. Bush and currently a University of Minnesota law school professor, said Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton should remove themselves completely from foundation leadership roles, but he added that potential conflicts would shadow any policy decision affecting past donors.
Fallon did not respond to the AP's questions about Clinton transition plans regarding ethics, but said in a statement the standard set by the Clinton Foundation's ethics restrictions was "unprecedented, even if it may never satisfy some critics."
State Department officials have said they are not aware of any agency actions influenced by the Clinton Foundation. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Tuesday night that there are no prohibitions against agency contacts with "political campaigns, nonprofits or foundations — including the Clinton Foundation." He added that "meeting requests, recommendations and proposals come to the department through a variety of channels, both formal and informal."
Some of Clinton's most influential visitors donated millions to the Clinton Foundation and to her and her husband's political coffers. They are among scores of Clinton visitors and phone contacts in her official calendar turned over by the State Department to AP last year and in more-detailed planning schedules that so far have covered about half her four-year tenure. The AP sought Clinton's calendar and schedules three years ago, but delays led the AP to sue the State Department last year in federal court for those materials and other records.
S. Daniel Abraham, whose name also was included in emails released by the State Department as part of another lawsuit, is a Clinton fundraising bundler who was listed in Clinton's planners for eight meetings with her at various times. A billionaire behind the Slim-Fast diet and founder of the Center for Middle East Peace, Abraham told the AP last year his talks with Clinton concerned Mideast issues.
Big Clinton Foundation donors with no history of political giving to the Clintons also met or talked by phone with Hillary Clinton and top aides, AP's review showed.
Muhammad Yunus, a Bangladeshi economist who won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for pioneering low-interest "microcredit" for poor business owners, met with Clinton three times and talked with her by phone during a period when Bangladeshi government authorities investigated his oversight of a nonprofit bank and ultimately pressured him to resign from the bank's board. Throughout the process, he pleaded for help in messages routed to Clinton, and she ordered aides to find ways to assist him.
American affiliates of his nonprofit Grameen Bank had been working with the Clinton Foundation's Clinton Global Initiative programs as early as 2005, pledging millions of dollars in microloans for the poor. Grameen America, the bank's nonprofit U.S. flagship, which Yunus chairs, has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the foundation — a figure that bank spokeswoman Becky Asch said reflects the institution's annual fees to attend CGI meetings. Another Grameen arm chaired by Yunus, Grameen Research, has donated between $25,000 and $50,000.
As a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton, as well as then-Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and two other senators in 2007 sponsored a bill to award a congressional gold medal to Yunus. He got one but not until 2010, a year after Obama awarded him a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Yunus first met with Clinton in Washington in April 2009. That was followed six months later by an announcement by USAID, the State Department's foreign aid arm, that it was partnering with the Grameen Foundation, a nonprofit charity run by Yunus, in a $162 million commitment to extend its microfinance concept abroad. USAID also began providing loans and grants to the Grameen Foundation, totaling $2.2 million over Clinton's tenure.
By September 2009, Yunus began complaining to Clinton's top aides about what he perceived as poor treatment by Bangladesh's government. His bank was accused of financial mismanagement of Norwegian government aid money — a charge that Norway later dismissed as baseless. But Yunus told Melanne Verveer, a long-time Clinton aide who was an ambassador-at-large for global women's issues, that Bangladesh officials refused to meet with him and asked the State Department for help in pressing his case.
"Please see if the issues of Grameen Bank can be raised in a friendly way," he asked Verveer. Yunus sent "regards to H" and cited an upcoming Clinton Global Initiative event he planned to attend.
Clinton ordered an aide: "Give to EAP rep," referring the problem to the agency's top east Asia expert.
Yunus continued writing to Verveer as pressure mounted on his bank. In December 2010, responding to a news report that Bangladesh's prime minister was urging an investigation of Grameen Bank, Clinton told Verveer that she wanted to discuss the matter with her East Asia expert "ASAP."
Clinton called Yunus in March 2011 after the Bangladesh government opened an inquiry into his oversight of Grameen Bank. Yunus had told Verveer by email that "the situation does not allow me to leave the country." By mid-May, the Bangladesh government had forced Yunus to step down from the bank's board. Yunus sent Clinton a copy of his resignation letter. In a separate note to Verveer, Clinton wrote: "Sad indeed."
Clinton met with Yunus a second time in Washington in August 2011 and again in the Bangladesh capital of Dhaka in May 2012. Clinton's arrival in Bangladesh came after Bangladesh authorities moved to seize control of Grameen Bank's effort to find new leaders. Speaking to a town hall audience, Clinton warned the Bangladesh government that "we do not want to see any action taken that would in any way undermine or interfere in the operations of the Grameen Bank."
Grameen America's Asch referred other questions about Yunus to his office, but he had not responded by Tuesday.
In another case, Clinton was host at a September 2009 breakfast meeting at the New York Stock Exchange that listed Blackstone Group chairman Stephen Schwarzman as one of the attendees. Schwarzman's firm is a major Clinton Foundation donor, but he personally donates heavily to GOP candidates and causes. One day after the breakfast, according to Clinton emails, the State Department was working on a visa issue at Schwarzman's request. In December that same year, Schwarzman's wife, Christine, sat at Clinton's table during the Kennedy Center Honors. Clinton also introduced Schwarzman, then chairman of the Kennedy Center, before he spoke.
Blackstone donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Eight Blackstone executives also gave between $375,000 and $800,000 to the foundation. And Blackstone's charitable arm has pledged millions of dollars in commitments to three Clinton Global aid projects ranging from the U.S. to the Mideast. Blackstone officials did not make Schwarzman available for comment.
Clinton also met in June 2011 with Nancy Mahon of the MAC AIDS, the charitable arm of MAC Cosmetics, which is owned by Estee Lauder. The meeting occurred before an announcement about a State Department partnership to raise money to finance AIDS education and prevention. The public-private partnership was formed to fight gender-based violence in South Africa, the State Department said at the time.
The MAC AIDS fund donated between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In 2008, Mahon and the MAC AIDS fund made a three-year unspecified commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative. That same year, the fund partnered with two other organizations to beef up a USAID program in Malawi and Ghana. And in 2011, the fund was one of eight organizations to pledge a total of $2 million over a three-year period to help girls in southern Africa. The fund has not made a commitment to CGI since 2011.
Estee Lauder executive Fabrizio Freda also met with Clinton at the same Wall Street event attended by Schwarzman. Later that month, Freda was on a list of attendees for a meeting between Clinton and a U.S.-China trade group. Estee Lauder has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation. The company made a commitment to CGI in 2013 with four other organizations to help survivors of sexual slavery in Cambodia.
MAC AIDS officials did not make Mahon available to AP for comment.
When Clinton appeared before the U.S. Senate in early 2009 for her confirmation hearing as secretary of state, then- Sen. Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, questioned her at length about the foundation and potential conflicts of interest. His concerns were focused on foreign government donations, mostly to CGI. Lugar wanted more transparency than was ultimately agreed upon between the foundation and Obama's transition team.
Now, Lugar hopes Hillary and Bill Clinton make a clean break from the foundation.
"The Clintons, as they approach the presidency, if they are successful, will have to work with their attorneys to make certain that rules of the road are drawn up to give confidence to them and the American public that there will not be favoritism," Lugar said.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-her-state-183315225--election.html
Many donors to Clinton Foundation met with her at State
August 23, 2016
WASHINGTON (AP) — More than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money — either personally or through companies or groups — to the Clinton Foundation. It's an extraordinary proportion indicating her possible ethics challenges if elected president.
At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.
Donors who were granted time with Clinton included an internationally known economist who asked for her help as the Bangladesh government pressured him to resign from a nonprofit bank he ran; a Wall Street executive who sought Clinton's help with a visa problem; and Estee Lauder executives who were listed as meeting with Clinton while her department worked with the firm's corporate charity to counter gender-based violence in South Africa.
The meetings between the Democratic presidential nominee and foundation donors do not appear to violate legal agreements Clinton and former president Bill Clinton signed before she joined the State Department in 2009. But the frequency of the overlaps shows the intermingling of access and donations, and fuels perceptions that giving the foundation money was a price of admission for face time with Clinton. Her calendars and emails released as recently as this week describe scores of contacts she and her top aides had with foundation donors.
The AP's findings represent the first systematic effort to calculate the scope of the intersecting interests of Clinton Foundation donors and people who met personally with Clinton or spoke to her by phone about their needs.
The 154 did not include U.S. federal employees or foreign government representatives. Clinton met with representatives of at least 16 foreign governments that donated as much as $170 million to the Clinton charity, but they were not included in AP's calculations because such meetings would presumably have been part of her diplomatic duties.
Clinton's campaign said the AP analysis was flawed because it did not include in its calculations meetings with foreign diplomats or U.S. government officials, and the meetings AP examined covered only the first half of Clinton's tenure as secretary of state.
"It is outrageous to misrepresent Secretary Clinton's basis for meeting with these individuals," spokesman Brian Fallon said. He called it "a distorted portrayal of how often she crossed paths with individuals connected to charitable donations to the Clinton Foundation."
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump fiercely criticized the links between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department, saying his general election opponent had delivered "lie after lie after lie."
"Hillary Clinton is totally unfit to hold public office," he said at a rally Tuesday night in Austin, Texas. "It is impossible to figure out where the Clinton Foundation ends and the State Department begins. It is now abundantly clear that the Clintons set up a business to profit from public office."
Last week, the Clinton Foundation moved to head off ethics concerns about future donations by announcing changes planned if Clinton is elected.
On Monday, Bill Clinton said in a statement that if his wife were to win, he would step down from the foundation's board and stop all fundraising for it. The foundation would also accept donations only from U.S. citizens and what it described as independent philanthropies, while no longer taking gifts from foreign groups, U.S. companies or corporate charities. Clinton said the foundation would no longer hold annual meetings of its international aid program, the Clinton Global Initiative, and it would spin off its foreign-based programs to other charities.
Those planned changes would not affect more than 6,000 donors who have already provided the Clinton charity with more than $2 billion in funding since its creation in 2000.
"There's a lot of potential conflicts and a lot of potential problems," said Douglas White, an expert on nonprofits who previously directed Columbia University's graduate fundraising management program. "The point is, she can't just walk away from these 6,000 donors."
Former senior White House ethics officials said a Clinton administration would have to take careful steps to ensure that past foundation donors would not have the same access as she allowed at the State Department.
"If Secretary Clinton puts the right people in and she's tough about it and has the right procedures in place and sends a message consistent with a strong commitment to ethics, it can be done," said Norman L. Eisen, who was President Barack Obama's top ethics counsel and later worked for Clinton as ambassador to the Czech Republic.
Eisen, now a governance studies fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that at a minimum, Clinton should retain the Obama administration's current ethics commitments and oversight, which include lobbying restrictions and other rules. Richard Painter, a former ethics adviser to President George W. Bush and currently a University of Minnesota law school professor, said Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton should remove themselves completely from foundation leadership roles, but he added that potential conflicts would shadow any policy decision affecting past donors.
Fallon did not respond to the AP's questions about Clinton transition plans regarding ethics, but said in a statement the standard set by the Clinton Foundation's ethics restrictions was "unprecedented, even if it may never satisfy some critics."
State Department officials have said they are not aware of any agency actions influenced by the Clinton Foundation. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Tuesday night that there are no prohibitions against agency contacts with "political campaigns, nonprofits or foundations — including the Clinton Foundation." He added that "meeting requests, recommendations and proposals come to the department through a variety of channels, both formal and informal."
Some of Clinton's most influential visitors donated millions to the Clinton Foundation and to her and her husband's political coffers. They are among scores of Clinton visitors and phone contacts in her official calendar turned over by the State Department to AP last year and in more-detailed planning schedules that so far have covered about half her four-year tenure. The AP sought Clinton's calendar and schedules three years ago, but delays led the AP to sue the State Department last year in federal court for those materials and other records.
S. Daniel Abraham, whose name also was included in emails released by the State Department as part of another lawsuit, is a Clinton fundraising bundler who was listed in Clinton's planners for eight meetings with her at various times. A billionaire behind the Slim-Fast diet and founder of the Center for Middle East Peace, Abraham told the AP last year his talks with Clinton concerned Mideast issues.
Big Clinton Foundation donors with no history of political giving to the Clintons also met or talked by phone with Hillary Clinton and top aides, AP's review showed.
Muhammad Yunus, a Bangladeshi economist who won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize for pioneering low-interest "microcredit" for poor business owners, met with Clinton three times and talked with her by phone during a period when Bangladeshi government authorities investigated his oversight of a nonprofit bank and ultimately pressured him to resign from the bank's board. Throughout the process, he pleaded for help in messages routed to Clinton, and she ordered aides to find ways to assist him.
American affiliates of his nonprofit Grameen Bank had been working with the Clinton Foundation's Clinton Global Initiative programs as early as 2005, pledging millions of dollars in microloans for the poor. Grameen America, the bank's nonprofit U.S. flagship, which Yunus chairs, has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the foundation — a figure that bank spokeswoman Becky Asch said reflects the institution's annual fees to attend CGI meetings. Another Grameen arm chaired by Yunus, Grameen Research, has donated between $25,000 and $50,000.
As a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton, as well as then-Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and two other senators in 2007 sponsored a bill to award a congressional gold medal to Yunus. He got one but not until 2010, a year after Obama awarded him a Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Yunus first met with Clinton in Washington in April 2009. That was followed six months later by an announcement by USAID, the State Department's foreign aid arm, that it was partnering with the Grameen Foundation, a nonprofit charity run by Yunus, in a $162 million commitment to extend its microfinance concept abroad. USAID also began providing loans and grants to the Grameen Foundation, totaling $2.2 million over Clinton's tenure.
By September 2009, Yunus began complaining to Clinton's top aides about what he perceived as poor treatment by Bangladesh's government. His bank was accused of financial mismanagement of Norwegian government aid money — a charge that Norway later dismissed as baseless. But Yunus told Melanne Verveer, a long-time Clinton aide who was an ambassador-at-large for global women's issues, that Bangladesh officials refused to meet with him and asked the State Department for help in pressing his case.
"Please see if the issues of Grameen Bank can be raised in a friendly way," he asked Verveer. Yunus sent "regards to H" and cited an upcoming Clinton Global Initiative event he planned to attend.
Clinton ordered an aide: "Give to EAP rep," referring the problem to the agency's top east Asia expert.
Yunus continued writing to Verveer as pressure mounted on his bank. In December 2010, responding to a news report that Bangladesh's prime minister was urging an investigation of Grameen Bank, Clinton told Verveer that she wanted to discuss the matter with her East Asia expert "ASAP."
Clinton called Yunus in March 2011 after the Bangladesh government opened an inquiry into his oversight of Grameen Bank. Yunus had told Verveer by email that "the situation does not allow me to leave the country." By mid-May, the Bangladesh government had forced Yunus to step down from the bank's board. Yunus sent Clinton a copy of his resignation letter. In a separate note to Verveer, Clinton wrote: "Sad indeed."
Clinton met with Yunus a second time in Washington in August 2011 and again in the Bangladesh capital of Dhaka in May 2012. Clinton's arrival in Bangladesh came after Bangladesh authorities moved to seize control of Grameen Bank's effort to find new leaders. Speaking to a town hall audience, Clinton warned the Bangladesh government that "we do not want to see any action taken that would in any way undermine or interfere in the operations of the Grameen Bank."
Grameen America's Asch referred other questions about Yunus to his office, but he had not responded by Tuesday.
In another case, Clinton was host at a September 2009 breakfast meeting at the New York Stock Exchange that listed Blackstone Group chairman Stephen Schwarzman as one of the attendees. Schwarzman's firm is a major Clinton Foundation donor, but he personally donates heavily to GOP candidates and causes. One day after the breakfast, according to Clinton emails, the State Department was working on a visa issue at Schwarzman's request. In December that same year, Schwarzman's wife, Christine, sat at Clinton's table during the Kennedy Center Honors. Clinton also introduced Schwarzman, then chairman of the Kennedy Center, before he spoke.
Blackstone donated between $250,000 and $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Eight Blackstone executives also gave between $375,000 and $800,000 to the foundation. And Blackstone's charitable arm has pledged millions of dollars in commitments to three Clinton Global aid projects ranging from the U.S. to the Mideast. Blackstone officials did not make Schwarzman available for comment.
Clinton also met in June 2011 with Nancy Mahon of the MAC AIDS, the charitable arm of MAC Cosmetics, which is owned by Estee Lauder. The meeting occurred before an announcement about a State Department partnership to raise money to finance AIDS education and prevention. The public-private partnership was formed to fight gender-based violence in South Africa, the State Department said at the time.
The MAC AIDS fund donated between $5 million and $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In 2008, Mahon and the MAC AIDS fund made a three-year unspecified commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative. That same year, the fund partnered with two other organizations to beef up a USAID program in Malawi and Ghana. And in 2011, the fund was one of eight organizations to pledge a total of $2 million over a three-year period to help girls in southern Africa. The fund has not made a commitment to CGI since 2011.
Estee Lauder executive Fabrizio Freda also met with Clinton at the same Wall Street event attended by Schwarzman. Later that month, Freda was on a list of attendees for a meeting between Clinton and a U.S.-China trade group. Estee Lauder has given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation. The company made a commitment to CGI in 2013 with four other organizations to help survivors of sexual slavery in Cambodia.
MAC AIDS officials did not make Mahon available to AP for comment.
When Clinton appeared before the U.S. Senate in early 2009 for her confirmation hearing as secretary of state, then- Sen. Richard Lugar, a Republican from Indiana, questioned her at length about the foundation and potential conflicts of interest. His concerns were focused on foreign government donations, mostly to CGI. Lugar wanted more transparency than was ultimately agreed upon between the foundation and Obama's transition team.
Now, Lugar hopes Hillary and Bill Clinton make a clean break from the foundation.
"The Clintons, as they approach the presidency, if they are successful, will have to work with their attorneys to make certain that rules of the road are drawn up to give confidence to them and the American public that there will not be favoritism," Lugar said.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-her-state-183315225--election.html
Donald should build a wall around the Clintoons. How about putting them behind a wall?.....
Powell: Clinton 'trying to pin' her email use on my advice
(sure a repeat but classic Clintoon (cartoon politician) BS. Close the Foundation now!!!!)
Colin Powell says Hillary Clinton's campaign has been trying to use him to help justify her use of a private email server while she was secretary of State.
The Democratic presidential nominee reportedly told FBI investigators that Powell, another former secretary of State, recommended she use a private email account.
Clinton allegedly discussed email practices with her predecessor during a dinner after she became the top U.S. diplomat in 2009, The New York Times said Thursday.
On Sunday, Powell told the New York Post's Page Six that Clinton was using her private email long before their meeting.
"The truth is she was using it for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did [during my term as Secretary of State]," he said.
"Her people have been trying to pin it on me."
But, the Post reported that "despite appearing angered by the situation," Powell added, "It doesn't bother me. It's OK, I'm free."
Journalist Joe Conason first reported the talk in his forthcoming book about Bill Clinton's life after the presidency, "Man of the World: The Further Endeavors of Bill Clinton."
An advanced copy states that Clinton spoke with Powell during a dinner party in Washington, D.C., hosted by Madeleine Albright, another former secretary of State.
"Toward the end of the evening, over dessert, Albright asked all of the former secretaries to offer one salient bit of counsel to the nation's next top diplomat," Conason wrote.
"Powell told [Clinton] to use her own email, as he had done, except for classified communications, which he had sent and received via a State Department computer," he added.
Powell's office released a statement late Thursday saying he had no recollection of the dinner conversation.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/powell-clinton-trying-to-pin-her-email-use-on-my-advice/ar-BBvTg9p
It just shows the mentality of who these people are. They have the skills to obtain the highest political office in the world (add these skills as part of their weapons). Remember these were the radical days (for that time) and the Clintons were a part of it. The/their objective was/is to overthrow from within. They and many other leftists did the same thing. Jerry Brown in CA. Look at the Governors around the country. Look at Senators like Barbara Boxer of CA. They are surround the good people of this country with their demands. What do we 'demand', equality for both sides of the aisle. Change? Change to what? It's always a big 'issue' in every election. What are we changing this time with the Dims? Nothing, just making it worse but they don't care as long as they cash in.
What are failed attorneys? Politicians or Presidents. On the R side, where are the failed attorneys?
Here's the answer that Bill, Shrill and BO have been following throughout their careers:
If she wins, three out of the last four Presidents will be from this agenda.
Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals
Here is the complete list from Alinsky.
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
http://www.bestofbeck.com/wp/activism/saul-alinskys-12-rules-for-radicals
Friends of our have two boys in a private school. The school is now asking the kids, 'Do you feel like a boy or a girl today?' so they can help them pick their bathroom. Needless to say, our friends are not happy campers.