Tag Archives: Political action committee

There’s Community Service And There’s Community Service

Posted on by

The idea of community service as a penalty for a criminal action is to impose a penalty of service to the community. Theoretically it allows someone to contribute to the community in some way to atone for their crime. Well, it doesn’t always work that way.

On Friday, The Federalist reported:

Democrat Jay Jones has found himself in hot water during the final weeks of his campaign to become Virginia’s top law enforcement officer. The closer to Election Day it gets, the scandals seem to keep piling up.

At around the same time he was fantasizing about assassinating Virginia’s former Republican House speaker and wishing death upon his children in 2022, Jones had a truly remarkable run-in with the state’s criminal-justice system. According to recent reports, the Democrat AG candidate is now under investigation for a 2022 reckless driving incident.

By way of background, Jones was clocked going 116 mph in a 70 mph stretch of highway and charged with reckless driving. While other defendants facing the same charge as he faced — with the “same initial hearing date as Jones” — reportedly got jail sentences, Jones got away with a fine and 1,000 hours of community service. (These defendants were even caught driving more slowly than Jones was, according to Cardinal News.)

Supposedly, Jones did that community service in 2023 — 500 hours at “Meet Our Moment” and 500 hours at the Virginia chapter of the NAACP. The first tranche of hours has caused considerable controversy and may be at the heart of the aforementioned criminal investigation.

Meet Our Moment is Jones’ own political action committee, founded to train Democrats to run for office. His hours were certified by an adviser of his, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported. As noted by National Review, social media posts revealed Jones crisscrossed Virginia campaigning for Democrats in 2023, raising questions about whether such activities were counted as part of the 500 hours of “community service” he purportedly conducted with the group.

Perhaps equally interesting, however, is Jones’ “community service” time with the Virginia wing of the NAACP.

Unbelievable. And this man is running for Attorney General of Virginia. This is the equivalent of calling washing your car and cleaning your house community service. All of the law enforcement involved in this charade need to be investigated and held accountable. Aren’t the Democrats the ones who always remind us that ‘no one is above the law’?

Imaginary People Making Real Donations

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Daily Signal posted an article about the funding for ActBlue. ActBlue was founded in 2009 to help Democrats in fundraising. The organization serves as a conduit for left-wing donors, with two more arms—ActBlue Charities and ActBlue Civics—funneling money to 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) clients, respectively.

The article reports:

Paging Dr. Adrienne Young, M.D. 

The good doctor is listed online as an “internist” in McKees Rocks, a borough in western Pennsylvania’s Allegheny County, known locally as “the Rocks.”

Campaign finance filings report Young’s practice is located on Heckel Road in McKees and list a 412 area code phone number. But her office does not appear to exist at this address and the number is not in service. Moreover, none of the receptionists attached to doctors’ offices located in close proximity to Young’s office address in McKees have ever heard of her. That’s peculiar in and of itself. But a search of campaign finance records only adds to the intrigue. 

Someone identified as Adrienne Young has been making substantial contributions to a left-of-center political action committee known as ActBlue, according to Federal Election Commission records. 

…Restoration News is still attempting to contact the individual listed in campaign finance documents as Adrienne Young. Records list her residing on Leet Road in Sewickley, Pennsylvania. These records show that since 2017, Young has made 17,342 in contributions to ActBlue totaling $209,670.06—which averages seven contributions per day. 

Evidently the doctor is doing very well.

The article notes:

“Smurfing” involves repackaging large sums of money into smaller, individual transactions to appear less suspicious and avoid scrutiny from law enforcement officials. Is “Adrienne Young” a cover for such an operation, benefiting Democrats?

While it is indisputably the case that ActBlue is ringing the bell with hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions, it’s not evident the smaller contributions that translate over time into larger sums are coming from an individual donor.

One of the more recent contributions to ActBlue leading back to the donor identified as Young came on March 16, 2023, in the amount of $1196.50. That’s not an unusual amount for an individual, but what is unusual is folding that amount into more than 17,000 contributions made over the span of several years. The donor identified as Young was actively contributing to ActBlue at least through part of this year with a donation of $429.00 made on April 30, 2024. If a smurfing operation is underway, it may not be limited to what’s flowing into ActBlue. 

Please follow the link to read the entire article. This sort of cheating needs to have serious legal consequences.

On Friday, The Gateway Pundit posted an article with the response of the Former Chief Impact Officer at ActBlue.

This is the response:

In a recent interview with an OKeefeMedia Citizen Journalist, Geri Prado former Chief Impact Officer at ActBlue, downplayed concerns about the organization’s suspicious fundraising practices. Prado attempted to brush off allegations by describing ActBlue merely as “a payment processor for campaigns, but it’s not a campaign,” and likened it to PayPal, citing credit card fees as a standard issue.

When asked about potential money laundering, Prado dismissed the concern, “No… It’s a very hard thing to do,” downplaying the likelihood of any illegal activity. However, she admits, “There are other problems,” hinting at other issues within the organization.

This comes amidst reports that Federal Election Commission (FEC) records are inaccurately reflecting senior citizens as having made donations far beyond their actual contributions.

It will be interesting to see what the current Department of Justice does with these allegations.

This Might Explain Some Of The Problems In Chicago

Posted on by

Yesterday Breitbart posted an article about Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx.

The article reports:

Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx has dropped over 25,000 felony cases, including charges of murder and the alleged hate crime hoax from former Empire star Jussie Smollett, according to an analysis released by the Chicago Tribune on Monday.

The article quotes the Chicago Tribune:

During Foxx’s first three years as the county’s top prosecutor, her office dropped all charges against 29.9% of felony defendants, a dramatic increase over her predecessor, the Tribune found. For the last three years of Anita Alvarez’s tenure, the rate was 19.4%.

In all, a total of 25,183 people had their felony cases dismissed under Foxx through November 2019, up from 18,694 for a similar period under Alvarez.

[…]

For the three-year period analyzed, Foxx’s office dropped 8.1% of homicide cases, compared with 5.3% under Alvarez, the Tribune found. Under Foxx, the office dropped 9.5% of felony sex crime cases; the rate was 6.5% for Alvarez.

The article at Breitbart continues:

In a statement to the Tribune, Foxx, who is up for reelection in November, said of the figures: “It is always eye-opening to be able to look at our own data and compare it to my predecessor’s past. I can’t reconcile what her decision-making was, and how they chose to (dismiss) cases in the past. But I will say that this administration has been clear that our focus would be on violent crime and making sure that our resources and attention would go to addressing violent crime.”

If you are trying to make sense out of this, you might want to look at one of the contributors to Foxx’s reelection campaign.

In February 2020, The Chicago Sun Times reported:

A political action committee founded by liberal billionaire philanthropist — and Donald Trump nemesis — George Soros kicked $2 million to a committee supporting Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx in her re-election bid against three Democratic primary challengers.

A mega donor to Democrats and liberal causes, the hedge fund operator’s Democracy PAC transferred $2 million into the Illinois Justice and Public Safety PAC on Wednesday.

The justice and public safety PAC has so far spent $571,359.30 on mail, media and website production costs opposing Bill Conway, one of Foxx’s primary challengers.

George Soros is on a mission to undermine to government of America in order to further plans for a one-world government. He has funded the campaigns of a number of District Attorneys and State Attorneys General in order to do that. His campaign contributions were a major part of the Democrats’ takeover of the Virginia government in the last election. That takeover has brought restrictive gun laws and other problems. George Soros is an American citizen and can legally donate to campaigns both as an individual and through Political Actions Committees (PACs). I have no doubt he will continue to do so until Americans get wise to what he is attempting to do.

This Shouldn’t Happen In A Civilized Society

Posted on by

On Friday, The Federalist posted an article about The Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act.

The article reports:

The Born-Alive Survivors Protection Act is not about restricting abortions but about giving newborns a chance to survive no matter where they are born, said Sen. Ben Sasse, the bill’s lead co-sponsor, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Tuesday.

During the hearing, called “The Infant Patient: Ensuring Appropriate Medical Care for Children Born Alive,” Republican senators questioned why a baby born in a hospital should be treated differently than a baby born in an abortion facility. Democrats, lacking an answer, changed the subject.

Thirteen committee senators heard from five female witnesses, three who shared powerful testimony and two who expressed concerns about the bill.

The article includes the testimony of some of witnesses. Three of the witnesses who were involved in the medical profession related some of the incidents where babies were tossed aside after being born alive during an abortion.

The article also includes the testimony of those who opposed the bill.

The article reports:

Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of National Women’s Law Center, argued instead that, “Access to reproductive health care, including abortion, is a key part to an individual’s liberty, equality, and economic security.” Since 2010, state lawmakers have passed more than 450 abortion restrictions designed to block access to abortion, she said.

Sasse tried to clarify numerous times that this legislation was not about abortion but about what happens after an abortion. Neither Graves nor the Democratic senators in the room agreed. Graves said she believes the bill is on a continuum of restrictive abortion measures. Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, agreed, saying that women’s health is under attack every day, especially under Trump, and that this bill is the latest in a decades-long threat against abortion.

Instead of arguing for or against protecting infants born alive, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., argued U.S. health care is biased against African-American women. Instead of fighting for legislation that protects infants born alive, Harris argued we should make taxpayers provide better housing and food for pregnant women.

While Harris might be right that pregnant women need more support, this is not the question at hand. Right now, if a doctor neglected to provide a pregnant woman needed care, he would be prosecuted. This is not true for the child in her womb. Instead of addressing this disparity, Harris simply changed the subject.

Abortion is a million-dollar business. It is also an industry that makes large donations through Political Action Committees (PAC’s) to Democrat campaigns. We are not likely to see Democrats vote against abortion and risk those campaign donations.

Campaign Finance Violations On Steroids

Posted on by

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article about some campaign finance violations by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti. The violations listed are not minor violations, there are some major amounts of money involved here.

The article reports:

Two political action committees founded by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s top aide funneled over $1 million in political donations into two of his own private companies, according to a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission on Monday.

…The arrangement skirted reporting requirements and may have violated the $5,000 limit on contributions from federal PACs to candidates, according to the complaint filed by the National Legal and Policy Center, a government watchdog group.

Campaign finance attorneys described the arrangement as “really weird” and an indication “there’s something amiss.” They said there was no way of telling where the political donations went — meaning they could have been pocketed or used by the company to pay for off-the-books campaign operations.

PACs are required to disclose how and when funds are spent, including for expenditures such as advertisements, fundraising emails, donations to candidates, and payments for events and to vendors.

The private companies to which Chakrabarti transferred the money from the PACs are not subject to these requirements.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article for the details.

This is interesting for a number of reasons. Was it a rookie mistake or was it planned corruption? Is this coming out now because AOC has become a problem for the Democrats–she is so far left that she may cost them votes in 2020?

The article concludes:

Bradley A. Smith, a former chairman of the FEC, said he has never seen such an arrangement. “It’s a really weird situation,” he said. “I see almost no way that you can do that without it being at least a reporting violation, quite likely a violation of the contribution limits. You might say from a campaign finance angle that the LLC was essentially operating as an unregistered committee.”

Chakrabarti declined to comment on the FEC complaint or provide details about his companies’ financial activities. Corbin Trent, a spokesman for Ocasio-Cortez, declined to comment.

Zeynab Day, communications director for the Brand New Congress PAC, said Chakrabarti was not currently affiliated with the group and that it recently went through a “transition period.” She referred questions about the LLC to Chakrabarti. “I’m unable to answer any questions about the LLC … I am not informed about them. We are not an affiliated group,” she said.

A spokesperson for Justice Democrats said he did not know why the PAC paid so much money to Chakrabarti’s LLCs. When asked what the Justice Democrats PAC does on a daily basis, he said, “It’s very clear what we do,” but declined to elaborate.

Chakrabarti founded Brand New Congress PAC, in April 2016. According to a statement released by Justice Democrats PAC last May, Chakrabarti “was the only controlling member” of the company Brand New Congress LLC and “took no salary.” The statement added: “Saikat is lucky to have a small side business that generates him enough income that he is able to do all of this work as a volunteer.”

If this story is accurately reported, it is bound to get more interesting!

People In Glass Houses…

Posted on by

Ilhan Omar has been in the news recently for implying that a pro-Israel lobbying group — the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) — is paying US politicians to support Israel. AIPAC does not directly contribute to political campaigns, but does make contributions through a number of political action committees (PACs) and does lobby. That is no different than many other organizations. Her criticism is interesting, however, when you look at her donors.

Sara Carter is reporting today that Ms Omar received tens of thousands of dollars from PACs and lobbyists.

The article reports:

According to the records of the Federal Election Commission, last summer Omar received nearly $60,000 from PACs.

One PAC from which Omar received thousands of dollars in 2018 is the Council on American Islamic Relations. CAIR was named as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the 2009 Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terrorism-financing trial in American history.

And CAIR not only has a PAC, it is a lobbying organization. On Jan.10, CAIR hosted the Community Congressional Reception at which Omar spoke.

In all, Omar received tens of thousands of dollars from lobbying groups. None of her money came from AIPAC or the NRA or the fossil fuel industry; That must be a coincidence.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Holy Land Foundation trial, here is the link to one of the government exhibits introduced in the trial. This exhibit outlines the plan of the Muslim Brotherhood to undermine the government of the United States and replace the U.S. Constitution with Sharia Law. CAIR is listed as an un-indicted co-conspirator in this effort. That is where some of this Congresswoman’s  campaign money is coming from. She should be removed from the Foreign Relations Committee–she does not represent the best interests of America.

Follow The Money

Posted on by

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article today about a ‘Republican’ women’s political action committee that has taken some very curious positions. The group is known for its anti-Trump stance, but a little research shows that there is more to the picture.

The article reports:

A prominent ‘Republican’ women’s political action committee that regularly receives national media attention for its criticisms of President Donald Trump and the GOP is bankrolled by three liberal billionaire donors and activists, Federal Election Commission filings show.

Republican Women for Progress, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit, was founded by Jennifer Lim and Meghan Milloy, both former employees of Republican organizations. The duo also previously founded Republican Women for Hillary and spoke at the Democratic National Convention in the past.

Most Republican groups don’t receive or accept invitations to speak at the Democratic National Convention.

The article explains some of the background of this group:

The Republican Women for Progress PAC was established on Sept. 13 to back their work during the midterm elections, which included throwing more than $800,000 into independent expenditures supporting Democratic candidates in New Jersey, Kentucky, Michigan, and California. The group also came out in opposition of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

The only donor to the women’s PAC following its launch was Reid Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn, who cut a $400,000 check to the PAC.

…The PAC pulled in an additional $200,000 from Kathryn Murdoch, the progressive activist daughter-in-law of media mogul Rupert Murdoch, and $400,000 from Daniel Tierney, the president of Wicklow Capital, a Chicago-based investment firm, filings show.

Both Murdoch and Tierney are major donors to Democratic campaigns and PACs.

If you are not an informed voter, you would think this group was representative of Republican women–that Republican women do not support President Trump or his policies. Most ‘real’ Republican women understand the good that President Trump has done for women economically and in other areas and support his Presidency and his policies. The Republican Women for Progress would be more aptly named ‘Democrats trying to mislead the public and cause division in the Republican party.’

Spending Money Where It Is Needed–Not For Political Purposes

Posted on by

The Washington Examiner posted an article today about ending the federal funding for abortion.

The article reports:

President Trump’s action last week, barring Title X family planning funds from programs and facilities that perform abortions, is thus entirely right and reasonable. For all Planned Parenthood’s gnashing of teeth, the only thing to suffer will be its own profits and the rewards of its senior executives. The public good and women’s health will, at a minimum, remain completely unaffected and, depending on your perspective, will be improved.

Trump’s decision will not reduce Title X funding at all. Rather, his policy guarantees that the limited funds available from that source will go to comprehensive community health centers all over America that provide health services Planned Parenthood doesn’t offer. There are 20 such community health centers for every Planned Parenthood affiliate. Most provide services such as mammograms that Planned Parenthood doesn’t offer. Most are also not so heavily involved and invested in partisan politics.

According to opensecrets.org, in the 2016 election cycle, Planned Parenthood (through its PAC) donated $671,048 to federal candidates (98% to Democrats, 1% to Republicans).

According to the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice):

Planned Parenthood just released their 2016–2017 annual report. The findings are clear: over 320,000 abortions committed in the last year; over half a billion in government funding; nearly $100 million in profit (a staggering 27% increase over the prior year). Big Abortion is big business.

Regardless of where you stand on protecting the unborn, abortion should not be a million dollar business.

It is obvious from the above numbers that Planned Parenthood does not actually need federal money–they are making a substantial profit on their own and they are supporting political candidates.

It has been my belief for a long time that entities that make political contributions should not be eligible for federal funds. This should include any political action committees (PACS) set up by those entities. This seems rather obvious to me, but evidently Congress has not yet figured it out (I guess Congress likes its donations from these entities). The idea of taking federal money and making political donations seems like money laundering to me.

 

Where Is The Mainstream Media?

Posted on by

Somehow the mainstream media missed the following story. I almost did. The story is from August 19th and was posted at Investor’s Business Daily.

The article reports:

Leaked documents released a few days ago provide juicy insider details of how a fabulously rich businessman has been using his money to influence elections in Europe, underwrite an extremist group, target U.S. citizens who disagreed with him, dictate foreign policy, and try to sway a Supreme Court ruling, among other things. Pretty compelling stuff, right?

Not if it involves leftist billionaire George Soros. In this case, the mainstream press couldn’t care less.

On Saturday, a group called DC Leaks posted more than 2,500 documents going back to 2008 that it pilfered from Soros’ Open Society Foundations‘ servers. Since then, the mainstream media have shown zero interest in this gold mine of information.

The article goes on to list some of Mr. Soros’ activities:

As we noted in this space on Monday, the leaked documents show how Soros’ far-flung international organizations attempted to manipulate Europe’s 2014 elections. The “List of European Elections 2014 Projects” details over 90 Soros efforts he had under way that year.

The documents reveal that Soros has poured nearly $4 million into anti-Israel groups, with a goal of “challenging Israel’s racist and anti-democratic policies.”

Here at home, they show that Soros proposed paying the Center for American Politics $200,000 to conduct a smear campaign against conservative activists.

More recently, an October 2015 document came to light showing that Soros’ Open Society U.S. Programs had donated $650,000 to “invest in technical assistance and support for the groups at the core of the burgeoning #BlackLivesMatter movement.” Since then, several BLM protests have turned violent.

That same document details how this group successfully used its “extensive networks” to pressure the Obama administration into increasing the number of refugees it would take to 100,000, despite concerns that Islamic terrorists could use the refugee program to infiltrate the U.S.

A separate memo details how Soros tried to use his clout to sway Supreme Court justices into approving President Obama’s unilateral effort to rewrite immigration law. “Grantees are seeking to influence the Justices (primarily via a sophisticated amicus briefs and media strategy) in hopes of securing a favorable ruling in U.S. v Texas,” the memo, dug up by the Daily Caller, states.

The article reports on an email leaked by Wikileaks showing that George Soros was giving then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton very specific instructions on how to handle unrest in Albania in early 2011.

Referring to the instructions given regarding Albania, the article states:

Thomas Lifson, writing in the American Thinker blog, said “Soros got the U.S. and other accomplices to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state…. How is this not huge news?”

I guess the mainstream media has been dying for a while, but ignoring this story is amazing. I am waiting for the day that the mainstream media realizes that if we lose our freedom and security in America they will also be impacted. I am not holding my breath.

People In Glass Houses…

Posted on by

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon reported that the Federal Election Commission has sent a letter to Bernie Sanders‘ campaign committee about illegal donations to the campaign.

The article reports:

The campaign’s January financial disclosure filing listed contributions from foreign nationals and unregistered political committees, the FEC said. Other contributions came from donors who exceeded the $2,700 per-election limit.

“Although the Commission may take further legal action concerning the acceptance of [excessive or prohibited] contributions, your prompt action to refund the prohibited amount will be taken into consideration,” the FEC told the campaign.

Sanders’ campaign has relied on small-dollar individual contributions to a far greater extent than any other presidential campaign, including the Super PAC- and dark money-fueled efforts of Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

The Vermont Senator and self-described socialist is running on a platform of transparency and campaign finance reform, contrasting his grassroots support with Clinton’s high-dollar donors and use of loopholes in federal election laws that allow her campaign to coordinate with outside groups that can accept unlimited contributions.

However, Sanders’ donors have also run afoul of federal campaign finance laws, and his financial disclosure reports have been riddled with errors.

Many of the foreign donations come from people in countries that support socialism and want to help the Sanders’ campaign. However, the campaign needs to follow the law and practice the transparency that it preaches.

Our First Amendment Rights Are In Danger

Posted on by

Yesterday PJ Media reported that the Federal Election Commission is considering a rule which would require non-profit organizations to provide a list of donors. This would mean that pro-life groups, Tea Parties, etc. would have to disclose donors. If this seems innocent to you, I would like to remind you of an incident that happened in California last year.

In April of last year I reported:

The Foundry is reporting today that Mozilla Corp. co-founder Brendan Eich has resigned as CEO after a week of public criticism for his support of Proposition 8 in California. Proposition 8 was the ballot initiative that defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Brendan Eich had been at Mozilla for 15 years.

I have a few problems with the forced resignation of Mr. Eich. How does anyone know he contributed to a campaign supporting Proposition 8? Is that public information? Since when did supporting traditional marriage cost you your job? Aren’t Americans allowed to contribute to things they believe in?

The article at PJ Media points out:

Harassment of financial donors to conservative causes has become one of the standard tactics of the militant left. Speech regulations issued by the Federal Election Commission are therefore a necessary component of snuffing out financial support for conservative causes through harassment campaigns.

A half-century ago, liberal groups understood and respected this. The landmark case of NAACP vs. Alabama saw the Supreme Court protect the NAACP from having to disclose supporter information because of the harassment campaigns that would follow.

Now, with perfect hypocrisy, the PAC that issued the petition which triggered the FEC to consider rulemaking which would force disclosure of information does not disclose the full name of its leader. On the page detailing who runs Make Your Laws PAC, Inc., the founder, treasurer, and director is listed merely as “Sai”:

sai

The Public Interest Legal Foundation (of which I am counsel) has already submitted comments to the FEC opposing new federal powers over political freedom. Those comments can be found here. If you also oppose more power for Washington bureaucrats to pry private information from groups who speak out, you can add your own comments at this link.

If you value your First Amendment rights, please leave a comment at the link in the previous paragraph. This is truly a threat to free speech.

The End Of Grassroots Republicans In North Carolina

Posted on by

This is not a local interest story–if it can happen here, it can happen anywhere. It is not a Republican story–if the Republican establishment can do this, then the Democratic establishment can do it.

The following is taken from today’s Beaufort Observer:

Our friends and neighbors in Craven County, Hal and Raynor James, we have found to be principled conservatives and very active in Republican Party matters. In short, we trust them. They sent out the following email newsletter we thought many would not only appreciate but have been expecting such. They write:

Dear Fellow Citizens,

Hold on to your hats. This is ugly, and your help is needed.

A new chapter in the HB 373, SB 119 (shadow parties in the NC House and Senate, plus additional shadow parties in the Council of State for the Governor) fiasco has been revealed today.

Like many of you, we got an email purporting to come from NC GOP Chairman, Hasan Harnett today speaking of party unity and explaining that the affiliated party committees would not be activated.

We replied countering the arguments that everything is all right, and stating in no uncertain terms what we believe the real situation is and why. (We’ll send you a copy of that email if you’d like it.)

We got a reply, not from Hasan, but from Dallas Woodhouse who said, “Thanks for your comments. We are working to keep all the republican elements together making the law changes moot.”

A proper translation of that email might read, “The RINO establishment has succeeded in usurping control of the NC GOP, so it will be unnecessary to activate the affiliated party committees unless the grassroots gets control back.”

We talked to a friend who had gotten exactly the same reply from Dallas Woodhouse when he tried to reply to Hasan Harnett and smelled a rat, so we wrote to Hasan on his personal email. That led to a long phone conversation.

Hasan Harnett and Michele Nix have been “played” by the RINO establishment.

In most state parties, the party chairman selects his or her staff. They select an Executive Director and pull together an office staff, and the team thus formed works effectively together.

North Carolina is odd in that regard. The Central Committee hires the Executive Director and he/she hires the staff. Games were played in the Central Committee. The top 5 candidates for Executive Director were to be interviewed, but somehow the 6th candidate on the list was interviewed as if he had been one of the top 5, and (are you ready for this?), he was hired. He is the aforementioned Dallas Woodhouse.

The rest of the staff is left over from the prior team.

Guess what? The new Executive Director, Dallas Woodhouse, and the rest of the “team” have frozen Hasan out. They have changed the passwords and user names on the email accounts, and Hasan cannot sign checks. How’s that for a helpful staff?

The RINO establishment types have been prodding Hasan to raise funds, and at the same time they’ve been asking the usual big donors to hold back on donations, so they can chastise Hasan for “failure to be a good fund raiser.” The truth is that the GOP is in about the usual situation with respect to funds raised at this time in the campaign cycle. This is an artificially created situation. The establishment is trying to manufacture a crisis and use it to do what they’ve been planning to do ever since Hasan and Michele were elected.

Hasan has never received a salary as Chairman, and to put the icing on the cake, the Central Committee has refused to continue paying his travel expenses. So here’s their message to Hasan, “Don’t travel. Don’t have control of your office and email. Do raise money. Why haven’t you raised it yet?” If you were faced with that situation, would you find the job doable?

So what are we going to do about it? Let’s email (hasan.harnett@gmail.com) and call (704-526-9432) Hasan and ask him to set up a new bank account to work with. Let’s send him $5, $10, or whatever we can afford regularly. Let’s ask Hasan what else we can volunteer to do that will help.

Let’s also get this information to as many people as we can and urge them to do the same. Let’s form our own network of support to help Hasan help Constitutional conservative candidates get elected, and let’s shine bright sunlight on the evil deeds of the schemers. It’s time their divisive tactics are exposed.

Yours in freedom,

Hal and Raynor James

I understand that this is happening in North Carolina; however, there is a message here for all Americans. Get involved. If you don’t get involved, you probably won’t like the people who do. If you want America to be ruled by a political class, ignore what is happening around you. If you want the America our Founding Fathers envisioned, where average Americans had a voice in their government, get involved.

The Circle Of Money

Posted on by

Why is the federal government giving money to groups that lobby the federal government? This defies common sense. It is, however, a neat deal for those involved–legislators get money for their political campaigns in return for channeling federal money to the organizations that sponsor the Political Action Committees (PAC) that give them the money. It’s a good deal if you are part of it, and a bad deal for America and American taxpayers.

Investor’s Business Daily posted an article yesterday about this practice.

The article points out the insanity of what is going on:

Latest lobbying disclosure documents indicate Planned Parenthood spends at least $2 million a year directly lobbying Congress and state legislatures. And this year, as PP fights to retain its umbilical cord — no pun intended — to the Federal Treasury, the number’s going way up.

But the official lobbying expenditures don’t include tens of millions of other political spending. According to a recent analysis by Conservative News Service, “Planned Parenthood’s affiliates spent $26 million on public policy this past year, while the national office spent $31.3 million on building ‘advocacy capacity.'”

The mission of all this spending? The answer is obvious: to persuade Congress to continue to provide the organization with federal tax dollars.

So what we have here is an organization that receives at least half a billion dollars a year from taxpayers, and some of that money is used to lobby Congress to give them more taxpayer money.

The icing on the cake is that the money is borrowed from Japan and China. We have to pay interest on it.

The article details the problem:

Is it any surprise that under this racket it has become almost impossible to cut the budget or to balance receipts with expenditures? This is a common practice. The unions do it. The legal public aid community does it. Welfare organizations do it.

To be fair, it isn’t just left-wing groups that receive taxpayer dollars and lobby. So do corporations. Defense contractors run lobbying campaigns year-round to persuade Congress to spend more money on this weapon or that. Companies that have received the bulk of the funding for the Export Import Bank are bankrolling the PR campaign to keep the institution from closing down.

We will never curb government spending as long as we allow this kind of abuse of our system. The problem is not lobbying–that is and should remain legal. The problem is government-supported lobbying. That is ridiculous.

Campaign Financing

Posted on by

When the Citizens United case was decided by the Supreme Court, a howl went up from Democratic politicians. “Take the money out of politics,” they said. “This will open the floodgates for corporations to buy elections.”

I have posted charts from opensecrets.org before. These charts show that the top spenders (before and after Citizens United) are still the unions. No one is talking about taking away the right of unions to donate to campaigns. Also, keep in mind that the people who pay union dues and provide the money for the donations don’t have a say in where the money is donated. At least the leaders of a corporation that donates to a PAC are accountable to their stockholders. The fact that government employee unions give political donations is also a bit questionable–they donate to the people they are going to negotiate contracts with. Is it possible to do that without a conflict of interest?

Any, here is one of the charts from opensecrets.org:

campaigndonationsSo why am I mentioning this? First of all, I firmly believe that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If unions are allowed to make campaign donations, corporations should also be allowed to make campaign donations. If you want to eliminate one, take them both away. Otherwise, you are creating an unbalanced situation where the government is suppressing free speech.

The National Review is reporting today that according to the Hillary Clinton emails, Mrs. Clinton was planning to reverse the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United as soon as possible.

The article reports:

Although President Obama came out swinging against the decision during his State of the Union address a few day later — prompting some Justices to boycott future speeches — Clinton remained largely silent on the issue for years. She didn’t openly declare her opposition to Citizens United until April 2015, after she’d already announced her candidacy. In May, she said she’d use opposition to Citizens United as a litmus test for any Supreme Court nominee.

The Ready for Hillary Super PAC — founded under the new Citizens United rules — raised $15 million for the Clinton campaign before it was disbanded early this summer following her presidential announcement.

Mrs. Clinton’s emails to Sidney Blumenthal show a desire to overturn the Citizens United decision, yet she was willing to take advantage of the law up until the time she ran for President. She disbanded the PAC before any low-information voters would learn about it. Also, there is the question of the money flowing through the Clinton Foundation that might have made the PAC unnecessary. Remember that most of the Clintons travel expenses are paid through the Foundation, and a large part of campaigning is travel. That may or may not be illegal, but it is questionable at best. The hypocrisy is amazing.

 

What In The World Is This About?

Posted on by

Yesterday the Washington Times reported that The American Political Action Committee, or AMPAC, is planning a “Million Muslim March” in Washington, D.C., on September 11.

The article reports:

The American Political Action Committee, or AMPAC, is demanding “that laws be enacted protecting our 1st amendment. We are asking President Obama to fulfill his promise from his first campaign for Presidency of a transparent government. Lastly, we are asking for the release of the 9/11 commission report to the American people,” the event posting states on their website.

AMPAC’s Chief of Operations Isa Hodge writes that Muslims and non-Muslims alike were traumatized by the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, “but we as Muslims continue 12 years later to be victimized by being made the villains.”

I don’t know how to break this gently to AMPAC, but Muslim terrorists were the villains on 911.

The article quotes one of the leaders of the group:

“These lies told to the American population has made it impossible for us to do true Dawa,” Ms. Hodge continues, referring to the practice of proselytizing or preaching Islam.

“It is time for us as Muslims in America to stop being defensive and start being proactive by using our right to vote and our freedom of assemble and let our voices be heard by our country and the world. Stand with us help us fight the injustices being committed against us.”

According to AMPAC’s website, part of the group’s mission statement seeks “to encourage and seek Muslim American candidates for public office and explain positions of other political candidates to Muslim American voters.”

I think I am a rather typical American, and I don’t have any objection at all to Muslims sharing their faith. I do, however, object to them bringing some of their customs to America–discrimination against women, female genital mutilation, honor killing, Sharia Law–just to name a few. If Muslims want to run for office, that is fine, as long as they understand that the Oath of Office they take in that office requires them to uphold the American Constitution.

There are a few things we need to remember when we hear Muslim groups complain that they are being targeted. First of all, they are not being targeted. The fact remains that the 911 hijackers were all Muslim terrorists–that was the religion they practiced and their religion was their motivation for the attack. Second, there is a concept in Islam called “taqiyya.” Taqiyya is loosely described as lying for the sake of Islam. Make no mistake. The goal of Islam is a world-wide caliphate. Putting Islamists in office (their religion allows them to lie when taking the Oath of Office) is risky at best. I am sure there are Muslims who love America and embrace America’s freedoms, but there are many who refuse to assimilate. I don’t expect to see a lot of America-loving Muslims in the march on 911. (Actually, there may not be a lot of people there to begin with–Facebook shows five people attending as of yesterday.)

We may not be at war with Islam, but we need to understand that a very large part of Islam is at war with us–their goal is the destruction of western civilization. We can defend our civilization or we can lose it–the choice is ours.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

When Did Watergate Become Legal?

Posted on by

We have all been hearing about the bugging of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell‘s meeting with his campaign staff on February 2. Evidently it is now okay to secretly tape someone’s campaign meetings and not face consequences. I am not going to bother with the details of the story since it has been in the headlines and you can pretty much read the details anywhere.

However, I do want to quote the last line from an article posted at Power Line today:

James Taranto has been following the affair on Twitter and derives an edifying judgment of public policy: “So post-Watergate ‘reforms’ led to the creation of super PACs, which are now committing Watergate-like crimes. Brilliant.”

Further proof that generally speaking, when Congress attempts to fix a problem by creating more laws, they only make things worse. I am sure there are laws that were broken in this taping, It is truly a shame that no one chooses to enforce those laws.

Enhanced by Zemanta

How You Answer When You Are Caught With Your Hand In The Cookie Jar

Posted on by

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article today which featured my nominee for the Quote of the Week.

Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was being interviewed on Fox News Sunday. She was asked about the Obama ad accusing Mitt Romney causing the death of Joe Soptic’s wife. Ms. Wasserman Schultz  pointed out that the ad was produced by Priorities USA, an Obama-affiliated super PAC run by a former Obama White House staffer. She then stated, “I have no idea the political affiliation of the folks who are associated with that super PAC.” Wow. Did she think it was a pro-Romney ad?

When you listen to the entire interview, you begin to wonder if the Democrat‘s main objection to Mitt Romney is that he was successful as a businessman. I wonder how many people in America think that America needs a successful businessman to put the economy of America in order.

Please follow the link to the Washington Free Beacon to watch the video. This is how you avoid answering a question when you are caught with your hand in the cookie jar!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sometimes You Just Have To Laugh

Posted on by

Yesterday the Palm Beach Post reported that the NAACP has stated that a campaign ad showing Representative Allen West punching a while woman is not racially offensive.

The article reports:

NAACP Washington Bureau Director Hilary O. Shelton, the organization’s chief federal lobbyist, said he watched the ad three or four times.

“It is a typical campaign ad,” said Shelton. “I don’t see it playing on stereotypes.”

American Sunrise got $250,000 of its initial $350,050 budget from Coastal Construction CEO Thomas Murphy Jr., who is Patrick Murphy’s father. The PAC, which says it aims to “reduce the hostile environment of governing in today’s Congress,” lists Patrick Murphy as the only candidate it supports.

Would the ad be racially offensive if the Representative were punching a black woman? Just a thought.

It really isn’t about racial sensitivity–it’s about Democrat party politics. Any campaign showing anyone being punched should be disallowed.

Enhanced by Zemanta

At Least They Admitted They Lied

Posted on by

Yesterday I posted a story (rightwinggranny.com) about a recent political ad by a Political Action Committee (PAC) supporting President Obama that accused Mitt Romney of being responsible for the death of Joe Soptic’s wife. When confronted with the actual time line of the events, which totally discredited the ad, the Obama Administration denied knowledge of the specifics. Well, not so fast.

Politico reported today that the Obama Administration has stopped denying that they were familiar with Joe Soptic’s story.

The article reports:

Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki acknowledged Thursday that the campaign was no longer pleading ignorance about the story of a man who has appeared in both a super PAC ad and a campaign ad.

“No one is denying he was in one of our campaign ads. He was on a conference call telling his story,” Psaki told reporters on Air Force One.

Admittedly, the campaign is not supposed to coordinate with the PAC’s, so the ad cannot be traced directly to the President, but it would have been nice if he had denounced the ad when it was released.

I stand by my original statement that I am appalled by a husband that would choose to use the death of his wife for political purposes. This ad was totally beyond the pale. Unfortunately, I suspect we will see more of this behavior from the Obama Campaign and their supporters. I have heard very few Democrats denounce the ad. That is the action that is required.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Attacking The Donors

Posted on by

Under the guise of transparency, some Democrats have asked that Political Action Committees list major donors. Although that sounds like a reasonable request, some recent activities by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) make me wonder about their motives.

Normally, a political campaign attacks the opposing candidate. Unfortunately, the people currently running the Democrat campaigns have not felt the necessity of being limited by such restrictive rules. I have recently posted articles about the attacks on Frank Vandersloot, a major donor to Restore Our Future, (rightwinggranny.com), attacks on New Hampshire businessman Jack Gilchrist (rightwinggranny.com), who had the nerve to appear in a Romney ad. The Democrats have also gone after billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, charging that he was tied to the Chinese mob and a prostitution ring.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reports:

The attack on Adelson falls into the same category as the demonization of the Koch brothers for their funding of conservative activism.  It’s designed to intimidate them — and others who might want to get involved in politics — out of the public sphere.  (That’s not an impulse limited to the Left, either; the Right has George Soros as its bête noir, for example.)

Why did the DCCC, of all Democratic organizations, start throwing mud at Adelson?  They wanted to attack John Boehner and House Republicans for supposedly taking prostitution money, but that’s a very big reach even if they had some evidence on Adelson — which they don’t, and never did. 

The good news here is that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee issued a public apology Thursday afternoon to Mr. Adelson.

The article at Hot Air quotes the statement:

“In press statements issued on June 29 and July 2, 2012, the DCCC made unsubstantiated allegations that attacked Sheldon Adelson, a supporter of the opposing party. This was wrong. The statements were untrue and unfair and we retract them,” the DCCC wrote. “The DCCC extends its sincere apology to Mr. Adelson and his family for any injury we have caused.”

Any person who runs for office in the current political climate can expect to be smeared, lied about, and threatened by the Chicago thugs that have taken over the Democrat party (I say that sadly–I used to be a Democrat). However, it is truly a shame that those who make political donations are now also vulnerable to this sort of thuggish behavior.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted on by

This is a new campaign ad produced by American Crossroads:

The ad targets the fact that being cool isn’t really worth much when it comes to leading America effectively. I have another comment on President Obama. It is a shame that the first black American President has done such a rotten job–I fear that President Obama’s performance as President will make it more difficult for a black man to become President in the future. I hope I am wrong on that, but I am not sure I am. Unfortunately, how a person looks (generally or in terms of race) is still an important part of the American culture.

Enhanced by Zemanta