Tag: Bombshell

Your Daley Gator Why-Isn’t-Hillary-In-Jail-Yet Story O’ The Day

Bombshell: Clinton Foundation Donor’s Flight From Justice Aided By Hillary Allies – The Observer

.

.
Recent news reports indicate that the FBI is investigating former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for granting favors to her family’s foundation donors and for its systematic accounting fraud. In January, the Sunday Times of London cited former Judge Andrew Napolitano, a conservative libertarian and frequent Fox News guest, as saying that the FBI was taking evidence “seriously” and that Hillary “could hear about that soon from the Department of Justice.”

It’s hard to believe that the Obama administration and its hideously politicized Justice Department would ever indict Ms. Clinton, given that President Barack Obama picked her for secretary of state and its clear favoritism toward her in the presidential race. But there is massive evidence that shows financial abuses – including money laundering – at the Clinton Foundation and overwhelming evidence that donors were helped by Ms. Clinton.

To take one of so many examples, there’s the case of Clinton Foundation donor Claudio Osorio – who is now housed at a federal prison serving 12 years for fraud – who in 2010, with Ms. Clinton’s (and Bill Clinton’s) help, won a $10 million loan from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.

The loan was granted to an Osorio firm called InnoVida, which was supposed to build houses in earthquake-ravaged Haiti. Instead, Osorio pocketed the money and used it to underwrite his lavish lifestyle and to pay off politicians. For political muscle, Osorio – who also had close ties to Jeb Bush, who sat on the board of a bank he owned – paid a lobbyist and major Hillary fundraiser named Jonathan Mantz.

And that leads me to another Clinton Foundation donor Ms. Clinton helped out who happened to use Mr. Mantz (who now runs Ms. Clinton’s presidential campaign Super PAC) and apparently with the same great effect: Gonzalo Tirado, a crooked Venezuelan financier.

Mr. Tirado was president of and ran Venezuelan operations for the famously corrupt Stanford Bank, which was headquartered in Antigua and was named for its American founder, Allen Stanford. He and Mr. Stanford came to be extremely close and “were like father and son,” one well-placed source told me.

Mr. Stanford’s name may ring a bell as he was sentenced to prison for 110 years for committing an $8 billion Ponzi scheme. In 2006, the Hugo Chavez government was asked to investigate Mr. Tirado by scandal-plagued, pro-Wall Street New York Congressman Gregory W. Meeks, a member of the House Committee on Financial Services and a major recipient of cash and perks from jailbird Allen Stanford. Mr. Tirado was charged with tax evasion and theft, The Hill newspaper reported.

As I’ll detail below – and I uncovered this story with help from the National Legal and Policy Center, a Virginia-based watchdog group – Tirado soon fled for Miami to avoid prosecution and petitioned the State Department, through Mr. Mantz, for political asylum. It’s not clear if he won asylum – and he doesn’t seem to merit it as he had no record of political opposition to the Chavez government – but it is clear that he was allowed to remain in the U.S. and live a life of luxury.

(Mr. Tirado, who did not reply to a request for comment, has kept a low profile as of late. His last reported sighting came in 2014, when he unsuccessfully tried to commit suicide, or at least claimed he intended to kill himself.)

Incredibly, the Obama administration not only failed to help the Chavez government investigate Mr. Tirado, but it also indicted a legendary former DEA agent named Tom Raffanello, a one-time head of the DEA’s Miami office and the agency’s chief of congressional affairs during Bill Clinton’s first term as president.

Mr. Raffanello’s subsequent prosecution, which ended in abysmal failure, almost surely was prompted and abetted by Mr. Tirado, a secret FBI informant. Unsurprisingly, the vindicated Mr. Raffanello had few kind words for Mr. Tirado or Ms. Clinton during a recent interview.

“Tirado believed in buying influence,” Mr. Raffanello said of the crooked financier. “He wouldn’t give away 10 cents that he didn’t think he’d get back a dollar on. That was his entire philosophy.”

As for Ms. Clinton, he said that during her years in the Obama administration the “prevailing wisdom in Miami at the time, among people in high profile civil and criminal defense circles, was that giving money to the Clinton Foundation was very helpful. She was secretary of state and a potential future president. I’m sure that’s the same thinking now.”

(Ms. Clinton’s presidential campaign did not reply to a request for comment.)

Up until 2006, life was cushy for pampered, wealthy, jet-setting Gonzalo Tirado, who was running the Stanford Bank’s Venezuela operations. Events took a turn for the worse when an internal Stanford Bank audit discovered that he had fleeced about $5 million from the company.

Mr. Tirado’s actions did not sit well with Stanford, and the Venezuelan beat a hasty exit from his job. He soon opened a bank of his own and lured in a few local investors. His new enterprise went down the tubes, and the defrauded locals, who were very close to the Chavez government, looked to it for help, leading to an investigation of Mr. Tirado.

At the same time, the Chavez government was investigating Mr. Tirado at the behest of Stanford, through his hand-picked emissary, Congressman Meeks. (See this Wikileaked cable for more on the topic and on Mr. Tirado’s feud with the Venezuelan government.) That led to the filing of criminal charges against Mr. Tirado, as noted above. (The Venezuelan embassy in Washington did not reply to a request for comment.)

Mr. Tirado, apparently a conscienceless paranoid who felt no remorse for his actions, became convinced that Stanford Bank was monitoring his activities and tapping his phone and was the source of all of his troubles. Perhaps sensing he was in deep trouble, he fled Venezuela for Miami.

Mr. Tirado began spending money like a drunken sailor. He purchased at least two luxury estates in the Miami area. He also became a major investor in several companies, including a security firm called Command Consulting Group for which he recruited as a front man W. Ralph Basham, a former senior official with the Department of Homeland Security under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Command Consulting Group, “an international security and intelligence consulting firm that provides advisory services to governments, corporations, and high net worth individuals,” according to its website, and whose top officials include a number of other former senior government terror and security veterans, is currently run out of an office in Washington. (Mr. Basham did not reply to a request for comment.)

As 2009 dawned, life could hardly have been better for the pampered Mr. Tirado. There was just one small problem: He needed to stay in the U.S. to avoid being sent back back to Venezuela, where he was sure to face trial and imprisonment. To stay in the U.S., Mr. Tirado needed the continued indulgence of the U.S. State Department.

Fortunately for Mr. Tirado, the U.S. government had been hostile to Venezuela ever since the South American nation of 31 million moved to the left in 2002, when Chavez was elected to the first of his three terms.

(Note and disclosure: Chavez died in 2013, and the country is now led by his former vice president, Nicolás Maduro. Despite its flaws, the country’s socialist government has made remarkable strides in bettering the lives of Venezuela’s poor majority. In 2004, I met Chavez as a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, and I consider him to be the greatest force for democratic change in modern Latin American history with the possible exception of Che Guevera.)

The George W. Bush administration had regularly conspired with the rancid political opposition, which Chavez displaced from power, and had sought to destabilize and overthrow the Chavez government with the help of local Venezuelan surrogates. Incoming President Barack Obama and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, were rabid opponents of Chavez’s as well, but Mr. Tirado didn’t want to count on that alone.

Knowing how the corrupt U.S. political system works, he hired an American lobbyist, Jonathan Mantz, to game the asylum process for him while he took it easy and spent his loot in America.

Mantz then worked at BGR, the firm of Republican Haley Barbour, the famously overweight former Mississippi governor and one of the most prominent of all GOP lobby shops. He had previously worked as finance director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and for the laughably corrupt New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine.

Mr. Mantz, who had no real qualifications to be a lobbyist other than his ability to raise money – and who did not reply to a request for comment – had drummed up cash for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign. Currently Mr. Mantz chairs Hillary’s 2016 Super PAC, Priorities USA Action. Mr. Tirado paid BGR $350,000.

Now sufficiently motivated, Mantz went to work lobbying Hillary’s State Department to let Tirado stay in Miami. Meanwhile, the crooked Mr. Tirado donated between $5,000 and $10,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to its website. As is its custom, the foundation does not state when the donation was made and declined to answer questions about the money it took from Mr. Tirado.

Coincidentally or not, Mr. Tirado was one four of Mr. Mantz’ clients who donated to the Clinton Foundation during his brief 16-month career as a lobbyist.

Now let’s discuss the story of former DEA agent Thomas Raffanello, at which point this story becomes even more outrageous.

Mr. Raffanello worked for the DEA for more than three decades. He left in 2004 and went to work as the head of security for the Stanford Bank. “We set up cameras to prevent bank robberies and generally provided security at bank offices and functions,” Mr. Raffanello told me last weekend during the course of several lengthy phone interviews. “I was based in Miami but had offices in Caracas, Quito, Antigua and a few other places.”

Mr. Raffanello said Allen Stanford “couldn’t balance a checkbook” and described him as “a spoiled billionaire.” When I asked him why he went to work for Stanford in the first place he said, “I did due diligence. I called several associates, including the former head of DEA in Miami before me and several former assistant U.S. attorneys who worked for him. No one ever gave me a bad word; they said he was eccentric but a straight shooter. Madeleine Albright worked for him, and the former president of Switzerland was one of his board members.”

Stanford Bank collapsed and was put into receivership in 2010, at which point Mr. Raffanello left the company. But well before then Mr. Tirado – who, a source told me, had become an FBI informant – had become convinced that Mr. Raffanello was the source for all of his problems with the Chavez government and its investigation into him. Hence, he began a smear campaign against Mr. Raffanello in Venezuela and the United States.

As I mentioned above, it was Congressman Meeks – who currently supports Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and who took in more money from Stanford than any single member of Congress other than Charles Rangel and Pete Sessions of Texas – who prompted the Chavez government to look into Mr. Tirado.

But the paranoid Mr. Tirado, certain Mr. Raffanello was to blame, paid Venezuelan writers to place stories saying Mr. Raffanello worked for the CIA, Mr. Raffanello told me. That led to the Chavez government questioning Mr. Raffanello for alleged corruption involving the Stanford bank, though it determined the allegations were groundless and never charged him.

“Venezuela is like Casablanca,” Mr. Raffanello said. “If you tell a story twice it becomes the truth. It became impossible for me to go to Venezuela because I feared I’d get picked up by law enforcement.”
.

“I thought I was going to get Shanghaied, but you can’t make something out of nothing.” – Thomas Raffanello.

.
Meanwhile, Mr. Raffanello said, Mr. Tirado told the FBI and the Justice Department that he was trying to arrange Mr. Tirado’s kidnapping and was spying on him. “The guy knows how to play the game, and he played it at a high level because he had plenty of money,” Mr. Raffanello said.

About a year after Mr. Raffanello left Stanford Bank, he was indicted by the Obama Justice Department for allegedly shredding Stanford Bank documents. The case went to trial in Miami in 2010. On February 10 of that year, as the jury was deliberating, Judge Richard Goldberg interrupted its deliberations and unilaterally acquitted Raffanello (and another defendant), saying the evidence against him was “substantially lacking.”

It is highly unusual for a person to escape conviction after being indicted by a federal grand jury, let alone for the government to be humiliated in court as it was in the Raffanello case. Stunned federal prosecutors begged the judge to at least allow the jury to render a verdict because the acquittal would prevent them from appealing a verdict.

The judge dismissed their plea, and Mr. Raffanello’s ordeal was over. “I thought I was going to get Shanghaied, but you can’t make something out of nothing,” he said.

To sum up here, a corrupt Venezuelan banker hired a lobbyist close to Hillary Clinton, made a donation to her family’s foundation and has been allowed to live in the United States without fear of prosecution in his homeland. At a time that Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, the Obama Administration staged what can only be described as a political prosecution of an honest man and long-time government employee.

Mr. Raffanello has concluded this about Hillary Clinton’s campaign: “I learned a lot about her and her family when I was in the government, and how they are put together,” he said. “She is a person who will say and do anything in order to get elected president. I don’t think she’s going to win, but there’s nothing she won’t do while trying.”

.

.

Yet Another Reason Why Hillary Clinton Should Be In Prison

Bombshell Email Shows Hillary Clinton Told Adviser To Send Secure Info Through Non-Secure Channel – Right Scoop

Well it looks like Hillary didn’t have much regard for protecting sensitive data after all, telling her top advisor in an email to strip the ‘secure’ markings from the fax and send it to her nonsecure:
.

DAILY CALLER – On June 16, 2011, Hillary Clinton’s top foreign policy adviser, Jake Sullivan, was having trouble sending his boss a list of talking points that contained sensitive – and possibly classified – information. Sullivan told Clinton there were issues “sending secure fax,” an email released by the State Department early Friday shows.

So Clinton offered a shocking solution: remove the markings identifying the information as sensitive and send it by regular fax.

“Turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure,” Clinton instructed Sullivan.

.

.
This falls right in line with how Hillary conducted herself, insecure email and all. Who knows what secret information was on this secure fax.

Well we could ask hackers in Russia or China as they most definitely will know.

.

.

New IRS Bombshell: ‘Most Audacious Power Play Yet’

New IRS Bombshell: ‘Most Audacious Power Play Yet’ – WorldNetDaily

.
…………

.
It was the nearly silent bombshell of the IRS scandal, but it may have been one of the most significant.

That is especially true considering the target is primarily known as one of the fiercest critics of President Obama and Bill and Hillary Clinton, the latter considered the Democrat’s leading presidential contender in 2016.

When the IRS stripped the Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, or PHC, of its tax-exempt status, it did not cause splashy headlines and a chorus of the nation’s leading conservatives did not howl in protest.

However, the IRS’ revocation of the center’s 501(c)(3) status may have been the most audacious power play yet by the left in its use of the department to wage war on conservatives.

The action indicates the IRS still feels free to pursue conservatives with impunity, even after all the adverse publicity it has received since former tax-exempt division chief Lois Lerner revealed last May that the department had improperly targeted conservative groups applying for 501(c)(3) status.

Additionally, the PHC is unique among the IRS’ recent known victims:

• The tea-party groups came to the IRS; the IRS went after the PHC. Unlike the delay tactics it used on tea-party groups when processing their tax-exempt applications, the IRS actively targeted the PHC as a group that already had 501(c)(3) status.

• The department applied the worst penalty at its disposal, by disallowing tax-exempt contributions to the organization.

• Unlike the tea-party groups, the PHC did not spring up after the 2008 election of President Obama, but has been around since the 1990s. It was approved in January 1998 as a 501(c)(3). Based in Manassas, Va., the center was founded by former FBI agent and best-selling author, Gary Aldrich, a ferocious critic of Obama and the Clintons.

• The IRS appeared to go out of its way to target and punish the center. It had to go back a decade to find a mere two instances of alleged transgressions committed by the PHC.

• And, as WND reported, the supposed violations of IRS rules are miniscule compared to the hyper-partisan articles published daily by the gargantuan, George Soros-financed and leftist 501(c)(3) website Media Matters.

Despite the brazenness of the IRS in giving its tax-exempt “death-penalty” to the PHC, the news was met with an almost deafening silence by conservatives. However, those conservatives who are speaking out are scathing in their criticism.

“Americans should be outraged at the banana republic intimidation tactics of this administration and Congress needs to take a hard look at the IRS’s abuses of power,” Scott Hogenson, communications director for Tea Party Patriots, the nation’s largest grassroots organization, told WND.

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, which has forced the IRS to reveal a series of incriminating documents, told WND, “The IRS can’t be trusted to impartially apply its own regulations or the law.”

“Liberals at the local, state and federal level are increasingly abusing the powers of government agencies to smear and attack conservatives. The time has come for Congress to rein in these attacks on free speech,” Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, told WND.

Floyd G. Brown, president of the Western Center for Journalism, told WND, “The IRS actions concerning the Patrick Henry Center are an outrage. The IRS has no jurisdiction to censor or control the speech of individuals involved in nonprofit work. The IRS has become the favorite tool of the political apparatchiks who run the Democratic Party. They use the IRS and other agencies to bully opponents until they are too tired to continue to fight.”

“The IRS political targeting of Gary Aldrich’s Patrick Henry Center is stunning in its brazenness,” said WND Editor Joseph Farah, who exposed the broad pattern of IRS political targeting during the Clinton administration and whose own organization was the focus of an audit at the time.

“This action by the IRS is a clear signal the Obama administration is out of control and in no way deterred by congressional investigations into the use of the IRS as an attack dog against domestic political enemies. The silence from Aldrich’s fellow conservatives is deafening and invites even more blatant abuse of this kind by the Obama administration,” added Farah.

Aldrich has been a target of the left stretching back to Clinton administration, in which he served.

He spent 26 years in the FBI and was a private investigator in the Clinton White House, vetting the backgrounds and character of the president’s choices for top-level government positions. Shocked by what he experienced, Aldrich left the White House in 1996.

In 1998, Aldrich wrote the New York Times’ bestseller “Unlimited Access,” a devastating critique and insider’s look at an administration he saw as run amok. Aldrich said he repeatedly rejected Clinton nominees as corrupt and/or unqualified, only to have the president ignore his findings and put those people in positions of authority.

Aldrich also considered the behavior of Hillary to be especially corrupt, vulgar and even obscene, describing her decorating the White House Christmas tree with sex toys and drug paraphernalia.

Aldrich wrote:

“[I] could not let these threats to national security and attacks on basic American values continue … With firsthand knowledge of the hardship facing those who dare to speak the truth in the face of corrupt power, [I] determined to make a difference by helping others. Thus was conceived a non-profit foundation to assist [other] whistleblowers and to protect their First Amendment rights.”

And what a whistleblower he found.

The very first client of his Patrick Henry Center was Linda Tripp, the Pentagon employee who instigated the impeachment of President Clinton by recording her calls with Monica Lewinsky.

Conservatives, understandably, might see that as a reason for top Democrats to hold a grudge.

When Aldrich began working with tea-party groups in 2010, Politico described “Unlimited Access” as a “widely discredited exposé of the Clinton White House.”

Aldrich related to WND how “Hillary Clinton called it a “pack of lies,” political fabrication that could not be believed … and Bill Clinton said he had no idea who I was or what I was saying, but it couldn’t be true. Then (former White House aide) George Stephanopoulous was the lead character who came on ABC News and declared to the nation that I was a pathological liar.”

However, the facts that have emerged ever since the book was published point to just the opposite, and indicate the author has been vindicated.

The book sounded the alarm about national security risks, security risks in the White House and the sexual escapades of President Clinton. In 2004, Aldrich explained, “The book was designed to alert the public in 1996, before the election, that Bill Clinton was soft on national security and… he had weakened the nation to the degree that I felt we were in danger of an attack.”

Aldrich told WND in 2000 that after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke in 1998, “I received a call from (NBC “Meet the Press” host Tim) Russert at my residence. Don’t know how he got my number. But he said, ‘Gary, congratulations. It looks like you’ve been fully vindicated. I don’t know anyone who could now claim your book wasn’t true.’”

Aldrich said another journalist who had publicly doubted his story, ABC’s Sam Donaldson, also told him he’d been vindicated.

As for former Clinton insider Stephanopoulos, who went on to host Donaldson’s old show, ABC’s “This Week,” Aldrich told WND, “The man’s a liar and he worked inside the Clinton White House and he knew what I wrote was true and yet he went on national TV and said I’m a ‘pathological liar.’ Who’s a pathological liar now?”

Aldrich told WND in 2000 that it was the sex scandal that the media fixated upon, but it was the risk the Clinton administration posed to national security that was the bigger threat:

“We didn’t clear anybody. They didn’t care about security. They just wanted to test the political loyalty of employees. There’s no provision in the law to allow for that. It’s nuts. It’s a misuse and an abuse. Early on in the staffing of the Clinton administration, they discovered that the FBI (background) investigations could be an impediment to the appointment of people they really wanted to have. And these people don’t want to be denied, frankly. Hillary Clinton in particular does not want to be told, ‘No,’ when she wants to bring somebody into the White House.”

By 2000, WND was reporting that slowly, with each new report of security lapses, Aldrich’s story of loose security and reckless conduct had been confirmed. At the White House, drug and gun smugglers were waved into fundraising coffees with the president and vice president. One Clinton donor with Beijing ties even managed to sneak a foreigner past the Secret Service using a bogus driver’s license.

Fearful fellow law-enforcement agents failed to back his story. But Aldrich did not call them out, even though he knew where the dirt was, having read their sensitive FBI “302″ reports while vetting them for jobs.

By 2010, PHC merged with Liberty Central, an advocacy group run by Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese serves on the center’s board.

But the center has never been very big, declaring less than $350,000 in revenues for the year 2012.

The IRS apparently had to strain to build a case against the small, obscure outfit, reaching back a decade to find just a mere two alleged transgressions.

USA Today reported last Monday that the PHC was among several organizations that had lost their tax-exempt status in February, after the IRS letter released a letter on April 18, explaining its reasoning.

The IRS cited a pair of articles on the center’s website: one Aldrich wrote in 2004 that was critical of presidential candidate John Kerry and one in 2005 which was critical of Hillary Clinton.

(Farah said he suspects the IRS didn’t use any of Aldrich’s criticisms of Obama in making its case because “that would have been unseemly and too obvious.”)

In 2004, Aldrich wrote, “Let’s see what happens when he brings his medals to the first presidential debate. I’m willing to bet George W. Bush will have no trouble dealing with this coward.” In a 2005 piece called “Stop Hillary Now!” Aldrich encouraged “Clinton haters” to get out the word on Hillary’s “atrocious conduct.”

The IRS said the PHC served as an “action organization” in promoting those articles by issuing alerts, and had “shown a pattern of deliberate and consistent intervention in political campaigns” and made “repeated statements supporting or opposing various candidates by expressing its opinion of the respective candidate’s character and qualifications.”

Those who know Aldrich well strongly doubt that he would endanger the viability of his organization by crossing the line.

“I know Gary Aldrich personally, Judicial Watch has worked with him in the past, and, in my experience, he is a stickler for the rules,” Judicial Watch’s Fitton told WND.

“I’ve known Gary Aldrich for 20 years,” said Farah. “He knows the law. Few people are more cautious about observing every jot and tittle of the law in their political activism than Gary Aldrich. If Obama’s IRS can suspend his organization’s tax-exempt status in the midst of their own high-profile scandalous abuse of the IRS, the First Amendment is gravely threatened. In fact, it appears Obama is trying to suspend not just the tax-exempt status of his political enemies, but the First Amendment itself.”

Even if the PHC truly violated IRS rules, the two actions done nearly a decade ago are dwarfed by the vast number of hyper-partisan political articles published everyday by the extreme liberal website Media Matters, as documented by WND. Media Matters is also a 501(c)(3) but operates with little apparent interference from the IRS.

Farah noted the discrepancy, observing, “Meanwhile, left-wing partisan tax-exempt groups like Media Matters run rings around their conservative counterparts with impunity. America will never be the same kind of free-and-open society we have known when people with different points of view are treated so unequally by the government. We are one short step away from police-state totalitarianism.”

Hogenson added, “This is symptomatic of the on-going IRS targeting of people and organizations with whom President Obama disagrees. Once again, the IRS is targeting a conservative group while turning a blind eye to the questionable activities of left-wing organizations that share the same tax status as the Patrick Henry Center.”

Rep. Stockman told WND, “Not only did the Patrick Henry Center never engage in any activity that actually intervened in any campaign, what they are accused of is standard operating procedure for leftist groups. Nothing in the report rises to the level of an activity that disqualifies the Center from tax-exempt status. This appears to be yet another case of liberal officials using government agencies to defame and harass conservative activists. Their goal is simple. They want to intimidate and silence those who differ with their agenda.”

The Western Journalism Center’s Brown said, “For the IRS to revoke the tax exempt status of an independent foundation for comments the organization’s president, Gary Aldrich wrote in a column on the independent news website TownHall.com only increases the outrage.”

Fitton implied the punitive action did not come out of the blue, but is part of the same conflict going back to Aldrich’s time with the Clintons.

“In many ways, this is the culmination of the ‘long war’ against Gary that began with the whistleblowing on corruption in Washington, D.C., nearly 20 years ago.”

It also appears to be part of a larger pattern of targeting conservatives.

In addition to the targeting of tea-party groups, the IRS is apparently going after even the few conservatives in Hollywood, as the New York Times reported in January:

“A collection of perhaps 1,500 right-leaning players in the entertainment industry, Friends of Abe keeps a low profile and fiercely protects its membership list, to avoid what it presumes would result in a sort of 21st-century blacklist, albeit on the other side of the partisan spectrum.

“Now the Internal Revenue Service is reviewing the group’s activities in connection with its application for tax-exempt status. Last week, federal tax authorities presented the group with a 10-point request for detailed information about its meetings with politicians like Paul D. Ryan, Thaddeus McCotter and Herman Cain, among other matters, according to people briefed on the inquiry.”

Conservative filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza is even facing prosecution on campaign-finance charges that many believe are payback for his film “2016: Obama’s America.”

Gerald Molen, the producer of D’Souza’s two full-length feature film documentaries, characterized D’Souza’s criminal indictment as a Soviet-style “political prosecution.”

In turn, D’Souza told WND that Molen also was harassed by the Obama administration for his role producing D’Souza’s full-length feature film documentaries.

“Right after ’2016′ came out, Molen got a call from the IRS,” D’Souza said.

Republican Sens. Charles E. Grassley, Jeff Sessions, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are among the lawmakers who have signed a letter to the FBI demanding details of the D’Souza investigation, saying it smacks of “selective prosecution.”

Further evidence that the IRS targeting of Aldrich is not happening in a vacuum came to light after an investigation by WND that revealed the agency contracts with an avowedly “progressive” organization supported by George Soros to process data filed by smaller tax-exempt groups.

The IRS sends details contained in the annual filings for organizations with $50,000 in annual receipts or less to the Urban Institute, which is funded, at least in part, by contributions from far-left activist Soros.

A tax form page directs groups to file with the Urban Institute, although apparently other providers also can file the Form 990 documentation (postcard), which is required of every nonprofit, small and large.

“The organization that fails to file required e-Postcards… for three consecutive years will automatically lose its tax-exempt status,” the IRS warns.

The supposedly nonpartisan organization’s employees have a record of donating nearly 100 percent of their political contributions to Democrats, and officially, the Urban Institute advocates for totally socialized medicine, carbon taxes and amnesty for illegal aliens.

The institute’s president, Sarah Rosen Wartell, is the co-founder of the Center for American Progress, widely considered ground zero for the development of many of the Obama administration’s progressive policies.

As for Aldrich, when news of his targeting broke it didn’t cause the kind of sensational headlines as when America learned the IRS had been demanding tea-party groups report what prayers they had been saying and which books they had been reading.

But this latest development may indicate, somewhere along the way, a turning point had been reached, one in which the IRS went from defense to offense, and instead of just stalling applications, went on the attack.

That seemed to be what Lois Lerner and the Justice Department had in mind, when it was recently revealed how they plotted how to prosecute conservatives for merely exercising their rights to free speech.

Even more ominously, the order to have the IRS dig up information to prosecute conservatives was given to the Justice Department’s director of the Election Crimes Branch of the Public Integrity Section by “someone” higher up in the chain of command.

That means the orders either came from someone in a position of top authority at the Justice Department, or, someone at the White House.

As Floyd Brown told WND, “The authoritarianism of the federal government should frighten every American. The new slogan of big government has changed from ‘we won’t listen,’ and it has become ‘you can’t speak.’”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Breaking! Benghazi Bombshell: Valerie Jarrett, Commander In Chief

Breaking! Benghazi Bombshell: Valerie Jarrett, Commander In Chief – Conservative Report

Confidential sources close to Conservative Report have confirmed that Valerie Jarrett was the key decision-maker for the administration, the night of the Benghazi terrorist attack on 9/11/2012.

.

The chronology of the evening of 9/11 are as follows:

At approximately 5 PM Washington time, reports came in through secure-channels that Special Mission Benghazi was under attack. Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey summoned the President,and briefed him on the crisis, face to face.

Subsequent to that brief meeting, President Obama proceeded to the White House to dine in his living quarters.

After supper, Barack Obama had a telephone conference scheduled with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Senior Advisor to the President, Valerie Jarrett was present for that conference, which was held due to problems the President was having with the perception of him snubbing Netanyahu in previous, formal encounters.

The telephone call between Obama and Netanyahu carried on for a full two-hours, creating the appearance of respect between the two world leaders.

As that meeting drew to a close, Ms. Jarrett, who is also the Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, went from the living quarters to the White House Situation Room, where the attack in Benghazi was being monitored by Dempsey, Panetta and other top-ranking officials.

Whether she was instructed by the President to go there, or if she went of her own volition, is only known by the President and herself.

A critical question that needed to be answered, and the sole military-order that could have launched offensive-actions, neutralizing the Ansar al Sharia terrorists attacks on the Mission (the purpose of which is detailed here) and its subsequent attacks on the adjacent CIA Annex, was the issuance of “Cross Border Authority”, an order that can only be issued by the Commander in Chief, himself.

As was reported earlier by Conservative Report, Cross Border Authority was denied.

Two revelations are deeply troubling:

First, it is reported that an Army Special Forces team was present with an AC-130U Spooky (also known as a Spectre Gunship) on the tarmac at the airport in Tripoli, Libya. The Spooky is a technologically sophisticated, tactical aircraft, operated by the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command.

It operates under the overall Special Operations Command stationed at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, which is reportedly in charge of all military special operations units, including: Army Special Forces, Navy SEALS, Rangers and certain Marine units, as well as the USAF AC-130Us, and “stealth Blackhawks,” used in the Bin Laden raid.

The AC-130U Spooky is equipped with weapons that sync with laser-designators, like those that Woods, Doherty and Ubben had on that lonely rooftop above the CIA Annex. The laser-designator was used to “paint” the mortar targets during the attack, subsequently claiming the lives of Woods and Doherty, and leaving Ubben without a leg. Had the AC-130U been on station, over the CIA Annex in Benghazi, moments before the mortar rounds were fired, instead of “awaiting further instructions,” the entire outcome of the Benghazi fiasco would have been different.

Add to that, a team of Green Berets on the ground to secure and/or evacuate the Annex, and the outcome would have been two SEALS still alive, and a mess of dead terrorists.

The second, and most troubling aspect of the refusal to issue Cross Border Authority is, who issued the refusal. Rather than the President, the Commander In Chief, making critical decisions, granting or denying the authority to initiate offensive-actions in support of our valiant fighting men, the decision not to take action was made by a person, to whom the people did not elect, nor did the Congress have confirmation power over.

The military-order, not to initiate action, saving our men in Benghazi, was issued by the President’s Advisor, Valerie Jarrett.

And this is a “phony” scandal?

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Benghazi Bombshell: CIA Warned Of Impending Jihadist Attack

Bombshell In The Benghazi E-mails: The CIA Warned Of Impending Jihadist Attack – World Tribune

The White House recently released more than 100 pages of e-mails between the CIA, State Department and the White House regarding the now infamous talking points.

.

President Barack Obama insists “there is no there, there,” as he stated during a May 13 press conference. Yet, the opposite is true. There is a bombshell there.

The CIA had warned on Sept. 10, 2012, one day before the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, of the possibility of a jihadist attack on an American embassy.

We now know that on Sept. 15, 2012, when then-CIA Director David Petraeus read the final version of the talking points, he wrote in an e-mail: “No mention of the cable to Cairo, either? I’d just as soon not use this, then… NSS’s (National Security Staff) call to be sure…”

At that point, all references to the perpetrators of the Benghazi attack, Ansar al-Sharia, a Libyan Al Qaida affiliate, had been redacted. The cable to Cairo contained a warning that Al Qaida-linked jihadists might strike the American embassy there, according to The Weekly Standard.

As an earlier version of the talking points put it: “On September 10 we warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the Embassy Cairo and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy.”

In other words, America’s intelligence community feared there was danger in Cairo even before the rally occurred the following day. On September 11, there was no “spontaneous demonstration” protesting an anti-Muslim video in Egypt (or in Benghazi for that matter), as the administration would later claim, especially by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice who misled the public Sept.16 on five Sunday talk shows.

Instead, there was a rally in Cairo organized by five well-known Al Qaida-linked jihadists who had previously been jailed for terrorist activity, according to an Oct. 26 report by Thomas Joscelyn in The Long War Journal. This rally was an Al Qaida love-fest. Flags floated in the crowd honoring Al Qaida and the crowd chanted: “Obama, Obama! We are all Osama!” The five senior jihadist organizers were simply using the anti-Muslim video to gin up even more outrage and anti-American sentiment. The video was merely an appendage in their greater quest to proclaim, loudly and boldly that “Al Qaida’s ideology lives,” according to the detailed report.

Thus, Mr. Petraeus expressed his dismay on Sept.15 that a key piece of information – the essential context – was omitted. Without this, the talking points were one giant mess.

Yet, if this key piece of information were indeed revealed, the Obama administration would be exposed as having lied about the receding Al Qaida threat around the world. They would also appear to be incompetent in preventing another attack on sovereign American soil, right after having been warned that it might occur.

It was precisely this that Mr. Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were determined to conceal amidst the heated and closely contested 2012 presidential campaign. If they could convince the American people that both the Cairo and Benghazi events were spontaneous, then they could not be accused of failing to prevent the violent outbreaks that occurred.

The truth is now simple, stark and a scathing indictment of the Obama administration: On Sept. 10, the CIA knew that Al Qaida-linked jihadists posed a threat; they were stirring animosity, possibly endangering the American embassy in Cairo.

The Obama administration did not heed the warning of the intelligence community, nor have the good sense to fortify defenses in a “high-risk” outpost such as the consulate in Benghazi. Hence, when jihadists struck in Libya and four Americans died, Mr. Obama and his entourage grasped immediately that if the public understood the correct sequence of events, the Obama team would be lampooned out of office.

Every part of this story reveals the glaring failures of Mr. Obama’s foreign policy: The pro-jihadist rally in Cairo exposed the president as having badly miscalculated from the start of his term. There, in the very place where on June 4, 2009, he had proclaimed “a new beginning” for America and the Muslim world, terrorists now spewed hatred on the United States and celebrated Osama bin Laden as their champion and hero. And they also continued to threaten imminent violence.

In addition, the emails and cables the intelligence community had sent, warning of danger to a U.S. embassy on Sept. 11, 2012 (even if it was that in Cairo) should have put every security team in every American outpost on high alert for a possible strike, with contingency plans in place to counterattack and rescue Americans who might be in harm’s way. By contrast, Mr. Obama’s staff was caught completely flat-footed when jihadists struck in Benghazi.

When terrorists attacked in Libya, U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens called his second-in-command, Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks and said, “Greg, we are under attack.” Mr. Hicks, as he testified in a May 8 congressional hearing, then called Mrs. Clinton and relayed that the U.S. diplomatic mission was besieged. And somewhere, somehow, as the horror unfolded, in the middle of that fateful night, an evil order to “stand down” was issued. A military rescue would not even be attempted. For the dark secret had to be preserved at all costs. If Americans had to die, so be it. In other words, the plot to conceal Mr. Obama’s glaring failures was concocted.

Thus, Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty became four casualties in the glorious cause of the re-election of the very man whose entire foreign policy had just gone up in smoke.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
White House: ‘Irrelevant Fact’ Where Obama Was During Benghazi – The Blaze

Senior White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer said Sunday it’s an “irrelevant fact” where exactly President Barack Obama was while the Benghazi attack was unfolding.

Pfeiffer told “Fox News Sunday” that Obama was “kept up to date on this as it was happening” last September, “from the moment it started until the very end.”

But host Chris Wallace, who had asked what specifically Obama did during the night of the deadly assault, said Pfeiffer didn’t answer his question.

Pfeiffer said Obama “was in constant touch that night with his national security team” and repeated that he “was kept up to date with the events that were happening.”

Wallace asked whether Obama was in the White House Situation Room.

“I don’t remember what room the president was in on that night. That’s a largely an irrelevant fact,” Pfeiffer replied. “The premise of your question is that somehow there was something that could have been done differently and would have changed the outcome here. The accountability review board has looked at this, people have looked at it. It’s a horrible tragedy what happened and what we have to do is make sure it never happens again.”

Continuing to press the point, Wallace said “no one knows where he was or how he was involved.”

“The suggestion of your question that somehow the president – ” Pfeiffer began.

“I just want to know what the answer is,” Wallace said.

“The assertions from Republicans here that somehow the president allowed this to happen or didn’t take action is offensive,” Pfeiffer said. “It is absolutely offensive. And there’s no evidence to support it.”

“I’m simply asking a question,” Wallace said. “Where was he? What did he do? How did he respond – who told him you can’t deploy forces and what was his response to that?”

Pfeiffer repeated, “The president was in the White House that day, he was kept up to date by his national security team, he spoke to the secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs earlier, and as events unfolded he was kept up to date.”

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Bombshell: Obama Chief Of Staff Daley Briefed On Solyndra Concerns Six Months Before Bankruptcy

Bombshell: Obama Chief Of Staff Daley Briefed On Solyndra Concerns Six Months Before Bankruptcy – Hot Air

The Solyndra scandal took a big step up the ladder today, as ABC News uncovers new evidence that shows fears over a collapse reached all the way into the West Wing.

An OMB analyst tried to raise red flags on the Obama administration’s attempt to rescue the now-bankrupt green-tech firm, before the Department of Energy rejected her advice and restructured the loans in March 2011, which illegally subordinated taxpayers in case of default. An e-mail from Kelly Colyar in August 2011 reminded recipients that she had predicted that very scenario – and that White House chief of staff had been briefed on her warning in February, before the restructuring:

Buried in the treasure trove of White House emails related to Solyndra released Thursday by the House Energy and Commerce Committee is one suggesting that concerns about Solyndra’s viability were shared all the way up to then-White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley a full six months before the company went bust…

As Solyndra began sinking for good last August, Colyar sent an email summarizing the events leading to a near total taxpayers loss of the $535 loan.

“You may recall that DOE announced in March that they had restructured the Solyndra loan,” Colyar writes. “Prior to this restructuring, OMB staff expressed reservations about the prospects of the company and DOE’s proposal.”

And here’s the key line: “The issue was discussed with the NEC and the Chief of Staff.”

Oh, my. Until now, the closest this has come to Barack Obama himself was yesterday’s revelation that Rahm Emanuel – Daley’s predecessor – came up with the brilliant idea to tie his boss personally to Solyndra. Emanuel may or may not have been aware that Obama bundler George Kaiser had a significant investment in Solyndra, but I’m guessing he knew that all too well. When Solyndra imploded, Emanuel’s advice ended up backfiring on Obama and leaving him open to charges of crony capitalism.

This, however, is much more serious. This is the first time Obama’s inner circle has been tied to the restructuring and its illegal subordination of those taxpayer loans. If Daley was briefed on the details of that restructuring before it got put in place and it still went forward, one can infer that Daley didn’t raise any objections to it. It’s hard to imagine that Daley would have gone out on that limb without getting approval from the man to whom he directly reported – Barack Obama.

Even without the illegality in subordinating taxpayers, this is still very bad news for Obama. The decision to move forward cost taxpayers an addition $380 million. Did Obama give the personal OK to put that much more at risk on an already-failing company? Again, it’s very difficult to imagine that Daley was making those kinds of calls without checking in with the boss.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

Pentagon Releases Bombshell Report On Economic Terrorism

Pentagon Releases Bombshell Report On Economic Terrorism – National Conservative Examiner

Yesterday the Pentagon released a bombshell report on economic terrorism which suggests that the 2008 meltdown in the housing and banking industries in the U.S. may have been helped along by terrorists who manipulate global finance. The report on its face is disturbing and portrays a nation that is highly vulnerable to cyber attack from terrorists who can cause a run on world banks by merely suggesting that certain large financial firms are ‘unstable.’

But perhaps what is even more disturbing than the information itself is the release date of the report. Entitled, ‘Economic Warfare: Risks and Responses,’ the report was issued in 2009 after a six month study of the evidence. For two years the Pentagon sat on the report, withholding vital information from the public concerning an aspect of global terror that is becoming more of a threat with each passing day.

This begs the question, why now? Why is it that the Pentagon suddenly considers the report to be of such critical importance that someone within the agency made the decision to release it to the public?

During yesterday’s broadcast of the Glenn Beck Show on Fox News, the host asked the very same question. ‘Someone at the Pentagon,’ said Beck, ‘believes that the information contained in the report is now so vital to our security that he or she felt the need to release it to the public.’

And, if the information contained in the report is true, then there is much cause for alarm, indeed.

The report concludes that untraceable sources unleashed a three-pronged attack on the U.S. with the ultimate goal of collapsing the entire American system of capitalism and banking, taking down our way of life with it.

In 2007, according to the report, the first phase of the attack was launched which involved the deliberate inflation of oil prices. During that year the price of oil skyrocketed to $140 dollars per barrel. Contrary to the misguided notion of commentators such as Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, the price spike did not primarily benefit American oil companies. Instead the beneficiaries were the oil producing nations, particularly those in the Middle East that follow Shariah Compliant Finance.

The second phase of the attack was launched by untraceable sources that attacked financial corporations such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers in what is known as a ‘bear raid’–a term that denotes the deliberate forcing down of the value of a company through false and malicious rumors resulting in a collapse of that company’s stock prices. This created a domino effect that spread around the world, and the prescription that was offered to address it was a government bailout.

A stunning revelation contained in the report is that 2 unnamed and untraceable investors were the number one traders in all financial companies that collapsed or are currently being propped up by the U.S. Government.

A third prong in the attack is a bear raid against the U.S. financial system, using the excuse of America’s unsustainable debt to justify the move to replace the dollar as world’s primary reserve currency. Already the Chinese, the U.N., the Russians, and OPEC nations have called for a new world currency that would replace the dollar.

But who, exactly, would be behind such an attack? Two possibilities are evident. One, Jihadists have made it known for decades that the easiest way to bring down America is to collapse its economic system. The Twin Towers represented exactly that. As a symbol of American capitalism and prosperity, the Twin Towers were a primarly target of Muslim extremists intent on destroying the country. And two, certain elements within the high command of the Chinese Army have expressed the desire for an economic attack on America for at least 12 years, following the publication of a book entitled, ‘Unrestricted Warfare,’ in 1999.

With the current unrest that is sweeping the Middle East and certain states within the U.S., some see the added stress of a coordinated effort to collapse the American economic system as a key component of what is being described as ‘the perfect storm’ out of which the U.S. cannot possibly emerge unscathed.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story