Saturday, September 17, 2016

Why the Clinton Foundation is One, Gigantic Scam (more on the 5.7% charity money) ^ | 9/17/2016 | rick moran 

According to tax returns filed by the Clinton Foundation, only 5.7% of the funds raised actually went to charitable organizations. The rest went to salaries and benefits for employees and "other expenses."
A well run charity spends only about 25% on administrative costs.
Daily Caller:
The Clinton Foundation spent a hair under $91.3 million in 2014, the organization’s IRS filings show. But less than $5.2 million of that went to charitable grants.
That number pales in comparison to the $34.8 million the foundation spent on salaries, compensation and employee benefits.
Another $50.4 million was marked as “other expenses,” while the remaining almost $851K was marked as “professional fundraising expenses.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama Sends Mexico $75 Million to Help Build a Border Wall to Keep Out (Cent. American) Illegals [Hypocrisy much?]

Young Conservatives ^ | September 17, 2016 | John S. Roberts 

Turns out Barack Obama isn’t all that against building a border wall to keep out illegals after all.

Thing is, he wants illegals to enter America, he’s just not okay with them entering Mexico.
Looks like the U.S. is giving our neighbors to the south $75 million so they can build their own wall to protect themselves from Central American invaders.
From Conservative Tribune:
One of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s talking points in his campaign has that he wants to protect our borders. He wants to secure the American people from the dangers of illegal immigration and strengthen those borders by building a wall.
However, it seems that President Barack Obama wanted to do one lasting thing before leaving office, so he gifted Mexico $75 million … to help the Mexicans build a wall to improve their border security.
According to a Financial Times story cited by Newsmax, Mexico wanted to stop people from Central American countries like Guatemala from entering their country via its southern border.
More from Newsmax:
A Financial Times story details Mexico’s role in stopping people from getting into its country from Guatemala. A reported 175,000 Central Americans were deported from Mexico in 2015 (a 68 percent jump from 2014), and so far in 2016 that number is approaching 100,000.
The Times claims the U.S. is sending Mexico $75 million in the form of equipment and training to help shore up its southern border. Ultimately, some of the Central American migrants wind up at America’s southern doorstep. Stopping them from entering Mexico is the first line of defense.
A U.S. Border Patrol agent said earlier this year the U.S. should borrow a page out of Mexico’s security playbook and strengthen its border defenses and deport more illegals when they arrive.
Hypocrisy much?

The Greediest People in America Are Liberal Democrats ^ | September 17, 2016 | John Hawkins 

The perfect place to start a column like this is with that notorious Elizabeth Warren quote that made liberals fall in love with her.

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Have you ever noticed how many straw men and false assumptions there are in those few short sentences?

For one thing, since roughly 45% of Americans pay no income taxes at all, “the rest of us” didn’t pay for roads, education, police forces or a military. Of course, that doesn’t even tell the whole story because 60% of American households receive more from the government than they pay in taxes. In other words, if you pay more in taxes than you receive from the government, you are a MINORITY in America today.
As someone who’s probably not going to be in the top 1% of income earners this year (The year’s not over yet and I’m an optimist!), but who pays a lot more in taxes than I receive in government services, let me just note that I APPRECIATE those 1%ers who are paying nearly half of all federal income taxes. Real world, if you add it all up, most of these people are paying somewhere around 50% of their net income in taxes. The ones that aren’t typically are paying a capital gains tax which should be called the, “We’re going to hit you again on the money you already paid on once because we can” tax.

The reason I appreciate them is that there are so many people who aren’t paying a dime in income tax toward the good of the nation. If those of us who are paying more in taxes than we take in government services aren’t “paying our fair share,” then what about the people who aren’t paying any income tax at all?

I’m greedy because I don’t want to pay any more in taxes? No, greed is wanting to take government services paid for by everyone else without paying ANYTHING for them. Didn’t those people take the same road to Wal-Mart as the rest of us? Weren’t schools made available to them? Didn’t the police protect them, too? So, why shouldn’t they be paying SOME TOKEN INCOME TAX for that when liberals like Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have the gall to accuse other people of not paying their “fair share?”

I will acknowledge that ALL AMERICANS, myself included, SHOULD have to pay something for the roads, street signs, police, the military and other commonly used utilities. But, why should I have to pay for Planned Parenthood, Obamacare and bank bailouts that I oppose 100%? Why should I have to pay for PBS? For the disability and welfare fraud that the government seems to no longer care about preventing? To school the kids of illegal aliens who shouldn’t be in this country in the first place? Sure, no matter how small the government may be, there will always be some programs that are controversial, but what happens when the majority of federal spending is on programs a taxpayer opposes or must be forced to participate in? That’s where many of us are in America today; yet we’re still called “greedy” and told that we should be happy to pay even more of our tax dollars to a corrupt, incompetent government that regularly works against our interests.

Well, let me tell you something: That’s not GREED.

GREED is accusing OTHER PEOPLE of not paying their “fair share” when you’re living off their money and not paying any income tax at all.

GREED is forgoing giving money to charity because you support a government program that gives OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY to the poor – and, yes, studies do show that conservatives give more to charity than liberals.

GREED is bringing in large numbers of immigrants and illegals who are taking some form of welfare because you think they’ll vote for you.

GREED is saying, “We’re going to campaign by asking people to give us their votes in return for programs you oppose that we’re going to create with YOUR MONEY.”

If you want to find the GREEDIEST people in America, just turn on C-SPAN the next time Congress is in session and look at the liberal Democrats.

Just 5.7 Percent Of Clinton Foundation Budget Actually Went To Charitable Grants

The Daily Caller ^ | 09/16/2016 | Peter Hasson 

Just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s massive 2014 budget actually went to charitable grants, according to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filings. The rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and “other expenses.”
The Clinton Foundation spent a hair under $91.3 million in 2014, the organization’s IRS filings show. But less than $5.2 million of that went to charitable grants.
That number pales in comparison to the $34.8 million the foundation spent on salaries, compensation and employee benefits.
Another $50.4 million was marked as “other expenses,” while the remaining almost $851K was marked as “professional fundraising expenses.”
Despite taking in an additional $30 million in 2014, the Clinton Foundation spent 40 percent less on charitable grants in 2014 than in 2013. Even as it slashed charitable spending, the foundation increased the amount spent on salaries, employee benefits and compensation by $5 million in 2014. The foundation also spent $5 million more “other expenses” in 2014.
Sean Davis at The Federalist notes, “the bulk of the charitable work lauded by the Clinton Foundation’s boosters — the distribution of drugs to impoverished people in developing countries — is no longer even performed by the Clinton Foundation. Those activities were spun off in 2010 and are now managed by the Clinton Health Access Initiative, a completely separate non-profit organization.”
As first reported by The Daily Caller, the IRS launched an investigation into the Clinton Foundation this past July after 64 House Republicans called the foundation a “lawless ‘pay-to-play’ enterprise that has been operating under a cloak of philanthropy for years and should be investigated” in a letter to the IRS, FBI and Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Obama blocks release of DHS Report: DHS captures 50, not 80 percent of illegals

American Thinker ^ | September 17, 2016 | J. Marsolo 

On September 15, 2016, Malia Zimmerman and William Lajeunesse of Fox News reported that the Obama Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is refusing to release a report on the number of illegal aliens who cross the southern border. DHS claims that it catches 80% of those who cross illegally, but the report supposedly says DHS captures only 50%. Moreover, DHS refuses to release this report because Obama has blocked release.

According to Fox News:

If released by the Obama administration, the true numbers could have major implications in the current presidential race, in which illegal immigration and border security have become a key issue, say observers.
One source familiar with the report told Fox News that DHS is suppressing the report for "political reasons ... because it would 'look bad' and 'help elect Donald Trump.'"
(Excerpt) Read more at ...