Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
March 30, 2015, 08:09:03 AM
Login with username, password and session length
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
Dog Brothers Public Forum
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
Politics & Religion
Corruption, Skullduggery, and Treason
Topic: Corruption, Skullduggery, and Treason (Read 35135 times)
Kerry's negotiator with Hamas paid $14 million by Qatar!!!
Reply #100 on:
September 17, 2014, 05:26:54 PM »
Because of this post, I have added the word "treason" to the title of this thread
If he loses his job, I'll be impressed and amazed
Reply #101 on:
November 04, 2014, 11:55:54 AM »
Re: Corruption, and Treason
Reply #102 on:
November 04, 2014, 07:48:43 PM »
I would like to know how he "could help you in other ways".
"I know how this works".
So how does it work at the IRS. This guy should be water boarded till he explains.
Obama vs. The American People...
Reply #103 on:
November 18, 2014, 11:16:34 AM »
Obama vs. Us
Posted By Walter Williams On November 18, 2014
Suppose you saw a person driving his car on the wrong side of a highway, against the traffic. Would you call him a stupid and/or incompetent driver? You say, “Williams, what kind of question is that? Of course he’s one or the other!” I’d say, “Hold your horses. What are his intentions?” If the driver’s intentions are to cause highway calamity, one can hardly call his actions stupid or incompetent. Given his intentions, he is wisely acting in a manner to achieve his objectives.
This observation lies at the heart of my colleague Dr. Thomas Sowell’s column last week, in which he says, “Pundits who depict Obama as a weak, lame duck president may be greatly misjudging him, as they have so often in the past.” After suffering an elective trouncing at the polls, President Barack Obama issued Congress an ultimatum, saying that if it doesn’t enact the kind of immigration law that he would like, he will unilaterally issue an executive order to change the nation’s immigration laws. This threat, along with other abuses of his office, is not a sign of presidential stupidity or incompetence.
Obama is doing precisely what he promised during his 2008 presidential campaign, to cheering and mesmerized crowds: “We are going to fundamentally change America” and “We will change America. We will change the world.” Obama is living up to those pledges by subverting our Constitution and adopting the political style of a banana republic dictator. He showed his willingness to ignore the Constitution when he eliminated the work requirement in welfare reform laws enacted during the Clinton administration. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, was enacted by Congress and hence is the law of the land. Obama has used executive orders to change the law on several occasions. Ask yourself whether our Constitution permits the president to unilaterally change a law enacted by Congress. For a president to do so is for him to behave like a banana republic dictator.
As Sowell says, “people who are increasingly questioning Barack Obama’s competence are continuing to ignore the alternative possibility that his fundamental values and imperatives are different from theirs.”
The recent elections, which gave Republicans control of both houses of Congress, clearly indicate a repudiation of much of Obama’s agenda. But the question is whether the Republican majority has the courage to act on that repudiation and stop the president from running roughshod over the Constitution. Because Article 1 of the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse, there is not much a president can do without a budget appropriation. The question is whether Congress has the guts to exercise its power.
We can rightfully condemn the president for picking and choosing which laws of the land he will obey and which he won’t, in violation of the Constitution’s Article 2, but is his administration’s executive branch that much of an exception to the other branches of the federal government — the legislative and judicial branches?
The legislative branch is bound by Article 1 of the Constitution. Section 8 of Article 1 delineates the scope of congressional power to tax and spend. Nowhere within Article 1, Section 8 is Congress granted the authority to tax for at least two-thirds of the federal budget.
The courts are bound by the Constitution’s Article 3. Part of the courts’ responsibility is to ensure that the executive and legislative branches of government uphold the Constitution. In that respect, the courts have been grossly derelict, particularly during and after the New Deal era.
Seeing as all branches of federal government ignore most of the provisions of the Constitution, I think we can safely say that we’ve reached the post-Constitution stage of our history. Washington politicians are not to blame. It’s the American people who’ve lost their love and respect for our Constitution. Washington’s politicians are simply the agents for that contempt.
Last Edit: November 18, 2014, 11:19:40 AM by objectivist1
"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Re: Corruption, and Treason
Reply #104 on:
November 21, 2014, 05:55:15 PM »
Some hopefully good news. 30,000 emails found from Lois Lerner. We can only hope and pray that many copies are made so criminals who work for the left cannot destroy them. If they show links to WH then repubs must start lining up the culprits till they get to Obama.
If case is made he MUST be impeached.
Democrat Lies to Sabotage The War on Terror...
Reply #105 on:
November 24, 2014, 07:23:03 AM »
How Many Lies Have Democrats Told To Sabotage The War on Terror?
Posted By David Horowitz On November 24, 2014
[To order David Horowitz’s new book, “The Black Book of the American Left, Volume III: The Great Betrayal,” click here.]
Start with Obama’s claim that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (or ISIS) is not Islamic. Say what? In fact, the so-called war on terror is clearly a war that Islamic jihadists have declared on us. Yet Obama is so hostile to this war that even the subterfuge “war on terror” was too much for him and he purged it from official government statements and replaced it with “Overseas Contingency Operations,” which describes nothing. Why would he do this? To avoid confronting the actual threat from what is obviously the most dynamic movement in Islam today: the jihadist war to purge the world of infidels and establish a global Islamic state. The same impulse to deny this threat can be seen in the Obama administration’s characterization of domestic acts of Islamic terror like the recent beheading in Oklahoma and the Fort Hood massacre as “workplace violence.”
The origin of the Democratic lies that fog the nature of the war against the Islamists and make us vulnerable to their attacks can be traced to the Democrats’ defection from the war in Iraq, the second front in the so-called “war on terror.” “Bush Lied People Died.” This was the disgusting charge with which progressives and Democrats sought successfully to demonize America’s commander-in-chief and demoralize the nation as it went to war to take down the terrorist-supporting monster regime of Saddam Hussein and eventually defeat Ansar-al-Islam and al-Qaeda in Iraq. In fact, Bush didn’t lie about the reasons for taking on the terrorist regime in Iraq, as the Democrats claimed. Democrats, including senators John Kerry and Diane Feinstein sat on the intelligence committees and had access to every piece of data about Saddam Hussein’s weapons and the reasons for going to war that George Bush did. If they had any doubts about these reasons all they had to do was pick up the phone to CIA director George Tenet – a Bill Clinton appointee – and ask him. The reprehensible claim that Bush lied was concocted by Democrats to justify their defection from a war they had just authorized betraying their country in time of war along with the young men and women they had sent into the battlefield.
The Democrats lied in claiming that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that therefore the war was unnecessary and therefore immoral. This was actually two lies in one. In the first place the decision to go to war wasn’t about Saddam’s possession of weapons of mass destruction. It was about his determination to build and use weapons of mass destruction and his violation of 17 Security Council resolutions designed to stop him from doing just that. Saddam violated all 17 of the UN resolutions, beginning with those that constituted the Gulf War Truce and culminating in the ultimatum to disclose and destroy all his weapons of mass destruction. His defiance of that ultimatum is why we went to war with him.
But it was the second lie – that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction – that the Democrats used to discredit the president and the war we were fighting. In fact, the Saddam regime did have weapons of mass destruction, including a chemical weapons storage plant recently discovered by ISIS along with 2200 rockets filled with deadly Sarin gas. Here’s the report from the Daily News of July 9, 2014:
“A terrorist group bent on turning Iraq into an Islamic state has seized a chemical weapons depot near Baghdad stockpiled with sarin-filled rockets left over from the Saddam Hussein era…. The site, about 35 miles southwest of Baghdad, was once operated by Saddam’s army and is believed to contain 2,500 degraded rockets filled with potentially deadly sarin and mustard gas.”
Not a single Democrat has apologized for the monstrous defamation campaign they conducted around this lie to cripple their president and their country in a time of war.
The Democrats began their sabotage campaign against the war in Iraq in June 2003, claiming that Bush lied when he cited a British report that Saddam was seeking fissionable uranium in Niger for his nuclear weapons program. Two official reports, one by the British and the other by the U.S. Senate confirmed that Bush’s statement was correct, but this was long after the Democrats had so demonized America’s commander-in-chief as a cynical and dangerous liar that his ability to mobilize American citizens to support the war against the Iraqi terrorists was severely damaged. No apologies from Democrats or the media, which abetted their lies, in this case either. Here is a recent testimony about the facts of Saddam’s quest for fissionable yellow cake uranium:
“As someone who led the company that transported 550 metric tons of yellowcake uranium—enough to make fourteen Hiroshima-size bombs—from Saddam’s nuclear complex in the Iraq War’s notorious ‘Triangle of Death’ for air shipment out of the country, I know Baathist Iraq’s WMD potential existed.”
Not content with these lies, the Democrats reached into their Marxist pocket for another. The progressive slogan “No Blood For Oil” was a maliciously false claim designed to undermine the moral basis for the war by accusing President Bush of serving the interests of his Texas oil cronies beginning with Vice President Cheney, former president of Halliburton, instead of the American people. In the Democrats’ telling, evil corporations in the Republicans’ pocket pushed the country into a needless and “imperialist” war that cost thousands of American and Iraqi lives. But the fact is that despite spending trillions of dollars on a war that cost thousands of American lives, America got no oil out of the war in Iraq, which has wound up in the hands of ISIS terrorists and the People’s Republic of China. No apologies for this myth either.
Perhaps the most destructive lie that Democrats have used to sabotage the war against the Islamist fanatics is that fighting terrorists creates more of them. Nancy Pelosi actually told 60 Minutes’ Steve Croft that if America left Iraq the terrorists would leave too. The argument has been used by progressives to oppose a serious military effort to stop ISIS in Syria and Iraq rather than having to fight them here at home. But aggressive pre-emptive war against the terrorists in their homelands rather than ours has the opposite effect as the victory in Iraq showed before Obama undid it.
The six-year retreat of the Obama Administration from the battlefields in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and appeasement of the terrorist state of Iran, has created more terrorists than we have ever seen. The weakness displayed by the chief defender of freedom under the leadership of an anti-American president has been a provocation to terrorists. The terror threat diminished under Bush but has grown dramatically under Obama. That is because fighting terrorists does not produce them. ISIS is able to recruit thousands of new terrorists because Islamist radicals are inspired by what Osama bin Laden called “the strong horse,” by beheadings and the slaughter of Christians without a serious reprisal. This is the face of the evil that confronts us, and we better wake up to that threat before it is too late.
"You have enemies? Good. That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
NY State corruption
Reply #106 on:
January 22, 2015, 11:11:57 AM »
Bharara continues to be my hero. This part is especially important:
"The arrest comes just a day after Silver shared the stage with Gov. Andrew Cuomo during his State of the State address. U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara took over the files of New York's Moreland anti-corruption commission after Cuomo closed it in April."
******NY Assembly Speaker Arrested, Suspected of Graft
by Wochit 1:07 mins
An FBI spokesman says New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, one of the most powerful politicians in the state, has been arrested. The spokesman, Peter Donald, says Silver was taken into custody around 8 a.m. Thursday. Donald declined to discuss the charges Silver is facing. The U.S. attorney’s office is expected to discuss the case later Thursday, and Silver is expected in court. The arrest comes just a day after Silver shared the stage with Gov. Andrew Cuomo during his State of the State address. U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara took over the files of New York's Moreland anti-corruption commission after Cuomo closed it in April. He said in October that investigations into Albany's pay-to-play politics are continuing. The commission and Bharara were looking into lawmakers’ earnings outside their state salaries. Silver’s outside income has long been a subject of discussion and controversy. Last year, he reported making up to $750,000 for legal work, mostly with the trial firm of Weitz & Luxenberg.
Drudge say it ain't so.
Reply #107 on:
January 22, 2015, 11:47:57 AM »
The fact he is Jewish is not lost on me. I thought to myself he 'had' to be Jewish which of course adds to the stereotype of corrupt Jewish shyster. Then on Drudge the first line is "Jewish powerbroker".
If this guy were black would we here "Black"?
If he were Muslim would we here that?
If he were anything else would that have been pointed out?
Michelle my belle
Reply #108 on:
February 12, 2015, 02:00:36 AM »
Columnist Michelle Malkin: "Before the nation’s Food Nanny guilt-trips you into ditching boxed dinners on a frazzled night, know this: The first lady profited from cheese dust before she was against it. ... In June 2005, a few months after her husband was elected to the U.S. Senate, Mrs. Obama snagged a seat on the corporate board of directors of TreeHouse Foods Inc. Currying favor, the food-processing company put her on its audit and nominating and corporate governance committees despite her complete lack of experience or expertise. For her on-the-job training and the privilege of putting her name and face on their literature, the company forked over $45,000 in 2005 and $51,200 in 2006 to Mrs. Obama – as well as 7,500 TreeHouse stock options worth more than $72,000 for each year. Mrs. Obama raked in that easy money thanks to the worldwide conglomerate’s popular product line of powdered non-dairy creamers and sweeteners, hot and cold cereals, evil macaroni and cheese, skillet dinners, powdered gravy and sauce mixes, powdered drink mixes, powdered soup, and puddings. She certainly didn’t look down her nose at milk dust, cheese dust, juice dust, oatmeal dust or broth dust when it came mixed with a healthy paycheck.."
Re: Corruption (and Treason)
Reply #109 on:
February 12, 2015, 08:59:04 AM »
Wasn't she on multiple boards? I am not aware of her having any special expertise or management or business experience.
Re: Corruption (and Treason)
Reply #110 on:
February 12, 2015, 10:56:49 AM »
Quite right; I remember she got $350,000 a year for one year in a job that was created for her and when she left no one replaced her in the position.
There also is the matter of her school buddies scoring a HUGE Obamacare website contract (I want to say well over $100M
) on the website that never worked.
Re: Corruption (and Treason)
Reply #111 on:
February 12, 2015, 11:10:40 AM »
"There also is the matter of her school buddies scoring a HUGE Obamacare website contract (I want to say well over $100M shocked shocked shocked ) on the website that never worked."
Pelosi's husbands company(s) reportedly received one billion in contracts.
Sounds like a grifter to me
Reply #112 on:
February 17, 2015, 12:48:52 PM »
The crat party is replete with them:
The Hillbillary's Most Lucrative Adventure
Reply #113 on:
February 18, 2015, 11:05:18 AM »
Foreign Government Gifts to Clinton Foundation on the Rise
Donations raise ethical questions as Hillary Clinton ramps up expected 2016 bid
By James V. Grimaldi And
Updated Feb. 17, 2015 11:05 p.m. ET
The Clinton Foundation has dropped its self-imposed ban on collecting funds from foreign governments and is winning contributions at an accelerating rate, raising ethical questions as Hillary Clinton ramps up her expected bid for the presidency.
Recent donors include the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia, Germany and a Canadian government agency promoting the Keystone XL pipeline.
In 2009, the Clinton Foundation stopped raising money from foreign governments after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state. Former President Bill Clinton, who ran the foundation while his wife was at the State Department, agreed to the gift ban at the behest of the Obama administration, which worried about a secretary of state’s husband raising millions while she represented U.S. interests abroad.
The ban wasn’t absolute; some foreign government donations were permitted for ongoing programs approved by State Department ethics officials.
The donations come as Mrs. Clinton prepares for an expected run for the Democratic nomination for president, and they raise many of the same ethical quandaries. Since leaving the State Department in early 2013, Mrs. Clinton officially joined the foundation, which changed its name to the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, and has become a prodigious fundraiser as the foundation launched a $250 million endowment campaign, officials said.
A representative for Hillary Clinton referred all questions to the Clinton Foundation.
A spokesman for the Clinton Foundation said the charity has a need to raise money for its many projects, which aim to do such things as improve education, health care and the environment around the world. He also said that donors go through a vigorous vetting process.
One of the 2014 donations comes from a Canadian agency promoting the proposed Keystone pipeline, which is favored by Republicans and under review by the Obama administration. The Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development agency of Canada, a first-time donor, gave between $250,000 and $500,000. The donations, which are disclosed voluntarily by the foundation, are given only in ranges.
One of the agency’s priorities for 2014-2015 was to promote Keystone XL “as a stable and secure source of energy and energy technology,” according to the agency’s website. Mrs. Clinton’s State Department was involved in approving the U.S. government’s initial environmental-impact statement. Since leaving State, Mrs. Clinton has repeatedly declined to comment on Keystone.
The Canadian donation originated from an agency office separate from the one that advocates for Keystone XL, a Foundation spokesman said.
While the Canadian donation didn’t appear in a Clinton Foundation online database of donors until recently, the donation of about $480,000 was announced in June in Cartagena, Colombia, where the program provides job training for youths.
Kirk Hanson, director of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University in California, said the Clintons should immediately reimpose the ban, for the same reasons it was in place while Mrs. Clinton led U.S. foreign policy.
“Now that she is gearing up to run for president, the same potential exists for foreign governments to curry favor with her as a potential president of the United States,” he said.
If she becomes president and deals with these nations, “she can’t recuse herself,” added James Thurber, director of American University’s Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies. “Whether it influences her decision making is questionable, but it is a legitimate thing to focus on by her political opposition.”
The donations weren’t announced by the foundation and were discovered by The Wall Street Journal during a search of donations of more than $50,000 posted on the foundation’s online database. Exactly when the website was updated isn’t clear. The foundation typically updates its website with the previous year’s donations near the beginning of the year. All 2014 donations were noted with asterisks.
At least four foreign countries gave to the foundation in 2013—Norway, Italy, Australia and the Netherlands—a fact that has garnered little attention. The number of governments contributing in 2014 appears to have doubled from the previous year. Since its founding, the foundation has raised at least $48 million from overseas governments, according to a Journal tally.
United Arab Emirates, a first-time donor, gave between $1 million and $5 million in 2014, and the German government—which also hadn’t previously given—contributed between $100,000 and $250,000.
A previous donor, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, has given between $10 million and $25 million since the foundation was created in 1999. Part of that came in 2014, although the database doesn’t specify how much.
The Australian government has given between $5 million and $10 million, at least part of which came in 2014. It also gave in 2013, when its donations fell in the same range.
Qatar’s government committee preparing for the 2022 soccer World Cup gave between $250,000 and $500,000 in 2014. Qatar’s government had previously donated between $1 million and $5 million.
Oman, which had made a donation previously, gave an undisclosed amount in 2014. Over time, Oman has given the foundation between $1 million and $5 million. Prior to last year, its donations fell in the same range.
The Clinton Foundation has set a goal of creating a $250 million endowment, an official said. One purpose was secure the future of the foundation’s programs without having to rely so much on the former president’s personal fundraising efforts, the official said.
The Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Oman donations went to the endowment drive.
Write to James V. Grimaldi at
Integrity in Public Life in the Torah
Reply #114 on:
March 10, 2015, 12:08:54 PM »
Integrity in Public Life Adar 19, 5775 • March 10, 2015
By Rabbi Jonathan Sacks
Print this Page
There is a verse so familiar that we don’t often stop to reflect on what it means. It is the line from the first paragraph of the Shema: “You shall love the L rd your G d with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your me’od.” That last word is usually translated as “strength” or “might.” But Rashi, following the Midrash and Targum translates it as “with all your wealth.”
If so, the verse seems to unintelligible, at least in the order in which it is written. “With all your Life is more important than wealth soul” was understood by the sages to mean, “with your life” if need be. There are times, thankfully very rare indeed, when we are commanded to give up life itself rather than commit a sin or a crime. If that is the case then it should go without saying that we should love G d with all our wealth, meaning, even if it demands great financial sacrifice. Yet Rashi and the sages say that this phrase applies to those “to whom wealth means more than life itself.”
Of course, life is more important than wealth. Yet the sages also knew that, in their words, Adam bahul al mammono,1 meaning: people do strange, hasty, ill-considered and irrational things when money is at stake. Financial gain can be a huge temptation, leading us to acts that harm others and ultimately ourselves. So when it comes to financial matters, especially when public funds are involved, there must be no room for temptation, no space for doubt as to whether it has been used for the purpose for which it was donated. There must be scrupulous auditing and transparency. Without this there is moral hazard: the maximum of temptation combined with the maximum of opportunity.
Hence the parsha of Pekudei, with its detailed account of how the donations to the building of the mishkan were used: “These are the amounts of the materials used for the tabernacle, the tabernacle of the Testimony, which were recorded at Moses' command by the Levites under the direction of Ithamar son of Aaron, the priest.”2 The passage goes on to list the exact amounts of gold, silver and bronze collected, and the purposes to which it was put.
Why did Moses do this? A midrash suggests an answer:
“They gazed after Moses”3– People criticized Moses. They used to say to one another, “Look at that neck. Look at those legs. Moses is eating and drinking what belongs to us. All that he has belongs to us.” The other would reply: “A man who is in charge of the work of the Sanctuary – what do you expect? That he should not get rich?” As soon as he heard this, Moses replied, “By your life, as soon as the Sanctuary is complete, I will make a full reckoning with you.”4
Moses issued a detailed reckoning to avoid coming under suspicion that he had personally appropriated some of the donated money. Note the emphasis that the accounting was undertaken not by Moses himself but “by the Levites under the direction of Ithamar,” in other words, by independent auditors.
There is no hint of these accusations in the text itself, but the Midrash may be based on the remark Moses made during the Korach rebellion, “I have not taken so much as a donkey from them, nor have I wronged any of them.”5 Accusations of corruption and personal enrichment have often been leveled against leaders, with or without justification. We might think that since G d sees all we do, this is enough to safeguard against wrongdoing. Yet Judaism does not say this. The Talmud records a scene at the deathbed of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, as the master lay surrounded by his disciples:
They said to him, “Our master, bless us.” He said to them, “May it be G d's will that the fear of heaven shall be as much upon you as the fear of flesh and blood.” His disciples asked, “Is that all?” He replied, “Would that you obtained no less than such fear! You can see for yourselves the truth of what I say: when a man is about to commit a transgression, he says, I hope no man will see me.”6
When humans commit a sin they worry that other people might see them. They forget that G d certainly sees them. Temptation befuddles the brain, and no one should believe they are immune to it.
When humans sin they worry that others might see
A later passage in Tanakh seems to indicate that Moses’ account was not strictly necessary. The Book of Kings relates an episode in which, during the reign of King Yehoash, money was raised for the restoration of the Temple. “They did not require an accounting from those to whom they gave the money to pay the workers, because they acted with complete honesty.”7 Moses, a man of complete honesty, may thus have acted “beyond the strict requirement of the law.”8
It is precisely the fact that Moses did not need to do what he did, that gives the passage its force. There must be transparency and accountability when it comes to public funds even if the people involved have impeccable reputations. People in positions of trust must be, and be seen to be, individuals of moral integrity. Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law had already said this when he told Moses to appoint subordinates to help him in the task of leading the people. They should be, he said, “Men who fear G d, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain.”9
Without a reputation for honesty and incorruptibility, judges cannot ensure that justice is seen to be done. This general principle was derived by the sages from the episode in the book of Numbers when the Reubenites and Gadites expressed their wish to settle on the far side of the Jordan where the land provided good grazing ground for their cattle (Numbers 32: 1-33). Moses told them that if they did so, they would demoralize the rest of the nation. They would give the impression that they were unwilling to cross the Jordan and fight with their brothers in their battles to conquer the land.
The Reubenites and Gaddites made it clear that they were willing to be in the front line of the troops, and would not return to the far side of the Jordan until the land had been fully conquered. Moses accepted the proposal, saying that if they kept their word, they would be “clear [veheyitem neki’im] before the L rd and before Israel.”10 This phrase entered Jewish law as the principle that “one must acquit oneself before one’s fellow human beings as well as before G d.”11 It is not enough to do right. We must be seen to do right, especially when there is room for rumour and suspicion.
There are several instances in the early rabbinic literature of applications of this rule. So, for example, when people came to take coins for sacrifices from the Shekel Chamber in the Temple, where the money was kept:
They did not enter the chamber wearing either a bordered cloak or shoes or sandals or tefillin or an amulet, lest if he became poor people might say that he became poor because of an iniquity committed in the chamber, or if he became rich people might say that he became rich from the appropriation in the chamber. For it is a person's duty to be free of blame before men as before G d, as it is said: “and be clear before the L rd and before Israel,”12 and it also says: “So shall thou find favor and good understanding in the sight of G d and man.”1314
Those who entered the chamber were forbidden to wear any item of clothing in which they could hide and steal coins. Similarly, when charity overseers had funds left over, they were not permitted to change copper for silver coins of their own money: they had to make the exchange with a third party. Overseers in charge of a soup kitchen were not allowed to purchase surplus food when there were no poor people to whom to distribute it. Surpluses had to be sold to others so as not to arouse suspicion that the charity overseers were profiting from public funds.15
They had to make the exchange with a third party
The Shulkhan Aruch rules that charity collection must always be done by a minimum of two individuals so that each can see what the other is doing.16 There is a difference of opinion between R. Joseph Karo and R. Moshe Isserles on the need to provide detailed accounts. R. Joseph Karo rules on the basis on the passage in II Kings – “They did not require an accounting from those to whom they gave the money to pay the workers, because they acted with complete honesty” – that no formal accounting is required from people of unimpeachable honesty. R. Moshe Isserles however says that it is right to do so because of the principle, “Be clear before the L rd and before Israel.”17
Trust is of the essence in public life. A nation that suspects its leaders of corruption cannot function effectively as a free, just and open society. It is the mark of a good society that public leadership is seen as a form of service rather than a means to power, which is all too easily abused. Tanakh is a sustained tutorial in the importance of high standards in public life. The prophets were the world’s first social critics, mandated by G d to speak truth to power and to challenge corrupt leaders. Elijah’s challenge to King Ahab, and the protests of Amos, Hosea, Isaiah and Jeremiah against the unethical practices of their day, are classic texts in this tradition, establishing for all time the ideals of equity, justice, honesty and integrity. A free society is built on moral foundations, and those must be unshakable.
Moses’ personal example, in giving an accounting of the funds that had been collected for the first collective project of the Jewish people, set a vital precedent for all time.
Tanchuma, Buber, Pekudei, 4.
II Kings 12:16.
A key concept in Jewish law (see, e.g. Berakhot 7a, 45b, Baba Kamma 99b), meaning supererogation, doing more, in a positive sense, than the law requires.
Mishnah, Shekalim 3: 2.
Mishnah, Shekalim 3: 2.
Shulkhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 257: 1.
Shulkhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 257: 2.
Ted Kennedy ask the Soviets to intervene in 1984 elections here.
Reply #115 on:
March 10, 2015, 06:28:09 PM »
REv. Al's hot hands
Reply #116 on:
March 11, 2015, 12:48:34 PM »
Sorry about the formatting here, it will be easier to read at
Blogs Authors Topics Magazine Subscribe Login Suspicious Fires Twice Destroyed Key Sharpton Records By Jillian Kay Melchior That Iran letter, &c., by Jay Nordlinger, And he didn’t comply with tax and campaign filing requirements.
As Al Sharpton ran for mayor of New York City in 1997 and for president in 2003, fires at his offices reportedly destroyed critical financial records, and he subsequently failed to comply with tax and campaign filing requirements. The first fire began in the early hours of April 10, 1997, in a hair-and-nail salon one floor below Sharpton’s campaign headquarters at 70 West 125th Street. From the start, investigators deemed the fire “suspicious” because of “a heavy volume of fire on arrival” and because many of the doors remained unlocked after hours, according to the New York Fire Department’s fire-and-incident report. As the fire crept upward into Sharpton’s headquarters, it destroyed nearly everything, including computers, files, and campaign records, the Reverend’s spokesperson at the time told Newsday, adding that “we have lost our entire Manhattan operation.”
But a source knowledgeable about the investigation tells National Review Online that Sharpton’s office was mostly empty, and that the damage was not extensive. Top city officials, including then-mayor Rudy Giuliani, said initial suspicions centered on the hair-and-nail salon, not on Sharpton’s campaign, Newsday reported. The fire department sent the case as an arson/explosion investigation to the New York Police Department. By the time of publication of this report, the NYPD had not provided the records requested by National Review Online on December 16, 2014, but it confirmed that the investigation had been closed without an arrest. More Al Sharpton How the Obama-Sharpton Alliance Began Eric Garner's Daughter: Al Sharpton 'All About the Money' Busted FDNY’s report references a “flammable liquid,” and firefighters’ photos of the scene show traces of an incendiary puddle.
Another photo captures what appears to be a singed rag that someone is holding next to a fuse box, perhaps because that is where it was found. But a 2003 Newsday article says “the 1997 fire started when a curling iron overheated in an adjoining beauty parlor.” NRO could find no other sources referencing a curling iron as the cause, and the fire department’s reports make no mention of it, either. View slideshow of FDNY fire investigations As the mayoral campaign continued, Sharpton missed tax and campaign disclosure deadlines. The 1997 fire occurred five days before Tax Day and, the New York Post reported, “just after Sharpton announced that he would open his financial records.” After the fire, Sharpton said he would seek an extension because crucial financial records had been destroyed. It’s unclear whether that extension was granted. In July 1997, Sharpton also missed the deadline to file his personal financial-disclosure forms with the New York City Conflict of Interests Board, violating a legal requirement and risking a fine of up to $10,000. He said the destruction of records in the fire had prevented him from filing. When Sharpton finally filed a year later, in July 1998 — months after the November 4, 1997 elections — he paid a $100 late fee.
It’s unclear what information his filing did or did not contain; in accordance with Section 12-110(f) of the administrative code, the board shredded Sharpton’s financial-disclosure forms more than a decade ago. More Al Sharpton How the Obama-Sharpton Alliance Began Eric Garner's Daughter: Al Sharpton 'All About the Money' Busted During the campaign, Sharpton criticized his opponents for having a “penthouse mentality,” calling one a “limousine liberal.” But while his competitors had voluntarily released their income-tax returns to the media, Sharpton had not even filed his yet, much less publicly disclosed them, Newsday noted. He finally filed his tax returns on August 15, publicly offering only estimates of his earnings that year, which he said were between $50,000 and $60,000. A New York Daily News report a few weeks later alleged that Sharpton owed $100,000 in overdue federal and state taxes and fines, reportedly prompting him to finally release his tax records. A federal tax lien assessed in 2005 also estimated that Sharpton’s nonprofit, National Action Network, owed more than $15,000 for 1997. In early September 1997, the New York City Campaign Finance Board cited Sharpton for accepting political contributions in excess of the limits established in the Campaign Finance Act, the New York Daily News reported.
Six years later, on January 23, 2003 — one day after Sharpton filed paperwork to create a presidential exploratory committee — another fire caused heavy damage at National Action Network, located at 1941 Madison Avenue. (The Federal Election Commission (FEC) later determined that Sharpton had actually become a candidate no later than October 2002, although, contrary to law, he had not filed his statement of candidacy until April 2003.) The battalion chief who responded to the fire initially coded it as suspicious. On the fire-and-incident report, the cause of fire is designated as “NFA [Not Fully Ascertained] — Heat from electrical equipment (Extension Cords).” But by the evening of January 24, the chief fire marshal told the New York Times that “both an eyewitness account and a physical examination by fire marshals point to the cause as accidental.”
Nevertheless, significant oddities surrounded both the fire and the investigation, and the story of the key eyewitness had some holes that were apparently never addressed. James Kelty, a supervising fire marshal who responded to the 2003 fire, tells NRO he was unexpectedly relieved from the fire investigation. “I was on the fire, and then I wasn’t on the fire; I was on the fire scene, and then I was no longer at the fire scene,” he says, adding that it was unusual. When NRO told him that the investigative report was only six pages long and accompanied by 38 photographs, Kelty said: “Big fires and fires involving prominent people are generally much more exhaustive. Thirty-eight photos are a drop in the bucket, especially given Sharpton’s notoriety and given the fact that he was running for U.S. president.” View slideshow of FDNY fire investigations According to the fire-and-incident report, a maintenance man named J. D. Livingston discovered the fire. (His name is listed in the report as both Joseph Dennis Livingstone and Joseph D. Livingston.) Livingston, who immigrated to the United States from Guyana, died in March 2014. U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement confirmed to NRO that he was living in the U.S. illegally after overstaying his visa, though it’s unclear when it expired. Carl Redding, who worked with Sharpton but publicly criticized him after a personal falling out, tells me Sharpton paid Livingston under the table. “I always heard that he was unofficially homeless and ended up living at the [National Action] Network,” Redding says.
Another source close to Sharpton described Livingston as a good man who was fiercely loyal to, and heavily dependent on, Sharpton. He said he saw Sharpton pay Livingston in cash, and also alleged that Livingston was living in the office of National Action Network. In an interview with NRO, Sharpton says Livingston “did some side work with me, and that’s all that I’m willing to say about someone deceased.” He adds: “I didn’t pay anyone under the table. Under what table?” Sharpton says Livingston’s wages were reported and covered in a tax repayment. He refused to show NRO any proof, saying he would “absolutely not” give records for “someone who’s deceased and can’t give permission.” As for Livingston living at National Action Network, Sharpton says, “not to my knowledge.” According to the fire-and-incident report, Livingston’s interview with fire investigators occurred “in the presence of his attorney, Michael Hardy,” who is also Sharpton’s longtime lawyer. Kelty, the fire marshal who was at the scene initially, tells me that it’s routine for fire marshals to speak with maintenance men or superintendents to collect information about the building. He also said it’s critically important for fire investigators to speak to the first person at the scene of a fire — in this case, Livingston. Kelty adds, “I could probably count on my hand — and have fingers left over — how many times I have talked to a superintendent or maintenance worker and had an attorney there. It’s just extremely unusual.”
The FDNY report recounts the story Livingston told the fire investigators in the first of two interviews: [Livingston] states that he is an employee of the Reverend Al Sharpton and arrived at work at approx. 7:55 a.m. He states that the downstairs doors were unlocked when he arrived and that wasn’t unusual. He then went upstairs where he unlocked the door to the office. He then entered and immediately locked the door behind him. He states that he went down the hall to check that area and turn on the lights. He then went back into the reception area and entered the Main Speaking Hall to plug in his cell phone. He then went through the reception area to Rev. Sharpton’s Office to check it and turn the lights on. He said that when he left his office, he closed the door. He then states that he went to the bathroom area that was down the hall to start replenishing the bathroom supplies. While doing that he said he heard a noise coming from the reception room and thought it might be Rev. Sharpton’s secretary (Sylvia Matthews) knocking on the door. He states he checked the office entrance door, but no one was there. He then noticed smoke and fire on the floor next to the reception desk. He then went into the stairwell and began banging on the gate that leads upstairs to let whoever was up there know that there was a fire. He then went downstairs to warn them in the restaurant and asked [cook] Rapica Persaud to call 911. A couple of potential inconsistencies stick out: First, Livingston says it “wasn’t unusual” for the downstairs doors to be unlocked — even though the office was in a relatively high-crime neighborhood, and even though Livingston in the rest of his account describes unlocking and relocking a door within the office. Livingston’s account also puts him in the reception area where at least four times he says the fire started. Livingston told the cook downstairs to call 911 at approximately 8:15 a.m., the report says. The report places the incident time as 8:29; the FDNY prides itself on arriving at fires within minutes of a 911 call, and the report makes no mention of any delay in response. In other words, Livingston’s account suggests that he must have caught the fire almost immediately, given that he had been back and forth through the reception area so frequently that morning. The report also makes no mention of Livingston’s trying to extinguish the fire. Both the photos and the report indicate that the blaze had grown massive — in discussing them, Kelty described it as a “well-progressed, rapidly advanced fire” — by the time firefighters arrived. According to the fire report, the first firefighter upstairs saw “the second floor entrance door was left open with heavy fire showing in the reception room. He then states that he immediately closed the door to contain the fire while his company was stretching the line. He also states that they then knocked the fire down in the reception area and then proceeded to the main hall where there was also a heavy volume of fire.”
Discussing the interviews with both Livingston and the first firefighter on the scene, Kelty says: “These interviews are not consistent. Usually, any maintenance person or any super, if an incident like this did occur — they notice that there’s some kind of fire by the reception area. They’d normally tell you they’d rush to try to get something to put the fire out, still call the fire department, but try to extinguish the fire. Regardless, we’re normally there around four to five minutes after the transmission of a fire alarm, and we have a heavy volume of fire upon arrival at National Action Network. That’s not normal fire behavior. To me, it strikes me as odd. It doesn’t mean that could not have happened, but it’s unusual.”
Another source close to Sharpton says: It’s very fishy. It doesn’t make sense, and it never made sense. The fact that Livingston was living there — I think probably Sharpton or somebody in that camp said, “Just make this a fire.” After the fires, there was a lot of discussion about, “We can’t do this,” asking for delays because our paperwork was there in the filing cabinets, and they allegedly got destroyed. A lot of pertinent paperwork and accounting stuff was there. Now, everyone who knew J.D. knew that he was a great individual and a nice human being, but I also think he was desperate, in the sense that he needed Sharpton to survive. And that makes me concerned that if you have that kind of reliance on an individual, maybe things went awry. (By his death, Livingston had risen to become a producer for Gary Byrd’s radio show and a beloved community activist, known for ending conversations with “thank you for your kindness,” according to affectionate obituaries and tributes online.)
Though the chief fire marshal later told reporters the investigators had ruled out arson, suspicions still abounded in the neighborhood, according to news accounts. “The fact that a day after [Sharpton] announces he’s running for president his place burns down?” one National Action Network member told the New York Times. “I don’t buy it. They couldn’t sell me on that.” “It was accidentally on purpose,” the New York Times quoted another neighbor saying, adding that his comments “echo[ed] the sentiments of nearly every person interviewed near the burned-out headquarters of the National Action Network.” Another bystander said, “I just have the feeling that something more is going on. I don’t believe the excuse they gave. Even if it was the power cord, someone could have hooked up the cord to set the place on fire.” It’s unclear whether most of these spectators thought the fire was an attack against Al Sharpton or an inside job.
Even Sharpton himself seemed to hint at arson, according to news reports of a church service he held at the Metropolitan Community United Methodist Church days after the fire. “They can burn up buildings, but they didn’t burn down the dream, and the dreamers are still here,” Sharpton said, according to a Newsday report. “It will take more than a fire to in any way quell the desire we have to give new leadership and new direction to this country.” Newsday also noted that after the sermon, “Sharpton said he had raised $12,000 in cash and an additional $13,000 in pledges.” At a January 25 rally, SEIU Local 1199 donated $25,000 and supplied office space for National Action Network, The Final Call reported, and the Nation of Islam also gave $1,000. “Sharpton raised several thousand dollars,” the article says. As National Action Network raised money to rebuild, Sharpton continued his presidential campaign, violating several laws, many of which were related to poor record-keeping and book-keeping, according to an April 2009 FEC conciliation agreement. The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) filed two complaints with the FEC, helping trigger an investigation into Sharpton’s presidential campaign. The FEC later found that both National Action Network and other entities had illegally paid for travel expenses incurred by Sharpton’s campaign, in part because “Sharpton 2004 kept poor records of its activities and expenditures.” The FEC’s conciliation agreement says that $65,000 in campaign expenses charged to Sharpton’s personal credit card came from unknown sources. It also says an additional $209,677 in unreported in-kind contributions came from Sharpton’s for-profit entity Rev. Al’s Productions. (In 2004, Sharpton told the New York Times that Rev. Al’s Productions was a subsidiary of another one of his entities, Rev. Al’s Communications.) Rev. Al’s Productions, as well as another company called Sharpton Media Group, were “two unincorporated wholly owned, sole proprietorships founded by Sharpton” that “serves as vehicles for Sharpton’s entrepreneurial activities and has no staff, maintains no overhead, and pays all of their profits to Sharpton in the form of dividends, which he claims as income in his personal tax filings,” according to the conciliation agreement. So who was paying Rev. Al’s Communications money that eventually ended up at the campaign? That’s unclear, because Sharpton’s lawyer Michael Hardy said that the fire had destroyed honorarium records for the company. The National Legal and Policy Center suggested in its complaint to the FEC that some of the money may have come from two affluent Sharpton campaign supporters, La-Van Hawkins and his wife, Wendy. The FEC later determined that, in addition to giving the maximum $2,000-per-person donation, Wendy and La-Van had flown Sharpton to Atlanta on a private jet owned by their company, Hawkins Food Group, and thrown him a lavish fundraising event there, featuring crab cakes, beef tenderloin, and $200 bottles of Cristal. The FEC determined that this amounted to more than $10,750 in prohibited in-kind contributions from the Hawkins and Hawkins Food Group. Though the FEC did not address this issue in its conciliation agreement, the NLPC also claimed that Hawkins Food Group had given Sharpton a $25,000 consulting fee before the fire. And in 2008, La-Van Hawkins told the New York Post from a South Dakota federal prison, where he’d been sent for attempted bribery, that he had given both a $25,000 annual consulting fee to Sharpton and “over $1 million” to National Action Network. “There was nothing disclosed by the Sharpton campaign to describe the type of ‘consulting’ Sharpton may have provided Mr. Hawkins’ company in return for the $25,000 payment,” the NLPC wrote. “Perhaps the contract and supporting documents were lost in the fire. . . . The payment by an individual who subsequently became a major donor and then some to Sharpton’s campaign is all the more questionable given the statement by the Sharpton campaign that records for some of his ‘consulting’ work were destroyed in a fire which also destroyed other records about honoraria and income earned by Sharpton.”
New York State eventually dissolved Rev. Al’s Communications in 2009 for failure to pay taxes. From its 1999 founding to 2002, the for-profit entity either failed to file or failed to pay taxes, and by January 2003, the company had managed to run up more than $226,000 in tax debt, according to federal liens. In 2002, the year before the fire, New York had also dissolved Sharpton’s other company, Raw Talent, for tax problems; it owed $589,453 in federal taxes and $4,834 in state taxes, according to a 2007 lien and New York tax warrants. Meanwhile, Delaware dissolved Sharpton Media Group in 2007 for failure to file tax records, though the entity remains active in New York despite state corporate law. National Action Network’s annual tax filings show Sharpton Media Group had loaned the nonprofit tens of thousands of dollars. As Sharpton ran for president, he submitted several FEC filings late. One of them, filed in July 2003, revealed that the IRS had opened a federal tax audit into Sharpton, examining his finances throughout the 1990s, according to a July 12, 2003, New York Times report.
It was not the first time Sharpton had been under scrutiny; in 1990, he was acquitted of 67 counts, including larceny and fraud. Three years later, he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor after failing to file state income taxes, with the state dropping two felony charges in exchange, the New York Times reported. The IRS investigation lasted for years, and Sharpton continued to cite the fires in connection with it, according to a New York Daily News report. The paper noted that “Sharpton and [National Action Network] owe several million dollars in back taxes, but Sharpton attributed the problem to a fire at his Harlem headquarters that destroyed many records.” By 2008, the IRS dropped its criminal probe, reaching a settlement with Sharpton and his entities of “between $2 million and $9 million,” the New York Daily News reported. Based on the NLPC complaints, the FEC eventually reached two conciliation agreements with Sharpton. It fined him $5,500 for failing to file his statements of candidacy on time, and an additional $208,000 for violating campaign-finance laws by “failing to file complete and accurate reports disclosing all of the Committee’s receipts and expenditures” and “knowingly accepting excessive and prohibited in-kind contributions.” It also fined National Action Network and Sharpton $77,000 for making prohibited contributions to his campaign. The FEC’s latter conciliation agreement notes that it “does not establish or mean that any of the violations were knowing and willful.” Sharpton tells NRO that as part of the settlement with both the IRS and the FEC, “whatever was lost [in the fires] was reconstructed through bank records and whatever else they required. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have made an agreement.” The IRS settlement is not public record, and the conciliation agreement makes no mention of records lost in the fire and subsequently reconstructed. Sharpton also says he did not recall whether he received insurance payments for either fire. “Whatever we got, we got,” he says. “I have no idea.” But some of Sharpton’s former confidants still have questions about the fires and the records they destroyed. “It was always suspicious — it was always suspicious, to this day,” says Carl Redding, the former Sharpton staffer who has publicly criticized him. He adds: “All I could do was just go by whatever the police reports would say. . . . It always seemed like it just died out. There was never any serious questions raised about what happened” in both fires. Then again, it has happened before that two accidental fires hit the same establishment, says Joe Sesniak, a public-information officer for the International Association of Arson Investigators. From just fire-and-incident reports, he says, it’s hard to draw a conclusion. “Some people, if they didn’t have bad luck, they’d have no luck at all,” Sesniak says. “But sometimes, well, it’s not really a coincidence. Knowing what caused the fire depends on the nature of the investigation, the level of training, and the experience of the investigators.” So is Sharpton simply unlucky? “I would say,” Sharpton tells NRO, “that you could speak to people that would certainly, whoever they are, could have their views.”
Read more at:
lawlessness and treason!
Reply #117 on:
March 20, 2015, 08:47:08 PM »
Have we ever had such a blatantly lawless president ever before?
Re: Corruption, Skullduggery, and Treason
Reply #118 on:
March 20, 2015, 10:41:30 PM »
Better for the Rule of Law thread.
SEn. Feinstein's husband wins big CA contract
Reply #119 on:
March 23, 2015, 09:27:59 PM »
Hubby benefits from Pelosi's actions
Reply #120 on:
March 23, 2015, 09:31:04 PM »
Please select a destination:
DBMA Martial Arts Forum
=> Martial Arts Topics
Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
=> Politics & Religion
=> Science, Culture, & Humanities
=> Espanol Discussion
Powered by SMF 1.1.19
SMF © 2013, Simple Machines