Crazydog7 Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 Also, Rand Paul is not actually filibustering anything since unless he talks till tomorrow, his speaking in no way impedes the vote. But it makes for great political theater among the sort who use the words "Dr Paul" like they are playing a drinking game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reny of Storms End Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 So was there any significance to what happened after Rand Paul stopped talking last night? They began a roll call, and then at like 11:55pm a Senator from Louisiana appeared out of nowhere and quickly read a bunch of stuff that Marco Rubio approved as presiding officer. If anyone saw it, and could explain it to me, I'd appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin of Ice Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 So, it turns out that the same billionaire that gave Marco Rubio's campaign 10 million dollars recently employs his wife part time at a cancer charity. For this part time job she earns $54,000 a year. The money the charity gave out in 2011? $250. In a profile of Jeanette Rubio we reported how the charity she works for paid her at least $54,000 in 2013. But another figure stands out: $250. That’s how much the Braman Family 2011 Charitable Foundation gave out that year, the most recent year for which form 990s are available. The charity reported assets worth more than $9 million, and its lone donation went to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation in New York.In an interview last week, Debi Wechsler, who is Norman Braman’s daughter and works on the charity, said that was a time when her parents were doing more philanthropy on their own and that Mrs. Rubio was involved. (That was echoed by others familiar with the Braman operation.) We subsequently asked her for more information, and will update this blog when she replies. Despite little charitable giving in 2013, the foundation still reported $149,237 in “misc airplane trips for charitable purposes.”That year, Jeanette Rubio accompanied her husband on an official trip to the Middle East. A news release stated she was traveling at “no taxpayer expense,” and Rubio’s office said she was traveling in concert with her work for the Braman charity. We're told Mrs. Rubio took one other trip that year, flying with the family to Boston to for a project involving Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Bass Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 They nailed a couple of cancer "charities" over that. They're fund-raising scams - they collect donations, then exploit overcharging, payment for outside services, and high salaries in order to make money off of it while actually giving out as little as they can legally get away with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 So, it turns out that the same billionaire that gave Marco Rubio's campaign 10 million dollars recently employs his wife part time at a cancer charity. For this part time job she earns $54,000 a year. The money the charity gave out in 2011? $250. How is this not fraud? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 In news that will surprise no one, a conservative economist released a study that concludes Fox News viewers are the least informed of media consumers. But by restricting themselves to only one major news source, refusing “to even listen to any news or opinion not vetted through Fox” and accepting as truth every information that appears on the channel, many Fox News viewers have become victims of what the study termed “self-brainwashing." “Like someone dying of thirst in the desert, conservatives drank heavily from the Fox waters. Soon, it became the dominant – and in many cases, virtually the only – major news source for millions of Americans. This has had profound political implications that are only starting to be appreciated. Indeed, it can almost be called self-brainwashing – many conservatives now refuse to even listen to any news or opinion not vetted through Fox, and to believe whatever appears on it as the gospel truth.” Bartlett said that after the September 11, 2011 attacks, Fox News shifted farther right and transformed from a network set up to present news with a conservative tilt into one peddling misinformation and propaganda to the effect that Fox News viewers became the least informed among media consumers. The study found that even after taking into account or controlling for news obtained from other sources, educational attainment, partisanship, and other relevant demographic factors, Fox News viewers were still 18 points less likely to know that the Egyptians overthrew the government of former President Mohamed Morsi. They were also 6 points less likely to know that the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria has not been overthrown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-senate-advances-fast-track-trade-bill-sought-by-obama/ar-BBk4xtX?ocid=msnclassic Washington, May 21 (Reuters) - President Barack Obama on Thursday moved closer to winning the power to speed trade deals through the U.S. Congress when the Senate advanced legislation important to his Asian trade push. Senators voted 62-38 to set up a speedy decision on the "fast-track" trade negotiating authority the president needs to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. The TPP is part of Obama's so-called pivot to Asia, a strategy to counter China's rising economic and diplomatic clout in Asia. Obama called the vote "a big step forward," adding that his trade agenda dovetails with the "strong labor standards, strong environmental standards" that his fellow Democrats in Congress are demanding. Thirteen of 44 Democrats backed the legislation in the Senate's second procedural vote. Some supported moving ahead with fast-track after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, assured them he would set a vote next month on a bill to renew the Export-Import Bank's charter, according to leading Democratic senators. The charter is due to expire at the end of June. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 If you needed another reason to despise Huckabee other then pretty much everything he's said before, look no further! Here he is defending Josh Duggar, Executive Director of noted hate group the Family Research Council, after it came out that he had molested girls as young as 8 in his youth and his family hushed the whole thing up:After Josh Duggar addressed accusations that he molested five underage girls as a teen, 2016 Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has spoken out in support of his longtime friends the Duggars. "Janet and I want to affirm our support for the Duggar family," began Huckabee, 59, in a lengthy statement on his Facebook page. "Josh's actions when he was an underage teen are as he described them himself, 'inexcusable,' but that doesn't mean 'unforgivable.' He and his family dealt with it and were honest and open about it with the victims and the authorities." http://www.people.com/article/josh-duggar-mike-huckabee-supports-duggars-child-molestation-accusations More:http://defamer.gawker.com/josh-duggar-accused-of-molesting-several-sisters-as-a-t-1706096839http://gawker.com/josh-duggar-confirms-teen-molestation-reports-1706150395 PS - extra fun from this story:Jim Bob told police in 2006 that when Josh returned home in 2003, Jim Bob, accompanied by some of his church elders, took Josh to Arkansas State Trooper, Jim Hutchens. Jim Bob knew Hutchens personally. Hutchens did not take any official action and instead gave Josh a “very stern talk.” According to inTouch, Hutchens is now currently serving 56 years in prison for child pornography and never charged Josh Duggar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Summah Posted May 22, 2015 Share Posted May 22, 2015 If you follow the links to the police report it's clear that 4 of the victims are his sisters, so everyone (Huckaber and the Duggars) is screwing over female members of this family to protect one of the sons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayyoth Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 How is this not fraud? Likely for the same reason that the Clinton Foundation giving record isn't fraud. If a charity is operating as a front for politically connected insiders to use as their own personal piggy bank the Feds seem to turn a blind eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biglose Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Well, inefficiency is not a crime...It becomes criminal if you make statements what you will do with the money, and then do something else. Or if you do not give anything. If this would be different, you would see a lot of "charitable organisations" getting shut down because of far too less "active" charity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Likely for the same reason that the Clinton Foundation giving record isn't fraud. If a charity is operating as a front for politically connected insiders to use as their own personal piggy bank the Feds seem to turn a blind eye. Except the actual reason the Clinton Foundation giving record isn't fraud is because there's no evidence of fraud. Whereas here we have a charitable foundation that seemingly exists solely to employ the wife of the guy the main donor supports. Whether that's a crime or not, you'd have to ask a lawyer. But it's pretty clear what it actually is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayyoth Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Except the actual reason the Clinton Foundation giving record isn't fraud is because there's no evidence of fraud. Whereas here we have a charitable foundation that seemingly exists solely to employ the wife of the guy the main donor supports. Whether that's a crime or not, you'd have to ask a lawyer. But it's pretty clear what it actually is. If it looks like a duck http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 If it looks like a duck http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/ It links to a tabloid rag making random accusations? Quack away though, it's still funny. Next we'll be hearing about BENGHAZI!!! I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayyoth Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 It links to a tabloid rag making random accusations? Quack away though, it's still funny. Next we'll be hearing about BENGHAZI!!! I'm sure. https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_11-19-14.pdf Page 20, over 120 million on salaries, consulting fees, staff training and travel. 30 mil given to actual good causes. If a 'charity' is spending more than half it's revenue on it's own staff there's something seriously wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_11-19-14.pdf Page 20, over 120 million on salaries, consulting fees, staff training and travel. 30 mil given to actual good causes. If a 'charity' is spending more than half it's revenue on it's own staff there's something seriously wrong. That rather depends on what those salaries go to doesn't it? That article you linked earlier mentioned aid workers and health care professionals. Training and travel could also be fairly easily explained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 the new york post article is predictably mendacious. helps to read what the charity navigator actually writes: https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204#.VWBbcnA8KrUcharity fraud is probably a common law fraud under state law, but should get swept up under the tax code in the US, and, i think, the RICO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_11-19-14.pdf Page 20, over 120 million on salaries, consulting fees, staff training and travel. 30 mil given to actual good causes. If a 'charity' is spending more than half it's revenue on it's own staff there's something seriously wrong. How is paying and training your staff to travel around the world to help with those 'good causes' not also money being used for 'good causes'? Also, you do see a difference between $250 and 30 million, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MerenthaClone Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Oh god, MSF spends most of its money on travel expenses for employees, shut the lying bastards down! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inigima Posted May 23, 2015 Share Posted May 23, 2015 Real talk: Charity Navigator's guideline for a well-run charity is around 33% on administrative expenses. The Clintons' could stand to trim down. Realer talk: They're a real charity that distributes substantial money. Needing to be run a bit better is very different from a bullshit pretend charity that pays two hundred sixteen times what it does to charity to an honorary employee who does no work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.