400 Bad Request

Bad Request

Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.

Additionally, a 400 Bad Request error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

 

Posts Tagged ‘CNN’

Final Clinton Appearance Philadelphia, Pa 11/7/2016

Tuesday, November 8th, 2016

president-logo-copy
Hillary Clinton makes final argument before election day, 12500 watching on you tube BUT…it is covered in full on CNN as well.

Share

Wolf Blitzer and Guiliani on the FBI

Saturday, November 5th, 2016

president-logo-copy

Guiliani is not the most appealing surrogate. But Anthony “Recovering Weiner” should stop allowing himself to be photographed in Rehab. He had almost completely gone away…and this film is great on throwing it back on the FBI and what may have motivated them to try to swing an election 11 days before it went off…which is the really disturbing story in the mix.

Share

The President Show: The Vice Presidential Debate LIVE NOW

Wednesday, October 5th, 2016

presidnet-logo_edited-150-wide

The Vice Presidential Debate LIVE on October 4, 2016, From the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Share

Scathing Op ED From Washington Post Editorial Board on the Trump Foundation

Thursday, September 15th, 2016

trump-and-me

Is the Trump Foundation as fake as they two fake Trumps on the road in Exeter, New Hampshire?

From the Washington Post Editorial Board September 15, 2o16:

THE TRUMP campaign believes this editorial is not journalism. It is “badgering.” That is how campaign manager Kellyanne Conway described on Tuesday some simple questions The Post and others have asked Mr. Trump and his circle over the past several months about his supposed philanthropic activities. If anyone has an authenticity problem, it is Mr. Trump. The facts on the table suggest he is not a great philanthropist — he is a scam artist.

Mr. Trump has cultivated the persona of a generous man, repeatedly claiming on television he would donate to charity “out of my wallet” and accepting honors from groups he appeared to support. In fact, an exhaustive investigation by Post reporter David A. Fahrenthold shows that Mr. Trump retooled his foundation about a decade ago to act as an intermediary for other people’s charitable giving, a racket from which Mr. Trump gained in reputation and from which he may even have occasionally profited.

Mr. Trump does not appear to have given his own money to the Trump Foundation since 2008, and by then Trump funds had become a tiny slice of the organization’s revenue. Since then, the available records suggest, a charitable group that bears the billionaire’s name has been funded by others. That has not stopped Mr. Trump from claiming credit for doling out other people’s cash. He happily accepted an award from the Palm Beach Police Foundation in 2010 — then he cut the group off once the real source of the money, a New Jersey charity, stopped contributing to the Trump Foundation. Donations he promised on “The Celebrity Apprentice” would come out of his “own wallet” instead came from his foundation or a television production company. The story is the same with a 2009 TV contest called “Trump pays your bills!”, in which the Trump Foundation, not Mr. Trump, paid the winner’s bills.

Perhaps Mr. Trump confused the Trump Foundation with his own bank account because he occasionally treated it like one. Melania Trump used $20,000 of foundation funds to buy a six-foot painting of Mr. Trump at a charity art auction. Mr. Trump bid $12,000 in foundation money to win a football helmet signed by quarterback Tim Tebow. These examples appear to violate IRS rules against charity officials engaging in “self-dealing.” Then there is the fishy donation sent from the Trump Foundation to a committee supporting Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (R). The donation was illegal — charities cannot give to political campaigns — and it came just as state attorneys general were subjecting Trump University to increasing scrutiny.

Trump staffers claim the Bondi donation was an honest administrative mistake. The campaign, meanwhile, has aggressively dismissed other questions about Mr. Trump’s giving by claiming that he has donated tens of millions to charity over his lifetime. Yet his surrogates offer no new evidence suggesting that he has given that much out of his own pocket. Mr. Trump might clear up some of the confusion if he released his tax returns. But he has so far refused to do so, defying decades of political precedent.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) announced Tuesday that he is investigating the Trump Foundation. There is a movement to persuade the Justice Department to do so as well. Yet the potential violations of the law seem to be less significant than what Mr. Trump appears to have done legally: duped people into believing in another one of his self-aggrandizing shams.

Share

Focus on Fraud” The Reynold’s Family “Wretched Charity Empire” gets FTC AX

Friday, May 29th, 2015

Yesterday, regulators came down like a unified load of bricks on a group of cancer charities—but why did it take so long?

The four cancer charities charged by the 50 states’ attorneys general and the Federal Trade Commission as a sham are all related. They are run by members of the same family—James Reynolds, Sr.; James Reynolds, Jr.; James Junior’s wife, Kristina Hixson; her mother, two sisters, and other near Hixson relations; Senior’s ex-wife Rose Perkins; and others. Two of the four charities are being dissolved due to the FTC complaint, and members of the family face fines in the tens of millions, though the structure of the proposed final order lets the Reynolds family off with much lower personal payments.

According to the FTC, the charities spent 97 percent of what they raised on fundraising and on the Reynolds family themselves, devoting only three percent to help cancer patients. All told, according to the government complaint, the charities walked off with as much as $187 million that should have been spent on cancer issues. The groups were “operated as personal fiefdoms characterized by rampant nepotism, flagrant conflicts of interest, and excessive insider compensation.”

Here is what we don’t get. The Reynolds family has long been known to be operating these charities as virtual scams. NPQ wrote about the Reynolds clan back in 2013, drawing on reporting from the Center for Investigative Reporting and the Tampa Bay Times with data going back years before that. We know that it takes time to build cases, but the Reynolds family’s “wretched charity empire,” as we described it, has been a sore thumb among cancer charities for a very long time. It shouldn’t take until all 50 attorneys general plus the Federal Trade Commission come together to scrub the nonprofit sector of the likes of the Reynolds cancer charities.

One more thing we don’t get: As the Washington Post reported, health charities, or rather disease charities have become a big business. While it is unfair to slam all health charities as a result of the Reynolds cancer charity imbroglio, there is no question that more are out there delivering only tiny proportions of their charitable take as legitimate service. Nonprofits don’t like to call for governmental oversight and investigations, but there are nonprofits out there that know other charities that operate much like those of the Reynolds family. The damage caused by Reynolds-like scam charities hurts all charities. The damage is not avoided by nonprofit leaders’ adopting ostrich strategies. Given the distinctive purview of the FTC, it would seem logical that the majority of this responsibility on the governmental side ought to lie with the Internal Revenue Service, but its absence in the Reynolds story is telling. Nonprofits ought to be energized to excise the likes of the Reynolds charities and to nudge the IRS’s tax-exempt unit to function as it should.

And, actually, one more thing: It’s not just health charities. State attorneys general have been issuing report after report about the shady telemarketing and fundraising practices of charities that should be functioning much more reputably, particularly those that purport to be serving military veterans. There is no excuse for letting fundraising scams persist hiding behind 501(c)(3) charitable status. There are national nonprofit organizations that somehow even defended scammy telemarketers under the guise that they are providing valuable information to donors that should be protected as nonprofit free speech, even if they’re raising little money that actually goes to charitable services and functions. The Reynolds imbroglio ought to get nonprofits and the public to take a second, really hard look at the nonprofits and their telemarketer partners that seem to exist more for fundraising than for charitable service.

Too many people look at the nonprofit sector as a profit center for their businesses and for themselves personally. It’s time for the vast majority of legitimate, reputable, ethical nonprofits to join with government regulators at the state and federal levels to clean out the Reynolds clones

Share