The revived FBI and continuing IRS investigations will eventually realize due diligence has been lacking from the start…
So the FBI is again investigating the “Bill, Hillary & Clinton Foundation.” That should make Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett, and other affluent Americans who have given to the Clinton Foundation wish they had asked more questions before writing those checks.
Here’s why: “Due diligence” doesn’t end when the Clinton “charities” cash your check.
The FBI agents and forensic accountants probing the Clinton Foundation must go all the way back to Oct. 23, 1997, and examine precisely how a public charity, organized to hold federal records of the Clinton presidency, somehow evolved by 2002 to “fight HIV/AIDS internationally,” plus a raft of additional tax-exempt purposes that were never properly authorized in the foundation’s Articles of Incorporation.
The FBI should train its sights on the Dallas office of the IRS. On May 19, 2015, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives called on the federal tax agency to investigate the Clinton Foundation. The IRS treated this solidly grounded request dismissively.
It was not until July 22, 2016, following a second congressional request led by Blackburn, that then-IRS chief John Koskinen said agency officials in Dallas would open a review of the multiple issues flagged by the Republican members of Congress.
Records already held by the IRS concerning the main Clinton Foundation and its affiliates are voluminous and include key information the public does not have, such as the names and precise amounts donated by major contributors each year from 1998 through 2016.
The IRS also has the ability to cross-check declarations made by the Clinton Foundation with declarations made by donors such as the Gates Foundation that are private foundations. The Clinton charity is a public foundation, and there are significant differences involved.
The FBI should review the IRS’s work from July 22, 2016, forward to determine how comprehensively the tax agency examined Clinton Foundation filings and to spot the multiple massive defects in the charity’s official reports, including false statements and noncompliant financial audits.
Big trouble for big donors to the Clintons. Without access to a Nov. 18, 2004, agreement signed by the Clinton Foundation, investigators will not know the foundation is required to remain a “public charity” as long as federal records of the Clinton presidency are kept in its Little Rock, Arkansas, presidential library.
Note here that a “public charity” must be supported broadly by members of the public and cannot be controlled by a single family. Then further note that as of Nov. 2, 2013, the Clinton Foundation violated its presidential library agreement with the National Archives by amending its bylaws to create Class A and Class B directors.
This fact has yet to be shared as required with all of the regulators in all of the states where the Clintons solicit charitable contributions, perhaps because the amendments gave Class A directors unchallenged authority to dominate the Clinton Foundation. The amendments specifically named as Class A directors Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton.
That created major league tax problems for the Clinton Foundation and its private foundation donors such as the Gates, beginning in 2013 when the charity switched auditors from BKD, LLP to PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Why? Because both the Clinton Foundation and its multiple affiliates ceased being validly organized and operated public charities as a result of the Class A/Class B amendment. This is key for both the IRS and FBI investigators, and such donors as the Gates and Buffett.
Clock ticks for Clintons’ private foundation donors. A private foundation may not contribute money to an entity claiming to be a public charity when the recipient is not in fact a validly organized and operated public charity. Such grants are treated by the IRS as “taxable expenditures.” A longstanding pattern and practice of making taxable expenditures can provoke stiff penalties and even lead to winding up of a private foundation donor.
The Clinton Foundation and many large private foundations operate in New York State where charities must register and where they are required to report “material changes” in their legal status and operating structures within 30 days.
Starting in 2001, the Gates Foundation made numerous donations to the Clinton Foundation and its affiliates as can be seen through careful review of Gates Foundation public filings. The Gates and Buffett foundations have experienced and highly intelligent persons who should have spotted the raft of defects evident in filings of the Clinton Foundation charity network.
Why have the Gates and Buffett worked so closely with a set of charities whose public record is so deeply flawed and that now is under investigation by the FBI and IRS?
Problems for foreign governments, too. Why have so many foreign governments contributed large sums to the Clinton Foundation, while not seeming to care about obvious defects in the public record? And why did it take so long for the IRS to spot many obvious red flags in Clinton Foundation filings?
President Donald Trump will soon attend the World Economic Forum at Davos, along with representatives of advocates for unregulated “globalism,” many of whom benefit from loosely controlled charities that are in fact slush funds for the rich and powerful.
Meanwhile, former Rep. Corrine Brown, an African-American Democrat from Florida, will shortly report to federal prison for her part in running an $800,000 charity as a personal piggy bank. How long till accounting firms realize clients who donated to the Clinton Foundation have huge potential tax problems constituting “material changes” reportable in New York, California, and other states?
And how much longer will the Clinton Foundation charity network be allowed to solicit funds? The issue of effectively regulating and disciplining illegally organized and operated charities is about to become front of mind worldwide.
News flash! Women’s Lives Now More Than Bearable
This is a contentious time for feminism. In the age of #MeToo, Time’s Up, and the Weinstein effect, just a few of the many products of the fourth-wave feminist movement, women are continuing to push forward a certain narrative about men and the Western culture’s effect on women in general. It seems as if the conversation surrounding women and gender equality has seeped into virtually every realm of life: politics, culture, religion, and even medicine and technology. Fourth-wave feminists are expressing their distrust in men in many ways…celebrities are calling out sexual predators in front of public audiences, politicians are using sexual assault as a political tool, and students are marching and demonstrating. Corporations, eager to jump on the “let’s make a political statement” bandwagon, are even using sexual assault as a marketing tool, spouting controversial messages about toxic masculinity and the like. A prime example is the recent Gillette ad, which garnered more than 19 million views on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.
Many women are also writing about feminism. One example of this is an article, written last year in celebration of International Women’s Day, that has been circulating on social media for the past few months. The article, entitled “100 Easy Ways to Make Women’s Lives More Bearable” and authored by Dani Beckett, has been shared more than 300,000 times since its publication in March 2018. While we would not exactly call it “viral,” it is no secret that the article’s contents are becoming increasingly normalized, currently believed by a meaningful number of female millenials. Beckett’s article was published in Broadly, a subset of Vice Media, a digital media and broadcasting company that launched Vice, the Canadian-American print magazine that gave rise to Broadly. Broadly, a heavily leftist channel catering to women and designed to “provide a space for us to understand, express, and navigate our identities as we define who we are and where we’re headed next,” has quite a solid readership.
After I kept encountering the article on Facebook for several months, I figured it was probably worth a read, but before reading it, I could not help but linger on the title. How to make women’s lives more…bearable? Bearable means tolerable, able to be endured, not even touching the realm of pleasurable or happy. The title implies that women in this country are struggling so much that someone desperately needs to make their lives “more bearable.” In a country where the vast majority of workplace fatalities befall men, the chief victims of non-fatal violence are men, men make up three quarters of all murder victims, women are outperforming men at all levels of education (they even outnumber men at most medical schools), women win custody battles, and women legally win half the earnings and belongings in a household, apparently women’s lives are not yet bearable enough. I was confused, but intrigued, and proceeded to make my way down the long list of male-targeted demands, some of which are too good not to highlight.
The article is written in an incredibly patronizing tone, as if men in America need to be taught that forcing sex upon a woman is probably not a good idea, as if they apparently grew up in a society that conditioned them to rape. The first item on Beckett’s list is, “Before explaining something to a woman, ask yourself if she might already understand. She may know more about it than you do.” Well, is that not general logical advice for anyone? I know the point is to call men out for supposedly always trying to explain things to a woman, but if you are versed in the basic tenets of communication, then it must be the case that you know not to prematurely lecture someone on a topic you suspect they are already well-versed in, regardless of their gender. And let us suppose this is not the case and you have a habit of being didactical when not needed. Well, then this advice should certainly go for everyone, not just men. The point is, gender has nothing to do with it. There is no evidence that men are somehow more likely than women to try to explain something to women, simply because they are women, before considering whether those women might actually understand the topic. Fourth-wave feminists are pushing the narrative that men inherently feel entitled and better than women, so they feel it necessary to always explain things to a woman without thinking if she might already understand. It is a dangerous and baseless narrative to push forward. While it was certainly true fifty years ago when male professors would not even call on their female students in lecture, today, men DO listen to women, whether they like it or not. By virtue of the professional empowerment of women, which has become normalized in Western society, men listen to women explain things to them every single day. Consider this: women now hold 49% of total faculty positions in American colleges and universities. Women lecture, and men listen.
Beckett then states, “Related: Never, ever try to explain feminism to a woman.” Well, what if she’s wrong? Beckett would tell you, “Trust women. When they teach you something, do not feel the need to go and check for yourself. And especially do not Google it in front of them.” So, if she’s wrong, it doesn’t matter. No one cares about facts anyway. Women are so privileged that they now also have the right to be wrong and to lie without getting called out. This is an important reminder of “Believe all women,” the Left’s mantra during the infamous Kavanaugh controversy. If you feel the need to check something JUST because the person who explained it to you is a woman, then maybe you need to treat your misogyny and perhaps Beckett’s list is actually for you. But we live in a society where women are leaders in every sphere – politics, business, medicine, science, the law. At this point, men get it. The need to overpower women, of which remnants will perhaps always exist, has largely dissipated through the years as evidenced by the fact that women now control 60% of the wealth in the United States, for example. If men are such misogynists, why are they collectively not fighting tooth and nail to tear down successful women? Certainly some are, but it’s virtually impossible to prove patriarchy-enforcing men outnumber matriarchy-enforcing women. Instead of acknowledging that, fourth-wave feminists are resorting to feelings, as opposed to facts, to craft their man-hating narrative. What’s more, they are lowering their standards for women.
Clearly, men and women are different, no matter what radical feminists want you to believe. But even though they are different, every society is founded upon a standard set of basic principles and values that every human, regardless of identity, should be obligated to follow in order to preserve civility. Lying does not all of a sudden become okay for a woman if it’s not okay for a man because women should not get special privileges. That is why Dani Beckett is also mistaken in suggesting “Be kind to women in customer service positions. Tip them extra.” Because they are a woman? This sentiment points directly to the pinnacle of feminists’ hypocrisy. Feminists want women to be treated equally, which naturally entails holding them to the same standards as men. Regardless of whether you are a woman or a man, if you don’t do your job well, then you should not be tipped extra. Regardless of whether you are a woman or a man, your customers should be nice to you if you do your job well because that’s the right thing to do.
Next on Beckett’s list is a whole compilation of demands centered around how to describe women. She states, “Examine your language when talking about women. Get rid of ‘irrational, dramatic, bossy, and badgering immediately.” This implies that women cannot be any of these things, which they most certainly can. Or perhaps it implies that they can be some or all of these things but they should not be called out for it, which once again, means that according to Beckett, we should hold women to a lower standard. Let’s be clear, women should not get free passes just because they are women and their ancestors have suffered through years of misogyny and oppression. If feminists want true equality, then they should not be cutting women slack and lowering their standards for women out of pity. Women are perfectly capable of meeting those standards. Pushing forward women’s rights legislation should not be done out of a need to prop up identity politics. Women deserve equal rights not because they are women, but because they are humans.
If that was not enough, Beckett certainly has more! “Never comment on a woman’s body,” she says. When describing women positively, men should say she is “talented,” “clever” or “funny,” but not “gorgeous” “sweet” or “cute.” Men also cannot call her unique, and “unlike other girls” because all girls are awesome. Long gone are the days when it was flattering for a woman to be told she has a nice physical appearance. And long gone are the days when men were allowed to make their physical attraction, the very basis of biological reproduction, known to women. I am assuming Beckett wants men to assign more value to women than their physical appearance, which is understandable, but assigning more value to personality and assigning some value to physical appearance are not mutually exclusive acts. A 2017 study published in Evolutionary Psychological Science found that most women are likely to choose physical attractiveness over personality and intelligence in potential partners. For a group of people who supposedly hate double standards, fourth-wave feminists sure do love double standards.
And now we arrive at the scariest portion of Beckett’s list: the postgenderism demands. Beckett states, “If you read stories to a child, swap the genders. Cast women in parts written for men. We know how to rule kingdoms, go to war, be, not be, and wait for Godot.” Right, and that is exactly why the parts of Katniss Everdeen, Hermione Granger, Wonder Woman, Lara Croft, Daenerys Targaryen, Mulan, and many, many more have been written. To show that women can indeed rule kingdoms, go to war, and do pretty much anything. Fourth-wave feminists are called “fourth-wave” because they are not the first. The women of the past have already proven that women are powerful and can rule kingdoms. There’s no need to reinvent the wheel by going to extreme measures (i.e. swapping genders) to show something that everyone, barring exceptions, already knows. Perhaps, then, the point of swapping genders is not so much to normalize powerful, masculine women. It is, in fact, to get rid of gender roles altogether. My prediction is that postgenderism will pave the way for fifth-wave feminism.
So why is one article like this one so important? It’s maybe just the opinion of one woman. Except it’s not. Between 70 and 80 percent of college women currently identify as feminists. The contents of Beckett’s article are at least somewhat representative of the mentality of young women in America today, even if some shy away from the label “feminist.” I fear that this association we have started to develop between feminism and fourth-wave values, some of which are exemplified in this article, will only become stronger until, eventually, first and second-wave feminists are shut out entirely. Women who are pro-life are shut out entirely. Women who want other women to be held accountable are shunned and considered anti-feminist. Criticizing obesity, pointing to false allegations of sexual assault, challenging the misconceptions surrounding the pay gap, holding conservative views about female sexuality, and acknowledging core differences between men and women will become wholly incompatible with any definition of feminism. Women should be encouraged to be strong, not feed their victimization complexes. Women should be encouraged to listen to other women, even if they disagree. Fourth-wave feminist indoctrination should not be something we stand for if we want to actually help gender equality.
Trump to Enact Massive Change to Prescription Drug Pricing, Sources Say
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration late Thursday afternoon proposed an effort to increase transparency when it comes to prescription drug pricing by cutting the widely used practice of middlemen — one of the major cost-drivers of drug prices.
President Donald Trump is strongly considering signing an executive order to do just that, according to four people inside the administration who asked for their identities to be withheld for various reasons.
The executive order which has already been drafted by White House counsel Pat Cipollone, would allow manufacturers of drugs to offer discounted pricing to customers, but would legally, stop them from giving rebates to pharmacy benefit managers.
“If you can’t manage a campaign, how do you manage the country?”: Chuck Todd schools Bernie Sanders
In a segment Thursday on MSNBC, network host Chuck Todd slammed Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders for allowing sexual misconduct to occur inside his 2016 presidential campaign.
“Could this derail his chances of another presidential bid,” host Chuck Todd wondered before playing a video clip.
“Boy, that is a tough answer to defend of course,” Todd said referring to Sanders telling CNN’s Anderson Cooper in an interview that he didn’t know about ongoing sexual misconduct because he was “a little busy running around the country trying to…make the case.”
“Because if you’re running to be president of the United States…if you can’t manage your campaign, how do you manage the country,” Todd continued. “No potential 2020 candidates had a worse start to 2019 than Bernie Sanders”