Category Archives: Citizens Duty

Low Information Millionaires Donate to Both Sides

Posted on by

Wealthy people make stupid political decisions, decisions good for their business and it stops there such that their friendly and personal relationships makes it difficult to counter.

If you seek some names with big money not often known, then read on.

Hillary Clinton’s Mega-Donors Are Also Funding Jeb Bush

Racetrack owners, bankers, and chicken kings: Meet the ultra-rich bankrolling the Bush and Clinton dynasties. A special report by Vocativ and The Daily Beast.

For some wealthy donors, it doesn’t matter who takes the White House in 2016—as long as the president’s name is Clinton or Bush.

More than 60 ultra-rich Americans have contributed to both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton’s federal campaigns, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data by Vocativ and The Daily Beast. Seventeen of those contributors have gone one step further and opened their wallets to fund both Bush and Clinton’s 2016 ambitions.

After all, why support just Hillary Clinton or just Jeb Bush when you can hedge your bets and donate to both? This seems to be the thinking of a group of powerful men and women—racetrack owners, bankers, media barons, chicken magnates, hedge funders (and their spouses). Some of them have net worths that can eclipse the GDPs of small countries.

Larry Noble, senior counsel for the Campaign Legal Center, told The Daily Beast that it’s a common practice among a small number of people.

“Some of them will say they believe in the process, but the truth is you usually see them giving to people who will be most helpful to them if [the politician] gets into office,” he said. “They are not necessarily Republicans or Democrats, they are business people first.”

Some of them said personal connections are driving the double donations. Many work in industries that depend on the federal government for their continued operation. A few have had brushes with the law. One donor said he’s soured on Hillary, and is now on Team Jeb. Another claimed that he gave to Clinton by mistake.

John Tyson, chairman of Tyson Foods, is a long-time—and promiscuous—political player. This year alone, his company spent half a million dollars lobbying Congress on everything from immigration reform and fuel taxes to food safety regulations. He himself has given $25,000 each to the political action committees supporting Clinton and Bush’s 2016 candidacies, according to the data parsed by Vocativ.

In the late 1990s Tyson was embroiled in political scandal when then-Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy was accused of illegally accepting gifts from major food corporations—several of which were given by Tyson, then a senior employee. Espy was acquitted, and John Tyson was granted immunity in exchange for his cooperation.

The company eventually paid a $6 million settlement to the government, and two Tyson Foods employees were sentenced to prison. (Both were later pardoned by President Clinton.)

Until not too long ago, David Stevens, the CEO of the real estate lobbying group the Mortgage Bankers Association, was in the government himself. Stevens served in the Obama administration as the assistant secretary for housing and as Federal Housing Administration (FHA) commissioner at the Department of Housing and Urban Development from July 2009 to April 2011.

But that doesn’t mean he’s completely onboard with his fellow administration alum.

“I want to focus on candidates who best represent issues of housing and issues important to me and are not extreme, especially on the social issues that are important to me,” he said.

Stevens has given $2,700 to Hillary For America and $1,000 to Jeb 2016. He said he has watched with great concern about the increased polarization of both parties.

But at the end of the day, Stevens conceded it’s also about access.

“While [Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush] don’t make commitments, obviously, I want to make sure my views are presented to them, because they are considered more center-left or center-right,” he said.

Richard Parsons, the former head of Time Warner and now a senior adviser at Providence Equity Partners Inc., has donated the maximum $2,700 to both the Clinton and Bush presidential campaigns.

His résumé reflects dual political loyalties.

He’s served every Republican president since Richard Nixon and in 1997 was appointed to a task force by President George W. Bush to help study the best way to overhaul social security.

However, he also advised then-President-Elect Obama as part of the Economic Transition Team in 2008. Parsons did not return attempts for comment.

James R. Borynack, the owner of Wally Findlay Galleries—noted for its long history and expertise in European art—was shy about saying why he wasn’t choosing sides.

“[Borynack] has no detailed comments at this time, other than to support both Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush equally as presidential candidates,” a spokeswoman said.

Two Barclays employees have each donated $2,700—the legal maximum—to both the Clinton and Bush campaigns. One is Brett Tejpaul, a managing director at Barclays Capital who has also given $25,000 to the Jeb-affiliated super-PAC Right to Rise. The other is Robert Foresman, head of Barclays’s business in Russia.

Foresman’s Russia ties include the state-owned energy company that is one of Putin’s biggest levers against the West. Russia’s state-owned Gazprom provides critical gas to nearly two dozen European countries—and has shut off energy to countries in dispute with Russia. In the early 2000s, Foresman was nominated as a candidate to the board of directors of Gazprom, but was never actually appointed to the board, according to the company’s website.

Double donors Shawn Seipler, CEO of the nonprofit Clean the World Global, and textile magnate James Richman both make issues of economic justice central to their public presence. Richman is part of the Patriotic Millionaires, a left-leaning group of more than 200—you guessed it—millionaires who vow to support legislation to reduce income inequality.

Michael Granoff, a principal at Maniv Energy Capital, was once a strong supporter of both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Granoff worked on Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign in the early ’90s and donated to Hillary Clinton’s Senate and 2008 presidential campaign.

But Granoff but has since soured on the Democratic Party’s foreign policy decisions—particularly on Iran. And that’s led to a change of heart about supporting the former Secretary of State.

“I have nothing but continuing admiration for Hillary Clinton and her lifetime commitment to serving the public,” he wrote in a February The Times of Israel blog post. “But she deeply disappointed me recently when she aligned herself with the Administration’s threat to veto a Congressional bill to strengthen Iranian sanctions.”

Granoff said his post only rings more true now. He’s made his devotion to Jeb clear by donating $2,700 to his campaign and $25,000 to Right to Rise, according to Vocativ’s analysis of donors’ data.

The mix of donations also exposed a seemingly common practice of wealthy individuals donating at the request of clients and friends.

One Wall Street donor, who asked to remain anonymous because he considered the donation to Hillary “embarrassing,” said he gave money to her Senate race after a bundler friend asked him for a contribution. He noted he asked the bundler friend to donate to a Republican in return.

Robert Burlington, a prominent Florida attorney whose firm counts Exxon Mobil, Union Labor Life Insurance Company, and Merck as clients, told The Daily Beast that his donations to the candidates also had more to do with personal relationships than politics.

“My donations arose from a request from client (Clinton) and from a friend (Bush), rather than my affiliation with either party. But for the relationships with my client and my friend, respectively, I would not have donated to any candidate,” he said, adding that he and his wife prefer to donate to children’s charities.

Burlington said that while he doesn’t plan to give any more money to any candidate, he will quietly root for Bush.

“He was a strong leader of Florida while he was our state’s governor, and he has integrity,” he said. “I will not be too disappointed, however, if Hillary Clinton is elected because she has relevant experience and we will benefit from having a woman as president.”

At least one donor initially claimed to not remember the Clinton donation.

“I never donated to Hillary,” said Bradford Freeman, a major fundraiser for both George W. Bush presidential campaigns.

Reminded of his $2,300 donation in 2007, he said, “Well, that would have been Hillary against Obama [in the primary]…I don’t recall, but I may have.”

In fairness, his one time donation to Hillary might be forgettable after the $1 million he gave Right to Rise.

Freeman, whose investment firm Freeman Spogli won a $50 million commitment from the Florida pension system during Bush’s tenure (and paid the former governor $45,000 for a speech after he left office, according to The New York Times), told The Daily Beast he was all in for the former Florida governor.   There is much more, click here to read the rest of the story.

AQAP New Threat Against America

Posted on by

An al-Qaeda operative freed in a prison assault in Yemen has exploited chaos caused by fighting in the country to take a touristic tour of government buildings and posted photos of the visit online.

Khalid Batarfi, a high-ranking member of the jihadi group’s powerful Yemeni branch al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), is seen posing with a smile inside the local provincial governor palace in the southern port of al-Mukalla, in pictures circulated on social media.

Al Qaeda branch calls for new attacks against United States

(CNN)Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen, which officials have called the terror group’s most dangerous affiliate, has issued two threatening new communiques praising recent lone-wolf style attacks against the West and calling for more of them.

“We urge you to strike America in its own home and beyond,” says a letter attributed to Ibrahim al-Asiri, the master bomb-maker with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

The letter, according to a translation by SITE Intelligence Group, states, “America is first.”

CNN is unable to independently verify that Asiri himself wrote it, but the letter has drawn the attention of terror trackers such as MEMRI, Flashpoint and SITE.

A U.S. counterterrorism official described the letter as “consistent with rhetoric the new leader stated upon taking over al Qaeda’s most active affiliate that is known to threaten Western interests.”

A big bounty

Asiri has a $5 million bounty on his head, and analysts say if he did write the letter, he may have been putting himself at risk.

“The concern for Asiri would be that somehow the message would be traceable back to him — whether by courier, or some digital stamp inside of the message,” said Katherine Zimmerman of the American Enterprise Institute. “We have seen U.S. drone strikes kill a series of top al Qaeda leaders in Yemen over the past few months.”

But if the letter is genuine, it would indicate that Asiri, who rarely makes public statements, is still alive.

Intelligence officials say Asiri was a key player in the 2009 Christmas Day bomb attempt in which a passenger from Africa almost managed to detonate a bomb aboard a Detroit-bound plane that he’d hidden in his underwear. Asiri was also behind the placing of bombs in printer cartridges aboard planes headed for the United States that were intercepted before they reached their targets.

He even designed a bomb to be carried on the body of his own brother, Abdullah al-Asiri, in attempt to kill Saudi Arabia’s counterterrorism chief in 2009. The bomb killed his brother, but the Saudi minister survived.

A dangerous foe

“He’s without question the most dangerous terrorist operative that the United States faces today,” said CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank. “Intelligence suggests that he is developing a new generation of explosive devices including a new generation of underwear and shoe bomb devices.”

Zimmerman says Asiri is believed to have taught his skills to a cadre of bomb-makers.

“He has trained a series of individuals who are able to do what he does, which is bring imagination and innovation to an explosive device that could make it through U.S. or Western security,” she said.

The video embedding code has been disabled but can be played here.

Another senior AQAP leader, Khalid Batarfi, is featured in a second threatening video.

He praises the July attack in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in which a gunman killed five American servicemen at a military installation, as “a blessed Jihadi operation.” And he also praises two gunmen who tried to mount an attack in Garland, Texas, in May for their “sacrifice and heroism.”

“Blood for blood,” Batarfi says in a speech posted online.

He then encourages further lone-wolf attacks against America and the West. “To the warriors of Lone Jihad: may Allah bless and guide your efforts,” he says.

A U.S. intelligence official said this video is believed to be genuine.

“Batarfi has become a main AQAP media figure since his escape from a Yemeni prison this spring,” the official said.

While a number of AQAP leaders have been targeted by strikes this year, the fighting in Yemen between warring factions has deprived the United States of a partner on the ground to work with on tracking and targeting militants.

James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, recently told a conference in Aspen, Colorado, that “in terms of proximate threat, I would view … AQAP — even though they’re kind of consumed right now with what’s going on in Yemen with the Houthis — as probably our most concerning al Qaeda element in terms of threat to the homeland.”

Benghazi Attacker Pleads to Go Home, Will Obama Approve?

Posted on by

The Benghazi suspect and leader of Ansar al Sharia, the group that attacked the two U.S. posts in Benghazi pleaded not guilty in October of 2014. Abu Khatallah’s lawyer, Michelle Peterson is a public defender located in Washington DC whose client list appears to be full of illegals and foreigners.

Khatallah filed his 24 page motion to the U.S. District Court on August 3, 2015 to return to Libya.

Benghazi defendant asks U.S. judge to send him back to Libya

HamptonRoads: The accused ringleader of the 2012 attack that killed four Americans at a U.S. diplomatic compound and CIA base in Benghazi, Libya, has asked a federal judge to dismiss terrorism charges against him and send him home.

In court papers filed Monday, lawyers for militia leader Ahmed Abu Khatallah claim U.S. military and Justice Department officials came up with an illegal ruse to secretly interrogate him for days on a Navy warship after he was captured by U.S. special forces in Libya in June 2014.

The lawyers contend Khatallah should have been flown to Washington, normally a 13-hour plane ride, to face terrorism charges in federal court.

Instead, they say, he was held aboard the New York, an amphibious transport dock, for 13 days where he was interrogated by CIA and counterterrorism officials before he was advised of his legal rights and turned over to a separate team of FBI agents investigating the Benghazi attack.

The court papers say President Barack Obama and other administration officials approved the lengthy sea transfer from Libya, even though it “deliberately and outrageously” violated federal law.

Libyan and U.S. officials have described Khatallah as the Benghazi leader of Ansar al-Sharia, which the State Department considers a terrorist organization. In an 18-count indictment, authorities say he devised and helped carry out armed attacks on U.S. facilities in Benghazi during the night of Sept. 11, 2012. He has pleaded not guilty.

The U.S. ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, and a foreign service officer, Sean Smith, died during the raid on the U.S. diplomatic compound. Two contractors, Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty, were killed in a subsequent armed attack on a CIA facility about a mile away.

In the court filings, defense lawyers urged U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper to return Khatallah to Libya, which they said opposed his transfer to the United States. They said he was charged in a sealed criminal complaint on July 15, 2013, but not seized by U.S. authorities until a year later.

“In the interim,” they said, “the government conceived and executed a deliberate plan to capture Mr. Abu Khatallah and transport him to the United States in a manner intended to facilitate the government’s prosecution while violating not only Mr. Abu Khatallah’s fundamental rights, but also domestic and international law.”

Defense lawyers said U.S. government agencies, including Justice, Defense and the CIA, had developed the arrest and transfer plan. “Thus, the violations of law at issue here were not committed by a few rogue agents of the government, but by the executive branch as a whole,” they wrote.

They said Khatallah was transferred by ship “in order to allow investigators the maximum amount of time to question him.”

They said the New York sailed “at the slowest possible speed in order to extend the time within which the investigators could interrogate him without a lawyer.”

And they said he was not turned over to the FBI and read his Miranda rights against self-incrimination until five days after he was put aboard.

Government prosecutors have not yet responded to the defense allegations.

Syria Has Advanced to Using Napalm?

Posted on by

This is now new, the matter surfaced in 2013, but no official confirmations have been published.

 

Syria regime reportedly using napalm in Zabadani
The 1980 United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons bans the use of napalm against civilians.
BEIRUT – Reports have emerged that the Syrian regime in recent days has fired napalm-loaded rockets at rebels holed up in the border town of Zabadani.

Alaraby Aljadeed on Monday reported the use of napalm against the insurgents, who have fought fierce battles against encroaching Hezbollah and regime troops in the past month.

The London-based daily said that the regime was using surface-to-surface missiles to deliver the incendiary payload, which can set buildings alight and has been banned for use against civilians by the 1980 United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

Napalm has a devastating effect on humans as it sticks to skin and causes firestorms and a carbon monoxide atmosphere that can kill people entrenched in shelters.

Several pro-rebel outlets reported on the alleged napalm use, with the Syrian Media Office telling the activist Shaam outlet  that the regime had used missiles loaded with the substance.

“The regime has used missiles containing the caustic and internationally banned substance, napalm,” Faris al-Araby told Shaam.

Araby also gave the outlet details of other munitions used by regime and allied forces since the start of the recent offensive on the strategic town, which overlooks the Beirut-Damascus highway.

“Over the course of a month the town has been hit by 1100 barrel bombs, 600 surface-to-surface missiles, 400 thermobaric rockets, thousands of shells and an uncountable number of bullets.”

“The city is being besieged from 170 military positions in the surrounding mountains.”

Meanwhile, another report by Orient TV said that strikes using the substance had caused “dozens of civilian victims, suffering from severe burns and suffocation from the gases given off by the projectiles.”

Hezbollah and the Syrian army’s crack 4th Armored Division have been battling rebels in Zabadani since July 5, making gradual territorial gains in the face of fierce resistance that has left dozens dead from the Shiite Lebanese party.

Inside the Iran Deal, Killers Go Free

Posted on by

Breitbart: The Iranian regime has filed a complaint with the International Atomic Energy Agency, alleging that the United States has already broken the Iran deal.

The complaint cites remarks by White House press secretary Josh Earnest about the possible use of military force in the long run, and the use of nuclear inspections to gain intelligence about Iran’s nuclear facilities in the meantime. These are frequent talking points that the White House uses to reassure legislators like Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA).
Iran calls them a “material breach” of the nuclear deal itself.

According to the text of the Iran deal itself (page 20), any of the parties can treat “significant nonperformance” of the agreement “as grounds
to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA.” More here.

Then, the Washington Times notes that Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has come out early in full support of the Iran deal. One wonders if she has read the whole document much less the annex agreements.

The real terrifying part of the agreement

Forgotten flaw in Iran nuclear deal: It lets killers go free

Reuters: President Barack Obama has in good faith negotiated an agreement with Iran that would end a broad range of economic sanctions on Iran, in return for Iran’s promise to scale back its efforts to build a nuclear bomb. I believe that Congress’s support of the agreement would be a very serious mistake.

I find persuasive the arguments of many analysts that the proposal fails because it lifts sanctions before Iran has over time proven that it is committed to abandoning its nuclear weapons program.

Perhaps even more importantly, I oppose the agreement because it does not require Iran to stop its funding of Hezbollah and other extremist hoodlums around the world.

But more fundamentally, I oppose the proposal because, while addressing strategic issues, the deal ignores a moral issue, among the most profound of our time.

Put simply: Iran sponsors terrorism. I am convinced I could prove that proposition in a court of law, and indeed some Americans have done so. Survivors of terrorist attacks have sued the Iranian government in American courts, and won significant judgments.

But the Iranian government has refused to pay those judgments, and the proposed agreement does nothing to challenge that intransigence. In fact, the agreement would release up to 150 billion dollars of frozen assets to Iran, without requiring that a dime go to paying off the survivors of Iran-sponsored terror.

I understand that sometimes strategic interests require us to negotiate with enemies; and I do not underestimate the imminence of Iran’s development of a nuclear bomb capability. And as a veteran of war, I favor peace, when peaceful means can be found to deter aggression.

But the world has within its grasp those peaceful means, in international sanctions, and those sanctions should be strengthened, not abandoned, so long as Iran sponsors terror against civilian populations and foments unrest among its neighbors. Some of those individuals and entities who will be removed from the sanctions list are associated with terrorism in addition to nuclear proliferation.

I have had the good fortune to have lived through a good deal of history, enough to know that history most often favors principled actions over short-term pragmatism.

One of the most significant regimens of international sanctions ever imposed was the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986. In response to a humanitarian crisis in South Africa, that law imposed economic sanctions against South Africa, sanctions would not be lifted until South Africa met specified conditions, granting basic human rights to its own people.

When President Ronald Reagan vetoed that bill, Nobel Prize winner Bishop Desmond Tutu predicted that the veto would be “judged harshly by history.” Congress overrode the President’s veto, kept the sanctions in place – and five years later, minority white rule ended.

Historians still debate the role that those sanctions played in ending apartheid. But I don’t think anyone can doubt that Congress would be “judged harshly by history” had it given up, or had it agreed to end sanctions in return for a mere temporary suspension of apartheid rule. Congress met the most important moral issue of its time the way moral issues must be met – with principle.

And so must Congress act today in the face of Iranian terror and aggression.

The proposed agreement contains a very long list of individuals and institutions – previously identified as supporting attacks against the West or Iran’s nuclear bomb project – whose names are on international sanctions lists but who, should the agreement be approved, will soon be off. The roll call should make anyone shudder.

For example, among those who would be freed from European sanctions is Ahmad Vahidi, the former commander of Iran’s Quds Force of the Islamic Republic’s Revolutionary Guard and a suspect in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires. Eighty-five people died in that bombing, and hundreds were injured, making it the deadliest bombing in the history of Argentina.

No one has ever been held accountable for those murdered, a denial of justice that led human rights leaders, among them Pope Francis, to sign a petition in protest. Justice moved slowly, but in 2007, the Argentine judicial authorities identified Ahmad Vahidi as one of those responsible for the bombing, INTERPOL listed him as wanted for “aggravated murder.” Incredibly, part of the deal with Iran would remove him from Europe’s sanctions list, before he ever faces the bar of justice.

Peruse the agreement some more, and you will find the name of Javad Al Yasin, the head of something called the “Research Centre for Explosion and Impact.” Al Yasin was on the sanctions list for his work in developing Iran’s nuclear bomb. Not only does the Iranian agreement take Al Yasin off the sanctions list, it even removes sanctions from the Research Centre for Explosion and Impact.

International sanctions against Iran were effective because they created an economic incentive for Iran to come to the bargaining table. But they were effective as well because they prevented funds from reaching named militants and organizations sponsoring attacks against the West. It would be a mistake of historic proportions to remove the sanctions without evidence that Iran has ceased its sponsorship of such attacks, and without a permanent end to their ambitions to build a nuclear weapon.

And so, our negotiators must insist on an agreement in which Tehran agrees to permanent, not temporary, limitations on its abilities to prepare weapons-grade fissionable materials and ballistic missiles.

The sanctions must remain in place until Tehran renounces terrorism, stops funding Hezbollah, and honors judgments awarding compensation to those whose loved ones have been killed in past attacks.

Can we get such a deal? In urging the nation to support the end of sanctions, the president has said that the deal he presented to Congress is the best one that could be negotiated. Others disagree. But whoever is right, one thing is certain: no agreement is worth supporting if it undermines the most basic principles that must govern relations among civilized nations.

Shortly before his death, President John Kennedy delivered a speech in which he told Americans of the peace he hoped to bring to the world. He called it “genuine peace … not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women, not merely peace in our time, but peace in all time.”

The proposed Iran agreement does just the opposite: faced with an international crisis, it just kicks the can down the road. It provides for temporary restrictions on nuclear aggression, while largely ignoring the broader threats of militant attacks and proxy war.

It asks the next generation to solve a problem that this generation refused to address squarely.

We owe it to our progeny to leave a record not of avoidance but of principled action. Congress should reject the proposed agreement.