Bizarre: Hillary’s Blood Clot and Big Donation

Clinton Kicked $125K to Hospital After Receiving Treatment for Blood Clot

Clinton family foundation had not donated to hospital before Hillary’s stay

FreeBeacon: Hillary Clinton kicked $125,000 in donations from her family foundation to a hospital after receiving treatment for a blood clot in 2013, the Washington Free Beacon has discovered.

Clinton was discharged from New York Presbyterian Hospital in January 2013 after being treated for a blood clot. Doctors discovered the clot during follow-up treatment for a concussion she sustained weeks earlier after she passed out from dehydration, causing her to fall and hit her head.

The New York Times wrote in January 2013:

Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose globe-trotting tour as secretary of state was abruptly halted last month by a series of health problems, was discharged from a New York hospital on Wednesday evening after several days of treatment for a blood clot in a vein in her head….

…“Her medical team advised her that she is making good progress on all fronts, and they are confident she will make a full recovery,” Philippe Reines, a senior adviser to Mrs. Clinton, said in a statement.

Mrs. Clinton, 65, was admitted to NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia hospital on Sunday after a scan discovered the blood clot. The scan was part of her follow-up care for a concussion she sustained more than two weeks earlier, when she fainted and fell, striking her head. According to the State Department, the fainting was caused by dehydration, brought on by a stomach virus. The concussion was diagnosed on Dec. 13, though the fall had occurred earlier that week.

The clot was potentially serious, blocking a vein that drains blood from the brain. Untreated, such blockages can lead to brain hemorrhages or strokes. Treatment consists mainly of blood thinners to keep the clot from enlarging and to prevent more clots from forming, and plenty of fluids to prevent dehydration, which is a major risk factor for blood clots.

The Clinton Family Foundation—the Clintons’ second, much smaller foundation—then donated six figures to the hospital’s fund, according to records filed with the Internal Revenue Service.

The same year Clinton received treatment for the blood clot, the foundation made a $25,000 donation to New York-Presbyterian Fund Inc., the fund associated with the hospital.

The Clinton Family Foundation then donated $100,00 to the hospital’s fund in 2014. The Clintons did not donate to the hospital from their personal foundation before Hillary was treated in its facilities, records show.

Clinton’s medical history has been called into question in recent weeks, with Fox’s medical team speculating about the Democratic nominee’s neurological records.

*****  Photo: NYMag

Six months to recover from the concussion?

In part from DailyCaller: Hillary Clinton “required six months of very serious work to get over” a “terrible concussion” she suffered in December 2012, according to her husband, Bill Clinton.

At the time, doctors said the concussion caused a blood clot, which resulted in a multi-day stay for Hillary at New York-Presbyterian Hospital.

He also insisted that, like with everything else over the years, he and his wife have been wholly forthright about Hillary’s festering health problems.

“It’s something she never low-balled with the American people, never tried to pretend it didn’t happen.”

However, Clinton’s current version of the story about a half-year recovery differs by five long months from statements made by the Department of State, over which Hillary Clinton presided at the time of her “terrible concussion.”

On January 7, 2013, just a month or so after Hillary’s serious head injury, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland assured reporters during a briefing that she was already a picture of health. More here from DailyCaller.

 

 

Hillary’s State Dept Access to Donors, Marc Rich Still Resonates

Bill Clinton’s pardon of fugitive Marc Rich continues to pay big/Gilbert Chagoury in a new scandal

Seems like the whole Lincoln bedroom playbooks was used at the State Department and perhaps even Hezbollah supporters like Michel Aoun of Lebanon had access.

Secret emails reveal how Hillary’s closest aide Huma was ordered by Clinton Foundation to open State Department doors to donors

  • Yet more emails from Hillary Clinton’s secret server are revealed and show how Huma Abedin took orders from outside the State Department 
  • Clinton’s closest aide was told by Doug Band, of the Clinton foundation, to set up access to an ambassador for a billionaire donor
  • She was told to ‘take care of’ another unnamed person by Band
  • Another Clinton fundraiser emailed Hillary to push for someone to get a job at the State Department – and she told Abedin to ‘help’
  • Judicial Watch which sued for the emails says they raise questions over whether Clinton was ‘in violation of the law’ as Secretary of State

DailyMail: A Clinton Foundation official pressed Hillary Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin to give special State Department access to a major donor who was accused of laundering money from Nigeria, according to emails released on Tuesday.

Doug Band, a top official at the Clinton Foundation, emailed Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin in April 2009 and asked her to connect Gilbert Chagoury, a billionaire Lebanese businessman who pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative, with the U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Jeffrey Feltman.

Ties: Gilbert Chagoury, a Nigeria-born Lebanese billionaire who was convicted of money-laundering, was asked to be given access to a US ambassador 
Ties: Gilbert Chagoury, a Nigeria-born Lebanese billionaire who was convicted of money-laundering, was asked to be given access to a US ambassador

Chagoury, a former confidante of brutal Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha, was convicted in 2000 of laundering Nigerian money to Switzerland in connection with the Abacha regime. Under a plea deal, he agreed to pay Nigeria $66 million, and the Swiss government later expunged his conviction.

According to U.S. diplomatic cables published by Wikileaks, Chagoury has also been a key financial backer of pro-Hezbollah Lebanese politician Michel Aoun. At the time of Band’s request to connect Chagoury with the U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon, Aoun was running for parliament in Lebanon on the Hezbollah-aligned bloc.

In an October 2007 cable, the prime minister of Lebanon noted Chagoury’s ties to Aoun and ‘suggested that the U.S. deliver to Chagoury a stern message about the possibility of financial sanctions and travel bans against those who undermine Lebanon’s legitimate institutions.’

In 2010, it was discovered that Chagoury had been added to the U.S. No-Fly terror list and barred from boarding a private jet in New Jersey. He was able to obtain a ‘waiver’ to fly, and was later removed from the list and received a written apology from the U.S. government.

Chagoury pledged $1 billion to the Clinton Global Initiative in 2009 and has contributed between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation.

In another email released by Judicial Watch, Band asked Abedin to help look for job openings for an ‘important’ associate, whose name is redacted from the message.

Band forwarded an email to Abedin from the unnamed individual that was headlined ‘A favor…’

‘Hi Doug,’ said the April 22, 2009 email. ‘I really appreciated the opportunity to go on the Haiti trip; it was an eye-opening experiences seeing both the depravity and promise of that island.’ The rest of the email is redacted.

Order: Doug Band emailed Huma Abedin to tell her that it was 'very imp' for the billionaire Clinton Foundation donor to get access to Jeffrey Feltman, the ambassador to Lebanon (pictured) Order: Doug Band (pictured) emailed Huma Abedin to tell her that it was 'very imp' for the billionaire Clinton Foundation donor to get access to Jeffrey Feltman, the ambassador to Lebanon (right)
 Order: Doug Band (left) emailed Huma Abedin to tell her that it was ‘very imp’ for the billionaire Clinton Foundation donor to get access to Jeffrey Feltman, the ambassador to Lebanon (right)

Band passed on the message to Abedin with the noted ‘Important to take care of [redacted name].’

Abedin responded that the individual was ‘on our radar’ and ‘Personnel has been sending him options.’

In a third email, Clinton fundraiser Lana Moresky emailed Hillary Clinton and asked her about finding a State Department job for an individual whose name is redacted.

‘[Redacted] is looking for an opportunity to meet with a knowledgeable [Department of State] person to learn more about the structure and positions available,’ wrote Moresky in the April 29, 2009 email.

Clinton forwarded the message to Abedin with the note ‘Can you pls followup and help [redacted]?’

Judicial Watch said in a press release that the State Department favors ‘seem in violation of the ethics agreements that Hillary Clinton agreed to in order to be appointed and confirmed as Secretary of State.’

‘No wonder Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin hid emails from the American people, the courts and Congress,’ said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in a statement. ‘They show the Clinton Foundation, Clinton donors, and operatives worked with Hillary Clinton in potential violation of the law.’

SOME OF THE SECRET EMAILS 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3732075/Secret-emails-reveal-Hillary-s-closest-aide-took-orders-Clinton-Foundation-open-State-Department-doors-one-biggest-donors.html#ixzz4Gsf3Nxrc
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Here it Comes, Another Sin Tax, Sodas

Ballot measures are slated for just about everyday and they range from the sublime to the ridiculous…have you paid any attention?

Just in case you need an overview:

Who’s backing 2016 ballot measures?

CPI:  National advocacy groups are gearing up to push state ballot measures in 2016 on topics ranging from the minimum wage to marijuana legalization. Below is a sampling of groups and their plans.

For a sampling some of the work and in sight has already been provided such that you should be on alert by going here.

Soda tax battle brewing at 2016 ballot box

June 8, 2016: Opponents of a proposed sugary drink tax demonstrate outside City Hall in Philadelphia. June 8, 2016: Opponents of a proposed sugary drink tax demonstrate outside City Hall in Philadelphia. (AP)

FNC: Local governments are always thirsty for revenue – and their taste for a soda tax keeps getting stronger, fueling a new battle this fall with America’s beverage industry.

Boosted in part by anti-soda warrior and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, proponents are trying to get a tax on sugary drinks approved at the ballot box in at least four more municipalities.

The initiatives mark a resurgence of sorts for the soda tax crusade. According to the American Beverage Association, voters have rejected 43 such measures in the past eight years. But in a major win for the movement, the Philadelphia City Council approved a 1.5-cents-per-ounce soda tax this past June.

Now, three California municipalities – San Francisco, Oakland and Albany – are slated to vote on a soda tax of a penny per ounce. Boulder, Colo., could double that, if voters OK a 2-cents-per-ounce tax. The initiatives, which have been approved for the ballot, target both sugary drinks and diet drinks.

Advocates cite health benefits in pushing the proposals. “The goal of taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages is to reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, which science has proven to be directly correlated to detrimental health impacts such as diabetes, obesity and heart diseases,” San Francisco Board of Supervisors member Malia Cohen told FoxNews.com.

Bloomberg, often ridiculed for his efforts to ban the big gulp in his home city, spent $1.6 million to advocate for the passage of the Philadelphia tax and reportedly will be bankrolling efforts in San Francisco and Oakland as well.

But the American Beverage Association is staunchly opposed. ABA spokeswoman Lauren Kane said the Philadelphia tax is highly unpopular and shouldn’t be a model for any other city.

“This is a regressive tax, it raises the price of groceries and it’s discriminatory because it singles out a single product in the grocery cart,” Kane told FoxNews.com. “Once the government reaches into the grocery cart, everything else is vulnerable.”

The beverage association contends that soda consumption is at a 30-year low, yet obesity has continued to climb in recent years. Further, it notes West Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee all imposed some soda tax, but rank among the most obese states in the nation.

“There is no single product that is responsible for obesity,” Kane said.

So far, only Berkeley, Calif., has enacted such a tax with voter approval, OK’ing a 1-cent-per-ounce tax in the 2014 election.

If a city the size of San Francisco adopts a tax at the ballot box, it could be a model for others, advocates hope.

“San Francisco has always been a pioneer in landmark legislation and I have no doubt the passage of a sugary beverage tax in San Francisco will encourage other municipalities to seriously consider implementing a similar tax,” said Cohen, who led the effort to have the measure placed on the ballot.

San Francisco would appear the most likely to adopt the measure since 56 percent of voters backed a proposed 2 percent tax increase in 2014. It needed a two-thirds majority to pass because the tax revenue was dedicated for a specific purpose. This year, it’s a proposed 1 percent tax that requires only a simple majority, since the revenue would be going to the general fund. If approved, the tax is projected to bring in $14.4 million annually – money supposedly to be used for health and nutrition programs.

Therein lies another concern. Kane said the revenue would be going into the general budget “with no strings attached” – so voters wouldn’t even know if the revenue would be used “to fight obesity.”

The ABA has a formidable foe in Bloomberg. He telegraphed his plans in a statement issued after the Philadelphia tax victory.

“In November, voters in three California cities will take up the issue, and it may also come before voters in Boulder, Colorado,” Bloomberg said. “When cities lead the way, solutions that were once considered non-starters can quickly catch fire and spread around the world. It would not be the first revolution Philadelphia has sparked.”

The issue even worked its way into presidential politics this year. After eventual Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton said she was “very supportive” of the Philadelphia proposal in April, her opponent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders wrote an op-ed for Philadelphia Magazine calling it a “regressive grocery tax that would disproportionately affect low-income and middle-class Americans.”

Cohen objects to the charge of a regressive tax.

“What this assumption ignores is the fact Type 2 Diabetes is a regressive disease,” Cohen told FoxNews.com. “At today’s rate, 50 percent of African American youth vs. 25 percent White youth will contract Type II Diabetes in their lifetime. This is not a coincidence and we must do something today to address this crisis.”

The Field for the Oval Office is Expanding

Evan McMullin for President

Photo published for About Evan McMullin

My Letter To America

*****

Jobs and the Economy

Who in Govt is Whistleblowing on Immigration/Asylum Detention?

This event was hosted by Jones Day Law firm in Washington DC. The policies currently being applied by DHS, ICE and Customs and Border Patrol have officially been challenged as noted in this video of the The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and Human Rights First hosted a discussion on removal and detention of refugees seeking asylum in the U.S.

See the video here. While the session was almost 4 hours, please take the time to listen to the first two panelists…that will explain their mission and the links below. Moving forward, you will be able to better understand Barack Obama’s presentation next month at the United Nations, Jeh Johnson’s position and that of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Note that at no time is there a discussion about creating conditions by which globally migrants, refugees, asylum seekers would not have to leave their home countries in the first place.

Note also that the real human rights violations are happening in home countries yet no country leadership be it Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Syria, Iraq or Sudan has been brought before any tribunal for violations or war crimes.

2015 Annual Report

The Office of International Religious Freedom has the mission of promoting religious freedom as a core objective of U.S. foreign policy. The office is headed by the Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, David N. Saperstein. We monitor religious persecution and discrimination worldwide, recommend and implement policies in respective regions or countries, and develop programs to promote religious freedom.

Given the U.S. commitment to religious freedom, and to the international covenants that guarantee it as the inalienable right of every human being, the United States seeks to:

  • Promote freedom of religion and conscience throughout the world as a fundamental human right and as a source of stability for all countries;
  • Assist emerging democracies in implementing freedom of religion and conscience;
  • Assist religious and human rights NGOs in promoting religious freedom;
  • Identify and denounce regimes that are severe persecutors on the basis of religious belief.

The office carries out its mission through:

  • The Annual Report on International Religious Freedom. The report contains an introduction, executive summary, and a chapter describing the status of religious freedom in each of 195 countries throughout the world. Mandated by, and presented to, the U.S. Congress, the report is a public document available online and in book form from the U.S. Government Printing Office.
  • The designation by the Secretary of State (under authority delegated by the President) of nations guilty of particularly severe violations of religious freedom as “Countries of Particular Concern” under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (H.R. 2431) and its amendment of 1999 (Public Law 106-55). Nations so designated are subject to further actions, including economic sanctions, by the United States.
  • Meetings with foreign government officials at all levels, as well as religious and human rights groups in the United States and abroad, to address problems of religious freedom.
  • Testimony before the United States Congress on issues of international religious freedom.
  • Close cooperation with the independent United States Commission on International Religious Freedom.
  • Sponsorship of reconciliation programs in disputes which divide groups along lines of religious identity. The office seeks to support NGOs that are promoting reconciliation in such disputes.
  • Programs of outreach to American religious communities.