According To The New York Times, Al Sharpton Owes $4.5M In Taxes And Steals From His Charities

New York Times: Al Sharpton Owes $4.5 Million In Taxes And Steals From His Charities – Downtrend

.

.
Man, I really thought the race hustle was a lucrative line of work. You make up racism and guilty liberal assholes send you money. There’s really no overhead; just profit. It may be that race hustling is a good line of work, but apparently Al Sharpton sucks at it or at least the money management side of it. The New York Times is reporting that Big Al owes a ton in back taxes and “borrows” from his various charities to support his lavish lifestyle.

Last month I reported on Sharpton’s birthday bash, which was really just a fundraiser to pay down his debt. At the time, Sharpton’s people said they had a handle on the money he owed, but the NYT paints a much different picture:

Mr. Sharpton has regularly sidestepped the sorts of obligations most people see as inevitable, like taxes, rent and other bills. Records reviewed by The New York Times show more than $4.5 million in current state and federal tax liens against him and his for-profit businesses.

Then there’s the stealing:

With the tax liability outstanding, Mr. Sharpton traveled first class and collected a sizable salary, the kind of practice by nonprofit groups that the United States Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration recently characterized as “abusive,” or “potentially criminal” if the failure to turn over or collect taxes is willful.

Oh, and even more stealing:

Mr. Sharpton and the National Action Network have repeatedly failed to pay travel agencies, hotels and landlords. He has leaned on the generosity of friends and sometimes even the organization, intermingling its finances with his own to cover his daughters’ private school tuition.

Sharpton is also likely guilty of campaign finance fraud:

With Mr. Sharpton focused on the 2004 presidential race, National Action Network’s finances were reaching crisis levels, tax documents and other public records show. The group’s revenues totaled just over $1 million in 2004, about half of what they had been two years earlier. Nevertheless, it picked up expenses from Mr. Sharpton’s presidential bid: $181,115 in consulting and other costs that should have been charged to his campaign, the Federal Election Commission later found.

More theft:

The group also faced court judgments for several hundred thousand dollars in unpaid office rent and hotel bills.

And tax fraud:

To stay afloat, the nonprofit became reliant on money that was supposed to go to payroll taxes, according to its financial statements. The amount National Action Network underpaid the federal government in taxes went from about $900,000 in 2003 to almost $1.9 million by 2006, records show.

In addition, Sharpton is constantly being sued by his landlord for not paying his rent. Since 2006 he’s been sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars on properties he occupies but doesn’t pay for.

It’s probably not shocking to most who are reading this that Al Sharpton is a POS schemer and charlatan, but it is kind of surprising that the liberal PC New York Times has published a piece critical of him. Especially considering that Sharpton is a White House consultant and Obama’s go-to guy on race relations.

This article makes you wonder why anyone would donate to an Al Sharpton charity. As far as I can tell, the only purpose of his National Action Network is to keep him in the lap of luxury. You never hear about Sharpton feeding people, sending kids to college, or building homes for the underprivileged; just about him jetting across the globe to condemn the latest instances of made-up racial injustice.

So not only is Sharpton a race hustler, he’s a regular hustler too: defrauding his charities and the government for personal gain. It’s lucky for him he has friends in high places because anyone else in his position would be in jail by now.

.

.

Media Matters And New York Times Deceptively Edited Bundy Video To Smear Him As A Racist

Media Matters, New York Times Deceptively Edit Bundy Video To Smear Him As A Racist – TPNN

.

.
George Soros-funded Media Matters and the fledgling New York Times are taking a page from the MSNBC playbook of editing video in order to fit their narrative and twist the actual occurrence of an event. (watch video below) This is done in an effort not as journalists, but as propagandist activists. After all, with Soros’ buddy Barack Obama in the White House constantly fanning the flames of racial, gender, and economic divide, they must give the rabid progressive base some fuel for the fire.

MSNBC has been caught deceptively editing video to help drive the progressive false and slanderous narrative that those in the Tea Party movement and also other conservatives are hate-filled racists. They deceptively edited a video from a Million Vet March in October 2013 to make it appear as if the protestor was the instigator in an altercation with police when he was not. They deceptively edited a clip of testimony given by one of the fathers of a Sandy Hook victim to make it appear as though pro-gun rights advocates heckled the dad for no reason. MSNBC deceptively edited statements by a Republican congressman to make it sound like he referred to food stamp recipients as rapists, pedophiles, and murderers. The list goes on and on.

The deceptive editing of video as a type of progressive activism by MSNBC has become commonplace at Obama’s LEAN FORWARD network. While conservative news outlets call them out on it, the damage is already done. In that instant, they have convinced their viewers, albeit they don’t have many, to believe the lies that they as a “news organization” are spreading. MSNBC has perfected utilization of a high profile news network to implement Saul Alinsky’s rule #12 in Rules for Radicals.

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

Perhaps that is what has driven Media Matters and the New York Times to follow the lead of MSNBC in the deceptive editing of videos in order to not report the news to people, but rather make people believe the message and propaganda that they want them to believe.

Editing a video to fit an agenda to smear those who oppose big government policies and actions as racist is precisely what Media Matters did in relation to Cliven Bundy. The New York Times condoned these actions by reporting on the edited version of a Cliven Bundy speech. Bundy, the last rancher in Clark County Nevada, has made headlines lately with his battle against the U.S. government in a dispute over grazing fees. The Obama BLM chose to descend upon Bundy’s ranch, in what is largely an administrative matter, with hundreds of armed forces in full tactical gear accompanied by massive weaponry and attack dogs. They were met with opposition by thousands, consisting of private citizens, state legislators, Oath Keepers, among others, who went to Nevada to stand with Bundy against big government overreach.

While the standoff came to an end, Bundy has remained in the news with Democrat Senator Harry Reid calling him and his supporters domestic terrorists. Media Matters and the New York Times made the “journalistic” decision to continue the smear campaign by editing a video of a speech given by Bundy to make it appear that he is a racist.

Here is how the far-left, George Soros funded propagandists at Media Matters edited Bundy’s speech.

Let me tell, talk to you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the negroes. I want to tell you one more thing I know about the negro. When I go, went, go to Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids – and there’s always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch. They didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.

And because they were basically on government subsidy – so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never, they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy?

You know they didn’t get more freedom, they got less freedom – they got less family life, and their happiness – you could see it in their faces – they wasn’t happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk. Down there they was probably growing their turnips – so that’s all government, that’s not freedom.

The narrative being pushed based upon this edited video is that Bundy is an outright racist. However, looking at what the propagandists at Media Matters edited out of the video puts what Bundy said in a completely different context and perspective.

What is quoted above is the middle of Bundy’s speech. Here is what Bundy said in the beginning.

…and so what I’ve testified to you – I was in the Watts riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen that last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people are thinking they don’t have their freedoms, they didn’t have these things, and they didn’t have them.

We’ve progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and we sure don’t want to go back. We sure don’t want the colored people to go back to that point. We sure don’t want these Mexican people to go back to that point. And we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way.

Now, here is what Bundy said at the end of the actual clip.

Now, let me talk about the Spanish people. You know, I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people – and I’ve worked side by side a lot of them.

Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structures than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people. And we need to have those people join us and be with us not, not come to our party.

Is the terminology that Bundy used in calling blacks ‘negro’ a bit outdated. Sure it is. But, Harry Reid used the exact same word to refer to Barack Obama in 2008 when he said Obama was very electable because “he was light-skinned with no Negro dialect unless he wanted to have one.” In that instance, there was no outrage from the left, because Reid is on their side so they went into protectionist mode.

But, back to Bundy. The 67 year old rancher actually defended Hispanics, even illegal aliens, stating that he has worked side by side with some describing them as hard workers with a devotion to family resulting in better family structure than whites. In regards to blacks, Bundy was not saying that blacks were better off as slaves. He was actually make a rather rudimentary comparison between the lives of blacks during the days of slavery to the bondage far too many find themselves in now as slaves to big government programs and pawns in a warped progressive chess game for power.

Could Bundy have worded things differently? Is what he said about the impact of Democrat policies on the black community true? Far too many people will not pose those questions because of the selective editing by Media Matters, in true Alinsky fashion, to push an agenda.

The Bundy ranch conflict put the egregious overreach of big government on full display. It brought about recollections of Obama’s call for a civilian police force as powerful as the military. It shed light on the massive stockpiles of ammunition being purchased by government agencies that have no need for such firepower. It made Americans aware of just how many government agencies have ‘civilian police forces’ and the force the government will use to make you comply.

Maybe its expecting too much for George Soros funded Media Matters to operate with journalistic integrity since one of their major goals is to destroy FOX News, the only major network with a conservative bend. But, for the New York Times to participate in this Saul Alinsky scheme is both shameful and sad.

But, this is what the left does when they see that they are losing an argument or losing at an issue. They pick a target, freeze it, polarize it, and personalize it. They do what they have to do to incite fear, anger, and resentment so that they can bring more people into the controlling arms of big government. They go after people, not institutions, just as Saul Alinsky instructed. It makes it personal.

Media Matters edited Bundy speech:

.

.
Actual Bundy speech:

.

.
Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

State Department Finally Confirms Terror Groups Behind Benghazi Attack; New York Times Hardest Hit

State Department Finally Confirms Terror Groups Behind Benghazi Attack – Townhall

More than a year after the 9/11 terror attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, the State Department has finally confirmed the terror groups responsible. The designation further proves the incident did not happen as a result of a protest but was planned in detail.

.

.
“Created separately after the fall of the Qadhafi regime, Ansar al-Shari’a in Benghazi and Ansar al-Shari’a in Darnah have been involved in terrorist attacks against civilian targets, frequent assassinations, and attempted assassinations of security officials and political actors in eastern Libya, and the September 11, 2012 attacks against the U.S. Special Mission and Annex in Benghazi, Libya. Members of both organizations continue to pose a threat to U.S. interests in Libya. Ahmed Abu Khattalah is a senior leader of Ansar al-Shari’a in Benghazi and Sufian bin Qumu is the leader of Ansar al-Shari’a in Darnah,” a State Department spokesman declared in a a statement. “The Department of State has announced the designations of Ansar al-Shari’a in Benghazi, Ansar al-Shari’a in Darnah, and Ansar al-Shari’a in Tunisia as separate Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and as Specially Designated Global Terrorist entities under section 1(b) of Executive Order (E.O.) 13224. In addition to these group designations, the Department of State has also designated Ahmed Abu Khattalah, Sufian bin Qumu, and Seifallah Ben Hassine, commonly known as “Abou Iyadh,” as Specially Designated Global Terrorists.”

According to prior reports and intelligence, these groups have ties to al Qaeda terror groups in the region.

“The U.S. Government is committed to taking all appropriate actions against the organizations and individuals responsible for the attacks against the U.S. diplomatic facilities in Libya and Tunisia. We remain committed to working with the Libyan government to bring the perpetrators of the September 11, 2012, Benghazi attacks to justice and to ensure the safety of our personnel serving overseas. Likewise, we continue to urge the Tunisian government to bring to justice those responsible for the September 14, 2012 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Tunis,” officials in the State Department assured.

The perpetrators of the 9/11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi are still on the run, none of them have been arrested. A reward of $10 million is being offered for information leading to an arrest or conviction of those responsible for the attack.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

If you want the right opinions first………

Read THIS BLOG! Donald Douglas. a blogging legend, in my view, links this piece from IBD

The attempt to rehabilitate Hillary Clinton begins as the New York Times revives the long-ago debunked “video clip” excuse for the well-planned Benghazi massacre while denying documented al-Qaida involvement.

These days it’s all the news that is fit to be made up that graces the pages of the once-proud Gray Lady that has morphed from a self-proclaimed “newspaper of record” to the house organ for the Obama administration.

The latest example is a piece on the Benghazi terrorist attack of Sept. 10, 2010, titled, “A Deadly Mix in Benghazi.” It resembles the infamous White House talking points — on steroids.

Great points, and a very good column you should read, no doubt. But, consider that on this blog, I wrote this yesterday

OH, you mean you did not hear the news? Well actually, they have not fully endorsed her, yet, but that is what this story is all about Absolving Miss What Difference Does it Make. See it WAS all about that video after all. 

I also was the first to call this Operation Cover Hillary’s Ass 2016! Of course, someone will go on Fox, or somewhere else and use that, or very similar wording and they will be praised as insightful, a genius, or be described as on the cutting edge. And if I see Karl Rove, with his whiteboard, or Dick Morris saying that on TV, my head will explode. But, we know who said it first, ME! So, really, it should be me on Fox aweing Megyn Kelly, or Andrea Tarantos, Andrea-Tantaros-handcuffswho can restrain me anytime

 

 

 

 

 

or maybe Kimberly Guilfoyle. Or maybe, just maybe I would go on MSNBS, and wow Tamron Hall with my political insight, and she would come out of the closet, no not THAT closet, and announce her infatuation with Conservative guys, namely me.

That Daley Gator guy is kinda hot

That Daley Gator guy is kinda hot

Now, will this happen? Of course not! But I can have dreams can’t I?

New York Times endorses Hillary Clinton! UPDATED!

OH, you mean you did not hear the news? Well actually, they have not fully endorsed her, yet, but that is what this story is all about Absolving Miss What Difference Does it Make. See it WAS all about that video after all

Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault. The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.

All the News that is fit to spin. Donald Douglas is also talking about what I am calling Operation Cover Hillary’s Ass 2016!

 

I read the report. It’s supposed to be so “complicated” you see. It’s impossible for the rubes to understand. But read it for yourself. Pure convenience. A story-line cooked perfectly for a political party on the ropes and about to go down hard. Meanwhile, so much remains unanswered. See the Weekly Standard, for just a start, “Questions They Won’t Answer.” 

The newest way to support the evil of Communism? Climate Justice!

Good Freaking Grief, here they go again

I told you the other day about how Warmists are making a concerted push with the “inequities” meme. I’ve seen a bunch of tweets regarding #COP19 along those same lines. Now, here comes the NY Times, which apparently received the memo about the meme

Growing Clamor About Inequities of Climate Crisis

Following a devastating typhoon that killed thousands in the Philippines, a routine international climate change conference here turned into an emotional forum, with developing countries demanding compensation from the worst polluting countries for damage they say they are already suffering.

From the time a scientific consensus emerged that human activity was changing the climate, it has been understood that the nations that contributed least to the problem would be hurt the most. Now, even as the possible consequences of climate change have surged — from the typhoons that have raked the Philippines and India this year to the droughts in Africa, to rising sea levels that threaten to submerge entire island nations — no consensus has emerged over how to rectify what many call “climate injustice.”

Growing demands to address the issue have become an emotionally charged flash point at negotiations here at the 19th conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which continues this week. (snip)

Although the divide between rich and poor nations has bedeviled international climate talks for two decades, the debate over how to address the disproportionate effects has steadily gained momentum. Poor nations here are pressing for a new effort that goes beyond reducing emissions and adapting to a changing climate.

No one uncovers the fraud of the Green is the new Red crowd like William Teach

So, much of the article goes along in the same vein. The inequity meme is part of the “climate justice” progressive talking point, deriving from their “social justice” beliefs, which come from their need to create more and more Big Government.

And what these “developing countries” want is $$$. Lots of it. Because they’ve done so great with all the money we’ve given them for other things. And because Bad Weather is never supposed to happen and the climate is always supposed to stay static.

Fraud! Scam! Many other words describe what the climate justice crowd is about, which is, in large part redistribution of wealth that will benefit the elites the most. Give Communists credit and never sell them short. Yes they are evil, yes their designs are evil, but they are doggedly determined to hold all power over us all. They will use tragedies, they will even create tragedies to use, they will lie, and threaten and will never stop. They will use good causes, like conservation, civil rights, women’s rights, education, gun safety, and of course equality etc. to get  their way. They latch onto these causes, and slowly bastardize them to push more Communist propaganda onto society. Their goal is not to actually solve problems. Their goal is to empower themselves. The greatest lie ever told? It is the Communist’s cries of “power to the people”. The people have no power under Communism, they have no rights, but they have equality, equality of misery. 

Take environmentalism for instance. There is no shame in caring for the earth, and preserving resources, nothing wrong in protecting endangered species. But the end game for Leftists who mask themselves as environmentalists, or animal rights types is not noble. Their end game is Marxism. So they dress it up and rebrand it as environmental justice because who would be against saving the earth, or elephants? No one would, but, again, that is not their goal is it? No, and it never has been.

So now “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan” is an incorrect promise is it?

How morally retarded is the Left? The Other McCain lets us know

Orwellian euphemism from the New York Times:

The split between lawmakers and the White House reflects the dilemma the president finds himself in as he seeks to follow through on last week’s acknowledgment about his incorrect promise on health care coverage.

Good freaking grief! How far removed from our senses are we? Why is anyone making excuses for Obama’s BALD-FACED LIE? He LIED, and many Democrats lied with him. This was not a broken promise, it was a lie, PERIOD! And it was a lie told, and repeated to pass a bill these miscreants KNEW would force most American’s off the insurance they chose, and onto plans the government mandates! How tough is it to connect the dots here? If the government can tell you you MUST buy a product, in this case health insurance, then they can tell you what type of health coverage you MUST have. Honestly who did not see this coming?

Maybe more to the point, why would anyone defend, excuse, or spin this? Because those defending this un-American abomination actually think the government should do whatever it takes to reach the desired end, in this case, socialized medicine. Those defending this do not love liberty, they detest it! They care about the “common good”, they are Marxists! They are fine with deceit because they like the end game, so the means do not matter. It is all about the Collective as Donald Douglas notes

This is literally painful, from Jonathan Cohn, at the New Republic, “Bill Clinton Is Wrong. This Is How Obamacare Works” (via Memeorandum):

The Affordable Care Act includes a so-called grandfather clause. That allows insurers to keep renewing plans, without changes or benefits and prices, as long as they were available before March 2010, when the Affordable Care Act became law. But the non-group market is volatile: Very few people stay on plans for more than two years anyway. And the grandfather clause is narrow, by design: If insurers made even modest changes, the protection goes away. Those plans are subject to the new regulations that take effect in January. As a result, the majority of people who buy insurance on their own are learning they can’t have what they had before, even though Obama promised everybody they could. Either their premiums are going up, as insurers accommodate the new regulations, or the plans are disappearing altogether. In those cases, people have to find new plans. And the sticker price of what they’ll find is higher than what they pay now.

This is not a glitch or an accident. This is the way health care reform is supposed to work. And it’s important to put these changes into context. For one thing, it’s a small number of people relative to the population as a whole. The vast majority of Americans get coverage through employers or a large government program like Medicare. These changes don’t really affect them. The law also anticipates these changes by, among other things, offering tax credits that discount the premiums—in many cases, by thousands of dollars. (Other provisions of the law, like a limit on insurance company profits and overhead, should restrain prices more.) As a result, many people buying coverage on their own will be paying less money for benefits that are as good, if not better, than what they have now.

But there are real people who must pay more and, in some cases, put up with less. Some of them are people walking around with junk insurance, the kind are practically worthless because they pay out so little. Some of them are young people, particularly young men, whom insurers have coveted and wooed with absurdly low premiums—and make too much money to qualify for substantial subsidies. And some of them are reasonably affluent, healthy people with generous, open-ended policies that are hard to find even through employers. Insurers kept selling them because they could restrict enrollment to healthy people. Absent that ability, insurers are canceling them or raising premiums so high only the truly rich can pay for them.

Those people are the ones everybody is hearing about now, partly because they are a compelling, sometimes well-connected group—and partly because, absent a well-functioning website, stories of people benefitting from the law’s changes aren’t competing for attention. It’s impossible to know how big this group is. The data on existing coverage just isn’t that good. The anecdotes are frequently, although not always, more complicated than they seem at first blush. It’s probably one to two percent of the population, which doesn’t sound like much—except that, in a country of 300 million, that’s 3 to 6 million people. Most experts I trust think they represent a minority of people buying coverage on their own, but nobody can say with certainty.

Is that a worthwhile tradeoff for reform? Obviously that’s a matter of opinion. The fact that some people—even a small, relatively affluent group—are giving up something they had makes their plight (genuinely) more sympathetic. They are right to feel burned, since Obama did not make clear his promise might not apply to them. And there’s a principled argument about whether people should be responsible for services they’re unlikely to use presently, whether it’s fifty-something year olds paying for maternity care or twenty-something year olds paying for cardiac stress tests.

Read the whole thing. Utterly astounding.

This is what the president meant by “fundamental” change folks. He is willing to destroy private health insurance to get what he, and his fellow Marxists have long dreamed of, universal health care, which, according to a man I met today at the airport, is a great thing, until you make the mistake of getting sick. And speaking of getting sick, it seems that more Democrats are getting sick of their electoral chances next year

House Democrats delivered a fix-it-or-else ultimatum Wednesday to President Obama, giving his administration until Friday to find an affordable solution for the millions of Americans losing their health plans under ObamaCare — or risk some Democrats backing a Republican solution. 

The ultimatum from President Obama’s own party is another sign of the unrest within the Democratic caucus about the cancellation notices. The end-of-the-week deadline is significant, because House Republicans are planning to call a vote Friday on a bill that would extend current policies for another year. 

It’s unclear whether Democrats would go so far as to support that bill if the administration does not offer a Plan B. But one senior Democratic source told Fox News that, at a closed meeting Wednesday, Democrats made clear to the administration that they need a proposed fix before Friday’s vote. 

The White House has vowed to come up with a solution, but so far has not provided much detail on what such a solution would entail. Press Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday that the president will make an announcement on possible options “sooner rather than later.” 

One senior House Democrat characterized the meeting Wednesday as “heated.” The source said the session consisted of “members telling the administration that they screwed it up and now we have to explain it to the public.” 

Another source said that it helps for the administration to hear frank talk “from their friends that they need to get back in front of the problem.” 

“No more excuses, just get it done,” the source said. 

Of course, if these same Democrats had listened to their constituents three years ago, we would not be in this mess would we? Frankly, every Democrat who voted for Obamacare deserves to get thrown out of office over this.