Jane Harman Estimates $500,000 Unreported Algerian Donation To Clintons Got Lost In System


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Algerian Flag 001


Former Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA) takes a “guess” on Fox News Sunday, that the unreported $500,000.00 Algerian donation to the Clinton Foundation “got lost in the system,” and was never submitted to the State Department for approval. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State at the time, and the buck would have, or should have, stopped at her desk for final approval, had it been questionable, which it surely was. Political candidates are not allowed to take money from foreign governments. Algeria is “foreign,” is 99 percent Sunni Muslim with 99 percent Berber/Arab ancestry. She was not a political candidate, at the time, you are saying? Hillary Clinton has been a political candidate since she followed Bill into the White House in January 1993. See the transcript and video below.

CHRIS WALLACE: Congresswoman Harman, does that bother you at all. Are you at all troubled by these donations going to the Clinton Foundation?

JANE HARMAN: Uh, yes. Uh, there was a process set up. All other contributions were reviewed, as I understand it–there was transparency. This was an unsolicited contribution of $500,000.00 at a time when the U.S. deluged with help from Haiti. I guess it got lost in the system. I think it needs to be explained. I don’t understand why the money wasn’t returned, or in some way, after-the-fact approval wasn’t sought, but I assume the Foundation will explain it.

About five years have passed. No explanation so far.

With Hillary’s post at the State Department, came the necessity for a new agreement on what countries could contribute to the Clinton Foundation while she sat at the head of the Department. If a country had donated before, and wanted to continue to donate in similar amounts to past donations, they were allowed to do so. Apparently, Algeria did not fall into that parameter. Notice below Hillary’s “formal” involvement with the Foundation. Can you think of any Republican candidate who could get away with distancing herself from her husband?

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Rarely, if ever, has a potential commander in chief been so closely associated with an organization that has solicited financial support from foreign governments. Clinton formally joined the foundation in 2013 after leaving the State Department, and the organization was renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation…

The Washington Post reported last week that foreign sources, including governments, made up a third of those who have given the foundation more than $1 million over time. The Post found that the foundation, begun by former president Bill Clinton, has raised nearly $2 billion since its creation in 2001.

Foreign governments and individuals are prohibited from giving money to U.S. political candidates, to prevent outside influence over national leaders. But the foundation has given donors a way to potentially gain favor with the Clintons outside the traditional political limits…

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the foundation had accepted new foreign-government money now that the 2008 agreement has lapsed.

A review of foundation disclosures shows that at least two foreign governments — Germany and the United Arab Emirates — began giving in 2013 after the funding restrictions lapsed when Clinton left the Obama administration. Some foreign governments that had been supporting the foundation before Clinton was appointed, such as Saudi Arabia, did not give while she was in office and have since resumed donating. Read more at the Washington Post.

There is musing all around about why Hillary may take many more months before she declares herself to be a 2016 presidential candidate. All the more time to take those foreign government donations.




Christianity and Social Justice, a False Comparison Re-Revisited


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

There has been, in my opinion, a monstrous perversion of Christian teachings.  In order to promote Marxism, a variety of of Christian organizations and denominations have been infiltrated and influenced to promote an anti-Christian message- “social (in)justice.”   Many evangelical groups and the Catholic Church support it as well.   Just take a moment to let that thought percolate.  Would Jesus support Marxism?  Would he support a system that is openly resistant to any God but the state?  Mind you that social justice is nothing more than Marxism renamed, so I have a difficult time accepting that Jesus will support it.  It is neither social, nor just; it is simply the screwing down of everyone, outside the ruling elite, to the same level of government dependency/.

What I do know is that the Bible encourages charity in both Old and New Testaments.  Here’s a random selection of verses.


Deuteronomy 15:7
If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother.


Leviticus 25:35
‘If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you.

Psalm 37:25-26
I was young and now I am old, yet I have never seen the righteous forsaken or their children begging bread. They are always generous and lend freely; their children will be blessed.

Psalm 41:1-2
Blessed is he who has regard for the weak; the LORD delivers him in times of trouble. The LORD will protect him and preserve his life; he will bless him in the land and not surrender him to the desire of his foes.

Matthew 6:1-4
“Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.


2 Corinthians 9:7
Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Colossians 3:12
Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.

1 Timothy 6:17-18
Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.

I will openly admit that I am by no means a theologian.  But what I gather is that charity is to be something personal.  God clearly wants us to be kind to the less fortunate.  I also think that he wants is to do that ourselves.  Note the verses from Matthew and 2 Corinthians; they seem to suggest that not only should giving be an individual decision-without coercion, but is should also be done in an anonymous manner.  Additionally, charity not only improves the status of the poor, but improves the condition of the giver’s soul.  Basically, it is good for all, and pleasing to God.

Let’s contrast that with the concept of social justice.  Essentially, the government, an agent of force, will confiscate from some, and give it to others (after wasting the majority of it in DC).  That, and the way in which it is done usually creates more of the problem it was meant to alleviate.  In a spiritual sense, how does being legally robbed by the government improve your soul, or you as a person?  How does a confiscatory policy help you please your God?  Can giving be defined as charity if you have no choice?  I don’t recall Jesus holding a gun to someone’s head, but Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro and Che certainly did, and in millions of cases, their minions pulled the trigger.

To me, the answer is simple.  Government taxation is NOT charity.  It does nothing for the “giver,” and, as history shows, we spent a trillion dollars in the “War on Poverty,” and ended up with more poor people!  I guess our government purchased a trillion dollars worth of poverty. No one bothers to mention that in the war on poverty, poverty won.  And, in fact, the government’s efforts helped poverty win, and will continue to do so.

Was that what Jesus had in mind?

Go forth, and pay people to not work.  Penalize them for being married.  And pay the more for having babies outside of marriage.  And, if they try and work to feed themselves, penalize them so sharply that they will give up.  Oh, and make sure democrats control education so they’ll never learn enough to escape you.  Do these things, and you will achieve social justice!

I somehow doubt that this is what the Lord had in mind.


ObamaCare Penalizes Hospitals That Provide Free Care to the Poor



I’ve said before that the Obama Administration wants to discourage and co-opt charity in order to achieve greater control over the recipients of that charity.  Here is the latest example…

President Obama’s healthcare law is full of increased costs to taxpayers, in the form of taxes, higher premiums, and of course, fines. In fact, the healthcare law may punish charitable hospitals for treating uninsured Americans by issuing large fines to those institutions that continue to provide treatment to uninsured Americans.

The Daily Caller reported, “A new provision in Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code, which takes effect under Obamacare, sets new standards of review and installs new financial penalties for tax-exempt charitable hospitals, which devote a minimum amount of their expenses to treat uninsured poor people.”

With approximately 60 percent of American hospitals classified as nonprofit, this can prove to be a substantial amount of money in penalties. Hospitals that fail to meet the new standards could face fines upwards of $50,000.

John Kartch of the Americans for Tax Reform added that the law requires tax-exempt hospitals to regularly prove that they are necessary by filing paperwork with the IRS.

“It requires tax-exempt hospitals to do a community needs survey and file additional paperwork with the IRS every three years. This is to prove that the charitable hospital is still needed in their geographical area — ‘needed’ as defined by Obamacare and overseen by IRS bureaucrats,” said Kartch.

“Failure to comply, or to prove this continuing need, could result in the loss of the hospital’s tax-exempt status. The hospital would then become a for-profit venture, paying income tax — hence the positive revenue score” for the federal government, Kartch said. “Obamacare advocates turned over every rock to find as much tax money as possible.”

Of course, these hospitals are being set up to fail, as the resulting increase in the number of insured Americans as a result of the healthcare law is likely to minimize the need for tax-exempt hospitals. This will result in more hospitals operating as “for–profit” businesses, resulting in more tax money for the government.

As you can see, charity is discouraged, driving more and more people to the nanny state, where they can managed and killed off on the most efficient way possible.


Federal Government to Christian Charity, “Stop being Christian”


I’ve said before that instead of Marxism being Godless, it replaces the God of scripture with the far more petty god of the state.   And, it’s happening more and more here in the good old USSA.  See this from Gateway Pundit…

A Christian ministry has been ordered by the Feds to remove all of their religious symbols if they want any federal assistance feeding the poor.

A Florida ministry that feeds the poor said a state agriculture department official told them they would not be allowed to receive USDA food unless they removed portraits of Christ, the Ten Commandments, a banner that read “Jesus is Lord” and stopping giving Bibles to the needy.

It gets worse:

Daly and her staff sat in stunned disbelief as the government agents also informed them that the Christian Service Center could no longer pray or provide Bibles to those in need. The government contract also forbade any references to the ministry’s chapel. [LINK]

Again, the god of the state is a very jealous one, and it cannot tolerate competition, especially from the God of Creation, and his Son.  It might as well say, “Christians need not apply.”


Charity begins at home, not in Congress


I recently listened to a wonderful speech by Arthur Brooks, a great economist and author. He related a few facts about the giving and generosity of Americans. Let me relate a few of those facts to you.

In 2006, Americans gave $300 billion away to charity. American citizens, through private donations gave away to charity an amount that is more than the entire national income of Sweden. In answer to the question, “Are we cheap?” former President Jimmy Carter said, “Yes.” Further he said that the rich states “don’t give a damn” about people in poor countries. U2 singer and self appointed activist for the poor, Bono said, “It’s the crumbs off our tables that we offer these countries.”

Well, the data show otherwise. Looking at how Americans give on a per capita basis compared to other citizens of other countries around the world, we see that Americans give much more. In fact, the average American citizen gives away 3 ½ times more per year than the average French citizen; seven times more than the average German citizen and FOURTEEN times as much as the average Italian. Now all you economists out there want to know why this is. Is it because America is a richer country? By correcting for tax rates, inflation, etc… you see that the gap doesn’t close. This is a fundamental cultural difference.

Why is it that Americans give more? Why do Americans go out of their way to extend aid to those less fortunate, not only here at home, but around the world? Is there a reason that Americans are more charitable?

I believe that among our Founding Fathers, James Madison addressed this in all probability much more eloquently that I could:

“James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison

Thomas Jefferson also had very specific feelings about charity:

1806 – “I deem it the duty of every man to devote a certain portion of his income for charitable purposes; and that it is his further duty to see it so applied as to do the most good of which it is capable.”

1812 – “Private charities, as well as contributions to public purposes in proportion to every one’s circumstances, are certainly among the duties we owe to society, and I have never felt a wish to withdraw from my portion of them.”

So it would seem that our Founding Fathers wanted to leave the idea of charity to the individual. Did they know something we didn’t? I believe they did. I believe that they realized when men were free to keep the majority of the fruits of their labor, their “private property,” they would be more charitable. The examples above that show Americans are more generous than the citizens in other countries go to that idea. For even though we grumble and gripe about our “high” taxes, all of those countries have higher taxes than we do.

I further believe it is a philosophical difference between the far left and conservatism. For example, Ann Coulter notes the following:

According to their tax returns [notes Coulter], in 2006 and 2007, the Obamas gave 5.8 percent and 6.1 percent of their income to charity. I guess Michelle Obama has to draw the line someplace with all this ‘giving back’ stuff. The Bidens gave 0.15 percent and 0.31 percent of the income to charity.

Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.

For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million — more than twice President Bush’s 2005 income of $735,180 — but they both gave about the same amount to charity.

That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama’s.

It would seem that conservatives give more. I believe this is backed up by looking to Mark Levin’s book, Liberty and Tyranny, A Conservative Manifesto. In it he writes that the Conservative has it in his nature to “live and let live, to attend to his family, to volunteer time with his church and synagogue, and to quietly assist a friend, a neighbor, or even a stranger.”

It is in the Conservative’s nature to be more giving, for when one is content to keep the majority of the fruits of their labor, then they feel more able to give to others less fortunate. I also think that this philosophical difference about charity is the reason that Obama proposed the drastic cuts in the tax deductions on charitable giving. You see, the statist thinks that the sun rises and sets on a strong, authoritarian, centralized government. For how can the individual be trusted to give to charity, much less choose his own doctor?

But what Obama and the far left don’t realize is that giving is its own gift. It seems our brains are wired towards giving. Yes, that’s right. You see, when we give, our brain releases endorphins which elevate our feelings of euphoria. This lowers stress, makes you feel “warm and fuzzy,” and in general gives you a better feeling about yourself. Maybe that is why so many far leftists seem angrier. Who knows? But I do know that at Christmas time, I get a great feeling watching my children and grand children open their presents. More so, even than opening my open presents.

So to wrap this up, I would say that charity has to begin at home, because it cannot be mandated or legislated and the giver cannot be intimidated into giving. Charity truly begins at home, but it travels so much farther.

Arthur C. Brooks speaks at BYU

Originally Posted on October 31, 2009