RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS...LIVE
Tomorrow, Saturday, September 5th, on RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on CPR
Worldwide Media from 11am to 1pm EST...Craig Andresen and Diane Sori
will discuss the true origins of the qur'an and why ISIS does follow
it's teachings, two issues that MUST NOT be buried under diversions, and
one issue voters with one track minds.
Hope you can tune in:
And chat with us live during the show at:
Contact Elected Officials
- Why This Blog
- Investigative Reports
- Contact Elected Officials
- The United West
- The Geller Report
- Reuters / RRS U.S. News
- RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS Website and Live Radio Link
- RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS PodBean Podcasts
- RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS on Facebook / MeWe / YouTube / Spotify
Friday, September 4, 2015
Project Veritas Action caught a Canadian citizen wanting to make a contribution to the Hillary campaign at its Roosevelt Island event. After some discussion, high-ranking campaign staffers and the Canadian came to an agreement to make the political contribution through a “straw donor.” That is, the American donor would give $40 of her own money and $35 of the Canadian’s all under her own name. However the Hillary campaign may spin it, this is simply illegal under the Federal Election Campaign Act.
The Hillary narrative goes something like this: nothing prohibits someone from buying campaign merchandise and giving it to a foreigner as a gift. That’s a fun story, but has no relevance here. It is not a “gift” to buy someone something when they give you the money to buy it for them. As is made evident in the video, the Canadian wants to make a political contribution to Hillary for America. And as is so common, campaigns provide “campaign swag” for certain levels of political contributions. No doubt about it—money given to the Hillary for America committee is not funding a new fashion line. It is funding her political campaign.
Federal law is abundantly clear about these issues. Candidates for federal office and their campaigns may not accept even a dollar of foreign money in political contributions. The Veritas Action video illustrates that Hillary’s staff was aware of this prohibition, discussed it, and decided to create a scheme to evade it. . Not serious? The law also prohibits the use of “straw men” contribution schemes where one person makes a political contribution for another. This kind of scheme landed conservative activist Dinesh D’Souza in jail. Apparently the law had very serious application for him, but is not so strict for Hillary.
In a sudden, nearly miraculous display of lenity toward campaign finance violations, many journalists are reporting that this video is about a Canadian wanting to buy a Hillary t-shirt. Of course, that’s not really the issue. Individuals are providing political contributions to the campaign—why else would the staffers be so concerned about federal election laws that barred foreign political contributions? Other journalists are reporting that this one incident is just nothing to be concerned about, because the Canadian only contributed about $35. But a candidate running for the highest office in this land who faces a series of controversies about foundation corruption, her private e-mail server, and now blatant disregard for federal election law should raise some eyebrows. This was just one incident one summer day in New York, and at least begs the question—how many other times have Hillary’s top campaign staffers lackadaisically skirted the law?
To be certain, the Project Veritas Action journalist who recorded the video committed a technical violation of the law—something akin to campaign finance jaywalking. By serving as a conduit, the Federal Election Commission could impose a small civil penalty against her. But the Hillary campaign, by contrast, engaged in the open evasion of federal election law and displayed a willingness to accept foreign contributions and devise a fraudulent conduit scheme. This sort of subterfuge appeared serious when the press covered the Dinesh D’Souza indictment. It should be treated equally seriously here.
Prosecutors will seek the death penalty against Dylann Roof, the 21-year-old who was responsible for a heinous racially-motivated shooting in June that left nine people, including a state senator, dead in Charleston, South Carolina (via NYT):
Roof’s shootings rehashed the debates about racism, the Confederate flag, and gun control. There is a legitimate debate over the Confederate flag on government property, though that was drowned out by political correctness and double standards; Amazon, eBay, and Walmart suspended the sale of the Confederate flag, but Amazon still allowed Nazi paraphernalia to be sold. Concerning gun control, none of Obama’s gun control initiatives post-Newtown would have stopped Roof from engaging in mass murder. The FBI admitted that a clerical error within the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) allowed Roof to purchase a handgun, despite his admission to a drug charge that would have prevented him from buying a firearm.
Mr. Roof has been indicted twice for the killings, in state court and in federal court, and each of those cases carries a possible death sentence. Until the court filing on Thursday by Scarlett A. Wilson, the South Carolina state solicitor overseeing the case, neither set of prosecutors had said publicly whether they would seek to have him executed, but state officials, including Gov. Nikki R. Haley, have said emphatically that the case warranted the death penalty. […]
Prosecutors said they intended to present evidence on Mr. Roof’s mental state, adult and juvenile criminal record and other conduct, as well as his apparent lack of remorse for the killings.
A lone gunman walked into the historic church in downtown Charleston, and sat in a Bible study session for almost an hour before drawing a .45-caliber semiautomatic handgun and shooting people ranging in age from 26 to 87.
Iran promises to “set fire” to U.S. interests
By Robert Spencer / Jihad Watch
The article doesn’t say. But the name of the group is actually the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and Salami’s threats here have a strong Islamic character: “In a direct threat to both the United […]
Read in browser »
Congressional Democrats PAID BY IRANIAN LOBBY to support Obama’s nuke deal
Every senator who accepted money from the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IPAC) should be impeached and removed from office — or at very least, soundly defeated the next time he or she comes up for reelection. But the enemedia, true to form, will cover for them and do everything it can to keep them on the government payroll.
“Gillibrand and other pro-Dealers got Iran cash,” by Jeff Dunetz, The Jewish Star, September 3, 2015 (thanks to Banafsheh):
One of the many unanswered questions about P5+1 agreement with Iran is why so many Congressional Democrats are rallying behind the President on this issue when recent polls show the majority of Americans want Congress to reject the deal.
Part of the...