Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (932997)	5/2/2016 6:13:16 PM
From: Broken_Clock	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572202

There were so many, you can use a lottery to pick your stories........... Stories f Clinton corruption are endless as well. +++++++++ Published on Monday, May 02, 2016 by Common Dreams State Party Officials Reportedly Displeased with Clinton-DNC 'Laundering' Scheme Sanders campaign lambastes Clinton for 'looting funds meant for the state parties to skirt fundraising limits on her presidential campaign.' by Deirdre Fulton, staff writer 11 Comments The Hillary Victory Fund is a joint fundraising committee involving the Clinton Campaign, the Democratic National Committee, and 32 state party operations. (Photo: Andrew Dallos/flickr/cc) Hillary Clinton's use of a so-called joint fundraising committee, through which her presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), and 32 state party committees can solicit big-money donors, is under fire not just from rival Bernie Sanders, but also from state party officials and their allies, according to reporting by Politico. Politico's deep dive into the latest Federal Election Commission filings, published Monday, shows that the Hillary Victory Fund "has transferred $3.8 million to the state parties, but almost all of that cash ($3.3 million, or 88 percent) was quickly transferred to the DNC, usually within a day or two, by the Clinton staffer who controls the committee." The analysis continues: By contrast, the victory fund has transferred $15.4 million to Clinton’s campaign and $5.7 million to the DNC, which will work closely with Clinton’s campaign if and when she becomes the party’s nominee. And most of the $23.3 million spent directly by the victory fund has gone towards expenses that appear to have directly benefited Clinton’s campaign, including $2.8 million for “salary and overhead” and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads and that has helped Clinton build a network of small donors who will be critical in a general election expected to cost each side well in excess of $1 billion. Unsurprisingly the arrangement is ruffling more than a few feathers, notably "among some participating state party officials and their allies," according to Politico reporters Kenneth P. Vogel and Isaac Arnsdorf. "They grumble privately that Clinton is merely using them to subsidize her own operation, while her allies overstate her support for their parties and knock Sanders for not doing enough to help the party." Indeed, an official with one participating state party—who asked to remain anonymous "for fear of drawing the ire of the DNC and the Clinton campaign"—told Politico: "It's a one-sided benefit." What's more, multiple sources told Politico that the DNC has in fact "advised state party officials on how to answer media inquiries about the arrangement." "The DNC has given us some guidance on what they're saying, but it's not clear what we should be saying," said the anonymous official. "I don’t think anyone wants to get crosswise with the national party because we do need their resources. But everyone who entered into these agreements was doing it because they were asked to, not because there are immediately clear benefits." The Sanders campaign sent an open letter last month to DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, decrying how the fundraising arrangement had been exploited in Clinton's favor. On Monday, citing the new reporting by Politico, campaign manager Jeff Weaver doubled down on that critique, lambasting the Clinton campaign for "looting funds meant for the state parties to skirt fundraising limits on her presidential campaign." "Secretary Clinton has exploited the rules in ways that let her high-dollar donors like Alice Walton of Wal-Mart fame and the actor George Clooney and his super-rich Hollywood friends skirt legal limits on campaign contributions," Weaver said. "If Secretary Clinton can't raise the funds needed to run in a competitive primary without resorting to launderinga, how will she compete against Donald Trump in a general election?" This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (932997)	5/3/2016 10:40:01 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572202

There are so many stories because citizens successfully defend themselves from criminals a lot in America.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (932997)	5/3/2016 11:11:54 AM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB TideGlider Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572202

Party of Crime to fill fed jobs with convicts [ The move to restore voting rights comes with restoration of jury service too and federal jobs. Criminals soon to be a protected class. ] Obama Admin to Open Federal Jobs to Criminals By: Daniel Horowitz \| May 02, 2016 While everyone is transfixed by the crescendo of the presidential primary this week, the national effort to roll back law and order and promote jailbreak is quietly gaining steam. The Gang of Jailbreak announced its “compromise” legislation on Thursday while everyone was focused on presidential politics. Either the House or Senate might move on this legislation as early as this month when Congress returns from a brief recess. Meanwhile, the crime lobby across America – at every level of local government – is pushing to mainstream criminals. Although proponents of jailbreak cannot publicly admit they desire to abolish our entire criminal justice system, opting for misleading talking points limiting their agenda to “non-violent drug offenses,” the legislation is really a reflection of a broader acceptance of criminals in all institutions of power across the country. Over the weekend, Reuters reported that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is considering a rule that would remove any question regarding criminal history from job applications for federal positions. This has been a long sought agenda item of the crime lobby – “ban the box,” as it is known in their circles – and has been promoted at many levels of state and local government. According to Beth Cobert, the Acting Director of OPM, ditching criminal history as a factor in federal job hiring would have affected 100,000 individuals who applied for federal employment last year. Not surprisingly, this new executive action is coinciding with a nationwide effort to “ban the box” for college admissions, as reported in a lengthy piece by The Atlantic on Friday. And it comes on the heels of a HUD regulation limiting the ability of landowners to use criminal history as a criterion to deny rentals to potentially dangerous tenants. In our inexorable march towards a politically correct social utopia, criminals – including violent ones – have just become the latest protected class. Clearly, this is part of a systemic effort to mainstream all sorts of criminals, not just “non-violent drug offenders.” While some credulous conservatives and libertarians have been allured aboard the “criminal justice reform” gravy train under this false pretense, the expungement of all criminal records for federal jobs, college admissions and rentals demonstrates that the far-left is finally succeeding in mainstreaming their radical pro-criminal agenda. The barring of criminal checks for college admissions is a particular case study in hypocrisy among liberals. How can they credibly make the case that sexual assault on college campuses is ubiquitous while simultaneously insisting that students, faculty and staff don't need to be screened for criminal history – any criminal history? Yet instead of fighting this dangerous agenda, Senate GOP leaders, led by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), have launched a new pro-jailbreak organization, the Conservatives for Safety & Opportunity, led by Rob Jesmer and Brian Walsh, the two infamous pro-amnesty shills who consistently attack grassroots conservatives. Just as Jesmer worked with Mark Zuckerberg at FWD to hoodwink conservatives into supporting amnesty, he is now working to countermand a half century of conservative success on law and order and promote jailbreak. The RNC has already adopted a pro-Jailbreak resolution. Sadly, so many “conservative” policy thinkers have been so tantalized by the prospect of reforming over-criminalization of regulatory crimes – something not even included in this deal – that they are willing to sign onto anything called “criminal justice reform,” even if it helps the far-left socially engineer our society into accepting violent criminals, creating hundreds of thousands of new Democrat voters, and resurrecting the pre- 90s era of endless crime. In our inexorable march towards a politically correct social utopia, criminals – including violent ones – have just become the latest protected class. And there is not one iota of opposition within the political class of either party. - See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/05/obama-admin-to-open-federal-jobs-to-criminals#sthash.2S2Uedeu.dpuf