Obama & ISIS Catoon

Bill Clinton used personal 'LLC' as 'pass-through' for payments, sources say

The newly released financial files on Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton's growing fortune omit a company with no apparent employees or assets that the former president has legally used to provide consulting and other services, but which demonstrates the complexity of the family's finances. 
Because the company, WJC, LLC, has no financial assets, Hillary Clinton's campaign was not obligated to report its existence in her recent financial disclosure report, officials with Bill Clinton's private office and the Clinton campaign said. They were responding to questions by The Associated Press, which reviewed corporate documents. 
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to provide private details of the former president's finances on the record, said the entity was a "pass-through" company designed to channel payments to the former president.
Under federal ethics disclosure rules, declared candidates do not have to report assets worth less than $1,000. But the company's existence demonstrates the complexity of tracking the Clintons' finances as Hillary Clinton ramps up her presidential bid.
While Bill Clinton's lucrative speeches have provided the bulk of the couple's income, earning as much as $50 million during his wife's four-year term as secretary of state in the Obama administration, the former president has also sought to branch out into other business activities in recent years. Little is known about the exact nature and financial worth of Bill Clinton's non-speech business interests.
The identities of several U.S and foreign-based companies and foundations that Bill Clinton worked for have been disclosed in Hillary Clinton's recent financial report as well as in earlier reports during her stint as secretary of state.
Under federal disclosure rules for spouses' earned income, Hillary Clinton was only obligated to identify the source of her spouse's income and confirm that he received more than $1,000. As a result, the precise amounts of Bill Clinton's earned income from consulting have not been disclosed, and it's not known how much was routed through WJC, LLC.
WJC, LLC was set up in Delaware in 2008 and again in 2013 and in New York in 2009, according to documents obtained by The AP. The company did not appear among holdings in the Clintons' financial disclosure released last week or in previous Hillary Clinton disclosure reports between 2008 and 2013, when she resigned as secretary of state. Bill Clinton signed a document as its "authorizing person" in a corporate filing in Delaware in 2013.
A limited liability company is a commonly used business structure that provides tax advantages and limited legal protection for the assets of company owners and partners.
The purpose of Bill Clinton's U.S.-based company was not disclosed in any of the corporate filings in Delaware and New York, but State Department files recently reviewed by the AP show that WJC, LLC surfaced in emails from Bill Clinton's aides to the department's ethics officials.
In February 2009, Clinton's counselor, Douglas Band, asked State Department ethics officials to clear Bill Clinton's consulting work for three companies owned by influential Democratic party donors. Memos sent by Band proposed that Bill Clinton would provide "consulting services regarding geopolitical, economic and social trends affecting the entity and philanthropic opportunities" through the WJC, LLC entity.
State Department officials approved Bill Clinton's consulting work for longtime friend Steve Bing's Shangri-La Industries and another with Wasserman Investments, GP, a firm run by entertainment executive and Democratic party donor Casey Wasserman. The ethics officials turned down Bill Clinton's proposed work with a firm run by entertainment magnate and Democratic donor Haim Saban because of Saban's active role in Mideast political affairs.
WJC, LLC was also cited by Band in a June 2011 memo sent to State Department ethics officials asking for clearance to allow Bill Clinton to advise Band's international consulting company, Teneo Strategy LLC. Band's request said Teneo would use "consulting services provided by President Clinton through WJC, LLC." State Department officials approved the three-year contract between the two companies.
None of the proposals detailed how much Bill Clinton would be paid.
While Hillary Clinton's 2011 federal disclosure report did not mention WJC, LLC, it reported that Bill Clinton received "non-employee compensation over $1,000 from Teneo," but did not disclose a more precise amount. Federal disclosure rules require the spouses of filers to disclose the identity of any income sources over $1,000, but they do not have to provide exact figures.
Pass-through, or shell, companies became an issue in the 2012 presidential campaign when Republican candidate Mitt Romney disclosed a private equity entity worth $1.9 million despite failing to report the company on his previous federal disclosure. Romney aides said the company previously held no assets but then received the $1.9 million "true up" payment -- a catch-up payment to make up for private equity fees from defunct investment advisory businesses that had not been previously paid.

29 shot, 9 dead in bloody Memorial Day weekend in Baltimore

Life without Law and Order?

The city of Baltimore saw a bloody Memorial Day weekend, with a total of 29 people being shot, including nine who died, as the city scrambles to deal with its deadliest month since 1999.
The Baltimore Sun reported that one of those injured was a 9-year-old in West Baltimore who was shot in the leg Monday night. Another man nearby suffered a bullet graze to his head, police told the paper. Two victims in separate shootings suffered fatal gunshot wounds that pushed the number of homicides to 35 for May. A total of 108 have been killed in the city this year, The Sun reported.
WBAL-TV reports a man and woman were shot in a car around 12:30 a.m. Monday. Both were taken to the hospital where the man died. Officers responded to another report of a shooting around 1:43 a.m. Monday. A man died at the hospital. Another man was shot and killed Sunday afternoon. None of those shooting victims have been identified.
"The shootings and killings are all over the city. I don't think any part of the city is immune to this," William "Pete" Welch, a city councilman, told The Sun. "I’ve never seen anything like this."
The city, which has seen its population fall about 35 percent since the 1950s, has found itself in the forefront of the national debate on policing in minority communities after the case of Freddie Gray, whose death has led to the arrests of several Baltimore police officers.
Gray suffered a critical spinal injury April 12 after police handcuffed, shackled and placed him head-first into a van, prosecutors said. His pleas for medical attention were repeatedly ignored, it is alleged.

More on this...

• Baltimore sees most violent month since 1999

"It was an earthquake kind of time and I think we're still dealing with the aftershock," Mary Pat Clarke, a councilwoman, told CBS Baltimore.
Some suggest police in the city, discouraged with the Gray indictments of six officers, may be staging a slowdown in protest, while others say the cops find themselves in a precarious position and may be hesitant to intervene in violent crimes.
"Of course it makes me scared," one resident in West Baltimore, who heard gunshots, told The Sun. "I started praying. I didn't move. ... The drugs have escalated in this block in the last six months. With this new drug element in the block — oh, Lord."
Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake on Sunday met with the police commissioner to discuss the crime issue, The Sun reported. Her spokesman said, "She is confident that the steps being taken by the Police Department will quell this latest uptick in violence."

Marine court-martialed for refusing to remove Bible verse

A United States Marine was convicted at a court-martial for refusing to remove a Bible verse on her computer – a verse of Scripture the military determined “could easily be seen as contrary to good order and discipline.”
The plight of Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling seems unbelievable – a member of the Armed Forces criminally prosecuted for displaying a slightly altered passage of Scripture from the Old Testament: “No weapon formed against me shall prosper.”
Sterling, who represented herself at trial, was convicted February 1, 2014 in a court-martial at Camp Lejune, North Carolina after she refused to obey orders from a staff sergeant to remove the Bible verses from her desk.
She was found guilty of failing to go to her appointed place of duty, disrespect toward a superior commissioned officer, and four specifications of disobeying the lawful order of a noncommissioned officer.

As it now stands – Sterling is unemployed and looking for work. It’s a process made harder because of the bad conduct discharge from the military. Hopefully Liberty Institute will be able to restore this Christian Marine’s good name and expunge the charge.

The Christian Marine was given a bad conduct discharge and a reduction in rank from lance corporal to private.
Both lower court and the appellate court ruled that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act did not apply to her case because displaying a Bible verse does not constitute religious exercise.

Related Image

Expand / Contract

However, a religious liberty law firm and a high-powered, former U.S. solicitor general have taken up her case and have filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
“If the government can order a Marine not to display a Bible verse, they could try and order her not to get a religious tattoo, or go to church on Sunday,” said Liberty Institute attorney Michael Berry. “Restricting a Marine’s free exercise of religion is blatantly unconstitutional.”
Click here to follow Todd on Facebook for Conservative conversation!

Sterling wised up and finally got legal counsel. Now representing her are the Liberty Institute along with former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, also a law professor at Georgetown University.
Clement most recently won a Supreme Court victory on behalf of Hobby Lobby against the Affordable Care Act.
Liberty Institute and Clement plan to argue that the appellate court should have applied the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Sterling’s case – protecting her right to post Bible verses as a form of religious exercise.
According to the appellate court’s decision, they were not convinced “that displaying religious text at a shared government workstation would be protected even in a civilian federal workplace.”
They also considered the fact that Sterling’s desk was shared by other Marines.
“The implication is clear – the junior Marine sharing the desk and the other Marines coming to the desk for assistance would be exposed to biblical quotations in the military workplace,” the court declared. “It is not hard to imagine the divisive impact to good order and discipline that may result when a service member is compelled to work at a government desk festooned with religious quotations.”
Festooned with religious quotations?
Attorney Berry points out that other Marines were allowed to decorate their desks. However, the lower courts refused to allow that evidence to be admitted. And at the time of the incident – Sterling was not sharing a desk.
“This was a conflict between her and her supervisor,” he told me. “Her supervisor clearly said she did not like the tone of the Bible verses.”
Berry said the supervisor cursed at Sterling and ordered her to immediately remove the verses. She refused the order. The following day, she discovered the verses had been removed and thrown in the trash.
“Adding insult to injury, the government charged her with the crime of failing to obey a direct order because she did not remove the Bible verse,” Berry said.
According to court documents, the military maintains the “verbiage” – “No weapon formed against me shall prosper” could “easily been seen as contrary to good order and discipline.”
“Maintaining discipline and morale in the military work center could very well require that the work center remain relatively free of divisive or contentious issues such as personal beliefs, religion, politics, etc.”
Liberty Institute attorney Hiram Sasser told me it was outrageous “that such a small strip of paper could so frighten a drill sergeant.”
“This is a very scary time when you are not allowed to have a very small printed Bible verse in your own personal workspace because it might offend other Marines,” Sasser told me. “Our Marines are trained to deal with some of the most hostile people on the planet. I don’t think they are afraid of tiny words on a tiny piece of paper.”
The Bible verse incident happened in May 2013. A few months later she was accused of failing to wear an appropriate uniform because of a medical condition.
Berry told me he believes the military was trumping up the charge sheet “to make it look that things were worse than they were.”
As it now stands – Sterling is unemployed and looking for work. It’s a process made harder because of the bad conduct discharge from the military.
Hopefully Liberty Institute will be able to restore this Christian Marine’s good name and expunge the charge.
Anything less could jeopardize the standing of every person of faith serving in the Armed Forces. Should that happen – God help us all.

Appeals court refuses to lift hold on Obama immigration action

A federal appeals court refused Tuesday to allow the implementation, for now, of President Obama's executive action that could shield from deportation as many as 5 million illegal immigrants. 
The U.S. Justice Department had asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen's earlier decision temporarily halting the administration's plan. Hanen issued the temporary hold in February, after 26 states filed a lawsuit alleging Obama's action was unconstitutional. 
Two out of the three judges on a court panel, though, voted Tuesday to deny the government's request, as the underlying case is argued. 
White House Spokesperson Brandi Hoffine said after the ruling, "today, two judges of the Fifth Circuit chose to misinterpret the facts and the law in denying the government's request for a stay."   
The majority opinion reasoned that lifting the temporary hold -- known in judicial parlance as issuing a "stay" -- could cause serious problems for states should they ultimately win their challenge. It said the states have shown that "issuance of the stay will substantially injure" them. 
It continued: "A stay would enable DAPA beneficiaries to apply for driver's licenses and other benefits, and it would be difficult for the states to retract those benefits or recoup their costs even if they won on the merits. That is particularly true in light of the district court's findings regarding the large number of potential beneficiaries, including at least 500,000 in Texas alone." 
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton praised Tuesday's decision. 
"The separation of powers and check and balances remain the law of the land, and this decision is a victory for those committed to preserving the rule of law in America," he said in a written statement. 
The White House has said the program is intended to primarily help immigrants brought to the U.S. as children and those with children who are U.S. citizens. 
It wasn't immediately clear if the government would appeal, either to the full appeals court in New Orleans or to the U.S. Supreme Court. 
The states suing to block the plan, led by Texas, argue that Obama acted outside his authority and that the changes would force them to invest more in law enforcement, health care and education. 
The White House has repeated its position that the president has exclusive authority to enforce immigration laws and can adjust policies to fix a "broken immigration system." Fourteen states have sided with Obama in the case, and say the benefits of immigration outweigh the costs. 
Justice Department lawyers sought a stay while they appealed the injunction. They argued that keeping the temporary hold interfered with the Homeland Security Department's ability to protect the U.S. and secure the nation's borders. 
They also said immigration policy is a domain of the federal government, not the states. 
But, in Tuesday's ruling, 5th Circuit judges Jerry Smith and Jennifer Walker Elrod denied the stay, saying in an opinion written by Smith that the federal government lawyers are unlikely to succeed on the merits of that appeal. Judge Stephen Higginson dissented. 
"The president's attempt to do this by himself, without a law passed by Congress and without any input from the states, is a remarkable violation of the U.S. Constitution and laws," Paxton said. 
Obama announced the executive action in November, saying lack of action by Congress forced him to make sweeping changes to immigration rules on his own. Republicans said Obama overstepped his presidential authority. 
The first of Obama's orders -- to expand a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children -- was set to take effect Feb. 18. The other major part, extending deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for some years, had been scheduled to begin May 19. 
Hanen issued his injunction believing that neither action had taken effect. But the Justice Department later told Hanen that more than 108,000 people had already received three-year reprieves from deportation as well as work permits. Hanen said the federal government had been "misleading," but he declined to sanction the government's attorneys. 
The Justice Department has also asked the 5th Circuit to reverse Hanen's overall ruling that sided with the states. A decision on that appeal, which will be argued before the court in July, could take months. 
Along with Texas, the states seeking to block Obama's action are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

ISIS Cartoon

Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran marries longtime aide

JACKSON, Miss. –  U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran — the Mississippi Republican whose 2014 primary campaign drew national attention over an aspiring blogger's photos of his bedridden wife — has married his longtime aide, his office said Monday.
The wedding to Kay Webber took place privately Saturday in Gulfport.
The senator's first wife, Rose Cochran, died in December at age 73 from dementia after living in a nursing home for 13 years.
Political blogger Clayton Kelly took pictures of a bedridden Rose Cochran in April 2014, and officials say he intended to use the images to advance allegations that the senator was having an inappropriate relationship with Webber. Cochran's aides said then that there was nothing improper about the senator's relationship with Webber.
Webber has worked for Cochran since 1981, and both are 77, spokesman Chris Gallegos said. Webber makes $165,000 a year working for the senator.
Kelly, of Pearl, faces charges of conspiracy, burglary and attempted burglary over the photograph. Kelly's lawyer questions whether any laws were broken.
Charges against three other men have been resolved.
Richard Sager, a Laurel teacher and coach who had been charged with conspiracy and tampering with evidence, entered a pretrial diversion program. His case won't be prosecuted if he successfully completes the program.
John Mary of Hattiesburg pleaded guilty in August to conspiracy and agreed to cooperate with investigators. Mary received no jail time and could have the conviction wiped from his record if he completes probation.
Ridgeland Attorney Mark Mayfield, who was charged with conspiracy, died by suicide in June, according to police.
The photograph controversy was only one part of a chaotic 2014 Republican primary in which Cochran was challenged by state Sen. Chris McDaniel, an Ellisville Republican. McDaniel led Cochran and one other Republican candidate in the June 3 primary. But Cochran rallied and defeated McDaniel by 7,667 votes in a runoff three weeks later, in part by making appeals to typically Democratic African-American voters.
McDaniel filed a lawsuit claiming the runoff results were tainted by voting irregularities. A circuit judge dismissed the lawsuit, saying it was filed too late. The state Supreme Court upheld the dismissal Oct. 24.
Cochran was first elected to the U.S. House in 1972 and won his first six-year term in the Senate in 1978.
He waited until 2013 to announce he was seeking re-election, weeks after McDaniel had entered the race and lined up financial support from groups that sought to unseat longtime Republicans.
Cochran cruised to victory in the general election with 60 percent of the vote.

ObamaCare fallout? Supreme Court ruling sets up potential Obama, GOP battle

The upcoming Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act could wipe out insurance for millions of people covered by the president’s health care plan, leaving states that didn't set up their own health care markets scrambling to subsidize coverage for those left uninsured.
Twenty-six of the 34 states that would be hardest hit by the ruling have GOP governors. Twenty-two of the 24 Senate seats that are up for re-election in 2016 are currently held by Republicans. What that means is that it’s the GOP – and not the White House –that’s working on damage control.
President Obama’s landmark legislation offers subsidized private insurance to those without access to it on the job. In the Supreme Court case, opponents of the law argue that its literal wording allows the government to subsidize coverage only in states that set up their own health insurance markets.
The justices will determine whether the law makes people in all 50 states eligible for federal tax subsidies -- or just those who live in states that created their own health insurance marketplaces. The question matters because about three dozen states opted against their own marketplace, or exchange, and instead rely on the U.S. Health and Human Services Department’s Healthcare.gov.
If the court rules against the Obama administration, insurance subsidies for people in those states would be in jeopardy.
If the court invalidates the subsidies in those states, the results would be “ugly,” former Kansas insurance commissioner Sandy Praeger told The Associated Press.
 "People who are reasonably healthy would just drop coverage," she said. "Only the unhealthy would keep buying health care. It would really exacerbate the problem of the cost of health insurance."
Praeger, a Republican who retired this year, called it "a classic death spiral," using a term for market collapse.
In March, the Supreme Court appeared divided along ideological lines after hearing the challenge that, if struck down, could affect up to 8 million policy holders.
If the subsidies survive, the ACA will look like settled law to all but a few passionate opponents. However, if they are overturned, the shock could carry into next year’s elections.
Here are just a few of the potential consequences:
BAD TIMING
Around the time when the court announces its decision, insurers will be working to finalize premiums and plans for the coming year. Contracts with the government for 2016 health law coverage have to be signed by early fall. If the subsidies are overturned, insurers would have to tear up their projections about markets in more than half the states.
Populous states such as Texas, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, New Jersey, Georgia and Pennsylvania would be among those affected.
State lawmakers could mitigate the impact by setting up their own insurance markets, or exchanges. But that can't be done overnight.
States might try authorizing an exchange, and then contracting with the federal government to run it. But that sort of end-run might prompt lawsuits from opponents of the law.
In any case, most state legislatures will be out of session by the summer.
During arguments, Associate Justice Samuel Alito raised the possibility that the court might be able to delay the effective date of its decision. Even a delay through the end of this year wouldn't buy much time. Enrollment for 2016 health law plans is scheduled to start Nov. 1.

HOUSE OF CARDS
The health law was designed as a balancing act. Insurers can't turn people away because of health problems, but most healthy people are required to contribute to the insurance pool, and the government subsidizes most of the premium for low- to middle-income households.
Take away subsidies, and the other two parts become unstable.
The law's requirement to carry insurance, never popular, would probably become the biggest target for repeal.
"My guess is there would be overwhelming political support for the elimination of the individual mandate if people can't afford the premiums," said former Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., who was an influential Obama adviser on health care.
Insurers would demand relief from provisions of the law intended to limit premium increases, or they might drop out of the insurance exchanges.

STICKER SHOCK FOR SELF-PAY CUSTOMERS
Many people still buy individual health care policies directly from an insurance company, bypassing the law's markets and paying the full cost. They tend to be small-business owners, self-employed professionals and early retirees.
But even they would not escape the tumult in states losing subsidies.
The health law created one big insurance pool in each state, combining customers who purchase their policies directly with those who buy through the government market. If healthy people exit the insurance exchanges in droves, premiums for those buying directly would go up. Some may be unable to afford the higher cost.
"It would set off cascading events," said Larry Levitt of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "The individual market would empty out as premiums rise significantly."

REPUBLICANS TO THE RESCUE?
Leading congressional Republicans have been walking a fine line, opposing the law in the Supreme Court case while pledging to protect consumers if their side wins.
If the subsidies are overturned, Republicans will first try blaming Obama and the Democrats for writing flawed legislation and then trying to paper over problems with regulations. Then they'll move ahead with a patch to appease angry constituents.
A bill introduced by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., would continue the subsidies for existing customers only on the federal exchange until September 2017. That would open a window for states to act, but it would ultimately leave the problem for the next president and Congress. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is a co-sponsor.
Johnson's bill would repeal the requirements for individuals to have insurance and for larger employers to offer coverage to workers.
Obama is unlikely to accept any of those changes.
"The president is likely to veto whatever we would propose, because we don't have a willing partner," said Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., leader of a GOP working group on health care.