Is Good Information Foundation in violation of non-profit laws?

An attorney was asked to spread false rumors about January 6 and offered $400.00 to do so. The Post Millenial has the scoop:

Attorney and TikToker @TrialByPreston revealed in a video that the Good Information Foundation attempted to pay him $400 to spread unsubstantiated rumours and misinformation about January 6, President Trump, and his 2020 presidential campaign.

"I was just offered $400 to make an anti-Donald Trump propaganda post related to the January 6 investigation that is completely not true," Preston Moore, Esq. said in the video. The Good Information Foundation, headed by Rick Stengel, Former Under Secretary of State in Obama administration, emphasizes that "America is in an information crisis," and that "disinformation is threatening public health, safety, social trust and democracy."

Preston Moore, Esq. turned down this invitation, and he appears to do so on ethical grounds. But my question is this: is what the Good Information Foundation which the article says is a 501c3 non-profit. Could not this action be described as "directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office" as the IRS rules specifically forbid?

New Signs at Martha's Vineyard

No "level of coordination and cooperation" with the Chicago suburbs

A: Because he is a Democrat.

Gianno Caldwell asks a sensible question. "Why isn’t Hunter Biden being condemned for unacceptable use of the N-word?" Well, I condemn him, and you condemn him, and Caldwell obviously condemns him, and many others doubtlessly do. What he means is why is he not being vociferously condemned by the entire mainstream media establishment with the accompanying outrage that, you know, never seems feigned at all when they do it to Republicans?

As an African American, I don’t just take issue with this; I am repulsed by it. Why? Racism knows no party. Indeed, both parties are guilty of racism. But I must admit, when Republicans encounter someone who has said or done something racist, that person is usually punished and often expelled from the party — or, at the very least, there’s an attempt to strip them of power.

This has happened many times. Former Rep. Steve King, for example, was stripped of his committee assignments by House Republican leadership in Congress after it was reported that King said in an interview, “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?”

I am glad that many people like Caldwell who are graced with common sense are also graced with fortitude. Because otherwise people calling out hypocrisy would have given up pointing out this double standard long ago, faster than you can say "Corp Pop was a bad dude."

Hunter Biden can use the N-word all he wants and never have to pay for it, whereas someone like Donald Trump who, according to the many who hate him, probably kicks puppies and probably drinks human blood, only has to probably have said it to be condemned for it without any evidence.

During his presidency, the media endlessly reported rumors that Donald Trump used the N-word while filming his hit TV show “The Apprentice” even though no proof of these comments existed. Meanwhile, the text messages from Hunter Biden are clear as day and have received little to no press coverage — media malpractice at its height.

Yes, it is malpractice, Mr. Caldwell, but it is also standard practice with the media. They are not interested in accuracy in reporting. They switch from outrage and histrionic demands for apologies to "see no evil, hear no evil" depending on which will further their agenda. Right now Hunter Biden is a sacred cow who could probably survive anything short of a child snuff flick surfacing involving him. The guy may as well have a "Blackmail me" sign taped to his back.

There is a war on Black America

There is a war going on against blacks in America. And it is almost entirely being waged by Democrats. Excerpt:

While Democrats try to cover their racist past, including that of their poster boy Joe Biden, Democrats this week were more exposed than Bill Clinton in the Oval Office.

Sen. Tim Scott, an astute black United States Senator from the former slave state of South Carolina was elected to the United States Senate in 2016, garnering 61 percent of the vote.

In fact, according to Breitbart Scott “earned more raw votes and won by a wider margin than Donald Trump.” In other words, Scott is extremely popular in his state. He is also considered by some to be a rising star in the Republican Party.

And for that, Scott is a scourge to Democrats, who expect all minorities—primarily blacks and Hispanics—to support and identify as Democrats.

This past Wednesday, Scott was tapped by the GOP to give the response to Biden’s Congressional (don’t call it a State of the Union) address. Now one might say that Scott was chosen specifically due to his race, which is exactly the trap Democrats fell into.

Never mind the fact that Scott is a bright, articulate voice of conservative ideals. Democrats did exactly what they accuse Republicans of doing…played the race card.

Read the whole thing. John Nolte is right when he pointed out that Senotor Scott "smoked out" the racists in the Democrat Party and elsewhere. By elsewhere, I am particularly thinking of Fred Wellman of the pedophile-infested Lincoln Project, the newest refuge of Republican wokeism, who merely engaged in the standard imperious assertions, proclaiming the speech utter bulls--- and a pathetic joke. Meaning they have no argument.

In my opinion, the Stupidity Award goes to David Leavitt who parrots the line about George Floyd being killed because of racism, a claim that Minnesota AG Keith Ellison recently debunked.

Here's to the courage and bravery of people like Senator Tim Scott to speak truth to power.

Democrat Campaign Ad

Hey, I saw you, Zuck!

I'm not alone in my Trump v. Democrats take

I get irritated with some of the actions of my choice for President, Donald Trump. But I get irritated with the media and the Democrats even more, as I have said. I'm not alone in this take on things. In this WSJ opinion piece, Ted Van Dyk advises the Dems to "get a grip". Excerpt:

National security and the economy are the two principal issues in any presidential campaign. The Trump record in both those realms should be critiqued by Democrats. They should, in turn, offer credible alternative policies. If they do, and their presidential candidate seems reasonable, Democrats can reclaim the White House in 2020 not through a constitutional crisis but through a free election and with a popular mandate.

My own guess: By 2020, Mr. Trump will have fatigued the public. Voters will be turned off by him, just as they were in turn by the Johnson, Nixon and Carter presidencies. They will want to see another face on their TV sets. The danger is that Democrats by then may have fatigued the public even more.

Fatigue is right. I have some diehard Trump fans for friends who I argue with regularly when politics comes up about how the man could dial it back a little and have an even higher approval record than his current 46%. They argue that he needs to be tough to "drain the swamp" whenever he goes all-caps on Twitter or when he insults political opponents. I just don't see him losing these people if he took a Twitter hiatus, and I think he could pick up a few supporters if he moderated his style while keeping the substance which most conservatives other than the die-hard never-Trumpers support.

But Trump is moderate compared to the Democrats. Whether it's Cory Booker going full-Biblical on the Kavanaugh pick, John Brennan accusing Trump of high-crimes and misdemeanors for his perceived easy treatment of Putin or a gallery window depicting the beheading of the President, the Democrats currently own crazy, and they seem to be attempting to turn mob-fueled, unhinged, violent insanity into a monopoly.

One Grand Gallery, 1000 E Burnside St, Portland, OR 97214.
Phone number is (971) 266-4919

What to expect from Senate Democrats in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings

Hey, Democrats: Thank You and Keep It Up!

So why are Democrats leaving their party? Maybe it is because they are not sure what their party stands for anymore. Or, maybe what their party stands for is being revealed now and the membership does not like it so much. In a good article with lots of links to back up its claims, Christopher Roach asks the question "What does the Democratic party stand for?" I have no idea, but here is a little bit of what it is accomplishing (from the article):

The Democratic Party’s embrace of its left wing has done Donald Trump and the Republican Party a great service. Obama, after all, won in 2008 and 2012 by pretending to be a moderate, deploying unifying rhetoric, and providing social services, including affordable healthcare, to the middle class. Only after his 2012 win did he revert to his Hyde Park socialist background, taking sides on contentious issues like the Trayvon Martin shooting and the anti-police riots in Ferguson. In his second term, he finally decided to push for gun control and the normalization of transgenders in schools and the military. Most importantly, he made it clear that he would do nothing to stop the demographic re-engineering of America and its electorate by stopping immigration, instead, he de facto legalized the-so-called Dreamers through executive order.

As the continuity candidate, Clinton lost. The voters found a voice and a choice in Trump. Instead of going back to the drawing board—as Democrats did with Bill Clinton and his Democratic Leadership Council candidacy in 1992—they have instead shown they think the party simply needs to shout their message more loudly and with greater purity.

My snarky thought as I read through the article was "thanks, Democrats." Then I saw that the author had a similar viewpoint and added the word "thanks" at the end. I would like to see the Democrat Party return to more sane policy positions. But if they are truly moving into the realm of liberal fascism and all this new unhinged fervor is merely a tearing off of their masks, I hope they keep it up.

Great Year So Far For Green Monster

No; not this guy. From Patterico:

New York Times:

Americans are broadly concerned about inequality of wealth and income despite an economy that has improved by most measures, a sentiment that is already driving the 2016 presidential contest, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll.

The poll found that a strong majority say that wealth should be more evenly divided and that it is a problem that should be addressed urgently. Nearly six in 10 Americans said government should do more to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor, but they split sharply along partisan lines. Only one-third of Republicans supported a more active government role, versus eight in 10 of Democrats.

Polls and studies have also shown marked increases among Americans in wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, and gluttony.

Yup. But the greatest of these is envy. Because it works best to get Dems to the voting booth.

Will the Obama coalition vote for "a boring old white democrat"?

Noemie Emery cracks me up. Here's a great paragraph from a recent article or hers:

Obama’s declining share of the youth vote in 2012 already suggested that disillusionment had succeeded hope and change. Taking 2008 as the benchmark may have been a mistake, as it’s not every year Democrats come up with a hip, young, biracial messiah who hasn’t had time yet to screw up the country. Obama lost 3 million votes and several percentage points in his re-election. And the question of whether the Obama coalition will turn out for a boring old white Democrat is sure to be the operative one of 2016.

But wait, there's more:

There will also be a disconnect between the younger, browner and hipper Obama coalition and the candidates the Democrats will offer up — old, white, and dull. Beneath Obama are Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, both in their 70s. The Golden State is represented by Dianne Feinstein, 80, Barbara Boxer, 73, and Jerry Brown, who was a new face when elected the first time in 1974.

Well, we've known for some time that the democrats at the top really don't like people of color very much.

Scott Walker's win proves that success sells

I believe that Scott Walker's victory in Wisconsin is just as important as the Republicans winning the Senate. His model of fixing states can and will be copied by many Republican governors in years to come. This is because the model is successful, and success sells. Here's an excellent article about this from the Weekly Standard, and here are my favorite paragraphs about how Walker not only destroyed the democrats and their special interest groups but ate their lunch by taking away their base voters:

The key to Walker’s success was his performance among middle- and lower-income voters. Walker won those earning more than $100,000 by 20 points, just as Mitt Romney had in 2012. But he won voters earning between $50,000 and $100,000 by 17 points; Romney only won them by 1. Those earning less than $50,000 Walker lost by 9 points—whereas Romney lost them by 25. As reporter Molly Ball pointed out in the Atlantic earlier this year about that last group, “whether Democrats win these voters by a 10-point or a 20-point margin tells you who won every national election for the past decade.”

Walker won over more of the middle- and working-class for one reason more than any other: His decision to balance the state’s budget by curtailing collective bargaining ultimately proved successful and popular. But it was far from clear that this would be the case when he took on the unions soon after he entered the governor’s mansion.

These people in Wisconsin that voted him would have voted democrat 50 years ago. Why? People used to think the Democrat Party stood for the little guy. And many times they did. But their policies used to work out fine because they didn't consider government intrusion to be their defining quality like they do now. Now that their policies like Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, weaponized EPA, etc. actually hurt all Americans, they are losing their formerly staunch supporters.

I'd really like to see Walker run for President in 2016. There's no reason he couldn't get the Reagan democrat and practical independent voting bloc nationwide. And he'd get the conservative vote out handily.

As the man said, "Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser." Like what's-her-name.

Feel the love for CNN in Ferguson (Language Warning)

"CNN lied on Occupy Wall Street!"

"Hey! you're all run by Zionists!"



"Shut it down!! Just like we shut down Walmart!"

Wait, what are you guys doing here? I thought you were in Ferguson protesting an innocent man being shot? What's all this about Palestinians and Occupy Wall Street?

When the cop is not convicted or is not even indicted will these clowns "go gentle into that good night"? I don't think so.

I must admit it is sort of gratifying to see a CNN reporter get "mugged by reality" as the saying goes.

Overhead in overdrive in the stupid college savings boondoggle

Yet another reason to not vote for Ed FitzGerald for Governor of Ohio.

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Cuyahoga County Executive Ed FitzGerald's college savings account program will cost taxpayers $522,000 in annual overhead, about one-quarter of the program's $2 million budget, county records show.

That percentage is significantly more than the vast majority of large charities spend to administer their programs, according to Charity Navigator, a non-profit watchdog that tracks budgets of $1 million or more.

"I think that it does seem high," Charity Navigator spokeswoman Sandra Miniutti told Northeast Ohio Media Group on Friday.

Of the 7,000 philanthropic agencies Charity Navigator tracks, less than 4 percent spend a quarter or more of their budgets on administrative costs, Miniutti said. Most spend 15 percent or less, she said.

This whole savings account thing is a perfect example of Democrat boondoggling. Tax the parents, funnel money to kids, buy votes, raise the cost of education. Then repeat as often as possible and if anyone attacks the plan, tell them they must hate the children.

The program's likely overhead is drawing criticism from County Councilman Dave Greenspan, a Republican who has frequently questioned initiatives by FitzGerald since the Democratic county executive announced he is running for governor.

"Would you as a taxpayer give to a charity that had at least a [25 percent] administrative burden on the giving?" Greenspan said. "The answer is no. I believe it's no. I wouldn't do it."

But the FitzGerald administration objected Friday to comparing the savings account program's administrative expenses to those of charities.

"This program cannot be easily compared to this broad set of non-profit organizations. It has to be judged on its own merits," said Matt Carroll, chief of staff to FitzGerald.

The "merits" are easy to identify. This government program will give money to kids who will flunk out much more often than private charities will. Also accounts will be opened for everybody, and not everybody goes to college.

A similar program in San Francisco only had a 12 percent participation rate within its first three years. FitzGerald hopes to improve on those results by marketing his version of the program.

The county council's budget and finance committee will debate the request Monday.

The FitzGerald administration had hoped to launch the savings account this month. But concerns from county council over the program's details have delayed it.

The whole culture of savings argument is just dopey. You can't really encourage saving by giving people money they didn't earn. I hope this thing dies an appropriate death and the money is somehow returned to the taxpayer. Why do I live here again?

Giron blames loss on voter supression

Tammy Bruce gets the H/T. Voter suppression is the new bogeyman of the left. Ms. Giron, people didn't come out to vote for you because you attempted to suppress their 2nd amendment rights!



Laughable.

The End of Anthony Weiner

Everything you need want to know is here.

Wendy Davis is Abortion Barbie.

From LiveAction. Erick Erickson can really peg it sometimes, now Wendy Davis is Abortion Barbie as sure as Tony Stark is Iron Man. Here's his blog post summarizing it, I didn't have time to hunt down his original tweet.

The left is in a tizzy on twitter for my referring to pink shoes wearing Texas State Senator Wendy Davis as “Abortion Barbie.”

It sums her up perfectly. All the nation knows about Wendy Davis is that she is ignorant of the horrors of Kermit Gosnell, wears pink shoes, and filibustered legislation to save the innocent in Texas. She joined the long line of Democrats before her to oppose legislation to protect other people while using property rights arguments to do so.

The media would prefer to focus on her blonde hair, her great outfits, and her pink shoes than on the procedure she wants to protect. That procedure, late term abortion, is opposed by a majority of women and men.

Abortion Barbie fits perfectly and I hope that moniker haunts her on the campaign trail. She is, after all, intent on building a national name for herself through abortion and pink shoes. I’m sure MSNBC will send her tampon earrings to go with the other accessories.

As an aside, one of the most hilarious bits of this is seeing liberals proclaim all references to someone as “Barbie” sexist. Really?
 

Too good. That last link about how they called Sarah Palin "Caribou Barbie" should shut everyone on the left up. And anyway, isn't Barbie supposed to be blond?

Anthony Weiner Caption Contest

Sourpuss Huma's obviously thinking, "Where's my burqa?" but the caption I'm looking for is what Señor Danger is proclaiming with his hands in this interesting position.

Dennis Prager: "There is great benefit to the liberal sinner in being a liberal."

I commend Dennis Prager for being able to write an article like this. No Weiner jokes, just straight-ahead wisdom and truth about the widespread evidence that liberalism enables bad behavior. (Of course I appreciate Weiner jokes as much as the next conservative male....) Excerpt:

Consider the example of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. He had been expelled from college for paying someone to take his exams. His role in the death of a woman with whom he spent an evening would have sent almost anyone without his family name to prison -- or would have at least resulted in prosecution for negligent homicide. And he spent decades using so many women in so public a way that stories about his sex life were routinely told in Washington. Read the 9,000-word 1990 article in GQ by Michael Kelly, who a few years later became the editor of the New Republic.

When this unimpressive man started espousing liberal positions, speaking passionately about the downtrodden in society, it recalled the unimpressive students who marched on behalf of civil rights, peace and love.

It is quite likely that Ted Kennedy came to believe in the positions that he took. But I also suspect that he found espousing those positions invaluable to his self-image and to his public image: "Look at what a moral man I am after all." And liberal positions were all that mattered to the left and to the liberal media that largely ignored such lecherous behavior as the "waitress sandwich" he made in a Washington, D.C. restaurant with another prominent liberal, former Senator Chris Dodd.

Anniversary gift warning for dudes

Guys, don't be stupid, talk to her friends if you're clueless.



Don't buy your wife a bankrupt city!!

"I want steak-ums."