Ref: CLINTON VS. TRUMP AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE

Why should Presidential Candidates disclose their financial records? Our tax returns, medical records, credit reports, etc. are not accessible by anyone unless you give them permission, and most people will not grant permission. So what is so important that the public view a candidate's tax returns but do not care about a candidate’s physical condition or a drug test? Our current President fought a multi-million dollar court battle rather than produce a Birth Certificate. Additional, President Obama sealed all his records, including college transcripts. We will save that for another day.

So again, why is Hillary pressing for DJT tax records? Mr. Trump runs private companies and tax accounting for his Companies are very complicated. It is my understanding he has been audited every year for 20 years and his businesses are private. What does private mean? It means private! So may I suggest the IRS do the audit and like every other taxpayer Mr. Trump will deal with the IRS and not the public. Why publicly provide tax records for such a complicated business person when the general public does not understand corporate tax law, international laws, and tax incentive programs among many other issues to a public that uses the short form tax return. Additional, it would provide inside information to his competition, confuse a layperson and serve no real purpose other than a irrelevant “got-you” moment.

The old standby the media and Hillary are playing is all modern day candidates have disclosure, why not Mr. Trump? Well in my mind there is a simple explanation. Most of the previous President candidate's in my lifetime were career politicians with the acceptation of Ross Perot all came from an elected position sometime in their life. I, as a citizen; therefore, would want to know if they gained unjustly from being a public servant, you know pay to play. Remember, Lois Lerner, the Directory of the IRS. It is my understanding this is the first time in history the Director of the IRS took the Fifth Amendment in a congressional investigation. The subject matter being the 2013 targeting of conservative groups application for tax exempt tax status. As I recall that was exactly the tactic the Mafia use against Robert Kennedy. Therefore, in order to assure the public a full disclosure will provide credibility of a previous public servant candidate in serving the public good, plus fair and honest treatment while in office.

The Clinton’s, by their own admission, said when they left the White House they were broke and in fact removed a number of items from the White House that did not belong to them and needed to be returned. Now they are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Obama made a questionable real estate deal in Chicago in order to buy his home in Chicago involving his fundraiser and convicted money laundry, Tony Rezko. A 1991 a promotional pamphlet said President Obama “was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.” It has also reported that he earned $5.5M the year he took office. Pretty good for a neighborhood organizer. This is why former public officials need to produce their tax records but a private businessman in business all his life does not. Donald Trump’s private business is his private business and is between him, the IRS and the people he contracted with…..Case Closed

Now let us look at those who have spent most of their adult life in “government service.” Someone that I believe should release their tax records to satisfy a major concern of acting fairly and honestly as a government servant. let us look at Bill and Hillary. Should she produce her tax records for the public and the media to scrutinize.? Well, yes considering she and Bill really did very little in the private sector and their wealth was accumulated and derived directly and indirectly form being a “public servant.” Now they are worth Hundreds of millions of dollars and they now receive government pensions. I think at this point in time I will limit my analysis to the Clinton Foundation. My research has led me to some very interesting factoids.

For simplicity, I will provide a bullet list coupled with some comments. I will leave the fact checking to you to expand on my factoids.

• All non-profits are heavily regulated and operate under State, Federal and Foreign Laws and may be prosecuted under their law.

• • A 501(3)c is not allowed to operate for private gain or profit over a $1,000.00. IRS would shut it down.
• • How much profit would there be if the charity didn’t exist?
• • In the event a Foundation soliciting funds by mail, telephone or digital media and in the event the Foundation filing appears to be materially misleading and continues very serious criminal charge will result.
• • Who would file the Federal Charges? Answer; the same person who did not file charges in the Hillary’s email case.
• • You do not need to prove they knew only they were false and materially misleading.

• Clinton changed the mission of the Foundation illegally
• • One Million Dollar plus charities get close oversight and Clinton’s changed the mission and nothing happened. Who was in charge of the oversight?

• • Foundation oversight 2001-2005 was Lois Lerner, 2006-2013 in full charge of oversight of Foundations until she was forced retirement in 2013.
• • Lois Lerner spent much of 501(3)c investigation time in 2009 hassling the Tea Party and etc. but did NOT investigate the Clinton Foundation, a billion dollar enterprise.

• Disaster relief is an open door for fraud.

• • 911, India, Japan, New Jersey, Haiti is a big one. Estimated $14 billion dollars and no accounting of the money and mostly controlled by the Clinton Foundation with George Bush bringing up the rear.

• Federal laws changed Foundations guidelines after 911but appears not to matter.
• Each solicitation is a violation under the material misleading guide.
• Large charity requires serious accounting firm and an independent audit.

• • Cash flow, balance sheet, etc.
• • The real fraud occurs on the under-reporting of income.
• • 1993 to today estimated income for the Clinton Foundation Network is $100Billion.

• What is Laureate Education?

• • Laureate Education, a for-profit large collection of universities, spread around the globe controlled from a corporation in Baltimore Maryland.
• • 2005 the Clinton Global Initiative was formed.

• • • Not a charity but teamed with the Laureate Education/University.
• • • Bill Clinton received $16.5 Million for serving as part-time Chancellor of Laureate University. When it became public knowledge he resigned in 2015.
• • • Bill Clinton Foundation partnered with the Clinton Global Initiative program that has such a broad so-called mission statement that it is not a mission statement.
• • • 2013 upon Hillary leaving as Secretary of State the World Bank-International Finance Corporation along with Sovereign Wealth Fund and others made a $200 million dollar investment in Laureate.
• • • Shortly after that, it was announced that Laureate University was $4.2 billion in debt with little equity left. So why was the so called investment made?
• • • It is my understanding that the same accounting firm for Laureate is also used by the Clinton Foundation.

• • Clinton Foundation has never had an independent audit as required by law.
• • Clinton Foundation was set up in 1997 to be a Clinton Archive which seemed very reasonable in 1997. What was going on in the Clinton administration at that time is another story.
• • You cannot have a general purpose Foundation. It must have a specific mission. If you radically change the intent you must prove you completed it’s purpose and closed it.

• • A foundation cannot morph into something else. A radical change in mission should have required a new foundation. It cannot go from a Clinton Archive Foundation with an endowment into what it has become.

• • • There is no record of the Foundation permitted to change it’s stated mandate and no record of an independent audit.

• • Who is vulnerable if the IRS, a State or Foreign Government looked at this?

• • • If a State or Foreign Government looked at this the IRS would be forced to look at it and required to view it as a for-profit company and assess the Foundation as;

• • • • • The differences between revenue and expenses are profit and will be taxed as such plus penalties.
• • • • • All donations will be assessed and their charitable donation would be revoked and revoke charters of some of the non-profits donors.
• • • • • The Donors would then sue the trustees, guess what? Bill was not a Trustee until 2013 and my guess now is this Foundation will be shut down and all the records will be destroyed. How, your guess is as good as mine? It is my understanding all WhiteWater records were stored in the basement of the Murray Building and Hillary’s email have been wiped.
• • • • • A bit of irony here, Bill Clinton received $6.4 Million Dollars for writing a book in 2007 titled “Giving” about charity and $16.5 Million Dollars for a part-time job as Chancellor of a world college that in reality is Bankrupt. This is a clear case of INUREMENT!

• • • Bill and Hillary Clinton have collected $150 million in speaking fees since 2001. Hillary was paid $22.5 Million in speaking fees from 2013-2015. I think if I were her I would not be asking for tax returns.
• • • Additionally, the Ford Foundation has given a hundred million dollars to “Black Lives Matter” under the Ford Foundation umbrella mission statement: “We believe in the inherent dignity of all people. But around the world, too many people excluded from the political, economic, and social institutions that shape their lives.” Is this too broad of a mission statement and is BLM political in nature? If so then the Ford Foundation has lost their 501(c)3 status.See Political Activity below and noted in their Mission Statement above.

• Political activity.   If any of the activities (whether or not substantial) of your organization consist of participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office, your organization will not qualify for tax-exempt status under section 501(c)(3). Such participation or intervention includes the publishing or distributing of statements.

• • • • George Soros gave thirty-three million dollars.
• • • • BLM Mission Statement: “Black Lives Matter is a chapter-based nation organization working of the validity of Black life. We are working to (re)build the Black liberation movement.”

• • • • • It appears from their mission statement they are not a non-profit so no accounting is required as a 501(3)c.

• • • • Question, who is actually getting the money and for what purposes?

• • • • • Is the purpose to influence political action or effect a candidate in the presidential election?
• • • • • Who’s actual hands does the funding go to, or who writes the checks?
• • • • • What is the goal of their activity?
• • • • • Who’s lives are they improving and who are they liberating?
• • • • • Who does the accounting for this large sum of money given by a non-profit organization to a private organization ?

• Understand this is all public record. I suggest you search engine Charles Ortel on the Foundation information. Most of the bullet list was derived from his info. He is not a troll but highly educated and had no mission to go after the Clinton’s.
• Sincerely yours

• Joey Stefko

• p.s. hopefully, you received the letters, two books plus the most important Citizens Rule Book I sent you last week and passed them on to your father. Please do the same with this letter. I know he is very busy but this is information is important.

Print

Bilderberg Objectives

Stephen Lendman

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday – Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

Disclaimer:

“Rebuilding America’s Defenses”—The Project for the New American Century”
A Summary by Helen Corneli

The authors (directed by William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Devon Gaffney Cross, Bruce Jackson and John R. Bolton, with Gary Smith as Executive Director and Thomas Donnelly the principal Author) wish to correct previous Defense Reviews, which they assert “shortchange strategy.” Building upon the strategy produced by Cheney’s defense Department in 1992 they define a goal of maintaining U.S. preeminence in military power—a goal “buried,” they assert by the Clinton administration. They see arms superiority as the only way to “remain in a position to help shape things for the better.” They held seminars with unnamed participants, discussing readiness, the revolution in armaments, planning for theater and ‘small’ wars, as well as ‘constabulary’ actions. Written in a time of budget surplus, with a “ troubled, unready military,” the report was intentionally published in an election year, though it was not widely available to the public.

TWO SUMMARIES of Summaries.

I Establish Four Core Missions for U.S. military forces
Defend the American homeland;
Fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
Perform the “constabulary” for more security in critical regions
Transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs

This will require $ allocations for keeping global nuclear strategic superiority: more personnel-- from 1.4 million to 1.6 million repositioned forces. Reassign ground forces to permanent bases in Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and deploy more naval units to East Asia.

II Modernize Forces Selectively: a) Proceed with F-22, but supplement with lift, electronic support and other aircraft; expand submarine fleet, purchase Comanche helicopters and medium-weigh ground vehicles (Army) and V-22 Ospreys for Marines.
b) Cancel various “roadblock” programs: CVX Aircraft carriers for example.
c) Develop a global missile defense system; deploy it.
d) Control space and “cyberspace—anticipating a “Space Force.”
e) Make sure the U.S. maintains global superiority through competitive use of advanced technology

* * *

II. The report is cumulatively repetitive, with chapter I charging that previous American defense planners had failed to match geopolitical reality with military might. A comparison of the one-rival situation, (the Soviet Union) to current potential theater wars, spread across the globe, particularly in East Asia, forces us to deter or compel regional foes to change their ways when they act to challenge American interests and “principles.” This means an ability to fight two wars at the same time. Current deployment, they declare, won’t meet current reality. Worst of all, the Pentagon has not considered new technologies in communication and weapons, while (they assert) China, Iran, Iraq, and North Korea are “rushing” to develop missiles and nuclear weapons. Pentagon responses are “poorly focused and woefully under-funded.”

Chapter II argues that the often restated principle, “American peace depends on military preeminence,” will require four essential missions—a requirement ignored by previous defense

-2-

reviews. The need: to consolidate 20th century victories over Germany and Japan, keep the Middle East “stable,” and set conditions for success in East Asia mean that we must defend the homeland, fight and win multiple large scale wars, be constables to preserve the peace, while transforming our own forces.

• Missile defense must be designed and built.
• Peacekeeping operations must be better understood and supported
• The Defense Department must be transformed with a goal of redesigning and building new ‘conventional’ forces.

Chapter III is devoted to repositioning today’s force. To be militarily superior dictates that the army become “the first line of American defenses…”the cavalry on the new American frontier.” A reorientation of the units that Clinton deployed in the Balkans shows that NATO bases in Italy be improved, an airfield in Hungary established, and Incirlik Air Base (Turkey) expanded. Similar specifics are outlined for the Persian Gulf region and for East Asia. The Navy should station fewer carriers in the Gulf and Mediterranean so that more may be positioned in the Pacific. Naval planning must focus on achieving “increased naval presence at a lower cost.”

Chapter IV makes specific suggestions for rebuilding and using the current (as of late 2000) armed forces. These are: redeploy army and naval units to the Balkans and the Persian Gulf. A commitment to permanent stationing abroad is primary. Thus a larger, better trained army with support and active branches must be financed, modernized, and trained for modern warfare. Soldiers must be provided with a better life. The requests of Army and other services for better equipment, housing, etc. must be honored, and a focus on combat missions regained. The role, training, and use of a reduced National Guard and Army reserve should be focused, not frittered away in “ongoing contingency operations.” Forward based forces must be self-contained, combined arms units that can help with intelligence gathering. They must also be made aware of the political and security realities wherever they are. These units are particularly suited for the role of “change agents” in the military. Forces now stationed in South Korea need preparation for longer range operations,” and with added rocket, aviation an attack helicopter assets, might become a model for the new, independent, combined-arms forces needed elsewhere too.”

Accomplishing all this will require enlarging service budgets substantially as well as cutting some inappropriate weapons such as Crusader artillery. The Air Force--the most flexible and responsive arm of the service, faced with the need for global reach--needs a modern, not ‘big-war “air campaign” model with 19-20 active and 8 reserve wing equivalents. It must be widely deployed from Italy to Southeast Asia, feature electronic warfare, airborne command and control, large stocks of precision-guided missiles, fleets of AWACS, JSTARS and other support planes, a rebuilt pilot corps and trained police, maintenance, and intelligence personnel. Widely scattered bases are essential. Ditch the Joint Strike Fighter—a sink-hole for needed funds. Problems—such as lack of practice and training, an aging fleet with high maintenance costs—prove the need for increased budgets. The Air Force should begin building new space capability.

Navy and Marine Corps receive equally detailed and specific recommendations, all involving larger budgets. Although the Nay already has unchallenged supremacy, it is not modernized, and it does not meet current realities. It owns up to an “aging force structure” and does not have enough ships. The Rx is, realignment and reconfiguration. East Asian realities mean that 2/3 of battle groups must be assigned to the Pacific, where a permanent base must be established. We need 9, instead of 12, aircraft carriers, and new building must focus on “unmanned aerial vehicles. At the same time, increasing spending on “surface combatants and submarines,” and counter-mine warfare is needed. The current reliance on postponed maintenance and the practice of training while deployed is limiting the service’s ability to meet the “two-war standard.” Obsolescence of the existing fleet looms as the number of combatant ships is reduced. The status of submarines is bad: 23-27 boats needed rather than the 10 new attack submarines planned. As with ships and submarines, naval aircraft purchases are too small. The Navy, too must impose new deployment patterns to meet situations such as recent Taiwan/China tensions, and other possible requirements.

The Marines. This uniquely versatile corps needs to grow (to 200,000) and change focus to its core naval infantry mission. Keeping coming needs in East Asia in mind, this focus should include more cooperation with other service, modernizing by creating lighter units and more aircraft. The Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle will improve its mobility and range. Like other services, it needs more resources, training, and money. In sum, budgets for the Navy and Marines should increase from 98 billion to up to 220 billion.

Chapter V: Creating Tomorrow’s Dominant Force

Recommendations include stopping the misguided slide of R&D funds from the Reagan era figure of 20% of spending to a 2000 figure of 8%. While averring that their suggestions must not decouple us from our allies, and admitting that the process will be long (absent a catastrophic, SEE BELOW-catalyzing event), the suggestions are to develop a layered missile defense system of land, sea and space-based sections. In turn, this requires control of space and cyberspace. A transition time will be needed to truly transform our defense.

After vigorous criticism of staying with the ABM treaty and ending the “Brilliant Pebbles” project, the need for a galaxy of surveillance satellites to find and track incoming ballistic missiles is posited. A global net of command and control plus interceptor bases is needed—but will not be enough. No, THAAD (Theater High Altitude Area Defense) and a similar Navy

-4-

system, based on lasers, must be funded. The Air Force has a Space-Based Infrared System that locates and ‘captures’ missiles almost upon launch; hence budget cuts for these programs must be restored. There is further discussion of GPALS, Global Protection Against Limited Strikes.

The ultimate need, analogous to Britain’s former mastery of the seas, is unrestricted use of space, involving space stations. Instead of ‘dilatory drift’ and reliance on NASA, we should create a US Space Force. Coupled with establishing security for our nation’s Internet structure, this move would not only protect our own Internet, but also give us an valued tool for disabling adversaries.
Thus, the needed transformation will require us to be more aware of the world situation; to share that information, and adjust our military’s range of responses with global platforms and weapons. Precise, 'miniatured’ tools, allowing speed, stealth, automation, and simulation, can apply to the communication and other new systems--from electronic to biological--that may develop elsewhere, requiring us to respond with better systems. The Department of Defense is to be rebuilt, with highly talented people to direct competition and experimentation. A “Buck Rogers” set of possibilities is detailed under which a squad of seven soldiers could dominate the equivalent of Gettysburg, where 165,000 men fought. The Air Force should stay ready for large sophisticated theater-strikes, but also move into space based systems. The Navy can specialize in ‘power projection’ ashore to lead in joint operations conducted from the sea. Both near term (stealth, long range guns, improved missiles) and longer term (use of UAVs and more forceful submarine use) are important concerns—all under an umbrella of experimentation. The Marines can forsake the Harrier planes, and develop a “gunship” V-22 aircraft.
Chapter VI Defense Spending
A mere six pages is devoted to this subject. A defense deficit has been created because a peace dividend has been paid out: Clinton spent 162 billion LESS than his predecessor. Other, varying estimates are cited, none lower than 27 billion yearly. And, because of Social Security costs, the downward trend is predicted to continue. If this happens, it is goodbye preeminence. US forces will become “too old and too small.” Such a trend would make enormous allocations to the military from 2006 through 2020 necessary. Allowing the military to become unfit and obsolete--especially because peace itself is the product of American preeminence-- will allow those dangerous to our values to threaten, if not overcome us.

DIRECTLY FROM HE REPORT PAGE -52-!


LATEST ON GEOENGINEERING...

1. What Chemtrails Are Doing To Your Brain - Neurosurgeon Dr.
   consciouslifenews.com/chemtrails-doing-brain-neurosurgeon-dr-russell-...
   Jul 7, 2013 - ... To Your Brain – Neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock Reveals Shocking Facts ... Chemtrails, Nanoaluminum and Neurodegenerative and ...
   
   

1. Win-Shwe T-T, Fujimaki H. Nanoparticles and Neurotoxicity. In J Mol Sci 2011;12:6267-6280.
2. Krewski D et al. Human health rRevell PA. The biological effects of nanoparticles. Risk assessment for aluminum, aluminum oxide, and aluminum hydroxide. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 2007;10(suppl 1): 1-269.
3. Blaylock RL. Aluminum induced immunoexcitotoxicity in neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative disorders. Curr Inorg Chem 2012;2:46-53.
4. Tomljenovic L. Aluminum and Alzheimer’s disease: after a century, is their a plausible link. J Alzheimer’s Disease 2011;23:567-598.
5. Perl DP, Good PF. Aluminum, Alzheimer’s Disease, and the olfactory system. Ann NY Acad Sci 1991;640:8-13.
6. Shaw CA, Petrik MS. Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor neuron degeneration. J Inorg Biochem 2009;103:1555-1562.
7. Braydich-Stolie LK et al. Nanosized aluminum altered immune function. ACS Nano 2010:4:3661-3670.
8. Li XB et al. Glia activation induced by peripheral administration of aluminum oxide nanoparticles in rat brains. Nanomedicine 2009;5:473-479.
9. Exley  C, house E. Aluminum in the human brain. Monatsh Chem 2011;142:357-363.
10. Nayak P, Chatterjee AK. Effects of aluminum exposure on brain glutamate and GABA system: an experimental study in rats. Food Chem Toxicol 2001;39:1285-1289.
11. Tsunoda M, Sharma RP. Modulation of tumor necrosis factor alpha expression in mouse brain after exposure to aluminum in drinking water. Arch Toxicol 1999;73:419-426.
12. Matyja E. Aluminum changes glutamate –mediated neurotoxicity in organotypic cultures of rat hippocampus. Folia Neuropathol 2000;38:47-53.
13. Walton JR. Aluminum in hippocampal neurons from human with Alzheimer’s disease. Neurotoxicology 2006;27:385-394.
14. Walton JR. An aluminum-based rat model for Alzheimer’s disease exhibits oxidative damage, inhibition of PP2A activity, hyperphosphorylated tau and granulovacuolar degeneration. J Inorg Biochem 2007;101:1275-1284.
15. Becaria A et al. Aluminum and copper in drinking water enhance inflammatory or oxidative events specifically in brain. J Neuroimmunol 2006;176:16-23.
16. Exley C. A molecular mechanism for aluminum-induced Alzheimer’s disease. J Inorg Biochem 1999;76:133-140.
17. Exley C. The pro-oxidant activity ofnaluminum. Free Rad Biol Med 2004;36:380-387.

• HOME
• DAILY NEWS
• WEB SITES
• 2+2=5
• RABBIT HOLE
• CONTACT PAGE
• 911 Trump Knows
• 911For Dummies
• 911 Just Asking Part 1
• 911 Just Asking Part 2
• 911 Just Asking Part 3
• 911 Just Asking Part 4of4
• FEDERAL RESERVE