On Friday, I again appeared on Follow the Money with Eric Bolling on Fox Business Network to discuss our IRS Complaint against the Barack H. Obama Foundation. Eric talked to Obongo Obama, the President's brother, who Juan Williams called a "small time guy." Here's a transcript:
General Motors recently announced a couple of more ways to freely spend taxpayer money. While GM boasts of "investing" in politically-correct "green" initiatives and makes misleading job "creation or preservation" claims, shareholders continue to be neglected as share price languishes below the IPO price. Although GM seems to dislike the nickname of "Government Motors", its actions belie the company's perceived desire to run a profitable, publicly-owned corporation.
Elizabeth Warren (see photo) is an anomaly: a Harvard law professor and an outspoken populist. But as a ranking member of the Obama administration, she and her office are fast becoming unpopular - at least among many congressional Republicans. Since last September, Warren has served as acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a powerful watchdog agency created by last year's financial reform overhaul.
Once again, the media is uncritically reporting inaccurate claims by General Motors. GM says it is creating 4,200 jobs by spending $2 billion of taxpayer money on plant investments, but it is using the same misleading calculations employed by the Obama administration about job creation through the stimulus program. GM states that it will "invest" $2 billion, thereby "creating OR preserving" more than 4,000 jobs at 17 facilities. In other words, GM is equating keeping people employed in their present jobs with job creation.
A wealthy California developer with close ties to former Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-WV) was indicted today in a burgeoning corruption scandal in San Bernardino County. Jeffrey Burum, co-manager of Colonies Partners, was charged in a scheme to bribe county officials to approve a legal settlement favorable to Colonies. Click here to download a 27-page pdf of the indictment.
NLPC is asking the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to investigate the Barack H. Obama Foundation, which is soliciting tax-deductible contributions from the public although it is not tax exempt. The Foundation is named for Obama's father and is apparently based in Kenya. Its founder and chairman is Abon'go Malik Obama (in photo), whose father is also the father of President Obama.
The Foundation has addresses in Kenya and in Arlington, Virginia to which it asks that donations be sent. Two members of the NLPC staff went to the Arlington address on May 6. It is a commercial mail drop facility where the clerk touted the fact that the address "looked like a real office address" and the facility could arrange to forward mail to any location in the world.
James Capel, who until February was a top aide to Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), pleaded guilty yesterday in Manhattan Criminal Court to charges resulting from his failure to file a tax return for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009. Capel reportedly did not file a tax return from 2003 onward, but was saved from prosecution by the statute of limitations for the earlier years. Capel must pay $42,088 in back taxes and pay a $1,000 fine.
I will speak in favor of our shareholder proposal spotlighting Pfizer's deal with the White House to support ObamaCare at the company's annual meeting on Thursday, April 28 at the Renaissance Hotel in Dallas, Texas. The resolution itself asks for a report on Pfizer's lobbying priorities. Our supporting statement in the Pfizer proxy reads, in part:
Hindsight is always 20/20. It's easy to look back after a mistake and pinpoint what went wrong. But there's something to be said for heeding warning signs ahead of time too - to avoid the blunder all together. And often times, when we look back, we realize those warning signs were everywhere. We simply ignored them.
More than two decades ago voters in California were fooled when Proposition 65 - "The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986" - was passed into law. Prop 65 was advertised as a means to protect California's drinking water and exposure to chemicals in consumer products from dangerous toxic substances that cause cancer and birth defects. Sometimes all the law required were warning labels in advance of those exposures. And who would argue with that?