Jasper Journal

The Gay Mafia and Freedom of Speech

by on Apr.26, 2015, under Politics

Caving in to threats of boycotts and cancellations, Ian Reisen, a gay hotelier in New York publicly apologized to the gay community for hosting a meeting with Ted Cruz. My God, the shame of it! It was a fireside chat not a fundraiser, for about a dozen people, to listen to Ted Cruz. For this they are pilloried and ostracized. So much for Freedom of Speech in the gay community.

This type of tactic is now commonplace with the hyper activist gay crowd where no form of discussion about gay issues is tolerated. Sadly I think this will come back to haunt them. I feel badly for the business people who now have to avoid even talking to a republican with opposing views. And people really think this will bring the country together?  Here is the story from the New York Times today. What do you think?


“Ian Reisner, one of the two gay hoteliers facing boycott calls for hosting an event for Senator Ted Cruz, who is adamantly opposed to gay marriage, apologized to the gay community for showing “poor judgment.”

Mr. Reisner put the apology on Facebook, where a page calling for a boycott of his properties, the gay-friendly OUT NYC hotel and his Fire Island Pines holdings, had gotten more than 8,200 “likes” by Sunday evening.

“I am shaken to my bones by the e-mails, texts, postings and phone calls of the past few days. I made a terrible mistake,” wrote Mr. Reisner.

The New York Times first reported on the event, a dinner and on April 20, at the duplex Mr. Reisner and his business partner Mati Weiderpass co-own on Central Park South in Manhattan. The event was a “fireside chat” for about a dozen people, but was not a fund-raiser.

The two men are prominent figures in the gay rights community, and Mr. Reisner has been especially vocal about gay marriage. He’s also a staunch supporter of Israel, as is Mr. Cruz.

But Mr. Cruz has also introduced legislation to try to preserve the rights of states to maintain their bans on gay marriage and he has called for pastors to hold prayer services while the Supreme Court hears arguments on April 28 over the legality of the bans.

Last week, Mr. Reisner and another attendee said Mr. Cruz didn’t explicitly say he opposed gay marriage at the catered dinner, but said that the issue was best left to the states. Mr. Cruz, who is hoping to appeal to evangelical voters in the Iowa caucuses, said he had voiced his strong religious opposition to gay marriage at the dinner.

Mr. Cruz faced some backlash among conservatives over the event, but it was nothing compared to the criticism both Mr. Reisner and Mr. Weiderpass faced from the gay community.

“I was ignorant, naive and much too quick in accepting a request to co-host a dinner with Cruz at my home without taking the time to completely understand all of his positions on gay rights,” Mr. Reisner said.

“I’ve spent the past 24 hours reviewing videos of Cruz’ statements on gay marriage and I am shocked and angry. I sincerely apologize for hurting the gay community and so many of our friends, family, allies, customers and employees. I will try my best to make up for my poor judgement. Again, I am deeply sorry.”

Mr. Reisner’s apology came before a scheduled protest march tomorrow evening in front of OUT NYC.
In addition to the boycott calls, Broadway Cares, a charity that focuses on curing AIDS, canceled an annual event at a nightclub the two men own.”


Leave a Comment :, more...

Where there’s Smoke

by on Apr.23, 2015, under Politics

Could this be the scandal that finally ensnares the elusive Mrs Clinton? While these refilings are not proof of wrongdoing yet, they certainly suggest something is happening that requires this major admission of error. Worse, by doing this , they put an even greater focus on Mrs Clinton’s role as Secretary of State and the ties to her  “Foundation.”. You cant have it both ways. This is the article from Reuters I was just sent by a good friend. I am also looking forward to the FOX special tomorrow night on the book that could be the straw that breaks the Clinton’s backs.  What do you think?


Exclusive: Clinton charities will refile tax returns, audit for other errors

Clinton charities misstated millions in foreign donations (01:44)
(Reuters) – Hillary Clinton’s family’s charities are refiling at least five annual tax returns after a Reuters review found errors in how they reported donations from governments, and said they may audit other Clinton Foundation returns in case of other errors.

The foundation and its list of donors have been under intense scrutiny in recent weeks. Republican critics say the foundation makes Clinton, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, vulnerable to undue influence. Her campaign team calls these claims “absurd conspiracy theories.”

The charities’ errors generally take the form of under-reporting or over-reporting, by millions of dollars, donations from foreign governments, or in other instances omitting to break out government donations entirely when reporting revenue, the charities confirmed to Reuters.

The errors, which have not been previously reported, appear on the form 990s that all non-profit organizations must file annually with the Internal Revenue Service to maintain their tax-exempt status. A charity must show copies of the forms to anyone who wants to see them to understand how the charity raises and spends money.

The unsettled numbers on the tax returns are not evidence of wrongdoing but tend to undermine the 990s role as a form of public accountability, experts in charity law and transparency advocates interview told Reuters.

“If those numbers keep changing – well, actually, we spent this on this, not that on that – it really defeats the purpose,” said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a government transparency advocacy group.

For three years in a row beginning in 2010, the Clinton Foundation reported to the IRS that it received zero in funds from foreign and U.S. governments, a dramatic fall-off from the tens of millions of dollars in foreign government contributions reported in preceding years.

Those entries were errors, according to the foundation: several foreign governments continued to give tens of millions of dollars toward the foundation’s work on climate change and economic development through this three-year period. Those governments were identified on the foundation’s annually updated donor list, along with broad indications of how much each had cumulatively given since they began donating.


“We are prioritizing an external review to ensure the accuracy of the 990s from 2010, 2011 and 2012 and expect to refile when the review is completed,” Craig Minassian, a foundation spokesman, said in an email.

The decision to review the returns was made last month following inquiries from Reuters, and the foundation has not ruled out extending the review to tax returns extending back 15 or so years.

Minassian declined to comment on why the foundation had not included the necessary break-down of government funding in its 990 forms. He said it was rare to find an organization as transparent as the foundation.

“No charity is required to disclose their donors,” he said. “However, we voluntarily disclose our more than 300,000 donors and post our audited financial statements on our website along with the 990s for anyone to see.”

Separately, the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), the foundation’s flagship program, is refiling its form 990s for at least two years, 2012 and 2013, CHAI spokeswoman Maura Daley said, describing the incorrect government grant break-outs for those two years as typographical errors.

CHAI, which is best known for providing cheaper drugs for tens of thousands of people with HIV around the world, began filing separate tax returns in 2010, and has previously refiled at least once both its 2010 and 2011 form 990s. For both those years, CHAI said its initial filings had over-reported government grants by more than $100 million.

Some experts in charity law and taxes said it was not remarkable for a charity to refile an erroneous return once in a while, but for a large, global charity to refile three or four years in a row was highly unusual.

“I’ve never seen amendment activity like that,” said Bruce Hopkins, a Kansas City lawyer who has specialized in charity law for more than four decades, referring to the CHAI filings.

Clinton stepped down from the foundation’s board of directors this month but her husband, Bill Clinton, and their daughter, Chelsea Clinton, remain directors.

The foundation said last week after Hillary Clinton became a candidate that it would continue to accept funding from foreign governments, but only from six countries that are already supporting ongoing projects. CHAI will also continue to receive foreign government funding, again with additional restrictions.

Nick Merrill, Clinton’s spokesman, has declined to answer inquiries about the foundation and CHAI.

(Additional reporting by David Ingram, editing by Ross Colvin)

1 Comment :, more...

Do not vote to Approve Lynch

by on Apr.21, 2015, under Politics

So once again the President and the media are using racial blackmail to get the Senate to approve Loretta Lynch as Attorney General; and unfortunately it appears to be working. I do not understand why our elected representatives cant stand on principle.  I dont care if she is a black woman or a pink alien, if she will follow in the tradition of Eric Holder, she should not be approved.  In her hearings she said she would support the policies of President Obama on illegal immigrants. Well , that pretty much seals the deal for me: dont approve her.

Sadly, our representatives cant stand up to the charges that she is being held up  because she is a black women. Get over it. She is a clone of Holder and a tool of the President. Is this who we want for Attorney General?  I will look closely at Senators who vote for her. I want people of principle in congress. What do you think? An article on this is below.

Republicans in Quandary Over Vote on Loretta Lynch


WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans do not want to be held responsible for rejecting the historic nomination of Loretta E. Lynch, the first African-American woman picked to be attorney general. But they also are in no hurry to see her confirmed because of her defense of President Obama’s immigration policies.

That contradiction showed signs of being self defeating on Friday, when a visibly emotional Mr. Obama elevated the issue at a news conference by saying “Enough! Enough!” about the record delay, after a call the day before from Jeb Bush, one of the top Republican presidential prospects, to confirm Ms. Lynch.

Loretta E. Lynch, a federal prosecutor in New York and the nominee to replace Eric H. Holder Jr., announcing arrests in a stock fraud case in July.Loretta Lynch Said to See Her Role as That of Traditional ProsecutorJAN. 12, 2015

Loretta E. Lynch, the United States attorney in Brooklyn, received a cordial reception at a Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for attorney general.Criticism of Holder Dominates Hearing on Loretta Lynch, Attorney General’s Possible SuccessorJAN. 28, 2015
Loretta E. Lynch testifying in New York last year at a hearing of the Moreland Commission to Investigate Public Corruption. Ms. Lynch is a United States attorney who has twice been confirmed by the Senate, in 2000 and in 2010.Loretta Lynch, Federal Prosecutor, Will Be Nominated for Attorney GeneralNOV. 7, 2014
Ms. Lynch is nearing six months in a state of suspended Senate animation, her nomination moving neither forward nor backward but instead becoming a bargaining chip in an unrelated battle, a calculation that carries no small irony given that no Republicans have challenged her credentials, and almost all of them had expressed their enmity for the man she would replace, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.


Loretta E. Lynch, the first African-American woman picked to be attorney general. For nearly six months, Ms. Lynch’s nomination has moved neither forward nor backward. Credit Susan Walsh/Associated Press
The inert situation shows just how Republican anger and resentment over the president’s immigration actions color issues ranging from Ms. Lynch’s status to trade negotiations to the nuclear talks with Iran. Republicans’ central rationale remains that they cannot trust the president.

After months of simmering over the very slow walk of Ms. Lynch’s nomination by the new Republican majority, Democrats unloaded this week.

The White House spokesman accused a leading Republican senator of duplicity over the treatment of Ms. Lynch. Democrats threatened procedural tactics that would force Republicans to block a vote on bringing up her nomination, stirring additional political repercussions.

So far, though, Senate Republicans have adopted the position of their leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, that he would not bring Ms. Lynch’s nomination for a vote until senators had passed a human trafficking bill. That bill contains some abortion provisions that Democrats find untenable.

Mr. Obama on Friday called the Republican refusal to set a vote on Ms. Lynch an “embarrassing” example of partisanship by the Republican majority. “There are times where the dysfunction in the Senate just goes too far,” Mr. Obama said during a news conference with Prime Minister Matteo Renzi of Italy. “This is an example of it. It’s gone too far. Enough! Enough! Call Loretta Lynch for a vote. Get her confirmed. Put her in place. Let her do her job.”

Mr. McConnell sought to quiet the growing furor over the Lynch stalemate, telling his colleagues the Senate would get to her next week just as he had always planned.

“I have indicated, gosh, at least for six weeks now, we are going to deal with the Lynch nomination right after we finish trafficking,” Mr. McConnell said on the floor Thursday.

Just the fact that Mr. McConnell, by his own admission, has been talking about it for at least six weeks is galling to Democrats, who think she should have been confirmed months ago. They see the Lynch nomination as a prime case of Republican partisan mischief and ill-treatment of woman with a distinguished career as a prosecutor.

Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
While some difficulties were always expected with Ms. Lynch given the traditional political sensitivities of the post of attorney general, no one anticipated after her nomination on Nov. 8 that a vote would still be pending in late April.

As the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Ms. Lynch had a formidable reputation as a prosecutor and administrator and had the strong backing of law enforcement and civil rights groups. Some of the most conservative Republicans were expected to oppose her, but her ultimate approval never seemed in doubt.

So, do we give up or put in doubt future anti-abortion money, or do we simply wait for Ms. Lynch to withdraw?Are those the options?
But at her confirmation hearing on Jan. 28, Ms. Lynch said she found it reasonable that the Justice Department had concluded that Mr. Obama was acting within the limits of his power when he decided to unilaterally ease the threat of deportation against millions of undocumented immigrants. That quickly cost her backing among Republicans who said they could not vote for Ms. Lynch if she was willing to side with the president on his immigration actions.

It is unclear what the Republicans thought she should say since she could hardly be expected to use her confirmation hearing to denounce the actions of the man who had picked her for the post or assert that he had broken the law and would be held accountable once she became the nation’s chief law enforcement officer.

Republicans certainly realized this. But their rush to declare opposition made it clear that they did not want to be viewed as endorsing the president’s immigration policy, even through an association as tangential as voting for a nominee who had nothing to do with shaping the policy but simply refused to condemn it. Ms. Lynch has won public backing from five Republicans, just enough to secure her confirmation when a vote takes place.

Democrats initially thought Mr. McConnell held back on scheduling a vote to demonstrate that he was in charge and was not about to hurry things along for the president.

As the weeks passed with no movement, Democrats became more concerned. Then there was the abortion-related blowup on the sex trafficking bill and Mr. McConnell declared he would not move forward with Ms. Lynch until that fight was resolved.

Mr. McConnell has been clear that he would eventually allow a vote and he most likely will at some point. He and his fellow Republicans might not be thrilled with Ms. Lynch, but they will almost certainly allow her to be confirmed.

With the prospect of Hillary Rodham Clinton as the Democratic presidential nominee next year and given the party’s struggle with minority voters, the Senate’s new Republican majority does not want to be remembered for killing the high-profile nomination of a highly qualified black woman.

1 Comment :, , more...

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!

Visit our friends!

A few highly recommended friends...