Union Wants to Continue Paying for Substandard V.A. Care

A union representing government employees on Tuesday condemned a bill meant to reform how bonuses are awarded at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The bill, which was recently introduced by Rep. Jeff Miller, would allow the secretary of Veterans Affairs to decide what employees at the VA get bonuses and awards. However, the American Federation of Government Employees argues the bill will only worsen problems that have plagued the agency. (In other words, let's continue giving bonuses to those who do substandard word...OM)


Last year, the VA became the center of controversy when dozens of military veterans died while waiting to get help. The issue has been blamed on everything from bureaucratic incompetence to the VA not having enough funding. (Just as in the past, addition funding has been wasted for things like Big Screen T.V.s and other things or like mismanagement of various V.A. construction projects including over budget BILLION dollar project in Colorado. Everything EXCEPT what is needed to improve service for the Veterans...OM)

The bill would also grant the secretary of Veterans Affairs the authority to take bonuses away from bad VA employees.

“It’s time to turn the page on morale-busting measures like Rep. Miller’s proposal and focus on the mission of delivering top-quality care to America’s veterans,” AFGE President J. David Cox Sr. declared in a statement.

“We can’t forget that it was strong-arm tactics like this that were used to retaliate against employees looking to speak out against secret wait lists and mismanaged care,” Cox argued.

“The VA needs more vehicles to reward good behavior and attract talented employees, not a cudgel to silence dissenting voices,” Cox said. “Secretary McDonald has charted a promising course for the VA, and our veterans will be best served if Congress follows suit and works to improve care and working conditions at the VA.” (What does Cox want, MORE MONEY?...OM)

AFGE National VA Council President Alma Lee argued, “Our focus must be on fulfilling the mission of the agency and not on legislation that arbitrarily punishes hard working employees.” (IF the employee doesn't perform, why should he/she get bonuses? If fact, why should they have a job. This also goes on at state government....OM)

Aleks Morosky, deputy director of the national legislative service for Veterans of Foreign Wars, disagrees, arguing that the bill could help award good workers.

During a hearing for the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Morosky declared, “The VFW agrees with this legislation.” (I wonder where Montell Williams was or did he get his publicity and has moved on to "more" important things?After all he did say he give the new secretary 90 days, that was back before Christmas. Oh I better be careful, he might block me on twitter because I asked the same thing...OM)

“Employees receive bonuses as an incentive and recognition for their superior work performance,” Morosky said. “But if a bonus is found, after the fact, to be awarded to an employee who manipulated data, put veterans at risk of harm or in some other way defrauded the government to receive that bonus, the Secretary should have the authority to recoup the bonus amount.” (IF any money is recouped, maybe just maybe the V.A. could improve the phone system so that homeless Vets can get in touch with the V.A. Call Center or improve computer security so that Veterans' personal data can not be hacked....OM)

Final questions: I realize that Veterans are not as sexy as the NFL deflated balls. The Veterans just defended the country. But you have to ask:  Where is the outrage? Where is the coverage? Where are the "celebrities"? Where are the legal eagles?

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/28/union-condemns-va-reform-bill/

Hey Obama - Isn't Payback is a Bwitch

The Obama administration reportedly is fuming over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plans to address Congress in March regarding the Iranian threat, with one unnamed official (I wonder if this is the same unnamed source that said, "Netanyahu is a "chickensh--" who is more interested in his political standing in Israel than he is in seeking peace in the region."...OM) telling an Israeli newspaper he will pay “a price” for the snub. (Like maybe the Obama administration officials will describe Netanyahu as recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and “Aspergery.”...OM)

House Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu -- and the Israeli leader accepted – without any involvement from the White House.

In public, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest politely describes this as a “departure” from protocol (Yet it was all right for then Speaker Nancy Pelosi to defy the White House's Middle East policy by meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad, saying, "The road to Damascus is a road to peace."...OM). He also says the president will not meet with Netanyahu when he visits in early March, but has attributed that decision only to a desire not to influence Israel’s upcoming elections.

But in private, Obama’s team is livid with the Israeli leader, according to Haaretz.

"We thought we've seen everything," a source identified as a senior American official was quoted as saying. "But Bibi managed to surprise even us. There are things you simply don't do.(like forcing Prime Minister Netanyahu to use an anonymous side entrance or not having a press conference or photographed handshake...OM)

“He spat in our face publicly and that's no way to behave. Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price." (Or for Obama to leave Netanyahu half-way through the meeting, to go and dine with his family and not invite the prime minister to join him.....OM)

Administration officials, including Earnest, did not deny the quote at the time, though the White House stressed the criticism did not reflect how the rest of the administration views Netanyahu.

On Friday, Earnest once again was asked about tensions with the Israeli government. Asked if the decision to speak to Congress was a slap at the Obama administration, he said, “I certainly didn't interpret it that way.”

As for the decision for Obama not to meet with his Israeli counterpart, he stood by the earlier explanation.

“This administration goes to great lengths to ensure that we don’t give even the appearance of interfering or attempting to influence the outcome” of democratic elections abroad, he said.

Meanwhile, Haaretz also reported that Obama had directly warned Netanyahu to stop urging U.S. lawmakers to back legislation teeing up new sanctions against Iran.

Obama has threatened to veto such a bill, saying it could derail delicate talks over Iran’s nuclear program – and Netanyahu’s visit to Washington could give him an opportunity to further encourage sanctions legislation.

Haaretz reported that Israel’s ambassador already has been urging members of Congress to support the measures. The newspaper reported that Obama told Netanyahu to stop during a Jan. 12 phone call.

On Friday, Earnest acknowledged that Obama and Netanyahu have a “fundamental disagreement” about the diplomatic talks with Iran.

“He doesn't share [the administration’s] view,” he said. But Earnest also said the “differences of opinion” do not undermine America’s commitment to Israel’s security.

As Obama officials often do, he described that commitment as “unshakable.”

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/24/there-will-be-price-obama-team-reportedly-fuming-over-netanyahu-visit/?intcmp=latestnews

Politics & Racism as Hollyweird Left is Out to Destroy American Sniper

This past weekend, records at the box office were broken as the TRUE story of an American PATRIOT and HERO opened in theaters nation wide.

Warner Brothers is reporting that American Sniper is set to post a Friday-through-Sunday of $90.2M with a cume ( "cumulative audience", is a measure of the total number of unique consumers over a specified period). By tomorrow, with the MLK holiday, the Village Roadshow co-prod cume is looking to post a four-day of $105.2M and an overall cume of $108.6M. Unheard of for any wide release at this time of year. What record did the movie American Sniper NOT break?

THE LEFT ATTACKS AN AMERICAN PATRIOT AND HERO

While American Sniper was breaking box office records, multiple Academy members had been passing around a recent article by Dennis Jett in The New Republic (a liberal American magazine of commentary on politics and the arts published continuously since 1914) that attacks the film for making a hero out of Kyle, who said: “The enemy are savages and despicably evil,” and his “only regret is that I didn’t kill more.” Kyle made the statements in his best-selling book, American Sniper, on which the film is based.

YET as Dennis Jett who enjoys the freedom of speech that Chris Kyle and many others have defended, he does admit, "I have not seen American Sniper" seemingly basing his opinion on the official trailer. ...OM

As Jett continued in his article which was written in the safety of his Ivy Tower and having never seen combat, "For him, the enemy are savages and despicably evil. His only regret is that he didn’t kill more. He laments that there were rules of engagement, or ROE, which he describes as being drafted by lawyers to protect generals from politicians. He argues instead for letting warriors loose to fight wars without their hands tied behind their backs. At another point, he boasts that the unofficial ROE were pretty simple: “If you see anyone from about sixteen to sixty-five and they’re male, shoot ‘em. Kill every male you see.” (Does Jett see anything wrong or condemn the current Drone attacks by our Clown in Chief. I doubt it. The IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE is that Chris Kyle could make the last minute to shoot or not. Unlike a drone attack, Chris Kyle would take one shot and get one kill while a drone attack can kill 50 civilians for every terrorist target. How about our Clown in Chief's current air campaign, does Jett complain that without "boots" on the ground to direct the air strikes, civilians are killed? I certainly doubt it. Thank God for heroes like Chris Kyle and other snipers out there who have the training and common sense to decide whether to shoot or not to shoot...OM)

May I also remind Jett of WW 2 and the depiction of the Japanese.

         

Of course there are those that have no idea of the horrors of combat, the training involved and most importantly the idea of PATRIOTISM and PRIDE that underlies our military and the American people.

One such "protected" writer is Lindy West who wrote an article for The Guardian asking, “The real American Sniper was a hate-filled killer. Why are simplistic patriots treating him as a hero?” One answer to that question: Because many Americans are unable to accept that nothing was won in Iraq, and that the sacrifices Kyle and others made were not worth it. More fundamentally, treating Kyle as a patriot and ignoring any other possibility allows Americans to ignore the consequences of invading a country that had no weapons of mass destruction, had nothing to do with 9/11, and had no meaningful ties to Al Qaeda (our invasion, of course, changed that) 

Hey Lindy, hate to break it to you, BUT nothing was won in Iraq as the off spring of al-Qaeda, ISIL (ISIS) is on the move. By the Lindy, WMDs were found in Iraq as reported by those outstanding conservative stalwarts U.S. News & World Report and New York Times...OM

Another Academy member, who had not yet seen the film but had read the article, told TheWrap, “He seems like he may be a sociopath.”

Then of course there is that HUGE unamerican Michael Moore, an Oscar voter and former Academy governor from the Documentary Branch, who tweeted on Sunday, “My uncle killed by sniper in WW2. We were taught snipers were cowards. Will shoot u in the back. Snipers aren’t heroes. And invaders r worse.”

Moore needs to be reminded, the use of snipers has been around since the beginning of warfare, in fact the British used snipers during our Revolution, just as we used them. Ever hear of Sgt York?...OM

Is this a campaign by the Left to degrade this movie because Selma was snubbed for best picture and ensure that American Sniper and Clint Eastwood does not win Best Picture.

Or is it like, about six months after 9-11, the left saw America coming together, united against a common enemy and celebrating America and had to do all they could to divide America in order to continue their Socialist agenda. Are they using the same tactics as they once again see Americans coming together to celebrate an American Patriot and Hero and will do all they can to destroy and degrade Chris Kyle.

Are YOU going to allow them or are you going to support American Sniper.

You decide and let me know what you think.

Semper Fi!

Sources: http://www.thewrap.com/american-sniper-complaints-grow-in-hollywood-should-clint-eastwood-be-celebrating-a-killer/

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120763/american-sniper-clint-eastwood-biopic-misrepresents-chris-kyle


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/06/real-american-sniper-hate-filled-killer-why-patriots-calling-hero-chris-kyle

Concern for Poor Maybe Gospel, But Redistribution of Wealth IS Socialism - UPDATED

I fully realize that as I write this, I am opening a major can of worms. I also fully realize that some will accuse me of being anti-Catholic, anti-poor and if "the Reverend"  Al Sharpton reads this I am racist. But as Thomas Jefferson said, "Question with boldness, hold to the truth, and speak without fear."

Let's begin by laying some groundwork.

When it comes to it there is a difference between Socialism and Communism, although some may say it's it just a case of semantics.

In W.D.P. Bliss' Handbook of Socialism (1895), Bliss devotes chapter one to the definitions of socialism as defined by various Utopian Socialists, Socialists and Marxists but I feel that the Century Dictionary definition presents the most concise, "Socialism is any theory or system of social organisation which would abolish, entirely or in great part the individual effort and competition on which modern society rests, and substitute for it co-operative action; would introduce a more perfect and equal distribution of the products of labour, and would make land and capital, as the instruments and means of production, the joint possession of the members of the community.is that principle of society according to which the community as a whole, fraternally organised, should collectively own and co-operatively operate land and capital for the equitable good of all." In chapter 2, Bliss goes on to define "What Socialism is Not" and says, "Socialism is not Communism" because while, "Socialism puts its emphasis on common production and distribution; Communism on life in common. Communism makes less of existing political institutions as instruments ; Socialism would very largely use them."

In a later publication by Victor L. Berger (July 9, 1898), he says, "The definition of Socialism, as generally accepted now, is “the collective ownership of all the means of production and distribution.” While Communism proposes the common ownership of the means of production, or, in some cases, the means of production and consumption."

Finally, there will be those who throw around the word "Communism" and will cite the The Manifesto of the Communist Party (Manifesto) with "great authority" neglecting to mention or cite what Frederick Engels had to say in Preface of the 1888 English edition, "Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto (my emphasis) . By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems...."

With the meaning of Socialism defined lets take a look at idea that Pope Francis insists that his concern for the poor and critique of the global economic system isn't some novel, communist-inspired ideology but rather the original and core "touchstone" of the Christian faith.

Some U.S. conservatives have branded the first Latin American pope a Marxist for his frequent critiques of consumerism and focus on a church "that is poor and for the poor." But in an interview contained in a new book, Francis explains that his message is rooted in the Gospel and has been echoed by church fathers since Christianity's first centuries. (Yes it has, BUT the charity is from the individual, not from the STATE, "And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him." When the STATE takes money just to redistribute it to the poor that is NOT charity, that is mandated, thus SOCIALISM...OM)

"The Gospel does not condemn the wealthy, but the idolatry of wealth, the idolatry that makes people indifferent to the call of the poor," Francis says in "This Economy Kills," a study of the pope's economic and social teachings, excerpts of which were provided Sunday to The Associated Press.

Specifically, Francis summarized a verse from the Gospel of Matthew which is the essential mission statement of his papacy: "I was hungry, I was thirsty, I was in prison, I was sick, I was naked and you helped me, clothed me, visited me, took care of me." (This mission is laudable, AND if the Church wants to give money to help the poor, then so be it. BUT using the power of the State to take money from its "wealthier" citizens just to "help" the poor does not constitute charity it constitutes a tax. Maybe the pope should remember that ""Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." After all, how many trillions of dollars has America wasted on the "War on Poverty" and all that has been accomplished is the development of a dependent class of citizens living in a government controlled cage who do not know what Freedom is except what the government tells them it is....OM)

"Caring for our neighbor, for those who are poor, who suffer in body and soul, for those who are in need: this is the touchstone. Is it pauperism? No. It is the Gospel." (Yes it is, but does it say anything about the STATE doing it?...OM)

He cites church fathers dating to St. Ambrose and St. John Chrysostom as expressing the same concerns, and noted somewhat wryly that if he had said the same "some would accuse me of giving a Marxist homily."(As long as the pope insists on taking money from one group of individuals just to give it to another group, I feel he is....OM)

"As we can see, this concern for the poor is in the Gospel, it is within the tradition of the church, it is not an invention of communism and it must not be turned into some ideology, as has sometimes happened before in the course of history," an apparent reference to the Latin American-inspired liberation theology.

ADDENDUM:

Although Pope Francis has called for more regulation of financial markets, he STILL rejected suggestions that his criticisms of unbridled capitalism smack of Marxism.

In the same interview published in La Stampa newspaper on Sunday (11 January) he said, "Markets and financial speculation cannot enjoy absolute autonomy," calling for greater ethics in the economy and a better distribution of the earth's resources.
"We cannot wait any longer to resolve the structural causes of poverty in order to cure our society of an illness that can only lead to new crises," he said. (Now, I have to ask, are these statements any different from: Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. Or Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.[Manifesto]...OM)

Conservative Catholics, particularly in the United States, have criticized some of his past pronouncements on the economy, with several openly calling him a Marxist. (Considering the Pope appears to believe in the same things that the Progressives/Socialists of America do....OM) But the Argentine pope said he was just stating Church teachings. (Although I am not Catholic, I do not remember ever hearing that the Church saying that government should control of production and distribution....OM)

"If I repeat some sermons by the first fathers of the Church in the second or third centuries about how the poor must be treated, some would accuse me of preaching a Marxist homily," he said. (BUT didn’t the first fathers of the Church & even Jesus believe that it was up to the individual, NOT the STATE to take care of the poor? After all weren’t there “Poor Houses” and forced labor in Europe during the middle ages and wasn't the PEOPLE that changed the sysyem....OM)

 

He has condemned huge salaries and bonuses, calling them symptoms of an economy based on greed and also said speculation in food commodities was undermining the global fight against poverty and hunger. (Its called CAPITALISM, if one has the God given skills to earn a huge salary or bonus, then who but God can tell the person what he can or can not do with his earnings....OM)

This interview is also from a chapter of an Italian book called "Pope Francis: This Economy Kills," to be published this week by two seasoned Vatican reporters, comes out this week in Italian.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/01/11/pope-says-concern-for-poor-is-gospel-not-communism/?intcmp=latestnews

Addendum source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/07/us-usa-congress-gastax-idUSKBN0KG25X20150107 with Reporting By Philip Pullella; Editing by Raissa Kasolowsky

Adding Insult to America's Broken Promises: Targeting Veterans for Back Door Gun Registration

PERSONAL NOTE: To all of those who regularly follow my rants particularly when it comes to calling out the hypocrisy of those who use the the continuing scandal of the Veterans Administration to get more time in the spotlight and then fade away having achieved absolutely nothing, I APOLOGIZE for the appearance that I was one of those BUT during December, I was a major sickbay commando. To use an old saying, "I was hard down." I may not be 100%, but I am back!

The Clown in Chief could not take time out of his "busy" campaign schedule to visit those who sacrificed so that he could be elected by the sheeple to destroy America as Obama dodged a reminder of the veterans’ health-care scandal this week by driving by the Carl Hayden VA medical center in Phoenix, which was at the heart of last year's scandal that ONCE AGAIN drew attention to the years old America's broken promise to those of us, past and present, who put our lives on hold to defend the Freedoms of America that the sheeple have taken for granted, without stopping.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Mr. Obama had no plans to visit the Phoenix VA, and instead will give a speech about the housing industry’s recovery.

NOW the Department of Veterans Affairs is adding insult to the many scandals of not honoring America's promise and commitments to the Vets by offering free gun locks to veterans IF veterans provide details on the number of guns they own and their home address which is raising concerns about a government-run gun registry.

Some veterans have received a form letter in recent days from the VA offering gun locks if they return a completed form listing their name, address and number of guns in the home.

“As your partner in healthcare, we are committed to keeping you and your family safe,” states the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times. “Gun locks have been shown to greatly reduce death and injury caused by firearms in the home. If you own a gun, we hope you will request and use a gun lock.”

The letter said agency officials “hope to reach all our veterans with this offer.” The VA said it will mail the locks to the address provided by a veteran.

One veteran who received the letter said it raises concerns about “a gun registry in disguise.” (YOU THINK?...OM)

“Young soldiers are already notoriously reluctant to admit any problems with post-traumatic stress disorder,” said the veteran, who asked to remain anonymous.

“Imagine the effect if the average 23-year-old private … back from Iraq, already reluctant to ask for help … is now hearing rumors that if he seeks help from the VA for sleeplessness, PTSD, nightmares, etc., Big Brother is going take his guns away? Now young veterans will really avoid asking for help,” the veteran said.

The letter about gun locks obtained by the Times was signed by Daniel Hendee, director of the VA medical center in Philadelphia.

A VA spokesman in Washington said he was not aware of such an effort and could not provide further comment immediately. (Does anyone REALLY expect anything else from the District of Corruption?...OM)

Last month, an ex-Marine who was being treated for various health issues through the Philadelphia VA office shot and killed six family members before taking his own life.

And on Tuesday, an incident at the VA clinic in El Paso, Texas, resulted into two deaths — the gunman and a victim. However authorities released no information Tuesday night on who the shooter was, his motive, or whether it was a murder-suicide or he was killed by security forces.

In both cases, how would gun locks prevent these tragedies, IF the gunmen owned the weapons?

A couple of questions Patriotic Americans should ask

First and most importantly: Are the Socialists who are now controlling our country attempting to demonize America's veterans as they have our police officers by using the propaganda of the 1960's, where all returning veterans are "crazed" killers and right wing extremists.

Second: Is this an attempt not only for federal gun registration, but to use the Brady bill to deny gun ownership to veterans, as in the case of Pat Kirby:

"The Brady Act does not, in fact, allow a person like Pat to be denied gun ownership rights. The VA, and, apparently, the Federal government, are using the section about being 'adjudicated a mental defective' to illegally deny men like Pat Kirby the rights he fought for during his 37 months in Vietnam. The key word, there, is 'adjudicated.' A finding by the VA that someone is incompetent to handle his money is not an adjudication. To adjudicate something is to hear and settle a case by judicial procedure. This is not a judicial procedure--it is a finding by bureaucrat who is not a mental health professional. This is something that needs to be resolved by litigation because what the VA is doing is illegal and unconstitutional."

Third: Why should anyone trust the VA with ANY personal data considering that two years after a major security breach compromised the personal information of over 4,000 veterans, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) continues to suffer from systemic “security weaknesses,” according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Finally: Who knows more about weapons handling and safety then our military and veterans? 

Semper Fi and REMEMBER Gun Control is an Assault on Your God Given Rights!

Sources:
 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/6/va-free-gun-locks-raises-concerns-gun-registry/?page=all#pagebreak

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-motorcade-drives-past-scandal-ridden-phoenix-va-hospital_823349.html

Extortion By Any Other Name is Still Extortion

And this is the man that visits and advises Obama on a regular basis?

Sharpton gets paid to not cry ‘racism’ at corporations

Want to influence a casino bid? Polish your corporate image? Not be labeled a racist?

Then you need to pay Al Sharpton.

For more than a decade, corporations have shelled out thousands of dollars in "donations" and "consulting fees" to Sharpton’s National Action Network. What they get in return is the reverend’s supposed sway in the black community or, more often, his silence. (HUSH MONEY?..OM)

Sony Pictures co-chair Amy Pascal met with the activist preacher after leaked e-mails showed her making racially charged comments about President Obama (Free speech and Free thought police...OM). Pascal was under siege after a suspected North Korean cyber attack pressured the studio to cancel its release of “The Interview,” which depicts the assassination of dictator Kim Jong-un.

Pascal and her team were said to be “shaking in their boots” and “afraid of the Rev,” The Post reported.

No payments to NAN have been announced, but Sharpton and Pascal agreed to form a “working group” to focus on racial bias in Hollywood. (Would someone PLEASE point out what "racial bias"? If any bias exists, its against CONSERVATIVES...OM)

                             Sony exec Amy Pascal leaves her hotel after a meeting with Sharpton.                    Photo: ZUMAPRESS

Sharpton notably did not publicly assert his support for Pascal after the meeting — what observers say seems like a typical Sharpton “shakedown” in the making. Pay him in cash or power, critics say, and you buy his support or silence.

“Al Sharpton has enriched himself and NAN for years by threatening companies with bad publicity if they didn’t come to terms with him. Put simply, Sharpton specializes in shakedowns,” said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal & Policy Center, a Virginia-based watchdog group that has produced a book on Sharpton. (Isn't this what Organized Crime does? Since, these businesses do business across state lines & Sharpton extorts them, is this not a case of violation of RICO?...OM)

And Sharpton, who now boasts a close relationship with Obama and Mayor de Blasio, is in a stronger negotiating position than ever. (And large contributions to the Socialist Democratic Party?...OM)

“Once Sharpton’s on board, he plays the race card all the way through,” said a source who has worked with the Harlem preacher. “He just keeps asking for more and more money.” (That's why you don't don't pay extortionists....OM)

Horse in the race

One example of Sharpton’s playbook has emerged in tax filings and a state inspector general’s report. (Sharpton filed taxes, but doesn't pay them...OM)

In 2008, Plainfield Asset Management, a Greenwich, Conn.-based hedge fund, made a $500,000 contribution to New York nonprofit Education Reform Now. That money was immediately funneled to the National Action Network.

The donation raised eyebrows. Although the money was ostensibly to support NAN’s efforts to bring “educational equality,” it also came at a time that Plainfield was trying to get a lucrative gambling deal in New York.

Plainfield had a $250 million stake in Capital Play, a group trying to secure a license to run the coming racino at Aqueduct Racetrack in Queens. Capital Play employed a lobbyist named Charlie King, who also was the acting executive director of NAN.

Sharpton has said that most of the Plainfield contribution went to pay King’s salary.

King’s company, the Movement Group, was paid $243,586 by NAN in 2008, tax records show.

Harold Levy, a former New York City schools chancellor who was a managing director at Plainfield at the time, has denied the contribution was made to curry favor with Sharpton or anyone else. But a year later, as the battle for the racino license heated up, NAN raked in another $100,000 from representatives of the AEG consortium, which was the successor company to Capital Play.

One AEG member e-mailed another in 2009 saying, “Sharpton lobbied [then-Gov. David Paterson] hard over the weekend on our behalf,” according to the state inspector general’s 2010 report on the corrupt racino licensing process.

In order to discredit SL Green, one of the rival bidders whose plan included a Hard Rock Hotel, an AEG executive sent another e-mail outlining tactics to conscript local leaders to its cause.

“We are going to need it, and we are going to need . . . Sharpton to piss on hard rock,” according to the undated e-mail cited in the IG’s report.

Sharpton denied he lobbied on behalf of AEG.

The donations, meanwhile, came at an opportune time for Sharpton, as NAN was deep in debt to the IRS in 2008. It owed $1.3 million in unpaid federal, state and city payroll taxes including interest and penalties.

AEG viewed its payments to Sharpton as more of an insurance policy so he wouldn’t scuttle its chances by criticizing the group, said a source familiar with the racino controversy.

Cost of doing business

Sharpton raised $1 million for NAN at his 60th birthday bash in October, with donations rolling in from unions and a corporate roster of contributors including AT&T, McDonald’s, Verizon and Walmart.

Companies have long gotten in line to pay Sharpton. Macy’s and Pfizer have forked over thousands to NAN, as have General Motors, American Honda and Chrysler.

NAN had repeatedly and without success asked GM for donations for six years beginning in August 2000, a GM spokesman told The Post. Then, in 2006, Sharpton threatened a boycott of GM over the planned closing of an African-American-owned dealership in The Bronx. He picketed outside GM’s Fifth Avenue headquarters. GM wrote checks (Remember the Federal bail out? So I guess the money to NAN was taxpayers' money...OM) to NAN for $5,000 in 2007 and another $5,000 in 2008.

Sharpton targeted American Honda in 2003 for not hiring enough African-Americans in management positions. (Does education, qualifications mean anything? Or is it JUST the color of your skin?...OM)

“We support those that support us,” Sharpton wrote to the company. “We cannot be silent while African-Americans spend hard-earned dollars with a company that does not hire, promote or do business with us in a statistically significant manner.”

Two months later, car-company leaders met with Sharpton, and Honda began to sponsor NAN’s events. The protests stopped.

Sharpton landed a gig as a $25,000-a-year adviser to Pepsi after he threatened a consumer boycott of the soda company in 1998, saying its ads did not portray African-Americans. He held the position until 2007.

As for Sony, Sharpton denied that his meeting with Pascal resulted in a donation to NAN.

“I have had no discussion with her about money.” Sharpton told The Post. “There was never even a remote discussion about money.” (YEA RIGHT!...OM)

Source: http://nypost.com/2015/01/04/how-sharpton-gets-paid-to-not-cry-racism-at-corporations/  with additional reporting from Amber Jamieson