After several weeks of speculation whether the Department of Justice would investigate wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton and former president Bill Clinton in their “Pay for Play” scheme through their family’s foundation, the FBI has in fact launched a formal investigation.

At stake is more than $100 million purportedly paid to the Clintons through their foundation–The Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Reports have surfaced that the foundation served as nothing more than a pool into which bribes were paid, soliciting political favors from Hillary Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State.

When we look at the failures in the black community today, there seem to be lots of “activists” who want to tell us the problem lies in poor police relations — militant policing and presence. About two weeks ago I was on NPR’s Diane Rehm Show. The issue was about the black community and the other guests ranted on about everything other than what the real problem is — the decimation of the black family. Now, I must apologize because I’ve been sharing that the illegitimacy rate in the black community was 72 percent. I was wrong. It’s now 75 percent.

As Dr. Walter E. Williams writes for CNSnews.com, “Hustlers and people with little understanding want us to believe that today’s black problems are the continuing result of a legacy of slavery, poverty and racial discrimination. The fact is that most of the social pathology seen in poor black neighborhoods is entirely new in black history. Let’s look at some of it. Today the overwhelming majority of black children are raised in single female-headed families. As early as the 1880s, three-quarters of black families were two-parent. In 1925 New York City, 85 percent of black families were two-parent. One study of 19th-century slave families found that in up to three-fourths of the families, all the children had the same mother and father.”

“Today’s black illegitimacy rate of nearly 75 percent is also entirely new. In 1940, black illegitimacy stood at 14 percent. It had risen to 25 percent by 1965, when Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action” and was widely condemned as a racist. By 1980, the black illegitimacy rate had more than doubled, to 56 percent, and it has been growing since. Both during slavery and as late as 1920, a teenage girl raising a child without a man present was rare among blacks.”

“Much of today’s pathology seen among many blacks is an outgrowth of the welfare state that has made self-destructive behavior less costly for the individual. Having children without the benefit of marriage is less burdensome if the mother receives housing subsidies, welfare payments and food stamps. Plus, the social stigma associated with unwed motherhood has vanished. Female-headed households, whether black or white, are a ticket for dependency and all of its associated problems. Ignored in all discussions is the fact that the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994.”

Those are facts and there is only one group that MUST be held responsible for this degradation and decimation of the black family — white liberal progressive socialists. It was fifty years ago when President Lyndon Johnson came up with the brilliant idea of the government giving a check to a woman having a child out of wedlock. But worse, the checks would continue to come as long as no man was to be found in the home.

So Johnson delivered a one-two punch: he told mainly young black girls having babies out of wedlock and not as part of a family was a financially beneficially course of action, and he told young black men they weren’t responsible or accountable for the most basic of tasks — being a father.

Now, here is the alternative that the white liberal progressives would present — just kill the child — again, promoting an utter disregard and disrespect for the sanctity of life in the black community.

But then again, Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, had some very interesting thoughts on this topic, in her “Plan for Peace” from Birth Control Review (April 1932, pp. 107-108) “Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code shall be to provide for a better distribution of babies… and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit. Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit…Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.”

Or how about this from Woman, Morality and Birth Control: “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Doggone, I guess I’m one of those “more rebellious members.”

My point is that it seems the liberal progressive socialists have had a dedicated objective to destroy the once strong black family. It is a two-pronged assault — either through the expanded welfare nanny-state or by the outright murder of black babies. And sadly, Sanger was correct, white liberal progressives found colored ministers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson who have placated the black community into advancing its own suicide.

And so the unemployment rate skyrockets and the education opportunities dwindle — thanks to the white liberal progressive teachers unions, NEA/AFT. It’s truly as Jason Riley asks in his book Please Stop Helping Us.

And so we have the first black first lady, Michele Obama, who instead of talking about resurrecting Booker T. Washington’s three point agenda — education, entrepreneurship, and self-reliance — has bought into the white liberal progressive socialist message of black victimhood and dependence, instead of black success, achievement, and victory. Instead of addressing these horrific statistics in which she and President Barack Obama exist, that only 25 percent of black children have a two-parent home, they choose to be the messengers of the white liberal progressives and help keep the black community on the 21st century economic plantation.

And tell me, who are the “sellouts?”

By Allen West

A massive military exercise planned in states across the American West has touched off a political firestorm, with several top Texas officials now questioning the military’s plans – if only to calm the Internet and constituent furor surrounding it.

The seven-state war simulation exercise, known as “Jade Helm 15,” is planned for this summer. It involves training exercises on private and public land – while such exercises are hardly unique, even the military acknowledges the “size and scope” of this one sets it apart.

While the White House and Pentagon are downplaying concerns, this hasn’t stopped a barrage of blogs and tweets warning about whether the federal government is preparing for “martial law.” Even actor Chuck Norris is keeping his “eyes of a ranger” on the situation.

Western-state officials are now caught between a desire to calm their residents – and yet not appear to stoke any conspiracy theories.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott already has asked the State Guard to monitor the training exercises, after officials faced worried residents at a packed town hall meeting.

This alone triggered accusations that the Republican governor is “pandering to idiots.”

On Monday, the governor defended his actions. “There was, frankly, an overreaction to the simple fact that someone has to be in charge with gathering and disseminating information,” said Abbott, speaking to reporters. “We stepped in to play that role, which is a role to be applauded.”

On Tuesday, Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert also released a lengthy statement saying his office has been “inundated” with calls on the matter.

“This military practice has some concerned that the U.S. Army is preparing for modern-day martial law,” he said. “Certainly, I can understand these concerns.”

At the same time, Gohmert said he understands why military officials want to test whether Special Forces groups can move around a civilian population and handle various threat scenarios.

Gohmert explained that his concerns stem from the way the military is approaching the exercise. He cited a widely circulated map which details the seven states that are part of the exercise – California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Texas. The map has Utah and Texas colored red and labels them “hostile.” It labels other states as “permissive,” leaning hostile” and “leaning friendly.”

Gohmert said he was “rather appalled” that the “hostile” areas “have a Republican majority, ‘cling to their guns and religion,’ and believe in the sanctity of the United States Constitution.”

He called this an “affront” to residents there and urged the military to change its approach and tone. “The map of the exercise needs to change, the names on the map need to change, and the tone of the exercise needs to be completely revamped so the federal government is not intentionally practicing war against its own states,” he said.

And Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, a Republican presidential candidate, told Bloomberg he’s reached out to the Pentagon to “inquire about this exercise.” He said he has no reason to doubt the Pentagon’s assurances, but he understands residents’ concerns – and backs Abbott’s actions.

But the White House and Pentagon are pushing back. Last week, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said he has “no idea what [Abbott is] thinking.”

“In no way will the constitutional rights or civil liberties of any American citizen be infringed upon while this exercise is being conducted,” Earnest said.

Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren likewise said it “poses no threat” to civil liberties.

“This is a several weeks long training exercise with the purpose to refine the skills of our special operations forces,” he said, while batting back “strange Internet conspiracy theories” and “wild speculation” about the operation.

Special Operations Command said in a March press release that the exercise, from July 15 through Sept. 15, will only take place on “pre-coordinated” public and private lands – with permission from landowners and officials. Much of it would be in “remote areas,” though residents may see an uptick in “vehicle and military air traffic and its associated noise.”

An official with Special Operations Command also told Fox 13 Salt Lake City that the purpose was to replicate “potential terrain” soldiers might find themselves in overseas. As for labeling states like Utah “hostile,” the official said that was part of the design. “It is fictional and is not intended to represent any belief that the state of Utah is hostile,” the official said.

The politics have gotten tricky for western state lawmakers, however, as it puts them between concerned residents and America’s soldiers.

In Texas, Democratic Party Deputy Executive Director Manny Garcia called on Abbott to apologize to the military, accusing the governor of giving “credence to conspiracy theorists by ordering the Texas State Guard to monitor U.S. military operations.”

Meanwhile, Chuck Norris, a.k.a. “Walker, Texas Ranger,” is backing up the governor.

Writing on the conservative website WorldNetDaily, he said: “Concerned Texans and Americans are in no way calling into question our brave and courageous men and women in uniform. They are merely following orders. What’s under question are those who are pulling the strings at the top of Jade Helm 15 back in Washington. The U.S. government says, ‘It’s just a training exercise.’ But I’m not sure the term ‘just’ has any reference to reality when the government uses it.”

By Ashton Edwards and Max Roth, The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Conservative author and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson officially launched his 2016 White House bid by trashing politicians from both major parties, and urged voters to trust their own judgment.

“I think it’s time for the people to rise up and take the government back,” he said on a stage in Detroit.

Conservative author and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson officially launched his 2016 White House bid by trashing politicians from both major parties, and urged voters to trust their own judgment.

“I think it’s time for the people to rise up and take the government back,” he said on a stage in Detroit.

“The political class won’t like me saying stuff like that,” Carson said. “I’ll tell you a secret, the political class comes from both parties.”

Carson cited the decision by both parties to allow the national debt to rise as a chief of example of how the entrenched political class has robbed America of its future. He criticized politicians for applauding slower increases in the national debt, which is already far too high.

“They are completely out to lunch. We have got to drive that thing back down,” he said.

“You need to know who your representatives are, and you need to know how they voted, not how they said they voted,” he said. “And if they voted to keep raising that debt ceiling, to keep compromising the future of our children and our grandchildren, you need to throw them out of office.”

Carson also warned that the modern press has played a role in selling the broken government to the public. He said politicians and the press have conspired to convince people that unemployment is not a major concern today, even though millions of people don’t count as unemployed simply because they have stopped looking for work.

“Unless you understand those kinds of things, it’s eminently possible for slick politicians and biased media to convince you that everything is wonderful when your eyes tell you something different,” he said.

“I’m saying to people around this nation right now, stop being loyal to a party or to a man, and use your brain to think for yourself,” he said.

Conservative author and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson officially launched his 2016 White House bid by trashing politicians from both major parties, and urged voters to trust their own judgment.

“I think it’s time for the people to rise up and take the government back,” he said on a stage in Detroit.

“The political class won’t like me saying stuff like that,” Carson said. “I’ll tell you a secret, the political class comes from both parties.”

Carson cited the decision by both parties to allow the national debt to rise as a chief of example of how the entrenched political class has robbed America of its future. He criticized politicians for applauding slower increases in the national debt, which is already far too high.

“They are completely out to lunch. We have got to drive that thing back down,” he said.

“You need to know who your representatives are, and you need to know how they voted, not how they said they voted,” he said. “And if they voted to keep raising that debt ceiling, to keep compromising the future of our children and our grandchildren, you need to throw them out of office.”

Carson also warned that the modern press has played a role in selling the broken government to the public. He said politicians and the press have conspired to convince people that unemployment is not a major concern today, even though millions of people don’t count as unemployed simply because they have stopped looking for work.

“Unless you understand those kinds of things, it’s eminently possible for slick politicians and biased media to convince you that everything is wonderful when your eyes tell you something different,” he said.

“I’m saying to people around this nation right now, stop being loyal to a party or to a man, and use your brain to think for yourself,” he said.

He later delivered a special message to the press, noting that it’s protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution because it was seen as an entity on the side the people.

“Our founders envisioned a press that was on side of the people, not a press that was on the side of the Democrats or the Republicans, or the Confederates or the anti-Confederates,” he said.

“This is a direct appeal to media,” he said. “You guys have an almost sacred position in a true democracy. Please don’t abuse it.”

Carson, an unabashed conservative, followed more than 30 minutes of live gospel music, and said Americans need a leader who is able to tap into the individualism of America that has been repressed by the government. He said social spending is one area he wants to fix if he were to win the White House.

“I have no desire to get rid of safety nets for people who need them. I have a strong desire to get rid of programs that create dependency in able-bodied people,” he said. “We’re not doing people a favor when we pat them on the head and say, ‘There there, you poor little thing, we’re going to take care of all your needs.’”

He said a Carson presidency would lead to a much more efficient government, a sentiment that seems to reflect his decades of being in business, not in politics.

“We are going to change the government into something that looks more like a well-run business than a behemoth of inefficiency,” he said. He also quickly dismissed the idea that he isn’t qualified to be president because he hasn’t worked in politics.

“I don’t have a lot of experience busting budgets,” he said. “I can name a lot of people in politics who’ve been there all their lives, and you probably wouldn’t want them to polish your shoe.”

By Pete Kasperowicz

Ben Carson, a world-famous neurosurgeon and newly minted conservative folk hero, announced Sunday in an interview with a Florida TV station that he is seeking the Republican nomination for president. He will make a formal declaration Monday in his home town of Detroit.

Carson said on CBS affiliate WPEC-TV that he is ready to be part of the “equation.”

“Many people have suggested to me that I should run for president, even though I’m not a politician,” he said, adding: “I began to ask myself, why are people clamoring for me to do this? . . . I’m not 100 percent sure politics as usual is going to save us.”

The announcement is the latest stop on a sudden journey to conservative superstardom. Carson, 63, burst onto the political scene in 2013 when, addressing the typically nonpartisan National Prayer Breakfast, he spoke about the dangers of political correctness, put forward the idea of a flat tax, and criticized President Obama’s health-care law. What made it stand out: He did it right beside a steely faced Obama.

That week, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial titled “Ben Carson for President.” He made the rounds on Fox News, where at one point Sean Hannity told Carson that he would vote for him “in a heartbeat.” By August of that year, there was a “National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee.”

The media whirlwind was hardly his first brush with fame. Before taking the conservative world by storm, Carson was famous for an up-from-his-bootstraps life story in which a young black kid growing up in poverty became at the age of 33 the youngest major division director in Johns Hopkins Hospital history. He was the first pediatric neurosurgeon to successfully separate twins conjoined at the head and wrote best-selling book, “Gifted Hands,” about his life. Actor Cuba Gooding Jr played the doctor in a movie about his life story.

When “Gifted Hands” was published in 1990, the Rev. Jesse Jackson wrote a blurb on the back calling him a “model to all the youth of today.” For a long time his appeal was so apolitical, he says, that he was offered the job of surgeon general by both George W. Bush and Obama.

His plan at the beginning for 2013 was to retire from medicine and spend his days in Florida relaxing and learning how to play the organ. But that all changed after the speech, in large part because of to the efforts of John Philip Sousa IV (yes, he’s related to the composer) and Vernon Robinson, who started the “Draft Ben Carson” effort. To date, the group has raised close to $16 million — more than the Ready for Hillary PAC raised — has gotten half a million signatures encouraging Carson to run, and has 30,000 active volunteers across the country, according to Sousa.

“I continue to travel around five or six states a week,” Carson earlier told The Washington Post. “And wherever I go there are huge enthusiastic crowds of people saying, ‘You’re our hope.’ That made me believe that I owe it to those hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who feel that way.”

Carson has made a name for himself as a “tell it like he sees it” insurgent. This has won him fans for his bluntness. It has also won him critics for exactly that reason. He’s gotten himself into political hot water by saying that Obamacare is the “worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery,” said the current-day United States is “very much like Nazi Germany” and said that allowing same-sex marriage could lead to allowing bestiality.

Even his political team has admitted that perhaps he needs to work on his messaging.

“If I could create the Webster’s dictionary of words Dr. Carson could use in the campaign, there would be some words I’d leave out,” his campaign chairman, Terry Giles, told The Post earlier this year. But that unfiltered style lies at the heart of his appeal. At the foundation of Carson’s campaign is an opposition to “political correctness” that plays particularly well in places with staunchly conservative bases, such as Iowa.

‘Out-of-control family affair’: Experts question Clinton Foundation’s true charitable spending

The charity run by the Clintons has raised $2 billion since it was founded in 2001 — $144.3 million in 2013 alone — but only a small fraction of the take went to its “life-saving work,” according to analysts who monitor non-profits.

The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation claims 88 percent of the money it raises goes to actual charity work, but experts who have looked at the books put the number at about 10 percent. The rest, they say, goes mostly to salaries, benefits, travel and fund-raising.

“That claim is demonstrably false, and it is false not according to some partisan spin on the numbers, but because the organization’s own tax filings contradict the claim,” said Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist, a conservative online magazine.

The foundation, originally called the Clinton Global Initiative, has come under close scrutiny as Hillary Clinton prepares for a presidential run. Revelations in the soon-to-be-released book, “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer, have spurred numerous media investigations into the relationship between Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, the foundation’s solicitation of foreign money and the ex-president’s lucrative speaking engagements around the world.

“It sounds like another out-of-control family affair.” – Reg Baker, CPA and board member of non profit organizations

The foundation raised $144.3 million – and spent $84.7 million in 2013 – allocating $8.8 million to grants for other organizations, Davis said. The Clinton Foundation’s own IRS tax filings show the organization spent $8.5 million, or 10 percent of all 2013 expenditures, on travel, and another $4.8 million — or 5.6 percent of all expenditures — on office supplies, Davis said, questioning whether plane tickets, hotel accommodations, ink cartridges and staplers “directly change lives.”

Organizations that rate charities on their effectiveness in spending donations on the causes they champion say gauging the Clinton Foundation is difficult, but they have raised flags.

CharityNavigator.org added the Clinton Foundation to its “watchlist,” noting the organization officials “had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model cannot be accurately captured in our current rating methodology.”

While maintaining its removal of The Clinton Foundation from its website is “neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity,” the Clinton Foundation is one of only 23 charities on the watchlist.

Another charity rating organization, GiveWell, said the Clinton Health Access Initiative declined in November 2012 to participate in its review process, and hasn’t since. The Clinton Health Access Initiative in 2008 and 2009 acted as a drug distribution powerhouse, purchasing $226 million in prescription drugs at a discount to distribute worldwide, a practice ended by 2012.

In 2012, the Better Business Bureau reported the Clinton Foundation did not meet the standards of an accountable charity, failing on six counts, largely because of a lack of transparent financial reporting. According to the Better Business Bureau website, the charity is again under review and a new report will be released soon.

Some of the financial reporting can be messy to follow, in part because the Clintons created separate entities, such as the Clinton Health Access Initiative, the Haiti relief initiative, Clinton Global Initiative, the Clinton Presidential Center and the Clinton Climate Initiative.

While IRS filings show the Clintons do not receive a salary, compensation comes through other means, such as travel, speaking fees and consulting contracts.

As first noted by Politico, the organization’s 990 forms show travel costs for the Clinton Foundation more than doubled in 2013 to $8.448 million largely because of “extraordinary security and other requirements” for the Clintons.

Schweizer’s book explores one way the foundation brought in money from donors who had business before the State Department, Fox News Channel reported. The charity accepted millions of dollars from the head of Uranium One, and a firm promoting its stock, while the Russians sought approval from U.S. agencies, including the State Department, to take over the company. The deal had to be approved by the State Department headed by Hillary Clinton because the sale gave the Russians control of 20 percent of the uranium production in the U.S.

During negotiations, Uranium One’s chairman donated $2.3 million to the Clinton Foundation. Bill Clinton also reportedly received $500,000 from a Russian firm promoting the company’s stocks, for a speech in Moscow. None of these transactions appear in Clinton Foundation disclosures.

A separate investigation by government watchdog group Judicial Watch revealed Bill Clinton earned $48 million from 215 speeches he made while his wife headed the State Department, and State Department officials, who were charged with flagging conflicts and ethics concerns, did not object.

A Washington Post investigation revealed Bill Clinton’s earnings for speeches were closer to $100 million.

In another controversial deal, Canadian mining executive Stephen Dattels donated 2 million shares of the company Polo Resources to the Clinton Foundation, which the foundation did not disclose, and weeks later, America’s Bangladesh ambassador reportedly used political influence to convince the Bangladesh prime minister to approve open pit mining there, boosting Polo Resources’ profits, according to the Wall Street Journal.

“It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a slush fund for the Clintons,” Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the government watchdog group, Sunlight Foundation, told the New York Post.

Reg Baker, a certified public accountant who has offices in Hawaii and Las Vegas and has served on several non-profit boards, told FoxNews.com the foundation is not run like most charities.

“It sounds like another out-of-control family affair,” Baker said. “It is totally out of sync with charitable organizations’ best practices.”

The 2014 fundraising numbers for the Clinton Foundation have not been released publicly yet, but the amount raised is likely to increase.

In 2008, the Clinton Foundation raised $188.2 million, and that revenue spiked to $249 million in 2009. In 2010, while Hillary Clinton headed the State Department, the foundation’s revenue dropped to $140 million in 2010, $56.3 million in 2011, and $51.5 million in 2012. Since she’s returned, the foundation’s revenue jumped back up to $144.4 million, Davis noted.

After a barrage of investigative reports across a wide variety of media highlighting the foundation’s lack of transparency and disclosure, including during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation announced last week it will amend its tax returns for the last five years.

An analysis of social media traffic in downtown Baltimore Monday has unearthed striking connections to the protests in Ferguson, Mo. last year, according to a leading data mining firm that shared its findings exclusively with Fox News.

The firm, which asked to remain anonymous because of its government work, found between 20 and 50 social media accounts in Baltimore that were also tied to the peak period of violence in Ferguson. While further analysis is being conducted on the data, it suggests the presence of “professional protesters” or anarchists taking advantage of Freddie Gray’s death to incite more violence.

Gray, 25, died April 18, a week after being injured while in police custody. A wave of violence erupted in Baltimore following his funeral Monday.

One account, which also tracked the recent union protests in New York City as well as other disturbances, tweeted photos of Gray’s funeral and used language that seemed to anticipate violence in Baltimore.

The discovery that some social media accounts were tied to cities 825 miles apart was described to Fox News as “surprising.” While it is possible to spoof accounts and make it appear as if someone is in one location when they are really in another, the data mining firm told Fox News that it can’t fully explain the numbers.

The use of social media to fuel violence in Baltimore has already been highlighted by law enforcement. On Monday, police said an online call was issued for a “purge” at 3 p.m. ET, starting at Mondawmin Mall and ending in the downtown area. That type of threat is based on a movie called “The Purge,”  the plot of which involves rampant lawlessness.

The Washington Times also reported Monday that law enforcement intelligence officials issued a warning after someone sent a text urging people to “kill all white police officers” in reaction to Gray’s death. The text has fueled fears that the violence in Baltimore could spread nationally, according to safety memos obtained by The Washington Times.

Baltimore’s mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, announced a 10 p.m.-5a.m. curfew would be imposed beginning Tuesday.

Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.

The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former American president and a woman who would like to be the next one.

At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.

Frank Giustra, right, a mining financier, has donated $31.3 million to the foundation run by former President Bill Clinton, left. Credit Joaquin Sarmiento/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.

At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Mr. Schweizer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.

Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.

In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign, said no one “has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.” He emphasized that multiple United States agencies, as well as the Canadian government, had signed off on the deal and that, in general, such matters were handled at a level below the secretary. “To suggest the State Department, under then-Secretary Clinton, exerted undue influence in the U.S. government’s review of the sale of Uranium One is utterly baseless,” he added.

American political campaigns are barred from accepting foreign donations. But foreigners may give to foundations in the United States. In the days since Mrs. Clinton announced her candidacy for president, the Clinton Foundation has announced changes meant to quell longstanding concerns about potential conflicts of interest in such donations; it has limited donations from foreign governments, with many, like Russia’s, barred from giving to all but its health care initiatives. That policy stops short of Mrs. Clinton’s agreement with the Obama administration, which prohibited all foreign government donations while she served as the nation’s top diplomat.

Either way, the Uranium One deal highlights the limits of such prohibitions. The foundation will continue to accept contributions from foreign sources whose interests, like Uranium One’s, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States.

When the Uranium One deal was approved, the geopolitical backdrop was far different from today’s. The Obama administration was seeking to “reset” strained relations with Russia. The deal was strategically important to Mr. Putin, who shortly after the Americans gave their blessing sat down for a staged interview with Rosatom’s chief executive, Sergei Kiriyenko. “Few could have imagined in the past that we would own 20 percent of U.S. reserves,” Mr. Kiriyenko told Mr. Putin.

Now, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the Moscow-Washington relationship is devolving toward Cold War levels, a point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr. Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around the world.

“Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. “Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.”

The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.

The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev. Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.

Within days of the visit, Mr. Giustra’s fledgling company, UrAsia Energy Ltd., signed a preliminary deal giving it stakes in three uranium mines controlled by the state-run uranium agency Kazatomprom.

Ian Telfer was chairman of Uranium One and made large donations to the Clinton Foundation. Credit Galit Rodan/Bloomberg, via Getty Image

If the Kazakh deal was a major victory, UrAsia did not wait long before resuming the hunt. In 2007, it merged with Uranium One, a South African company with assets in Africa and Australia, in what was described as a $3.5 billion transaction. The new company, which kept the Uranium One name, was controlled by UrAsia investors including Ian Telfer, a Canadian who became chairman. Through a spokeswoman, Mr. Giustra, whose personal stake in the deal was estimated at about $45 million, said he sold his stake in 2007.

Soon, Uranium One began to snap up companies with assets in the United States. In April 2007, it announced the purchase of a uranium mill in Utah and more than 38,000 acres of uranium exploration properties in four Western states, followed quickly by the acquisition of the Energy Metals Corporation and its uranium holdings in Wyoming, Texas and Utah. That deal made clear that Uranium One was intent on becoming “a powerhouse in the United States uranium sector with the potential to become the domestic supplier of choice for U.S. utilities,” the company declared.

Still, the company’s story was hardly front-page news in the United States — until early 2008, in the midst of Mrs. Clinton’s failed presidential campaign, when The Times published an article revealing the 2005 trip’s link to Mr. Giustra’s Kazakhstan mining deal. It also reported that several months later, Mr. Giustra had donated $31.3 million to Mr. Clinton’s foundation.

(In a statement issued after this article appeared online, Mr. Giustra said he was “extremely proud” of his charitable work with Mr. Clinton, and he urged the media to focus on poverty, health care and “the real challenges of the world.”)

Though the 2008 article quoted the former head of Kazatomprom, Moukhtar Dzhakishev, as saying that the deal required government approval and was discussed at a dinner with the president, Mr. Giustra insisted that it was a private transaction, with no need for Mr. Clinton’s influence with Kazakh officials. He described his relationship with Mr. Clinton as motivated solely by a shared interest in philanthropy.

As if to underscore the point, five months later Mr. Giustra held a fund-raiser for the Clinton Giustra Sustainable Growth Initiative, a project aimed at fostering progressive environmental and labor practices in the natural resources industry, to which he had pledged $100 million. The star-studded gala, at a conference center in Toronto, featured performances by Elton John and Shakira and celebrities like Tom Cruise, John Travolta and Robin Williams encouraging contributions from the many so-called F.O.F.s — Friends of Frank — in attendance, among them Mr. Telfer. In all, the evening generated $16 million in pledges, according to an article in The Globe and Mail.

“None of this would have been possible if Frank Giustra didn’t have a remarkable combination of caring and modesty, of vision and energy and iron determination,” Mr. Clinton told those gathered, adding: “I love this guy, and you should, too.”

But what had been a string of successes was about to hit a speed bump.

Arrest and Progress

By June 2009, a little over a year after the star-studded evening in Toronto, Uranium One’s stock was in free-fall, down 40 percent. Mr. Dzhakishev, the head of Kazatomprom, had just been arrested on charges that he illegally sold uranium deposits to foreign companies, including at least some of those won by Mr. Giustra’s UrAsia and now owned by Uranium One.

Publicly, the company tried to reassure shareholders. Its chief executive, Jean Nortier, issued a confident statement calling the situation a “complete misunderstanding.” He also contradicted Mr. Giustra’s contention that the uranium deal had not required government blessing. “When you do a transaction in Kazakhstan, you need the government’s approval,” he said, adding that UrAsia had indeed received that approval.

But privately, Uranium One officials were worried they could lose their joint mining ventures. American diplomatic cables made public by WikiLeaks also reflect concerns that Mr. Dzhakishev’s arrest was part of a Russian power play for control of Kazakh uranium assets.

At the time, Russia was already eying a stake in Uranium One, Rosatom company documents show. Rosatom officials say they were seeking to acquire mines around the world because Russia lacks sufficient domestic reserves to meet its own industry needs.

It was against this backdrop that the Vancouver-based Uranium One pressed the American Embassy in Kazakhstan, as well as Canadian diplomats, to take up its cause with Kazakh officials, according to the American cables.

“We want more than a statement to the press,” Paul Clarke, a Uranium One executive vice president, told the embassy’s energy officer on June 10, the officer reported in a cable. “That is simply chitchat.” What the company needed, Mr. Clarke said, was official written confirmation that the licenses were valid.

The American Embassy ultimately reported to the secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton. Though the Clarke cable was copied to her, it was given wide circulation, and it is unclear if she would have read it; the Clinton campaign did not address questions about the cable.

What is clear is that the embassy acted, with the cables showing that the energy officer met with Kazakh officials to discuss the issue on June 10 and 11.

Three days later, a wholly owned subsidiary of Rosatom completed a deal for 17 percent of Uranium One. And within a year, the Russian government substantially upped the ante, with a generous offer to shareholders that would give it a 51 percent controlling stake. But first, Uranium One had to get the American government to sign off on the deal.

The Power to Say No

When a company controlled by the Chinese government sought a 51 percent stake in a tiny Nevada gold mining operation in 2009, it set off a secretive review process in Washington, where officials raised concerns primarily about the mine’s proximity to a military installation, but also about the potential for minerals at the site, including uranium, to come under Chinese control. The officials killed the deal.

Such is the power of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. The committee comprises some of the most powerful members of the cabinet, including the attorney general, the secretaries of the Treasury, Defense, Homeland Security, Commerce and Energy, and the secretary of state. They are charged with reviewing any deal that could result in foreign control of an American business or asset deemed important to national security.

The national security issue at stake in the Uranium One deal was not primarily about nuclear weapons proliferation; the United States and Russia had for years cooperated on that front, with Russia sending enriched fuel from decommissioned warheads to be used in American nuclear power plants in return for raw uranium.

Instead, it concerned American dependence on foreign uranium sources. While the United States gets one-fifth of its electrical power from nuclear plants, it produces only around 20 percent of the uranium it needs, and most plants have only 18 to 36 months of reserves, according to Marin Katusa, author of “The Colder War: How the Global Energy Trade Slipped From America’s Grasp.”

“The Russians are easily winning the uranium war, and nobody’s talking about it,” said Mr. Katusa, who explores the implications of the Uranium One deal in his book. “It’s not just a domestic issue but a foreign policy issue, too.”

When ARMZ, an arm of Rosatom, took its first 17 percent stake in Uranium One in 2009, the two parties signed an agreement, found in securities filings, to seek the foreign investment committee’s review. But it was the 2010 deal, giving the Russians a controlling 51 percent stake, that set off alarm bells. Four members of the House of Representatives signed a letter expressing concern. Two more began pushing legislation to kill the deal.

Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, where Uranium One’s largest American operation was, wrote to President Obama, saying the deal “would give the Russian government control over a sizable portion of America’s uranium production capacity.”

“Equally alarming,” Mr. Barrasso added, “this sale gives ARMZ a significant stake in uranium mines in Kazakhstan.”

Uranium One’s shareholders were also alarmed, and were “afraid of Rosatom as a Russian state giant,” Sergei Novikov, a company spokesman, recalled in an interview. He said Rosatom’s chief, Mr. Kiriyenko, sought to reassure Uranium One investors, promising that Rosatom would not break up the company and would keep the same management, including Mr. Telfer, the chairman. Another Rosatom official said publicly that it did not intend to increase its investment beyond 51 percent, and that it envisioned keeping Uranium One a public company

American nuclear officials, too, seemed eager to assuage fears. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission wrote to Mr. Barrasso assuring him that American uranium would be preserved for domestic use, regardless of who owned it.

“In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One Inc. or ARMZ would need to apply for and obtain a specific NRC license authorizing the export of uranium for use as reactor fuel,” the letter said.

Still, the ultimate authority to approve or reject the Russian acquisition rested with the cabinet officials on the foreign investment committee, including Mrs. Clinton — whose husband was collecting millions in donations from people associated with Uranium One.

Undisclosed Donations

Before Mrs. Clinton could assume her post as secretary of state, the White House demanded that she sign a memorandum of understanding placing limits on the activities of her husband’s foundation. To avoid the perception of conflicts of interest, beyond the ban on foreign government donations, the foundation was required to publicly disclose all contributors.

To judge from those disclosures — which list the contributions in ranges rather than precise amounts — the only Uranium One official to give to the Clinton Foundation was Mr. Telfer, the chairman, and the amount was relatively small: no more than $250,000, and that was in 2007, before talk of a Rosatom deal began percolating.

But a review of tax records in Canada, where Mr. Telfer has a family charity called the Fernwood Foundation, shows that he donated millions of dollars more, during and after the critical time when the foreign investment committee was reviewing his deal with the Russians. With the Russians offering a special dividend, shareholders like Mr. Telfer stood to profit.

His donations through the Fernwood Foundation included $1 million reported in 2009, the year his company appealed to the American Embassy to help it keep its mines in Kazakhstan; $250,000 in 2010, the year the Russians sought majority control; as well as $600,000 in 2011 and $500,000 in 2012. Mr. Telfer said that his donations had nothing to do with his business dealings, and that he had never discussed Uranium One with Mr. or Mrs. Clinton. He said he had given the money because he wanted to support Mr. Giustra’s charitable endeavors with Mr. Clinton. “Frank and I have been friends and business partners for almost 20 years,” he said.

The Clinton campaign left it to the foundation to reply to questions about the Fernwood donations; the foundation did not provide a response.

Mr. Telfer’s undisclosed donations came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakh mines. Without those assets, the Russians would have had no interest in the deal: “It wasn’t the goal to buy the Wyoming mines. The goal was to acquire the Kazakh assets, which are very good,” Mr. Novikov, the Rosatom spokesman, said in an interview.

Amid this influx of Uranium One-connected money, Mr. Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One.

The $500,000 fee — among Mr. Clinton’s highest — was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its investor conferences.

Renaissance Capital analysts talked up Uranium One’s stock, assigning it a “buy” rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was “the best play” in the uranium markets. In addition, Renaissance Capital turned up that same year as a major donor, along with Mr. Giustra and several companies linked to Uranium One or UrAsia, to a small medical charity in Colorado run by a friend of Mr. Giustra’s. In a newsletter to supporters, the friend credited Mr. Giustra with helping get donations from “businesses around the world.”

Renaissance Capital would not comment on the genesis of Mr. Clinton’s speech to an audience that included leading Russian officials, or on whether it was connected to the Rosatom deal. According to a Russian government news service, Mr. Putin personally thanked Mr. Clinton for speaking.

A person with knowledge of the Clinton Foundation’s fund-raising operation, who requested anonymity to speak candidly about it, said that for many people, the hope is that money will in fact buy influence: “Why do you think they are doing it — because they love them?” But whether it actually does is another question. And in this case, there were broader geopolitical pressures that likely came into play as the United States considered whether to approve the Rosatom-Uranium One deal.

Diplomatic Considerations

If doing business with Rosatom was good for those in the Uranium One deal, engaging with Russia was also a priority of the incoming Obama administration, which was hoping for a new era of cooperation as Mr. Putin relinquished the presidency — if only for a term — to Dmitri A. Medvedev.

“The assumption was we could engage Russia to further core U.S. national security interests,” said Mr. McFaul, the former ambassador.

It started out well. The two countries made progress on nuclear proliferation issues, and expanded use of Russian territory to resupply American forces in Afghanistan. Keeping Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon was among the United States’ top priorities, and in June 2010 Russia signed off on a United Nations resolution imposing tough new sanctions on that country.

Two months later, the deal giving ARMZ a controlling stake in Uranium One was submitted to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States for review. Because of the secrecy surrounding the process, it is hard to know whether the participants weighed the desire to improve bilateral relations against the potential risks of allowing the Russian government control over the biggest uranium producer in the United States. The deal was ultimately approved in October, following what two people involved in securing the approval said had been a relatively smooth process.

Not all of the committee’s decisions are personally debated by the agency heads themselves; in less controversial cases, deputy or assistant secretaries may sign off. But experts and former committee members say Russia’s interest in Uranium One and its American uranium reserves seemed to warrant attention at the highest levels.

“This deal had generated press, it had captured the attention of Congress and it was strategically important,” said Richard Russell, who served on the committee during the George W. Bush administration. “When I was there invariably any one of those conditions would cause this to get pushed way up the chain, and here you had all three.”

And Mrs. Clinton brought a reputation for hawkishness to the process; as a senator, she was a vocal critic of the committee’s approval of a deal that would have transferred the management of major American seaports to a company based in the United Arab Emirates, and as a presidential candidate she had advocated legislation to strengthen the process.

The Clinton campaign spokesman, Mr. Fallon, said that in general, these matters did not rise to the secretary’s level. He would not comment on whether Mrs. Clinton had been briefed on the matter, but he gave The Times a statement from the former assistant secretary assigned to the foreign investment committee at the time, Jose Fernandez. While not addressing the specifics of the Uranium One deal, Mr. Fernandez said, “Mrs. Clinton never intervened with me on any C.F.I.U.S. matter.”

Mr. Fallon also noted that if any agency had raised national security concerns about the Uranium One deal, it could have taken them directly to the president.

Anne-Marie Slaughter, the State Department’s director of policy planning at the time, said she was unaware of the transaction — or the extent to which it made Russia a dominant uranium supplier. But speaking generally, she urged caution in evaluating its wisdom in hindsight.

“Russia was not a country we took lightly at the time or thought was cuddly,” she said. “But it wasn’t the adversary it is today.”

That renewed adversarial relationship has raised concerns about European dependency on Russian energy resources, including nuclear fuel. The unease reaches beyond diplomatic circles. In Wyoming, where Uranium One equipment is scattered across his 35,000-acre ranch, John Christensen is frustrated that repeated changes in corporate ownership over the years led to French, South African, Canadian and, finally, Russian control over mining rights on his property.

“I hate to see a foreign government own mining rights here in the United States,” he said. “I don’t think that should happen.”

Mr. Christensen, 65, noted that despite assurances by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that uranium could not leave the country without Uranium One or ARMZ obtaining an export license — which they do not have — yellowcake from his property was routinely packed into drums and trucked off to a processing plant in Canada.

Asked about that, the commission confirmed that Uranium One has, in fact, shipped yellowcake to Canada even though it does not have an export license. Instead, the transport company doing the shipping, RSB Logistic Services, has the license. A commission spokesman said that “to the best of our knowledge” most of the uranium sent to Canada for processing was returned for use in the United States. A Uranium One spokeswoman, Donna Wichers, said 25 percent had gone to Western Europe and Japan. At the moment, with the uranium market in a downturn, nothing is being shipped from the Wyoming mines.

The “no export” assurance given at the time of the Rosatom deal is not the only one that turned out to be less than it seemed. Despite pledges to the contrary, Uranium One was delisted from the Toronto Stock Exchange and taken private. As of 2013, Rosatom’s subsidiary, ARMZ, owned 100 percent of it.

By Jo Becker and Mike McIntire.  Andrew E. Kramer contributed reporting. Sarah Cohen contributed research.

Obama only mentions Christians to lecture them, rather than defend them from persecution.

What do you call it when 12 men are drowned at sea for praying to Jesus?

Answer: Religious persecution.

Yet, when a throng of Muslims threw a dozen Christians overboard a migrant ship traveling from Libya to Italy, Prime Minister Matteo Renzi missed the opportunity to label it as such. Standing next to President Obama at their joint news conference Friday, Renzi dismissed it as a one-off event and said, “The problem is not a problem of (a) clash of religions.”

While the prime minister plunged his head into the sand, Italian authorities arrested and charged the Muslim migrants with “multiple aggravated murder motivated by religious hate,” according to the BBC.

As Renzi was questioned about the incident, Obama was mute on the killings. He failed to interject any sense of outrage or even tepid concern for the targeting of Christians for their faith. If a Christian mob on a ship bound for Italy threw 12 Muslims to their death for praying to Allah, does anyone think the president would have been so disinterested? When three North Carolina Muslims were gunned down by a virulent atheist, Obama rightly spoke out against the horrifying killings. But he just can’t seem to find any passion for the mass persecution of Middle Eastern Christians or the eradication of Christianity from its birthplace.

Religious persecution of Christians is rampant worldwide, as Pew has noted, but nowhere is it more prevalent than in the Middle East and Northern Africa, where followers of Jesus are the targets of religious cleansing. Pope Francis has repeatedly decried the persecution and begged the world for help, but it has had little impact. Western leaders — including Obama — will be remembered for their near silence as this human rights tragedy unfolded. The president’s mumblings about the atrocities visited upon Christians (usually extracted after public outcry over his silence) are few and far between. And it will be hard to forget his lecturing of Christians at the National Prayer Breakfast about the centuries-old Crusades while Middle Eastern Christians were at that moment being harassed, driven from their homes, tortured and murdered for their faith.

A week and a half after Obama’s National Prayer Breakfast speech, 21 Coptic Christians were beheaded for being “people of the cross.” Seven of the victims were former students of my friend and hero “Mama” Maggie Gobran, known as the “Mother Theresa of Cairo” for her work with the poorest of the poor. She told me these dear men grew up in rural Upper Egypt and had gone to Libya seeking work to support their families. They died with dignity as they called out to their God, while the cowardly murderers masked their faces.

Rather than hectoring Christians about their ancestors’ misdeeds, Obama should honor these men and the countless Middle Eastern Christians persecuted before them.

Monday, there was more horrifying news: ISIL terrorists released a video purporting to show more religiously motivated killing. According to CNN, before beheading and shooting two groups of Christians in Libya, a speaker said, “The Islamic State has offered the Christian community (the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay a tax for being Christian) many times and set a deadline for this, but the Christians never cooperated.”

So they kill them.

Indeed, let’s talk more about the Crusades.

Kirsten Powers writes weekly for USA TODAY and is author of the upcoming The Silencing: How the Left is Killing Free Speech

Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign is just one week out of the gate, but already a supposedly bombshell book threatens to rock her candidacy.

The New York Times reported Monday that the book, set for release on May 5, will make new claims about donations to the Clinton Foundation by foreign donors. Specifically, the book reportedly claims foreign entities that donated to the foundation — and that gave former President Bill Clinton high-dollar speaking fees — in turn received favors from the Clinton State Department.

Author Peter Schweizer reportedly claims to have found a “pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds.”

According to the Times, which got an advance copy of the book, Schweizer’s examples include a Colombia free-trade agreement that helped a major donor and projects in the wake of the 2010 Haiti earthquake.

A Clinton spokesman told the Times the book is “twisting previously known facts into absurd conspiracy theories.”

The book, “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” could nevertheless mark the second major political headache for Clinton’s budding campaign. Weeks before she announced her candidacy, reports surfaced that she exclusively used a personal email account, and server, while secretary of state. Under pressure, Clinton held a press conference to explain her actions, but transparency questions continue to loom over her bid after she announced it a week ago.

Critics have long questioned, as well, the family foundation’s history of foreign donations and whether donors got any benefits in return. Republicans are eagerly anticipating the release of the book.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., himself a 2016 White House candidate, claimed earlier this month that “big news” is coming on the foundation.

“I think there are things that went on at the Clinton Foundation that are going to shock people,” he said, in response to a question from Fox News in New Hampshire. “And I think they’re going to make people question whether or not she ought to run for president.”

According to the Times, he and other members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee were briefed on the book’s contents.

FoxNews.com

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday officially announced her 2016 presidential campaign, ending months of speculation over her political plans and immediately elevating her as a target for the field of Republican contenders.

Clinton made the announcement in a YouTube video in which she says: “Everybody needs a champion. And I want to be that champion.”

The roughly two-minute video begins by showing a cross-section of Americans working to get ahead before Clinton says: “I’m doing something, too. I’m running for president.”

The 2016 White House winner will assuredly need to appeal to middle-class Americans and win their votes. And Clinton wasted little time making her pitch. “Americans have fought back from tough economic times,” she says in the video. “But the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top.”

Clinton later released a similar, more condensed message on Twitter.

The former first lady is seeking the presidency for a second time, after losing the party nomination to then-Sen. Barack Obama in 2008.

The 67-year-old Clinton has been the clear Democratic front-runner since speculation started last year about her potential candidacy, and her announcement makes her the only Democrat so far to officially start a 2016 White House campaign. A victory next year would make Clinton the United States’ first female president.

Clinton in 2000 won a U.S. Senate seat in New York, and in 2009 was appointed secretary of state, serving four years.

On Saturday, the group We Are Hillary for America circulated a memo to supporters that organizers called “guiding principles.” But the memo also provided some insight into to the underpinnings of a Clinton campaign. “Give every family, every small business and every American a path to lasting prosperity by electing Hillary Clinton the next president of the United States,” the memo in part stated.

Clinton now heads this week to key, early-voting states, starting with Iowa on Tuesday, then onto New Hampshire.

She has signaled that she intends to make a major push in the Iowa caucuses, won by Obama in 2008. Her team has hired a former top aide to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to lead her Iowa campaign.

Her ties to New Hampshire are much stronger. State Democrats remember Bill Clinton’s surprising second-place finish in the 1992 primary that helped him overcome charges of draft dodging and womanizing. Hillary Clinton surprised Obama by winning the 2008 New Hampshire primary.

Clinton has faced sharp criticism in recent weeks, after news reports that as secretary of state she used a private server and emails for official business, then made available only about half of the roughly 60,000 messages, permanently deleting those she considered personal.

Still, a Fox News poll released March 26 shows Clinton with support from 49 percent of early voters, numbers similar to those in other polls for roughly the past five months.

The response to Clinton’s announcement was quick and widespread with Democratic and Republican lawmakers, candidates and political groups eager to get in on the biggest news so far in the early 2016 election cycle.

“Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state resulted in an America that is less safe and trusted abroad,” said Our American Revival, a political action committee for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate. “We must stand together and speak out against Hillary Clinton’s dangerous liberal record.”

Carly Fiorina, another potential 2016 GOP candidate and a former Hewlett-Packard chief executive, release her own video.

“Hillary Clinton’s a highly intelligent woman, hard-working, she’s dedicated her life to public service,” Fiorina says the video that she posted on Facebook. “But unfortunately, she does not have a track record of accomplishment or transparency. … She’s not the woman for the White House.”

Kentucky GOP Sen. Rand Paul, who last week officially announced his 2016 bid, became the first candidate to release an attack ad on another official candidate with a video that in part says: “Hillary Clinton represents the worst of the Washington machine.”

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, a Clinton supporter who is seriously considering a bid for the Democratic nomination, said through a spokeswoman that he will make his decision “regardless of what other people decide.”

“He’s heard from Democrats that they are looking for someone who offers strong progressive values, new leadership and the experience of getting real results,” spokeswoman Lis Smith said. “The Democratic Party will benefit from a robust issues debate … should Governor O’Malley decide to enter the race.”

Democratic National Committee Chairman and Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz welcomed Clinton as the first official candidate seeking the party’s 2016 presidential nomination. But she also suggested Clinton would have to work for the mantle.

“We expect a competitive primary for the Democratic nomination,” Wasserman Schultz said. “I look forward to the contributions that Secretary Clinton and all of our eventual candidates will bring to this debate.”

As first lady to President Bill Clinton during the 1990s, she was a driving figure in a failed health care overhaul and lived through multiple ethics investigations and her husband’s impeachment.

Clinton graduated from Wellesley College and Yale Law School.

In Arkansas, she was a lawyer at a top firm while Bill Clinton was governor. She advised her husband after he won the White House in 1992. In the Senate, she struck a bipartisan tone at times. Her Senate vote for the 2002 Iraq invasion became a point of contention in 2008; Obama had spoken out against the “dumb war.” At the State Department, she was a hawkish member of Obama’s national security team. She helped set the foundation for nuclear talks with Iran.

Clinton is the daughter of a small-business owner and homemaker, and grew up in suburban Chicago. As a college senior, Clinton delivered a 1969 commencement speech that earned national attention. The Clintons met at Yale. After working as a child advocate, Clinton followed her future husband back to Arkansas, where he launched his political career. The couple’s 35-year-old daughter, Chelsea Clinton, gave birth to her first child, Charlotte, in September.

A 1995 address in Beijing and her final campaign event in 2008 are signature moments. As first lady, Clinton declared in a speech at a U.N. conference on women that “human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights.”

The speech challenged human rights abuses of women and helped set the tone for Clinton’s work years later in the State Department.

Her critics remember her for blaming her husband’s scandals on a “vast right-wing conspiracy.”

Clinton wrote “Hard Choices,” about her time as secretary of state, and promoted the book around the country in 2014. The book generated mediocre sales and Clinton stumbled at times during the book tour, saying in one interview that she and her husband were “dead broke” when they left the White House.

While they faced large legal bills from the Whitewater investigation, the couple made millions after Bill Clinton’s presidency; the comments were considered tone-deaf. Clinton already was a publishing powerhouse at that point.

During her husband’s presidency, she released “It Takes a Village” in 1996, a book that discussed her work in child advocacy and steps to help children become productive adults.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The jury has reached a verdict in the federal death penalty trial of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

Reports are circulating that the jury has found the Islamic Extremist guilty.

The verdict was reached Wednesday afternoon after a little over 12 hours of deliberations over two days.

Tsarnaev’s lawyers admitted he participated in the bombings, but said his now-dead older brother was the driving force behind the 2013 deadly attack.

The jury was asked to decide 30 charges against Tsarnaev, including using a weapon of mass destruction.

If the jury convicts Tsarnaev, it will move on to a second phase of the trial to decide whether he should receive the death penalty or spend the rest of his life in prison.

Three people were killed and more than 260 were injured when twin pressure-cooker bombs exploded near the marathon finish line on April 15, 2013.

PUBLIUS, FoxNews.com, Associated Press contributed to this report.

A federal judge has issued a scathing rebuke to lawyers for the Obama administration in a case involving the president’s unilateral immigration action. In an order issued Tuesday night, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, who had put a temporary hold on the action, not only refused to lift the hold — he also came very near to accusing administration lawyers of flat-out lying to him.

The administration’s assertions in the immigration case have been “misleading,” “troublesome,” and “belied by the facts,” Hanen wrote. “Any number of federal judges, given this misconduct, would consider striking the government’s pleadings.” Doing so would effectively end the case altogether, and Hanen wrote that he had decided not to take that action because the issues at stake are of great national importance.

The case was brought by the attorneys general of 26 states seeking to stop the president’s decision to grant quasi-legal status and work permits to millions of illegal immigrants. The controversy that angered Judge Hanen involved the timing of the president’s new measures. Administration lawyers told the court that the first part of the president’s action, expansion of DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, was scheduled to begin Feb. 18, 2015. The second part, known as DAPA, or Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, was scheduled to go into effect in mid-May.

In court arguments, Hanen specifically asked the administration lawyers whether the Department of Homeland Security would begin implementing DACA before Feb. 18. They said no. Hanen therefore issued an injunction temporarily stopping DACA on Feb. 16, two days before it was scheduled to go into effect. At that point, Hanen thought he had stopped things while he considered the larger issues of the lawsuit, which focus on the constitutionality of Obama’s action.

The judge was stunned when, on March 3, administration lawyers filed a “Defendant’s Advisory” admitting that the administration had begun implementing the expanded DACA program back in November, and had in fact granted new protections and work permits to “approximately 100,000 people” by the time administration lawyers told the judge nothing was happening.

An angry Hanen ordered the government to explain why he should not punish the administration for misleading him. The two sides argued the issue in a hearing last month, and now Hanen has issued an order refusing to lift the stay and declaring the administration’s actions “misleading.”

In the order, Hanen quotes extensively from the January hearing in which administration lawyers told him the Department of Homeland Security had not yet begun to implement DACA — only to file a “clarification” with the court weeks later. Hanen’s unhappiness is obvious:

Clearly, if a “clarification” on any ongoing actions taken by the DHS was ever necessary, which of course it was, [the January hearing] was the time. Silence here, and then later during the scheduling discussion, was misleading. Whether by ignorance, omission, purposeful misdirection, or because they were misled by their clients, the attorneys for the Government misrepresented the facts. The Court, relying on counsels’ representations, not only gave the Government extra time for its briefing, but it also took February 18, 2015, as the agreed-upon date by which to rule on the motion for a temporary injunction.

Hanen’s anger is apparent throughout the order. One government assertion “is belied by the facts.” A government explanation is “troublesome.” Omissions from the government’s filings are “mysterious.” And then this:

Section 3.3 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and Section 3.03 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct…require a lawyer to act with complete candor in his or her dealings with the Court. Under these rules of conduct, a lawyer must be completely truthful and forthright in making representations to the Court. Fabrications, misstatements, half-truths, artful omissions, and the failure to correct misstatements may be acceptable, albeit lamentable, in other aspects of life; but in the courtroom, when an attorney knows that both the Court and the other side are relying on complete frankness, such conduct is unacceptable.

“Any number of federal judges, given this misconduct, would consider striking the Government’s pleadings,” Hanen concluded. Hanen said he would be tempted to do the same in this case, were the subject not so important. “The issues at stake here have national significance and deserve to be fully considered on the merits by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and, in all probability, the Supreme Court of the United States,” Hanen wrote. Throwing the case out now would “not only penalize those with an interest in the outcome, but would more importantly penalize the country, which needs and deserves a resolution on the merits.”

By Byron York 

Because of all the buzz in the press lately about religious freedoms coming under attack, there has been a great deal of discussion about the role of religion in our nation.

Barack Hussein Obama has declared that “America is no longer a Christian nation,” and in our article of May 28, 2012 Obama vs. Catholic Church, we outlined how one of his first acts as POTUS was to insist that the gold “IHS” monograms for the name of Christ be covered up with black painted plywood in Gaston Hall at the Catholic church’s Georgetown University, where he delivered a speech on economics.

We see on national television, in the movies, magazines and other media, on left-leaning news programs, newspapers and the blogs and social networks a hardening stance against Christianity in America. Even our political leaders who claim a Christian background not only embrace practices and policies that are clearly against the teachings of the Bible, but publicly belittle and berate anyone who endorses them—or endorses Jesus Christ or His Father, the God of Israel.

The Democratic Party, and indeed, many if not most liberals and progressives in this country have adopted an anti-God, anti-Christian approach to public life, and in a growing number of cases, their personal lives. See, e.g., our article of September 9, 2012 DNC Boos God. The support for the State of Israel has waned with the decline of Christianity in this country—leaving American Jewish families to wonder if they’ve been abandoned by the Democratic Party that they so willingly embraced.

Antichrist is a personage mentioned in the New Testament of the Bible on a few occasions; but also described is a “Spirit of Antichrist,” illustrated by John the Apostle in 1 John 4 thus:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

The Apostle further elaborates the principle of the Spirit of Antichrist in 2 John 1, explaining:

7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Indeed, we are deluged in a sea of deceivers. We live in that Orwellian world where good is bad and bad is good, where our universities churn out “spin doctors” by the millions, whose only purpose is to make wickedness appear to be goodness through “tolerance” and “inclusion,” and to make enslavement appear as liberty through taxation, regulation and the public dole. They belly up to news desks and slither on couches looking into television cameras and lie about everything with a sophistry that oozes effortlessly from their filthy lips, and assail anyone who dares speak a word of decency or honesty.

Yes, the Spirit of Antichrist has doubtless overtaken our nation’s media, government, education and many other institutions. Deceivers rule the country. It has also overtaken the rest of the world, where hundreds of innocents are murdered every day for nothing more than professing that Jesus is the Christ. It was all foretold, and we must accept its eventuality and reality.

The only questions that remain are: a) which team’s jersey do you wear? and b) is the person of Antichrist already among us, arising on the scene?

Publius