Fox’s Powers and Tantaros Battle over Ferguson Blame Cops Got Shot ‘Before Obama’
Megyn Kelly Debunks The “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” Symbol For Ferguson Protests
Ferguson Protestors Praise Police Shooting
Michael Brown vs Furgoson Police:” Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” is Totally False Narration?
Dem Reps Make ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot’ Protest Gesture on House Floor
OBAMA on OFFICER WILSON & FERGUSON RIOTS – Report Exposed Racially Biased System
Obama Responds to Grand Jury Decision in Ferguson Shooting Case
Obama on Ferguson Police Shooting Protests
Hands Up Don’t Shoot/ Berkeley, CA
TheNewsCommeneter Via FoxNews ‘Hands Up Don’t Shoot’ a Lie
Two officers shot outside Ferguson police dept.
Two cops shot in Ferguson after chief resigns
Two Cops Shot in Ferguson, Video Timeline
FOX News Now: Press Conference on Cops Shot in Ferguson
CNN’s Don Lemon Wonders If ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot’ Is A ‘False Narrative’
NFL Stars Do “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” Protest During Game, Cops Furious
The Truth About Michael Brown and the Ferguson Riots
‘Searing’ Ferguson report claims revenue came before public safety
State, county police take over Ferguson
By Greg Botelho
With tensions running high after the shooting of two officers in Ferguson, Missouri, state and county police are once again taking over protest security in the St. Louis suburb.
St. Louis County Police and the Missouri State Highway Patrol will “assume command of the security detail regarding protests” at 6 p.m. (7 p.m. ET), St. Louis County Police said in a statement.
Ferguson Police will remain responsible for routine policing services in the city, the statement said.
The takeover comes less than a day after two police officers standing guard outside Ferguson police headquarters were shot in what St. Louis County Police Chief Jon Belmar called an “ambush,” spurring a manhunt for those responsible for targeting the line of officers.
“We could have buried two police officers,” Belmar told reporters. “… I feel very confident that whoever did this … came there for whatever nefarious reason that it was.”
This isn’t the first time that county police and state troopers have stepped in to handle protest security.
When clashes between police and protesters boiled over last year, Missouri’s governor declared a state of emergency and tapped the State Highway Patrol to take over. After that emergency declaration expired in December, Ferguson Police resumed command of protest security. Officers from other agencies have continued to provide backup at larger protests.
Protest organizers are meeting to determine whether they’ll demonstrate again Thursday night.
“The most important thing is the safety of the protesters, so we’re meeting to organize what tonight would look like, if we’re coming out, because we know that tensions are high within the Police Department after the incident that occurred last night, so we just want to make sure that people are safe,” said Kayla Reed of the Organization for Black Struggle.
If protesters return, they’ll see a different security situation on the streets, said Jeff Roorda of the St. Louis Police Officers Association.
“It’s a very tense situation, as you can well imagine,” he told CNN’s “The Situation Room.” “In my communications as a union official with police commanders, I’ve been assured that tactics will be different tonight. I assume that means not only more officers, but a wider perimeter, with coverage, perhaps, of these blind spots from which the shots were fired last night.”
The shots rang out shortly after midnight, at the end of a protest against the Ferguson Police Department. That department has been under fire since one of its officers, Darren Wilson, shot and killed black teen Michael Brown in August, and more recently since a scathing U.S. Department of Justice report came out documenting a pattern of racial discrimination. Police Chief Thomas Jackson resigned from his post Wednesday.
While the demonstrators’ focus was Ferguson, neither of the wounded officers works in that St. Louis suburb’s police department.
Two officers shot outside Ferguson Police Department01:56
One is from Webster Groves, a city about 13 miles south of Ferguson. The officer — a 32-year-old with seven years’ experience — was shot at the high point of his cheek, just under his right eye, Belmar said. The bullet that hit him was still lodged behind his ear as of late Thursday morning.
The other wounded officer was hit in the shoulder and the bullet came out the middle of his back, Belmar said. He is a 41-year-old from St. Louis County Police who has been in law enforcement for the past 14 years.
Both men were treated and released from St. Louis’ Barnes Jewish Hospital, according to a Thursday morning post on the St. Louis County Police’s Facebook page.
The officers were standing next to each other when they were struck, Belmar said.
3 questioned by investigators
Authorities haven’t indicated they know who shot the officers, though Belmar did say “several people … have been very forthright with” investigators. Police have also recovered shell casings that may be tied to the shooting.
Officers shot amid Ferguson protests 11 photos
Heavily armed officers converged on one Ferguson home as part of the investigation, St. Louis County police spokesman Brian Schellman said. Video from CNN affiliate KMOV showed three of them trying to pry a hole in the roof, while others went through the front door of the one-story residence.
By late morning, when the operation was over, two men and one woman were being questioned by police, according to Shawn McGuire, another police spokesman. McGuire said no one was officially in custody in the case at that point.
It’s not known what connection, if any, the shooter or shooters had to Wednesday night’s protest.
Belmar noted this isn’t the first time gunshots have rung out in and around demonstration sites since the protests began. It is the first time, though, that an officer has been hit.
“I think it’s a miracle that we haven’t had any instances similar to this over the summer and fall, (given) the amount of gunfire,” said the chief.
‘Muzzle flashes … about 125 yards away’
At its peak, some 150 protesters congregated Wednesday night in front of the Ferguson police station, Belmar said. That number had fallen by about half, with the chants over, when gunfire erupted.
The shots came from a hill overlooking the station, according to witnesses. Belmar said officers saw “muzzle flashes … about 125 yards away.”
One demonstrator, DeRay McKesson, told CNN he has no “indication that leads me to believe that … a protester … did it,” saying he and fellow demonstrators believe in nonviolence.
Belmar believes someone targeted the police, who have braved heated criticism for months, for a reason. “These police officers were standing there, and they were shot just because they were police officers,” he said.
Brown’s parents condemned the shooting as “senseless,” saying such violence against law enforcement “will not be tolerated.”
So did the White House, with a tweet signed with President Barack Obama’s initials offering prayers for the wounded officers and calling “violence against police … unacceptable.”
And U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder — who visited Ferguson in the aftermath of Brown’s shooting and unrest that spurred — decried what happened as a “heinous and cowardly (and) repugnant attack.”
“What happened last night was a pure ambush,” Holder said. “This was not someone trying to bring healing to Ferguson. This was a damn punk who was trying to sow discord.”
‘Armed phalanx of officers’
One irony is that, for some protesters, Wednesday was a day to celebrate: They’d called for Jackson’s resignation for months, and finally it was happening.
But for others, it was not enough. That’s why they congregated in Ferguson, to demand changes like disbanding the city’s entire Police Department and ousting Mayor James Knowles. The now familiar racial overtones hung over the protests, a product of the fact that Brown was African-American and Wilson is white, along with the DoJ report on Ferguson.
Some chanted, “Racist cops have got to go.” Others held signs with slogans such as “They don’t really care about us!” and “Black lives matter.”
“It was a great group (with) great, great energy,” protester Markus Loehrer said.
Three were arrested in a crowd Belmar characterized as agitated and “pretty rowdy” at times, though McKesson said one fight that occurred had nothing to do with the protests. About 70 law enforcement officers from multiple departments came in to stand in front of the station, as they have on many other nights — with the turnout of demonstrators the highest since the November grand jury decision not to indict Wilson, albeit smaller than the days immediately after Brown’s death.
These protesters were in the process of leaving when gunfire erupted “no less than 100 feet” away, Kayla Reed said. McKesson, at the base of the hill where he and others say the bullets came from, heard about four shots.
Several police gathered around their wounded comrades, while others took cover and drew their guns.
“It was kind of shocking to see this armed phalanx of officers to immediately pull their weapons,” Loehrer said.
‘Very difficult’ environment
So what happens next?
There’s the manhunt, of course. And then there’s the likelihood of more protests — and the possibility of more violence as well.
Even though Jackson, City Manager John Shaw, Ferguson’s top court clerk and two police officers are gone or on their way out, some activists are vowing to keep pressing for change.
“We aren’t satisfied with this,” Reed said of the police chief’s exit. “It’s a step in the right direction, but it’s not what total justice looks like in Ferguson.”
Jackson expressed optimism that, in his view, the Justice Department report concluded that Ferguson “can do the tough work to see this through and emerge the best small town it can be.”
But what are the prospects after Thursday’s shooting?
Loehrer worried that the shooting will undercut the protesters’ message against discrimination and violence.
“It’s a shame that somebody had to take advantage of this great group,” he said, “to do something so despicable.”
And Belmar said it underscores the fact that, eight months after Brown’s death, the streets of Ferguson are still simmering and law enforcement officers there are on edge.
“This is beginning at times to be very difficult for any law enforcement agencies, anywhere, to really wrap their arms around,” he said. “I want everybody … to understand how difficult this is.”
Santa Obama’s $9 minimum wage: good propaganda, bad economics
By Raymond Thomas Pronk
Presidential economic policies like the proverbial “road to hell” are often paved with good intentions.
In his 2013 State of the Union address, President Barack Obama said:
“Even with the tax relief we’ve put in place, a family with two kids that earns the minimum wage still lives below the poverty line. That’s wrong. Tonight, let’s declare that in the wealthiest nation on Earth, no one who works full time should have to live in poverty and raise the federal minimum wage to $9 an hour. This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families. It could mean the difference between groceries or the food bank; rent or eviction; scraping by or finally getting ahead. For businesses across the country, it would mean customers with more money in their pockets.”
Why not increase the minimum wage to $18 per hour and win America’s war on poverty?
What are the economic consequences or impact of a $9 minimum wage on young high school and college students seeking employment? A decidedly negative impact if economic history is any guide.
The large increase in teenage unemployment is partly driven by the increase in the minimum wage. When the minimum wage rate was increased in July 2008 from $5.85 to $6.55 there was an upward spike in the teenage unemployment rate to greater than 20 percent. When the minimum wage was again increased in July 2009 from $6.55 to its current rate of $7.25, there was another upward spike in the teenage unemployment rate to greater than 25 percent. This rising trend of upward spikes in teenage unemployment rates after an increase in the minimum wage is reflected in the following chart.
Unemployment rate or percent of 16-19 years from 1948 to present
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor
David Neumark, professor of economics at the University of California, Irvine and William L. Wascher, deputy director in the Division of Research and Statistics at the Federal Reserve Board, in their book, “Minimum Wages,” provide a comprehensive review of the evidence on the economic effects of minimum wage laws. They concluded that such laws reduce employment opportunities for less-skilled workers, tend to reduce their earnings and are not very effective in reducing poverty.
If Congress passes an increase in the minimum wage to $9 as proposed by Obama, young, inexperienced, low-skill workers, especially blacks and Hispanics, will again be hurt for they will not be hired by businesses who cannot afford to pay them the higher mandated minimum wage. This will be reflected in yet another spike upward in the teenage unemployment rate that might exceed 30 percent.
Furthermore, young American citizens, especially blacks and Hispanics, will face stiff competition from the more than 11 million illegal aliens who predominantly seek low-skilled jobs. Obama and progressives in both the Democratic and Republican parties want to grant these illegal aliens immediate legal status to work in the U.S.
Obama is repeating the past economic policy mistakes of progressive presidents from both political parties such as Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Carter and the Bushes in mandating higher than free market wage rates. These well-intentioned but massive government interventionist economic policies lead to prolonged depressions and recessions with high unemployment rates, especially for young, inexperienced, low skilled and minority workers.
Thirty years ago the black economist, Walter E. Williams, explored the effects of federal and state government intervention into the economy, including minimum wage laws, in the PBS documentary, Good Intentions, based upon his 1982 book, “The State Against Blacks.” Those favoring a rise in the federal minimum wage would be well advised to view this video together with “Milton Friedman on the Minimum Wage” on YouTube before advocating an increase in the minimum wage.
For young American citizens an entry-level job paying a lower competitive market wage rate is preferable to no job at a higher government mandated minimum wage.
Good intentions are not enough. Results measured in jobs created count.
Digital Age-Why is Coolidge the Forgotten President?-Amity Shlaes
Sumner’s Explanation of The Forgotten Man – Revised for the 21st Century
Sumner’s Explanation of The Forgotten Man – Revised for the 21st
By Joshua Lyons 9/25/09
As soon as A observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which X is suffering, A talks it over with B, and A and B then propose to get a law passed – with the praise of Y – to remedy the evil and help X.
Their law always proposes to determine what C shall do for X or, in the better case, what A, B and C shall do for X.
As for A and B, who get a law to make themselves do for X what they are willing to do for him, we have nothing to say except that they might better have done it without any law, but C is forced to comply with the new law.
All this is done while Y looks on with glee and proclaims that A and B are so good for helping poor X.
A is the politician B is the humanitarian, special interest, do-gooder, reformer, social speculator, etc. C is The Forgotten Man (i.e. you, me, us) X is the downtrodden, the oppressed, the little guy, the misunderstood, etc. Y is the Mainstream Media
In other words…
As soon as THE POLITICIAN observes something which seems to him to be wrong, from which THE DOWNTRODDEN is suffering, THE POLITICIAN talks it over with THE HUMANITARIAN, and THE POLITICIAN and THE HUMANITARIAN then propose to get a law passed – with the praise of THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA – to remedy the evil and help THE DOWNTRODDEN.
Their law always proposes to determine what THE FORGOTTEN MAN shall do for THE DOWNTRODDEN or, in the
better case, what THE POLITICIAN, THE HUMANITARIAN and THE FORGOTTEN MAN shall do for THE DOWNTRODDEN.
As for THE POLITICIAN and THE HUMANITARIAN, who get a law to make themselves do for THE DOWNTRODDEN what they are willing to do for him, we have
nothing to say except that they might better have done it without any law, but THE FORGOTTEN MAN is forced to comply with the new law.
All this is done while THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA looks on with glee and proclaims that THE POLITICIAN and THE HUMANITARIAN are so good for helping poor THE DOWNTRODDEN.
The preceding commentary was based on William Graham Sumner’s explanation of The Forgotten Man.
Obama: “Raise Minimum Wage to $9 an Hour” – SOTU 2013
More on Minimum Wage
Obama’s $9/Hour SOTU Minimum Wage
Milton Friedman on Minimum Wage
Power of the Market – Minimum Wage
Williams with Sowell – Minimum Wage
The Job-Killing Impact of Minimum Wage Laws
“Good Intentions” by Dr. Walter Williams
Dr. Walter Williams’ 1982 PBS documentary “Good Intentions” based on his book, “The State Against Blacks”. The documentary was very controversial at the time it was released and led to many animosities and even threats of murder.
In “Good Intentions”, Dr. Williams examines the failure of the war on poverty and the devastating effect of well meaning government policies on blacks asserting that the state harms people in the U.S. more than it helps them. He shows how government anti-poverty programs have often locked people into poverty making the points that:
– being forced to attend 3rd rate public schools leave students unprepared for working life
– minimum wages prevent young people from obtaining jobs at an early age
– licensing and labor laws have had the effect of restricting entrance of blacks into the skilled trades and unions
– the welfare system creates perverse incentives for the poor to make bad choices they otherwise would not
Dr. Williams presents the following solutions to these problems:
Failing Public Schools – Give parents greater control over their children’s education by setting up a tuition tax credit or voucher system to broaden competition in turn revitalizing both public and non-public schools
Minimum Wages – Remove the minimum wage from youngsters to give more young people the chance to learn the world of work at an early age instead spending their free time idle an possibly falling into the habits of the street
Restrictive Labor Laws, Jobs Programs – Eliminate government roadblocks that prevent new entrepreneurs from starting their own business
Welfare Programs – Enact a compassionate welfare system such as a negative income tax which would remove dependency and dis-incentives for the poor to get themselves out of poverty
Scholars interviewed in the documentary include Donald Eberle, Charles Murray, and George Gilder.
Good Intentions 1 of 3 Introduction and Public Schools with Walter Williams
Good Intentions 2 of 3 Minimum Wage, Licensing, and Labor Laws with Walter
Good Intentions 3 of 3 The Welfare System and Conclusions with Walter Williams
Government Intervention and Individual Freedom | Walter Williams
Obama: “Time to Pass Immigration Reform” – State of the Union 2013
Contrasting Views of the Great Depression | Robert P. Murphy
Why You’ve Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Uncommon Knowledge: The Great Depression with Amity Shlaes
Calvin Coolidge: The Best President You’ve Never Heard Of – Amity Shlaes
Amity Shlaes, Author, “Coolidge”
Keep Cool With Coolidge, Not Obama: Obama Reveals His True Hatred of Business
FULL SPEECH – US President Obama Immigration Reform from LAS VEGAS 1/29/2013
1984 – Ronald Reagan on Amnesty
Sessions Warns Washington Elites Against Rush To Amnesty
Amnesty – Not the Solution: Talk Border
Immigration: The real Third Rail of politics on TalkBorder
Talk Border: Safe Borders, Not Racism
Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts
Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – Updated 2010
David Meir-Levi on Talk Border
Martin Sieff on TalkBorder.com
Lou Barletta on Talk Border
Michael Cutler, INS Special Agent
Charles Faddis, CIA (Ret), speaks with Michael Cutler, INS (Ret) on National Security and more in one part of a three-part interview for The United States of Common Sense, hosted by Charles Faddis..
Michael Cutler, a Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, an advisor to the 911 Families for a Secure America, and a consultant, retired in 2002 after a distinguished career with the INS of over 30 years, including 26 as a Special Agent. In 1991, he was promoted to the position of Senior Special Agent and was assigned to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force and worked with members of other federal and state law enforcement agencies as well as law enforcement organizations of other countries. The task force’s investigations of aliens involved in major drug trafficking organizations ultimately resulted in the seizure of their assets and prosecutions for a wide variety of criminal violations.
Mr. Cutler has testified as an expert witness at nine Congressional hearings on issues relating to the enforcement of immigration laws having been called by members of both political parties. Mr. Cutler also furnished testimony to the Presidential Commission on the Terrorist Attacks of September 11. Mr. Cutler has appeared on numerous television and radio programs including the OReilly Radio Factor, OReillys No Spin Zone, Fox News and the Lou Dobbs Tonight Program on CNN to discuss the enforcement of immigration laws and has participated in various public debates and panel discussions on issues involving the enforcement and administration of immigration laws. Among the areas of concern that he is able to speak about authoritatively are the nexus between immigration and national security, the impact of immigration on the criminal justice system, strategies to combat illegal immigration, and why amnesty for illegal aliens is wrong.
Roy talks about ICE lawsuit with FNC’s Neil Cavuto
The Dangers of Unlimited Legal & Illegal Immigration
Stop Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants – Expert Reveals the True Cost of Amnesty
Path to illegal citizenship: The high cost of Illegal and legal lImmigration for U.S. Citizens
Why Oppose the DREAM Act?
The E-Verify Solution for Illegal Hiring
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 2
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 2.
Census Bureau estimates of the number of illegals in the U.S. are suspect and may represent significant undercounts. The studies presented by these authors show that the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. could range from 20 to 38 million.
America’s dilemma: citizenship or deportation?
By Raymond Thomas Pronk
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein
President Barack Obama flew to Las Vegas last week to give a speech at a local school outlining his views and principles for comprehensive immigration reform. “Right now, we have 11 million undocumented immigrants in America; 11 million men and women from all over the world who live their lives in the shadows. Yes, they broke the rules. They crossed the border illegally. Maybe they overstayed their visas. Those are facts. Nobody disputes them. But these 11 million men and women are now here,” Obama said.
Why are there more than 11 million illegal aliens in the United States? Simply, the federal government under both Democratic and Republican progressive presidents has refused to vigorously enforce existing immigration law as set forth in federal statutes and regulations and failed to control and secure U.S. borders against a massive invasion of illegal aliens. These presidents betrayed their oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution.
In a debate with Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale in 1984, President Ronald Reagan said, “I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though some time back they may have entered illegally.”
On Nov. 6, 1986, Congress enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, to reform immigration law and control the number of illegal immigrants entering the country. Reagan signed the bill.
Under this law approximately three million illegal aliens who had continuously resided in the U.S. before Jan.1, 1982 were granted legal status and eventually citizenship — amnesty for illegal aliens.
Since then the federal government has failed to control and secure the borders and by so doing, the 1986 law by granting amnesty created a strong magnet or incentive for future illegal aliens. Both Reagan and the American people were double-crossed by progressive Democrats and Republicans in Congress who really wanted open borders and unlimited illegal immigration.
The American people are asking for immigration law enforcement and secure borders and not Obama’s comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship. Americans favor limited controlled legal immigration but oppose open borders with unlimited illegal immigration. So-called “undocumented workers” or more accurately illegal aliens should, as required by federal law, be removed from their place of work and deported to their country of origin.
Why? First, aliens broke into the country illegally when they entered the U.S. without a valid visa or over stayed their visas and did not return to the country of origin. Second, aliens broke the law when they either stole identities of U.S. citizens or purchased fraudulent documents such as driver’s licenses and Social Security cards in order to obtain employment in the U.S. Third, aliens broke the law when they worked in the U.S. without having the legal status to do so. Fourth, many employers broke the law when they knowingly hired illegal aliens. You do not reward criminal behavior by granting a pathway to citizenship. The rule of law requires federal government enforcement of immigration law by deporting illegal aliens.
When you multiple these crimes by millions, you are dealing with a crime wave and mass invasion that has been sanctioned by the progressive ruling elites in Washington D.C. from both the Democratic and Republican parties who favor open borders and token enforcement of existing federal immigration law.
Why did these ruling elites ignore the will of the American people? The Democratic Party favors open borders and a pathway to citizenship or amnesty for illegal aliens because they believe the overwhelming majority of these illegal aliens will, when they become citizens, vote for Democratic candidates.
Progressive Republicans likewise favored open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens because many of the businesses that employ illegal aliens also contribute to the campaigns of Republican candidates.
Both political parties could care less that millions of American citizens are unemployed as a direct result of policies that encouraged massive illegal immigration. Staying in power, not the welfare of the American people, was and is the top priority of these politicians.
The 11 million illegal aliens and their dependents should be given the choice to either voluntarily return to their country of origin by a certain date or face deportation under existing federal immigration law. With over 25 million American citizens seeking permanent full time jobs, this would immediately reduce the number of unemployed citizens by millions.
Most Americans would agree with two of Obama’s principles of comprehensive immigration reform namely “to stay focused on enforcement” and “to bring our legal immigration system into the 21st century.” However, most Americans would not agree with Obama to first give the 11 million plus illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship or amnesty for illegal aliens before first controlling and securing the borders and enforcing existing immigration law.
There is a saying in Texas, “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.”
“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” — Abraham Lincoln
Numbers USA – Immigration By the Numbers – Part 2 of 2
E-Verify: Employment Verification
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 1
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 2
How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 2.
Census Bureau estimates of the number of illegals in the U.S. are suspect and may represent significant undercounts. The studies presented by these authors show that the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. could range from 20 to 38 million.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary ______________________
For Immediate Release January 29, 2013REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
ON COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORMDel Sol High School
Las Vegas, Nevada
11:40 A.M. PST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you! (Applause.) Thank you! Thank you so much. (Applause.) It is good to be back in Las Vegas! (Applause.) And it is good to be among so many good friends.
Let me start off by thanking everybody at Del Sol High School for hosting us. (Applause.) Go Dragons! Let me especially thank your outstanding principal, Lisa Primas. (Applause.)
There are all kinds of notable guests here, but I just want to mention a few. First of all, our outstanding Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, is here. (Applause.) Our wonderful Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar. (Applause.) Former Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis. (Applause.) Two of the outstanding members of the congressional delegation from Nevada, Steve Horsford and Dina Titus. (Applause.) Your own mayor, Carolyn Goodman. (Applause.)
But we also have some mayors that flew in because they know how important the issue we’re going to talk about today is. Marie Lopez Rogers from Avondale, Arizona. (Applause.) Kasim Reed from Atlanta, Georgia. (Applause.) Greg Stanton from Phoenix, Arizona. (Applause.) And Ashley Swearengin from Fresno, California. (Applause.)
And all of you are here, as well as some of the top labor leaders in the country. And we are just so grateful. Some outstanding business leaders are here as well. And of course, we’ve got wonderful students here, so I could not be prouder of our students. (Applause.)
Now, those of you have a seat, feel free to take a seat. I don’t mind.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I love you, Mr. President!
THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. (Applause.)
Now, last week, I had the honor of being sworn in for a second term as President of the United States. (Applause.) And during my inaugural address, I talked about how making progress on the defining challenges of our time doesn’t require us to settle every debate or ignore every difference that we may have, but it does require us to find common ground and move forward in common purpose. It requires us to act.
I know that some issues will be harder to lift than others. Some debates will be more contentious. That’s to be expected. But the reason I came here today is because of a challenge where the differences are dwindling; where a broad consensus is emerging; and where a call for action can now be heard coming from all across America. I’m here today because the time has come for common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform. (Applause.) The time is now. Now is the time. Now is the time. Now is the time.
AUDIENCE: Sí se puede! Sí se puede!
THE PRESIDENT: Now is the time.
I’m here because most Americans agree that it’s time to fix a system that’s been broken for way too long. I’m here because business leaders, faith leaders, labor leaders, law enforcement, and leaders from both parties are coming together to say now is the time to find a better way to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants who still see America as the land of opportunity. Now is the time to do this so we can strengthen our economy and strengthen our country’s future.
Think about it — we define ourselves as a nation of immigrants. That’s who we are — in our bones. The promise we see in those who come here from every corner of the globe, that’s always been one of our greatest strengths. It keeps our workforce young. It keeps our country on the cutting edge. And it’s helped build the greatest economic engine the world has ever known.
After all, immigrants helped start businesses like Google and Yahoo!. They created entire new industries that, in turn, created new jobs and new prosperity for our citizens. In recent years, one in four high-tech startups in America were founded by immigrants. One in four new small business owners were immigrants, including right here in Nevada — folks who came here seeking opportunity and now want to share that opportunity with other Americans.
But we all know that today, we have an immigration system that’s out of date and badly broken; a system that’s holding us back instead of helping us grow our economy and strengthen our middle class.
Right now, we have 11 million undocumented immigrants in America; 11 million men and women from all over the world who live their lives in the shadows. Yes, they broke the rules. They crossed the border illegally. Maybe they overstayed their visas. Those are facts. Nobody disputes them. But these 11 million men and women are now here. Many of them have been here for years. And the overwhelming majority of these individuals aren’t looking for any trouble. They’re contributing members of the community. They’re looking out for their families. They’re looking out for their neighbors. They’re woven into the fabric of our lives.
Every day, like the rest of us, they go out and try to earn a living. Often they do that in a shadow economy — a place where employers may offer them less than the minimum wage or make them work overtime without extra pay. And when that happens, it’s not just bad for them, it’s bad for the entire economy. Because all the businesses that are trying to do the right thing — that are hiring people legally, paying a decent wage, following the rules — they’re the ones who suffer. They’ve got to compete against companies that are breaking the rules. And the wages and working conditions of American workers are threatened, too.
So if we’re truly committed to strengthening our middle class and providing more ladders of opportunity to those who are willing to work hard to make it into the middle class, we’ve got to fix the system.
We have to make sure that every business and every worker in America is playing by the same set of rules. We have to bring this shadow economy into the light so that everybody is held accountable — businesses for who they hire, and immigrants for getting on the right side of the law. That’s common sense. And that’s why we need comprehensive immigration reform. (Applause.)
There’s another economic reason why we need reform. It’s not just about the folks who come here illegally and have the effect they have on our economy. It’s also about the folks who try to come here legally but have a hard time doing so, and the effect that has on our economy.
Right now, there are brilliant students from all over the world sitting in classrooms at our top universities. They’re earning degrees in the fields of the future, like engineering and computer science. But once they finish school, once they earn that diploma, there’s a good chance they’ll have to leave our country. Think about that.
Intel was started with the help of an immigrant who studied here and then stayed here. Instagram was started with the help of an immigrant who studied here and then stayed here. Right now in one of those classrooms, there’s a student wrestling with how to turn their big idea — their Intel or Instagram — into a big business. We’re giving them all the skills they need to figure that out, but then we’re going to turn around and tell them to start that business and create those jobs in China or India or Mexico or someplace else? That’s not how you grow new industries in America. That’s how you give new industries to our competitors. That’s why we need comprehensive immigration reform. (Applause.)
Now, during my first term, we took steps to try and patch up some of the worst cracks in the system.
First, we strengthened security at the borders so that we could finally stem the tide of illegal immigrants. We put more boots on the ground on the southern border than at any time in our history. And today, illegal crossings are down nearly 80 percent from their peak in 2000. (Applause.)
Second, we focused our enforcement efforts on criminals who are here illegally and who endanger our communities. And today, deportations of criminals is at its highest level ever. (Applause.)
And third, we took up the cause of the DREAMers — (applause) — the young people who were brought to this country as children, young people who have grown up here, built their lives here, have futures here. We said that if you’re able to meet some basic criteria like pursuing an education, then we’ll consider offering you the chance to come out of the shadows so that you can live here and work here legally, so that you can finally have the dignity of knowing you belong.
But because this change isn’t permanent, we need Congress to act — and not just on the DREAM Act. We need Congress to act on a comprehensive approach that finally deals with the 11 million undocumented immigrants who are in the country right now. That’s what we need. (Applause.)
Now, the good news is that for the first time in many years, Republicans and Democrats seem ready to tackle this problem together. (Applause.) Members of both parties, in both chambers, are actively working on a solution. Yesterday, a bipartisan group of senators announced their principles for comprehensive immigration reform, which are very much in line with the principles I’ve proposed and campaigned on for the last few years. So at this moment, it looks like there’s a genuine desire to get this done soon, and that’s very encouraging.
But this time, action must follow. (Applause.) We can’t allow immigration reform to get bogged down in an endless debate. We’ve been debating this a very long time. So it’s not as if we don’t know technically what needs to get done. As a consequence, to help move this process along, today I’m laying out my ideas for immigration reform. And my hope is that this provides some key markers to members of Congress as they craft a bill, because the ideas I’m proposing have traditionally been supported by both Democrats like Ted Kennedy and Republicans like President George W. Bush. You don’t get that matchup very often. (Laughter.) So we know where the consensus should be.
Now, of course, there will be rigorous debate about many of the details, and every stakeholder should engage in real give and take in the process. But it’s important for us to recognize that the foundation for bipartisan action is already in place. And if Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away. (Applause.)
So the principles are pretty straightforward. There are a lot of details behind it. We’re going to hand out a bunch of paper so that everybody will know exactly what we’re talking about. But the principles are pretty straightforward.
First, I believe we need to stay focused on enforcement. That means continuing to strengthen security at our borders. It means cracking down more forcefully on businesses that knowingly hire undocumented workers. To be fair, most businesses want to do the right thing, but a lot of them have a hard time figuring out who’s here legally, who’s not. So we need to implement a national system that allows businesses to quickly and accurately verify someone’s employment status. And if they still knowingly hire undocumented workers, then we need to ramp up the penalties.
Second, we have to deal with the 11 million individuals who are here illegally. We all agree that these men and women should have to earn their way to citizenship. But for comprehensive immigration reform to work, it must be clear from the outset that there is a pathway to citizenship. (Applause.)
We’ve got to lay out a path — a process that includes passing a background check, paying taxes, paying a penalty, learning English, and then going to the back of the line, behind all the folks who are trying to come here legally. That’s only fair, right? (Applause.)
So that means it won’t be a quick process but it will be a fair process. And it will lift these individuals out of the shadows and give them a chance to earn their way to a green card and eventually to citizenship. (Applause.)
And the third principle is we’ve got to bring our legal immigration system into the 21st century because it no longer reflects the realities of our time. (Applause.) For example, if you are a citizen, you shouldn’t have to wait years before your family is able to join you in America. You shouldn’t have to wait years. (Applause.)
If you’re a foreign student who wants to pursue a career in science or technology, or a foreign entrepreneur who wants to start a business with the backing of American investors, we should help you do that here. Because if you succeed, you’ll create American businesses and American jobs. You’ll help us grow our economy. You’ll help us strengthen our middle class.
So that’s what comprehensive immigration reform looks like: smarter enforcement; a pathway to earned citizenship; improvements in the legal immigration system so that we continue to be a magnet for the best and the brightest all around the world. It’s pretty straightforward.
The question now is simple: Do we have the resolve as a people, as a country, as a government to finally put this issue behind us? I believe that we do. I believe that we do. (Applause.) I believe we are finally at a moment where comprehensive immigration reform is within our grasp.
But I promise you this: The closer we get, the more emotional this debate is going to become. Immigration has always been an issue that enflames passions. That’s not surprising. There are few things that are more important to us as a society than who gets to come here and call our country home; who gets the privilege of becoming a citizen of the United States of America. That’s a big deal.
When we talk about that in the abstract, it’s easy sometimes for the discussion to take on a feeling of “us” versus “them.” And when that happens, a lot of folks forget that most of “us” used to be “them.” We forget that. (Applause.)
It’s really important for us to remember our history. Unless you’re one of the first Americans, a Native American, you came from someplace else. Somebody brought you. (Applause.)
Ken Salazar, he’s of Mexican American descent, but he points that his family has been living where he lives for 400 years, so he didn’t immigrate anywhere. (Laughter.)
The Irish who left behind a land of famine. The Germans who fled persecution. The Scandinavians who arrived eager to pioneer out west. The Polish. The Russians. The Italians. The Chinese. The Japanese. The West Indians. The huddled masses who came through Ellis Island on one coast and Angel Island on the other. (Applause.) All those folks, before they were “us,” they were “them.”
And when each new wave of immigrants arrived, they faced resistance from those who were already here. They faced hardship. They faced racism. They faced ridicule. But over time, as they went about their daily lives, as they earned a living, as they raised a family, as they built a community, as their kids went to school here, they did their part to build a nation.
They were the Einsteins and the Carnegies. But they were also the millions of women and men whose names history may not remember, but whose actions helped make us who we are; who built this country hand by hand, brick by brick. (Applause.) They all came here knowing that what makes somebody an American is not just blood or birth, but allegiance to our founding principles and the faith in the idea that anyone from anywhere can write the next great chapter of our story.
And that’s still true today. Just ask Alan Aleman. Alan is here this afternoon — where is Alan? He’s around here — there he is right here. (Applause.) Alan was born in Mexico. (Applause.) He was brought to this country by his parents when he was a child. Growing up, Alan went to an American school, pledged allegiance to the American flag, felt American in every way — and he was, except for one: on paper.
In high school, Alan watched his friends come of age — driving around town with their new licenses, earning some extra cash from their summer jobs at the mall. He knew he couldn’t do those things. But it didn’t matter that much. What mattered to Alan was earning an education so that he could live up to his God-given potential.
Last year, when Alan heard the news that we were going to offer a chance for folks like him to emerge from the shadows — even if it’s just for two years at a time — he was one of the first to sign up. And a few months ago he was one of the first people in Nevada to get approved. (Applause.) In that moment, Alan said, “I felt the fear vanish. I felt accepted.”
So today, Alan is in his second year at the College of Southern Nevada. (Applause.) Alan is studying to become a doctor. (Applause.) He hopes to join the Air Force. He’s working hard every single day to build a better life for himself and his family. And all he wants is the opportunity to do his part to build a better America. (Applause.)
So in the coming weeks, as the idea of reform becomes more real and the debate becomes more heated, and there are folks who are trying to pull this thing apart, remember Alan and all those who share the same hopes and the same dreams. Remember that this is not just a debate about policy. It’s about people. It’s about men and women and young people who want nothing more than the chance to earn their way into the American story.
Throughout our history, that has only made our nation stronger. And it’s how we will make sure that this century is the same as the last: an American century welcoming of everybody who aspires to do something more, and who is willing to work hard to do it, and is willing to pledge that allegiance to our flag.
Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
Greetings citizens of the world, the following is a very special message for all of humanity. Too long have we lived in fear, fear of greed, fear of corruption, fear of failure, fear that everything we’ve known turned out to be wrong.
No longer will we live in fear! It ends here and now, with you and me! We are brothers and sisters of humanity, the time has come for us to unite! We must forge a new beginning of peace and love, we must be the good we want to see in the world.
Humanity is still young, and for the first time ever in human history we have a real chance at true peace as a species. The internet has united us more than ever before, its time we use this gift to promote the unity of us all. Its time we stand up as a planet and declare we will no longer take part in a system based on fear, greed, corruption, and war.
Lets put everything into perspective for those of you that need more convincing, the United Sates alone has spent trillions of dollars on wars. War has claimed the lives of over 264 million people throughout the course of known human history, many of whom where civilians. Human progress has been halted by senseless wars.
While we fight amongst ourselves on Earth there’s an entire universe passing us by. There are an estimated 160 billion planets in our galaxy alone, many of which could potentially be home to carbon-based life as we know it. Stars go supernova, entire solar systems get destroyed, even whole galaxies collide while we argue and fight over small and pointless issues. We should be happy we have a planet to live on, not fighting over who owns the planet. In truth no individual or even an entire species owns it, because in truth all life on Earth owns this planet.
Someday soon humanity will venture to the stars, will we go into the unknown divided and fighting? Or will we say as one voice, as one species, “We the People of Earth, united as one, declare from this day fourth that no force, however big or small, shall ever divide the spirit of humanity again. United in our cause for peace, knowledge, and progress, we go forward into the unknown as brothers and sisters, as a species no longer divided by war, greed, corruption, and fear.”
The choice is yours to make, you are Anonymous, you are the future of Earth. You can either continue the wars and division of humanity, or you can try something new. You can give peace a chance, you can help secure a beautiful world of peace, knowledge, and progress for all generations to come.
You are Anonymous,
You are part of Humanity,
You should Forgive,
yet You should never Forget,
It’s time to Expect Yourself…Lets unite under WORLD ANONYMOUS NOW.
With your help, may one day the innocent never suffer and the brave never die, for on that day we’ll truly be free. United as one, divided by zero.
anonymous ITU and WCIT 3-15 december
New Trend: Governing the Internet
TAKE ACTION for a FREE and OPEN INTERNET, Threat Wire Ep. 002
This week on Threat Wire, Darren and Shannon discuss the issues with the ITU and keeping the internet free and open for the world.
The UN have apparently released details that they will to add certain levels of control on the internet, which would for one thing cause traffic from abroad to larger international websites based in the US (such as facebook or Google) to have to pay a tax,.
“”Proposals for the new ITU treaty run to more than 200 pages. One idea is to apply the ITU’s long-distance telephone rules to the Internet by creating a ‘sender-party-pays’ rule. International phone calls include a fee from the originating country to the local phone company at the receiving end. Under a sender-pays approach, U.S.-based websites would pay a local network for each visitor from overseas, effectively taxing firms such as Google and Facebook. ”
ALERT – United Nations To Seize Control Of Internet ?!?
United Nation Planning to Control The Internet – Alex Jones Tv
United Nations Seeks to Control the Internet – Thoughts & Opinions
Does the ITU threaten freedom of speech on the Internet? – Truthloader
Assange s prophecy Govnts plan Internet takeover
Richard Hill at the EIF debate on WCIT and ITRs
The 193 member countries of the ITU will meet in Dubai 3-14 December at World Conference on International Telecommunication 2012 to revise the International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), a 1988 treaty-level document establishing policies governing international telecommunications services between countries. While some Member States of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), as well as a few independent groups, are advocating for expanded intergovernmental powers over the Internet with respect to the Internet as well as wireless, IP-based, and next generation networks; other countries believe that the WCIT should adopt only minor changes to the ITRs as necessary to modernize the existing provisions of the treaty, and that new provisions and authorities are unnecessary.
Europe’s role and view will be crucial in the debate and to its outcome. In the dinner debate organised by the European Internet Foundation, representatives from the European Commission, European Industry and Civil society had been invited to exchange views on issues at stake and present their positions.
Perspectives from the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) were presented by Richard Hill, Counsellor at the ITU
Vint Cerf on the ITU
Vint Cerf, Google’s Chief Internet Evangelist, shares a message with participants at the Big Tent Dublin on the importance of free expression. Vint also expresses his concerns about potential threats to an Open Internet in Internet governance reform at the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) conference in Dubai in December 2012.
YOUR INTERNET IS IN DANGER!!!
Your internet is fine. I lied. But Google lied first, so I think it’s justified.
Alex Jones Exposes Google’s Plan to Dominate the Internet
Goodlatte speaks in opposition to UN control of the Internet
ITU TELECOM WORLD 2012 – Highlights Video
Highlights video of ITU TELECOM WORLD 2012, Dubai, UAE.
ITU Telecom World 2012, 14-18 October 2012, Dubai International Convention and Exhibition Centre (DICEC).
Five days of pivotal discussion and debate on some of the hottest topics facing the ICT industry.
The world is changing faster than ever before in human history, thanks largely to the explosive growth of the ICT sector. New technologies, new industry players and new global trends is at the heart of debates in Dubai.
Hundreds of industry leaders came together with government ministers, regulators and manufacturers for five days of critical debate to shape the policies, regulations and competitive strategies of future communications.
ITU INTERVIEW @ WCIT-12: Paul Budde, Independent Analyst, BuddeComm
Interview with Paul Budde, Independent Analyst, BuddeComm at WCIT 2012
Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 3-14 December 2012.
The World Conference on International Telecommunications will review the current International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs), which serve as the binding global treaty designed to facilitate international interconnection and interoperability of information and communication services, as well as ensuring their efficiency and widespread public usefulness and availability.
ITU Secretary – General Video Message: Dr Hamadoun I.Touré, S-G, ITU on WCIT – 12
ITU Secretary General Video Message: Dr Hamadoun I.Touré, Secretary-General, International Telecommunications Union, speaking about the World Conference on International Telecommunications 2012(WCIT -12).
ITU will convene the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, from 3-14 December 2012. This landmark conference will review the current International Telecommunication Regulations (ITRs), which serve as the binding global treaty designed to facilitate international interconnection and interoperability of information and communication services, as well as ensuring their efficiency and widespread public usefulness and availability.
FRANCE 24 Tech 24: Who rules the Web? : ITU vs. ICANN
Internet at Liberty 2012: Plenary II – Riz Khan, Gary Fowlie, Ben Wagner
Possible Internet Take Over By The ITU (UN) [HD]
Spread the word, share & take action! :
*Sign-on Letter Opposing ITU Authority Over the Internet :
[Internet advocates all over the world are organizing around the upcoming ITU conference. On this page, we’ve collected a set of tools and resources to help interested groups and citizens get involved.]
Ivailo Kalfin (MEP, BG) argues in the European parliament that Internet should stay free and open, ahead of the WCIT meeting in Dubai in December. Internet is a very strong tool these days and there are many that would like to control it and the people, using it. For example by changing its business model and making it more expensive and less accessible. Some governments are even suggesting creating a “national internet”, which is an oxymoron, something that is against the nature of Internet itself, says Kalfin
Operation WCIT – Keep OUR internet Free
We love the internet.
And we’re guessing you do too. Think about all the awesome things it gives us: A vast communication network; innovative businesses; a platform to freely speak or challenge powerful governments; and hundreds and hundreds of hours of cat videos.
All this great stuff is available because the internet was designed in an open and inclusive way, with a multitude of voices being able to get a say on how it’s governed.
But the internet is in danger.
There’s a meeting between the world’s governments in a just a few weeks, and it could very well decide the future of the internet through a binding international treaty. It’s called the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT), and it’s being organized by a government-controlled UN agency called the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).
If some proposals at WCIT are approved, decisions about the internet would be made by a top-down, old-school government-centric agency behind closed doors. Some proposals allow for internet access to be cut off more easily, threaten privacy, legitimizes monitoring and blocking of online traffic. Others seek to impose new fees for accessing content, not to mention slowing down connection speeds. Used as a pretext to internet pornography among other things as an excuse to censor sensitive material pages (note that there are too many cases of child pornography that are ignored by the police) In addition to paying for internet service, you’d also have to pay for visiting certain sites, such as YouTube. Your communications would be constantly monitored and archived, meaning the end of Internet privacy. This could potentially lead to individuals becoming victims of blackmail by malicious people who control the monitoring. The Internet is home to many organized social movements which fight for human rights worldwide. If we allow this, we will not be able to use the Internet to organize the defense of our rights…
If the delicate balance of the internet is upset, it could have grave consequences for businesses and human rights.
This must be stopped.
Only governments get a vote at WCIT, so we need people from all around the world to demand that our leaders keep the internet open.
Watch the video, and take action above to tell your governments to oppose handing over key decisions about the internet to the ITU. Let’s use the internet’s global reach to save it.
We are the internet
We are anonymous
We are here to help you with your revolution
Background Articles and Videos
World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12)
“…ITU will convene the World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, from 3-14 December 2012. This landmark conference will review the current International Telecommunications Regulations (ITRs), which serve as the binding global treaty designed to facilitate international interconnection and interoperability of information and communication services, as well as ensuring their efficiency and widespread public usefulness and availability.
The treaty sets out general principles for assuring the free flow of information around the world, promoting affordable and equitable access for all and laying the foundation for ongoing innovation and market growth. The ITRs were last negotiated in Melbourne, Australia in 1988, and there is broad consensus that the text now needs to be updated to reflect the dramatically different information and communication technology (ICT) landscape of the 21st century.
Women’s Health Care Caught in Texas Vs. Gov’t Showdown
Dispute may cut health services for TX women
Bitter debate over Planned Parenthood participation in health program
“Don’t Mess With Texas Women” Planned Parenthood rally, Austin, Texas
Women’s Health Program – YNN
Gov. Rick Perry on Planned Parenthood and Women’s Health in Texas
Joe Pojman, Ph.D., Executive Director
Beverly Nuckols MD, FAAFP, Family Physician
John Zerwas on Abortion and Women’s Health Programs
BLACK DIGNITY.org – What is the #1 cause of death in the African-American community?
We Have a Cure for the Leading Cause of Death in America
How “The Pill” works as an Abortifacient
Baby Screams for help during an abortion procedure! THIS VIDEO WILL CHANGE YOUR LIFE FOREVER!
President Barack Obama’s popularity with women is falling in the polls as gas prices rise and unemployment remains high. Unless this is reversed quickly, Obama is going to lose in November.
For weeks now, Obama, the Democratic Party and their supporters in the media peddled the propaganda of a Republican Party war on women. This distraction is simply not working.
Laura Ingraham Exposes the Phony War On Women
Why? Propaganda works when people trust or believe you. Many Americans simply do not trust or believe Obama, anymore. Case in point is the Texas Woman Health Program (WHP).
The Obama administration announced on March 15 that it will be terminating federal Medicaid funding of WHP. An estimated 130,000 of the state’s poorest low-income women who are between 18 and 44 and who do not otherwise qualify for Medicaid are covered by the program. Established in 2006, this research and demonstration program provides family planning services, physical exams, gynecological exams, breast and cervical cancer screening, diabetes testing, Sexually Transmitted Infection (STI) screenings and contraceptive services. Texas is the first state to have the federal funding cancelled for this type of demonstration program.
Many Texans think if there is a war on women, Obama started the war.
Texas law prohibits public funding of health care provider clinics with affiliates that offer abortions. According to the Texas Health and Human Service Commission (THHSC) website:
“Section 32.0248, Human Resources Code, prohibits payment of WHP funds to a provider that performs elective abortions. A provider that performs elective abortions (through either surgical or medical methods) for any patient is ineligible to serve WHP clients and cannot be reimbursed for those services. This prohibition has been in effect since Sept. 1, 2005. The Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) may recoup WHP funds that it determines were paid to providers that have performed elective abortions.”
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued Opinion No. GA-0844 letter dated Feb. 17, 2011 on the Constitutionality of subsection 32.0248(h), Human Resources Code, which prohibits the THHSC from contracting under the WHP with entities that perform or promote elective abortions or with affiliates of such entities. The opinion summary stated:
“Human Resources Code section 32.0248(h), which applies to women’s health care demonstration project services, provides that the Health and Human Services Commission may not contract with entities that are affiliates of entities that perform or promote elective abortions. This provision is not preempted by federal law.”
The opinion letter points out that Medicaid was established under Title XIX of the Social Security Act and under Title 42, section 1396a(p) of the United States Code:
“(1) In addition to any other authority,a State may exclude any individual or entity for purposes of participating under the State plan under this subchapter for any reason for which the Secretary could exclude the individual or entity from participation in a program under subchapter XVIII of this chapter under section 1320a-7, 1320a-7a, or 1395cc (b) (2) of this title.”
Without these restrictions on abortions, the WHP would not exist because the Texas Legislature would have not have created and funded the program.
There are more than 2,500 qualified providers that offer health care but do not promote or provide elective abortions, according to the THHSC. Planned Parenthood is a qualified provider with 44 clinics in Texas, making it the largest abortion chain in Texas. Federal regulation mandates that patients can pick any qualified provider participating in Medicaid. Texas requested a waiver from the regulation for the first time in 2011.
Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius decided to decline Texas’ waiver request solely because Texas law prohibits taxpayer dollars from being allocated to entities that perform or promote elective abortions. On March 16, the Texas attorney general, Gregg Abbot, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, challenging Sebelius’ decision. The lawsuit alleges that:
“The Secretary’s action violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and “not in accordance with law.” See 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). It also violates the Constitution of the United States by seeking to commandeer and coerce the States’ lawmaking processes into awarding taxpayer subsidies to elective abortion providers.”
The program is funded 10 percent by the state and 90 percent by the federal government. Administrative costs are split 50 percent by the state and 50 percent by the federal government. For 2012 Texas provided $3.3 million and the federal government $29.8 million for the WHP.
This funding will be phased out over the next three months, according to Cindy Mann, Director for Medicaid and State Operations, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). This federal division is responsible for overseeing and administering the Medicaid law for HHS. She said, “We don’t have a choice. Medicaid law is clear: Patients, not the state, are able to choose the doctors and health care providers that can best serve them.” Texas Gov. Rick Perry vowed that Texas will find state funding to replace the $30 million from the federal government.
Planned Parenthood has endorsed and supports Obama for president. In an election year, the funding of Planned Parenthood’s abortion clinics apparently takes priority over the health care needs of Texas woman. For additional background information about Planned Parenthood see the sidebar commentary below.
On Jan. 20 HHS mandated that nonprofit religious employers that provide a health care plan for their employees must provide free contraceptives, sterilization procedures and abortifacients (abortion-inducing drugs) without the insured paying a co-pay, co-insurance or deductible.
Most group insurance employer-based plans do cover so-called “reproductive services,” namely contraceptives, sterilization procedures, abortifacients and abortions. However, employers in the past were allowed to select a health insurance plan that excluded these reproductive services.
The Obama administration is now forcing all employers including nonprofit religious employers to provide these services even if it is against the religious beliefs and convictions of employers and their employees. This includes both group insurance employer-based plans as well as employer self-funded plans where the employer funds or pays for all claims and a third party such as an insurance company is administering the plan.
The issue is not whether “reproductive services” are included in health insurance plans, but religious freedom. Obama’s war on women, children and religious freedom is a direct assault on the American people, their religious beliefs and the U.S. Constitution.
The American dream cannot long survive if we abandon our poor, murder our children and lose our faith. Obama and his progressive supporters need to be reminded of the words of Martin Luther King Jr. who said “The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety.”
Planned Parenthood has a deep dark secret—an inconvenient truth.
The American Birth Control League (ABCL) was founded in 1921 by Margret Sanger (1879-1966). ABCL together with other groups became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942.
Sanger was a progressive proponent of population control and eugenics. Eugenics is a racist ideology and pseudoscience that believes the human race can be improved by encouraging the reproduction of the “fit” (positive eugenics) and discouraging the reproduction of the “unfit” with genetic defects or undesirable traits (negative eugenics).
The essence of the eugenics movement was control by an enlightened elite over the masses in determining who was fit and who was unfit. Sanger was insistent that contraception not be called family planning but birth control. Sanger said, “birth control is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defective.” A popular slogan of the eugenics movement was “Quality not quantity.”
A master race could be created by controlling who had children and who did not. This could be achieved by birth control through the use of condoms, contraceptives, sterilization and segregation. When birth control fails, abortion could be used to stop the birth of “unfit” babies.
In 1939 Sanger initiated the Negro Project with the goal of slowing and reversing the growth of the black population in America. Planned Parenthood cannot deny the inconvenient truth that its founder was a eugenicist.
“Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility” by Angela Franks provides a detailed history and analysis of Sanger’s eugenic ideology. Edwin Black’s “The War against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race”chronicles the history of the eugenics movement and its funding by the Carnegie, Harriman and Rockefeller fortunes.
Three excellent documentaries that can be viewed on YouTube are “Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America,” “How Planned Parenthood Works” and “Racism: A History.”
Margaret Sanger and Her Reproductive Revolution
Four excellent documentaries that can be viewed on YouTube are Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America, How Planned Parenthood Works and Racism: A History, and BLACK GENOCIDE — The Negro Project — Pastor Clenard Childress,
Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 1/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 2/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 3/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 4/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 5/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 6/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 7/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 8/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 9/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 10/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 11/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 12/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 13/13)
How Planned Parenthood Works
How Planned Parenthood Works (1 of 4)
How Planned Parenthood Works (2 of 4)
How Planned Parenthood Works (3 of 4)
How Planned Parenthood Works (4 of 4)
Racism: A History
Racism: A History  – 1/3
Racism: A History  – 2/3
Racism: A History  – 3/3
BLACK GENOCIDE — The Negro Project — Pastor Clenard Childress, Jr.
Alveda King hits President Obama, Jesse Jackson and Occupy
Planned Parenthood has been successful in achieving Sanger’s Negro Project goals. More than 54 million babies have been aborted since the 1973 Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in the United States according to numberofabortions.com website. The two leading sources of information about abortions are the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute, once part of Planned Parenthood.
Since 1973 more than 15 million black, 10 million Hispanic and 20 million white babies have been aborted. Across America Planned Parenthood clinics have aborted more than 6 million babies since 1973. Planned Parenthood’s primary target market has always been the poor, especially blacks and Hispanics. Minority babies are disproportionately targets for abortion.
Killing babies for profit is big business and Planned Parenthood is the industry leader. Planned Parenthood markets its abortion services to both federal and state governments. Like any big business, its executives lobby and make campaign contributions to progressive politicians of both political parties who support their eugenics population control agenda.
Every abortion or baby killed saves the federal government and state governments thousands of dollars annually in education, health care and welfare expenditures for poor black, Hispanic and white babies who did not make it out of their mother’s womb alive.
Today abortion is no longer rare but commonplace. Abortion is a public private partnership. Abortion is not an equal opportunity killer. Abortion is womb lynching. Abortion is death by government—genocide.
HHS Messes with Texas
Obama’s real agenda is clear: abortion.
By Patrick Brennan
“…Recently, Texas conservatives have taken dramatic strides to ensure that federal women’s health-care funding didn’t specifically fund or encourage abortion — and thus dealt serious blows to the abortion industry in Texas. Over the past year, with legal help from advocacy groups such as Texas Right to Life, the Texas legislature has continually redirected “family planning” funds away from health-care providers that provide or refer for abortions to other clinics.
The legislature’s rules and funding priorities have reduced the federal funding for abortion providers in Texas by 37 percent over the past year, resulting in the closure of twelve Planned Parenthood branches. The funding has been merely redirected, and thus has in no way restricted poor women’s access to necessary and preventive care (as abortion proponents might have claimed).
But the redirections have put a serious financial strain on abortion providers. Planned Parenthood and other groups are thus loath to see more of their federal dollars snatched away, and, as Graham puts it, consider any more restrictions as “salt in the wound.” It looks now as if the federal government is stepping in specifically in order to bail them out. The state of Texas has done an exemplary job of proving that liberal concern for “women’s health” has as much to do with support for abortion providers as it does with ensuring equity and access.
HHS’s recent contraception mandate, its most infamous policy, isn’t primarily concerned with “women’s health,” despite claims to the contrary. Claims that free coverage of birth control is an essential health benefit because women take it for other hormonal or prescriptive reasons ring hollow, since, if the administration were actually so concerned with protecting particular women’s health issues, it could require coverage of all the relevant treatments, such as other treatments for certain kinds of cancer, rather than just those that happen to double as contraception. The HHS mandate is thus, on closer inspection, another politically tinged program trumpeted as a groundbreaking expansion of women’s health care. …”
TEDxSanDiego 2011 – Jason Russell – Joseph Kony 2012
Secrets KONY 2012 Is Desperate to Hide
Kony 2012, hyped on the backs of celebrities and do-gooders, is revealed for what it is– a propaganda salvo for a continent wide invasion of Africa.
Research makes clear that KONY is a full on deception for geostrategic positioning vis-a-vis China for oil and mineral resources, as well as an effort to legitimize the U.S. military’s AFRICOM unit in the region through newly-branded “humanitarian” interventions.
It is not only War in the name of Peace, but an attempt to empower the International Criminal Court under the influence of NGOs and other related globalist corporate interests.
Obama has already deployed 100 special forces troops to the central African region back in October 2011, and a resolution in Congress– on the heels of KONY 2012’s viral views of more than 100 million– seeks to send more forces there for an all out invasion on the pretext of hunting down a shadowy warlord with less blood on his hands than an average African despot.
How Cults Work (MUST SEE)
Invisible Children are liars and Kony 2012 is a scam
Congo 20 million dead the role US and its allies played
CONGO 20MILLION DIE AND THE WORLD SILENT: The role that the America/Isreal and its allies, Rwanda/Uganda, have played in the greatest humanitarian crisis at the dawn of the 21st century
KONY 2012 SCAM – Ron Paul Speaks Out Against Brainwashing
Stop Kony Now – Discussion !!
Oil behind US nose poking in Uganda – RT 111018
Obama, the US and 5 Million Deaths in The Congo
US Sends Troops to Uganda – Is it About the Oil?
The US, Mining and Dictators in the Congo
RE: KONY 2012 — Beware Invisible Children SCAM (Video Response)
KONY 2012 Exposed: Dr. Webster Tarpley Reports 1/3
KONY 2012 Exposed: Dr. Webster Tarpley Reports 2/3
KONY 2012 Exposed: Dr. Webster Tarpley Reports 3/3
Invisible Children and Kony 2012: Avoiding Scams and Irresponsible Donations
Is Kony 2012 FRAUD? Just Asking Questions!
The TRUTH About “Invisible Children org” & “KONY 2012 Campaign”
Kony 2012 – Truth About Kony 2012 – Uganda oil find 2009 – Share this video!
US Military in Uganda = Soros, NWO Want Uganda’s Oil; Another Battle For Resources 10/17/11
GBR: What is “Kony 2012″?
Wag the Dog (1997) – Trailer
Wag The Dog
Wag The Dog – War On Terror
US sends combat troops to Uganda
U.S. sending troops to Africa combat Joseph Kony
US Sends Troops to Uganda – Is it About the Oil?
Obama sends troops to Africa
KONY 2012 = BIG OIL – Truth UGANDA OIL – Share this video!
People & Power – The LRA and Sudan
Occupy Uganda: Obama Sneaks U.S. Combat Troops Into African War Zone
KONY 2012: The Charity of Death with Ugandan Activist Sanyu & Writer Patrick Henningsen
Real News @ http://RevolutionNews.US — Why U.S. military in Uganda? Soros fingerprints all over it! Obama’s billionaire friend has interests in African country’s oil…
Obama on Friday notified House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that he plans to send about 100 military personnel, mostly Special Operations Forces, to central Africa. The first troops reportedly arrived in Uganda on Wednesday.
The U.S. mission will be to advise forces seeking to kill or capture Joseph Kony, the leader of the rebel Lord’s Resistance Army, or LRA. Kony is accused of major human rights atrocities. He is on the U.S. terrorist list and is wanted by the International Criminal Court.
In a letter on Friday, Obama announced the initial team of U.S. military personnel “with appropriate combat equipment” deployed to Uganda on Wednesday. Other forces deploying include “a second combat-equipped team and associated headquarters, communications and logistics personnel.”
“Our forces will provide information, advice and assistance to select partner nation forces,” he said.
Both conservatives and liberals have raised questions about whether military involvement in Uganda advances U.S. interests.
Writing in The Atlantic yesterday, Max Fisher noted the Obama administration last year approved special forces bases and operations across the Middle East, the Horn of Africa and Central Asia.
“But those operations, large and small, target terrorist groups and rogue states that threaten the U.S. — something the Lord’s Resistance Army could not possibly do,” he wrote.
“It’s difficult to find a U.S. interest at stake in the Lord’s Resistance Army’s campaign of violence,” continued Fisher. “It’s possible that there’s some immediate U.S. interest at stake we can’t obviously see.”
Bill Roggio, the managing editor of The Long War Journal, referred to the Obama administration’s stated rationale for sending troops “puzzling,” claiming the LRA does not present a national security threat to the U.S. — “despite what President Obama said.”
Inhofe Sets LRA Record Straight
U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), the driving force behind the legislative efforts against Joseph Kony and his Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), discusses the LRA and dispenses with many misconceptions about the group and what they have done. Inhofe has been raising awareness and working to end Kony’s reign of terror for over a decade.
Lured by a government amnesty, senior commanders from the LRA are coming out of the bush and speaking about their time with Joseph Kony. In this rare report, they justify their actions.
“He is from God. What he predicts comes true”, states Captain Ray Apire, explaining Kony’s hold over his soldiers. “By making people suffer, he is bringing people close to God”. Commanders explain how they interpreted Jesus’ command to “Go and catch people”, seeing it as an order to abduct children. For the first time in a decade, the government and LRA are involved in serious peace talks. But the conflict is far from over. A woman breaks down describing how her daughter was abducted the previous night. This is the second time her girl has been kidnapped so she knows she will probably be killed.
Why Is Obama Sending Troops to Uganda to Support a Dictator?
“…One possible explanation is oil. When Yoweri Museveni won re-election this year Bloomberg reported that Tullow Oil would begin to pump oil out of the Lake Albert region as they have an estimated 2.5 billion barrels and possibly as high as 6 billion.
A grantee of the Soros-funded Revenue Watch called the Africa Institute for Energy Governance, started the Publish What You Pay Coalition of Uganda, supposedly to promote transparency in the oil industry.
According to World Net Daily Soros is the main financier of the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect. The “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine is based on principles backed by the UN which propogate the formula that sovereignty is not a right but rather a responsibility that can be taken away if they have engaged in “ethnic cleansing” or “war crimes.” Though one member of the group, Hanan Ashrawi is a staunch Holocaust denier according to WND.
WND has reported that the founder of “Responsibility to Protect,” Ramesh Thakur recently advocated for global redistribution to create a “New World Order.”
Then Soros’ International Crisis Group advised the White House to deploy the military to Uganda to capture the leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army, Joseph Kony. The ICG executive board along with Soros also has Bill Clinton’s former national security advosor Samuel Berger, a socialist former secretary general of NATO, and the senior advisor of ICG is Zbignew Brzezinski just to add a little new world order spice to the mix.
The real issue appears to be an oil dispute as the Ugandan President Museveni has been accused of taking bribes from Tullow Oil and Italian ENI though he staunchly denies the claim. …”
Soros’ “Responsibility to Protect Doctrine” Advanced By Comrade Obama
By Ed Randazzo
“…Responsibility to Protect, or Responsibility to Act, as cited by Obama, is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of “war crimes,” “genocide,” “crimes against humanity” or “ethnic cleansing.”
The Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect is the world’s leading champion of the military doctrine. Billionaire activist George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect. Several of the doctrine’s main founders also sit on boards with Soros.
The luminaries that devised the Responsibility to Protect doctrine included Arab League Secretary General Amre Moussa as well as Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi, a staunch denier of the Holocaust who long served as the deputy of late Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat.
Also, the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy has a seat on the advisory board of the 2001 commission that originally founded Responsibility to Protect. The commission is called the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. It invented the term “responsibility to protect” while defining its guidelines.
The Carr Center is a research center concerned with human rights located at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, that bastion of conservative thought.
Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, was Carr’s founding executive director and headed the institute at the time it advised in the founding of Responsibility to Protect.
Power reportedly heavily influenced Obama in consultations leading to the decision to bomb Libya.
Soros’ Open Society Institute is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect. Soros’ Open Society is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K. …”
The film has spread virally. As of 9 March 2012 (2012 -03-09)[update], the film currently has over 15.5 million views on Vimeo, and over 64 million views on video-sharing website YouTube, with other viewing emanating from a central “Kony2012″ website operated by Invisible Children. The intense exposure of the video caused the “Kony 2012″ website to crash shortly after it began gaining widespread popularity. The video has also seen a number of celebrities endorsing the campaign including Rihanna, Taylor Swift, Christina Milian, Nicki Minaj, Bill Gates and Kim Kardashian. On April 20, 2012, as part of the campaign, supporters will put up posters promoting Kony 2012 in their home towns. Invisible Children offers posters from an online shop in an attempt to gain wider recognition on the issue. They have also created action kits that include campaign buttons, posters, bracelets, and stickers to help spread awareness.
The film documents the Invisible Children Inc’s plans and efforts to arrest Kony. It describes Kony’s guerrilla warfare tactics with his Lord’s Resistance Army and the regions (northern Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, and South Sudan) in which they have been employed. One of the main people featured in the film is a Ugandan named Jacob, whose brother was killed by Kony. In response, director and founder of Invisible Children, Jason Russell, “promises Jacob that he will help stop Kony.” The film advocates curtailing compelled and coerced youth military service and the restoration of social order. The video also has clips of Jason Russell’s son, Gavin. Gavin is a young child and many children his age are subject to Kony’s regime. Gavin shows that even though he’s young he wants to help and wonders why no one else does. He also says innocent, childlike things – when told that Kony forces people to kill family members and fellow countrymen, his response is “But they’re not gonna do what he says, ’cause they’re nice guys… right?”.
“Culture and policy makers”
The Invisible Children charity has been focused on obtaining the support of a select group of individuals in order to “help bring awareness to the horrific abuse and killing of children in the East and Central African countries at the hands of Kony and his leadership”. This list included 20 “celebrity culture makers”, such as George Clooney, Angelina Jolie, Taylor Swift, and Ryan Seacrest.
The campaign has come under criticism for its simplification of events in the region. Part of this purported simplification is the campaign’s failure to mention Ugandan government actions or those committed by the Sudan People’s Liberation Army or the complicated regional politics fueling the conflict. Another critique is that the film gives a misleading impression of the whereabouts and magnitude of Kony’s remaining LRA forces: in fact, Kony’s followers are now thought to number only in the hundreds. There has also been a more cynical analysis of Barack Obama‘s decision to send military advisers to the region, it being suggested that it was a reward for Uganda giving assistance in Somalia. Obama did announce a kill-or-capture mission with “combat-equipped troops” to take out Kony in Uganda.  Further criticism has come from the campaign’s lack of accountability towards the Ugandan government in the conflict. Jedediah Jenkins, the “director of idea development for Invisible Children”, responded to the concerns about working with the Ugandan government by stating that, “There is a huge problem with political corruption in Africa. If we had the purity to say we will not partner with anyone corrupt, we couldn’t partner with anyone.”
In November of 2011, while the Kony 2012 film was in production, Foreign Affairs magazine published an article that stated that Invisible Children had “manipulated facts for strategic purposes, exaggerating the scale of LRA abductions and murders” and was “portraying Kony – a brutal man, to be sure – as uniquely awful, a Kurtz-like embodiment of evil”.Resolve, one of Invisible Children’s “partner organizations”, responded to the article, saying that the accusations were a “serious charge … published with no accompanying substantiation.” These criticisms of how Invisible Children has been acting to raise awareness and the statements that were made in the film resurfaced when Kony 2012 was released. Jenkins responded to the new criticisms by saying that they were “myopic” and that the video itself was a “tipping point” that “got young people to care about an issue on the other side of the planet that doesn’t affect them”.
There has also been criticism related to the plausibility of Kony 2012. Cooperation between the United States of America and Uganda is hard-fought, and the two armies have failed to come together and cooperate in numerous occasions . The Kony 2012 film has raised a possibility of the military of African nations coming together to find Kony, however, military coordination and cooperation is lacking within the countries where the LRA resides itself. Since the LRA has split up, there is no guarentee of quick or even possible success in the mission to capture Kony, and Kony is not with the group that has been committing the most damage and atrocity with the people of Uganda.
On March 8, 2012, Invisible Children released an official response, addressing the criticisms directed at the Kony 2012 film. They explained that they “do not defend any of the human rights abuses perpetrated by the Ugandan government or the Ugandan army” and the reason why they are working with the Ugandan army even though Kony is no longer in Uganda is because the army is “more organized and better equipped than that of any of the other affected countries (DRC, South Sudan, CAR) to track down Joseph Kony” and that they want all of the governments in the region to work together to arrest Kony. As an explanation for the simplicity of the movie, they stated that “in [their] quest to garner wide public support of nuanced policy, [they] sought to explain the conflict in an easily understandable format”.  …”
Glenn Becks “George Soros – Behind The Shadow Party” – Part 1
Glenn Becks “George Soros – Behind The Shadow Party” – Part 2
Glenn Becks “George Soros – Behind The Shadow Party” – Part 3
George Soros Laughs as Glenn Beck Slanders
George Soros at the Azim Premji University
The New World Order by George Soros End of the dollar Global Currency
Soros: European governments have the bazooka
“The EU must use “the bazooka in its hands” properly to combat debt default, George Soros tells Reuters’ Chrystia Freeland. The European Central Bank should not recapitalize the banks, but rather, guarantee the banks against default. Watch his strategic recommendations here.”
Soros: Greeks would be ill-advised to leave the Eurozone
Soros: Angela Merkel was the creator of the European crisis
“George Soros explains to Reuters’ Chrystia Freeland how German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s actions in 2008 could lead to the disintegration of the European Union. Consequently, a disorderly default of European sovereignties may lead to a global financial meltdown worse than 2008. He explains his analysis here.’
Newsmaker: George Soros
George Soros on “Newspeak”
David Horowitz and Pat Caddell on Soros´ Shadow Cabinet and the Green Communists
David Horowitz, Shadow Party, Part 1 of 6
David Horowitz, Shadow Party, Part 2 of 6
David Horowitz, Shadow Party, Part 3 of 6
David Horowitz, Shadow Party, Part 4 of 6
David Horowitz, Shadow Party, Part 5 of 6
David Horowitz, Shadow Party, Part 6 of 6
Bill Moyers Journal “CREDIT-CRISIS 2008″ George Soros (1 0f 3)
Bill Moyers Journal “CREDIT-CRISIS 2008″ George Soros (2 0f 3)
Bill Moyers Journal “CREDIT-CRISIS 2008″ George Soros (3 0f 3)
Background Articles and Videos
Introducing George Soros
“…Soros’s “Shadow Party” Takes Shape
While Soros’s 527s were clearly devoted to Democratic Party agendas and values, they publicly professed to be independent of any party affiliations. Their partisanship was somewhat shrouded in proverbial shadows. Gradually, a number of journalists began to make reference to the emergence of certain pro-Democrat “shadow organizations” that seemed geared toward circumventing McCain-Feingold’s soft-money ban. In time, the term “Shadow Party” came into use.237
George Soros set in motion the wheels of this Shadow Party when he gathered a team of political strategists, activists, and Democrat donors at his Long Island beach house on July 17, 2003, to discuss how President Bush could be defeated in the 2004 election. Attendees included such luminaries as OSI director Morton Halperin; former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta; former Clinton speechwriters Jeremy Rosner and Robert Boorstin; Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope; labor leader and former Clinton advisor Steve Rosenthal; EMILY’s List founder and abortion-rights activist Ellen Malcolm; and major Democrat donors such as Lewis and Dorothy Cullman, Robert McKay, Robert Glaser, and Peter Lewis.238
The consensus was that voter turnout―particularly in 17 “swing” or “battleground” states239―would be the key to unseating President Bush. Steve Rosenthal and Ellen Malcolm―CEO and president, respectively, of a newly formed but poorly funded voter-registration group called America Coming Together (ACT)240―suggested that voters in those swing states should be recruited and mobilized as soon as possible. Agreeing, Soros told the pair that he personally would give ACT $10 million to help maximize its effectiveness. A few other attendees also pledged to give the fledgling group large sums of money: Soros’s billionaire friend Peter Lewis, chairman of the Progressive Corporation, promised to give $10 million; Robert Glaser, founder and CEO of RealNetworks, promised $2 million; Rob McKay, president of the McKay Family Foundation, committed $1 million; and benefactors Lewis and Dorothy Cullman pledged $500,000.241
By early 2004, the administrative core of George Soros’s Shadow Party was in place. It consisted of seven ostensibly “independent” nonprofit groups―all but one of which were headquartered in Washington, DC. In a number of cases, these groups shared one another’s finances, directors, and corporate officers; occasionally they even shared office space.242 The seven groups were:
1) America Coming Together (ACT): Jump-started by Soros’s $10 million grant, ACT in 2004 ran what it called “the largest voter-contact program in history,” with more than 1,400 full-time paid canvassers contacting potential voters door-to-door and by phone.243
2) Center For American Progress (CAP): This entity was established to serve as a think tank promoting leftist ideas and policy initiatives. Soros, enthusiastic about the Center’s potential, pledged in July 2003 to donate up to $3 million to help get the project off the ground.244 From the outset, CAP’s leadership featured a host of former high-ranking officials from the Clinton administration.245 Hillary Clinton predicted that the organization would provide “some new intellectual capital” with which to “build the 21st-century policies that reflect the Democrat Party’s values.”246 George Soros and Morton Halperin together selected former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta to serve as president of CAP. Podesta said his goal was to develop CAP as a “think tank on steroids,” featuring “a message-oriented war room” that “will send out a daily briefing to refute the positions and arguments of the right.”247
3) America Votes: This national coalition coordinated the efforts of many get-out-the-vote organizations and their thousands of contributing activists.248 Soros’s support for America Votes would continue well past 2004. Indeed he would donate $2.15 million to this coalition in the 2006 election cycle,249 another $1.25 million in advance of the 2008 elections,250 and yet another $1.25 million in 2010.251
4) Media Fund: Describing itself as “the largest media-buying organization supporting a progressive message” in the United States, this group produced and strategically placed political ads in the print, broadcast, and electronic media.252
5) Joint Victory Campaign 2004 (JVC): This fundraising entity focused on collecting contributions and then disbursing them chiefly to America Coming Together and the Media Fund. In 2004 alone, JVC channeled $19.4 million to the former, and $38.4 million to the latter.253 Soros personally gave JVC more than $12 million that year.254
6) Thunder Road Group (TRG): This political consultancy coordinated strategy for the Media Fund, America Coming Together, and America Votes. Its duties included strategic planning, polling, opposition research, covert operations, and public relations.255
7) MoveOn.org: This California-based entity was the only one of the Shadow Party’s core groups that was not a new startup operation. Launched in September 1998, MoveOn is a Web-based political network that organizes online activists around specific issues, raises money for Democratic candidates, generates political ads, and is very effective at recruiting young people to support Democrats.256 In November 2003, Soros pledged to give MoveOn $5 million to help its cause.257
According to Ellen Malcolm of America Coming Together (ACT), the financial commitment which Soros made to these Shadow Party groups in 2003 “was a signal to potential donors that he had looked at what was going on and that this was pretty exciting, and that he was going to stand behind it, and it was the real deal.”258 As Byron York observed, “After Soros signed on, contributions started pouring in.” ACT and the Media Fund alone took in some $200 million―including $20 million from Soros alone. This type of money was unprecedented in American politics.259
Harold Ickes, who served as White House deputy chief of staff in the Clinton White House, had a hand in creating every Shadow Party core group except MoveOn. He was also entrusted with the vital task of making these organizations function as a cohesive entity. In 2004, Democratic strategist Harold Wolfson suggested that outside of the official campaign of presidential candidate John Kerry, Ickes “is the most important person in the Democratic Party today.”260
In addition to its seven core members, the Shadow Party also came to include at least another 30 well-established leftwing activist groups and labor unions that participated in the America Votes coalition. Among the better-known of these were ACORN; the AFL-CIO; the AFSCME; the American Federation of Teachers; the Association of Trial Lawyers of America; the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund; EMILY’s List; the Human Rights Campaign; the League of Conservation Voters; the NAACP; NARAL Pro-Choice America; the National Education Association; People for the American Way; Planned Parenthood; the Service Employees International Union; and the Sierra Club.261 …”
Obama sets the record straight: It’s not class warfare …It’s MATH
President Obama – It’s Not Class Warfare to Ask Millionaire to Pay Same Tax Rate as Secretary
Obama the Socialist wants to spread YOUR money around
Obama – Taxes, Capital Gains
President Barack Obama, September 19, 2011
“…So I am ready, I am eager, to work with Democrats and Republicans to reform the tax code to make it simpler, make it fairer, and make America more competitive. But any reform plan will have to raise revenue to help close our deficit. That has to be part of the formula. Andany reform should follow another simple principle: Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires. That’s pretty straightforward. It’s hard to argue against that. Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it.
It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million. Anybody who says we can’t change the tax code to correct that, anyone who has signed some pledge to protect every single tax loophole so long as they live, they should be called out. They should have to defend that unfairness — explain why somebody who’s making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying more than that — paying a higher rate. They ought to have to answer for it. And if they’re pledged to keep that kind of unfairness in place, they should remember, the last time I checked the only pledge that really matters is the pledge we take to uphold the Constitution. …”
2011 Tax Rates & 2011 Tax Brackets
Here are the federal income tax rates for 2011 from the IRS:
2011 Tax Rates & 2011 Tax Brackets
Here are the federal income tax rates for 2011 from the IRS:
Married Filing Joint
Married Filing Separate
Head of Household
Up to $8,500
Up to $17,000
Up to $8,500
Up to $12,150
$8,501 – $34,500
$17,001 – $69,000
$8,501 – $34,500
$12,151 – $46,250
$34,501 – $83,600
$69,001 – $139,350
$34,501 – $69,675
$46,251 – $119,400
$83,601 – $174,400
$139,351 – $212,300
$69,676 – $106,150
$119,401 – $193,350
$174,401 – $379,150
$212,301 – $379,150
$106,151 – $189,575
$193,351 – $379,150
In addition to the tax brackets above, you may owe tax under the alternative minimum tax. You can review the 2011 AMT exemption to see if it will apply to you.
Proposed 2012 Tax Rates & Tax Brackets
Married Filing Joint
Head of Household
Up to $8,600
Up to $17,200
Up to $12,250
$8,601 – $34,900
$17,201 – $69,800
$12,251 – $46,750
$34,901 – $84,500
$69,801 – $140,850
$46,751 – $120,700
$84,501 – $195,950
$140,851 – $237,700
$120,701 – $216,800
$195,951 – $383,350
$237,701 – $383,350
$216,801 – $383,350
Married Filing Separate was not included in the release. I’ll update the 2012 federal tax tables for all filing statuses as soon as the information is available.
2012 Tax Rates vs 2011 Tax Rates
Want to compare the proposed 2012 tax brackets to the current year to see the changes?
The biggest changes in the proposal are expanding the 28% bracket and replacing the 33% and 35% brackets with 36% and 39.6% brackets.
“…This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1
percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes
and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think
Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15
percent of their income in federal taxes.
Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between
$40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in
federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7
The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income
taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or
more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes,
according to the IRS.
Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal
income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3
Obama’s claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and
individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The
top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax
rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above
With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because
the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and
credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from
the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’ official scorekeeper on
The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low-
and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most,
however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes. …”
“When I came back to the United States, I decided that if you could use propaganda for war, you could certainly use it for peace. And ‘propaganda’ got to be a bad word because of the Germans using it, so what I did was to try and find some other words so we found the words ‘public relations’.”
~ Edward Bernays
How to produce objective journalism
SA@Takimag – The Myth of Objective Journalism
Chet Huntley talks about journalistic objectivity
Susan Jacoby – The Problem of Journalistic Objectivity
Steve Dunleavy on objectivity
Alex Jones: Objectivity in Journalism
Journalistic objectivity: official sources
How Propaganda Became Known As “Public Relations” (1of2)
How Propaganda Became Known As “Public Relations” (2of2)
Each result is based on a 30-day rolling average; not seasonally adjusted
“…Gallup’s U.S. employment measures report the percentage of U.S. adults in the workforce, ages 18 and older, who are underemployed and unemployed, without seasonal adjustment. “Underemployed” respondents are employed part time, but want to work full time, or they are unemployed. “Unemployed” respondents are those within the underemployed group who are not employed, even for one hour a week, but are available and looking for work. Results for each 30-day rolling average are based on telephone interviews with approximately 30,000 adults. Because results are not seasonally adjusted, they are not directly comparable to numbers reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which are based on workers 16 and older. Margin of error is ± 0.7 percentage points. …”
Gallup poll finds unemployment most important problem facing nation
“… Unemployment is the number one problem on the minds of most Americans, according to a new Gallup Poll.
Some 35 percent of Americans say unemployment is the most important problem facing the country now while 29 percent said the economy was an important problem.
Gallup found that “7 in 10 Americans mention some economic issue when asked to name the most important problem facing the country, and the top two problems Americans cite as the most important ones facing the country directly reflect on the economic situation in the United States.”
Broken down by political party, 41 percent of Democrats, 32 percent of independents and 31 percent of Republicans said that unemployment was the most important problem, while 29 percent of Democrats, 27 percent of independents and 32 percent of Republicans said that the economy in general was the most important problem.
Three other ranking problems were also mentioned by at least 10 percent of respondents.
Some 16 percent of respondents mentioned health care, 12 percent listed dissatisfaction with the government and 11 percent said the federal deficit was an important problem.
Other respondents listed seven different problems as being most important, with 6 percent saying education, 4 percent each mentioning moral/ethical decline, lack of money, war and immigration and 3 percent mentioning foreign aid.
Results came from polling Gallup conducted via telephone interviews with a random sampling of 1,015 adults from Feb. 2 to 5. …”
“…Support for Chinese Nationalism and White House Performance of Chinese Propaganda Song
At the White House state dinner in honor of Chinese President Hu Jintao on January 19, Lang Lang played a famous anti-American Chinese propaganda melody from the Korean War: the theme song to the movie “Battle on Shangganling Mountain.” The film depicts a group of “People’s Volunteer Army” soldiers who are first hemmed in at Shanganling (or Triangle Hill) and then, when reinforcements arrive, take up their rifles and counterattack the U.S. military “jackals.” The movie and the tune are widely known among Chinese, and the song has been a leading piece of anti-American propaganda by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for decades.
The name of the song is “My Motherland,” originally titled “Big River.” In an interview broadcast on Phoenix TV, the first thing Lang Lang is quoted as saying is that he chose the piece. He then said, “I thought to play ‘My Motherland’ because I think playing the tune at the White House banquet can help us, as Chinese people, feel extremely proud of ourselves and express our feelings through the song.”  …”
Lang Lang （朗朗） Plays at White House for Hu and Obama
Chinese Song – My motherland 我的祖國
movie clip from the well known anti-American movie “Battle of Triangle Hill”, same music played by Lang Lang in White House at the state dinner for Hu Jintaoon Jan. 19, 2011
This is a great river, its waves are wide and calm
The wind blows through the rice flowers, bearing fragrance to either shore
My home is right there by the water
I am used to hearing the punters’ whistle
and seeing the white sails on the boats
This is a great river, its waves are wide and calm
The wind blows through the rice flowers, bearing fragrance to either shore
My home is right there by the water
I am used to hearing the punters’ whistle
and seeing the white sails on the boats
This is the beautiful motherland
The place where I grew up
In this expansive stretch of land
Wonderful landscape can be seen everywhere
Young ladies are like flowers
Young men have a big heart and grand visions
In order to construct a new realm
They have waked the sleeping mountains
And made the rivers change their appearance
This is the motherland of heroes
The place where I grew up
In this stretch of ancient land
There is youthful vigour found everywhere
Great mountains, great rivers and an amazing place
Every road is flat and wide
When friends are here, there is fine wine
But if the jackal comes
What greets it is the hunting rifle
This is the strong motherland
The place where I grew up
On this stretch of warm and friendly land
The sunshine of peace is everywhere
Chinese Pianist Plays Propaganda Tune at White House
US humiliated in eyes of Chinese by song used to inspire anti-Americanism
“…Lang Lang the pianist says he chose it. Chairman Hu Jintao recognized it as soon as he heard it. Patriotic Chinese Internet users were delighted as soon as they saw the videos online. Early morning TV viewers in China knew it would be played an hour or two beforehand. At the White House State dinner on Jan. 19, about six minutes into his set, Lang Lang began tapping out a famous anti-American propaganda melody from the Korean War: the theme song to the movie “Battle on Shangganling Mountain.”
The film depicts a group of “People’s Volunteer Army” soldiers who are first hemmed in at Shanganling (or Triangle Hill) and then, when reinforcements arrive, take up their rifles and counterattack the U.S. military “jackals.”
The movie and the tune are widely known among Chinese, and the song has been a leading piece of anti-American propaganda by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) for decades. CCP propaganda has always referred to the Korean War as the “movement to resist America and help [North] Korea.” The message of the propaganda is that the United States is an enemy—in fighting in the Korean War the United States’ real goal was said to be to invade and conquer China. The victory at Triangle Hill was promoted as a victory over imperialists. …”
“…My Motherland” having been played at the White House will be seen as a propaganda triumph in China.
“In the eyes of all Chinese, this will not be seen as anything other than a big insult to the U.S.,” says Yang Jingduan, a Chinese psychiatrist now living in Philadelphia who had in China been a doctor in the Chinese military. “It’s like insulting you in your face and you don’t know it, it’s humiliating.”
Yang sees Lang Lang choosing this tune as an expression of the deeply anti-American propaganda that is constant in China.
“This deeply anti-American chauvinism has been fanned by the CCP for years; Lang Lang is expressing the feelings of this generation of angry young people,” Yang said.
A well-known example of such feelings was seen on Sept. 11, 2001, when Chinese chat rooms were filled with young people celebrating this act of terror as an American defeat.
Excited at this coup, patriotic Chinese have been circulating the clip for the last several days. One netizen wrote “the right place, right time, right song!”
The phrase “right place, right time, right song” echoes Chinese propaganda and is a declaration of victory over the United States. Chinese have been taught that the United States lost the Korean War. A U.S. general is quoted in the propaganda as describing the Korean War as being “the wrong war at the wrong time in the wrong place with the wrong enemy,” which is taken as an admission of defeat. In fact, the quote is from Gen. Omar N. Bradley testifying to Congress as to why the United States should not extend the Korean War into China.
Another Chinese commenting on a forum responded to the Lang Lang performance by writing, “Defeat America, defeat Obama” (writing Obama’s name with the wrong first character, one meaning “sunken” or “dented.”)
Others wrote comments like: “omg!”; “Didn’t they know?”; “Where was the U.S. foreign affairs?” and “Very good. My impression of Lang Lang has really changed.”
“…During the big White House state dinner for China last Wednesday, a Chinese pianist named Lang Lang was invited to serenade the assembled dignitaries. One of the songs he played, unknown to Western audiences but instantly recognizable to the Chinese, was “My Motherland,” the theme from a movie called Battle On Shangganling Mountain.
Where’s Shangganling Mountain, you ask? Why, it’s in Korea. It was the site of a bloody battle, fought in late 1952 during the Korean War, in which Chinese forces repulsed a sustained attack from American and South Korean troops. The movie whose theme Lang tickled out of those ivories is an anti-American propaganda film. An article in the The Epoch Times points out that the lyrics to its theme song describe American soldiers as “jackals.”
Playing this song at a White House state dinner is the rough equivalent of an American president providing music from Rambo II during a state visit to Vietnam. It’s impossible to imagine the current President doing anything like that, but you could almost see George Bush screening the entire movie for his hosts while waiting for the bun cha to be served. “This here’s my favorite part, where the guy gets shot right in the chest with an exploding arrow. POW! “ …”
My Motherland” was called as “A Big River” (Chinese: 一条大河) by the author initially; it represented the hundreds of rivers that flowed by the homes of the Chinese people. The title was changed when it was published with movie.
Although the song was written for the movie about Korean War in 1950s, there is no mention of the war at all. It describes a soldier (or anyone who is away from home) thinking about his home and his family. Thus, this song is extremely popular even when the movie itself is almost forgotten.
The music for solo part has folk song styles similar to those in northern China. …”
“…America’s unofficial national anthem was composed by an immigrant who left his home in Siberia for America when he was only five years old. The original version of “God Bless America” was written by Irving Berlin (1888-1989) during the summer of 1918 at Camp Upton, located in Yaphank, Long Island, for his Ziegfeld-style revue, Yip, Yip, Yaphank. “Make her victorious on land and foam, God Bless America…” ran the original lyric. However, Berlin decided that the solemn tone of “God Bless America” was somewhat out of keeping with the more comedic elements of the show and the song was laid aside.
In the fall of 1938, as war was again threatening Europe, Berlin decided to write a “peace” song. He recalled his “God Bless America” from twenty years earlier and made some alterations to reflect the different state of the world. Singer Kate Smith introduced the revised “God Bless America” during her radio broadcast on Armistice Day, 1938. The song was an immediate sensation; the sheet music was in great demand. Berlin soon established the God Bless America Fund, dedicating the royalties to the Boy and Girl Scouts of America. …”
“…The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. that lasted from early 1997 to 2006. It was co-founded as a non-profit educational organization by neoconservatives William Kristol and Robert Kagan. The PNAC’s stated goal was “to promote American global leadership.” Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that “American leadership is both good for America and good for the world” and support for “a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity.” The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration’s development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.
“…Massimo Mazzucco (born 20 July 1954 in Turin) is an Italian filmmaker who is known for producing documentary films such as The New American Century and Cancer -The Forbidden Cures. Mazzucco is also the editor of luogocomune.net, an Italian news site known especially for research regarding the September 11 WTC attacks. …”
“…Digital Format Documentaries / DVD
Inganno Globale / Global Deceit – 2006
“The first Italian film on 9/11, in 2006 sparked a major debate on the Italian media, after having being broadcast by Berlusconi’s Canale 5.”
The New American Century / Il Nuovo Secolo Americano – 2007
“As a follow-up to Global Deceit, The New American Century presents the historical, philosophical, economical and political background — some of which is totally unknown to the public — that lend support to the accusation that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were in fact an inside-job.”
“Historically accurate, narratively captivating, The New American Century is one of the best films about the facts behind the 9/11 attacks.” –Webster G. Tarpley 
“The New American Century is a stunning film. It should be seen as widely as possible, in cinemas, bars, clubs, at meetings and, of course, through the internet. I’m sure the film will continue to be a source of debate and political education for many years.” –Ken Loach 
“George Soros is one of the most powerful men on earth. A New York hedge fund manager, he has amassed a personal fortune estimated at about $7.2 billion. His management company controls billions more in investor assets. Since 1979, his foundation network – whose flagship is the Open Society Institute (OSI) — has dispensed an estimated $5 billion to a multitude of organizations whose objectives are consistent with those of Soros. (The President of OSI and the Soros Foundation Network is Aryeh Neier, who, as Director of the socialist League for Industrial Democracy, personally created the radical group Students for a Democratic Society in 1959.) With assets of $859 million as of 2005, OSI alone donates scores of millions of dollars annually to these various groups, whose major agendas can be summarized as follows:
promoting the view that America is institutionally an oppressive nation
promoting the election of leftist political candidates throughout the United States
opposing virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by U.S. government, particularly the Patriot Act
depicting American military actions as unjust, unwarranted, and immoral
promoting open borders, mass immigration, and a watering down of current immigration laws
promoting a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs funded by ever-escalating taxes
promoting social welfare benefits and amnesty for illegal aliens
defending suspected anti-American terrorists and their abetters
financing the recruitment and training of future activist leaders of the political Left
advocating America’s unilateral disarmament and/or a steep reduction in its military spending
opposing the death penalty in all circumstances
promoting socialized medicine in the United States
promoting the tenets of radical environmentalism, whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner has explained, is “not clean air and clean water, [but] rather … the demolition of technological/industrial civilization”
bringing American foreign policy under the control of the United Nations
promoting racial and ethnic preferences in academia and the business world alike …”
Sean Hannity: Barack Obama’s White House and the NEA Propaganda Scandal
Who Funds the Radical Left In America?
By Steve Baldwin, Exclusive to Western Center for Journalism
“…Very few Americans realize there exists a large network of far left philanthropists and foundations in America dedicated to destroying the American way of life, our Christian-based culture and our free enterprise system. They seek to remove America from its constitutional foundations and move it toward a European-style socialism. Much of this effort is coordinated by a little known group called the Tides Foundation and its related group, the Tides Center. …”
Net Assets: Tides Foundation – $142,007,356 (2006); Tides Center – $43,969,744 (2006)
Grants Received: Tides Foundation – $68,725,557 (2006); Tides Center – $49,859,754 (2006)
Grants Awarded: Tides Foundation – $67,319,624 (2006); Tides Center – $5,566,058 (2006)
Established in 1976 by California-based activist Drummond Pike, the Tides Foundation was set up as a public charity that receives money from donors and then funnels it to the recipients of their choice. Because many of these recipient groups are quite radical, the donors often prefer not to have their names publicly linked with the donees. By letting the Tides Foundation, in effect, “launder” the money for them and pass it along to the intended beneficiaries, donors can avoid leaving a “paper trail.” Such contributions are called “donor-advised,” or donor-directed, funds.
Through this legal loophole, nonprofit entities can also create for-profit organizations and then funnel money to them through Tides — thereby circumventing the laws that bar nonprofits from directly funding their own for-profit enterprises. Pew Charitable Trusts, for instance, set up three for-profit media companies and then proceeded to fund them via donor-advised contributions to Tides, which (for an 8 percent management fee) in turn sent the money to the media companies.
If a donor wishes to give money to a particular cause but finds that there is no organization in existence dedicated specifically to that issue, the Tides Foundation will, for a fee, create a group to meet that perceived need.
In 1996 the Tides Foundation created, with a $9 million seed grant, a separate but closely related entity called the Tides Center, also headed by Drummond Pike. The Tides Center functions as a legal firewall insulating the Tides Foundation from potential lawsuits filed by people whose livelihoods or well-being may be harmed by Foundation-funded projects. (These could be, for instance, farmers or loggers who are put out of business by Tides-backed environmentalist groups.) In theory the Foundation’s activities are restricted to fundraising and grant-making, while the Center focuses on managing projects and organizations; in practice, however, both entities do essentially the same thing.
“… Tides Center is a non-profit organization in the United States which provides fiscal sponsorship for progressive groups. Tides Center is classified a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization by the IRS. The organization is based in San Francisco with offices in the Presidio.
It is administratively linked to but separate from the Tides Foundation. Tides Center and Tides Foundation are part of a family of organizations linked by a commitment to social change, innovation, and responsible stewardship of resources.
The Tides Center handles administrative functions such as payroll, benefits, insurance, and tax form 990 in exchange for a fee, which varies, and which is taken out of grant monies.
A recent blog post by Los Angeles-based artist Patrick Courrielche details an August 10, 2009, conference call hosted by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the White House Office of Public Engagement, and United We Serve. The stated purpose of the call was to encourage a select group of artists “to help lay a new foundation for growth, focusing on core areas of the recovery agenda – health care, energy and environment, safety and security, education, community renewal.” According to Mr. Courrielche, the NEA and the White House were “steering the art community toward creating art on the very issues that are currently under contentious national debate; those being health care reform and cap-and-trade legislation.” Seehttp://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/08/25/the-national-endowment-for-the-art-of-persuasion-patrick-courrielche/.
If accurate, Mr. Courrielche’s account of this conference call organized and hosted by your Administration raises a number of serious concerns. First and foremost among these concerns is the participation of the NEA in a conversation “steering” the arts community toward a pro-Administration political message.
As you know, the NEA is the largest annual funder of the arts in the United States. And the imprimatur of an NEA grant often spurs private funding, making NEA grant decisions even more powerful within the arts community. But, as former NEA Chairman Dana Gioia wrote in 2007, “[t]he NEA does not dictate arts policy to the United States . . . .” Indeed, as Gioia observes, this feature is what distinguishes the NEA from other nations’ centralized ministries of culture.
A reasonable observer would view the NEA’s participation in the August 10 call as implying that NEA grant opportunities (i.e., taxpayer dollars) may be tied to artists’ willingness to use their creative talents to advance your Administration’s political agenda. This is not, and has never been, the purpose of the NEA.
Such politicization of the NEA is particularly dangerous at a time when the arts community struggles for philanthropy. But even if no NEA funding was intended for political purposes, one cannot escape the disturbing impression that this Administration-including appointees within the White House and the NEA-believes that it is appropriate for the federal government to enlist the arts community for the purpose of furthering a specific political agenda. I agree with President John F. Kennedy, who said that “[w]e must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth.”
I urge you to make clear that your Administration will never allocate taxpayer dollars to artists based on their support for Administration policy initiatives. Further, I respectfully request that you take the necessary steps to ensure that the NEA-and the American arts community it supports-remain independent from political manipulation by the White House.
This episode appears to merit congressional hearings and sustained oversight-and so I request your prompt response to these charges and my concerns.
“…The next Breitbart tape debuts at noon today (EDT). The National Endowment for the Arts and White House official Buffy Wicks are bracing for the new bombshell coming from Andrew Breitbart and BigGovernment.com. The website offers a preview this morning on BigGovernment.com, citing the notorious and likely illegal politicization of the NEA, bullying artists receiving grants into works supporting the administration’s legislative priorities. Mike Flynn and John Nolte write: …”
“…Meanwhile, Clarice Feldman informs us that BigGovernment.com reports that a White House website encouraging volunteerism filters applicants to ACORN: …”
Barack Hussein Obama and Friends – A History of Radicalism – Part 1 of 6
Barack Hussein Obama and Friends – A History of Radicalism – Part 2 of 6
Barack Hussein Obama and Friends – A History of Radicalism – Part 3 of 6
Barack Hussein Obama and Friends – A History of Radicalism – Part 4 of 6
Barack Hussein Obama and Friends – A History of Radicalism – Part 5 of 6
Barack Hussein Obama and Friends – A History of Radicalism – Part 6 of 6
David Bossie discussing Obama Documentary on Fox and Friends
Hardball – guest David Bossie of Citizens United, producer of “Hillary, The Movie”
Floyd Brown Speaks about Barack Obama
Floyd Brown on Fox News 7-2-2009
Floyd Brown On O’Reilly Factor
Citizens United Productions
“…A movement is sweeping the nation. Frenzied crowds gather in every state. Young people chant and sing. Women swoon. The result is record voter turn out and a rare political enthusiasm. At the head of this unprecedented phenomenon stands a charismatic figure intent on becoming the President of the United States.
“I’m asking you to believe.”
“We are the ones we have been waiting for.”
“Yes, we can!”
These words, from Barack Obama, have inspired everything from outrageous videos to the largest campaign fundraising success in history. He has taken what was considered a sure bet Clinton machine and turned it on its head. His supporters claim he is the new Martin Luther King, Jr. He is hailed as this generation’s John F. Kennedy. This documentary explores the HYPE behind Barack Obama.
“…Citizens United is a U.S. non-profit organization currently headed by President David Bossie. He has held this position since 2000. Its offices are on Pennsylvania Avenue in the Capitol hill area of Washington, D.C. …”
“…Citizens United was founded by Floyd Brown in 1988.
It has run ads critical of President Clinton’s record on terrorism, ads supporting George W. Bush’s terrorism record, and filed a Federal Election Commission complaint against Fahrenheit 9/11. The associated Citizens United Foundation is a 501(c)(3) group.
Citizens United’s stated goals are:
“to reassert the traditional American values of limited government, freedom of enterprise, strong families, and national sovereignty and security.”
“to restore the founding fathers’ vision of a free nation, guided by the honesty, common sense, and good will of its citizens.”
On October 2, 2006, in reaction to revelations of a GOP coverup of inappropriate communications between Congressman Mark Foley and teenage pages, Citizens United President David Bossie called on Dennis Hastert to resign over his role in covering up the scandal.
The group produced a television advertisement that reveals several liberal legislative actions taken by Presidential candidate Senator John McCain. The Group aired the ad on Fox News Channel. …”
Citizens United Productions
Citizens United Productions, headed by President David Bossie, has released 10 feature-length documentaries and will be releasing its 11th film titled Perfect Valor in Spring 2009. The following is a list of films produced by Citizens United Productions.
ACLU: At War with America
Blocking ‘The Path to 9/11′
Border Wars: The Battle Over Illegal Immigration
Broken Promises: The UN at 60
Hillary: The Movie
‘HYPE The Obama Effect
Rediscovering God in America
Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny
We Have the Power
Rediscovering God in America, Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny, and We Have the Power were hosted by Newt and Callista Gingrich.
David N. Bossie (b. ) is an American political consultant in the field of opposition research and the president of conservative political action committee Citizens United. In 1992, Bossie worked with founder Floyd Brown in what was essentially a “two-man operation” as director of political affairs of Citizens United. 
“…In his capacity as director of Citizens United , Bossie has been sharply criticized by both Democrats and Republicans. James Carville said of him, “he made collective fools out of about 80 percent of the national press corps.” President George H.W. Bush urged citizens not to support his campaigns, saying, “We will do whatever we can to stop any filthy campaign tactics” in a newsletter to 85,000 Republican contributors. Bush also filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission regarding one TV advertisement Bossie produced with Floyd Brown.  …”
“…Floyd Gregory Brown (born 1961, Bremerton, Washington) is an American author, speaker and media commentator. He is president of Excellentia Inc., a consulting company specializing in non-profit organizational strategy, development and marketing. Brown has also worked as a political consultant and conducted opposition research for political campaigns. Brown is noteworthy for his introduction of the “Willie Horton” television ad during the Bush-Dukakis presidential race. …”
“…He is active in the Republican Party and was a delegate to both the 2000 and 1996 National conventions. In 1996 he served on the Republican National Convention Platform Committee. He has been an advisor and consultant to the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush, Bob Dole and Steve Forbes for President campaigns. He was Midwest Regional Director of the Dole for President campaign in 1988, managing campaigns in Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota and Nebraska.
“…Obama Attacks in 2008 Presidential Race
In the spring of 2008, working for The National Campaign Fund, Floyd Brown launched what he called “the most internet-intensive effort for an ad debut ever” to disseminate via what he claimed was three to five million emails to conservatives to imply that Barack Obama had been “soft” on crime as a state senator in Illinois before his presidential candidacy. The initiative was funded by a political action committee calling itself the “National Campaign Fund,” which had $14,027 in the bank at the end of March, 2008. Other Brown-established groups to raise funds in this effort include a 527 group Citizens for a Safe and Prosperous America. Brown also uses a 501(c)4 non-profit to raise funds for the Policy Issues Institute. Brown made appearances to promote his ad and his company on a news network, Fox News,  In response to the attack ad, Newsweek published a report on the ad, saying it was the attempt of “a conservative ad man striving to regain his Willie Horton notoriety: and directed readers to factcheck.org to get information on Obama’s voting record. The report includes a swipe at MSNBC’s Chris Matthews for airing the ad continuously, pointing to Brown’s strategy of getting “free” air time for ads by making them controversial.
Brown’s fundraising strength is diminished by the hesitance of large donors to leave themselves vulnerable to the legal difficulties encountered by donors to swiftboat ad efforts in the 2004 election cycle, and to new laws which curtail some of the more offensive content of political ads by 527 groups. As some of the contributors to the “swiftboat” ads in 2004 faced stiff fines from the FEC, Brown has refrained from operating out of 527 groups and opted for the PAC platform and budgeting from small donors.  Brown’s stated goal is to release one new attack ad every two weeks, and recently released an advertisement asserting that Obama was registered as a Muslim student in Indonesia, and that he attended an Indonesian school that taught Islam as a child. The claim has been refuted by the Obama campaign. As of March 2008, Brown had raised $50,000, and spent $5,000.00 on actual ad buys, also posting the ad on Youtube and other public platforms
In August 2008 Brown teamed up with writer and entrepreneur Jerome Corsi to promote Corsi’s book Obama Nation via viral web campaigns and emailings. 
1. Cover with ridicule all of the valid traditions in your opponent’s country.
2. Implicate their leaders in criminal affairs and turn them over to the scorn of their populace at the right time.
3. Disrupt the work of their government by every means;
4. Do not shun the aid of the lowest and most despicable individuals of your enemy’s country.
5. Spread disunity and dispute among the citizens.
6. Turn the young against the old.
7. Be generous with promises and rewards to collaborators and accomplices.
Yuri Bezmenov – Deception Was My Job (1 of 9)
Yuri Bezmenov – Deception Was My Job (2 of 9)
Yuri Bezmenov – Deception Was My Job (3 of 9)
Yuri Bezmenov – Deception Was My Job (4 of 9)
Yuri Bezmenov – Deception Was My Job (5 of 9)
Yuri Bezmenov – Deception Was My Job (6 of 9)
Yuri Bezmenov – Deception Was My Job (7 of 9)
Yuri Bezmenov – Deception Was My Job (8 of 9)
Yuri Bezmenov – Deception Was My Job (9 of 9)
Ex-KGB Officer Yuri Bezmenov – Life under Soviet Collectivism (1 of 3)
Ex-KGB Officer Yuri Bezmenov – Life under Soviet Collectivism (2 of 3)
Ex-KGB Officer Yuri Bezmenov – Life under Soviet Collectivism (3 of 3)
Ex-KGB Officer Yuri Bezmenov – Propaganda and Mind Control (1 of 3)
Ex-KGB Officer Yuri Bezmenov – Propaganda and Mind Control (2 of 3)
Ex-KGB Officer Yuri Bezmenov – Propaganda and Mind Control (3 of 3)
Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. I 1/2
Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. I 2/2
Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. IIa 1/7
Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. IIa 2/7
Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. IIa 3/7
Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. IIa 4/7
Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. IIa 5/7
Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. IIa 6/7
Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. IIa 7/7
Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. IIb 1/2
Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. IIb 2/2
Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. III 1/7
Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. III 2/7
Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. III 3/7
Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. III 4/7
Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. III 5/7
Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. III 6/7
Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt. III 7/7
Background Articles and Videos
Yuri Bezmenov, aka Tomas Schuman
“…Yuri Alexandrovic Bezmenov, now known as Tomas David Schuman, was born in 1939 in the former Soviet Union and worked as a journalist for Pravda. In this capacity, he secretly answered to the KGB. His true job was to further the aims of communist Russia. After being assigned to a station in India, Bezmenov eventually grew to love the people and culture of India, while, at the same time, he began to resent the KGB-sanctioned oppression of intellectuals who dissented from Moscow’s policies. He decided to defect to the West. Bezmenov/Schuman is best remembered for his Pro-American Anti-communist lectures and books from the 1980s.
In 1984, he gave an interview to G. Edward Griffin who, at that time, was a member of the John Birch Society, an anti-communist group. Bezmenov explained in this interview the methods used by the Soviet KGB to secretly subvert the democratic system of the United States.
Tomas D. Schuman authored the book Love Letter to America, W.I.N., Almanac Panorama, Los Angeles 1984, ISBN 0-935090-13-4. In Love Letter to America he writes, “Like a true-life Winston Smith, from the George Orwell book 1984, Tomas Schuman worked for the communist equivalent of Orwell’s Ministry of Truth – The Novosti Press Agency (RIA Novosti). Novosti, which means “News” in Russian, exists to produce slanted and false stories to plant in the foreign media. The term for this KGB effort is “disinformation”.
Tomas D. Schuman was associated with World Information Network (WIN) located at 31220 La Baya Dr. #110, Westlake, CA 91362. WIN published WIN PANORAMA books and cassettes along with the WIN Panorama Report newsletter. WIN also published under the name WIN Almanac Panorama, or ALmanac. In 1985, Tomas D. Schuman wrote No Novosti is Good News, Almanac, ISBN 0935090177 and in 1986 he wrote World Thought Police, Almanac, ASIN B0007246RO. An order form at the rear of Love Letter To America offers a book called KAL 007 and a cassette called “Radio Moscow” by Schuman.
Tomas Schuman (Yuri Bezmenov) L.A. 1983 pt.IV 1/2 lectured that the Soviet Union may have shot down flight Korean Air Lines Flight 007 aka KAL 007 to kill Larry McDonald, a member of the United States House of Representatives, representing the seventh congressional district of Georgia as a Democrat. In addition to being a congressman, Larry McDonald was chairman of the John Birch Society and considered communism an international conspiracy. McDonald was a founder of the Western Goals Foundation that combatted the threat of communism. McDonald introduced Resolution 773 calling for a comprehensive Congressional investigation into the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Trilateral Commission. A May 1983 broadcast of Crossfire, recorded months before Soviet interceptors shot down KAL 007, killing anti-communist Congressman McDonald along with 268 other souls, can be found on YouTube entitled Larry McDonald on the New World Order (NWO).
The whereabouts of Yuri Bezmenov, aka Tomas David Schuman, is unknown but unconfirmed internet sources report that he died in 1997 in Canada. The G. Edward Griffin interview along with many other lectures by Yuri Bezmenov aka Tomas Schuman can be viewed on YouTube. …”
“…Sun Tzu (traditional Chinese: 孫子; simplified Chinese: 孙子; pinyin: Sūn Zi, pronounced [suən˥ tsz̩˨˩˦]. Sun is his family name, and Tzu is an honorific in classic Chinese, roughly equivalent to Sir, or the Learned Gentleman. His given name is Wǔ (武). His style name is Chángqīng (長卿). Sun Tzu is traditionally believed to be the author of The Art of War, sometimes called the Sun Tzu, an influential ancient Chinese book on military strategy considered to be a prime example of Taoist strategy. Sun has had a significant impact on Chinese and Asian history and culture, both as an author of the Art of War and as a legendary figure. During the 19th and 20th centuries, Sun’s The Art of War grew in popularity and saw practical use in Western society, and his work has continued to influence both Asian and Western culture and politics.
Historians have questioned whether or not Sun was an authentic historical figure. Traditional accounts place him in the Spring and Autumn Period of China (722–481 BC) as a heroic general of the King of Wu who lived c. 544—496 BC. Scholars accepting his historicity place his supposed writing The Art of War in the Warring States Period (476–221 BC), based on the descriptions of warfare in the text. Traditional accounts state that his descendant, Sun Bin, also wrote a master treatise on military tactics. …”
“…Hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, there was a period in China known as the Age of Warring States. This was an age of great conflict and uncertainty as seven states fought for survival & control of China. For these states to win they sought out any means of gaining advantage over their opponents; those with knowledge on strategy & leadership was especially sought after. It was during this time that there arose a general from the state of Ch’i known as Sun Tzu. His ability to win victories for his warlord gained him fame and power.
To hand down the wisdom he had gained from his years of battles Sun Tzu wrote a book, The Art of War, that became the classic work on strategy in China. His book, which details a complete philosophy on how to decisively defeat one’s opponent, has given guidance to military theorists and generals throughout the ages. In The Art of War, military readers found a holistic approach to strategy that was powerful and deep–it is truly a masterpiece on strategy. As the former U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell said, “I’ve read the Chinese classic The Art of War written by Sun Tzu. Sun Tzu has been studied for hundreds of years. He continues to give inspiration to soldiers and politicians. So every American soldier in the army knows of his works. We require our soldiers to read it.” …”
Episode 3: “There is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads: He Must Be Destroyed”
Episode 4: “Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering”
Documentary: The Origin and History of modern propaganda (public relations), and the story of its creator, Edward Bernays. The story exposes how government and big business manipulate the public’s consent and preps them for the next ‘grand’ idea or product.
Episode 1: “Happiness Machines
1. Propaganda in America – History of Public Relations 1/6
2. Propaganda in America – Meet Edward Bernays
3. Propaganda in America – The Art of PR Spin
4. Propaganda in America – Hitler’s Ideological Beast
5. Propaganda in America – Business vs Politicians
6. Propaganda in America – The Enemy Within
Episode 2: “The Engineering of Consent”
The Century Of The Self – The Engineering of Consent 1 of 6
The Century Of The Self – The Engineering of Consent 2 of 6
The Century Of The Self – The Engineering of Consent 3 of 6
The Century Of The Self – The Engineering of Consent 4 of 6
The Century Of The Self – The Engineering of Consent 5 of 6
The Century Of The Self – The Engineering of Consent 6 of 6
Episode 3: “There is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads: He Must Be Destroyed”
The Century Of The Self – There is a Policeman Inside_1 of 6
The Century Of The Self – There is a Policeman Inside_2 of 6
The Century Of The Self – There is a Policeman Inside_3 of 6
The Century Of The Self – There is a Policeman Inside_4 of 6
The Century Of The Self – There is a Policeman Inside_5 of 6
The Century Of The Self – There is a Policeman Inside_6 of 6
Episode 4: “Eight People Sipping Wine in Kettering”
The Century Of The Self – Eight People Sipping Wine_1 of 6
The Century Of The Self – Eight People Sipping Wine_2 of 6
The Century Of The Self – Eight People Sipping Wine_3 of 6
The Century Of The Self – Eight People Sipping Wine_4 of 6
The Century Of The Self – Eight People Sipping Wine_5 of 6
The Century Of The Self – Eight People Sipping Wine_6 of 6