PARANOID? SECRET SERVICE NOW TREATING SILVERWARE AS A THREAT TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

June 22, 2012

By Mytheos Holt

There are plenty of objects that shouldn’t be placed in the same vicinity as the President of the United States. Guns, for instance, or knives (at least, the kind that are at least as sharp as steak knives). But silverware? That’s a new one. Politico reports that the Secret Service has required guests at a lunch where the President was speaking this afternoon to surrender their forks and knives before Obama would enter the room:

“It’s very important that you use your utensils as soon as possible,” National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials board member Raquel Regalado told about 1000 delegates at the group’s annual conference.

Regalado hurried the diners to finish up their salads and pre-cut chicken breasts, saying that the Secret Service required that there be no knives at the tables and that the forks be rounded up before Obama entered the room.

“As you know, we’re having another speaker and there is some Secret Service involved. So there’s a reason why there’s no knives at your table and the forks will be collected. … And I’m not joking,” Regalado told the audience in a ballroom at Disney’s Contemporary Resort at Walt Disney World. “So, like the good Hispanic mother I’m here to tell you to please, eat your lunch.”

A Secret Service spokesman confirmed that the agency made the request, but said such requirements are common at large events where the president speaks at about the same time people are dining.

Now, naturally this kind of defensiveness raises questions – is Obama really in so much danger of being stabbed with a fork or a bread knife? And wouldn’t it be rather difficult to do that much damage without getting caught by the Secret Service first? What differentiates this from, say, the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, which also has a large number of participants and which, as far as we know, doesn’t require those participants to fork over their silverware.

But frankly, the question that interests us is – why just forks and knives? Surely spoons can do damage. Or has the Obama team never heard of a spork?

If the Chicken was “pre-cut” what type of knife would be left at the dinner service?  A butter knife?

Next, the “King” will have a taster sample his food before he eats…….

Hague presses for audit on EU law

 

By George Parker, Political Editor

William Hague, the British foreign secretary, wants to launch a comprehensive audit of the impact of Europan Union law on Britain this summer, an exercise that could fuel a Conservativedrive to repatriate powers from Brussels.

The huge Whitehall study comes at a time when David Cameron is trying to devise a new relationship between Britain and the rest of Europe, starting on Thursday at a European summit in Brussels.

More

ON THIS STORY

• City fear over Cameron’s EU demands
• City’s unaligned status over EU reform
• Editorial Unresolved eurozone dilemma
• Nick Clegg Risks and rewards of a union
• Lombard Glenstrata’s brinkmen

ON THIS TOPIC

• Hague’s focus on EU audit lifts Tories
• PM floated cuts for activists’ benefit
• Cameron delights Tories with welfare plans
• Gove seen to throw hat in ring

IN UK POLITICS & POLICY

• Labour attacked over Peterborough hospital
• Tory peer guilty of ‘minor’ code breach
• Osborne attacked by Tory backbenchers
• Pressure builds over Lords reform

Mr Cameron will tell European colleagues he wants to “safeguard” Britain’s position in the single market as eurozone leaders discuss much closer fiscal and political union based on the 17-member single currency area.

But many Conservatives want to go further and hope that a future Tory government will renegotiate a new membership deal with the EU – including the repatriation of powers from Brussels – and put the package to a referendum.

Pressure is building from Conservative activists and Tory MPs for Britain to use the turmoil in the eurozone to detach Britain from the rest of the EU, reclaiming powers in areas such as employment law, police co-operation and regional policy.

In that context, Mr Hague’s enthusiasm for a Whitehall audit of the application of EU law in Britain is politically extremely sensitive.

Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat deputy prime minister, fears the exercise might be a distraction from the crisis facing Europe and wants to keep it low key.

Some Lib Dems fear it might also be seen in other European capitals and Washington as a sign that Britain wants to move further from the EU mainstream.

The proposed study of the “balance of the EU’s existing competences” is contained in the coalition agreement, and Mr Hague wants to get on with it this summer. But Mr Clegg has yet to sign off on the scope and timing of the exercise.

Government officials said they hoped to announce “further details soon”. It is expected that civil servants will be asked to do analytical work on the impact of EU law, without making recommendations on what powers should be returned.

Andrea Leadsom, a Conservative MP, said Britain needed a “shopping list” of powers it wants returned from Brussels and said the planned audit of EU powers was “a completely worthwhile exercise”.

Officials close to Mr Cameron insist the prime minister is not about to start a fight to reclaim powers from Brussels any time soon and will certainly not make it his price for supporting eurozone moves towards closer fiscal and political union.

Indeed Mr Cameron’s coalition agreement with Mr Clegg’s pro-European Liberal Democrats makes it extremely unlikely that any moves be made before the planned 2015 general election.

CONTENTIOUS ISSUES UP FOR EXAMINATION

JUSTICE AND POLICING More than 100 Tory MPs demanded this year Britain should pull out from 130 EU crime and policing rules, such as the European Arrest Warrant. However police and security services say such measures help to stop terrorists and cross-border crime. Tory MPs say Britain could pick and choose which measures to adopt. EMPLOYMENT/SOCIAL LAW Includes the working time directive, which limits workplace hours on health and safety grounds, and measures to regulate temporary agency workers. Long seen by Conservatives as an infringement of Britain’s liberal labour market; one area where the Tories could make common ground with the Lib Dems. REGIONAL POLICY One of the big questions asked by critics of the EU is why does Brussels take billions of pounds from Britain only to recycle that money to help depressed regions of the UK? Cornwall, Merseyside and the Northern Ireland peace process have all benefited, but could the money be better spent by Whitehall? FINANCIAL SERVICES The planned creation of a eurozone “banking union” has raised questions about whether the new arrangement might discriminate against the City. David Cameron wants “safeguards” but this is one area where EU power is unlikely to be challenged: the City generally loves the single market.

Allies of George Osborne hint that the next Tory manifesto could promise a European referendum, probably based on the terms of a renegotiated settlement with the EU.

Is This the Year We Recognize the Failure of Progressivism?

- FrontPage Magazine - http://frontpagemag.com -

Posted By Bruce Thornton On June 26, 2012 @ 12:37 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 18 Comments

This year is looking more and more like one of those “years of decision” that have marked profound crises and changes in American history. I’m speaking not just about the presidential election, or whether or not Barack Obama gets a second term. Obama is merely a symptom of our educational, social, economic, and political dysfunctions that in turn reflect the failing core ideology of modernity expressed by progressive politics. The “decision” that has to be made this year is whether we finally abandon that nexus of ideas that has led us to our current economic troubles.

That ideology is predicated on the belief that advances in scientific knowledge have revealed the truth of human nature and society, and that such knowledge can lead to technical interventions that in turn will substantially improve human life. “The behaviour of human beings,” Isaiah Berlin describes this belief, “both individually and in the aggregate, is in principle intelligible, if the facts are observed patiently and intelligently, hypotheses formulated and verified, laws established” as was occurring in the sciences such as physics, astronomy, or chemistry. With time the “human sciences” such as psychology and sociology, along with new advances in biology and physiology, would achieve knowledge of human beings and their actions equally reliable and certain. “Once appropriate social laws were discovered,” Berlin continues, “rational organization would take the place of blind improvisation, and men’s wishes, within the limits of the uniformities of nature, could in principle all be made to come true.” Contrary to the past, when irrational superstitions, religious beliefs, and traditions limited man’s progress and left him mired in fear, poverty, and violence, the new techno-elites armed with this scientific knowledge and the techniques it has created will shape and transform human nature and thus help the human race progress beyond these miseries.

That, in a nutshell, describes the major political and social movements of the last two centuries, including some of the bloodiest in history. This idea is also the foundation of progressivism, which strives to give power to self-proclaimed “experts” in order to create policies for the centralized, increasingly powerful and intrusive state. Armed with that coercive power and new technologies, the state can impose laws and policies that supposedly will achieve “social justice,” a utopia of economic equality, perpetual happiness, and material comfort. The price? The erosion of political freedom, personal autonomy, and personal responsibility, all sold for a mess of nanny-state pottage.

The current economic crises here and abroad are manifestations of the shipwreck of progressive ideas on the rocks of human nature, the unpredictability of the future, and the complexity of social reality. In Europe, the transnational, top-down-managed E.U. was created to knit traditional enemies together by trade and economic integration, which required a single currency and anti-democratic regulations imposed from above by Brussels and Strasbourg. Ignored were the very real national, ethnic, and cultural differences that give people their identities and partly accounted for their historical conflicts with one another. It is these same differences that are now dividing the monetary union, differences expressed politically by the voters whom the Eurocrats have brushed aside for decades. There are no “Europeans” sharing a common identity after all, but only Germans, Greeks, Italians, Spaniards, Frenchmen, and Englishmen, with conflicting national interests, mores, and ethics.

But the economic crisis was created in part by another, equally dangerous delusion: that each state, abetted by the regulatory coercive powers of the E.U. super-state, would direct and guide its economy in order to finance a network of social welfare entitlements insulating people from the costs, trade-offs, and failures that always have characterized human existence. A revealing letter published in 2003 by two European philosophers, Jacques Derrida and Jürgen Habermas, expressed this vision that underlay the E.U. project. Especially revealing was the philosophers’ emphasis on the need to minimize the “sociopathological consequences of capitalist modernization,” and on a “preference for the protective guarantees of the welfare state and solidaristic solutions” as opposed to “an individualistic performance ethos which accepts crass social inequalities.” The lavish social welfare entitlements designed and controlled by government functionaries and monitored by Eurocrats are the means for achieving these utopian boons.

Those “protective guarantees of the welfare state,” however, required government debt and deficits to keep up with the expanding expectations of people who had become used to getting la dolce vita for nothing. But high taxes, oppressive regulation, and onerous employee rights inhibited the economic growth necessary for creating the wealth the state has to expropriate to fund such entitlements. If that assessment seems exaggerated, consider the recent ruling from the E.U. Court of Justice that grants another vacation for workers who get sick on vacation. Even the liberal New York Times had to admit that such labor practices “make it hard to put more people to work and revive sinking economies.” Europe has now reached the stage that Margaret Thatcher marked as the end of socialism: it has run out of other people’s money.

The crisis of the Eurozone economies makes clear that only by reducing entitlement spending can governments stave off chronic sluggish growth or ultimate collapse. Yet despite that object lesson, here at home the Obama administration for nearly 4 years has doggedly pursued the same failed policies of debt, deficits, and increased spending. He has created a new health-care entitlement projected to cost $1.76 trillion over ten years, squandered nearly a trillion dollars on a failed “stimulus,” doubled spending on food stamps to $80 billion, incurred $5 trillion in debt, raised federal spending by 27.3%, increased the budget deficit to 8.3% of GDP, wasted nearly $10 billion on “clean-energy” boondoggles, multiplied job-killing federal regulations at a cost of $46 billion, and proposed budgets and spending increases that will accelerate the downward spiral of debt and deficits.

Yet in response to the sluggish growth and high unemployment caused by these policies, all Obama can offer is stale class-warfare rhetoric and schemes to raise taxes on those upon whom economic growth and jobs really depend. And like his E.U. counterparts, he disguises this ruinous tax-and-spend economic policy as “growth,” camouflages money given to his public-employee political clients who manage the welfare state as “investment,” and smears spending reductions as social Darwinist “austerity.”

What Obama is up to has nothing to do with an ignorance of simple math or economic facts. He won’t change his mind by reading Frederic Bastiat or Henry Hazlitt on the hidden costs of government spending. Obamanomics is about a progressive ideology that promotes government control and regulation by techno-elites as the way to achieve “social justice,” which is code for radical egalitarianism and the liberation of people from the normal travails of human life. Obama himself said so, back in 2008 during a debate with Hillary Clinton. When ABC’s Charlie Gibson pointed out that historically the government loses revenue when it raises the capital gains tax, Obama answered, “Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness.”

In other words, engineering equality of outcome is more important than growing the economy, even if tax revenues suffer. Just borrow more money if you need more revenue. And no matter how big the debt gets, borrow even more money so that the government can expand entitlements and “grow” the economy by giving tax money to politically favored industries and clients. Yet as the Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henninger points out, such centralized economic planning “often appears in emerging, underdeveloped economies, not in an advanced economy like ours in which the discovery and diffusion of productive new ideas is spontaneous, rapid and unpredictable.” Allowing the market to reward the creativity and hard work of millions of free people is what creates economic growth.

For those, however, enthralled by the progressive vision of techno-elites wielding government power to create the social justice utopia, the “spontaneous” and “unpredictable” behavior of free people is precisely what gets in the way of the progressive agenda. This year and the ones to follow will show whether enough people have understood that failure and its causes, and are willing to pay the necessary price for changing course and rescuing our economy from its current slow-motion collapse. On that decision depends the future of our country.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

---

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/06/26/is-this-the-year-we-recognize-the-failure-of-progressivism/

Click here to print.

Earth Summit Babble

- Accuracy In Media - http://www.aim.org -

Earth Summit Babble

Posted By Alan Caruba On June 22, 2012 @ 4:10 pm In Guest Columns | Comments Disabled

Why anyone still believes anything the UN Environmental Program and its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has to say is one of those great imponderable questions. To prepare you for the flood of totally idiotic predictions to which you will be treated during the June 20-21 Earth Summit, here are just a few and I strongly advise you to ignore all of them.

A 550-page preparatory UN report, put together by “600 experts”, the Global Environmental Outlook-intended to soften up global suckers-predicts that Earth’s environmental systems are nearly at “their biophysical limits” thus subjecting the Earth to “irreversible and possibly cataclysmic world changes” and “If humanity does not urgently change its ways” it is doomed.

Notably, the Earth Summit will abandon “global warming” and “climate change” as its main theme and instead focus on “sustainability”, the utterly bogus notion that humans are using up all of the Earth’s resources.

The people most famous for really bad predictions these days are environmentalists. Rachel Carson kicked it off fifty years ago with her book, “Silent Spring”, assuring everyone that all the birds would fall dead out of the sky because of pesticide use. These days they are more likely to be chopped to shreds by wind turbines.

Ever since the early days of environmental hysteria just about every awful scenario cooked up in the fevered brains of the Greens has become front page news. There is method to their madness and it comes down to a simple equation: Scaring People Equals Money and Power.

Environmentalism is all about controlling you while picking your pocket. By any other name it is Socialism or its big brother Communism. It depends on lies backed up by a massive propaganda machine, funded by ultra-wealthy foundations, by governments who support Green programs of all sorts, and by the members of an endless succession of environmental organizations.

For example, you may recall that global warming, a massive heating of the Earth due to carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gas emissions” was predicted to occur twenty, thirty or fifty years hence when the hoax kicked off in the late 1980s. Keep that in mind when the Rio+20 United Nations Earth Summit is held in Rio de Janeiro, the site of the first conference.

Supported by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the so-called “scientists” backed up their claims with all manner of computer models, dubious graphs, and tons of “scientific” papers to convince governments and people that massive changes had to occur-primarily a huge reduction in the use of fossil fuels-or we were all doomed.

Exposed in November 2009 by the “Climategate” release of thousands of emails between the perpetrators, I still find it astonishing that not one single member of this conspiracy has gone to jail. Indeed, in 2007 the IPCC and Al Gore shared a Nobel Peace Prize.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has issued a formal request that all the “researchers” who contributed to the global warming hoax be granted immunity from prosecution. Unbelievable, eh?

Back in 1956, a geologist named M. King Hubbert released the findings of his calculations to let the world know that U.S. oil production would “peak” between 1965 and 1970. It didn’t. What has since slowed oil production in the U.S. has been the refusal of the Obama administration to issue the permits necessary to drill on federal lands and offshore. The world is afloat on an ocean of oil and, in addition, the U.S. is not running out of coal or natural gas.

Similarly, all the population predictions made by Prof. Paul R. Erhlich and his wife in 1968 have proven false as well. A colleague of his, Dr. John Holdren, is the science advisor to the President. One of the central themes of environmentalism is that humanity is to blame for harming the Earth and that there are too many people.

The other theme is that all these people are “consuming” too much of the Earth’s natural resources and should be penned up in cities and kept out of most places on Earth in order to protect its “endangered species”, etc. Meanwhile, as this is being written, huge sections of western states’ forests are going up in flames thanks to Mother Nature setting off fires off with lightning strikes.

Does it surprise anyone that the Earth Summit is calling for a “climate fund” and wants nations to kick in $100 billion? The proposal for the fund called “The Earth We Want” covers an extraordinary range of topics that includes gender equality, woman’s empowerment, and all the usual social justice and environmental clap-trap that is intended to ensnare everyone in a web of laws, regulations, and treaties aimed directly at eliminating the freedoms the West has and that many in other parts of the world want.

There is one good reason to not ignore the Earth Summit. They are telling you just what kind of an Orwellian and totalitarian world they have in mind for you.

---

Article printed from Accuracy In Media: http://www.aim.org

URL to article: http://www.aim.org/guest-column/earth-summit-babble/

 

NYTimes Asks: Should Air-Conditioning ‘Be Rationed Away?

Published on Media Research Center (http://www.mrc.org)

By

Clay Waters

June 25, 2012 – 2:13pm

An online “Room for Debate” segment posted on the New York Times website June 21 posed a left-leaning question to a symposium of six left-leaning outside experts: “Should Air-Conditioning Go Global, or Be Rationed Away? [1]” While it may have been acceptable for New Yorkers to beat the heat with air conditioning, when developing countries like India strives for the same comfort, it becomes an environmental concern to privileged liberals. The Times asked from its air-conditioned headquarters in Midtown Manhattan:

Temperatures in New York City have pushed toward 100 degrees this week, and air-conditioners strained the power grid (thanks in part to stores with their doors open). Meanwhile the demand for coolant gases, especially in rapidly developing countries like India, threatens to accelerate global warming.

Is it a good goal for everyone in the world to have access to air-conditioning — like clean water or the Internet? Or is it an unsustainable luxury, which air-conditioned societies should be giving up or rationing?

The debate was keyed to a 2,000-word piece that same day by environmental reporter Elisabeth Rosenthal, “Relief in Every Window, but Global Worry Too[2].”

In the ramshackle apartment blocks and sooty concrete homes that line the dusty roads of urban India, there is a new status symbol on proud display. An air-conditioner has become a sign of middle-class status in developing nations, a must-have dowry item.

It is cheaper than a car, and arguably more life-changing in steamy regions, where cooling can make it easier for a child to study or a worker to sleep.

But as air-conditioners sprout from windows and storefronts across the world, scientists are becoming increasingly alarmed about the impact of the gases on which they run. All are potent agents of global warming.

….

So the therapy to cure one global environmental disaster is now seeding another. “There is precious little time to do something, to act,” said Stephen O. Andersen, the co-chairman of the treaty’s technical and economic advisory panel.

Rosenthal also contributed a personal dose of liberal guilt to the paper’s Green blog, “My Air-Conditioner Envy [3],” complaining that she can’t buy a more environmentally correct model and so chooses to forgo repairing her old evil one. (A confession that calls Rosenthal’s journalistic objectivity on the matter into question.)

With scorching heat enveloping New York City this week, I’m suffering from air-conditioner envy. I want a model like the one I saw in April at the Terre Policy Center in Pune, India. But I can’t buy it.

As Andrew W. Lehren and I report in The Times, the warming effects of air-conditioning gases are reaching crisis proportions as more and more people in countries like India and China buy the appliances. (Some readers have rightly pointed out that people in industrialized countries depend far more heavily on air-conditioning.)

At least she’s not a hypocrite; Rosenthal is willing to (metaphorically) don Jimmy Carter’s cardigan sweater, and suffer in the heat to save the planet.

Which is why I can’t bear to replace the old air-conditioner in my living room, even though it is on the fritz and not cooling much these days. Having reported on the coolant issue, I am reluctant to invest in a model containing any of the coolant gases commercially available in the United States. I’d prefer to wait until a machine with a climate-friendly coolant is available. And I know there are many options in development.

In August 2011 [4], Rosenthal called on China and India to turn off their air conditioners to save the planet, writing “As more people in more countries come to rely on air-conditioning, the idea of thermal comfort may need to be rethought to curb the growth in greenhouse gas emissions.”

• Publication: Articles [5]

• Division: TimesWatch [6]

• Tags: Global Warming [7], environment [8], Elisabeth Rosenthal [9], Air Conditoning [10]

Source URL: http://www.mrc.org/articles/nytimes-asks-should-air-conditioning-be-rationed-away

NEW MOVIE: JESUS IS PRODUCT OF MARY BEING RAPED

FAITH UNDER FIRE

‘Blasphemous’ film to discount Bible miracles

Published: 2 hours ago

by JOE KOVACS Email | Archive

Joe Kovacs, author of the brand-new book, “The Divine Secret: The Awesome and Untold Truth About Your Phenomenal Destiny”, as well as the No. 1 best-seller “Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You’ve Never Been Told,” is executive news editor for WND.

Hollywood director Paul Verhoeven

A new Hollywood film in the works that some are already calling blasphemous will portray Jesus as the product of His mother Mary being raped by a Roman soldier, and show that miracles mentioned in the New Testament were not real.

Paul Verhoeven, who directed previous hits including “Robocop,” “Total Recall” and “Basic Instinct,” is basing the movie on his 2008 book, “Jesus of Nazareth.”

According to Deadline.com, Verhoeven’s take on the life of Jesus discounts all the miracles mentioned in Scripture, including the virgin birth and the resurrection, as Verhoeven doesn’t believe any of them actually took place.

Perhaps the most controversial of Verhoeven’s notions is that “Jesus might have been the product of his mother being raped by a Roman soldier, which Verhoeven said was commonplace at the time, and that Jesus was a radical prophet who performed exorcisms and was convinced he would find the kingdom of heaven on earth, and did not know he would be sentenced to die on the cross by Pontius Pilate,” Deadline reported.

“He is treading on territory that Christians universally would label as blasphemous,” says Mike Fleming of Deadline. “The film seems to have landed in the appropriate place, as a gritty and controversial independent film.”

WND reader Dale Ulmer is among those already outraged, saying, “Anyone involved in the production of this film will face the wrath of God. I will NOT watch this film and I would personally like to write to these people and tell them they are treading in waters with no life preserver unless they cancel  this film because God’s judgment will be harsh if they choose to mock him. They have no real proof of what they are suggesting, however the Bible has never failed in its record of historical events. Archaeologists and scientists are discovering proof of biblical accounts, just as it was written.”

In a previous interview with Fleming, Verhoeven spoke of Jesus in these terms:

“If you look at the man, it’s clear you have a person who was completely innovative in the field of ethics. My own passion for Jesus came when I started to realize that. It’s not about miracles, it’s about a new set of ethics, an openness towards the world, which was anathema in a Roman-dominated world. I believe he was crucified because they felt that politically, he was a dangerous person whose following was getting bigger and bigger. Jesus’ ideals are about the utopia of human behavior, about how we should treat each other, how we should step into the shoes of our enemy.”

Muse Productions will reportedly be producing the new film, and Roger Avary, who won an Oscar for co-writing 1994′s “Pulp Fiction,” is on board to adapt the book into a screenplay.

No date has been mentioned yet for when the film is targeted for release.

THE NEW ECO-SCARE: WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE!

HEAT OF THE MOMENT!

Exclusive: Brian Sussman covers Rio U.N. conference 20 years after Agenda 21′s birth

Published: 1 day ago

by BRIAN SUSSMANEmail | Archive

Brian Sussman is the author of “Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda Will Dismantle America.” He also hosts the morning-drive radio show on KSFO in San Francisco.More ↓

• The U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development is wrapping up in Rio de Janeiro, and we’re all gonna die. That’s the claim made by the eco-tyrannists at this years’ annual international environmental confab. Just the mere presence of so many human beings, they claim, is enough to send the entire world into a complete species meltdown, much like the cataclysmic event that killed off the dinosaurs millions of years ago.

This year’s gathering of representatives from virtually every nation (and environmental organization) on the planet is meant to further the goals presented at the first Rio “Earth Summit” in 1992, via a detailed plan known as Agenda 21 – the global political agenda for the 21st century. The 1992 conference was unique in that it made global warming a household term, introduced the planet to Al Gore and presented the details of a term conjured up by U.N. masterminds nearly 10 years earlier: “sustainable development.”

In short, sustainable development insists that the human species is certainly no more significant than any other species on the planet, and in fact should be discriminated against because, left unchecked, it will do great harm or even destroy all other species. Sustainable development is described by its architect, Maurice Strong, founder of the U.N. Environmental Program, as akin to “putting our planet, Earth Incorporated, if you will, on a sound business basis.”

That “business plan” sees liberty-loving humans as carriers of a plague. It’s prescribed cure is liberty-sapping, heavy-handed regulations and laws designed to control human behavior.

As for Agenda 21, as I write in “Eco-Tyranny,” it’s sustainable development’s version of a PowerPoint presentation. The Agenda begins with a preamble that speaks “the fulfillment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can – in a global partnership for sustainable development.”

It should be no surprise that Agenda 21 deems universal health care a “right.” It also redefines wealth, insisting on “the need for new concepts of wealth and prosperity.” The Agenda also encourages government-sponsored societal brainwashing, stating, “Achieving the goals of environmental quality and sustainable development will require … changes in consumption patterns.” Indeed, “Governments themselves [can] also play a role in [determining] consumption … and can have a considerable influence on both corporate decisions and public perceptions.”

Of course, Agenda 21 also heralds the abolition of private property rights, something Maurice Strong began pushing via the U.N. in 1976 at the Conference on Human Settlements, aka “Habitat I.” At the event Strong proclaimed:

• “Private land ownership is a principal instrument of accumulating wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice. Public control of land use is therefore indispensable.”
• “Public ownership of land is justified in favor of the common good, rather than to protect the interest of the already privileged.”
• “Zoning and land-use planning [are to be used] as a basic instrument of land policy in general and of control of land-use changes in particular.”
• “Fiscal controls [are to be employed], e.g. property taxes, tax penalties and tax incentives [in order to eradicate private lands].

As the Agenda states, governments shall “formulate appropriate land-use policies and introduce planning regulations specially aimed at the protection of eco-sensitive zones against physical disruption by construction and construction-related activities.”

This plank from Rio has done more to abolish physical private property in the United States than any other governmental policy.

Coinciding with its plan to usher us into a brave new world, Agenda 21, is responsible for promoting “green jobs,” as well as high-speed rail and other mass transit projects that “promote the use of labor-intensive construction and maintenance technologies which generate employment in the construction sector for the underemployed labor force found in most large cities.”

And we can’t forget the hidden crown jewel of the sustainable development scheme: population control. Agenda 21 demands, “Population policy should also recognize the role played by human beings in environmental and development concerns.” Additionally the document reveals that the population-control method of choice is abortion. Cloaking their message with terms like “curative health facilities,” (a deceptive alias for abortion clinics), the Agenda declares, “Governments should take active steps to implement programs to establish and strengthen preventive and curative health facilities that include women-centered, women-managed, safe and effective reproductive health care and affordable, accessible services, as appropriate, for the responsible planning of family size.”

Now, as the U.N. doubles down on their global sustainable development ploy in Rio, they are rebranding the issue in a new agenda, alleging that the “greatest threat” facing the planet is the extinction of species.

Trouble is, just like with global warming, extinction of species is not a problem.

The massive species losses being cited in Rio are based on sloppy extrapolations, wild guesses and unfounded presumptions – all force-fed into biased, non-validated, virtual-reality computer models that assume increased carbon dioxide levels will raise global temperatures so high that plants, birds, reptiles and animals will be exterminated.

Like their ridiculous global cooling, global warming, climate change scenarios, there is no evidence to support any of these bizarre extinction scenarios.

In a nutshell – we’re not gonna die. However, if we let the U.N. have their way, liberty will be pushed to the brink.

Don’t miss Brian Sussman’s brilliant expose of the debilitating green movement: “Eco-Tyranny: How the Left’s Green Agenda will Dismantle America”

Hey Unions? Welcome to Politics. Watch That Bloody Nose

JUNE 24, 2012

By John Ransom

6/22/2012

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a hat tip to common sense, decided yesterday that nonunion members can opt out of union fees that are targeted towards political purposes.
“Labor unions must give nonmember workers ‘fresh notice’ of unplanned increases in fees or assessments — money that might be used for political purposes — the Supreme Court ruled Thursday,” according to CNN.

For labor unions around the country, it serves as a painful reminder that when they decided to go all-in for Obama in 2008, they alienated the rest of us non-government, non-union members- the 99 Percent- who have to go out and earn our keep every day. And that alienation is being felt in political defeats by unions around the country.

“The 7-2 decision is a victory for Dianne Knox,” says CNN, “a California state employee, who sought to opt out of a $12 million assessment imposed by the Service Employees International Union Local 1000. She did not belong to SEIU, unlike most of her fellow government workers.”

The SEIU was imposing fees on nonunion members in order to build a war chest to defeat several ballot measures in California.

“There is no justification for the SEIU’s failure…,” wrote Justice Alito for the majority. “[The law] rests on the principle that nonmembers should not be required to fund a union’s political and ideological projects unless they choose to do so after having ‘a fair opportunity’ to assess the impact of paying for nonchargeable union activities.”

In addition, Alito found that the SEIU’s collection practices violated the First Amendment saying that nonunion members have a right to opt out of political activity. By contrast “no constitutional right of the union is violated because it has no constitutional right to receive any payment [editor’s emphasis] from those employees.”

I’m wondering if the unions are starting to regret their investment in Obama.

Unions dumped $450 million into the Obama effort in 2008, according to the New York Times, hoping that they’d buy political clout with Obama that they don’t actually own on Main Street. But besides the auto bailout, and a few years of government stimulus spending, the strategy has been pretty much a disaster.

“This is not about payback,” the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s director of government affairs told the New York Times. “We’re looking to work with the new administration on a shared set of priorities that focus on lifting workers and improving the economy.”

I think he meant “lifting workers’ wallets.”

Because on the other counts, I think you can call their strategy a failure: No payback for unions and no improving economy.

And just another fine job for liberals, who don’t seems to be able to accomplish even those things that they say they desire.

Instead, the mass of the country has turned on unions, union members, bloated union benefits and even- gasp!- public teachers- who used to be as iconic in America as baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and, um… Chevrolet?

The laundry list of failures for the union agenda is really staggering. They spent the most money ever. The elected the greatest president EVER and finest political mind since Roy “this is not a salad bar” Rogers opened his burger joint in cooperation with the Marriott Corporation under the supervision of the Reverse Vampires, in conjunction with the Rand Corporation.

And what have they bought? The union has faced the longest string of defeats since the losing streak that started at the First Battle of Bull Run.

Well, they wanted to be politics. Congrats, Mr. Union. You are now in politics.

Card check? The union equivalent of forced busing and segregation? Voters completely checked the box denying approval for card check.

Then there was Madison, WI and the recall rebuke when Scott Walker took on teachers unions. What do you call it when voters vote a governor back in by recall with a wider margin than he originally received in the general election? A permission slip to give the unions detention.

How about that union fiasco with the National Labor Relations Board trying to stop Boeing Corporation from opening a $1 billion plant in South Carolina because it wasn’t a union shop? Another union disaster where they had to lower their colors.

Boeing’s CEO, Jim McNerney, is calling the regulatory climate for business the worst in U.S. history.

From MarketWatch:

THE EXECUTIVE ORDER: “STROKE OF THE PEN, LAW OF THE LAND. KINDA’ COOL”

By Debra Rae

June 22, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

Paul Begala famously described an executive order as the law of the land executed by a mere stroke of the pen. To this, he added, “kinda’ cool.”[1] But not all Americans readily concur. In 1942, for example, FDR’s executive order bypassed approval from Congress while, for the duration of WWII, moving West Coast Americans of Japanese descent to confinement in detention camps in the SW desert.

Mind you, citizens of German and Italian descent were not treated the same. Only Japanese-Americans felt the full force of law through Roosevelt’s imperial executive order. “Stroke of the pen” governance, as his, omits public accountability from the equation; and this, my friend, is the problem.

Governance by Decree

Don’t get me wrong. Executive Orders have constitutionally legitimate purposes (e.g., granting presidential awards); however, they are dangerously inappropriate when used to enact rules and regulations Congress won’t pass—or when they are employed to create new law.

All accept that presidential action is justified in emergencies (as earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes), but the job of the executive branch is to carry out the laws that Congress makes. It’s not to rule by decree, thus vesting power of a monarch on whoever happens to hold the office of the presidency. Political affiliation is not the issue; deceptive “soft” law is.[2]

Deceptive “Soft” Law

The global governance agenda involves activation of “soft” law—specifically, unenforceable agreements among nations on the international stage. Because international agreements appear to represent consensus, they eventually evolve into enforceable international law. Take, for example, global agreements, conventions, pacts, declarations, treaties, summits, and executive orders. After 1907, EO’s were numbered. Since then, over 13,000 have been issued—and not without consequences.[3]

In May 2012, President Barack Obama’ was at it again—this time with an executive order closely tied with EO13563 and EO12866. In his race to standardize regulations between the United States and its trading partners, Obama flung open the door to further forfeiting our nation’s economic and environmental sovereignty—this, through a single international regulatory system—and the stroke of a pen.[4]

Collaboration and communication with respect to regulations involves bilateral, regional, or multilateral processes. What’s not to like about global cooperation among nations for trade, environmental, and legislative processes? International regulatory cooperation can, after all, identify approaches that are at least as protective as those adopted in the absence of such cooperation. Moreover, collaboration promises to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements, does it not?

On Its Heels: Significant Regulations

Not so fast. Keep in mind that meeting “shared challenges” reasonably leads to what Obama’s decree characterizes as “significant” regulations. That is to say, by his own admission, Obama’s “stroke of the pen” subjugates the U.S. to expected “significant” regulations to be enforced by an international body.

The sovereignty of a state is determined with reference to the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. It is “the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived. National sovereignty is intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.”[5]

Obama’s bypassing the U.S. Constitution for looming, “significant” global regulations under the banner of international law (or any American President’s doing so) sounds to me like “foreign interference.” Indeed, “foreign interference” is what globalism is all about. Despite lofty claims to the contrary, successful globalization degrades control of governments by global industrial regulations, weakens labor, and thereby threatens our coveted middle-class lifestyle.[6]

Agenda Behind the Agenda[7]

By definition, globalism is a one-world agenda devoid of (1) Judeo-Christian ethic and (2) systems of checks and balances—e.g., sovereignty of nation-states, U.S. Constitution. Its iffy brand of “democratic” transnationalism is guided by the principle of sustainable development, specious term the U.N. uses to control populations and distribute wealth, concentrating that wealth (thus, power) into the hands of few who presume to manage masses by means of international law.

In the end, bio-regionally defined global governance trumps the Democratic Republic as brilliantly crafted by our nation’s founding fathers; and America is forced to take on the lowest common denominator the world has to offer. This new world order merges elements of communism with a semblance of capitalism to birth what some distinguish as common-ism.

Government “of, by, and for the people” bows to nongovernmental organizations (NGO’s or civil society). Civil society manages sustainable development, headed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), and the World Resources Institute (WRI).

True, the IUCN, WWF, and WRI set the ideological agenda, but only the United Nations designates official NGOs. Nongovernmental organizations increasingly acquire legal status to manage international, state, and local government under ultimate enforcement of the U.N. This new paradigm assigns private, nonelected groups as watchdogs to find and punish “soft” law violators. Certainly not what our founders intended.

Mankind at a Turning Point

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Henry Clay, and Abraham Lincoln opposed the global theory of free trade that siphons off America’s wealth and brings her economy to the level of others (socialism). You see, socialism serves as steppingstone for expanding bureaucratic controls, tightening regulations, invading privacy, and confiscating, then redistributing wealth (classic Marxism).

Mirroring the Marxist/Leninist maxim of “earning one’s keep on Earth,” sustainable development guides the global economy by this socialist principle of State-managed development. While top-notch university research demonstrates the value of market-based principles, trendy eco-socialists work hard to supplant private with public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.

The GATT trade treaty transfers American sovereignty to the World Trade Organization, which acts as a giant international economic Supreme Court in its non-democratic dispute resolution function. Indeed, it locks nations into rules and regulations that exceed authority of their own constitutions. This being the case, the WTO is the closest thing we have to world government. Through it, Americans yield significant control over the domestic economy to an international body that has ruled against the U.S. a number of times. This very principle applies here.[8]

By ceding portions of U.S. sovereignty to the international community, Obama actively furthers the Club of Rome’s master plan for sustainable growth. Mankind truly is at the turning point for world development based on (1) global allocation of all resources and (2) a new global economic system, minus American exceptionalism.

De-development

Pioneer sociologist Max Weber reasoned that the Reformation played a major role in the economic revolution that brought unprecedented affluence to America (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, 1905). Clearly, the triumph of America’s economic prosperity is her free market system based on these Judeo-Christian principles: respect for rule of law, individual effort, and fair dealing. But, then, these no longer are valued. Ostensibly, “equity” and “social justice” are achieved, not by these tried and true principles, but rather by the Robin Hood approach of transferring wealth to underdeveloped countries.[9

Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund fingers “the only hope for the world“—that being, “to make sure there is not another United States.“ (Say what?) He continues, “We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars or the amount of industrialization that we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.“[10]

These are not the words of conciliation. Rather, they smack of force.

Given central control of world markets, the economic reach of globalism maintains a stranglehold on the goose that laid the golden egg—namely, our free enterprise system. In the words of Henry Lamb, publisher of Eco-Logic, this interdependent, one-world state will result in our taking on “the lowest common denominator that forced equity demands.”

To the delight of the late Paul Ehrlich (Professor of Population Studies), America’s unprecedented “economic revolution” is fast fading under the shadow of global socialism. Ehrlich insisted, “A massive campaign must be launched to develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”[11]

The executive order is just what’s needed to see to it.

© 2012 Debra Rae – All Rights Reserved

Footnotes:

1.
2. Executive Order
3. James L. Hirsen, Ph.D. Government by Decree: From President to Dictator Through Executive Orders and The Coming Collision: Global Law v. U.S. Liberties (Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1999).
4. Obama Barry’s new executive order
5. West’s Encyclopedia of American Law, Edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
6. William Greider. One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism (New York, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997).
7. Thomas Horn. “Globalism: Utopian Dream or Luciferic Nightmare?” How to Overcome the Most Frightening Issues you WILL Face This Century(Crane, Missouri: Defender, A Division of Anomalos Publishing House, 2009): 79-110.
8. Ted Flynn. Hope of the Wicked: The Master Plan to Rule the World (Sterling, Virginia: MaxKol Communications, Inc., 2000).
9. Max Weber. The Protestant Ethic and the “Spirit” of Capitalism and Other Writings (New York, New York: Penguin Twentieth Century Classics, 2002).
10. New One World Order Quotes
11. People for preserving our western heritage.

---

Daughter of an Army Colonel, Debra graduated with distinction from the University of Iowa. She then completed a Master of Education degree from the University of Washington. These were followed by Bachelor of Theology and Master of Ministries degrees-both from Pacific School of Theology.

While a teacher in Kuwait, Debra undertook a three-month journey from the Persian Gulf to London by means of VW “bug”! One summer, she tutored the daughter of Kuwait’s Head of Parliament while serving as superintendent of Kuwait’s first Vacation Bible School.

Having authored the ABCs of Globalism and ABCs of Cultural -Isms, Debra speaks to Christian and secular groups alike. Her radio spots air globally. Presently, Debra co-hosts WOMANTalk radio with Sharon Hughes and Friends, and she contributes monthly commentaries to Changing Worldviews and NewsWithViews.com. Debra calls the Pacific Northwest home.

Web Site: www.debraraebooks.com

E-Mail: ABCs@debraraebooks.com 

One-Percent Progressives Honor the 99 Percent

- Accuracy In Media - http://www.aim.org -

Posted By Cliff Kincaid On June 21, 2012 @ 5:24 pm In Special Report | 2 Comments

“Thanks for the free booze” was the cry from the audience, as members of Occupy Wall Street were given the “Paul Wellstone Citizen Leadership Award” on Monday night at the “Take Back the American Dream” conference ^[1]. Several “occupiers” made it clear they were happy to be recognized at the Awards Gala Dinner, but it was unclear how they got into the event, since most tickets were $225 each. Once in and seated, however, they had the choice of red or white wine and apparently imbibed.

Paul Wellstone is the former liberal Democratic Senator from Minnesota who was killed in a plane crash that some progressives ^[2] suspect was an assassination engineered by right-wingers or the CIA.

It didn’t seem to occur to the progressives at the fancy dinner that they were living like the one percent while honoring the 99 percent. I have already written ^[3]about how they attacked Wall Street but ignored liberals and Democrats like George Soros and Jon Corzine who engage in questionable financial shenanigans.

The conference featured denunciations of Republican strategist Karl Rove for his involvement in a Super PAC targeting Obama for defeat. But the liberals havetheir own Super PAC ^[4] associated with the telephone service company CREDO that is designed to “Take down the Tea Party Ten.” Becky Bond, President of CREDO Super PAC, gave a seminar on how to defeat conservative members of Congress by labeling them ^[5] as racist, crazy, corrupt, or anti-woman.

Jarvis Tyner and Joelle Fishman of the Communist Party were officially registered for the event and participated in various sessions as members of the audience. Tyner introduced himself during one session as being from the CPUSA and warned his fellow progressives against the dangers of racism and anti-communism. He was followed by another member of the audience saying it was time for progressives to openly declare that capitalism had to go.

A progressive from Vermont suggested a Google search of the name “Mitt Romney” with the word “psychopath” in order to discover the truth about the presumed Republican presidential nominee.

Despite all of this, conservatives and Republicans are the ones who get labeled as politically extreme by the major media.

Josh Lederman of the Associated Press wanted to interview me at the conference, but balked when I said I was a critic and that the hypocrisy of the expensive gala awards dinner was shocking. He ended up producing a predictable piece ^[6] quoting activists at the conference as urging Obama to hit Wall Street harder but ignoring my observations about the liberal elites running the fancy show.

The award to Occupy Wall Street was given by Barbara Ehrenreich, one of the honorary chairs of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), who apparently expected someone from the “movement” to come forward and accept the award. Instead, members of Occupy broke out into chants from the audience, with “Thanks for the Free Booze” being the loudest.

Barbara Ehrenreich

Entertainment at the dinner was provided by comedian Baratunde Thurston ^[7], who joked that anybody who didn’t buy his book, How to be Black, was a racist, and that a special “poverty issue” of the liberal magazine The American Prospect was too expensive at $5 a copy. He was right about that one.

Accepting the “America’s future Lifetime Leadership Award,” Jesse Jackson tried to make news by urging progressives to join his nationwide protest against gun shops. Earlier, Jackson posed for a photo with this writer, clearly unaware who I was. I didn’t have the opportunity to question him about his former aide Tommy Bennett charging him ^[8] with sexual harassment and discrimination.

Bennett attorney Thomas Leverso informs me that Bennett, who is gay, “has officially moved to default both Defendant Rainbow PUSH Coalition and Defendant Jesse Jackson, Sr. for their ongoing failure(s) to appear or answer in this lawsuit. After following all applicable procedure, Mr. Bennett will, as a part of this process, present proof against Rainbow PUSH and Rev. Jackson. Mr. Bennett will continue to work with any administrative agencies likewise seeking to investigate these matters. Both Mr. Bennett and I agree that no one in the State of Illinois or the United States of America can indefinitely evade the long arm of the law.”

A “default” is a penalty for not showing up to Court. The case number for the lawsuit is 2011-L-009756 in the Circuit Court of Cook County:

Leverso says that Bennett filed his formal affidavit on June 7, 2012, essentially saying under oath that the allegations are 100 percent true.

Jackson was introduced at the conference by Jim Hightower, whose liberal radio talk show failed for lack of listeners. Katrina vanden Heuvel of The Nation magazine received the “America’s Future Progressive Champion Award.”

Van Jones

Some conservative media attention has been focused on another speech at the conference, a rather bizarre presentation by MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry ^[9]. Predictably, as a black liberal, she described America as a racist nation. But this Tulane University professor went on to describe America’s response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks as a search for a new “racial enemy” and the “imagined other,” as if Islamic terrorism did not exist.

The Patriot Act, designed to help law enforcement find terrorists, was a bipartisan response to “our fear,” resulting in a reduction of our civil liberties, she added. She acted like the victims of 9/11 didn’t exist.

Melissa Harris-Perry and Van Jones

She said Democrats were too moderate, even lamenting that in 2004 the party had offered up a “soldier” from the “war machine” named John Kerry as its presidential nominee. She reminded the audience that Kerry had accepted the Democratic presidential nomination by saying, “Reporting for duty,” a reference to his status as a Vietnam War veteran. This irked Harris-Perry and she said so.

Some of MSNBC’s other liberal hosts were visible, as Chris Hayes interviewed Paul Krugman of The New York Times during a special conference session and Alex Wagner hosted a “Taking on Wall Street” panel. These were major events at the three-day conference, which ended on Wednesday afternoon.

It was clear that MSNBC is the network of choice among progressives.

The Women’s Media Center (WMC) had a booth, but its most notable personalities,  Fox News contributors Jehmu Greene and Sally Kohn, were not on the conference agenda and were not seen attending any of the events. The WMC was co-founded by Jane Fonda.

Former Obama Green Jobs Czar Van Jones followed Harris-Perry to the podium and almost sounded like a moderate in comparison. Attempting to explain Scott Walker’s survival of a recall election in Wisconsin, he said, “We put our minimum against their maximum” and promised to take on the political right’s “squadron of billionaires.” He didn’t mention how his political organizations such as the Ella Baker Center and Green for All have been funded by billionaire George Soros, the money bags for the progressive movement these days.

“We’re not going to lie down and let the Tea Party run America,” Jones thundered. “We’re going to fight.”

“They let me in the White House for about six months,” he said, alluding to his appointment and then firing, when his communist background was exposed. “I took some notes,” he added, as if he acquired some inside information about how Washington works.

Eliseo Medina of SEIU

A former “Cop Watch” operative who once taught progressives how to be on the lookout for police brutality, he told the Campaign for America’s Future conference that he always believed that police and other public employees were to be respected, “not punching bags” in a political contest over their wages, rights and benefits.

He said progressives have to continue as a “bottom-up movement,” putting pressure on President Obama to implement the correct policies. He praised Obama’s veto of the Keystone Pipeline project, saying that bringing Canadian oil to the U.S. constituted a “dirty needle” into America. He hailed the thousands of environmentalists who had engaged in civil disobedience against the project, even being arrested outside the White House. He said this was the key to forcing Obama’s hand.

Jones and other speakers took note of reports of a lame duck session after the November 6 presidential election, when a budget battle is expected to take place. He said it is important to let the Bush tax cuts expire and protect important federal spending programs, such as student loans.

He urged Obama to promise to veto any extension of the Bush tax cuts.

Another theme of the conference, as I previously reported ^[3], was forcing Obama to circumvent Congress and extend mortgage relief to millions of homeowners who would then vote for him.

Another DSA honorary chair, Eliseo Medina, gave a speech describing how his Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is spending $4 million in various swing states on advertising to get Hispanics to the polls to vote for Obama. The SEIU is firmly under socialist control, as a report ^[10] by researcher Trevor Loudon demonstrates. He cites a story ^[11] in the CPUSA’s People’s World which hails the SEIU effort, being launched in conjunction with another pro-Obama Super PAC, Priorities USA.

The CPUSA publication says the joint ad buy is the latest evidence that progressive groups “are uniting in coalitions to fight back on behalf of Obama and their causes.”

The progressives, of course, have their own billionaires, including George Soros, the hedge fund operator, and Bill Gates, co-founder of Microsoft. Melissa Bradley of Tides spoke to me ^[12] about the billions being spent by Soros and Gates and how the Soros children are following in their father’s footsteps. It is all being done for the purpose of “social good,” she told me with a smile.

It is estimated by Soros himself that he has spent over $8 billion ^[13] on various causes, including $500,000 for the Institute for America’s Future ^[14], an affiliate of the group sponsoring this conference. This helps explain why veteran Soros operative Tracy Van Slyke was willing to attack Wall Street at one of the panel discussions but didn’t want to talk ^[15] to me about investigating Soros or Obama fundraiser Jon Corzine.

With the major media playing along with this charade, the progressives must be seen as having the edge as they move forward to demonize conservatives and re-elect Obama.

---

Article printed from Accuracy In Media: http://www.aim.org

URL to article: http://www.aim.org/special-report/one-percent-progressives-honor-the-99-percent/

URLs in this post:

[1] “Take Back the American Dream” conference: http://www.ourfuture.org/conference/2012/main

[2] some progressives: http://www.opednews.com/thoreau1203_wellstone_assassinated.htm

[3] written: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-mortgage-debt-ploy-could-guarantee-re-election/

[4] their own Super PAC: http://act.credoaction.com/take_down/about.html

[5] labeling them: http://act.credoaction.com/take_down/the-ten.html

[6] predictable piece: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/liberals-urge-obama-fight-wall-street-16613843#.T-NBwbWwyb4

[7] Baratunde Thurston: http://howtobeblack.me/

[8] charging him: http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-pundit-named-in-jesse-jackson-lawsuit/

[9] Melissa Harris-Perry: http://melissaharrisperry.com/

[10] report: http://www.trevorloudon.com/2012/06/marxist-controlled-union-targets-latino-voters-for-obama/

[11] story: http://peoplesworld.org/union-and-obama-super-pac-buy-4-million-in-ads/

[12] spoke to me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC6xMnDA7KU&list=UUukW9fbX4m5MpOmQ2M5isVg&index=1&feature=plcp

[13] over $8 billion: http://www.soros.org/people/george-soros

[14] Institute for America’s Future: http://www.soros.org/about/programs/us-programs/grantees/institute-americas-future

[15] didn’t want to talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJCTiyjTbYg&list=UUukW9fbX4m5MpOmQ2M5isVg&index=3&feature=plcp

 

Click here to print.