Category: George Soros


HOW THE REPUBLICANS PLAN TO LOSE TO HILLARY

By Cliff Kincaid
July 17, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

A new survey from Univision, the pro-Mexico television network, demonstrates the utter folly of Republicans appealing to Hispanic voters. It finds that 68 percent have a favorable view of Hillary Clinton despite the scandals swirling around her. By contrast, only 36 percent have a favorable view of former Republican Governor Jeb Bush, who is married to a Mexican and speaks Spanish.

Bush “was the highest-rated of all the Republican candidates,” Univision reports, with Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), a one-time proponent of amnesty for illegals, coming in second with only a 35 percent approval rate.

What the poll demonstrates is that Hispanics are basically owned by the Democratic Party. The Democrats’ power grab for the Latino vote has been successful. However, ultimately the Democratic Party’s success in the presidential election depends on convincing Republicans to fruitlessly continue to appeal to Hispanics, while abandoning the GOP voter base of whites, conservatives and Christians.

Overall, in terms of political party affiliation, 57 percent of Hispanics identified themselves as Democrats and only 18 percent said they are Republicans. A total of 25 percent called themselves independent.

In another finding, 59 percent of Hispanic voters said they were satisfied with Barack Obama’s presidency after his six years in office. Clearly, most Hispanics have drunk the Kool-Aid. For them, it appears that federal benefits and legalization of border crossers are what matters. Most of them don’t bat an eye in regard to Obama’s lawless and traitorous conduct of domestic and foreign policy.

What the Republicans have left is to try to appeal to white, conservative and Christian voters. But that strategy, of course, runs the obvious risk of being depicted by the liberal media as racist. After all, whites are not supposed to have a “white identity,” as Jared Taylor’s book by that name describes.

Whites cannot have a racial identity, but Hispanics and blacks can. This is one aspect of political correctness. As communists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who are themselves white, put it in their book, it is a “race course against white supremacy.”

If Republicans pander to Hispanics, they will alienate their voter base, which has shown in their reaction to the Donald Trump candidacy that they want more—not less—action taken to control the border with Mexico. Republican Senator John McCain (AZ) calls the Trump supporters “crazies,” an indication that the GOP establishment would rather jettison these people than bring them into the Republican camp. Like McCain, former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has also attacked Trump, saying his remarks about criminal aliens are hurting the GOP. It’s amazing how a loser like Romney, who also threw in the towel on gay marriage when he was governor of Massachusetts, continues to generate press. What he is saying is what the liberal media want to hear.

Of course, the political correctness which dominates the national dialogue and debate also means that Republicans like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are likely to continue to demonize Trump, thereby alienating many whites. As a result, the Republicans will get less of the conservative and Christian vote, further diminishing their chances of winning the White House. It will be a replay of the losing campaigns of John McCain and Mitt Romney. Republicans have already alienated many Christian voters by giving up the fight for traditional marriage. They had planned to abandon border control as an issue until Trump and “El Chapo” got in the way.

Meanwhile, in another amazing turnaround, Republicans on Capitol Hill are backing Obama’s call for “sentencing reform,” a strategy that will empty the prisons and increase the crime rate, thereby alienating GOP voters in favor of law and order.

As this scenario plays out, Mrs. Clinton is coming across on the Democratic side looking like a moderate, by virtue of the fact that an open socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), is running “to her left” for the Democratic nomination.

The Clinton-Sanders show has all the earmarks of a carefully staged demonstration of the Marxist dialectic, an exercise designed to create the appearance of conflict in order to force even more radical change on the American people through Democratic Party rule.

Anybody who knows anything about Hillary, a student of Saul Alinsky, understands that her “moderation” is only a façade. Her thesis on Alinsky for Wellesley College was titled “There Is Only the Fight…” That is the Marxist strategy. It is the Alinsky version of the Marxist dialectic. It was also adopted by Obama, who was trained by Alinsky disciples working with the Catholic Church in Chicago.

In my column, “Study Marxism to Understand Hillary,” I noted that Barbara Olson had come to the conclusion while researching her book on Hillary that “she has a political ideology that has its roots in Marxism.” Olson noted, “In her formative years, Marxism was a very important part of her ideology…”

This means that Mrs. Clinton understands that the Sanders candidacy actually supports and does not undermine her own candidacy. It makes Hillary look like a moderate while she moves further to the left, a place she wants to be, in response to the left-wing Democratic base. Only the Marxist insiders seem to understand what is happening.

Some uninformed commentators refer to something called “Clintonism,” a supposed moderate brand of Democratic Party politics. If that ever existed, it applied to Bill Clinton and not Hillary.

The fact is that Sanders and Mrs. Clinton have associated with the same gang of communists and fellow travelers for many years. Sanders was an active collaborator with the Communist Party-sponsored U.S. Peace Council.

As for Hillary, Barbara Olson reported in her book Hell to Pay that Robert Borosage, who served as director of the Marxist Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), was “a colleague and close acquaintance” of Clinton. Olson wrote that Mrs. Clinton operated in the “reaches of the left including Robert Treuhaft and Jessica Mitford,” who had been “committed Communists” and “Stalinists.” Olson said that Hillary worked for Treuhaft and paved the way for Mitford to lobby then-Governor Bill Clinton on the death penalty issue.

Olson described Hillary as a “budding Leninist” who understood the Leninist concept of acquiring, accumulating and maintaining political power at any cost. She wrote that “Hillary has never repudiated her connection with the Communist movement in America or explained her relationship with two of its leading adherents. Of course, no one has pursued these questions with Hillary. She has shown that she will not answer hard questions about her past, and she has learned that she does not need to—remarkable in an age when political figures are allowed such little privacy.”

Researcher Carl Teichrib has provided me with a photo of a Hillary meeting with Cora Weiss from the May 2000 edition of “Peace Matters,” the newsletter of the Hague Appeal for Peace. Weiss, a major figure in the Institute for Policy Studies, gained notoriety for organizing anti-Vietnam War demonstrations and traveling to Hanoi to meet with communist leaders. In the photo, Hillary is shown fawning over a Hague Appeal for Peace gold logo pin that Weiss is wearing.

Teichrib, editor of Forcing Change, recalls being an observer at the 1999 World Federalist Association (WFA) conference, held in association with the Hague Appeal for Peace, during which everyone in attendance was given an honorary membership into the WFA. In addition to collaborating with the pro-Hanoi Hague Appeal for Peace, the WFA staged a “Mission to Moscow” and held several meetings with the Soviet Peace Committee for the purpose of “discussing the goal of general and complete disarmament” and “the strengthening of the United Nations.” Mrs. Clinton spoke to a WFA conference in a tribute to veteran newsman Walter Cronkite, a supporter of world government.

In the WFA booklet, “The Genius of Federation: Why World Federation is the Answer to Global Problems,” the group described how a “world federation,” a euphemism for world government, could be achieved by advancing “step by step toward global governance,” mostly by enhancing the power and authority of U.N. agencies.

Subscribe to NewsWithViews Daily Email Alerts
Obama’s Iran deal continues this strategy by placing enormous power in the hands of the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency.

At this stage in the campaign, even before the first Republican presidential debate, we can already see how the race is playing out. Hillary is counting on the Republicans nominating another loser with a losing strategy while she moves to the left and looks like a moderate.

Alinsky would be proud.

© 2015 Cliff Kincaid – All Rights Reserved

People’s Climate Demarche
The anticarbon campaign stalls even at the United Nations.
Tens of thousands of environmental protestors paraded through New York City on Sunday, in a “people’s climate march” designed to lobby world leaders arriving for the latest United Nations climate summit. The march did succeed in messing up traffic, but President Obama won’t achieve much more when he speaks Tuesday at this latest pit stop on the global warming grand prix.

Six years after the failure of the Copenhagen summit whose extravagant ambition was to secure a binding global treaty on carbon emissions, Mr. Obama is trying again. The Turtle Bay gathering of world leaders isn’t formally a part of the international U.N. climate negotiations that are supposed to climax late next year in Paris, but the venue is meant to be an ice-breaker for more than 125 presidents, prime ministers and heads of state to start to reach consensus.

One not-so-minor problem: The world’s largest emitters are declining to show up, even for appearances. The Chinese economy has been the No. 1 global producer of carbon dioxide since 2008, but President Xi Jinping won’t be gracing the U.N. with his presence. India’s new Prime Minister Narendra Modi (No. 3) will be in New York but is skipping the climate parley. Russian President Vladimir Putin (No. 4) has other priorities, while Japan (No. 5) is uncooperative after the Fukushima disaster that has damaged support for nuclear power. Saudi Arabia is dispatching its petroleum minister.

U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon excused these truancies at a press conference last week: “In any event, we have other means of communications, ways and means of having their leadership demonstrated in the United Nations.” In that case, why not do a conference call?

To understand the coldness of this brush off, global CO2 emissions increased to 35.1 billion metric tons in 2013, a new record and a 29% increase over a decade ago. Of the year-over-year carbon climb, China at 358 million metric tons jumped by more than the rest of the world combined and is responsible for 24.8% of emissions over the last five years. Over the same period, developing nations accounted for 57.5%.

What this means is that regardless of what the West does, poorer countries that are reluctant to sign agreements that impede economic progress hold the dominant carbon hand. No matter U.S. exertions to save the planet from atmospheric carbon that may or may not have consequences that may or may not be costly in a century or more, the international result will be more or less the same, though U.S. economic growth will be slower.

Mr. Modi is unlikely to indulge the rich world’s anticarbon politics when a quarter of the Indian population still lacks electricity. Mr. Obama might also pause to reflect that 30.6% of the 114.8 million American households qualify for low-income energy subsidies. Thus by the Administration’s own reckoning they can’t afford current energy costs, much less the higher costs of a zero-carbon future.

In his first speech as White House budget director, Shaun Donovan nonetheless told the Center for American Progress on Friday that “the scale of our ambition at home is going to be the single most important driver” for climate action by China and other nations. In fact, the costly anticarbon regulations that the Environmental Protection Agency is developing will by the EPA’s estimate address a mere 0.18% of world-wide carbon emissions. Some effort in persuasion.

Opinion Video
Editorial Page Editor Paul Gigot on why this week’s United Nations summit on climate change won’t help the environment. Photo credit: Associated Press.
This reality has now led more than a few climateers to claim that decarbonizing the economy will be magically cost-free. Mr. Donovan lectured that “climate denial will costs us billions of dollars,” as a hotter planet reduces GDP and drives up deficits, while natural disasters like coastal superstorms impose new relief costs on the federal fisc.

So the problem is so dire that we must impose huge new costs on carbon and energy production, but don’t worry—you won’t feel a thing. The government will create all new energy industries and wealth in a seamless transition. Caveat emptor: Supposedly professional economists who promise that scarce resources can be made scarcer at zero cost have stopped practicing economics. They have become politicians, if not as honest.

Rather than debasing economics, perhaps the climate lobby should return to the climate science and explain the hiatus in warming that has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years depending on the data set and which the climate models failed to predict even as global carbon dioxide emissions have climbed by 25%. Their alibi is that the new warming is now hidden in the oceans, an assertion they lack the evidence to prove.

The campaign to redo the global energy economy has produced plenty of spectacle (the activists in Manhattan), contempt for democratic norms (the EPA), and the promise of a less prosperous future (Germany’s renewable fuels fiasco). But perhaps Mr. Modi has a better sense of priorities because while in New York he plans to attend a Central Park event on the theme of reducing global poverty as well as the 9/11 memorial that is a reminder of the renewed threat of terrorism.

 

The Left’s Continued Assault on the Truth About Benghazi

Roger Aronoff  —   October 28, 2013

The left-wing, George Soros-funded Media Matters has long held that the Benghazi scandal is a “phony scandal” and parroted the administration’s pronouncements minimizing the scandal. Now, they have penned a book, The Benghazi Hoax, which formalizes this theory.

“The book—the first such endeavor for Media Matters, which is self-publishing it—was conceived of in the spring, as the congressional hearings on Benghazi were taking place, he [David Brock] said,” according to Politico, which focused largely on the pro-Clinton aspects of the book. Brock is described in the article as the “Media Matters founder and Hillary Clinton ally,” and it points out that Brock acknowledges that part—a “fraction,” he claims—of their mission is “Supporting the Clintons.”

“The book is the latest effort this year in what is likely to be more Clinton-centric efforts ahead of 2016.” Indeed, the book mentions 2016 and Clinton several times and dismisses any attempts to tar Clinton’s reputation as part of the Republican-conservative smear machine. They even cry “sexism” on behalf of Clinton.

According to the book, authored by David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt, the genesis of the manufactured Benghazi scandal started in an impromptu statement by then-Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who was looking to gain the advantage over incumbent President Barack Obama on foreign policy. Romney did make mistakes in his presentation of the issue, a fact that dominated the media coverage for days afterward. But this was not mentioned by Brock and Rabin-Havt.

The authors maintain that “Reporters for established news outlets work with a healthy skepticism for the administration in power, but when Democrats are in the White House, conservatives have become adept at badgering a so-called ‘liberal media’ to prove its lack of bias by adopting their story ideas.” In other words, the liberal media should just ignore conservative points of view entirely, and stories that are embarrassing to liberals, while Democrats are in office.

If Media Matters had its way, the Benghazi incident would just be considered one of many violent incidents abroad, and dismissed entirely. “Had the Benghazi attack not occurred at this unique moment—on a day when the Republican candidate for the presidency and his promoters in the conservative media were desperate for a new storyline, especially one that would undercut the popular effect of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden the year before—this tragedy might not have been converted into a political scandal,” they suggest. “After all, Benghazi was just one of at least 157 attacks on our diplomatic facilities over a 15-year period, 9 of which resulted in U.S. fatalities.”

Actually, this was the first time in 33 years a U.S. ambassador had died as a result of terrorism.

Other important facts left out of the book include the deteriorating security situation leading up to the terrorist attack, the inadequate security at the Special Mission Compound, and the fact that CIA employees are reportedly being polygraphed and forced to sign non-disclosure agreements regarding the Benghazi incident. The book fails to adequately explain what military forces were available at Sigonella, Aviano, and other U.S. military bases during the attack. There is a very shallow retelling of events that barely educates the reader as to what occurred at the Special Mission Compound and CIA Annex. They also continue promoting the YouTube video myth, arguing that the question of whether or not this was a preplanned terrorist attack or an attack resulting from a spontaneous demonstration sparked by the anti-Islam video “would be an enduring part of the Benghazi conversation—one not fully resolved to this day.” While Obama’s explanation changed numerous times on this point, he did end up saying that he had called it an act of terrorism from day one. Apparently Media Matters missed that memo.

The new book, The Benghazi Hoax, reads like a political treatise, spending much of the book “educating” readers about their imagined right-wing smear machine than on the Benghazi incident itself. The authors focus more on minor political fluff such as rhetoric over Clinton’s ill-timed concussion, than on the facts.

The Media Matters authors call the criticism of the President over this incident “beyond the pale,” and cry sexism over the treatment of Hillary Clinton, and racism over the treatment of the “exotic” President—their words, not mine.

Plenty of relevant facts are omitted from the book in a way that misleads the reader, and the presentation of material is so lopsided and incomplete as to defy belief. For example, the books states that “[Former Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory] Hicks actually contradicted the assessment of his attorney that he had been given his current job as a punishment, telling the committee: ‘[M]y family really didn’t want me to go back. We’d endured a year of separation when I was in Afghanistan 2006 and 2007. That was the overriding factor. So I voluntarily curtailed—I accepted an offer of what’s called a no-fault curtailment.’”

“Hicks explained, ‘That means that there’s—there would be no criticism of my departure of post, no negative repercussions,’” continued Media Matters. They forgot to mention that Hicks went on to testify that he had been verbally offered preferential selection when he accepted his voluntary curtailment, but that this never materialized. Instead, he was placed back into the ordinary pool of candidates and had to accept a lower level assignment as a result.

As for the Accountability Review Board report, the Media Matters authors declare that “It was not a politically motivated document, nor did it leave blame on the doorsteps of the President or secretary of state.”

“For this reason alone, it came under attack from conservatives who sought to discredit it, convinced that it had to be a whitewash.”

The ARB report has been called a whitewash because senior State Department officials were not held accountable for the lack of security, or the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. In other words, it did not focus on the actions of Secretary Hillary Clinton, who was not interviewed, or Under Secretary of State for Management Patrick Kennedy, who was interviewed. Regional Security Officer (RSO) Eric Nordstrom critically stated at a May 2013 hearing that the message to his colleagues about the decision to focus on mid-level employees is that “if you’re above a certain level, no matter what your decision is, no one’s going to question it. And that’s my concern with the ARB.”

In fact, the Media Matters authors go out of their way to criticize the Republican hearings as politically motivated without really going over what was said at those many hearings. “House investigations have become maddeningly successful conduits for deceptively framed snippets of transcript from congressional interviews and cherry-picked administration documents,” write Brock and Rabin-Havt. They then refer to the most sensationalized tidbits of Congressional coverage themselves without delving into the meaning of the hearings. Instead, they focus largely on discrediting Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). It is not until seven chapters later, in Hoax 12: “Muzzled,” that they mention a revelation from the hearings: that upon Rep. Chaffetz’s trip to Libya, Cheryl Mills had required Hicks to speak with him only with “a State Department lawyer present.”

“Following the hearing, conservatives looked to save face by jumping on a portion of Hicks’ testimony to claim that he had been the subject of an angry phone call from Cheryl Mills, Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department, complaining of his meeting with Chaffetz,” write the authors in inflammatory prose. They fail to mention the reason for Mills anger: Hicks had given a classified briefing to Chaffetz and others for which the State Department lawyer had no clearance and could not attend.

It bears mentioning that the Media Matters authors maintain that the Accountability Review Board (ARB) members had no personal reason to back the administration and politicize the review process; this despite the fact that the investigation did not take place in a political vacuum. What they also don’t mention is that Vice-Chair Admiral Michael Mullen was quite friendly with Cheryl Mills early on during the investigation, despite the fact that he was essentially investigating the State Department. According to Mullen’s own testimony, he gave Mills a friendly call less than 10 days into the investigation to let her know that one of the witnesses he had just interviewed less than 24 hours beforehand was not ready to testify before Congress. The witness in question: Charlene Lamb, who was temporarily placed on administrative leave due to her actions. In addition, it was Mills who had actually called Mullen just weeks earlier to ask him to co-chair the ARB.

“The Media Matters activists do not report [ARB Chair Ambassador Thomas] Pickering has largely unreported ties to the revolutions in the Middle East and North Africa, as WND revealed,” reported WorldNetDaily in one article of its three-part series by their excellent reporter, Aaron Klein. The articles debunk some of the myths promoted by the new Media Matters book, which has gone largely unacknowledged by the mainstream media.

Klein points out that Pickering is a board member, along with George Soros, of the International Crisis Group (ICG). Among other things, writes Klein, “The ICG itself has long petitioned for talks with Hamas as well as normalized relations with the Muslim Brotherhood, for years urging the Egyptian government to allow the Brotherhood to establish an Islamist political party.”

The real hoax here is that Media Matters is anything other than a Soros-funded propaganda machine for the Obama administration, and especially for Hillary Clinton and her ambitions. If you want to learn about what really happened in Benghazi, check out the website of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, which Accuracy in Media organized to attempt to establish the truth about Benghazi. The commission is continuing to expand its investigation to expose the scandalous cover-up of the facts by the Obama administration and its media lapdogs.

 

SOROS-BACKED EVANGELICAL FRONT GROUP PRAYS FOR RUSHED PASSAGE OF GANG OF 8 BILL

 197

Email Article

Print ArticleSend a Tip

by MICHAEL PATRICK LEAHY 23 Jun 2013, 1:33 PM PDT 108POST A COMMENT

Representatives of the Evangelical Immigration Table (EIT), a group whose recent $250,000 ad campaign was reportedly paid for by the George Soros funded National Immigration Forum, have announced that they will be praying near the steps of the Capitol for the immediate passage of the Gang of Eight immigration bill when the Senate votes on the Corker Amendment on Monday.

On Friday the Christian Post reported that the EIT “is planning a number of events bringing attention to immigration reform to coincide with next week’s vote in the U.S. Senate for an immigration reform bill.” The Post reported that starting on Monday, June 24, and continuing until Friday, June 28, “[a]t 10 a.m. . . evangelical leaders will gather at Peace Circle near the U.S. Senate to pray that the senators will ‘ transcend partisanship and vote for commonsense immigration solutions that include an achievable roadmap to citizenship,’ according to a press release.”

On May 31, a representative of the EIT acknowledged in an email to Breitbart News the critical role the Soros funded National Immigration Forum plays in its operation. “Early in the formation of the Table’s work, the leadership sought a neutral third-party institution, the National Immigration Forum, to help facilitate our work.” the email read.

The EIT maintains that Soros, a billionaire atheist known for his support of progressive and globalist causes, has not yet directly contributed to its ad campaign, but that it would welcome any direct contributions from him. Dr. Richard Land, recently retired president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s influential Ethics and Religious Liberty Commissionand a prominent member of the EIT,  spoke recently with the Christian Post’s Napp Nazworth, who reported on Thursday that “even if Soros had contributed to the EIT, [Dr. Land] would welcome it because he supports immigration reform.”

Dr. Land, who also serves as the Executive Editor of the Christian Post, added that “If God can use the jawbone of an ass to achieve His purpose, He can use George Soros, too.”  (In the Bible’s Book of Judges, God gave Samson the jawbone of an ass, which he used to defeat the Philistines.)

Breitbart News has reported on a clear discrepancy among key accounts of who paid for the ads.  The EIT told Breitbart News, “[f]unding for our work comes from a variety of sources including the organizations that make up the leadership of the Table as well as other individuals and institutions that believe in our message,” but did not acknowledge that the Soros funded National Immigration Forum paid for its ad campaign. Then, another prominent member of the EIT, Reverend Samuel Rodriguez, said that the Chamber of Commerce paid for the ads.  Reverend Rodriguez’s claim was, however, denied by the Chamber on Thursday.

Breitbart News brought the question of who paid for the EIT’s ad campaign to the public’s attention when it reported that the EIT could not pay for any ads because it does not exist as a legal entity. Despite that fact, one EIT member, Lynne Hybels, co-founder of Willow Creek Community Church, a Chicago area mega-church, narrated a radio ad and stated incorrectly in the disclaimer at the end that the ad was “paid for by the Evangelical Immigration Table.” As best Breitbart News can determine, every EIT ad contains the same disclaimer.

The EIT, which on May 2 began praying for Congress to pass the Gang of Eight bill within 92 days because it is “rooted in Biblical values,” now wants the Senate to pass the more than 1,000 page bill within the next five days.  The bill’s final version, including the complicated Corker Amendment that Breitbart News reports contains several major loopholes, was only made available to members of the Senate late on Friday.

But a clear rift has emerged among the evangelical community over the Gang of Eight bill. Some evangelical leaders are alarmed by the EIT’s actions. Mark Tooley, president of theInstitute on Religion and Democracy, told Breitbart News on Saturday, “Many good church people are involved with EIT and likely are unaware of its radical ties and the ramifications of their political involvement.  I hope they will step back from EIT and step back from this mammoth legislation whose content and ultimate impact are at best murky.”

Spokespersons for the EIT, nonetheless, continue to frame their efforts to hurry the passage of the deeply flawed Gang of Eight bill as part of a “Biblical mandate.” The Christian Post reported that Keith Stewart, a pastor at Spring Creek Community Church in Garland, Texas, told a press call organized by the EIT on Thursday that his support for the week of prayer effort “comes from a Biblical mandate.” Stewart added that ” No one who reads the Bible can come away with any other conclusion than that the immigrant matters to God.”

However, on Saturday Kelly Kullberg, co-author and editor of Finding God at Harvard and founder of the Evangelicals for Biblical Immigration group that opposes passage of the Gang of Eight bill, told Breitbart News she agreed with Stewart’s statement of general principle that God loves all people, immigrant and citizen alike, stating “God loves everyone.” But Kullberg disputed that support for the specific Gang of Eight legislation has anything to do with that general principle.

In a letter to Congress opposing the Gang of Eight bill, Kullberg wrote “God loves the ‘sojourner,'” but she noted that “God also loves the citizen.” Citing the work of Old Testament Biblical scholar James Hoffmeir, Kullberg pointed out in her letter to Congress that “a sojourner is not an illegal immigrant, but a non-citizen who abides by the laws of the host country.”

Ms. Kullberg also noted in her letter that the EIT misinterprets the counsel of scripture. “While the Bible teaches us to be kind to the sojourner or ‘resident alien,’ ” she stated, “it also teaches that kindness to the sojourner ought not to be injustice to local citizens and their unique culture.”

“Just as Paul taught the Church (1 Timothy 5) to delineate among widows for whom the Church should provide,” Kullberg told Congress, “we are called to discern among ‘sojourners’ (like Ruth and Rahab who intend to assimilate and bless) and ‘foreigners’ (who do not intend to assimilate and bless) and to welcome the former with hospitality.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is looking to bring the Gang of Eight immigration bill before the full Senate for a final vote this week.

 

Moneynews

Billionaires Dumping Stocks, Economist Knows Why

Wednesday, August 29, 2012 05:33 PM

By: Newsmax Wires

Despite the 6.5% stock market rally over the last three months, a handful of billionaires are quietly dumping their American stocks . . . and fast.

Warren Buffett, who has been a cheerleader for U.S. stocks for quite some time, is dumping shares at an alarming rate. He recently complained of “disappointing performance” in dyed-in-the-wool American companies like Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, and Kraft Foods.

In the latest filing for Buffett’s holding company Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett has been drastically reducing his exposure to stocks that depend on consumer purchasing habits. Berkshire sold roughly 19 million shares of Johnson & Johnson, and reduced his overall stake in “consumer product stocks” by 21%. Berkshire Hathaway also sold its entire stake in California-based computer parts supplier Intel.

With 70% of the U.S. economy dependent on consumer spending, Buffett’s apparent lack of faith in these companies’ future prospects is worrisome.

Unfortunately Buffett isn’t alone.

Fellow billionaire John Paulson, who made a fortune betting on the subprime mortgage meltdown, is clearing out of U.S. stocks too. During the second quarter of the year, Paulson’s hedge fund, Paulson & Co., dumped 14 million shares of JPMorgan Chase. The fund also dumped its entire position in discount retailer Family Dollar and consumer-goods maker Sara Lee.

Finally, billionaire George Soros recently sold nearly all of his bank stocks, including shares of JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. Between the three banks, Soros sold more than a million shares.

So why are these billionaires dumping their shares of U.S. companies?

After all, the stock market is still in the midst of its historic rally. Real estate prices have finally leveled off, and for the first time in five years are actually rising in many locations. And the unemployment rate seems to have stabilized.

It’s very likely that these professional investors are aware of specific research that points toward a massive market correction, as much as 90%.

One such person publishing this research is Robert Wiedemer, an esteemed economist and author of the New York Times best-selling bookAftershock.

Editor’s NoteWiedemer Gives Proof for His Dire Predictions in This Shocking Interview.

Before you dismiss the possibility of a 90% drop in the stock market as unrealistic, consider Wiedemer’s credentials.

In 2006, Wiedemer and a team of economists accurately predicted the collapse of the U.S. housing market, equity markets, and consumer spending that almost sank the United States. They published their research in the book America’s Bubble Economy.

The book quickly grabbed headlines for its accuracy in predicting what many thought would never happen, and quickly established Wiedemer as a trusted voice.

A columnist at Dow Jones said the book was “one of those rare finds that not only predicted the subprime credit meltdown well in advance, it offered Main Street investors a winning strategy that helped avoid the forty percent losses that followed . . .”

The chief investment strategist at Standard & Poor’s said that Wiedemer’s track record “demands our attention.”

And finally, the former CFO of Goldman Sachs said Wiedemer’s “prescience in (his) first book lends credence to the new warnings. This book deserves our attention.”

In the interview for his latest blockbuster Aftershock, Wiedemer says the 90% drop in the stock market is “a worst-case scenario,” and the host quickly challenged this claim.

Wiedemer calmly laid out a clear explanation of why a large drop of some sort is a virtual certainty.

It starts with the reckless strategy of the Federal Reserve to print a massive amount of money out of thin air in an attempt to stimulate the economy.

“These funds haven’t made it into the markets and the economy yet. But it is a mathematical certainty that once the dam breaks, and this money passes through the reserves and hits the markets, inflation will surge,” said Wiedemer.

“Once you hit 10% inflation, 10-year Treasury bonds lose about half their value. And by 20%, any value is all but gone. Interest rates will increase dramatically at this point, and that will cause real estate values to collapse. And the stock market will collapse as a consequence of these other problems.”

See the Proof: Get the Full Interview by Clicking Here Now.

And this is where Wiedemer explains why Buffett, Paulson, and Soros could be dumping U.S. stocks:

“Companies will be spending more money on borrowing costs than business expansion costs. That means lower profit margins, lower dividends, and less hiring. Plus, more layoffs.”

No investors, let alone billionaires, will want to own stocks with falling profit margins and shrinking dividends. So if that’s why Buffett, Paulson, and Soros are dumping stocks, they have decided to cash out early and leave Main Street investors holding the bag.

But Main Street investors don’t have to see their investment and retirement accounts decimated for the second time in five years.

Wiedemer’s video interview also contains a comprehensive blueprint for economic survival that’s really commanding global attention.

Now viewed over 40 million times, it was initially screened for a relatively small, private audience. But the overwhelming amount of feedback from viewers who felt the interview should be widely publicized came with consequences, as various online networks repeatedly shut it down and affiliates refused to house the content.

“People were sitting up and taking notice, and they begged us to make the interview public so they could easily share it,” said Newsmax Financial Publisher Aaron DeHoog.

“Our real concern,” DeHoog added, “is the effect even if only half of Wiedemer’s predictions come true.

“That’s a scary thought for sure. But we want the average American to be prepared, and that is why we will continue to push this video to as many outlets as we can. We want the word to spread.”

 

WND.com

WND EXCLUSIVE

HATE LIST, INC.

Astonishing amount of money spent on massive smear campaign

Published: 1 day ago

author-imageby JACK MINOR Email Archive

Jack Minor is a former Marine who served under President Reagan. He has written hundreds of articles and has been interviewed about his work on multiple television and radio outlets. He is also a former pastor and has been acknowledged for his research ability in several books.

The Southern Poverty Law Center – which has labeled WND and other conservative organizations “hate groups” – is spending massive amounts of money to promote hate-crime propaganda rather than funding its purported mission.

The SPLC bills itself as a nonprofit civil rights group dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry. However, WND has reported extensively on how the organization ignores left-leaning groups, choosing instead to exclusively list conservative groups as so-called “hate” organizations.

The Capital Research Center recently published “Southern Poverty Law Center, Wellspring of Manufactured Hate” by James Simpson, which details how the organization designates conservative groups as hate groups similar to the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nations for the purpose of raising money.

The report noted that the SPLC has more than $238 million in assets, making it one of the wealthiest nonprofits in the country. Despite this, the organization spends nearly 20 percent of its budget on fundraising. In 2011, the group spent $6.5 million for fundraising, with $5.5 million going for salaries and administrative expenses.

According to the SPLC’s 2010 tax return, the group spent $12.5 million maintaining, publishing and promoting its hate group reports. However, when it came to fulfilling its primary mission, the group only spent $11 million.

The tax returns also noted the group enjoyed a net gain of $28.8 million, prompting Simpson to ask why it continues to raise funds. He said the group keeps adding tens of millions of dollars to its endowment fund, and some of its assets are tucked away in Bermuda and Cayman Island accounts.

While the SPLC does not appear to be breaking any laws, CRC Vice President Scott Walter said, at the very least, the expenditures violate good business practices.

“From a good business practice perspective, spending so much on fundraising while they are sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars – along with their lavish offices – is contributing to their losing their respect and prestige,” Walter said. “When you compare the amount that is actually used to defend people in court, that is a very small amount compared to their bigger balance sheet and far less than what they spend on fundraising, even though they have enough money to get by for years and years.”

According to Simpson, the SPLC has benefited from the Bernie Madoff Ponzi scam. The group’s biggest benefactor was the Picower Foundation, founded by Jeffrey Picower, who was friends with Bernie Madoff for 30 years and made $5 billion in profits from his “investments” with Madoff.

Following Picower’s death in 2009, federal prosecutors took over his estate in an attempt to recoup money for Madoff’s victims. The estate eventually settled and agreed to pay $7.2 billion to compensate Madoff’s victims. The Picower Foundation has since closed its doors, but Simpson asked if the SPLC will ever refund any of Picower’s donations to help those who lost their life savings in Madoff’s scheme.

In an article for the Progressive, SPLC Co-Founder Morris Dees’ first business partner, Millard Fuller, who later founded Habitat for Humanity, offered a different mission statement for the SPLC than that presented on the group’s website.

“Morris and I, from the first day of our partnership, shared the overriding purpose of making a pile of money,” Fuller said. “We were not particular about how we did it; we just wanted to be independently rich. During the eight years we worked together, we never wavered in that resolve.”

The group’s disproportionate emphasis on fundraising over helping those it claims to represent has sparked criticism from left-wing groups such as Nation magazine and Harper’s.

In a Harper’s article titled, “The Church of Morris Dees,” Millard Farmer compared him to former evangelist Jim Bakker, who went to prison for accounting fraud.

“He’s the Jim and Tammy Fayer Baker of the civil rights movement,” Farmer said, “though I don’t mean to malign Jim and Tammy Faye.”

Harper’s has also described Dees’ fundraising as “flagrantly misleading” solicitations for money, while the Nation called him “the arch-salesman of hate mongering.”

WND has noted that the SPLC also received funding from billionaire activist George Soros, who recently donated $1.5 million to help re-elect President Obama, and other left-leaning groups including the Daily Kos, SEIU, MoveOn.org, the Huffington Post and Media Matters.

The SPLC frequently accuses organizations such as WND, Family Research Council and even the American Constitution Party as adhering to “extreme anti-government doctrines.”

(The American Constitution Party in Colorado is officially a major political party in the state.)

The FRC, which advocates for traditional marriage, has said the SPLC’s designation of the organization as a hate group may have been what inspired a gunman to shoot a security guard in August.

Floyd Corkins II walked into the FRC headquarters with a backpack full of Chik-fil-A sandwiches. He pulled out a loaded weapon shot guard Leo Johnson. Authorities said Corkins made a “negative reference” about the FRC’s work prior to shooting.

WND columnist Matt Barber, who is affiliated with Liberty Counsel Action, noted the shooting was a logical outcome of the SPLC’s policy of designating conservative organizations “hate groups.”

“This was intended to dehumanize Christian organizations and smear as hate the biblical view of sexual morality,” Barber said. “I pointed this out months ago in a column I wrote for WND, titled ‘Liberal Violence Rising,‘ where I basically predicted this sort of thing.”

Walter said because the SPLC uses hate groups to raise money, designating pro-family and other conservative organization as such is directly beneficial to the organization.

“The problem with their using their policy of using hate crime lists to raise money is you always have to keep upping the ante over time,” he said. “That’s how you go from the Aryan Nations and KKK to listing the tea party and FRC as a hate group.”

SOROS-FUNDED PAC STARTED AKIN CONTROVERSY

By Cliff Kincaid
September 4
, 2012
NewsWithViews.com

The controversy over Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin’s abortion comments was started by a George Soros-funded Democratic Party Super-PAC and the “bait” was taken by Republican Party officials who wanted him out of the race for other reasons, says John Putnam, Missouri state coordinator for the national Tea Party Patriots group.

The Super-PAC, American Bridge, was started by former conservative turned liberal and homosexual activist David Brock, who also runs the Soros-funded Media Matters group. American Bridge sends “trackers” to follow conservative and Republican candidates in the hope that the candidate makes some controversial statements that can be distorted or taken out of context and used for partisan political purposes.

In this case, Putnam says, Republicans are the ones who used the material against Akin disseminated by American Bridge. “The first few days after the Democrats put out this distorted [abortion] comment, it was the Republican hierarchy that really acted like sharks in the water, striking this fresh meat,” Putnam said.

Putnam says the reason the Republican officials wanted him out of the race had nothing to do with abortion. Rather, he said, Akin voted as a member of Congress against several Bush Administration big government proposals, has a record of opposing “the party establishment,” and figures to be a Tea Party senator in Washington, D.C. if he wins the Senate race against Democrat Claire McCaskill.

Putnam says he thinks the GOP establishment doesn’t want any more independent voices in the Senate Republican Caucus. “I look at the role of the Tea Party senators who have come along the last couple years. They have shifted the balance away from the more moderate Republican establishment. I have to wonder how afraid they are to elect more of these Tea Party types,” he said.

Akin, who represents Missouri’s 12th District and has been described as an “avid student of the U.S. Constitution,” voted against President Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” bill to expand the federal role in education; against Bush’s extravagant expansion of Medicare through what is called Part D, or prescription drug coverage; and against Bush’s federal bailout of Wall Street after the economic collapse in September 2008.

Akin’s website describes him as “one of just 16 legislators who opposed the series of bailouts which rewarded irresponsible behavior with taxpayer dollars in 2008 and 2009.”

Putnam, who also serves as chairman of the voted against President Bush said that party officials “didn’t think Akin could win” the Missouri Republican Senate primary. But he said Akin has a history of pulling upsets and, with the support of conservative Christians and Tea Party activists, did just that on August 7. Akin beat former state treasurer Sarah Steelman and businessman John Brunner.

Using the flap over abortion as an excuse, Putnam told Accuracy in Media, Republican Party officials then began a “desperate” campaign to engineer his withdrawal from the race.

Putnam said that Bush’s deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove, who just apologized for a joke urging Akin’s murder, had been part of an effort to persuade Akin to vote for Medicare expansion under Bush. “Karl Rove and George Bush called him on the phone in the middle of the night when they were holding the voting board open for four hours on that vote, and he never buckled,” Putnam said. Akin told the President, “We can’t afford this and it’s not the role of the federal government to do this.”

He said Akin took the same principled stand against “No Child Left Behind,” the Bush federal educational proposal backed by liberals like Ted Kennedy.

Several prominent Republicans and conservatives have urged Akin to quit the Senate race, even though the campaign against him was started by American Bridge, the Soros-funded group.

Rodell Mollineau, President of American Bridge, sent an August 28 email to his supporters boasting about the role his organization played. He said, “When our trackers caught Rep. Todd Akin in an interview talking about ‘legitimate rape,’ his invitation to the Republican Convention in Tampa was revoked. Now, news reports show that the fat cats of the Republican Party—the insider lobbyists who call the shots and fund the Tea Party agenda—have decided to sit this one out.”

Even before Akin’s abortion comments, American Bridge was targeting him on behalf of the Democratic Senate incumbent McCaskill. When former Republican Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee defended Akin, telling conservatives to stick with him over the controversy, American Bridge targeted Huckabee, demanding that Mitt Romney “drop Todd Akin-backer and Republican leader Mike Huckabee from his prime time speaking slot at the Republican National Convention.”

Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times is one of the few reporters noting the key role played by American Bridge in the controversy. She reported, “What got the story out was a Democratic tracker for American Bridge, a pro-Obama SuperPAC. Ty Matsdorf, a senior adviser for American Bridge, told me their Missouri tracker saw the interview live and flagged it for his bosses. They posted a clip on YouTube and sent it around to some reporters. The explosion was just a matter of time.”

“I’ve reviewed several times what he said. It doesn’t seem like anybody cares what he was trying to say,” Putnam said, calling the comments a “bad word choice” on the likelihood of pregnancy resulting from forcible rape. “If we had closed ranks behind him, this would be long over,” he said.Putnam said the rush by GOP officials to jump on the “bandwagon” calling for Akin to go, created by the Democratic Super-PAC, has fractured the Republican base in Missouri, “more than what Congressman Akin said.”

Citing Akin’s refusal to vote for the big government policies of the Republican Bush Administration, Putnam said he doesn’t think Akin will bow to Republican or other pressure and withdraw from the Senate race.


Cliff Kincaid, a veteran journalist and media critic, Cliff concentrated in journalism and communications at the University of Toledo, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree.

Cliff has written or co-authored nine books on media and cultural affairs and foreign policy issues. One of Cliff’s books, “Global Bondage: The UN Plan to Rule the World” is still awailable.

Cliff has appeared on Hannity & Colmes, The O’Reilly Factor, Crossfire and has been published in the Washington Post, Washington Times, Chronicles, Human Events and Insight.

Web Site: www.AIM.org

E-Mail: cliff.kincaid@aim.org