02/12/17

A POSSIBLE REASON WHY THE TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES ABHOR DONALD TRUMP’S TRADE AND IMMIGRATION PROPOSALS

By: Kent Engelke | Capitol Securities
From: 2/9/17

President Trump may soon label China a currency manipulator. While I will skip the obvious notion that all countries manipulate their currencies either overtly (devaluation) or covertly (monetary policy), such a declaration may have wide ranging implications.

China is an export dominated country, defined as its economic wellbeing is dependent upon the financial health of its trading partners. A dated Commerce Department statistic suggested about 45% of Chines production is slated for export, exports dominated to Western Europe, Japan and the US. In other words, China is in a position of inherent weakness.

I reiterate a reason why electronic equipment and many other products are so inexpensive is because of trade policies, permitting exports from regions where labor is extremely cheap as compared to western wages. If the cost of production rises, either margins contract or prices go up. Either scenario may create more uncertainty.

If these increased production costs are unable to be passed onto the consumer, margins will drop, hence stock valuations will also drop.

If these higher costs could be passed on, inflationary pressures may accelerate.

The loudest protesters of Trump’s trade (and immigration) proposals are the technology companies, companies dependent upon cheap labor costs which permit greater access to their products via low prices.

Regarding stock valuation, in my view the technology companies are overvalued, representing about 24% of the capitalization of the S & P 500, eclipsing 2000’s record level which was then viewed as an absolute mania.

What happens if technology margins erode because of higher prices and inflationary pressures accelerate that forces a more hawkish Federal Reserve? Technology companies would get killed from lower than expected future cashflows discounted at a higher risk free rate, amplified by lofty valuations suggesting there is no room for error.

Against this backdrop, it is no wonder the technology companies are ardent detractors of the Trump administration, falling under the guise there is no interest like self-interest.

For the record, I think a trade war between the largest and second largest economies will end poorly… albeit I am in favor of free trade, whatever this may mean, for such will support the common man and Main Street versus a few.

We do live in interesting times where life is indeed stranger than fiction. So much for last year’s mantra that Donald Trump was behaving in such a manner to enable or permit Hillary Clinton to win the presidency for Trump then was also viewed as an elitist entrenched in the Establishment.

Last night the foreign markets were up. London was up 0.30%, Paris up 0.78% and Frankfurt up 0.55%. China was up 0.53%, Japan down 0.53% and Hang Sang up 0.17%.

The Dow should open nominally higher. The 10-year is off 9/32 to yield 2.36%.

02/9/17

Trump’s Immigration Pause and the Media Backlash

By: Roger Aronoff | Accuracy in Media

The mainstream media continue their misleading reporting about President Donald Trump’s executive order, which calls for temporarily limiting immigration into the United States from seven countries, and a review of refugee policy. The media have blatantly sought to undermine Trump’s initiatives.

Judge James Robart, who serves on the District Court for the Western District of Washington State, asked the Department of Justice representative, “How many arrests have there been of foreign nationals for those seven countries since 9/11?” Robart then continued, saying, “The answer to that is none, as best I can tell.”

Well, Judge Robart is wrong. Data provided to Congress indicates that between September 11, 2001 and December 31, 2014, “at least 60” persons from those seven countries were convicted “of terror-related offenses,” writes Byron York for The Washington Examiner. There may have been more, since an additional 129 persons convicted of these crimes were “of unknown origin,” York reports.

Yet ABC News sought to downplay the security risk individuals from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen pose. Instead, it reports that “Only eight of the 78 attacks that appeared on a White House list of terrorist incidents over the past two years were committed by individuals from the seven countries affected by Donald Trump’s immigration order…”

In other words, ABC is arguing that the travel pause would have little national security benefit. “In fact, the list provided by the White House shows Americans were responsible for more attacks than those from the seven banned countries combined,” reports ABC News.

The media have clearly chosen a side in the debate about the travel pause, and are willing to deceive their audience. In a recent appearance on CNN’s The Situation Room, Wolf Blitzer got into a discussion with Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) over Obama’s immigration record, and its similarity to Trump’s recent immigration executive order.

“There’s absolutely no evidence that this [Trump’s action] is unconstitutional or illegal,” said Labrador, a former immigration attorney, on CNN. “In fact, the President of the United States, our previous president, President Obama, did the same actions three times during his administration. There wasn’t a single protest.”

“There were some nuance—there were some differences. We don’t have to go through all of that,” replied Blitzer.

Why did Blitzer not want to get into specifics with Rep. Labrador? It might have informed his viewers. Instead, Blitzer aired a misleading clip featuring former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani.

According to the edited clip, Giuliani stated, “When he [Trump] first announced it, he said Muslim ban. He called me up, he said, put a commission together, show me the right way to do it legally.”

Blitzer doubled down after airing the misleading Giuliani clip, saying, “So, basically, what Rudy Giuliani helped him come up with was this formula for having a Muslim ban, but not calling it a Muslim ban.”

LABRADOR: You’re misleading a little bit, Wolf.
BLITZER: Tell me why.
LABRADOR: If you listen to the entire interview…Rudy Giuliani said…that a Muslim ban would be unconstitutional, illegal.
BLITZER: You believe that?

Blitzer, like so many in the media, is skeptical that Trump might have had other than bigoted motives. He is clearly taking a side in this argument, and abandoning journalistic impartiality.

NBC had been called out just the day before for showing this deceptively edited clip. In full context, Giuliani continued by saying, “And what we did was we focused on, instead of religion, danger. The areas of the world that create danger for us, which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. Perfectly legal, perfectly sensible, and that’s what the ban is based on.”

Opponents of Trump’s travel pause claim that the President’s immigration executive order is religiously motivated and discriminatory. So, too, The Wall Street Journal reports that critics note that “all seven affected nations are majority Muslim…”

The media, and Democrats, are engaging in hysteria by labeling this a “Muslim ban.” This is worse than hyperbole—it is deception. After all, Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, and other countries have significant Muslim populations and yet have not been blocked. An estimated 85 percent of all Muslims are not affected by Trump’s executive order.

We are right now contemplating no other countries,” Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly told Congress this week, admitting the executive order was rolled out too hastily, for which he himself took the blame.

“The bottom line is that Trump is improving security screening and intends to admit refugees at close to the average rate of the 15 years before Obama’s dramatic expansion in 2016,” wrote David French for National Review, in a sober analysis of what the executive order does and does not do. “Obama’s expansion was a departure from recent norms, not Trump’s contraction.”

To his detriment, President Trump appears to be getting in the way of his own potential success. He argued at a recent meeting of law enforcement officials in Washington that “A bad high school student would understand this. Anybody would understand this.” In other words, he argued, a clear reading of the law should grant the government victory in this case.

This is a misstep by Trump. It is, as The Hill reports, “highly unusual for presidents to publicly comment on court cases dealing with their policy proposals,” especially when a case is open.

Trump is also putting the judiciary in a position to directly challenge him; he has made this into a high-profile showdown with his inept utterances.

Trump also asserted that the media have not sufficiently covered terrorist incidents. Trump told troops at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa this week that “It’s gotten to a point where it’s [terror] not even reported, and in many cases the very, very dishonest press doesn’t even want to report it.” His administration then issued a list of 78 attacks that had taken place between September 2014 and December 2016. The liberal media had a field day with the list, citing misspellings and proclaiming that they had covered many of those events, often for days at a time. National Public Radio (NPR), for example, claims this was false, because most news organizations covered the attacks in Paris; San Bernardino, California; the Orlando night club; and others.

But, as Robert Spencer points out for Jihad Watch, it is not the act of covering the attacks for which the media have been derelict—it is how these events are covered. “But in virtually all cases, they did all they could to obscure the motivating ideology behind those attacks,” writes Spencer. “They deliberately conceal and/or misrepresent the aspects of them that make it clear that they’re Islamic jihad attacks. This is in accord with the guidelines of the Society of Professional Journalists, which tells journalists not to connect Islam with terrorism, and to obscure that connection wherever possible.”

Once a terrorist has been confirmed to have Islamic jihadist ties, the media then question whether the attacker was a “self-radicalized lone wolf.” Whether these jihadi terrorists were inspired by the Islamic State or al Qaeda, or were directed members of these terrorist groups, makes little difference. Islamic jihadist terrorists drink from the same poisonous well.

Perhaps the starkest example of the treatment of such an act, by the Obama administration and the media, was the case of Major Nidal Hasan, who murdered 13 and injured 32 others at Fort Hood in Killeen, Texas back in September of 2009. For approximately five years the case was treated as “workplace violence.” It wasn’t until 2015—nearly three years after 150 family members who struggled to pay their medical bills filed a lawsuit—that the government switched its position and gave the wounded victims Purple Hearts, which carried with them added medical benefits and the acknowledgement that they had been wounded in the line of duty.

As long as the public allows it, the media will continue to avoid honest discussions about the real terror threat that jihadists and potential terrorists from these seven countries—and others—pose to the health and welfare of American citizens.


Roger Aronoff is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and a member of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi. He can be contacted at [email protected]org. View the complete archives from Roger Aronoff.

01/24/17

Cruz and Poe Introduce Legislation for States to Reject Refugees

By: Denise Simon | FoundersCode.com

There is some additional help coming from the Trump administration as President Trump is likely to issue and sign executive order on immigration that will impact visa holders from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. These are worn torn countries where hostilities continue with terror organizations. An issue that still remains however that Trump has not addressed is the asylum seekers.

S. 2363 (114th): State Refugee Security Act of 2015

A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to permit the Governor of a State to reject the resettlement of a refugee in that State unless there is adequate assurance that the alien does not present a security risk and for other purposes. The 2 page text is here.

New bill from Cruz, Poe would let states reject refugees

WT: Republicans in the House and Senate have introduced legislation that would give governors the power to reject federal efforts to resettle refugees in their states.

The bill from Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Ted Poe, both of Texas, is a reaction to years of growing GOP frustration with the Obama administration’s aggressive effort to take in refugees and resettle them across the country. Republicans continue to have doubts that refugees can be vetted to ensure they aren’t Islamic State terrorists.

The State Refugee Security Act would require the federal government to notify states at least 21 days before they seek to settle a refugee. Under the bill, if a state governor certifies that the federal government hasn’t offered enough assurances that the refugee does not pose a security risk, the state can block the resettlement effort.

Poe said the Obama administration’s “open door policy” has forced states to take on refugees without these guarantees, and said states need a way to opt out.

“Until the federal government can conduct thorough security screenings and confirm that there are no security risks, Congress should empower states to be able to protect their citizens by refusing to participate in this program,” he said.

Cruz said the first obligation of the president is to keep Americans safe, and said the bill would be a step in that direction.

“I am encouraged that, unlike the previous administration, one of President Trump‘s top priorities is to defeat radical Islamic terrorism,” he said. “To augment the efforts of the new administration, this legislation I have introduced will reinforce the authority of the states and governors to keep their citizens safe.”

****

The Trump White House also has not addressed the issue of criminal deportation of foreign nationals. Each foreign inmate is known to cost the taxpayer an estimated $21,000 per year. Enforcement and removal operations of those illegal foreign nationals now falls to the newly confirmed DHS Secretary Kelly.

FY 2015 ICE Immigration Removals

In addition to its criminal investigative responsibilities, ICE shares responsibility for enforcing the nation’s civil immigration laws with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). ICE’s role in the immigration enforcement system is focused on two primary missions: (1) the identification and apprehension of criminal aliens and other removable individuals located in the United States; and (2) the detention and removal of those individuals apprehended in the interior of the U.S., as well as those apprehended by CBP officers and agents patrolling our nation’s borders.

In executing these responsibilities, ICE has prioritized its limited resources on the identification and removal of criminal aliens and those apprehended at the border while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States. This report provides an overview of ICE Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 civil immigration enforcement and removal operations. See FY 2015 ICE Immigration Removals Statistics

Expectations of a quick solution and immediate movement to address the immigration matter are misplaced as this will be a long slog of an operation and will take the coordination of several agencies including the U.S. State Department which is presently operating without a Secretary until Rex Tillerson is confirmed and sworn in. The fallout will include a diplomatic challenge which is many cases does need to occur, however other nations such as China and Russia will step in to intrude on the process including those at the United Nations level, falling into the lap of the newly confirmed U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley.

03/24/16

Boris, The EU and Lessons From The Bubonic Plague

By: Chris Knowles

Burying_Plague_Victims_of_Tournai

The burial of the victims of the plague in Tournai. From Wikimedia Commons

A School Assignment

Yesterday I was involved in an interesting Facebook discussion about the positive things that arose as a result of the Bubonic Plague. My Australian friend’s daughter had been given the task of listing such positives as part of a school assignment.

At first glance such a project may appear rather sick for very obvious humanitarian reasons. From a personal standpoint while considering the interests of ‘number one’ the prospect is also horrific. Who in their right mind would want to die or watch others suffer while such a holocaust did its grisly work.

Lessons to be Learned

From a purely intellectual perspective, considering the long term impact of an event long past can be useful. Lessons can be learned that can help shape policy in order to maximise human well-being and social stability.

Such consideration is particularly relevant for our own age of controversial mass migration to the West and the dramatic demographic impact that this creates. It is also useful in explaining the lack of economic and political well-being in overpopulated parts of the poor world.

It could help policy makers to maintain both democracy and economic fairness in the rich world while at the same time increasing or creating democracy and economic fairness elsewhere. With power and money spread more widely in the poor world, the poor might even become rich.

Continue reading

03/18/16

Cruz Immigration Plan

TedCruz.org

Ted Cruz

“It’s not that we don’t know how to solve illegal immigration. What is missing is the political will to get it done. And, as president, I will get it done. We will secure the borders.” – Ted Cruz

Summary

We have a serious immigration problem in America. The American people understand that we must reverse the policies that invite criminals and terrorists to defy the law, allow manipulation of our generous immigration system, and reward illegal immigrants for their actions. Sadly, while the Obama Administration ignores our immigration laws and abuses its executive authority, the Washington Cartel refuses to stand up and insist that the law be followed.

We see proof of Washington’s immigration failure every day. Across this nation, there are roughly 340 sanctuary jurisdictions, each of which is led by politicians who ignore federal law and endanger our children. Their lawlessness has been encouraged over the last seven years by President Obama, who has repeatedly tried to amend our immigration laws by fiat. He has issued no fewer than 20 unilateral directives through his Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to evade the law, often benefiting illegal immigrants at the expense of taxpayers and legal immigrants. Perhaps the only thing worse than President Obama’s dictatorial behavior is Congress’s utter failure to even try and stop him. This lawlessness must end, and it must end with the next President.

During my time in the United States Senate, I have consistently led the fight to stop President Obama’s unconstitutional immigration actions. When Establishment Republicans teamed up with Democrats to reward millions of illegal immigrants with amnesty, I engaged millions of men and women across the country. Together, we defeated President Obama’s attempt to pass amnesty, and we continue to lead the fight against congressional leadership each time it seeks to undermine the will of the American people.

Continue reading

02/25/16

2013 Flashback: Donald Trump meets with illegal immigration activists, says ‘You’ve convinced me’

By: Renee Nal | New Zeal

donald-trump-meeting-with-the-bridge-project-e1377530498136

Trump met with youth immigrant leaders affiliated with The Bridge Project in 2013 via Fox News Latino

In 2013, Donald Trump actually met with illegal immigrant activists. According to Fox News Latino, Trump was swayed by their stories, saying “You’ve convinced me.”

But that was then.

While there is quite a bit of discussion on a “wall,” which Trump uses as an “applause line,” it is much more difficult to pin down a strategy on how to deal with the illegal immigrants already in the country.

Trump uses the “build a wall” phrase when he wants applause. He told the New York Times:

Mr. Trump talked about the art of applause lines. “You know,” he said of his events, “if it gets a little boring, if I see people starting to sort of, maybe thinking about leaving, I can sort of tell the audience, I just say, ‘We will build the wall!’ and they go nuts.”

Read more here…

11/16/15

Make Michigan Shariah-Free

By: Merrill McCarthy

 
MI1

The governor of Michigan has finally called a halt to his open door policy for soldiers of Islam. It may be a temporary move to stop the outraged cries of citizens, but it is a move in the right direction.

Now is not the time to sit back and relax. The threat is far from extinguished. Now is the time for thoughtful examination of the problem and for making an appropriate action plan to safeguard Michigan citizens. The rights and security of our citizens must be honored above all.

It makes no sense to import people who follow Shariah, which is in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States.

MI2

It is as simple as that. All the pro-immigration talk is fine as long as the immigrants are not a threat to the very foundation of this country. Muslims, by definition, follow Shariah. So, why do we keep bringing more in to clash with our value system? Why have we established Shariahvilles under the guise of diversity, social justice, or economic development?

The global agenda to transform Michigan and the rest of the United States must be stopped in its tracks. It is sad to think that it took the Paris terrorist attack to get our attention, but now that more are waking up, let’s do something positive in honor of those lives lost.

We have centuries of history to study to know the game plan of Islam. Muslims are controlled by Islamic Law, Shariah, for total obedience and submission to Islam; these conquerors spread through the world to make sure everyone converts or is killed. The goal is always total submission.

How many times do we need to refute the phony claim that it is only the radical Muslim we must fear? No, Islam is Islam and Shariah determines every aspect of a Muslim’s life. Just ask a persecuted Christian in the Middle East about “moderate” Muslims. One such woman now living in Michigan relates that her Christian relatives had been betrayed by their Muslim neighbors. When ISIS came around to root out Christians, the very Muslim neighbors whose children played with Christian children, who took supper together in Christian homes and attended family events in each other’s homes, turned them in. The Christians in that village who were lucky enough to escape with their lives returned later to find their homes taken over by their Muslim former neighbors.

The exiled Archbishop of Mosul has a dire warning for us:

“… You will become the victims of the enemy you have allowed in your home”

MI3

Displaced persecuted Christians should be at the head of the line for Refugee Resettlement (RR); so why are we bringing in mostly Muslim immigrants? Why are we not focusing on helping the persecuted Christians who need our help? Is it because the RR program does not reflect our values since it is the Organization-for-Islamic-Cooperation-dominated-UN’s agenda? Is it because the Global Elite want to transform the US and undermine the very institutions that have made us a beacon of individual freedom for the rest of the world?

Whatever the reason for the current situation, it is time to return control of U.S. Immigration policy to the U.S. rather than the UN. The interests of our citizens come first. If Muslims are looking for a country to welcome them, they should restrict their search to the countries that practice Shariah. The U.S. should be a Shariah-free zone. Shariah is not compatible with the U.S. constitution. No more accommodations. No more acceptance of the ideological political movement that is Islam. No more keeping up the pretense that Islam is a religion on equal footing with Christianity or Judaism.

It is time to speak the truth about Islam, this political wolf of conquest in the sheepskin of a peaceful religion.

MI4

Islam is a political movement with long range plans to take over the U.S. from within. They will succeed if we let them. We must not welcome them in to destroy us.

If we are looking for immigrants to help populate our dying cities, let us find people who want to embrace our way of life and the freedoms afforded by our Constitutional Republic. There are plenty of people worldwide who still want to come here for the right reasons. These will not be the people who practice Shariah. It is time to remove the welcome mat for anyone who is guided by Shariah. Michigan, as well as the rest of this country, should be a Shariah-free zone.

10/26/15

What Happened in Mosul Can Happen in Michigan

Dick Manasseri

Refugees1

With all due respect to Neil Diamond and the Statue of Liberty, look at what’s
Coming to America!
(and ground zero in Michigan)

Refugees2

We are spending tax payer dollars to transform Michigan and the rest of the US into the S-E-G-R-E-G-R-A-T-E-D chaos of the Middle East.

A-S-S-I-M-I-L-A-T-I-O-N is America – allowing every individual to remain free under the rule of law.

Fully assimilated Chaldean Americans, living peacefully in Michigan, after escaping rape and death in Mosul, are the “canaries in the coal mine”.

S-U-B-M-I-S-S-I-O-N is Islam – demanding that women and every individual submit to the rule of Sharia.

Again, Chaldean Americans warn us that
what happened in Mosul, can happen in Michigan”.
Heed the exiled Archbishop of Mosul:
“… You will become the victims of the enemy you have allowed in your home

Refugees3

Will the Progressive Chamber-crats like Snyder be responsible for turmoil, rape, and even death in America, despite the warnings that abound?

Refugees4

Congressman McCaul and his Michigan colleague Candice Miller are concerned that there is no way to thoroughly vet Syrian refugees to weed out potential terrorists.

Refugees5

Is the Governor willing to play “chicken” on a collision course with the average Michigan citizen scared for her safety and angry about the secrecy of globally-mandated refugee resettlement?

Is the Governor re-introducing dangerous segregation into our society?

Refugees6

We remember “White-Only” drinking fountains.
How can we “tolerate” “Muslim-Only”, “Men-Only” segregation
Coming to America?

09/25/15

Pope Lays Out Global Marxist Agenda

By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media

Socialist Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is ecstatic over the pope’s address to Congress. In a message to his supporters, titled, “Why we must listen to Pope Francis,” he was particularly pleased with the fact that in his address to Congress, “Pope Francis spoke of Dorothy Day, who was a tireless advocate for the impoverished and working people in America. I think it was extraordinary that he cited her as one of the most important people in recent American history.” Day was a Marxist apologist for socialism and communist regimes. We covered this territory in my column, “With Pope’s Help, U.N. Bypasses Congress on Global Socialism.”

With Republican congressional leaders under fire from conservatives for cowering in the face of a Democratic Party onslaught, all that they needed was to roll out the welcome mat for a Marxist pope who would put them further on the defensive. But that’s exactly what happened.

Phyllis Bennis of the Marxist Institute for Policy Studies was right: “Pope Francis’ address to Congress was almost certainly not what John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and other congressional leaders had in mind when they invited the pope to speak.” Speaking for many on the left, including the pro-abortion lobby,she said, “His clear call to end the death penalty was the only example he gave of protecting the sanctity of life: Even amid a raging congressional debate over Planned Parenthood, he never mentioned abortion.”

The list of left-wing causes in the pope’s address was extensive. Bennis noted “his calls to protect the rights of immigrants and refugees, end the death penalty, preserve the planet from the ravages of climate change, and defend the poor and dispossessed.” And then there was the attack on the policies of peace through strength, which keep us free. “Being at the service of dialogue and peace also means being truly determined to minimize and, in the long term, to end the many armed conflicts throughout our world,” the pope said. He then asked, “Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering on individuals and society?”

He should ask that of Vladimir Putin.

Most Americans understand the rationale for legal immigrants. But illegal aliens who commit crimes are something else. The pope seems not to recognize a difference.

The death penalty is a punishment reserved for heinous killers. But he doesn’t mention abortion, which has taken tens of millions of innocent lives. This seemed strange to conservative Catholics, who are starting to come to grips with the fact that this is a “progressive” pope, who is not hostile toward what anti-communist Pope John Paul II called the “culture of death” through population control and reduction.

Francis’s answer on the arms control issue was to challenge the United States alone and blame its spending on national defense on monetary motives. “Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply for money: money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood,” said the pope. “In the face of this shameful and culpable silence, it is our duty to confront the problem and to stop the arms trade.”

That’s a slander of our brave fighting men and women, many of whom have given their lives or sacrificed their limbs to bring freedom to people around the word, especially Muslims in such places as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Against the global Jihad, what does the pope expect the U.S. to do? Disarm?

Praising “his uniquely progressive papal perspective,” far-left radio host Amy Goodman noted that “The pope has been frank in his criticism of much of the core of U.S. society: capitalism, consumerism, war and the failure to confront climate change.” This is a fraud, of course. They used to warn us against global cooling. It then became global warming and now climate change. The cause always changes until they find something to lure people into schemes for bigger government and higher taxes.

Recognizing the socialism of the pope, Al Jazeera posted an article, “Bernie Sanders, the pope and the moral imperative of systemic change,” by Gar Alperovitz, the co-chair with James Gustave Speth of The Next System Project. Speth, former administrator of the United Nations Development Program, put his name on its 1994 “Human Development Report,” which openly promoted global taxes for world government.

The “Next System” is another name for the replacement of global capitalism by global socialism.

Those endorsing this project, in addition to Alperovitz and Speth, include:

  • Jane Mansbridge, Harvard University
  • Gerald Hudson, Service Employees International Union
  • Annie Leonard, Greenpeace USA
  • Robert B. Reich, University of California at Berkeley
  • Dean Baker, Center for Economic and Policy Research
  • Barbara Ehrenreich, Author
  • Jeffrey D. Sachs, Columbia University
  • Gerald Torres, Cornell University Law School
  • Larry Cohen, Communications Workers of America
  • Julie Matthaei, Cornerstone Cohousing
  • Leo Gerard, United Steelworkers
  • John James Conyers, Jr., 13th District, Michigan
  • Bill McKibben, 350.org
  • Saskia Sassen, Columbia University
  • Frances Fox Piven, City University of New York
  • Manuel Pastor, University of Southern California
  • Phillip Thompson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • Oliver Stone, Academy Award-winning Filmmaker
  • Medea Benjamin, CODEPINK
  • Timothy E. Wirth, United Nations Foundation and Better World Fund
  • Sarita Gupta, Jobs With Justice
  • Noam Chomsky, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  • Van Jones, The Dream Corps & Rebuild The Dream
  • Lawrence Mishel, Economic Policy Institute
  • Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, California State University
  • Daniel Ellsberg, Author
  • Herman E. Daly, University of Maryland
  • Ralph Nader, Consumer Advocate, Author, Former Presidential Candidate
  • Ai-jen Poo, National Domestic Workers Alliance
  • Anna Galland, MoveOn.org Civic Action
  • Danny Glover, Actor, Social Activist
  • Tom Morello, Musician, Activist
  • Jill Stein, 2012 Green Party Presidential Nominee
  • Nancy Fraser, New School for Social Research

“We have fundamental problems because of fundamental flaws in our economic and political system,” the New Project proclaims. “The crisis now unfolding in so many ways across our country amounts to a systemic crisis. Today’s political economic system is not programmed to secure the wellbeing of people, place and planet. Instead, its priorities are corporate profits, the growth of GDP, and the projection of national power.”

The group goes on, “Large-scale system change is needed but has until recently been constrained by a continuing lack of imagination concerning social, economic and political alternatives. There are alternatives that can lead to the systemic change we need.”

Yes there are. They are called socialism and communism. But they would rather call it “sustainable development,” in order to confuse people about how the American way of life is being targeted for extinction.