Is The AP Deliberately Misleading Americans on Border Security for Obama?

By: Jeffrey Klein, Political Buzz Examiner

As Gov. Ronald Reagan famously said to President Jimmy Carter, during the Presidential debate in 1980 … “There you go again…”

Although compellingly titled, “Arrests of Illegals on the Border Drops to Lowest Point in 40 Years,” this Associated Press article today simply trotted out the same, smoke and mirrors “arrest statistic,” given to them by Homeland Security Secretary.

However, it appears to be a “manufactured” statistic.

As recently as April 19, 2011, FOXNews Jana Winter filed an exclusive article, which named and quoted Arizona sheriffs, their deputies, along with numerous current and retired Border Patrol agents, and even their labor union, who illustrated how this figure has been manipulated for nearly as long as it has been in use.

Larry Dever, Sheriff of Cochise County Arizona, said he had received about 100 messages from both active and retired border agents, relating their own ‘first-hand knowledge and experiences regarding how they were ordered to reduce arrests to decrease ‘apprehension statistics.’

“Upper management has advised supervisors to have agents ‘turn back South’ (TBS) the illegal aliens (aka bodies) they detect attempting to unlawfully enter the country … at times you even hear supervisors order the agents over the radio to ‘TBS’ the aliens instead of catching them.”

“This only causes more problems as the aliens, as you know, don’t just go back to Mexico and give up. They keep trying, sometimes without 10 minutes in-between attempts, to cross illegally. This makes the job for agents more dangerous. Not only are the aliens more defiant, they also begin to feel like they can get away with breaking our federal laws.”

“This is nothing new, during my career with the border patrol, this was done regularly,” said another email to Dever reviewed by FoxNews.com. “By assigning agents to different tasks, locations, etc., the apprehensions can be increased or decreased dramatically,” wrote Dan McCaskill Jr., a retired Border Patrol agent who worked in the Anti-Smuggling Unit.

McCaskill went on to describe how, he said, apprehension numbers were regularly manipulated to achieve various budget, equipment or manpower goals.

Paul Babeu, Sheriff of Pinal County, also testified at a Senate Homeland Security Committee last week, and said that his top lieutenant, Matt Thomas, reported … ‘Sheriff, I have heard that myself directly from border agents in the Tucson sector.’

Babeu said he’s been told by Border Patrol officials that an average of 2.7 succeed in crossing into the U.S. for every one apprehended–causing Babeu to be concerned that paramilitary or terror cells equipped with more sophisticated support and training could easily get through.

Why would President Obama and Democrats want to manipulate these numbers?

Because they view illegal aliens as future, compliant Democrat voters–who need to be converted, by whatever means, as soon as possible.

So, in order to help in the “public relations” of that task, the Associated Press layed out the Democrat strategy clearly, beginning in the first paragraph of the article … ‘The [lower number of arrests] development could change the debate on illegal immigration from securing the border to handling the people who are already here.’

Then, they set the political table for their debate argument … ‘Attempts to pass immigration reform legislation have repeatedly failed, with Republicans saying they will not support any bill that provides a path to legalization for illegal immigrants who are here and won’t consider other reforms until the border is secure.’

And finally, the ‘border is secure’ declaration by Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano (former Governor of Arizona) … “and it is clear from every measure we currently have that this approach is working.”

It sure is working–especially with Democrats in control of the measuring, and the Associated Press willing to report without the veracity of an investigation into the numbers.

Copyright (c) 2011 by Jeffrey Klein


The Arrogance of Eric Holder!

By: Tom Tancredo
Gulag Bound

Tom Tancredo

It is our distinct honor to now carry the commentaries and reports of Tom Tancredo, former Representative to Congress of the State of Colorado and 2008 candidate for U.S. President. His CongressmanTomTancredo.com regularly features his articles, as does WorldNetDaily.

Former Congressman Tancredo currently serves as chairman of Rocky Mountain Foundation, co-chairman of the anti-illegal immigration Team America PAC, and honorary chairman of Youth for Western Civilization. He speaks frequently on cable news, talk radio, and on college campuses – where his mere presence has led leftists to riot on multiple occasions. His book, In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security was published in 2006.

— Arlen Williams, Gulag Bound

As an attorney general Holder couldn’t get more arrogant–or outrageous in his use of power. Brian Terry, a U.S. border agent, is gunned down by a drug smuggler using a semi-automatic assault rifle provided him by the ATF during the infamous Operation Fast and Furious and not only have the court records of the case been sealed by the court–the reason why the judge so ruled has been sealed.

Murdered Border Patrol Agent Bryan Terry

So what’s the “Most Transparent Administration in History” trying to hide? We know that Mr. Holder was anything but forthcoming when he testified before Congress about this tragically dumb exercise. But doesn’t the murder of a U.S agent deserve better than this? If the facts were known would it not give the agent’s family some closure-and give fellow agents valuable information that might save their lives?

We know that Agent Brian Terry was murdered by Mexican drug smugglers who were patrolling our border with the intent to harm and kill border agents. It wasn’t the first time and won’t be the last, so the hows and whys could save American lives. But the Administration seems far more interested in saving face–wouldn’t want to have to explain themselves in an election year-it’s bad for business.

But what is good for the business of re-election is to keep the Left happy–and that includes illegal aliens and their allies. This past summer South Carolina followed our friends in Arizona and Alabama and passed a tough immigration law. It was to go into effect the first of the year, but Holder and his cronies have filed a lawsuit to try and kill the law while still in its infancy. Forget that South Carolinians overwhelmingly support it–much the same as Americans in Alabama and Arizona support their tough laws. Washington refuses to do its job of enforcing laws against illegal immigrants and they sure aren’t about to allow anyone else to do it either–no matter what the citizens want.

The only way to stop this heavy-handed abuse of federal power is to rid ourselves of the corrupt Obama Administration and to pack the halls of Congress with men and women who will fight for our rights. We have the candidates who, if elected, will do it–and next week we’ll begin to let you know who they are–and we’ll keep you informed all the way to Election Day. Then maybe we can get some justice for Agent Brian Terry.

I hope to have your support of our efforts–because we need your help if we are to preserve this nation and our freedoms.

God Bless you!


Communists Work on a New Improved, Pro–Obama “Occupy” Movement

New Zeal

From Big Government, by Trevor Loudon

While withering under the combined effects of cold weather, public disgust and the tiniest hint of a backbone by some public authorities, the Occupy Wall Street Movement will not be allowed to die.

That is, if one of the movement’s strongest pillars, the Communist Party USA, has its way:

Communist Party contingent, Occupy Chicago

What will change though, if the Communists succeed in dominating the movement they have so thoroughly infiltrated, will be a new, more disciplined, less anarchic – even electorally focused, “Occupy” movement.

In a  report to the National Committee of the Communist Party USA, which met in New York City, Nov. 12-13, 2011, Party National chairman Sam Webb, laid out his analysis of the current political climate and the role of the “Occupy” movement and the Communist Party in moving the “progressive” movement forward.

Wrote comrade Webb:

This is a volatile period. Battle lines are being drawn. Not for a while have things been so unhinged.

A marked upswing, if not a qualitative turn in class and democratic struggles, is afoot.

Sustained mass actions, civil disobedience, new levels of solidarity and consciousness, innovative tactics and slogans, and a complex array of social forces and organizations are reshaping the political landscape in unexpected ways.

The most dramatic expression of this broadening, quickening, and to a degree spontaneous upsurge against the gaping inequality and injustice in our society is the Occupy movement.

This spirited movement – and the spirit is contagious – is capturing the imagination of tens of millions who are fed up with Wall Street’s greed and worried sick about their own diminishing economic prospects.

Its politics don’t fit neatly into any distinct political category and its methods of organization are unorthodox. No single “ism” prevails. Nevertheless, most of the participants are on the progressive and left side of the spectrum even if they don’t characterize themselves in those terms.

While the occupiers are disgusted with Wall Street and Washington’s deference to the “lords of finance,” they don’t embrace a specific set of demands. Some observers see this as a grave weakness, but we shouldn’t. They have shined a spotlight on Wall Street, changed the national conversation from anti-government to anti-Wall Street, and turned the struggle against finance capital into a mainstream, top versus bottom issue.

This movement has spread to other cities and around the world, proving that in a volatile climate, small initiatives can trigger massive social irruptions.

So far so good. This is all fine and dandy with comrade Webb.  But…

If there is a divergence between the occupiers and labor’s leadership, it lies in the attitudes towards the 2012 elections. Labor sees the defeat of the Republican Party – the party of rightwing extremism – as the critical terrain on which the class struggle will be fought.

Many of the occupiers, on the other hand, are suspicious of the political process, and see no value in participating in electoral and legislative politics.

What is needed is a friendly dialogue about the place of electoral politics in the larger scheme of things.

By “labor,” Sam Webb mean’s labor’s true champion – the Communist Party. By “friendly dialog,” Sam Webb means strictly imposing the Communist Party line on the less disciplined elements of the “Occupy” movement.

Comrade Webb goes on to say how, and by who, this crucial task should be carried out – labor, “people of color” and the young:

Spokespeople for labor should make the point that the 1 percent cringes at the thought of the occupiers and the 99 percent going to the polls in next year’s elections.

For Republicans the occupations are distressing, to say the least. They have called them “un-American,” say they are “designed to incite American against American,” and are “the work of mobs.”

But these attacks increasingly fall on deaf ears, and reveal in unmistakable ways their class loyalties to finance capital.

No longer can they have it both ways: insisting on class peace while waging class war. The jig is up. The people are at the gates. What goes around comes around.

In Marxist terms, the class contradiction is sharpening.

The occupations may seem to have come out of the blue, but they didn’t. Since the spring we have witnessed an uptick in class and democratic struggles on a global scale from Cairo to Athens, Madrid and Santiago.

In our own backyard, major struggles broke out in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio and elsewhere.

Nor should we forget that millions of young and older activists who threw themselves into the campaign to elect Barack Obama are looking to leave their mark on the political process going forward.

Thus, the occupation movement continues, draws inspiration from, and is rooted in homegrown as well as international struggles. It is a current in a much larger constellation of forces in which the participation and leadership of labor and people of color are of crucial importance.

Young people, bringing their flair and freshness, are the largest constituency of the occupations. Not only do they want to curb the power of the banks, take the money out of politics, and democratize public and private institutions, they also want to transform their own lives.

Some of what they do may seem farfetched and removed from the realities of power, but maybe that speaks to our limited cultural and political imaginations.

In any case, the potential of further building a broad youth movement has never been greater. It could eclipse in size and understanding the youth rebellion of the 1960s. And that movement left a permanent mark on the politics and culture of our country.

An immediate challenge – and a special challenge for the Young Communist League – is to energize the rest of the young generation whose life prospects are grim. As long as they are not a part of the occupation movement and the struggle generally, any hope of any substantive victory now and in the future is greatly diminished. And here I include the college campuses that are not yet plunged into struggles on a broad scale.

Part of The Sam Webb/Communist Party strategy is to impose on the “Occupy” movement a set of demands (which happily seem to coincide with current Communist Party policy). Avoiding embarrassing and Youtubeable confrontations with the police will be a priority. The movement must gain an electoral focus. Even the strategic weakness of having to actually “occupy” a certain space will be up for review.

Obviously the occupation movement faces challenges. One of them is to articulate a set of demands – jobs creation, student debt relief, transaction tax, millionaires’ tax, etc. – and a pathway to win them.

Looming large as well is growing the movement in labor and communities of the racially oppressed, avoiding unnecessary confrontations with the police that draw attention away from Wall Street robbery, approaching the 2012 elections, and transitioning to a new phase of struggle in which the occupation of physical space isn’t necessarily a defining feature.

Everyone is asking: what’s next for the Occupy movement? A fair question with no easy answer, but it is no more important than some other related questions: How does labor and other social movements – how do we – adjust to this moment? What new initiatives and methods of struggle fit this upswing in class and democratic struggles? What new demands should see the light of day? Isn’t greater boldness necessary? How can the entire progressive community mobilize broad support against police actions to evict the occupiers from public space?

All of this needs to be chewed over.

Sam Webb seldom issues a statement without some thought on how to get “Party “friend'” Barack Obama re-elected to the White house in 2012.

Certainly comrade Webb is terrified of the consequences for his side, if the GOP regains power in America:

In times like these some might think the shortcomings and inconsistencies of the president and the Democrats since 2008 warrant a change in strategic policy in general and electoral policy in particular.

I can understand this sentiment, but the facts on the ground, as messy, contradictory and disappointing as they are, don’t call for jettisoning our strategic policy.

The main obstacle to social progress remains rightwing extremism and its corporate backers. They cast a reactionary shadow over the whole political process.

The election of Barack Obama was a blow to the ultra right, but subsequent events have demonstrated that it wasn’t a decisive blow.

The right still retains considerable power and initiative to frame the debate and disrupt the legislative and political agenda.

Its overarching goal next year is to regain control of all three branches of the federal government. How dangerous is that? In my view it would set the stage for a period of extreme rightwing onslaught.

In the bull’s-eye would be every democratic right, economic protection and people’s organization.

The right to organize into a union would be annulled.

The unemployed would be left out to dry.

Abortions would become a criminal offense.

Education and health care would become a privilege.

The social safety net would disappear.

Discrimination would become the law of the land.

Global warming would accelerate to the point of irreversibility.

Prison populations would expand still further.

The projection of military power would become the favored instrument of foreign policy.

In sum, gone would be the rights, protections and programs that were won in the 20th century.

If you don’t believe me take a glimpse at Wisconsin, Michigan and Ohio where rightwing Republicans took control of the levers of power in 2010, and then ruthlessly rolled back rights, eliminated social programs and attacked the labor movement.

Those actions are a harbinger of what the Republican Party would do if in command of the federal government next year.

By contrast, the decisive defeat of the right would weaken Wall Street and the entire corporate class, give leverage and momentum to the people’s movement, and open up the possibility of an era that puts people and nature before profits.

Said differently and dialectically, the defeat of the right at the polls next year is not only to the advantage of the Democratic Party, but also to the advantage of the labor-led people’s movement. To affirm one doesn’t deny the validity of the other.

In fact, I would go a step further, and say that a decisive victory will be of more advantage to the working class and people’s movement than to its temporary ally, the Democratic Party.

None of this is to suggest that the Democrats aren’t now or won’t be in the future an obstacle to progressive change; in too many instances they are, but they aren’t the main obstacle for the moment.

This election, then, is not about choosing a lesser evil. Politics is not a morality play and the Obama administration and Democrats are not evil. It is about our nation’s future: Are we going to move in a progressive-democratic or rightwing anti-democratic authoritarian direction?

Thus, the labor-led people’s coalition, and Communists as a current within that coalition, must make every phase of the election process a number one priority.

The people’s coalition must be a major factor in the primaries. It must reach, register and educate new and stay-at-home voters. It must guarantee a maximum voter turnout on Election Day.

Comrade Webb then justifies his emphasis on electoral work  with a quote form V.I. Lenin;

Lenin wrote in “Left Wing Communism, An Infantile Disorder”,

“Parliamentarism has become ‘historically obsolete.’ That is true as regards propaganda. But everyone knows that this is still a long way from overcoming it practically. Capitalism could have been declared, and quite rightly, to be ‘historically obsolete’ many decades ago, but that does not at all remove the need for a very long and very persistent struggle on the soil of capitalism.”

And the biggest policy plank that the Communists, labor and “Occupy” must rally around – the struggle for jobs.

Of the issues that will move the American people, poll after poll tells us that it is the issue of jobs, jobs, and jobs.

This is of overriding concern and understandably so. Roughly 25 million workers are either unemployed or underemployed. This is a national disaster with an unmistakable racial, gender and youth edge. It requires emergency action.

President Obama’s jobs proposals are the ground on which millions, including the occupiers, can be drawn into the fight to create jobs and rebuild the nation’s infrastructure. The AFL-CIO is embracing and promoting them. Others will come on board too as the campaign gathers momentum.

The president’s proposals are not as far-reaching as some other jobs proposals. The plans put forward by the Congressional Black Caucus, Progressive Caucus, AFL-CIO and Representative Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., are more ambitious, and we recognize that they contain more in-depth solutions. But the hard fact is that none of them stand a chance of congressional approval given the current balance of forces in Congress, and in the House in particular.

The president’s proposals do, although the going will be tough. The Republicans, while initially making conciliatory noises, are determined not to give the president a positive record to run on. They figure a president with no accomplishments, especially in a period of crisis, will not be returned to office.

That such a position will hurt millions of people is of no concern to them. In fact, in their view, the worse economic conditions are, the better are their chances of winning back the White House and Congress in 2012. Irresponsible yes, cynical yes, even diabolical, but as a political calculus, this contains some truth.

Indeed, unless the American people are convinced otherwise, they could easily blame the president for the economic mess when they go into the voting booth next year.

The president, probably more than the rest of us, seems to be well of aware of this. Thus he appears determined to take the initiative on the main economic policy questions facing the nation. It seems evident he is no longer willing to let Republicans frame the political agenda.

Indeed, his jobs speech and subsequent travel to campaign for jobs put the GOP leaders on their heels for the first time since 2010 when they regained control of the House.

Now we won’t like everything the president proposes, especially if he supports cuts in Medicare and Medicaid, and we should mobilize to make sure such ideas are dropped. But at the same time, that shouldn’t be an obstacle to getting behind the job proposals (and I would add the millionaires’ tax) in a full-blooded way.

The left should not set the perfect against the possible. It’s counterproductive. And let’s not “damn” the president’s jobs and tax initiatives “with faint praise” – an approach that has been employed too often to no good effect.

A robust grassroots campaign for Obama’s jobs measures will put wind in the president’s sails, give people hope, and improve the prospects of a people’s victory next year. We shouldn’t concede this struggle in advance to the obstructionist efforts of the Republican Party. In fact, supporters of the jobs bill (and let’s include occupiers) should organize visits to the congressional offices of Republicans during the holiday breaks.

Every Communist Party collective should discuss how to participate in this campaign. Where possible we should join with others in the neighborhood and at the workplace to establish jobs committees. A few people working together can make a difference; mass is a relative concept. Neither we, nor the movement generally, have enough traction on this critical struggle.

No message from comrade Webb is complete without a few comments on foreign policy, “peace” and slashing US defense spending – unsurprising for a Party that has changed its primary allegiance from the militarily weakened Russia, to the increasingly militarily expansionist People’s Republic of China.

U.S. foreign policy is not solely decided in elite circles, however. The American people – not to mention people worldwide – also have a say.

More and more they are insisting with a new vigor that a new political and economic order be constructed, shorn of U.S. dominance.

For progressive and left activists this creates some new opportunities to rein in U.S. imperialism and military spending. Needless to say, we should continue to be part of the peace and anti-imperialist movement.

Comrade Webb makes no bones about his love of disruption and civil disobedience. But… it must be disciplined and purposeful disobedience. Every action should be thought out beforehand with an eye to public opinion. No radical stunts for the sake of being radical. The times require structured, planned out actions, designed to win over the public, not alienate them, as many of the “Occupy” movement’s current crazy anarchist leaders have done.

We are for militant expressions of struggle; historically speaking, civil disobedience is part of the DNA of progressive and left movements.

It was Communists who illegally occupied the GM auto plant in Flint, Michigan in the winter of 1936, leading to the organization of GM and the rest of the auto industry.

It was Communists who were among the young people who occupied lunch counters in 1960.

It was Communists who were among the people arrested in the protests over the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

And in recent weeks, Communists proudly marched off to jail with other occupiers.

And going forward we won’t be shy to put our bodies on the line when the cause is just and the message inspires others to stand up for justice.

At the same time, we are against reckless provocations, violence to persons and property, and false bravado – all of which undercut the political and moral authority of the people’s movement.

The litmus test for any action or slogan or issue is: does it win the active and/or passive support of larger and larger numbers of the American people?

If it does, full speed ahead. If it doesn’t, we should rethink our approach.

The task is not simply to propose the most radical action in every situation. The task is to choose that tactic that wins the sympathy of millions, not some small circle of committed activists.

I often say what really matters (and this is a bit of an exaggeration) is not what we think, but what millions think. The latter is the starting point of communist policy and work.

Finally, comrade Webb explains the role of the Communist Party in the coming period of struggle:

Our role is to assist labor and its allies to fight more consciously and strategically across every front of struggle.

We are not go-it-aloners, nor do we advocate narrow approaches to struggle. We’re not a big party, but we think big. Our aim isn’t to make a momentary splash or show off our radical pedigree for its own sake, but to redirect powerful currents of change in the direction of social progress and socialism.

At the core of the movement that we hope to build is the organized section of the working class. Because of its new thinking and initiatives, resources, experience – and let’s not forget its location in the system of social production – we don’t consider labor (and the working class as a whole) as just one more participant in the broader movement. Its role is strategic to the broader movement’s success.

On the other hand, we don’t believe that labor (and the working class as a whole) can go it alone. That would be a losing strategy. Its organic allies are people of color, women, immigrants, seniors and youth.

Only with such breadth and relationships is victory possible in the near term against the right and in the longer term against corporate power and its political parties.

In other words, broad unity is the path out of this crisis and the fight for such unity is a distinguishing hallmark of communists. As Marx and Engels wrote long ago, our foremost concern is the unity of the movement as a whole.

Finally, we see no contradiction between the struggle for immediate reforms and the struggle for radical reforms and socialist revolution. In fact, we can’t get to the latter without fighting for the former; that is, only in the course of fighting for democratic reforms are the conditions created for radical change.

A critical part of our work is ideological. That could be said on any occasion, but today it resonates with special force. Old notions long held by working people haven’t entirely gone by the wayside, but they have become unhinged to a greater or lesser degree. Tens of millions believe that the system is unjust, that the 1 percent lives very differently than the 99 percent...

We can bring to light the linkages between capitalism’s inner dynamics, the capitalist economic crisis and the current onslaught on people’s living standards and rights in the public and private arenas. In particular, we can remind everyone that “free enterprise” got us into this mess, but won’t get us out.

And what better time to bring into this conversation our vision of a democratic, home-grown socialism.

Sam Webb’s words should be taken seriously. Though his Party is only an few thousand strong, its influence is felt from the White House on down to thousands of precinct committees, labor halls, churches and “community groups” in nearly every major city in the USA. Further, the help given to the party in terms of guidance (and probably money) from its allies in China, Cuba, Venezuela and even Russia, should not be discounted.

“Occupy” will fade away over winter, but will not be allowed to die. It will re-emerge in the Spring, stronger, more disciplined and even more militant. It will be purged to some degree of its anarchist leadership and will become more of an appendage of the labor movement and by extension, the Communist Party, its allies in Democratic Socialists of America and the Obama Administration.


Snared in the Soros Web

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

I’m a digger, always have been… I dig until I uncover the facts, the truth is the only thing that stops me. Yesterday, I was doing what I love – uncovering the Progressives within The Sunlight Foundation, when I had an epiphany that rocked me.

As all researchers will tell you, deep research is like putting together a puzzle, one piece at a time. Sometimes those pieces fall into place all at once, showing a picture of what you are dealing with as a whole and you are never the same. That’s what happened to me yesterday and it took my breath away.

It turns out that many of the sources I use for research are connected to George Soros‘ money. Here are a few I dug up and there are many more that are not listed here:

Soros has spread his money far and wide. He has created a myriad of Internet sources that actually are the polar opposite of what their titles indicate. He has masterfully placed Marxists on the boards of these companies – I see some of the same names over and over again. He now has people everywhere that are following a set Progressive/Marxist agenda. It’s like the mob – once you take his money and his people, the only way out is a toe tag either for the business or you.

I have been at this long enough that I can ferret out facts found on these sites and still glean info from them. But sometimes, they fool even me. This is a warning to my fellow researchers out there – Soros basically owns the majority of information sources on the web. Even if the company claims they are neutral, by taking his funds funneled through various layers of foundations, they have opened themselves up to the potential of influence and corruption. They are tainted.

The Soros Files shows this wonderfully, as does Keywiki. I want to lay out the Soros Media Network for you next and this makes my stomach curl in on itself. A special thanks to Trevor Loudon of New Zeal and Cliff Kincaid of America’s Survival, Inc. for their excellent documentation and research on The Soros Files.

The Soros Media Network:

  • Proteus
    Media Democracy Fund
    The Media Consortium: “a network of the country’s leading, progressive, independent media outlets.” Tracy Van Slyke, Director
  • Center for Investigative Reporting
    Media Partners: ABC News, CNN, Frontline, Los Angeles Times, Salon.com, the Washington Post, American Radio Works
  • Russia Today (RT) – Thom Harmann
    Huffington Post
    Mark Keiser / RT / Press TV / Al-Jazeera
  • Democracy Now!Amy Goodman – 900 stations
  • Free Press / Media Matters
  • Link TV – “Television Without Borders” – Danny Glover, Board Member
    Channel 9410 DISH
    Channel 375 DirecTV
    Distributes Al-Jazeera and “Weather Underground” film
  • Free Speech TV – “Anti-Fox network” – Don Rojas, Director, worked for Maurice Bishop of Grenada
    DISH Network (channel 9415)
    DirecTV (channel 348) and part-time on 200 cable affiliates in 39 states.
    Seeks OSI funding.
    Distributes Al-Jazeera
  • Inter Press Services “is the world’s leading provider of information on global issues, backed by a network of journalists in more than 100 countries…”
  • Sundance Institute / PBS
  • National Public Radio
    $1.8 million from Open Society Foundations in 2010. 10.6% from CPB. 900 stations.
  • Pacifica Stations
    CPB funding: 2009-2010
    KPFA, Berkeley $451,000, $299,958
    KPFK, LA $382,035, $350,464
    WPFW, DC $238,381, $282083
    KPFT, Houston $160,529, $156,474
    WBAI, NY $359,915, $319,525
  • Project Syndicate: distributes commentaries from George Soros and Joseph Stiglitz to 474 leading newspapers in 151 countries.
  • Other Worlds news service – IPS
    Southern Poverty Law Center
    Free Press
    People for the American Way


Progressive Media Allies:

  • Campaign for America’s Future
  • Center for American Progress
  • Center for Independent Media
  • Center for Media Justice
  • Color of Change
  • Free Press
  • Media Matters
  • MoveOn
  • New Politics Institute
  • Progressive Book Club
  • Progressive Communicators Network
  • The Media Consortium
  • Women’s Media Center
  • Working Assets/CREDO
  • Democracy Now!
  • Free Speech Radio News
  • National Radio Project
  • Pacifica
  • Public News Service
  • Radio Nation
  • Balcony Films
  • Brave New Films
  • CurrentTV
  • Free Speech TV
  • Guerrilla News Network
  • LinkTV
  • MichaelMoore.com
  • Paper Tiger Television
  • PoliticsTV
  • The Real News
  • Third World Majority
  • Veracifier

Book Publishers:

  • Berrett-Koehler
  • Chelsea Green
  • Monthly Review Press
  • Seal Press
  • Seven Stories
  • South End Press
  • The New Press

As you can see from the list above, Soros has his fingers in everybody’s pie. The old spider is crafty and evil as hell and won’t quit until he collapses the US and he is doing a fine job so far. Notice the deceit in the names – black is white here and transparency does not exist in reality. They claim to be transparent and non-partisan, but they are anything but that.

Tread carefully on the web. Vet your information thoroughly, check every detail. It’s like dancing with the devil who is promising you heaven and earth. You can’t believe anything you see or read at first blush. Don’t get snared in the Soros web.

Addendum: I overlooked one biggie – Pro Publica. It’s already listed in my Soros research on KeyWiki. Thanks to Andrea at The Radio Patriot and her reader Helen for the head’s up.


Defense Authorization’s Unconstitutional Aggression upon Citizens; TruNews Radio Notes

By: Arlen Williams
Gulag Bound

It was my privilege to record an interview with Rick Wiles of TruNews.com about the Disappear a Dissident (a.k.a., “Suspected Terrorist,” a.k.a., “belligerent” in the “homeland”) provision in the Defense Authorization Bill that passed the U.S. Senate last Thursday, by a 93-7 vote. It now awaits Congressional conference and a remedy is possible, if enough pressure is put on Congress. Here is a page that makes it easy to find the contact information for one’s Senators and Representative: at contactingthecongress.org.

I do humbly suggest the listen. Rick Wiles’ report and our discussion is broadcast on the evening of Tuesday 12/6, at the TrueNews site, or via certain short wave radio frequencies there listed:

Authoritarian prog Senators Levin & McCain, authors of the nefarious language during the quiet of Thanksgiving weekend

During our conversation, I promised notes and links to appropriate facts and analyses and here we are. Some of these items overlap; they are presented for the choice of our visitors.

Gulag Bound’s article of warning last week is:

An analysis and contextualization of the passage of this bill is found at:

Here is a way I found, to communicate to one of my  Senators from Wisconsin:

This is perhaps the most troublesome portion of the bill [Subtitle D, Section 1031(b)(2)] where ambiguity is not our friend. Never mind that even real al-Qaeda terrorists could be American Citizens. And are any who conspired in 9-11 still around at all? Is that what is called “pretext,” Uncle Sam?

“…including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”

This is its context:


    (a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
    (b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:
      (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.
      (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.
    (c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:
      (1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
      (2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
      (3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
      (4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.
    (d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
    (e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.
      (f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons’ for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

And just whom do the U.S. government regard as suspected terrorists and belligerents?

Among many well chosen items cited in Sher Zieve’s article is this apparent attestation from a law enforcement officer, regarding those to be targeted as potential or suspected terrorists, as the U.S. Department of Homeland Security continues to indoctrinate, pressure, and train. This comes via PatDollard.com and originates at Survival Blog, March 30, 2011, excerpted here:

Beware of Homeland Security Training for Local Law Enforcement, by An Insider

By James Wesley, Rawles on March 30, 2011 8:28 PM

I’ve been in law enforcement for the past 18 years.  I have attended a variety of training over those years.  During the 1990s, most training I attended was community-oriented, sponsored by local agencies or private companies specializing in police training.  Themes common to training of the past included topics such as Constitutional rights, community partnerships, youth-oriented programs and problem-oriented policing.

During the past several years, I have witnessed a dramatic shift in the focus of law enforcement training.  Law enforcement courses have moved away from a local community focus to a federally dominated model of complete social control.  Most training I have attended over the past two years have been sponsored by Department of Homeland Security (DHS), namely the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

No matter what topic the training session concerns, every DHS sponsored course I have attended over the past few years never fails to branch off into warnings about potential domestic terrorists in the community.  While this may sound like a valid officer and community safety issue, you may be disturbed to learn how our Federal government describes a typical domestic terrorist.

These federal trainers describe the dangers of “extremists” and “militia groups” roaming the community and hiding in plain sight, ready to attack.  Officers are instructed how to recognize these domestic terrorists by their behavior, views and common characteristics.  State data bases are kept to track suspected domestic terrorists and officers are instructed on reporting procedures to state and federal agencies.  The state I work in, like many others, have what is known as a “fusion center” that compiles a watch list of suspicious people.

So how does a person qualify as a potential domestic terrorist?  Based on the training I have attended, here are characteristics that qualify:

  • Expressions of libertarian philosophies (statements, bumper stickers)
  • Second Amendment-oriented views (NRA or gun club membership, holding a CCW permit)
  • Survivalist literature (fictional books such as “Patriots” and “One Second After” are mentioned by name)
  • Self-sufficiency (stockpiling food, ammo, hand tools, medical supplies)
  • Fear of economic collapse (buying gold and barter items)
  • Religious views concerning the book of Revelation (apocalypse, anti-Christ)
  • Expressed fears of Big Brother or big government
  • Homeschooling
  • Declarations of Constitutional rights and civil liberties
  • Belief in a New World Order conspiracy

A recent training session I attended encouraged law enforcement agencies to work with business owners to alert police when customers appear to be stockpiling items.  An example was given that a federal agent was monitoring customers at a well known hunting and fishing retail outlet and noting who was purchasing certain items.

continues at site

Presented at Noisy Room are the December 1st insights of Oath Keepers’ founder and president, Stewart Rhodes, as interviewed by Alex Jones (three parts/pages in YouTube). In it, Rhodes, a true legal scholar, is to be carefully heeded and Jones, highly learned in the school of hard but not yet brutal knocks, is not to be discounted.

For further reading as to how this came about in the U.S. Senate, last week, including tallies of who voted for what, one may visit the following.

Tuesday, November 29

Sen. Paul: “My question would be under the provisions would it be possible that an American citizen then could be declared an enemy combatant and sent to Guantanamo Bay and detained indefinitely.”

Sen. McCain: “I think that as long as that individual, no matter who they are, if they pose a threat to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue that threat.”

Thursday, December 1

  • “The Media’s Blackout Of The National Defense Authorization Act Is Shameful”*
    at businessinsider.com
  • “Roll call number 218 in the Senate; Question On Passage of the Bill (S. 1867 As Amended)”
    at opencongress.org
  • “Bill Text; 112th Congress (2011-2012); S.1867.ES”
    at thomas.loc.gov

Friday, December 2

  • “US Senate passes its version of NDAA bill, which would allow military to detain anyone on US soil”
    at theopenglobe.org 
  • “Ceding Liberty to Terror: Senate Votes Against Due-Process Rights”
    at theatlantic.com
  • “Ron Paul And The Tea Party Can’t Save You: 2012 National Defense Act Is ‘Terrifying'”
    at businessinsider.com
  • “Paul calls Senate’s bluff, kills terrorist detainee amendment” [Note: a valid move against a worse provision, or a show? See how they ran when exposed, for just awhile.]
    at thehill.com

Saturday, December 3

  • “Senate Passes Indefinite Military Detention Bill Over Obama Veto Threat”
    at opencongress.org – excerpt:

The problem with this bill (and almost all bills that mention the word “terror”, “terrorist”, “terrorism”, or “war on terror”, like the misnamed Patriot Act) is that terrorism is a tactic, not a person or group of people. By a strict definition of “terrorism”, some tactics employed by the US army could classify them as a “terrorist organization”, but that’s not the point. Since “Terrorism” is a tactic, in order to call someone a “terrorist”, you need to give that person a fair trial and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person in question did in fact use terrorist tactics. Bills like this give the US Government the ability to skip that step and classify someone as a “terrorist” arbitrarily without a fair trial, which is no different than giving the Executive branch the power to call someone a murderer and execute them on the spot. Once you start going down that path, the potential for abuse is catastrophic! Section 1031 needs to be removed.

(*) And finally, also from Saturday, December 3, a net-radio program I recommended during the conversation with Rick. It is a very important case study regarding another travesty, showing just how the American news media is controlled at will (that particular subject matter, the eligibility of Barack Obama to be president). That comes after a discussion of this Defense Authorization Bill.

Hagmann & Hagmann Report, 12-3-2011