Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Author Archive

OBAMA HIRED THEM IN KENYA

Ambulance.pages

Affirmatively destroying America’s neighborhoods in the war on suburbia

Greetings – the Meister is in Honningsvag, Norway – the Northernmost village in the world. Light rain and 52 degrees.

town072415
Few of us understand patient gradualism. We live and have our being within a few years and mostly in an unconscious automated state of mind.

But people in power are long-term planners. They absolutely understand human nature and how to channel it to the evolution and refinement of the authoritarian state.

Authoritarianism is based on long-term planning. Authoritarianism is a philosophy of collectivism. Some call it democracy. Some call it communism. Some call it fascism. Some call it National Socialism. But whatever you call it, it is all collectivism or authoritarianism; and in its ultimate form it is globalism.

The goal is perfect docility and perfect harmony with authoritarianism (economic, social and spiritual). Until the people accept collectivism under some pretext, they are not docile and completely subdued. Once they do, rebellion and confrontation are impossible. This is the ultimate goal of the globalists, and the American system is nearing this state.

As I told you last week in “Why is the war on the Confederacy still going on today?,” the dismantling of the middle class has become the appointed, full-time task of the largest government alphabet soup agencies and Wall Street on behalf of globalism. The purpose behind this is that if those big middle-class producers and consumers can be decimated once and for all, then they can join the ranks of low-wage workers and more readily accept government largess and, thereby, become “hooked” on collectivism.

Collectivism is a certain means of social, economic and religious control. Politicians regularly espouse individualism, human liberty and democracy at the same time. Impossible! Individualism and human liberty are opposite to democracy and any other form of collectivism. The collectivist mentality or the mass collective mind is the spirit of the New World Order.

But something is standing in the way. Despite the years of indoctrination through the public (non)education system and mass programming by the national propaganda media and public (i.e., government) policy, rural Middle and Southern middle-class Americans — the “Red States” of “flyover country” — continue to resist the globalists’ dreams of a socialist/Marxist “utopia” and egalitarianism. That’s because they are, by and large, more independent and more self-reliant and also demand equitable reward for their labor and product, placing them in competition for resources and goods with the global elite.

Efforts to remove this obstacle are behind the current war on the middle class and individual liberty and the spirit of individualism through the attempts to whitewash Southern culture from existence and distort the true nature of the Confederate cause by casting it and Confederate symbols as racist and treasonous. The bigoted elites in the District of Criminals and pointy-headed “thinkers” in the prestigious institutes of learning continually promulgate the meme that whites — rural whites in particular and Southern whites specifically — are backward, racist buffoons riding in trucks looking for blacks to lynch while ridiculously clinging to their guns and religion.

The purpose is to stir up racial animosity and manipulate the people against one another. Manipulating minorities who are naturally drawn to socialism is basic political strategy to cover government crime and justify government politics and plunder.

The principle of government is that political power is maximized by forcibly leveling every individual to the same status of conformity, collectivism, egalitarianism and serfdom.

The truth goes deeper. Because of perceived social, cultural, racial and psychic inferiority, minorities desire to parasite on government force and socialism to subvert those they envy and wish to imitate. (This includes all so-called minority groups, not just racial minorities.)

Last summer, there was an invasion of illegals from Central and South America stemming from the immigration policies and statements of President Barack Obama. Over the ensuing months, the Obama regime shipped those illegals into communities and cities across the country and immediately began efforts to grant them some sort of legal status in order to ultimately provide them with voting rights in a back-door effort to change the local demographics and, therefore, the voting outcomes in these communities from a conservative bent to one more socialistic.

Third World immigrants are attracted to cradle-to-grave nanny state socialism because it is what they know and all they have known. They are also more accepting of gun control and the police state. They have no understanding of or experience with individual liberty or the concept of natural rights.

Gaining voting “rights” for non-citizens is the main driver of the federal opposition to voter ID laws.

The Obama regime attempted but failed with a mass social re-engineering scheme in 2010. That effort, fueled by corruptocrat Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), sought to fulfill the United Nation’s Agenda 21 plan, adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and signed onto by “New World Order” President George H.W. Bush.

Using a typical government “carrot-and-stick” policy, the bill sought to award or deny grants from the federal treasury to cities based on their compliance with amending or passing zoning laws to restrict housing in rural areas and force the residents into city centers.

The stick, in addition to denial of the funds, would be bad publicity generated by “Green” organizations working on behalf of the federal government criticizing local government officials for turning down free money and neglecting so-called “Green” initiatives.

Now comes Obama’s speciously titled Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing edicts from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This extra-constitutional rule change has been in the works for more than two years, but has been largely glossed over by the MSM. It seeks to do the reverse of the Dodd bill. That is, rather than drive the suburbanites into the cities, it seeks to move inner-city minorities into the suburbs.

The AFFH will have the federal government imposing preferred racial and ethnic composition on neighborhoods in exchange for federal funds provided or denied. It will change zoning laws, require a certain amount of government-subsidized housing in rural areas in order to achieve “racial balance,” control transportation and business development and remove the authority of state and local governments in the areas of zoning, transportation and education.

As National Review’s Stanley Kurtz writes:

Fundamentally, AFFH is an attempt to achieve economic integration. Race and ethnicity are being used as proxies for class, since these are the only hooks for social engineering provided by the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Like AFFH itself, today’s Washington Post piece blurs the distinction between race and class, conflating the persistence of “concentrated poverty” with housing discrimination by race. Not being able to afford a freestanding house in a bedroom suburb is no proof of racial discrimination. Erstwhile urbanites have been moving to rustic and spacious suburbs since Cicero built his villa outside Rome. Even in a monoracial and mono-ethnic world, suburbanites would zone to set limits on dense development. Emily Badger’s piece in today’s Washington Post focuses on race, but the real story of AFFH is the attempt to force integration by class, to densify development in American suburbs and cities, and to undo America’s system of local government and replace it with a “regional” alternative that turns suburbs into helpless satellites of large cities. Once HUD gets its hooks into a municipality, no policy area is safe. Zoning, transportation, education, all of it risks slipping into the control of the federal government and the new, unelected regional bodies the feds will empower. Over time, AFFH could spell the end of the local democracy that Alexis de Tocqueville rightly saw as the foundation of America’s liberty and distinctiveness.

To accomplish its goals, HUD will dig into the racial balance ZIP code by ZIP code looking for areas of segregation, with the segregation threshold being nonwhite populations of 50 percent or more. Federally funded cities deemed overly segregated will be pressured to change their zoning laws to allow construction of more subsidized housing in affluent areas in the suburbs and relocate inner-city minorities to those predominantly white areas. HUD’s maps, which use dots to show the racial distribution or density in residential areas, will be used to select affordable-housing sites, according to the New York Post.

To employ this policy, the federal government has undertaken a massive Orwellian-style data collection initiative, prying into the medical records, credit card purchases, mortgage business records, IRS filings, employment records, educational records and local government policy initiatives searching for racial “inequalities” for the Justice Department to prosecute.

The only way to resist this tyranny is for local governments to eschew all federal monies including Community Development Block Grants going forward. Of course, local residents always pressure their community leaders to accept government monies under the auspices that they have paid their “taxes” and want a return on their “investment.” But once the Feds get their hooks into the local community through the distribution of money from the federal treasury, they can exert total control over local government’s functions regarding housing, zoning and regulations far more than they do already.

The globalist agenda is the most comprehensive program for world fascism and world collectivism ever conceived. Its basis is esoteric deception, as carried out pragmatically by mass politics, international mass banking and the mass media. It operates as a whole — as an organism. Today’s democratic globalists make the communists and the Nazis look like amateur totalitarians.

IRS Docs Show How the Renegade Tax Agency Used Donor Lists To Steer Audits

Greetings – the Meister is in Honningsvag, Norway – the Northernmost village in the world. Light rain and 52 degrees.

Judicial Watch has released more blockbuster documents from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that confirm that the IRS used donor lists of tax-exempt organizations to target those donors for audits. The documents also show that IRS officials specifically highlighted how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce may come under “high scrutiny” from the IRS. We forced these records out through a Freedom of Information lawsuit seeking documents about the selection of individuals and organizations for audits, based application information and donor lists submitted by Tea Party and other 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organizations.

In a letter dated September 28, 2010, then-Democrat Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) informs then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman: “I request that you and your agency survey major 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) organizations …” In reply, in a letter dated February 17, 2011, Shulman writes: “In the work plan of the Exempt Organizations Division, we announced that beginning in FY2011, we are increasing our focus on section 501(c)(4), (5) and (6) organizations.”

Sure enough, in 2010, after receiving Baucus’ letter, the IRS considered the issue of auditing donors to 501(c)(4) organizations, alleging that a 35 percent gift tax would be due on donations in excess of $13,000. The documents show that the IRS wanted to cross-check donor lists from 501(c)(4) organizations against gift tax filings and commence audits against taxpayers based on this information.

A gift tax on contributions to 501(c)(4)s was considered by most to be a dead letter since the IRS had never enforced the rule after the Supreme Court ruled that such taxes violated the First Amendment. The documents show that the IRS had not enforced the gift tax since 1982.

But then, in February 2011, at least five donors of an unnamed organization were audited.

The documents show that Crossroads GPS, associated with Republican Karl Rove, was specifically referenced by IRS officials in the context of applying the gift tax. On April 20, IRS attorney Lorraine Gardner emails a 501(c)(4) donor list to former Branch Chief in the IRS’ Office of the Chief Counsel James Hogan. Later, this information is apparently shared with IRS Estate Gift and Policy Manager Lisa Piehl while Gardner seeks “information about any of the donors.”

One of the most disturbing bits of information pulled from the documents concerns the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which sometimes works to support the free-enterprise system in the face of heavy-handed regulatory policies.

Emails to and from Lorraine Gardner point to a bias against the Chamber. An IRS official (whose name is redacted) emails Gardner on May 13, 2011, a leftist blog post responding to the IRS targeting of political and other activities of 501(c)(4), (5) and (6) organizations: “The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a 501(c)(6) organization and may find itself under high scrutiny. One can only hope.”

The subject line of the email highlights this anti-Chamber of Commerce comment: “we are making headlines notice the end regarding 501(c)(6) applicability enjoy.” This critical comment is forwarded to other IRS officials and shows up attached to another Gardner IRS email chain with the subject line “re: 501(c)(4)” that discusses a pending decision about a tax-exempt entity.

In early May, once the media began reporting on the IRS audits of donors, IRS officials reacted quickly. One official acknowledges the issue “is a biggy” when a reporter from The New York Times contacts the IRS on May 9.

On May 13, 2011, former IRS Director of Legislative Affairs Floyd Williams discusses compliance with “interest” from Capitol Hill: “Not surprisingly, interest on the hill is picking up on this issue … with Majority Leader Reid’s office, has suggested the possibility of a briefing for the Senate Finance Committee staff on general issues related to section 501(c)(4) organizations. I think we should do it as interest is likely to grow as we get closer to elections.”

Later that day, then-Director of the Exempt Organizations Lois Lerner weighs in with an email that confirms that she supported the gift tax audits. Lerner acknowledges that “the courts have said specifically that contributions to 527 political organizations are not subject to the gift tax-nothing that I’m aware of that about contributions to organizations that are not political organizations.” Section 501(c)(4) organizations are not “political organizations.” [Emphasis in original]

Lerner’s involvement and support for the new gift tax contradicts the IRS statement to the media at the time that audits were not part of a “broader effort looking at donations 501(c)(4)’s.” In July 2011, the IRS retreated after a public uproar and soon-to-be Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller directed that “examination resources should not be expended on this issue” and that all audits of taxpayers “relating to the application of gift taxes” to 501(c)(4) organizations “should be closed.”

By the way, we had filed a separate lawsuit for records about targeting of individuals for audit in November 2013. In that litigation, the IRS had refused to search any email systems, including Lerner’s records. A federal court ruled the IRS’ search was sufficient and dismissed the lawsuit earlier this month. So it took another lawsuit to get this new info from the IRS!

These documents that we had to force out of the IRS prove that the agency used donor lists to audit supporters of organizations engaged in First Amendment-protected lawful political speech. And the snarky comments about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the obsession with Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS show that the IRS was targeting critics of the Obama administration.

President Obama continues to lie about his IRS scandal. He told a comedian the other day that “there was not some big conspiracy there.” Obama also said, “Congress had passed a crummy law that didn’t give people guidance in terms of what it was they were trying to do. They did it poorly and stupidly.”

How does he know all this? The Department of Justice and the FBI supposedly are still conducting a criminal investigation.

The Treasury for Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) report exposing the scandal made no mention of “crummy laws” passed by Congress. Its audit revealed the IRS had used “inappropriate criteria” to identify potential political cases. “Early in Calendar Year 2010,” TIGTA wrote, “the IRS began using inappropriate criteria to identify organizations applying for tax-exempt status to (e.g., lists of past and future donors).” The illegal IRS reviews continued for more than 18 months and, TIGTA reported, “delayed processing of targeted groups’ applications preparing for the 2012 presidential election.”

And these documents tell the truth – his IRS hated conservatives and was willing to illegally tax and audit citizens to shut down opposition to Barack Obama’s policies and reelection.

Obama’s IRS falsehood the other day contained an admission that few picked up on. He said, “You don’t want all this money pouring through non-for-profits but you also want to make sure that everybody is getting treated fairly.” Who doesn’t “want all this money pouring through non-for-profits”? Barack Obama. There is no law prohibiting money “flowing through non-profits.” But he didn’t like the idea of this money being used against his reelection or his policies. So his IRS targeted these groups and their donors for lawless oppression.

This president and his administration are out of control.

That’s why your JW is working on several fronts where the growing scandal over IRS audits is concerned.

In September 2014, another Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit forced the release of documents detailing that the IRS sought, obtained and maintained the names of donors to Tea Party and other conservative groups. IRS officials acknowledged in these documents that “such information was not needed.” The documents also show that the donor names were being used for a “secret research project.”

Let’s review some of the facts Obama chose to ignore.

The House Ways and Means Committee announced at a May 7, 2014, hearing that, after scores of conservative groups provided donor information “to the IRS, nearly one in ten donors were subject to audit.” In 2011, as many as five donors to the conservative 501(c)(4) organization Freedom’s Watch were audited, according to the Wall Street Journal. Bradley Blakeman, Freedom’s Watch’s former president, also alleges he was “personally targeted” by the IRS.

There’s more.

In February 2014, then-Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) detailed improper IRS targeting of existing conservative groups:

Additionally, we now know that the IRS targeted not only right-leaning applicants, but also right-leaning groups that were already operating as 501(c)(4)s. At Washington, DC’s direction, dozens of groups operating as 501(c)(4)s were flagged for IRS surveillance, including monitoring of the groups’ activities, websites and any other publicly available information. Of these groups, 83 percent were right-leaning. And of the groups the IRS selected for audit, 100 percent were right-leaning.

Maybe President Obama can fool a comedian about the IRS scandal, but he isn’t fooling Judicial Watch as we battle his Justice Department and IRS lawyers successfully in court to hold him accountable for his worse-than-Nixon abuse of the IRS.

Federal Judge Says State Department Must “Answer For” Destruction of Clinton Emails

There is a legal reckoning coming for Hillary Clinton’s notorious email practices and policies. There is too much Judicial Watch legal pressure and too many federal court judges for the Obama administration and the Clinton gang forever to avoid the legal consequences of their email shenanigans. For instance, we are pleased to report that a federal judge has said that the State Department will “have to answer for” any destruction of Hillary Clinton’s email records.

U. S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras made the statement at a July 9, 2015, status conference concerning a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for records about the State Department’s vetting of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s potential conflicts of interest. The transcript of the July 9 court hearing is available here.

Recall that it was only four months ago, on March 2, 2015, that The New York Times reported then-Secretary Clinton used at least one non-“state.gov” email account to conduct official government business during her entire tenure as the secretary of state. It also was reported that Secretary Clinton stored these records on a non-U.S. government server at her home in Chappaqua, New York.

There are nearly 20 federal lawsuits that touch on Mrs. Clinton and her staff’s use of secret email accounts to conduct official government business. In our various FOIA lawsuits, our lawyers have informed attorneys for the Obama administration that Hillary Clinton’s account and any other secret accounts used by State employees should be secured, recovered and searched.

During this particular court hearing, Judicial Watch attorney Chris Fedeli raised the concerns JW had about the preservation of records, especially email records that were not part of the 55,000 records Clinton turned over to the State Department last year. Apparently, Fedeli struck the right note.

In response, Judge Contreras said he was also “concerned” about the preservation of these records:

If documents are destroyed between now and August 17, the government will have to answer for that, and, you know, if they don’t want to do anything out of the ordinary to preserve between now and then, they can make that choice. I will allow them to make that choice, but they will answer for it, if something happens.

After a Justice Department lawyer attempted to assure him that the administration was asking for government records from former State Department employees, Judge Contreras questioned the State Department’s position that it had no legal obligation to take additional steps to obtain other government records in the custody of Mrs. Clinton and other former officials who used her special email system:

[I]t is to state the obvious that this is not an ordinary case, and everyone should be working to make sure that whatever documents exist today remain in existence.

Judge Contreras also voiced concerns regarding the State Department’s refusal to provide any information about the Clinton email issue:

But I am a little bit mystified that the government is not more forthcoming in just answering questions that will help this case proceed on a systematic basis, and on a basis that will allow everyone to get the answers that will eventually help resolve these cases…

This one court hearing shows that Hillary Clinton and her co-conspirators in the State Department will have to account for each and every email on Hillary Clinton’s notorious email system. That’s encouraging. It’s become clear now to the public at large that Hillary Clinton has been telling fairy tales about the missing emails that are beginning to unravel. “Nothing Mrs. Clinton has said so far on the subject is correct,” The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberly Strassel has charitably observed.

Again, the reckoning is coming.

The court also seemed to reject the Obama administration’s contention that responding to Judicial Watch’s lawsuit in a timely way would derail its compliance with Judge Contreras’ order in another lawsuit (Leopold v. U.S. Department of State, (15-00123)) requiring that the 55,000 pages of Clinton email records be searched and produced under FOIA by January 2016:

My order in Leopold was based on numbers and percentages. To the extent that documents from that universe are produced in this case, they qualify for the numbers in Leopold, don’t they? So that they’re not mutually exclusive from a resource standpoint, are they?

The judge then said his “inclination is to have a search done of the Clinton e-mail database that’s digitized and searchable for this relatively narrow, in my view, relatively narrow request.”

A separate and ongoing Judicial Watch lawsuit forced the disclosure last year of documents that provided a road map for over 200 conflict-of-interest rulings that led to $48 million for the Clinton Foundation and other Clinton-connected entities during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state. Previously disclosed documents in this lawsuit, for example, raise questions about funds Clinton accepted from entities linked to Saudi Arabia, China and Iran, among others. Judicial Watch and The Washington Examiner partnered in the first story to break the Clinton conflicts scandal: “State Department approved 215 Bill Clinton speeches, controversial consulting deal, worth $48m; Hillary Clinton’s Chief of Staff copied on all decisions.”

You can see why the State Department and the Clinton operation have been trying to play a rope-a-dope obstruction game with Judicial Watch, courts and Congress for these emails. But it won’t work.

As I write this, news is breaking that Hillary Clinton is the subject of a criminal referral to the Justice Department by two separate inspectors general for an investigation into her potentially criminal mishandling of hundreds of pages of classified information on her email system. The New York Times broke the story (and may have edited it at the behest of the Clinton campaign), but there is no doubt that there is serious criminal liability for Hillary Clinton. If the Justice Department, the State Department, or the FBI were all above-board, there would have been law enforcement activity many months ago. Now we know that the State Department resisted cooperating with the IG investigations. And we can’t trust the Obama Justice Department. The New York Times tells us that it helping Hillary Clinton’s PR effort, too:

On Thursday night and again Friday morning, the Justice Department referred to the matter as a “criminal referral” but later on Friday dropped the word “criminal.”

At the Obama Justice Department, politics always comes first, so it is imperative that no less than a special counsel be appointed to investigate this matter. Under Justice Department regulations:

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and-(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and (b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter.”

This will be a major ethical test for new Attorney General Loretta Lynch. In the meantime, we will continue our pursuit for information and accountability in the courts.

Judicial Watch Client McCann Testifies To Congress on Deadly Sanctuary Policies

If you’d like to see how irrelevant and out of touch the typical D.C. debate about “amnesty” for illegal aliens can be, I suggest you watch this video of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this week. American citizens told of loved ones who were murdered by illegal aliens thanks to lawless state and national “sanctuary policies.” I attended that hearing in person, so I can tell you it that it will make you both upset and angry.

Judicial Watch was at the hearing because it included the testimony of our client Brian McCann, who did his part earlier to jolt the political class back to reality. McCann is a lifelong resident of Chicago. We are representing him in his lawsuit against Cook County Sheriff Thomas J. Dart. The suit challenges the sheriff’s refusal to cooperate with federal immigration officials or honor immigration detainers issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for criminal aliens.

McCann’s written testimony, which is available in full here, brings home the enormous human tragedy attached to illegal immigration and the dangers of open, unsecured borders. Mr. McCann told the committee members about how his brother, William “Denny” McCann, was run over and killed in June 2011 by an unlawfully present criminal alien who had just completed a two-year term of probation for a 2009 DUI conviction. The alien, Saul Chavez, was charged with felony aggravated driving under the influence, but was released by Dart from a Cook County jail in November 2011 despite an ICE immigration detainer. At the time, ICE issued detainers when it learned that criminal aliens are being held by state or local law enforcement officials. The detainers required the criminal aliens be held for an additional 48 hours to enable ICE to take custody of them before they are released. At the time, Cook County jails had released as many as 1,000 criminal aliens sought by ICE in the previous 18 months. We continue this legal fight. Just last month we filed a petition for review with the Illinois Supreme Court.

Denny McCann’s killer is believed to have fled to Mexico. As Brian McCann recounted to the Senate committee:

Denny was crossing Kedzie Avenue on a marked crosswalk four years ago and was violently struck by a drunk driver who dragged Denny under his car for a block in an attempt to flee before Denny died. The family was notified by the Chicago Police and the killer was placed into custody and charged with aggravated DUI causing death. Two days later ICE issued a detainer because the young man was an illegal alien with a prior felony. The family was assured by the Cook County prosecutor that the defendant would not be allowed to post bail and be released. Three months later the Cook County Board passed the ordinance that effectively requires the sheriff to ignore detainers. During the intervening weeks after Denny’s violent death, Cook County President Toni Preckwinkle and former mayoral candidate and Commissioner Jesus Garcia pushed for the ordinance and rammed it through on September 7, 2011. Two months later the killer made bail and absconded to Mexico.

As if Denny McCann’s death was not painful enough for the family, they also had to endure learning that if our government had simply enforced the law, the illegal alien who killed his brother would not be running loose. Here is how Mr. McCann tells it:

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this whole ordeal was that we also learned that this illegal alien was prosecuted for another felony two years earlier and ICE was never notified then. He was removed from probation February 2011 and four months later killed Denny. In short, Denny would be alive today and enjoying the birth of a new granddaughter born two weeks ago if the Cook County criminal justice system that included the county board did its job. I received confirmation that he is indeed in Mexico from the FBI and is currently driving a truck. I had to prevail on my congressman to get the FBI to cooperate with my request for information and action. I have not heard from the Bureau in over six months.

Of course, the Obama administration has run away from any serious enforcement of our immigration laws and no longer routinely issues detainers requiring that local police hold illegal alien criminals:

Because ICE no longer routinely issues detainers we are no longer challenging [Sherriff Thomas] Dart’s refusal to honor them. However, we continue to challenge the Sheriff’s policy of prohibiting and restricting communications and the exchanging of information with ICE officials about a person’s citizenship or immigration status. Now under PEP (Priority Enforcement Program) even if ICE requests that Cook County notify them of the impending release of a deportable criminal alien, Cook County would not comply. I find this unacceptable and will fight this policy in the courts until the end. I remain very concerned that the current immigration enforcement policies seem to encourage jurisdictions like Cook County and San Francisco to continue their noncooperation policies.

The other victims who testified that day also told harrowing stories and demanded action.

President Obama’s response was to threaten to veto any legislation that would withhold federal monies from states or localities that continued sanctuary policies that put the public safety at risk. And a report out of The New York Times confirmed what we’ve been highlight for years – that Obama has stopped deporting almost every illegal alien. The story confirms as many as 87 percent of illegals won’t be subject to deportation under Obama’s unlawful sanctuary/amnesty policies.

As are doing for fine Americans like Brian McCann, Judicial Watch will continue to investigate, litigate and educate. We promise to continue to expose this assault on the rule of law, the public safety, and our nation’s sovereignty.

Until next week…

The Toothbrush Salesman

fc1011182e570746077fabaa758330a4

The kids filed into class Monday morning. They were all very excited. Their weekend assignment was to sell something, then give a talk on salesmanship.

Little Sally led off. “I sold Girl Scout cookies and I made $30″ she said proudly. “My sales approach was to appeal to the customer’s civil spirit and I credit that approach for my obvious success.”

“Very good”, said the teacher.

Little Debbie was next. “I sold magazines” she said. “I made $45 and I explained to everyone that magazines would keep them up on current events.”

“Very good, Debbie”, said the teacher.

Eventually, it was Little Johnny’s turn. The teacher held her breath. Little Johnny walked to the front of the classroom and dumped a box full of cash on the teacher’s desk. “$2,467″, he said. “$2,467!” cried the teacher, “What in the world were you selling?” “Toothbrushes”, said Little Johnny. “Toothbrushes”, echoed the teacher. “How could you possibly sell enough tooth brushes to make that much money?”

“I found the busiest corner in town”, said Little Johnny. “I set up a Dip & Chip stand and I gave everybody who walked by a free sample.” They all said the same thing; “Hey, this tastes like dog poop!” I would say, “It is dog poop. Wanna buy a toothbrush?” “I used the President Obama method of giving you some crap, dressing it up so it looks good, telling you it’s free and then making you pay to get the bad taste out of your mouth.”

Little Johnny got five stars for his assignment.
Bless his little heart.

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to
restrain the people; it is an instrument for the
people to restrain the government-lest it come to
dominate our lives and interests”
Patrick Henry

WHY ARE WE IN DECLINE

marxProgressivism (A.K.A. Cultural Marxism) is a leftist thought process implemented into society via media, academia, politics and entertainment. It desires a world with no traditional families, no religion, no pride, and no identity. It promotes degeneracy, immorality, ugliness, miscegenation, false history and self loathing. Progressivism is societal rot, it eats away at the foundations of a civilisation until it falls in on itself. What is left is the decayed remnants of a once great civilisation, the one time envy of the world and eternal enemy of the progressives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VggFao85vTs&feature=youtu.be

Progressivism thrives off certain traits unique to the European that work against the best interests of the European. Those traits being empathy and altruism. It promotes out group empathy and out group altruism, and attacks those who practice in group empathy and in group altruism.

An example of this would be the concept that ‘charity begins at home.’ This basically means that you look after your own first and foremost, but progressivism would call this ‘racist’ and ‘discriminatory.’ They believe that charity is for all even if it is damaging to the person or nation being charitable. The empathetic and altruistic nature of the European is manipulated in this scenario, they will part with their money to feed the third world, and will support the foreign aid budget sent to the third world, but have no idea about their own nations needy.

They will naively support immigration from the third world believing that third world people are merely seeking a better life, yet they ignore the consequences for themselves and their own people in the long term. They fall victim to the steering of their emotions by mass media and the progressive agenda. Empathy and Altruism are emotions based on concern and sympathy for others, that is why the progressive left appeal to emotion and rarely use logic based in reality.

‘Progress’ basically means moving forward, advancing, onward. In relation to society, ‘progress’ supposedly means moving society forward, advancing society, or moving society onward. The question has to be therefore, progress to what exactly?

The answer to this question is all around you, the ‘progress’ they seek is not to advance society or Western civilisation as a whole, it is to deconstruct it. To the progessives, Western civilisation is the enemy, they don’t want to advance us they want to destroy us. Can anybody who is not a brainwashed drone say hand on heart that society is better today?

Progressivism is a false term when applied to what progressives say advances society, this is intentional. For them to deconstruct and destroy Western Civilisation they needed to give it a positive term, and ‘progress’ is that term. When somebody thinks of the word progress, they think of a positive rather than a negative and this is capitalised on by the progressives.

Strip away the layers surrounding ‘progressivism’ and you will find Cultural Marxism, an ideology hell bent on the collapse of Western Civilisation. Progressivism is a lie based on hatred, there is nothing positive about it and nothing that benefits us as a society, people or culture by falling for the agenda. The hatred of the progressives is directed at the West and the European people, our culture and traditionalism.

Anybody opposing the anti-Western progressive agenda will be subject to the Alinskyite tactics outlined in ‘Rules for Radicals,’ these are tactics that are used to advance the agenda. It can also be called repressive tolerance which is the brainchild of Herbert Marcuse. In practice it means the toleration of all ideas and views that are in line with the anti-Western narrative, and intolerance for all ideas and views that oppose them.

A good explanation of progressivism is the following:

‘Starting in the 1960s, academics took heightened interest in Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci’s cultural Marxism. Members of the political class glommed onto the resulting “social justice,” affirmative action, “diversity,” multiculturalism, political correctness, and other malignancies spawned by cultural Marxism. Progressive politicians came to view society as a hodge-podge of racial, ethnic, gender-based, and now also sexual orientation-based groups locked in zero-sum combat with Western whites.

‘Generally speaking, cultural Marxism’s indoctrinees have learned to view morality and knowledge as “constructs” and social and economic power as commodities to be transferred from “oppressor” to “oppressed.” Progressives routinely label minorities as oppressed and anything that benefits minorities as moral.’ – Chuck

Some examples of the Cultural Marxist Progressivism agenda.

Multiculturalism/Multiracialism

This is one tenet of progressivism. They say that having a multiracial society is ‘progress’ and that ‘diversity is our strength.’ Progressives want a ‘post-racial’ society devoid of racial identity. They promote and support mass immigration and miscegenation and desire the day when white Europeans are a minority in once White European homelands. Can anybody who is not an anti-white see how this can possibly be called progress? When you are able to think freely and evaluate the facts, you will see that progressivism is an anti white European agenda. It isn’t about progressing the white European people, it is about destroying them.

Proof of this is seen in the demographic predictions by expert demographers that European nations including Britain, France, Sweden, the Netherlands and others, will be minority European this century. We are anti-European Union and anti EU migration, we fully recognise the problems it brings, however the main issue is the tens upon tens of millions of non-Europeans who have been brought to Europe. This is the primary reason European nations will soon become minority European.

Modernism

So called modern art and architecture is the result of the hatred of classical Western art and architecture. The progressives produce and promote ugliness in every way possible, it is all about removing the individual away from his cultural heritage. By producing modernist art and architecture they replace the historical Western character of our culture, with so called ‘modern’ and ‘progressive’ monstrosities. The progressives want to move past the historical character of our culture because they hate it, not because they want to advance it. They do this not only by attacking the culture in academia, but also by replacing the cultural expression of the West which was once a prominent feature of our culture.

Sexual Liberation

This tenet of progressivism has resulted in a culture of degeneracy promoted by the entertainment industry, porn industry and media. The sexualisation of our culture has led to a decline in family values and has stigmatised the pursuit of creating a traditional family environment which includes man woman and child. Cultural Marxists thought that if you could free people from what they called ‘sexual oppression’ then you could start the process of deconstructing the West.

The process was started by the pseudo-scientist Sigmund Freud who tried to suggest that sexual oppression was the cause of unhappiness. The sexual revolution, a term coined by Wilhelm Reich, became the manifestation of what Freud had created. The progressives say that ‘sexual liberation’ is freedom from Western morality and religious indoctrination.

Eros and civilisation, written by Herbert Marcuse created an environment in the 60s of ‘free love’ among the baby boomers or counterculture movement. The book is about how the oppression of human sexual instinct is geared towards social control. In a nutshell it suggests that the freedom of sexual desire and the pleasure principle is a means of human liberation from civilisation, ie Western Civilisation which they see a being the capitalist West. The progressives see the family as being part of the capitalist conspiracy to control people and therefore it must be deconstructed.

Homosexuality

Homosexuality is part of the ‘sexual liberation’ agenda, however it is also a different kind of strategy. The goal behind the normalising and promotion of homosexuality is to corrupt and distort the natural realities behind the reasons for sex. Sex is primarily about reproduction, the continuation of the species. Without heterosexuality then the species would die out within a generation. Homosexuality and the homosexual agenda is one of the main progessive agendas. They deny at every turn the real reasons behind it and its ultimate goals, and use that term ‘progress’ to brainwash people into believing that support for, and promotion of ‘gay rights’ is good for society.

They say that homosexuality is normal and that it is nobody’s business what two adults get up to. They say ‘love is love’ and that we should all tolerate it. Anybody who doesn’t, and who doesn’t conform to the agenda is an ‘Intolerant homophobic bigot.’ They want children forced into same-sex households to be raised by homosexuals and believe that children should be indoctrinated from the earliest age possible to support the gay agenda. Children are the primary target of the homosexual agenda, as the new generation they are viewed as pivotal in the ‘normalisation’ process.

Another main strategy of the homosexual agenda is to legalise ‘same-sex marriage.’ This is an assault on Western Culture which was once largely based on Christian teachings and values which does not allow same-sex marriage or accept homosexuality as a normal or acceptable practice in the eyes of God. It is not about ‘equality in marriage’ it is about targeting one of the foundations of the West in order to destroy it. In order for the homosexual agenda to ‘progress’ therefore, means a concerted attack upon the religious opposition to it.

Another reason for the promotion of the homosexual agenda, is because the progressives believe that there is no absolute truth or moral standard, no moral absolutism. Anything goes as far as the progressive is concerned, anything that advances the ongoing assault on the West. They will say that nothing is absolute, and therefore we ‘shouldn’t judge.’ Yes the people who scream ‘who are you to judge’ are the most judgemental people you could ever have the misfortune to meet.

An example of moral relativism would be any practice that we in the West consider barbaric such as Female Genital Mutilation, the moral relativist would say that the practice is a moral practice within a certain culture, and therefore we shouldn’t judge.

The educational institutions push moral relativism onto the young and impressionable, telling them that all beliefs and lifestyles are moral and therefore valid, except beliefs that run counter to the narrative of the agenda however. This means that parents are losing the fight to be the moral educators of their children. The progressives believe that in order to create a ‘truly egalitarian and equal society,’ that education should teach (indoctrinate) children with homosexual propaganda.

Homosexuality is also opposed on the basis of the natural requirement and natural intention for man and woman to procreate. The progressive will say that ‘homosexuality can be found in nature,’ but that wouldn’t make it normal or natural. In nature, things have a design and purpose, and the design and purpose of the male and female is to procreate. Attraction and sexual chemistry between male and female therefore is the normal and natural requirement for procreation. Anything else is abnormal and unnatural. Any examples of so called ‘homosexuality in nature’ are merely an act of dominance and not a normal natural sexual act.

Progressives believe that an extreme minority in society who engage in this type of behaviour, should be empowered to dictate to the overwhelming heterosexual majority, who they consider to be a ‘bigoted majority.’

The term ‘homophobia’ was created by George Weinberg, it has become one the main Cultural Marxist buzzwords and along with ‘racist’ has caused untold damage. ‘Homophobia’ suggests a fear of homosexuals and what they say is an illogical heterosexual reaction to them. I would call ‘homophobia’ a natural feeling of utter revulsion for an unnatural behaviour.

Eradication of the Nuclear Family

Progressives see the family as an oppressive unit that pushes racism, sexism, homophobia and fascism onto children. They say that the family is patriarchal, authorative and hierarchical. They believe that after the eradication of the family, they can fill children with the ideas of ‘equality’ and ‘egalitarianism.’ The methods in which they set out to destroy the family are to promote homosexuality, feminism, sexual liberation and a reliance on the state. The role of the father has also been under attack, cut the father out of the family unit and the job is already half done. The family is labeled as a ‘generational chain of oppression.’

No Borders

Progressives believe that there should be no national borders anywhere, they believe in the full and absolute freedom of movement for all people of the world. This in reality means no borders in nations that are majority white European. The desire of the non-European people to come to Europe is vastly greater than the reverse. This belief in no borders is in line with the Communist ‘world without borders’ mantra.

Progressivism is a racist anti-white school of brainwashed thought and hatred. It is the rejection of reality and the rejection of the natural order of things. It wishes to create a society of anarchy that acts as a corrosive force against the West. READ MORE !! https://www.facebook.com/tjf2006/photos/a.461363727306432.1073741828.437674196342052/712814812161321/?type=1

THINK BIG AND KICK ASS

Donald

Walker Wins: New Budget Will Repeal University Tenure

RTR4RCT11-e1436564350186
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is poised to win a huge victory on education as the state legislature passed a budget that repeals state tenure guarantees while also slashing the budget of the University of Wisconsin.

The victory was enunciated by the acquiescence of the university, which recognized its defeat by passing a spending plan that implements Walker’s cuts. All that remains is for Walker to consummate his victory by affixing his signature to the budget.

The two-year, $73 billion budget approved Thursday makes a host of changes Walker has sought in the realm of education. Wisconsin’s school voucher program is expanded, and $250 million in funding is taken from the University of Wisconsin. That’s down from the $300 million cut Walker originally sought, but still a substantial haircut.

Bowing to the fait accompli, later on Thursday the University of Wisconsin approved its own budget, implementing the big cuts expected of it. About 400 positions will be laid off or will go unfilled, and the university’s budgets no money for pay hikes. The school’s situation is made tougher because the legislature has also frozen in-state tuition.

While academics have accused Walker of sabotaging the school’s competitiveness, Walker has refused to yield, arguing that professors should be teaching more classes. (RELATED: Walker: University Profs Need To Work Harder)

Walker’s push to slash spending at U-Wisconsin has received the most press, but his push to alter tenure may have the biggest long-term implications. Until now, tenure for professors at the University of Wisconsin has been protected by statute (Wisconsin is the only state with such a law). Now, that protection has been eliminated, leaving it up to the school’s board of regents to decide whether professors have tenure.

Not only that, but tenure itself has been weakened so that it doesn’t offer the protections it once did. Previously, only “financial exigency” (an urgent budget shortfall) could justify the firing of a tenured professor. Now, tenured professors may also be laid off whenever it is “deemed necessary due to a budget or program decision regarding program discontinuance, curtailment, modification, or redirection.” (RELATED: Wisconsin Might Destroy Tenure For Professors)

The budget also rolls back the principle of “shared governance,” in which faculty are given heavy leeway to control the governance of their own departments. Instead, faculty are assigned a primary advisory role for helping the chancellor.

University of Wisconsin-Madison Chancellor Rebecca Blank sent a letter to Walker Friday begging him to veto the changes, saying they would drive away current and prospective faculty.

“Over its 165-year history, the University of Wisconsin-Madison has built an international reputation for the highest quality research and teaching,” said Blank. “For us to attract and retain the best faculty in the global higher education marketplace, it is imperative that UW-Madison not be seen as offering a less attractive package than can be found at our peer institutions.”

But given that rolling back tenure is Walker’s idea in the first place, a veto at the eleventh hour is a very unlikely concession.

Angry faculty have directed a great deal of venom toward Blank and the UW board of regents, accusing them of letting the tenure provisions pass by failing to make a loud protest.

Walker is expected to sign the budget by Monday, when he is scheduled to officially announce his presidential campaign.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/11/walker-wins-new-budget-will-repeal-university-tenure/#ixzz3fhsoJK4A

Poster Boy For the Democrat Party

SF-Poster-Boy-NRD-600

Donald Trump Defiantly Rallies a New ‘Silent Majority’ in a Visit to Arizona

12trump-web-slide-F0B6-jumbo

by Nicholas Fandos
PHOENIX — Donald Trump, the real estate mogul and reality television star who has taken center stage in the race for the Republican presidential nomination this week, delivered a rambling monologue on Saturday, dismissing a long list of critics — including Jeb Bush, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Macy’s — while rallying what he termed a new silent majority of voters.

Mr. Trump had less to say about immigration, the topic on which his comments have garnered so much attention, than about those who have criticized him. For more than an hour, he ticked through a list of businesses and candidates who have tried to censure him since his long-shot campaign began three weeks ago, and made light of their practices and intelligence.

“How can I be tied with this guy?” Trump said of Mr. Bush, whom many consider the Republican front-runner. “He’s terrible. He’s weak on immigration.”

Donald J. Trump, center, attended an event Monday at Trump Golf Links in the Bronx.Can’t Fire Him: Republican Party Frets Over What to Do With Donald TrumpJULY 9, 2015
Donald J. Trump talked with reporters after speaking to members of the City Club of Chicago last month.Donald Trump’s Comments Resonate With Some in G.O.P.JULY 9, 2015
Donald Trump said he stood by comments he made about Mexican immigrants.Donald Trump’s Lousy Week (Except for the Polling)JULY 2, 2015
The speech had a distinctly celebratory air as Mr. Trump lauded the “massive” crowds he has drawn and the attention he has brought to immigration and other issues that he said “weak” politicians were afraid to address.

What Donald Trump Would Need to Do to Win
It also demonstrated what his party fears most about him: that he is an orator without regard for decorum who is willing to mock other Republicans.

The speech, hosted by the Republican Party of Maricopa County, drew several thousand people to the Phoenix Convention Center, making it one of the largest events for any candidate so far, though short of the crowd of 10,000 predicted by the Trump campaign. Outside, in the 100-degree desert heat, supporters who could not make it into the room waved American flags and sparred with a smaller but vocal group of protesters.

“The silent majority is back, and we’re going to take our country back,” Mr. Trump declared as he left the stage.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, whose tactics in tracking down illegal immigrants drew national attention and a federal conviction for racial profiling in 2013, preceded Mr. Trump on stage at the businessman’s invitation.

As he had earlier in the day in Las Vegas, Mr. Trump also brought to the stage Jamiel Shaw Sr., the father of a teenager killed in 2008 by an undocumented immigrant in Los Angeles, to share the story of his son’s death and to endorse Mr. Trump.

Continue reading the main story

Who Is Running for President (and Who’s Not)?
Mr. Trump’s trip to the immigrant-heavy border region was the first since he asserted in his campaign announcement on June 16 that those crossing the United States-Mexico border illegally included rapists and criminals. Those remarks have earned Mr. Trump sharp criticism from business and political leaders across the country, including companies such as Macy’s, Univision and NBC that have cut ties with him in recent weeks.

He came to Phoenix after addressing a series of private and public audiences Friday and Saturday in Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

“This has become a movement because people don’t know what’s happening,” Mr. Trump said. “We can’t be great if we don’t have a border.”

His welcome here was not entirely warm. Phoenix’s vice mayor and several pro-immigrant groups had called for the city to bar him from speaking at the convention center, which it owns. Mayor Greg Stanton, a Democrat, rejected those calls, saying he would respect Mr. Trump’s right to free speech.

But just as Mr. Trump’s presence in the nominating race has confounded national Republican leaders trying to expand the party’s appeal to minority groups, his visit here posed a dilemma for state officials trying to distance themselves from the anti-immigrant policies of the recent past.

Bernie Sanders Courts Martha’s Vineyard Donors 10:28 PM ET
Hillary Clinton Picks Up Teachers’ Union Endorsement 4:45 PM ET
Did Scott Walker’s Twitter Account Get Ahead of His Campaign? 7:19 PM ET
Arizona’s senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, both Republicans, decided not to attend the event, as did the Republican governor, Doug Ducey. Mr. Flake also called on the Maricopa County Republican Party to rescind its invitation to Mr. Trump, a request that was ignored.

On Saturday, Mr. Flake said Mr. Trump’s remarks, which he called “intolerant” and “inaccurate,” would hurt Republicans here and around the country as they attempt to appeal to a broader demographic of voters.

“Particularly in Arizona, we have had such a long stretch of this kind of rhetoric and this kind of talk,” Mr. Flake said in a telephone interview before Mr. Trump’s speech. “We seem to be moving beyond that here, and this kind of rhetoric just pulls us back.”

For many here, the event revived an image of the state, embodied by Sheriff Arpaio, as unwelcoming and harsh in its enforcement of illegal immigration laws — a perception that Mr. Ducey has worked hard to dispel. He barely discussed immigration during his campaign last year, and since taking office in January, he has worked to make his mark as a business-centric leader, focused on taxes and improving Arizona’s beleaguered public education system.

Saturday’s crowd, though, suggested that the topic remains a galvanizing force among the Republican Party’s conservative base here. Many who had lined up outside the convention center said Mr. Trump was the only candidate willing to speak up about what they see as the risks of illegal immigration and the failures of federal law enforcement to solve the problem.

“I’m very interested in Mr. Trump,” said Rod Patrick, a 72-year-old retired rancher and small business owner. “It’s not necessarily because he’s a good guy, but I’m fed up with politicians.”

Steve Donaldson, 31, agreed, saying that Mr. Trump’s experience in international business, rather than elective politics, made him the best-prepared candidate for the presidency. Mr. Donaldson said Mr. Trump could have been more artful in crafting his points about illegal immigration, in particular, but thought that the abrasive approach was actually helping him in the polls.

“I think his delivery on some of his points could use a little finesse,” he said, “but that’s also what I like most about him.”

Fernanda Santos and Kimberley McGee contributed reporting.

Insight into How We Are Turning into Greece

by Mark homebarrons-cover-3

In order to turn a town, city, state, or nation into Greece, you just need obscure terminology and plausible deniability.

The New York Time’s Dealbook blog has a great recent post: “Bad Math and a Coming Public Pension Crisis.”

The thing to remember when you read the post is that someone could have reported this five years ago or ten years ago. It could have been an above-the-fold headline instead of a blog post. It could have been a series of stories.

But no one at the Times wants to do that. They work for the people who plunder us and hope to get out of the game before it collapses. A story like this shows that the cracks in the foundation are now too obvious to be ignored.

When Jim Palermo was serving as a trustee of the village of La Grange, Ill., he noticed something peculiar about the local police officers and firefighters. They were not going to live as long as might be expected, at least according to pension tables.

After Mr. Palermo dug into the numbers, he found that the actuary — the person who advises pension plan trustees about how much money to set aside — was using a mortality table from 1971 that showed La Grange’s roughly 100 police officers and firefighters were expected to die, on average, before reaching 75, compared with 79 under a more recent table.

That seems like obvious fraud with a plan to be out of the system before someone realized it was broken and was held responsible for fixing it. By using the wrong tables, the government was given a false justification for not setting aside as much money.

Assuming shorter life spans reduces annual contributions and frees up money for other things, like bigger current paychecks. And if the plan bases pensions on pay, as those in most American cities do, shortening the workers’ life spans on paper could lead to both fatter paychecks now and bigger pensions in the future. In La Grange’s case, those four years meant tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to each retiree.

Now actuaries are worried about getting blamed for the looming economic implosion that will soon set upon us. The odd thing is that these worried actuaries use language that seems to indicate they think members of their profession are being wrongly blamed and then flip to language that indicates they are guilty.

[See also, “Warren Buffet Is as Much a “Tapeworm” as the Pensions He Finally Talks About.”]

“Actuaries make a juicy target,” said Mary Pat Campbell, an actuary who responded to the board’s call for comments.

She expressed concern that elected officials were using actuaries to lend respectability to “questionable behavior” like funding pensions with borrowed money, picking risky investments and “enacting benefit improvements based on lowballed costs.”

Other commentators have focused on the opacity of actuaries’ calculations and reports to the boards of trustees that govern public pension plans.

Trustees need clear and honest projections and do not receive them, a former pension trustee from Kentucky, Christopher Tobe, wrote.

I don’t know if the trustees really wanted “clear and honest projections,” but it was obviously the actuaries job to provide them regardless.

Another commentator, Mark Glennon, told the board that actuaries were churning out reports that no one but other actuaries could understand, providing cover for elected officials who were letting problems spin out of control.

“Chicago represents the most glaring example,” wrote Mr. Glennon, the founder of an online news service, WirePoints, which covers the fiscal morass in Illinois. “An actuary could have looked only briefly at some of its pension reports from years ago and seen the calamity to come. Reporters, political leadership and most pension trustees could not. Those who could understand were able to remain silent.”

But reporters could have asked for assistance. They didn’t want to know.

Pensions are massively underfunded now all over the country.

Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2015/07/insight-into-how-we-are-turning-into-greece/#ttPMobYwlcQLId9u.99

HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN