'Does your organization support existence of Israel?' Obama's IRS accused of targeting Jews

Amplify’d from www.wnd.com

Obama's IRS accused of targeting Jews

'Special Policy' demands: 'Does your organization support existence of Israel?'

By Eugene J. Koprowski © 2010 WorldNetDaily

An attorney for an educational organization called Z Street says there's now evidence Internal Revenue Service agents under the direction of the Obama administration intentionally are targeting the free speech and religious rights of American Jews.

WND reported only weeks ago when the IRS delayed approval of a tax-exempt status for a private organization and was reviewing its educational work after explaining it must be examined by Washington because its activities may "contradict the administration's public policies."

That allegation was contained in a federal lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Z Street, a Merion Station, Pa., group that educates on the statehood and status of Israel.

Find out what happens when the government strays, in "Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws"

Now Jerome M. Marcus, an attorney for Z Street, has revealed to WND that additional documents have been found demonstrating how the IRS has moved "beyond the pale" by cracking down on education groups that focus on Israel.

Marcus, of the firm Marcus & Auerbach in suburban Philadelphia, said such "viewpoint discrimination" is a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

He said the government isn't allowed to weigh the religious viewpoints of educational organizations when deciding whether to grant them tax exempt status under federal charity laws.

Marcus has filed a memorandum opposing the government's motion to dismiss the case and it includes new evidence: a letter sent to another Jewish organization which raised questions about political beliefs similar to those that were asked of Z Street.

The brief, which has been posted online, challenges the IRS' motives and methods.

"This shows that what happened to my client was not anomalous, not just an agent [IRS agent Diane Gentry] who didn't understand that Z Street was an educational organization," Marcus told WND. "This information indicates that this is a policy that the IRS is pursuing. It is not an appropriate inquiry asking about someone's religious beliefs or political beliefs."

A hearing may be held in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia to probe the questions raised by the evidence, Marcus said.

"That should be interesting," he said.

The IRS did not comment on the matter. A spokeswoman in the Washington, D.C., office referred a journalist to the agency's Philadelphia contact and the contact there told WND he could not comment.

Marcus said the IRS had an initial deadline this week to respond to last week's filing for Z Street, but asked for an extension of the deadline due to the Thanksgiving holiday and Z Street agreed.

'Wildly Improper'

In his brief, Marcus details the "wildly improper" questioning by the IRS of yet another Jewish organization.

Marcus wrote: "As detailed in the Declaration of Jerome M. Marcus, Z STREET's counsel in this case, after the instant Complaint was filed, Plaintiff learned that another organization – this one simply Jewish and without any publicly stated positions on political issues affecting the State of Israel – applied for a charitable exemption. While the application was pending, its representative received a letter from the IRS, all but the first page of which appears as Exhibit 1 to Mr. Marcus's declaration. The letter, sent not by Agent Gentry, who was handling Plaintiff's application, but by a different IRS agent, inquires of the applicant: 'Does your organization support the existence of the land of Israel? Describe your organization's religious belief system towards the land of Israel.'"

Marcus continued, "Can one imagine that an application for tax exemption could – constitutionally – be affected in any conceivable way by the answer to these questions?"

In his brief last week, Marcus also noted that the fact the answers are being demanded makes it clear beyond doubt that IRS officials have taken the time to determine that this is a useful line of inquiry; have obtained approval for this conclusion; disseminated this conclusion to agents processing applications for 501(c)(3) exemption; drafted questions designed to ferret out the answers the government needs to apply this policy; and then spent more time posing the questions, and then weighing their significance to determine the answers' impact on whether exemptions from tax should be granted.

'Israel Special Policy'

The IRS is executing its "Israel Special Policy" which agent Gentry informed Marcus about orally during talks about the non-profit application before the case was filed, Marcus said, noting that IRS has also established a "special unit" in its offices in Washington, D.C., to examine Jewish groups that may advocate policies contrary to those espoused by Barack Hussein Obama.

"This is not an appropriate inquiry – what are your religious beliefs," Marcus told WND. "As long as one's beliefs are factually based, IRS has no business questioning them. Inquiring into the substance of one's political beliefs is beyond the pale. It's pure viewpoint discrimination and a violation of the First Amendment."

Lori Lowenthal-Marcus, founder of Z Street, said in an interview that the group was formally organized during the summer of 2009, and applied for charitable tax exempt status from IRS last fall. The IRS' delay in granting 501c3 status has "damaged" the fundraising of the group, as large donors usually want to have their donations be tax deductible.

"We have no problem getting membership fees, which are $18," Lowenthal-Marcus told WND. "But those are small donations. People don't worry about tax deductions for small donations."

Lowenthal-Marcus said that other Jewish groups are starting to acknowledge viewpoint discrimination as well in postings online, including a posting by a man identifying himself as a "CPA" on the blog Isra-Pundit on Nov. 28, 2010.

The poster stated, "IRS policy has completely changed regarding Jewish organizations. We see with every inquiry. It is scary. We had a case that was verbally approved by a given agent. And then pulled away for additional questions."

Even tax law professors are outraged, according to a posting on the blog for tax lawyer and professors which asks the question, "is failure to support Obama administration's foreign policy grounds to deny tax exempt status?"

Said Lowenthal-Marcus: "Other people are starting to come out of the woodwork. The same thing is happening to them."

She told WND earlier the organization has met all of the requirements to be granted tax-exempt status. But the approval was delayed because of a "Special Israel Policy that requires greater scrutiny of organizations which have to do with Israel, in part to determine whether they espouse positions on Israel contrary to those of the current administration."

Previous story:

Don't agree with Obama? Get ready for IRS probe Read more at www.wnd.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/h5ff

Democrat abandons Obama on gate rape congressman goes for financial jugular

Amplify’d from www.wnd.com

Democrat abandons Obama on gate rape

Fed-up with nude pics, health dangers, congressman goes for financial jugular

By Jerome R. Corsi © 2010 WorldNetDaily

A Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives is now urging Congress to freeze funding for the controversial nude-image scanners being installed in airports around the nation by the Transportation Security Administration.

U.S. Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., a Ph.D. physicist and current chair of the House Select Oversight Panel, also has written to ask for a meeting with TSA Administrator John Pistole to discuss his concerns regarding TSA's implementation of X-ray backscatter full-body scanning machines at airports throughout the nation.

On his website, Holt said, "Like many of you, I have serious questions about the Transportation Security Administration's new body imaging technology and pat-down procedures. I have written to the TSA administrator and called for congressional hearings about the need to look more closely at the privacy issues and effectiveness of the screenings, and especially the potential long-term health effects of the new technology."

He said, "We shouldn't be using, much less expanding the use of, technology unless we are sure of the health impact. The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, is conducting an examination of backscatter technology. As I've urged, Congress should freeze funding for any further full-body scanning devices employing this technology until GAO completes its study and the government establishes a more rational and selective use of these procedures and technology based on sound science."

His letter to the TSA included a long list of other issues with which he was concerned, including the machines' capabilities of storing images and transmitting them.

The statements indicate a clear break by Holt from the Obama policy line that the backscatter machines and invasive pat-downs are necessary for airline security.

Zach Goldberg, spokesman for Holt, confirmed to WND that the congressman wants to make sure the TSA has reviewed the science and studied thoroughly the new screening procedures before expanding those X-ray scanning procedures into airports throughout the nation.

The TSA did not immediately return a WND phone call inquiring whether Pistole had received Holt's letter and if a meeting with Holt had been scheduled.

But the letter, dated Nov. 19, supports a request Holt made in August urging congressional leaders to freeze funding for the TSA advanced imaging scanners until questions regarding the X-ray machines had been answered.

"As a scientist and chairman of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, I appreciate the challenges we face in trying to prevent terrorists from boarding American airliners," Holt wrote Pistole. "That same background also gives me an understanding of why TSA's current obsession with fielding body imaging technology is misguided, counterproductive, and potentially dangerous."

Holt mentioned that at a March meeting of the Congressional Biomedical Caucus, of which he is the co-chair, Dr. David Brenner of Columbia University's Center for Radiological Research gave a presentation on the potential health effects of the TSA backscatter X-ray devices and he stressed:

The TSA advanced imaging devices in use deliver to the scalp 20 times the average dose that is typically quoted by TSA and throughout the industry; The majority of the radiation from X-ray backscatter machines strikes the top of the head, which is where 85 percent of basal cell carcinoma diagnosed each year in the United States, develops; Excessive X-ray exposure can act as a cancer rate multiplier.

WND previously reported Brenner's concerns that it is quite "likely" that radiation from screening machines being installed nationwide by the TSA to use on airline passengers will cause cancer. Especially at risk, Brenner stressed, are frequent fliers and children.

Brenner also told WND that TSA is relying on "bought and paid for" industry studies and manufacturers' specifications, not scientific research examining the TSA X-ray machines independently, with results being published in peer-reviewed journals.

Holt's letter to Pistole also referenced a Government Accountability Study, published on March 17, 2010, in which the GAO concluded, "it remains unclear whether the AIT [Advanced Imaging Technology] would have been able to detect the weapon Mr. Abdulmutallab [also known as the 'Christmas bomber'] used in his attempted attack based on the preliminary TSA information we have reviewed."

"A headlong rush to embrace fallible technology will only give the public the illusion of increased security at the expense of their privacy and dignity, with no assurance that the use of these machines will actually deter or detect terrorists before they act," Holt said in his letter to Pistole.

WND previously reported that an advanced copy of a peer-reviewed scientific paper accepted for publication and authored by University of California scientists Leon Kaufman and Joseph Carlson demonstrates packages of explosives contoured to the body or worn along the sides likely would not be detected by TSA X-ray units built to "see" hard edges and anatomical features, and used primarily to image the front and back of the body.

Holt also expressed concern that the TSA had not yet implemented directives prohibiting TSA personnel who are operating AIT units from transmitting or saving the images of individual passengers, or from having video-recording devices such as smart-phones on their persons while operating the machines.

"Absent such a prohibition and independent confirmation that the AIT’s ability to store and transmit images are disabled, I fail to see how the Congress and the flying public can have confidence that the very legitimate civil concerns of passengers have been addressed," Holt wrote.

Holt reserved some of the strongest language in his letter to a discussion of a little girl who was frisked by TSA airport employees.

"What behavioral indicator led the screener in question to believe that the little girl needed such an invasive pat-down? If no valid behavioral or other threat indicator was present, why did the screener conduct the aggressive frisking? If the girl's mother or father were deemed a threat, why were they not segregated for further questioning, in private?" Holt asked Pistole.

"The entire episode has served as a symbol of an invasive, technology-driven passenger screening process that is not making us safer, even as it humiliates, degrades, and engages a public that deserves far better from those ostensibly seeking to protect them."

In pointing to how Israel protects airline passengers with a "layered, common sense-based system," Holt demanded to know, "How can Americans be treated this way?"

In requesting an in-person meeting with Pistole, Holt posed six pointed items for discussion:

Any reports from independent entities that have validated the effectiveness of the AIT systems currently being fielded to detect the full range of explosive threats known or anticipated to be employed by potential terrorists;

Whether any independent entity has verified that the AIT machines have been modified so as to ensure that no permanent record of a passenger scan is retained, retransmitted, or otherwise copied either directly from the AIT machine itself or by TSA or other personnel utilizing any form of video recording technology;

The measures TSA has taken to address GAO's concerns and recommendations regarding the employment, cost-benefit analysis, and expected overall costs of fielding these AIT systems;

The measures TSA has taken to improve and validate its Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT) program, as discussed in GAO's May 2010 report on the program;

Why TSA does not systematically use watch list-derived intelligence information to screen passengers more selectively via AIT systems and the SPOT program; and

Whether or not TSA has sought or received recommendations from the government of Israel about how TSA could improve its screening programs without invading the privacy of passengers.

Officials already have admitted that the system wouldn't do what they want – stop a terrorist like the Christmas bomber:

And they've already conceded the plan's constitutionality is doubtful at best.

Even Mo McGowan, a former director of TSA security operations, was uncertain.

"We're not dictating these events that are occurring. Events are happening across the world … driving us as a society to have to go to these measures," he said.

"I mean, nobody likes having their 4th Amendment violated going through a security line," he said. "But the truth of the matter is we're going to have to do it."

Previous stories: TSA nightmare? Report it now Shocker! TSA's nude scans would miss taped-on bombs Privacy group files anti-scanner FOIA request Doctors sound TSA germ alert Busted: TSA fondlers could be arrested Americans 'likely' to get cancer from airport scanners Spreadin' the glove: TSA infecting U.S.? Scientists challenge TSA on scanner radiation Video: 'Saturday Night Live' molests TSA on air Ron Paul: Cut out this Soviet-style nonsense Rush: Obama groping flyers to punish them for election Big Sis Napolitano sued for 'degrading' searches State warning to TSA: Stop breaking the law End 'virtual strip searches' by TSA 'If you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested' Guess who ordered nude body scanners TSA checkpoints: Real-life horrors Tired of airport abuse? Tell off Napolitano Americans line up to join 'no-fly' list Hotline to report TSA horror stories

Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers "The Obama Nation" and "Unfit for Command." Along with serving as WND's senior staff reporter, Corsi is a senior managing director at Gilford Securities. Read more at www.wnd.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/h5f7

Tax collection, to them, is not so much about producing revenues for the treasury, as it is about social engineering and wealth redistribution.

Amplify’d from www.mcphersonsentinel.com

Some politicians just don't get it...or, do they?

By Les Mason

The McPherson Sentinel

McPherson, Kan. — The debate on whether to extend the so-called “Bush-era tax cuts” has very aptly illustrated why the final session of a Congress is sometimes referred to as “Lame Duck.” The debate has really been lame. We've witnessed an endless parade of left-wing politicians expressing their desire to allow some, if not all, of the cuts to expire. Since these tax rates have prevailed for the best part of a decade, though, allowing them to expire is tantamount to an increase. So, we need to ask ourselves why some are so eager to increase taxes.   Pop quiz: let's say you're the CEO of a major airline. Passenger counts and revenues are down. Many routes consistently have empty seats. To increase revenues and fill seats, do you a) increase ticket prices, or b) reduce ticket prices?   Let's say you're the CEO of a major department store chain. You're losing market share to more aggressive competitors, and sales are sluggish. Revenues are adversely affected. To increase customer traffic and revenues, do you a) raise prices on all items in your stores, or b) reduce prices? Let's say you're the CEO of a major country – much like the USA. The economy is sputtering, with a large number of citizens out of work. Revenues to the treasury are increasingly lower than what is being spent. To put people back to work, promote economic growth, and increase treasury revenues, do you a) raise taxes, or b) keep taxes low? Of course, the correct answer in each of the three scenarios is “b.” It's the most simple of economic principles. If you want to encourage and foster an activity, then you lower the cost of that activity. If you want to stifle an activity, you raise the cost. I get it. You get it. Most people, with even the slightest measure of common sense, get it.   What I don't get is why some elected officials insist on pretending that they don't get it - when, in fact, it's obvious they do. It's obvious because, time after time, those officials have used the tax code to discourage certain behaviors and encourage others. If you doubt me, here's a verbatim paragraph from the irs.gov website. “Legislators have three needs in mind as they prepare tax laws - the need to raise revenue, the need to be fair to taxpayers and the need to influence taxpayers' behavior.”   For instance, the proposed carbon tax would be designed to discourage greenhouse-emitting activities, plus encourage a switch to alternative energy. Taxes on tobacco products are meant to discourage their use. Import tariffs have been used to encourage sales of domestic goods. Mortgage interest deduction is one way of encouraging home ownership. They really do get it. Knowing that they get it, and knowing that they understand that a tax increase would discourage economic activity, and stall an already slow recovery, doesn't it make you wonder why so many elected officials are still so determined to raise taxes? I think the answer to that question is painfully simple. Tax collection, to them, is not so much about producing revenues for the treasury, as it is about social engineering and wealth redistribution.   Coupled with a smaller government, low tax rates fuel economic recoveries, and promote economic growth and long-term prosperity. Ronald Reagan got it. John Kennedy got it. Barack Obama gets it, too. His left-wing orthodoxy just won't allow him to admit it. Read more at www.mcphersonsentinel.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/h5dl

Climate Scaremongering in Cancun Reaches New Heights

Amplify’d from www.thenewamerican.com

Climate Scaremongering in Cancun Reaches New Heights

Written by Alex Newman

With the COP16 climate-change summit underway in Cancun, the scaremongering over global warming is reaching preposterous new heights as so-called “leaders” warn of humanity’s impending doom — unless, of course, all nations agree to global carbon taxes and other statist measures.

"The disasters caused by climate change are threatening the survival of human beings,” proclaimed Mexican President Felipe Calderon, known as “His Excellency” among climate dignitaries and U.N. bosses, during a speech at the summit. He cited a hurricane, a fire, and a drought — phenomena that have plagued mankind for thousands of years prior to the invention of SUVs — as evidence of his claims. “We should try to promote the progress between the people and nature and shorten the gap between the developed nations and poor countries with financial support and technological support," he added, proposing unprecedented wealth redistribution on a global scale. Calls for more climate money from “rich” countries were a prominent part of nearly every speech. Meanwhile, a coalition of more than 40 island nations is claiming that, without big money and drastic regulations, it will be “the end” for them. “We are facing at this moment the end of history for some of us,” claimed Antonio Lima, vice-chair of the Alliance of Small Island States. “All these countries are struggling to survive. They are going to drown.” The solution, according to an alliance representative who spoke at the summit Tuesday, is more money. “We need to dramatically increase funds for the smallest and poorest of us,” he said. Various third-world regimes were busy demanding money not to chop down their forests, too. And Bolivian “President” Evo Morales called on nations to fight the “battle between capitalism and life” through coordinated action of “social movements” and governments. Without a strong agreement in Cancun, he said, global warming “will keep getting worse.” On his wish list is a Climate Tribunal to bring “climate criminals” to “justice,” and of course, more money. Powerful global statist groups also ramped up the fear mongering before demanding more money for “climate justice.” The supposed “need” for at least $100 billion per year in a “Green Fund,” for example, was emphasized in a statement released by Socialist International — an immensely influential organization that counted Obama’s “Climate Czar” Carol Browner among its leaders until she left to join the new administration. “Participants expressed concern over knock-on effects of climate change, such as water and crop shortages, food security, poverty, climate migrants and those displaced due to natural disasters, together with the political consequences which follow,” explained the statement. “In this regard, dedicated funds for affected countries were seen as necessary.” International climate bigwigs — whose salaries depend on global-warming hysteria — were also out in force spreading gloom and doom. “[I]t seems to me that many negotiators lack the sense of urgency that is needed to make the right decisions, which in a multilateral framework cannot be taken without some compromises," Vice-Chairman Jean-Pascal van Ypersele of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told Business World. "We only have one inhabitable planet in the solar system, some seem to forget that." And the UN’s “Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food,” Olivier De Schuetter, warned of imminent starvation without more climate loot for dictators. "Negotiations starting today in Cancun are crucial to guarantee the right to food for hundreds of millions of people," he said. "Cancun should lead the way towards a ‘Green Marshall Plan’ for agriculture," he added. Based on the discredited IPCC report, he claimed the "disastrous" effect of “climate change” could lead to another 600 million starving people by 2020. Of course, no article about hysterical fear mongering would be complete without mentioning Al Gore, one of the Earth’s chief climate alarmists and, ironically, one of its largest emitters of carbon dioxide. He has been busy flying around the world comparing climate change to global terrorism. “There was severe drought in Russia and extreme flooding in Pakistan. What more evidence is required for action?” he wondered at a leadership summit in India, once again pushing the idea of a carbon tax or a “cap-and-trade” system as his massive monetary investments in the schemes continue to go sour. Other climate bosses — perhaps realizing the futility of constant doomsday forecasts in light of a new study pointing in that direction — are using a new ploy: pretending that “climate solutions” will be good for business and the economy. “Those in the end who improve energy efficiency and improve innovation, they will save money,” said European Union “climate commissioner” Connie Hedegaard. Those who do not could be surpassed by competition from communist China, she warned a conference in Brussels. But if enough people realize what the alarmists are pushing — and the poor quality of the “science” underpinning global-warming theories — all of the billions invested by governments and climate profiteers in climate scams could go up in smoke. After Climategate and a long series of scandals plaguing alarmist institutions and scientists, attentive followers of the issue can see the writing on the wall. For people like Al Gore and other climate crusaders, however — with fortunes and reputations riding on alarmist theories — giving in will not be easy. Photo: Mexico's Nobel Chemistry Prize laureate Mario Molina delivers a speech at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico, Nov. 29, 2010: AP Images Read more at www.thenewamerican.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/h5d0

“Severe Vitamin D deficiencies may cause cognitive impairment, missed school days, and affect a student’s academic ability.”

Amplify’d from www.uft.org

The Sun is Free

by Ron Isaac | published November 30, 2010

A November 26 post on Mike Klonsky’s SmallTalk Blog notes: “Severe Vitamin D deficiencies may cause cognitive impairment, missed school days, and affect a student’s academic ability.”

He cites the conclusions of research studies that appear to suggest that given the wide disparity according to race of affected students, this vitamin deprivation may indeed help explain the persistent so-called “achievement gap.”

Klonsky correctly observes that “corporate school reformers would like us to believe that the entire responsibility for measurable learning outcomes rests on the school and classroom teachers,” and that they (the “reformers”) “show little interest in improving the conditions for students outside of school and claim that focusing on such issues is simply an ‘excuse’ for low performance.”

He calls for medical care, especially preventive, for all students and vitamin D supplements where appropriate.

We are living in such callous and topsy-turvy times that large segments of the American population would probably characterize his plea as “un-American.” They would use phrases like “redistribution of wealth” that in their minds, and according to their definitions, equate with despised (and misunderstood) political systems as envisaged by the late (and, amazingly, in some circles, lamented) Senator Joseph McCarthy.

These critics would tell the kids to just sit in the sun for their vitamin D. And what would they prescribe for the lead poisoning and other documented environmental hazards that are a fact of life for poor kids?

The same folks who would foreclose every poor child’s access to a well-rounded or even a basic education are hostile to the notion that a talk-show host who gets tens of millions of dollars a year for blabbing about “class envy” should pay a few cents to the taxman to help subsidize a blood test for a less fortunate citizen.

Teachers have to take up the slack for much of the rest of society that would leave the next generation hanging. The knowledge we actually impart in the classroom is, certainly, a weapon for liberation, but in another sense it is gravy. Read more at www.uft.org

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/h5cr

Congress Must Stop FCC’s Internet Regulations

Amplify’d from biggovernment.com

Congress Must Stop FCC’s Internet Regulations

by Phil Kerpen

It’s an eerie echo of last year’s health care debate, but without nearly as much public attention.  Another Christmas Eve, another sixth of the economy taken over by Washington.

This time it’s so-called “network neutrality” regulation.  President Obama’s Federal Communications Commission is obsessed with regulating the Internet.  They apparently won’t be stopped by common sense, courts of law, public opinion, or a resounding electoral defeat for big government policies.  They made it official last night at midnight when they announced the agenda for their December 21 meeting: the FCC is going to regulate the Internet.

Network neutrality (also known by the even more lovely sounding marketing term “open Internet”) is an outgrowth of the larger so-called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like Robert McChesney, the socialist founder of the misnamed group Free Press, which has enormous influence on the FCC, where its former communications director, Jen Howard, is FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s press secretary.

McChesney explained where net neutrality leads to SocialistProject.ca:

You will never ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any time. That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.

The FCC’s new rules, likely to be approved on a final 3-2, party-line vote on December 21, take McChesney’s first step.

Network neutrality sounds simple – force phone and cable companies to treat every bit of information the same way – but modern networks are incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router, and constantly evolving.

Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine (not to mention the next great thing that hasn’t been invented yet – and likely never will be under these regulations) can be handled intelligently by networks is necessary to make the Internet work, but every new innovative network practice will now be subject to the regulatory interference of the FCC.

These networks cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, and if there is uncertainty about getting a good return on that investment, private investment will dry up. And then government will step in, “divest them from control,” and spend billions of our tax dollars on a government-owned and controlled Internet.

According to media reports, many of the largest Internet service providers are willing to accept the new regulations, because they believe the costs of complying are less than the ongoing uncertainty they have suffered as the issue played out over the past two years.  It’s an understandable assessment, especially in light of the Chicago-style shakedown tactics the FCC has used, threatening the even more draconian option of directly reclassifying the Internet as a public utility, taking a big shortcut down McChesney’s proposed path to government control.

But there is reason to doubt an FCC that has been so obsessed with these regulations is likely to restrain itself from applying its newly created powers in unpredictable, expensive, and dangerous ways.  Indeed we have already seen this Commission ignore:

A near-total lack of support in Congress, where over 300 members signed letters of opposition to FCC Internet regulation, and just 27 have sponsored Rep. Ed Markey’s bill to impose network neutrality rules.  The bill has not even been introduced in the Senate. A devastating unanimous decision of the DC circuit court of appeals in Comcast v. FCC, which eviscerated the Commission’s claims to have the jurisdiction to regulate the Internet. (We can only hope that court will similarly reject the latest regulations.) An electoral tidal wave for smaller government, less spending, and less regulation.  In particular, the election including an embarrassing display on the network neutrality issue by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which touted a net neutrality pledge signed by 95 candidates.  All 95 lost.

With influencers like John Podesta, who chaired Obama’s transition team, openly calling for Obama to continue pushing his hard left agenda inside the executive branch, the FCC’s Internet regulations set up a perfect test-case for Congress to step in and stand up to the administration.  (Despite FCC being officially “independent,” there are White House fingerprints all over this.  Chairman Genachowski is a close friend of the president’s and one of the most frequent White House visitors.)

Congress should act immediately next year to overturn the FCC’s network neutrality regulations with a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which the new Republican majority can pass in the House and which can then be forced onto the Senate floor with 30-senator petition.  It cannot be filibustered and would need just 51 votes to pass.

Obama could veto it, but to do so he would have to take full personal responsibility for ending the most remarkable driver of economic growth, innovation, and free expression we have in this country: the free-market, unregulated Internet.

Congress must show the White House that the strategy of pushing hard left inside the executive branch won’t stand.  Congress must do what the American people asked for in this election: stop Obama’s big government agenda. Read more at biggovernment.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/h5cn

Amplify’d from blogs.wsj.com

American Rich Lead the World in Philanthropy

By Robert Frank

What accounts for the fact that the American rich lead the world in philanthropy? Are they more generous? Does religion play a role? Is it all just a matter of tax breaks? The answer is probably more complex than anything we could explain in a blog post. Still, a new survey from Barclays Wealth shows the extent to which the American rich lead the world in giving. Of course, the U.S. has about a third of the world’s millionaires and they control trillions of dollars in wealth. Anyway, here is the ranking of the percentage of millionaires who said that philanthropy is one of their top three spending priorities: 1. U.S. — 41% 2. South Africa — 37% 3. Saudi Arabia — 32% 4. Ireland — 30% 5. Taiwan — 28% 6. India — 26% 7. South America — 25% 8. Switzerland — 24% 9. UAE — 23% 10. Singapore — 23% And at the bottom: Australia — 5% Japan — 5 % There were differences in how the rich give. The rich in the U.S., Ireland, India and South Africa all give time and money. In South America, Taiwan and Saudi Arabia, the wealthy prefer to give just money. What do you think accounts for the differences in giving? « Previous How Many of the Rich Actually Work for a Living? Read more at blogs.wsj.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/h5cl

Fairfield Jesuit University: Students For Social Justice: Takes a Look at the Violence in Mexico

Amplify’d from fairfieldmirror.com

S4SJ Takes a Look at the Violence in Mexico

By: Ricky Solano

The recent debates in immigration have risen recently and have caused tensions in the nation. But the tension here does not compare with the tensions in Mexico as the government continues its war on drugs. The number of victims of drug-related violence in Mexico has reached 28,228.-

This number is six times greater than the population at Fairfield University. Since 2007, Mexican President Felipe Calderon and his government have created a war on the drug cartels that have infested Mexico. The crime rates have soared and the deaths are becoming increasingly violent. Daily, there are numerous stories of assassinations, dismemberments, shootouts and car bombings in Mexico.

The United States has offered financial assistance and information to Mexico but it is proving to not be enough. One of the main contributors to the conflict has been the flow of American guns down to the south, which supplies the drug cartels.

The Los Angeles Times stated, “U.S. and Mexican officials estimate that more than 90% of the guns seized at the border or after raids and shootouts in Mexico originated in the United States, with California and Texas the largest providers.”

The controversy around relations between Mexico and the U.S. has involved the U.S. pushing Mexico to stop the drugs while not attempting to stop the gun flow to Mexico. The only organization in charge of the gunrunning is the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (known as the ATF) are running on limited funding, lack of joint investigations with the ICE, lack of agents and lack of training for Mexican officials in order to trace guns. With the Republicans soon to take office and the National Rifle Association increasing its lobbying efforts in Washington, funding seems to become a critical issue.

In all of this conflict, no city has suffered more than Juarez, Mexico which is just across the border of El Paso. It has become one of the world’s deadliest cities since the turf war began in 2008 between the Juarez and Sinaloa cartels.

Its citizens are the daily victims and over 6,500 people have been killed as a result. It is unknown when the violence will reach a conclusion but there seems to be no end in sight. We can only hope that the situation gets better and stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters of Mexico in our Jesuit tradition.

Ricky learned about this issue while  he was at the Ignation Family Teach-In, in Washington, D.C, which was a Fairfield University sponsored trip. S4SJ does a lot of work with Latin American countries (specifically those in Central America) and next semester, S4SJ is planning to have an awareness campaign about the drug wars.

Similar Posts: Read more at fairfieldmirror.com

Folklorico bridges U.S.-Mexico gap Read more at fairfieldmirror.com

Marijuana Legalization on California Ballot Read more at fairfieldmirror.com

Trip To Tijuana Read more at fairfieldmirror.com

Get swept away by Ballet Folklorico Read more at fairfieldmirror.com

Editorial: Drugs at Fairfield: Are they a problem? Read more at fairfieldmirror.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/h5cd

Amplify’d from www.denverpost.com

Police probe alleged Ponzi scheme involving Cherry Creek, Regis Jesuit students

By Jeremy P. Meyer

The Denver Post

Students are the focus of a police investigation into an alleged Ponzi scheme that appears to involve kids at two suburban high schools. Students at Cherry Creek and Regis Jesuit high schools paid into a bogus fund to become investors in a medical-marijuana dispensary, police said. So far, two students, a 16-year-old and a 17- year-old, are either the victims or suspects in the scheme, according to authorities. No arrests have been made. An e-mail blast was sent to parents Tuesday morning by the Denver Police Department, seeking more potential victims. "This scam involved students believing that they were investing money into a medical marijuana dispensary in Denver," according to the e-mail from police. Police would say neither how much money was collected nor why the case was being called a Ponzi scheme, a term for fraudulent investment operations that pay returns to current investors from fees paid by newer investors. Police became aware of the alleged operation Nov. 20, said Denver Detective John White, adding that all transactions were apparently made in Denver and none appear to have been made in the high schools. Ponzi schemes rarely hit teenagers, White said. In this case, both schools — one public and one private — have student populations among the more affluent in the area. "This is unusual for juveniles to be victims in this type of scam," he said. "We usually see much more sophisticated investors who have more money to invest. Not high school students." White said it is not known whether the dispensary named by the students soliciting investors is aware that teenagers believed they were investing money in it. White would name neither the business nor the students known to be involved. The student from Cherry Creek High School is enrolled in the school but has not been to classes for months, said Tustin Amole, spokeswoman for Cherry Creek School District. Officials from Regis in Aurora said they are cooperating fully with the authorities. Jeremy P. Meyer: 303-954-1367 or jpmeyer@denverpost.com Read more at www.denverpost.com

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/h5bx

Catholic Woman Susan Crane working with two Jesuit priests, a Sacred Heart Sister faces prison for demonstration

Working with two Jesuit priests, a Sacred Heart Sister and another lay woman, the Baltimore woman helped sprinkle blood on the property and symbolically hammered on roadways and fences. The Catholic peace activists unfurled a banner that declared Trident missiles to be “illegal” and “immoral.” They also scattered sunflower seeds – the international symbol of nonviolence.

Amplify’d from www.catholicreview.org

Baltimore peace activist faces prison for demonstration

By George P. Matysek Jr.

gmatysek@CatholicReview.org

One year ago on All Souls’ Day, Susan Crane used a bolt cutter to rip open chain-link fences at a U.S. Navy nuclear weapons storage depot in Bangor, Wash. Working with two Jesuit priests, a Sacred Heart Sister and another lay woman, the Baltimore woman helped sprinkle blood on the property and symbolically hammered on roadways and fences. The Catholic peace activists unfurled a banner that declared Trident missiles to be “illegal” and “immoral.” They also scattered sunflower seeds – the international symbol of nonviolence. “These nuclear weapons indiscriminately kill civilians,” said Crane, speaking in a Nov. 29 phone interview with The Catholic Review from Tacoma, Wash. “Whole cities the size of Baltimore or Los Angeles could be destroyed,” she said, noting that the naval base broken into housed more than 2,300 nuclear warheads. “Not only are these weapons indiscriminate,” she said, “they can’t be controlled in time and space. That makes them very illegal by humanitarian law and treatises.” Crane belongs to “Disarm Now Plowshares” a non-violent group that takes its name from a passage in Isaiah that foretells of an era of peace. She and the other protestors are facing serious federal charges – conspiracy, trespass, destruction of property on a naval installation and depradation of government property. The defendants, who come from all over the country, have entered pleas of “not guilty.” Their trial starts Dec. 7 in the U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington at Tacoma. Crane is a longtime resident of Jonah House in Baltimore, a community of nonviolent peace activists. She worships at St. Peter Claver in West Baltimore and several other area parishes. The special education teacher, who has served five years in prison for similar protests including a 1999 action at the Warfield Air National Guard base in Middle River, knows she is facing the possibility a long prison sentence. She has no regrets. Crane likened her actions to cutting the lines to the gas chambers that killed millions of Jews during World War II. “These weapons are flying ovens,” she said, “and when they land, they are every bit as devastating as the gas ovens in Germany.” Crane said the government is wasting money on “illegal” weaponry. “We are spending so much money on war-making that we don’t have money to fix the infrastructure in our cities and make jobs for people and have good schools and healthcare,” Crane said. “You can see the grinding poverty in West Baltimore every day.” Crane rejected the notion that her actions are extreme. “We’ve tried fasting and talking and war tax resistance and standing on a street corner with signs and education events,” she said. “All of those things are important, but when you look at social change movement – unions or civil rights – at a certain point people decide that’s not enough. You have to do more.” The 67-year-old woman said alarms should be raised about the security of nuclear weapons. “The five of us (activists) are not youngsters,” she said, “and the fact we could get right into this area is pretty amazing. It was an amazing breach of security. It might make people think about how safe our weapons really are.” The most difficult part of facing possible prison time would be not getting to see her two children, Crane said. Her first grandchild is due Dec. 9 – two days after her trial begins. “They have been very supportive of what I’m doing,” she said. Crane praised Pope Benedict XVI and Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien for speaking against nuclear weapons. “I think it’s going to take all of us,” she said. “You don’t get rid of weapons tomorrow, but we should begin a good faith effort. Jesus tells us to love our enemies. Nonviolent solutions are the only solutions to our problems.” Read more at www.catholicreview.org

 

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/h5bq