Tag Archives: George Soros

List of persons/groups paid by Soros to protest in Ferguson & Selma

Only in America can one be a political revolutionary and get paid for it!

Only in America are political protesters/rioters/looters not only paid for their “services,” they are reimbursed for their food, transportation, cell phones, art supplies to make up posters and signs, traffic fines (running red light), and other expenses.

Only in America are staff members of non-profit political groups — all Marxist — reimbursed for their salaries for taking time away from their jobs to protest/riot/loot.

Isn’t America just grand?

Nickarama reports for Weasel Zippers, May 19, 2015, that we now have evidence that two groups funded by George Soros, MORE and OBS, advertised money for people willing to travel to protest in Ferguson. The groups are:

  1. Missourians Organizing for Reform and Empowerment (MORE)
  2. Organization for Black Struggle (OBS)

The evidence that Soros-backed groups pay people to protest consists of two:

1. A tweet:

Note: @organizemo is the twitter account of MORE

 Ferguson tweet2. A list of names and organizations to whom M.O.R.E. paid money:

On May 14, 2015, protesters protested that they hadn’t received their checks from MORE (read about it here). So MORE distributed a list detailing who was paid to protest in Ferguson, Missouri and Selma, Alabama.

Here are 3 photos of the list, followed by my painstaking reconstruction of the list in a more legible format.

↓ Click photos to enlarge ↓

Ferguson list1Ferguson list2Ferguson list3

Here’s my reconstruction of the list in the photos in a more legible format. Note that:

  • Ferguson October = Ferguson protests in October 2014
  • Selma = Protests in Selma, Alabama
  • Jobs With Justice is a non-profit organization for “workers’ rights” based in Washington, D.C.
  • World Community Center is a non-profit “for peace” group in St. Louis, also called Nation Builder.
  • Black Souljaz is a social network group.
  • National Domestic Workers Alliance is a non-profit for domestic workers’ (mainly women) rights.
  • Action Council is a non-profit “to address the reduction in government funding for health and human services for low-income and vulnerable people.”
  • People’s Institute is a non-profit “on understanding what racism is.”
  • Latinos en Axion is “a community leaders group.”
  • I can’t find what these groups are: NVDA, MAU, Freedom Fighters, MASK.
Date Person/Group Amount Purpose
8/18/2014 Darien Wigfall $100 Ferguson October art supplies
9/15/2014 Wisdom Works $239 Ferguson October website
10/6/2014 Adam Jones $2,711.50 Ferguson October tshirts
10/6/2014 Derek Laney $1,000 Ferguson October art supplies
10/9/2014 John Chasnoff $225 Ferguson October permits
10/9/2014 John Chasnoff $1,242 Ferguson October permits
10/6/2014 Production Support Services $2,193.25 Ferguson October march tech
10/9/2014 Juliette Jacobs $200 Ferguson October walkie talkies
10/7/2014 Adam Jones $671.50 Ferguson October tshirts
10/10/2014 Hi-Tech Copy $890.63 Ferguson October copies
10/11/2014 Fed Ex $433.83 Ferguson October banner
10/9/2014 Jobs With Justice $2,702.68 Ferguson October van rentals
10/14/2014 St. Louis A/V Company $911.42 Ferguson October a/v
9/18/2014 World Community Center $500 Movement space usage
10/22/2014 Karl Kumodzi $200 Ferguson October gas cards
10/18/2014 Public Policy & Education Fund of NY $2,856 Staff salary reimbursement
10/1/2014 MO Dept of Revenue $66.15 fines for CN1 bank account
11/3/2014 CWA Local 6355 $1,005.19 Ferguson October (vans)
11/5/2014 Shona Clarkson $184.24 Ferguson October (megaphones)
11/18/2014 Jeff Ordower $10,717 Ferguson October reimbursements
11/18/2014 Kathy Peterson $1,914.69 Ferguson October supplies
11/18/2014 Tia Byrd $52.33 Ferguson October copies
11/20/2014 Harry Alper $119.53 Ferguson October supplies
11/21/2014 Damon Davis $300 Art supplies
11/24/2014 Kayla Reed $2,000 Youth stipends, food, etc.
11/24/2014 Julia Ho $31.07 NVDA training food
11/28/2014 Jeff Ordower $10,000 Ferguson October reimbursements
11/28/2014 Tia Byrd $82.90 NVDA training supplies
12/3/2014 Emily Bland $132 Ferguson October parking
12/5/2014 Maurice Weeks $224.88 Ferguson October supplies
12/5/2014 Ashley Yates on behalf of MAU $3,129 Online donations for MAU
12/9/2014 Harry Alper $169.50 Supplies for non-indictment
12/9/2014 Damon Davis $200 Art supplies
12/10/2014 Jeffery Hill on behalf of Black Souljaz $500 Online donations
12/10/2014 Maryam Adrangi $173.63 Ferguson October art supplies
12/10/2014 Public Policy Education Fund for NY $6,882.44 staff salary reimbursement
12/12/2014 Brandon Sneed (formerly of Tribe X) $500 Online donations
12/12/2014 Arielle Klagsbrun $203.53 NVDA training supplies
12/12/2014 Beverly Jones $114.63 Supplies for non-indictment
12/15/2014 Michael Bowersox $444.39 Non-indictment food
12/15/2014 National Domestic Workers Alliance $1,099.13 Cell phones for Ferguson October
12/15/2014 Harry Shelton $70 Gas for Ferguson October
12/15/2014 Charles Murphy $170 Video services for Ferguson October
12/15/2014 Brittany Ferrell $3,544 Online donations for MAU
12/17/2014 Jeanina Jenkins $600 Freedom Fighters donations
12/17/2014 Autumn Osborn $250 Freedom Fighters donations
12/18/2014 MORE $52,815.48 Debt repayment for Ferguson October
12/18/2014 MO Jobs For Justice $30 Red light camera charges
12/18/2014 Brittany Ferrell on behalf of MAU $7,536 Online donations
12/18/2014 Julia Ho $230.75 NVDA training supplies
12/18/2014 Lisa Fithian $1,127.72 Visit expenses
12/18/2014 Beverly Jones $320.22 Supplies for non-indictment
12/18/2014 Jeff Ordower $905 Nationbuilder, canvassing reimbursement
12/18/2014 Derek Laney $25 NVDA training supplies
12/18/2014 Julia Ho $190.67 NVDA training supplies
12/18/2014 Arielle Klagsbrun $487.39 NVDA training supplies
12/18/2014 Cathy Daniels $300 Supplies for non-indictment
12/18/2014 Public Policy & Education Fund of NY $5,692.44 Staff salary reimbursement
12/12/2014 Shona Clarkson $361.15 Supplies for non-indictment
1/16/2015 Yvette Harris for MASK $53.15 Supplies for MASK
1/16/2015 Julia Ho $45 Action Council food
12/15/2014 Aaron Stables $459.95 Ferguson October bullhorns
1/15/2015 Jeff Ordower $6,708.53 Reimbursements for Ferguson October
2/3/2015 Brittany Ferrell on behalf of MAU $4,799.85 From CN1
2/3/2015 Hands Up United $3,000 Online donations for Hands Up
2/3/2015 Menta Jackson $350 ?
2/3/2015 Julia Ho $42 Action Council food
2/6/2015 Nabeeha Azeez $300 Selma Travel Expenses
2/6/2015 Ned Alexander $300 Selma Travel Expenses
2/6/2015 Emanuel Jones $300 Selma Travel Expenses
2/6/2015 Elizabeth Vega $642.89 Art build receipts august 9-feb 9
3/9/2015 Cathy Daniels $600 People’s Institute catering
3/9/2015 HJ Rodgers $1,000 Travel stipend
3/9/2015 Dasha Jones $300 Selma travel expenses
3/16/2014 Ashley Yates on behalf of MAU $2,032.14 Online donations for MAU
3/17/2015 Yvette Harris for MASK $2,000 DC trip
3/19/2015 Cathy Daniels $545 People’s Institute catering
3/20/2015 Tony Rice $145 People’s Institute catering
3/23/2015 Latinos en Axion $800 S Jefferson place
3/26/2015 Sana Rankin-Cole $200 People’s Institute catering
4/2/2015 Cathy Daniels $600 Reconciliation dinner
4/20/2015 Marcia Curtis $66.01 Activist supplies

Is paying people to protest and riot not a conspiracy?

And to think we are constantly being derided by the media for being “conspiracy theorist” tinfoil hatters.

See also:

H/t Barry Soetoro, Esq., for the tip on the protesters protesting not having received their money.

~Éowyn

George Soros reportedly could face up to $7B tax bill, after delaying payment for years

George_SorosFox News: George Soros may soon face a monumental tax bill — of nearly $7 billion — after years of playing hard-to-get with the IRS. 

Despite Soros having advocated for higher taxes on the wealthy, the liberal billionaire reportedly has delayed paying his own for years thanks to a loophole in U.S. law.

That loophole was closed by Congress in 2008. But before that, Bloomberg reports, Soros used it to defer taxes on client fees. Instead, he reinvested them in his own fund, and they grew tax-free. 

Bloomberg, citing Irish regulatory filings, reported that Soros has made $13.3 billion in this way. Factoring in the various tax rates that would apply, one tax expert estimated this would leave Soros with a roughly $6.7 billion bill.

While Soros did not comment on the estimate, Bloomberg reported that Soros deferred his taxes for so many years by reinvesting client fees. While he technically was able to do this for U.S.-based funds, offshore funds were apparently preferred because otherwise clients would face negative tax implications. Congress closed that loophole in 2008, ordering fund managers to pay up by 2017.

According to Bloomberg, Soros moved assets shortly before the change to Ireland, seen as a possible shelter from the law. But tax attorneys told Bloomberg they don’t know of a way for money managers to avoid the bill in 2017.

al-sharpton-obama-7-16-08

Don’t worry George…like Obama’s buddy Sharpton, I’m sure the IRS won’t be too worried about collecting those taxes right away.

DCG

Soros-Owned Restaurant Sued for Wage Violations

do as i say

Free Beacon: A Syracuse, N.Y., restaurant owned by the liberal billionaire George Soros doesn’t pay its tipped employees fair wages, some of those employees alleged in a lawsuit filed this week.

Those employees signed on to a class suit lodged this week against the Dinosaur Bar-B-Que restaurant chain, the Syracuse Post-Standard reported on Monday.

The suit claims Dinosaur failed to properly use the “tipped credit” provision in federal law, which requires employers to make up the difference between tips and pay to meet minimum wage standard. It also says Dinosaur required tipped employees to spend more than 20 percent of their work day doing “side work,” which includes setting up dining areas, for which they do not get tipped. The suit says workers should be paid minimum wage for that work.

The suit also claims Dinosaur failed to properly pay overtime wages, “misappropriated” tips belonging to the tipped workers, wrongly required tipped workers to share tips with managers for large events and failed to properly pay workers for shifts exceeding 10 hours. The suit also claims Dinosaur failed to keep accurate records of tips and wages.

The lawsuit was filed Thursday in federal court in New York City by the Fitapelli & Schaffer law firm, according to the firm’s web site. It says it seeks to represent “servers, bussers, runners, bartenders” and other tipped employees.

Dinosaur Bar-B-Que is majority owned by Soros Strategic Partners, an investment firm run by George Soros, who bankrolls liberal groups that complain about unfair wages for tipped workers.

Shocker, not.

George_Soros

DCG

A Look Inside the Net Neutrality Rules: It’s Worse Than You Think!

Written by  for the New American Magazine

A Look Inside the Net Neutrality Rules: It's Worse Than You Think!

After the FCC made its “Net Neutrality” rules public late last week, The New American began poring over the 400 pages of rules and comments in the document, officially entitled “Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order” in an effort to inform our readers about what is actually in the rules.

What we found affirms the statements by FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai that the rules are a threat to the future of the Internet and a danger to both liberty and a free market.

The report put forth by the regulatory regime is broken down into several parts. Before actually getting into the rules, the document spans 45 pages laying down philosophical and legal arguments for both the FCC’s justification and authority for regulating the Internet in the first place. Furthermore, the FCC document relies on and quotes from sources that have a history of attempting to abolish the free market capitalist nature of the Internet. As pernicious as those arguments and sources are, what’s actually in the rules is even worse.

The report repeatedly makes mention of the “bright-line rules” the FCC has created to keep the Internet open and free. “Bright-line” refers to rules, laws, or legal decisions that are clear and unambiguous. These are usually created when a previous rule, law, or legal decision left room for multiple interpretations. Cornell University Law School’s legal dictionary defines a bright-line as: “An objective rule that resolves a legal issue in a straightforward, predictable manner. A bright-line rule is easy to administer and produces certain, though, arguably, not always equitable results.” The USLegal website gives a similar definition and explains, “For example, in American statutory rape laws, the age of the victim and the age of the accused are the only relevant factors determinative of guilt or innocence. Because it is a bright-line rule, there is no balancing test to examine factors such as mistake of the accused, the misrepresentation of age by the minor, or the minor’s consent to sexual intercourse.”

So bright-line rules are clear, and do not allow anything other than the rule to be considered when determining a case.

What exactly are the bright-line rules the FCC has created to regulate the Internet?

1. No Blocking

“A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.”

While this seems straightforward, the devil is in the details. The report offers the following “clarification” to this rule; “The phrase ‘content, applications, and services’ again refers to all traffic transmitted to or from end users of a broadband Internet access service, including traffic that may not fit clearly into any of these categories.” One is left to wonder why the categories are listed in the first place, if the definition is broader than the categories.

The report’s “clarification” goes on to explain, “Further, the no-blocking rule adopted today again applies to transmissions of lawful content and does not prevent or restrict a broadband provider from refusing to transmit unlawful material, such as child pornography or copyright-infringing materials.” This opens up a whole new Pandora’s Box of ISPs being put in a position to determine what is “unlawful material.” Might ISPs block traffic to torrent sites that host “copyright-infringing materials” alongside public domain materials?

Since the “No Blocking” rule bans ISPs from blocking “lawful content,” what are the ramifications for services such as American Family Online, which offer filtered Internet access to customers who want to have pornography and other materials blocked at the server level? Since such content is lawful and the bright-line rule does not allow the fact that the customer wants such materials to be blocked to be taken into account, one is left to believe it would violate the rule.

Notice, too that the rule allows blocking for “reasonable network management.” One can imagine a new set of bright-line rules in the next iteration of Net Neutrality to clarify what constitutes “reasonable network management.”

2. No Throttling

“A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.”

Again, the details of the rule demonstrate its problems. The report explains, “With the no-throttling rule, we ban conduct that is not outright blocking, but inhibits the delivery of particular content, applications, or services, or particular classes of content, applications, or services. Likewise, we prohibit conduct that impairs or degrades lawful traffic to a non-harmful device or class of devices. We interpret this prohibition to include, for example, any conduct by a broadband Internet access service provider that impairs, degrades, slows down, or renders effectively unusable particular content, services, applications, or devices, that is not reasonable network management.”

Again, there is an exemption for “reasonable network management” that will undoubtedly need to be defined later.

The report continues, “For purposes of this rule, the meaning of ‘content, applications, and services’ has the same as the meaning given to this phrase in the no-blocking rule,” meaning lawful content of any type whether or not it fits any of the categories listed. As in the “No Blocking” rule, “unlawful material” is neither protected nor clearly defined: “Further, transfers of unlawful content or unlawful transfers of content are not protected by the no-throttling rule.”

Under the “No Throttling” rule, the commission is showing what it meant by its commitment to “forbear” regulating rates and plans. According to the continued explanation, “Because our no-throttling rule addresses instances in which a broadband provider targets particular content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, it does not address a practice of slowing down an end user’s connection to the Internet based on a choice made by the end user. For instance, a broadband provider may offer a data plan in which a subscriber receives a set amount of data at one speed tier and any remaining data at a lower tier.” Sounds nice until the next line: “If the Commission were concerned about the particulars of a data plan, it could review it under the no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard.” So much for forbearance.

The “no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard” will be covered in more detail later in this article. Spoiler alert: It’s particularly nasty. By application of the “no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard,” the report seems to hint at regulating both rates and plans and much, much more.

3. No Paid Prioritization

“A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not engage in paid prioritization. “Paid prioritization” refers to the management of a broadband provider’s network to directly or indirectly favor some traffic over other traffic, including through use of techniques such as traffic shaping, prioritization, resource reservation, or other forms of preferential traffic management, either (a) in exchange for consideration (monetary or otherwise) from a third party, or (b) to benefit an affiliated entity.”

If it weren’t for the “no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard,” this would possibly be the most excrable rule of them all. “Paid Prioritization” is a name given to the practice of ISPs striking deals with content providers (often their own affiliates) to speed up traffic to and from those services to make them more attractive and valuable to the end user. The entire argument against the practice is that it is not “fair” to services who can’t or won’t pay the price to have their traffic sped up.

The report’s explanation for the adoption of this rule is that many of the people who participated in the public comment period don’t like this practice and fear the results if it continues. According to the report, “The record is rife with commenter concerns regarding preferential treatment arrangements, with many advocating a flat ban on paid prioritization. Commenters assert that permitting paid prioritization will result in the bifurcation of the Internet into a ‘fast’ lane for those willing and able to pay and a ‘slow’ lane for everyone else. As several commenters observe, allowing for the purchase of priority treatment can lead to degraded performance — in the form of higher latency, increased risk of packet loss, or, in aggregate, lower bandwidth — for traffic that is not covered by such an arrangement.”

Commenters further argue that paid prioritization will introduce artificial barriers to entry, distort the market, damage competition, harm consumers, discourage innovation, undermine public safety and universal service, and restrict free expression. Never mind that ISPs have expenses connected to bandwidth, network maintenance, and equipment — all of which are more costly for services that use higher bandwidth, particularly those that stream large video files. It only makes good business sense to pass part of that faster-connection cost along to the consumers they are trying to reach with their content; however, because “commenters” were “concerned,” the FCC has banned the practice.

For a bright-line rule to mean anything, there can be no exceptions, especially those that are handled on a case-by-case basis; however, that is exactly what the FCC is doing with this rule. According to the report, “Given the potential harms to the virtuous cycle, we believe it is more appropriate to impose an ex ante ban on such practices, while entertaining waiver requests under exceptional circumstances.”

The report explains the waiver process: “Under our longstanding waiver rule, the Commission may waive any rule ‘in whole or in part, for good cause shown.’ General waiver of the Commission’s rules is appropriate only if special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and such a deviation will serve the public interest. In some cases, however, the Commission adopts specific rules concerning the factors that will be used to examine a waiver or exemption request. We believe that such guidance is appropriate here to make clear the very limited circumstances in which the Commission would be willing to allow paid prioritization. Accordingly, we adopt a rule concerning waiver of the paid prioritization ban that establishes a balancing test, as follows: The Commission may waive the ban on paid prioritization only if the petitioner demonstrates that the practice would provide some significant public interest benefit and would not harm the open nature of the Internet.”

So “No Paid Prioritization” really means that rather than the free market deciding this practice, the FCC will decide it on a case-by-case basis. It is a system wide open for favoritism.

After listing the bright-line rules which have dominated most of the discussion of the Net Neutrality issue, the report addresses the rule that is the vilest of all:

Preventing Unreasonable Interference or Unreasonable Disadvantage that Harms Consumers and Edge Providers.

This is not a bright-line rule by even FCC Commission Chief Wheeler’s definition. He describes it in his commentary toward the beginning of the report, referring to ISPs as “gatekeepers” because he claims they have the ability and the motive to manipulate the Internet. He writes, “The bright-line bans on blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization will go a long way to preserve the virtuous cycle. But not all the way. Gatekeeper power can be exercised through a variety of technical and economic means, and without a catch-all standard, it would be that, as Benjamin Franklin said, ‘a little neglect may breed great mischief.’ Thus, the Order adopts the following standard”:

Any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage (i) end users’ ability to select, access, and use broadband Internet access service or the lawful Internet content, applications, services, or devices of their choice, or (ii) edge providers’ ability to make lawful content, applications, services, or devices available to end users. Reasonable network management shall not be considered a violation of this rule.

What does Wheeler mean when he writes, “Gatekeeper power can be exercised through a variety of technical and economic means”? The body of the report puts it this way, “We believe that there may exist other current or future practices that cause the type of harms our rules are intended to address.” So now the report is attempting to protect end users from something that has not even happened yet, and the architects of this rule are not even trying to hide it.

How exactly will the regulatory regime go about enforcing a rule that prohibits something as nebulous as “unreasonably interfer[ing] or unreasonably disadvantag[ing]” the use of the Internet? On a case-by-case basis. The report states, “For that reason, we adopt a rule setting forth a no-unreasonable interference/disadvantage standard, under which the Commission can prohibit, on a case-by-case basis, practices that unreasonably interfere with or unreasonably disadvantage the ability of consumers to reach the Internet content, services, and applications of their choosing or of edge providers to access consumers using the Internet.”

Here is the greatest danger of the whole scheme. This is total control of the Internet. It is how digital freedom dies.

This rule allows the FCC to unilaterally decide everything from rates to plans, from equipment to content, from the introduction of new technologies to the number of ISPs in a region. Everything. On a case-by-case basis. With only the conscience of the commissioners as their guide.

This is why concerned citizens must defeat Net Neutrality. Congress could set it aside. The courts could overturn it.

Americans must act soon in order to save the greatest form of communication, education, information, and innovation man has ever known.

AND THERE’S MORE:

FCC Cites Soros-Funded, Neo-Marxist-Founded Group 46 TIMES In New Regs

New internet regulations finally released by the Federal Communications Commission make 46 references to a group funded by billionaire George Soros and co-founded by a neo-Marxist.

The FCC released the 400-page document on Thursday, two weeks after it passed new regulations, which many fear will turn the internet into a public commodity and thereby stifle innovation.

“Leveling the playing field” in that way has been a clear goal of Free Press, a group dedicated to net neutrality which was founded in 2003.

As Phil Kerpen, president of the free-market group American Commitment, first noted, Free Press is mentioned repeatedly in the FCC document. Most of the references are found in footnotes which cite comments by Free Press activists supporting more internet regulation.

The term “Free Press” is mentioned 62 times in the regulations. Some are redundant mentions referring to the same Free Press activists’ comments in favor of more oversight. In total, the FCC cited Free Press’ pro-net neutrality arguments 46 times.

And from Godfather Politics:
Based on references in the regulations alone, it is clear that Barack Obama’s takeover of the Internet was actually written – in large part – by radical Marxist-leaning organizations; and it has also come to light that radical socialist-leaning organizations funded by Billionaire Socialist George Soros and others have spent approximately 200 MILLION DOLLARS ($200,000,000.00) to make Barack Obama’s tyrannical and dictatorial takeover of the Internet a reality.

And we have only one hope of stopping this master plan to transform the United States into a socialist utopia. As of this writing, Representative Marsha Blackburn and 43 other Republicans have signed onto legislation (H.R. 1212: The Internet Freedom Act) that will totally reverse this dictatorial Obama-FCC dictate… but this legislation is stalled in committee because John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are in no rush to bring it to the floor of the House and the Senate for a vote… and that needs to change right now.

 

George Soros Gave $10 Million to Group Slamming Conservative “Islamophobia”

Soros

Newsbusters: A liberal group funded by billionaire George Soros is accusing conservatives and the “religious right” of fear-mongering and slandering Islam. According to the Center for American Progress, the right has been coordinating to push “Sharia hysteria” which “mischaracterizes Sharia as a totalitarian ideology of hate and triumphalism committed to replacing the U.S. Constitution with a radical Islamic caliphate that will subordinate and punish all non-Muslim adherents.”

Soros has donated $10,117,186 to CAP since 2000. The group argued this “Sharia hysteria” is comparable to Japanese Americans being interned during WWII “because they were seen as ‘others’,” or to opposition to John F. Kennedy’s presidency on the basis of his Catholic faith.

The report, entitled “Fear, Inc.” invoked a liberal term, “echo chamber,” to claim conservatives were working together. “The efforts of a small cadre of funders and misinformation experts were amplified by an echo chamber of the religious right, conservative media, grassroots organizations, and politicians who sought to introduce a fringe perspective on American Muslims into the public discourse.”

Ironically, the term “echo chamber” is specifically mentioned by the Soros-funded Media Consortium. That group is a network of 68 left-wing media outlets ranging from Alternet to The Young Turks. The Media Consortium has received $675,000 from Soros’ Open Society foundations.

That’s not the only thing wrong with “Fear, Inc.” Contrary to CAP’s claims, Sharia law is by nature a push for an Islamic theocracy. According to David Reaboi, at the time of this quote a spokesperson for the Center for Security Policy, “the Sharia contain numerous explicit punishments and exhortations to violence against the non-Muslim that (very significantly) have been reaffirmed through the centuries and until today.”

Podesta and Obama

Podesta and Obama

John Podesta, founder and president of the Center for American Progress, was recruited by the White House in December of 2013 to be a counselor to President Obama. His close relationship to George Soros and Tom Steyer (another liberal donor to CAP) earned Soros and Steyer the opportunity to advise the White House on environmental policy in August of 2014.

Soros and Steyer are two of the top funders of left-wing causes. Steyer had donated $3,850,000 in the same time period. The “Our Supporters” page of CAP’s website lists the liberal Ford Foundation and Tom Steyer as having donated more than a $1 million in 2014 (Steyer’s 2014 990 tax returns have not yet been publicly released, so this million is not part of the $3.85 million).

Soros tentacles

The many tentacles of George Soros

DCG

Sandy Hook families sue Bushmaster gun manufacturer

Sandy Hoax

One of the many curiosities about the Sandy Hook massacre of Dec. 14, 2012 — in which alleged lone gunman, 20-year-old Adam Lanza, allegedly killed 20 kids and 6 adults in the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut — is the absence of lawsuits by the victims’ families. (See my post of March 29, 2014, “Why are there no Sandy Hook lawsuits?”)

That has to be a first in notoriously litigious America, where in 1994, 79-year-old Stella Liebeck who spilled a cup of hot McDonald’s coffee on herself sued McDonald’s restaurant and was awarded $2.86 million by a New Mexico civil jury. (The trial judge later reduced the final verdict to $640,000, and the parties settled for a confidential amount before an appeal was decided.)

On Dec. 14, 2014, two years to the day after the alleged massacre, the strange absence of Sandy Hook lawsuits came to an end when, as the AP reports, the families of 9 of the 26 people killed, as well as a teacher who was wounded, filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer, distributor and seller of the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle that Lanza allegedly used in the shooting.

The negligence and wrongful death lawsuit, filed in Bridgeport Superior Court, asserts that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle should not have been made publicly available because it was designed for military use and is unsuited for hunting or home defense. As attorney Josh Koskoff put it in a release, “The AR-15 was specifically engineered for the United States military to meet the needs of changing warfare. In fact, one of the Army’s specifications for the AR-15 was that it has the capability to penetrate a steel helmet.”

The lawsuit claims that Bushmaster is clearly aware that the AR-15 has become the weapon of choice for mass shootings: “Time and again, mentally unstable individuals and criminals have acquired an AR-15 with ease, and they have unleashed the rifle’s lethal power on our streets, our malls, our places of worship, and our schools.”

As one of the plaintiffs, Bill Sherlach, put it, the gun industry needs to be held to “standard business practices” when it comes to assuming the risk for producing, making and selling a product. “These [gun] companies assume no responsibility for marketing and selling a product to the general population who are not trained to use it nor even understand the power of it.”

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for the 10 plaintiffs, 9 of whom are the families of:

  1. Daniel Barden, child
  2. Rachel D’Avino, special ed teacher
  3. Dylan Hockley, child
  4. Jesse Lewis, child
  5. Noah Pozner, child
  6. Lauren Rousseau, teacher
  7. Mary Sherlach, school psychologist
  8. Vicki Soto, teacher
  9. Benjamin Wheeler, child
  10. The 10th plaintiff is Natalie Hammond, a teacher who was injured in the shooting.

The lawsuit names three defendants:

  1. Bushmaster Firearms, the manufacturer of the rifle.
  2. Camfour, a firearm distributor.
  3. Riverview Gun Sales in East Windsor where Adam’s mother, Nancy Lanza, allegedly had purchased the Bushmaster rifle in 2010.

Bushmaster Firearms International

There have been two notable lawsuits against gun manufacturers:

  • In 2002, a federal judge in California ruled that Bushmaster and other gun manufacturers were not responsible for a 1999 shooting spree that killed a postal worker and injured five people at a Jewish community center in Los Angeles. The judge said a lawsuit by the victims’ families did not show a link between the manufacturers and the shooting rampage.
  • In 2004, in a lawsuit over the .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle used in the Washington, D.C.-area sniper shootings that killed 10 people in 2002, Bushmaster and a Washington state gun dealer agreed to pay $550,000 and $2.5 million, respectively, to two survivors and six families. It was the first time a gun manufacturer had agreed to pay damages to settle claims of negligent distribution of weapons.

In 2005, Congress and President George W. Bush approved a federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun makers from lawsuits over criminal use of their products, with 6 exemptions. One of the exemptions is the “negligent entrustment” exemption, defined in the law as “the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.”

Dan Altimari reports for the Hartford Courant, Dec. 15, 2014, that the Sandy Hook lawsuit will test the 2005 federal law designed to protect gun companies by using the negligent entrustment exemption, normally applied to car accident cases. In a negligent entrustment case, a party (Bushmaster) can be held liable for entrusting a product, in this case the Bushmaster rifle, to another party (Nancy and Adam Lanza) who then causes harm to a third party (Lanza’s victims).

Albany Law School Professor Timothy Lytton, who has written a book about the history of lawsuits against gun companies, said an example of negligent entrustment would be the sale of a weapon by a gun retailer to a suicidal person. A negligent entrustment lawsuit would claim the retailer should have known not to sell that person a gun. Lytton said, “The court needs to decide whether they want to extend negligent entrustment from a retailer selling a gun to someone standing right in front of them to the theory that the manufacturer of the weapon is also responsible when the weapon they made is then sold by another party to a third person.”

Dennis Henigan, former vice president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said that extending negligent entrustment to the gun manufacturer Bushmaster Firearms is unprecedented, having never before been brought before a court. It is therefore difficult to predict what will happen, although “Most state judges will want to find a way to allow these victims their day in court.”

There are rumors on the Internet that financier George Soros, a gun control advocate, had bought Bushmaster. If this is true, we would have good reason to question the Sandy Hook lawsuit and if the lawsuit would ever go to trial.

But the rumor is not true. (See my post of Nov. 1, 2011, “Is Soros Buying Up Guns in the U.S.?“)

Instead, Bushmaster and other leading gun makers had been acquired by a company called the Freedom Group that the New York Times calls “the most powerful and mysterious force in the American commercial gun industry today.” Behind Freedom Group is the private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management (CCM), which is named after Cerberus, the 3-headed dog that guarded the gates of Hades or Hell in Greek mythology. Steve Feinberg, CCM’s chief executive, co-founded CCM in 1992 with William L. Richter, who currently serves as a senior managing director.

From The New York Times, Nov. 26, 2011:

In recent years, many top-selling brands — including the 195-year-old Remington Arms, as well as Bushmaster Firearms and DPMS, leading makers of military-style semiautomatics — have quietly passed into the hands of a single private company. It is called the Freedom Group — and it is the most powerful and mysterious force in the American commercial gun industry today. […]

Even within gun circles, the Freedom Group is something of an enigma. Its rise has been so swift that it has become the subject of wild speculation and grassy-knoll conspiracy theories. In the realm of consumer rifles and shotguns — long guns, in the trade — it is unrivaled in its size and reach. […]

Behind this giant is Cerberus Capital Management, the private investment company that […] has been buying big names in guns and ammo. […] “We believe our scale and product breadth are unmatched within the industry,” the Freedom Group said in a filing last year with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

[…] Mark Eliason, the vice president for sales and marketing at Windham Weaponry, a new competitor of Bushmaster that was established by Bushmaster’s founder […] estimates that roughly 20 percent of the long guns for sale here are made by Freedom Group companies. […] About a third of it [ammunition] comes from the Freedom Group […].

Some gun enthusiasts have claimed that the power behind the company is actually George Soros, the hedge-fund billionaire and liberal activist. Mr. Soros, these people have warned, is buying American gun companies so he can dismantle the industry, Second Amendment be damned.

The chatter grew so loud that the National Rifle Association issued a statement in October denying the rumors. “N.R.A. has had contact with officials from Cerberus and Freedom Group for some time,” the N.R.A. assured its members. “The owners and investors involved are strong supporters of the Second Amendment and are avid hunters and shooters.”

Mr. Soros isn’t behind the Freedom Group, but, ultimately, another financier is: Stephen A. Feinberg, the chief executive of Cerberus {…] a Princeton graduate who [joined the Reserve Officer Training Corps while at Princeton].

Today, Mr. Feinberg presides over a private empire that rivals some of the mightiest public companies in the land. Cerberus manages more than $20 billion in capital. Together, the companies it owns generate annual revenue of about $40 billion — more than either Amazon or Coca-Cola last year.

Why Cerberus went after gun companies isn’t clear.

[…] Cerberus brings some connections to the table. The longtime chairman of its global investments group is Dan Quayle, the former vice president. The Freedom Group, meantime, has added two retired generals to its board. One is George A. Joulwan, who retired from the Army after serving as Supreme Allied Commander of Europe. The other is Michael W. Hagee, formerly commandant of the Marine Corps.

For the links to the posts we’ve published on the Sandy Hook mystery, go to our “Sandy Hook Massacre” page.

H/t FOTM’s MomOfIV

~Eowyn

Soros-funded organization has 666 address

“Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.” -Rev. 13:18

That's George Soros in the chair on the right. Soros hosted Obama's first presidential campaign fund-raising soiree.

That’s George Soros in the chair on the right. Soros hosted Obama’s first presidential campaign fund-raising soiree.

One of the leftwing groups that international currency speculator George Soros funds is the noble-sounding Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR).

According to the website NGO Monitor, George Soros is a major donor to CCR:

CCR’s net assets (2006) exceeded $5 million, 77% from endowments, foundations and individual gifts. These donations include large donations from the Ford Foundation, and George Soros’ Open Society Institute. Over 1,050 other foundations and individuals have donated to CCR.

Founded in 1966 “by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South,” CCR describes itself as “a non-profit legal and educational organization” dedicated to “advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

CCR’s real mission, however, is revealed after the verbiage about the Constitution — “committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.”

But if CCR is honest, its mission statement instead should read “committed to the PERVERSE use of law as a DESTRUCTIVE force for social change.” As evidence, let’s look at the groups and movements supported by and to which CCR is linked. Those groups include:

1. The criminal syndicate ACORN or Association and Community Organizations for Reform Now , a private network of “community organizing” groups funded by taxpayers whose criminal activities included voter registration fraud and home loans for illegal aliens. A July 2009 congressional report, “Is ACORN Intentionally Structured As a Criminal Enterprise?,” accused ACORN of massive fraud, money laundering, and racketeering directed from the highest levels of the organization’s management. On September 17, 2009, Congress passed the “Defund ACORN Act,” resulting in the disbanding of ACORN groups across the U.S. and the reconstitution of some of the same groups under different names. (See my post of Feb. 24, 2010, “ACORN, the Undead“.) Given the fact the ACORN supposedly no longer exists, at least under the ACORN name, it is noteworthy that the Soros-funded Center for Constitutional Rights still lists ACORN among the groups and movements CCR supports.

2. The Hyde – 30 Years is Enough! Campaign: “a national network of grassroots groups working to repeal the Hyde Amendment and, in doing so, restore full public funding of abortion as part of a comprehensive health care for all,” i.e., as part of Obamacare.

3. New Sanctuary Movement: “a coalition of interfaith religious leaders and participating congregations” that provide sanctuary to illegal migrants, i.e., protection to criminals.

4. The Audre Lorde Project: “a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Two Spirit [what’s dat?], Trans and Gender Non Conforming People of Color center for community organizing, focusing on the New York City area.”

Writing in Freedom Outpost, Matt Barber tells us the latest project of CCR is the persecution of pastor Scott Lively of Abiding Truth Ministries:

Scott LivelyBecause Lively exercised his God-given First Amendment rights, as well as his free-speech rights afforded by the laws of Uganda, and spoke biblical truth about homosexual sin after having been invited there by a number of Ugandan pro-family groups, homosexual activists set out to make an example of him.

In March of 2012 CCR sued Lively in a Massachusetts federal court for “crimes against humanity” – the same charge filed against Nazis who stood trial in Nuremberg – on behalf of another moonbat organization called “Sexual Minorities Uganda,” which, and again, you can’t make this stuff up, prefers the moniker “SMUG.” […]

Lively is being tried for “crimes against humanity” for merely uttering, publicly, millennia-old biblical orthodoxy relative to sexual morality.

So how could such an Orwellian lawsuit – clearly designed as a weapon to both harass and intimidate Lively and anyone else who might dare challenge the global homosexual activist political agenda – even make its way into a U. S. federal court? […]

Michael PonsorMeet federal Judge Michael Ponsor […] the textbook example of a judicial activist. He has admitted as much, once saying in another context that, “At some point I realized that judges are the unappointed legislators of mankind, and what we do is just as creative.” […]

SMUG’s and CCR’s end game is clear: Make war criminals out of anyone who encourages any legislative body to pass any legislation upholding the traditional family. If Scott Lively is guilty of the Crime Against Humanity of Persecution, then so are the Houston pastors and anyone who has ever tried to influence legislation against the homosexual juggernaut. There is no limiting principle,” concluded Harry Mihet, Pastor Lively’s lead attorney. […]

This was never about winning or losing.

It was always about intimidation.

(See also DCG’s post, “City of Houston subpoenas pastors’ sermons in equal rights ordinance case”.)

Guess what the Center for Constitutional Rights’ address is.

From CCR’s “Contact” page:

The Center for Constitutional Rights is located at:

666 Broadway
7th Floor
New York, NY 10012

You can’t make this stuff up.

H/t Don Hank

~Eowyn

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 5,493 other followers

%d bloggers like this: