THE FACTS ABOUT THE KOCH BROTHERS
By Senator Harry Reid.
1. The Kochs want to abolish Social Security.
“Documents and interviews unearthed in recent months by Brave New Foundation researchers illustrate a $28.4m Koch business that has manufactured 297 commentaries, 200 reports, 56 studies and six books distorting social security’s effectiveness and purpose.” Read more.
2. The Kochs want to eliminate minimum wage laws.
“According to Charles Koch, the U.S. needs to get rid of the minimum wage, which he counts as a major obstacle to economic growth.” Read more.
3. The Kochs are against extending emergency unemployment benefits.
“It causes employers to face higher taxes, too, which discourages them from hiring new employees.” Read more.
via Republic Report
“A labyrinth of tax-exempt groups and limited-liability companies helps mask the sources of the money, much of which went to voter mobilization and television ads attacking President Obama and congressional Democrats, according to tax filings and campaign finance reports.” Read more.
5. The Kochs want to put insurance companies back in charge of your health care.
“In Louisiana, the Koch brother’s Americans for Prosperity was blasted for running anti-Obamacare ads featuring paid actors to play Louisiana residents telling “their” stories about how Obamacare had harmed them.” Read more.
6. The Kochs are against measures that would reduce the gap between the wages women and men earn for the same work.
“IWF-affiliated writers have argued that the gender gap in income exists because of women’s greater demand for flexibility, fewer hours, and less travel in their careers, rather than because of sexism.” Read more.
7. The Kochs want even more tax breaks for themselves.
“They are known for bankrolling conservative, Libertarian and Tea Party causes and became poster boys for corporate tax reform last year when an Obama Administration official suggested Koch is organized as an S Corp. and so pays no corporate level taxes.” Read more.
8. The Kochs made improper payments to win contracts in Africa, India and the Middle East. And they sold millions of dollars of equipment to Iran, a state sponsor of terrorism.
“Internal company records show that Koch Industries used its foreign subsidiary to sidestep a U.S. trade ban barring American companies from selling materials to Iran. Koch-Glitsch offices in Germany and Italy continued selling to Iran until as recently as 2007, the records show.” Read more.
9. The Kochs lobbied against recognition of formaldehyde as a cancer-causing carcinogen because it might be bad for their business.
“A prominent philanthropist, cancer survivor, and American businessman, David Koch, has given millions to the cause of cancer research, while his company—Koch Industries—has lobbied against formal recognition of formaldehyde as a carcinogen, The New Yorker reported in a piece published today.” Read more.
10. The Kochs rank as one of America’s most toxic air polluters.
11.The Kochs have received over $88 million in government subsidies.
12. The Kochs have admitted they have “a radical philosophy.”
“Charles Koch seems to have approached both business and politics with the deliberation of an engineer. ‘To bring about social change,’ he told Doherty, requires ‘a strategy’ that is ‘vertically and horizontally integrated,’ spanning ‘from idea creation to policy development to education to grassroots organizations to lobbying to litigation to political action.’ The project, he admitted, was extremely ambitious. ‘We have a radical philosophy,’ he said.” Read more.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, which controls the city of Al-Raqqa, announced that it had signed a “Security” pact with the Christian residents of Al-Raqqa in return for their embracing the laws of dhimma – protection. In a statement dated February 23, 2014, that ISIS published in the city, the organization said that it posed three alternatives to Christians who had fled Al-Raqqa, but now sought to return:
Convert to Islam
Accept the conditions of dhimma
Reject these offers and face war
The statement claimed the agreement to sign the pact was reached at a meeting between representatives of ISIS and the Christian community.
The pact’s wording and clauses follow dhimma pacts made by medieval Islamic states, with a few modifications that take consideration of modern developments, such as the ban on using megaphones to broadcast prayers. The text opens with a polemic against Christianity, quoting Quranic verses claiming Islam’s superiority over Christianity and the veracity of Islamic theological positions.
It then states: “This is the protection that Abdallah Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the commander of the faithful, granted the Christians of Al-Raqqa. He granted security to their lives, their property, their churches and their progeny in Al-Raqqa. Their churches and their surroundings will not be destroyed or harmed, nor will their property. They will not be coerced with regard to their religion [i.e. they will not be forced to convert to Islam], and none of them will be harmed.”
The pact incorporates the following restrictions on the Christians:
They are forbidden to build new churches or rebuild destroyed ones.
They must not showcase crosses or religious books, and they are forbidden to use megaphones to broadcast their prayers.
They must not read their books out loud in front of Muslims or sound their bells.
They must not carry out any hostile actions against ISIS, or provide refuge to spies or persons wanted by ISIS. They must inform ISIS of any “conspiracy” against it.
They must refrain from any display of worship outside their church.
They may not prevent any member of their community from converting to Islam.
They must honor Islam and the Muslims, and not offend their religion in any way.
The Christians committed to pay a poll tax of “4 golden dinars” i.e. 17 grams of gold for the wealthy, 8.5 for middle income owners, and half of that for the poor.
AN INTERPRETATION OF A POLL OF ISRAELIS ABOUT THEIR HOPES, OPINIONS AND VIEW OF REGIONAL PEACE AND LEADERSHIP!02/27/2014
A majority of respondents (72%) thinks that Israelis are interested in reaching an agreement regarding the end of the conflict. A similar proportion (77%) is convinced that the Palestinians are not interested in reaching an agreement regarding the end of the conflict.
A majority of Israelis (55%) believe that “without intervention by the Arab states and the Arab League, the Palestinians will never reach an agreement with the Israelis.”
Despite this, 63% responded that they are “sure” or “think” that they would in principle support a regional peace agreement, even before the components of this agreement were presented to them. This represents a statistically significant increase over the findings in other surveys conducted over the past few months.
When the nine potential components of this agreement (regarding the end of conflict) were presented to the respondents (in a tone that makes them sound positive for Israel), respondents, including those from the extreme right, did not reject these components out of hand and, in most cases, were willing to accept these ideas. In fact: some 70% of the respondents revealed that they would be willing to support the various options presented and do not in principle regard them negatively. Indeed, only two of the nine components – regarding the holy sites and East Jerusalem – received the support of around or slightly less 50% of the sample.
After the nine components of the agreement were presented to the respondents, 76% stated that they are “sure” or “think” that they would be willing to support the agreement, if it were achieved. Again, this represents a significant increase in the number of respondents who expressed support for the concept after it was presented to them.
A further question at the end of the interview revealed that there would be moral, political and concrete support for Benjamin Netanyahu if he were to present the public with an agreement regarding the end of the conflict (based on the nine components presented previously). In further detail: 73% would support Netanyahu and 56% of respondents would vote for him if he were to establish a new party.
In summarizing the demographic variables, it is important to note that previous surveys reveal that younger respondents and women tended towards weak support for the principle of a regional agreement to end the conflict. This time, it is clear that support for peace agreements and willingness to support the components of the agreement among these two population groups is now similar to that what they are among the rest of the population.
However, the responses with regard to the political identity of the interviewees are different. First of all, we note that 28% of the overall sample defines themselves as “extreme right wing;” 24% as “soft right; 28% as “centrist;” and 16% as “soft-left” or “extreme left.” Yet throughout the survey, while the “extreme right” reveals relatively low enthusiasm for a peace agreement or its specific components, the “soft right” reveals much higher positive support than the “extreme right” and a bit lower support than “centrist” voters. This interesting trend reveals that it is crucially important to promote activity within the soft right.
THE STAGE IS BEING SET FOR A RUSSIAN INVASION AND CUTTING UP OF THE UKRAINE!
The deposed president asks for Russian protection.
The president’s mansion
Ukraine’s fugitive president, Viktor Yanukovych, has been on the run for nearly a week since he fled Kiev after signing an accord with opposition leaders this past Friday. The interim government, which wants him to stand trial for the mass killing of dozen of anti-government protesters, had chased him to eastern Ukraine, a region that significantly more pro-Russia then the rest of the Eastern European nation, but the trail went cold there. It appears as though we know now why, via the Associated Press:
A respected Russian news organization reported that President Viktor Yanukovych, who was driven out of Kiev by a three-month protest movement, was staying in a Kremlin sanatorium just outside Moscow. “I have to ask Russia to ensure my personal safety from extremists,” Yanukovych said in a statement carried by Russian news agencies on Thursday. He said he still considers himself president and sees the new Ukrainian authorities as illegitimate.
Putin orders battle readiness for 150,000 troops and all air bases surrounding the Ukraine.
Not a single peep from the EU, US or UN.
Armed Men Seize Crimea Parliament and raise Russian flags.
Just a day after a standoff between pro-Russian groups and Crimean Tatars supportive of the recent ousting of Ukraine’s president, armed men seized parliament and local government offices in Crimea Thursday morning, and raised the Russian flag above the building. The autonomous region was part of Russia until 1954, and now the pro-Russian groups are demanding Crimea secede from Ukraine or become part of Russia again. While Russian officials have denied plans for military intervention in the region, on Wednesday, President Vladimir Putin ordered military preparedness testing for 150,000 Russian soldiers. On Thursday morning, deposed pro-Russian President Yanukovich declared from Russia, “I still consider myself to be the lawful head of the Ukrainian state, chosen freely by the will of the Ukrainian people.”
Main > Op-Eds > The “Palestinian Nation” Fallacy
Op-Ed: The “Palestinian Nation” Fallacy
Published: Tuesday, February 25, 2014 7:59 AM
Wanting to destroy another nation does not define a group as a nation.</u>
Eli E. Hertz
Eli E. Hertz is the president of Myths and Facts, an organization devoted to research and publication of information regarding US interests in the world and particularly in the Middle East. Mr. Hertz served as Chairman of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting.
► More from this writer
The artificiality of a Palestinian identity is reflected in the attitudes and actions of neighboring Arab states that never established a Palestinian state or advocated one prior to the Six-Day War in 1967.
What unites Palestinian Arabs has been their opposition to Jewish nationalism and the desire to stamp it out, not aspirations for their own state. Local patriotic feelings are generated only when a non-Islamic entity takes charge – such as Israel did in 1967 after the Six-Day War, and dissipates under Arab rule, as it was under the rule of Jordan prior to 1967.
Culturally, Palestinians are not distinct from other Arabs. The sole contributions Palestinians can take credit for are the invention of skyjacking for political purposes in the 1960s, and a special brand of suicidal terrorism that uses their own youth as delivery systems for bombing pizza parlors, discos, and public commuter buses.
Ironically, before local Jews began calling themselves Israelis in 1948 (the name Israel was chosen for the newly established Jewish state), the term ‘Palestine’ applied almost exclusively to Jews and the institutions founded by new Jewish immigrants in the first half of the 20th century, before independence. Some examples include:
• The Jerusalem Post, founded in 1932, was called “The Palestine Post” until 1948.
• Bank Leumi L’Israel was called the “Anglo-Palestine Bank,” a Jewish Company.
• The Jewish Agency – an arm of the Zionist movement engaged in Jewish settlement since 1929 – was called the “Jewish Agency for Palestine.”
• Today’s Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, founded in 1936 by German Jewish refugees who fled Nazi Germany, was called the “Palestine Symphony Orchestra,” composed of some 70 Palestinian Jews.
• The United Jewish Appeal (UJA) was established in 1939 as a merger of the “United Palestine Appeal” and the fundraising arm of the Joint Distribution Committee.
And Princeton University professor of Semitic literature Philip Hitti (1886-1978), one of the greatest Arabic historians of the ninth century and author of ‘The History of the Arabs,’ testifying on behalf of the Arab cause, told the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine in 1946: “There is no ‘Palestine’ in history, absolutely not.”
Tags: Palestinian statehood